Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 2
(d) the commitment made by Ms Sharpe in her correspondence dated 24 May 2023 that regardless of the position of
the Executive Government, the Government plans to voluntarily provide responses to the Parliament by the end of
June 2023.
(2) That this House rejects the Government's view that it is not required to provide a response to reports tabled in the previous
Parliament following prorogation of the Parliament and asserts that the Government is bound by Standing Order 240 (4),
which states that "a response is required notwithstanding prorogation of the House or the expiry of the Legislative
Assembly", in recognition of the longstanding view that standing orders are not limited to individual Parliaments.
(3) That, according to Standing Order 240, there be laid upon the table of the House by Thursday 29 June 2023 a response to all
Legislative Council committee reports outstanding from the Fifty-Seventh Parliament:
(a) Report No. 6 of the Public Works Committee entitled Impact of the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link,
dated December 2022—response due 6 March 2023;
(b) Report No. 60 of Portfolio Committee No 2 entitled Impact of Ambulance Ramping and Access Block on the
Operation of Hospital Emergency Departments in New South Wales, dated December 2022—response due 9 March
2023;
(c) Report of the Select Committee on the Status of Water Trading in New South Wales entitled Status of Water
Trading in New South Wales, dated December 2022—response due 20 March 2023;
(d) Report of the Select Committee on Barangaroo Sight Lines entitled "Barangaroo Sight Lines", dated February
2023—response due 17 May 2023;
(e) Standing Committee on Law and Justice:
(i) Report No. 82 entitled 2022 Review of the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme, dated February
2023—response due 24 May 2023;
(ii) Report No. 83 entitled 2022 Review of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, dated February 2023—
response due 24 May 2023;
(f) Report No. 16 of the Public Accountability Committee entitled Appointment of Mr John Barilaro as Senior Trade
and Investment Commissioner to the Americas: Final Report, dated February 2023—response due 29 May 2023;
(g) Report No. 49 of the Standing Committee on State Development entitled Allegations of Impropriety Against Agents
of the City of Canterbury Bankstown Council, dated February 2023—response due 29 May 2023; and
(h) Report No. 18 of Public Accountability Committee entitled Allegations of Impropriety Against Agents of the Hills
Shire Council and Property Developers in the Region, dated March 2023—response due 2 June 2023.
Motion agreed to.
Documents
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
Production of Documents: Order
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (10:02): I seek leave to amend private members' business item No. 121 by
inserting "or the Office of Energy and Climate Change within NSW Treasury" after the words "Planning and
Environment".
Leave granted.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: 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
following documents created since 1 March 2023, in electronic format if possible, in the possession, custody or control of the Minister
for Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Heritage, the Department of Planning and Environment or the Office of Energy and
Climate Change within NSW Treasury relating to the reliability of electricity supply in New South Wales:
(a) reports concerning the reliability of New South Wales electricity supply and actions to maintain system reliability through
energy transition received by the Energy Ministers Sub-group of the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council on
Friday 19 May 2023 produced by the following bodies:
(i) Australian Energy Market Operator;
(ii) Energy Security Board;
(iii) Australian Energy Market Commission;
(iv) Australian Energy Regulator;
(v) AEMO Services; and
(vi) any other body operating in the area of energy production, distribution or regulation.
(b) any legal or other advice regarding the scope or validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of the
House.
Motion agreed to.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 3
AUDITOR-GENERAL
Reports
The CLERK: According to the Government Sector Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of a Financial
Audit Report of the Auditor-General entitled Natural Disasters, dated 1 June 2023, received out of session and
authorised to be published this day.
Bills
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (HOUSING AND
PRODUCTIVITY CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL 2023
First Reading
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, read a first time and ordered to be published on motion
by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: According to standing order, I table a statement of public interest.
Statement of public interest tabled.
The PRESIDENT: According to the resolution of the House of 30 May 2023, the bill now stands referred
to Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment for inquiry and report.
ELECTORAL FUNDING AMENDMENT (REGISTERED CLUBS) BILL 2023
Returned
The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of a message from the Legislative Assembly returning the bill with
amendments.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I move:
That consideration in Committee be set down as an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House
POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I move:
That business of the House notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until a later hour of the sitting.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I move:
That Government business notices of motions Nos 1 and 2 be postponed until a later hour of the sitting.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
ELECTORAL FUNDING AMENDMENT (REGISTERED CLUBS) BILL 2023
In Committee
Consideration of the Legislative Assembly amendments.
Schedule of the amendments referred to in message of 31 May 2023
No. 1 Close associates
Page 3, Schedule 1, line 11. Omit "body.". Insert instead— body, or
(iv) a close associate of the registered club.
No. 2 Provision of space by registered club
Page 4, Schedule 2, proposed clause 36A, lines 7–18. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
(1) Permitting the use of part of the premises of a registered club is not a political donation for the purposes
of the Act, Part 3, Division 7.
(2) Subclause (1) does not apply—
(a) if the use is for—
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 4
(i) electoral fundraising purposes, or
(ii) an electoral campaign office, or
(b) to goods or services provided in association with the use of the part of the premises, including the
following—
(i) food or beverages,
(ii) the use of staff or contractors,
(iii) the use of information technology or audio visual facilities.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts,
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (10:18): I move:
That the Committee agree to the Legislative Assembly's amendments.
The amendments are sensible. They were moved by the member for Sydney in the lower House and agreed to.
The Government supports them. They are clarifications of the original intent of the Electoral Funding Amendment
(Registered Clubs) Bill 2023.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (10:19): The Opposition does not oppose the amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The question is that the Committee agree to
the Legislative Assembly's amendments.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I move:
That the Chair do now leave the chair and report that the Committee has agreed to the Legislative Assembly's amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Adoption of Report
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I move:
That a message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it that the Legislative Council agrees to the Assembly's
amendments.
Motion agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023
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 Roads, Minister for the Arts,
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (10:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023 is an important bill. I will briefly provide some context
to it and the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023, which the House will consider
next, because the bills should be considered together in the public discussion. The Parliamentary Remuneration
Amendment Bill makes changes to the salaries of members, stepping outside the usual process. The Statutory and
Other Offices Remuneration Amendment Bill implements the parallel election commitment of the incoming
Government to freeze the pay of those in the senior ranks of the public service. The bills are part of an election
commitment. The incoming Government felt that one could not be done without the other.
The bills are part of a reinvestment in the public service. The proposed wage freezes in the bills should not
be seen as a diminution of the work of our important public servants across the State. In fact, the money saved
will be diverted from the top ranks of the public service to essential workers across the State to deal with the
well-publicised issue that the public service, like many other sectors, is feeling a workforce squeeze and essential
workers are leaving the public service or, in some cases, leaving the State. The bills are part of a number of
measures to tackle that issue.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 5
First, the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment Bill freezes the basic salary of MPs in both Houses for
two years. Secondly, the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Amendment Bill deals with the senior
executive service and certain other categories of workers at the top level of the public service. The Government
has committed to asking those workers to have a similar pay freeze. Thirdly, another commitment made by the
incoming Government was to cut some of the ranks of the senior levels of the public service that had grown over
time, particularly in some clusters. I recognise that the then Government, the now Opposition, also made that
commitment. That was common ground in the election—a recognition that over recent years, in no small part due
to COVID, there had been a growth in the top ranks of the public service and that one way to reinvest in public
service capacity overall and essential workers was to trim that back.
The fourth area identified for close examination by the incoming Government is consultancies—the
moving away from permanent work towards temporary work or from permanent public service capacity towards
consultancies. The Minister for Finance and the Treasurer are leading that work. The incoming Government will
pay close attention to all areas where there will be reductions and freezes with the goal of reinvesting in the public
service, in public sector capacity and in essential workers. Members should keep that goal in mind as we debate
the bills. The Government values the role of the public service, which is what we are looking to rebuild. As we
debate a freeze on the salary of MPs, I should also say the Government values their role. These bills are no adverse
reflection on that. In fact, a much earlier generation of Labor argued that MPs should be paid appropriately so that
anyone could serve in Federal or State parliaments. However, at this moment, the Government feels that it is
important to say, like for everyone else, the belt has to be tightened. We need to send the appropriate signal,
as leaders in the State, that we are pursuing that direction. Those are the reasons we made those election
commitments and bring the bill before the House today.
Another piece of context is that the bill is the rejection of the idea that has bounced around New South
Wales politics for a little over four years that people can have it all. It has been debated occasionally in the House
but, in my view, should have been debated much more. I reject that idea absolutely. Members will recall that it
was put on the public record by former Premier Gladys Berejiklian late in the 2019 election campaign.
I recognise the good role that the former Premier played during COVID, leading the State in that tough time. I am
not launching a broadscale assault on her work. She was, in many respects, a very good Premier. But I reject the
idea that you can have it all. Her comment at the time was this:
As Premier, I will never ask you to choose between having world-class schools, hospitals, transport, roads, stadiums or cultural
facilities—because the hard work we've done means that today, New South Wales can have it all. And New South Wales should have
it all.
That idea sounds jarring in this moment when inflation is rising, interest rates are up and the price of fruit,
vegetables, bread and milk are going through the roof. It is so out of step with the public mood that I think it adds
important context to the debate to recall that idea that has floated around New South Wales politics for the past
four years. It has since been revealed that one reason the then Premier put that view was that it was the view put
strongly to her by then Treasurer Perrottet and Minister Stuart Ayres. While he has not been named, I have no
doubt that Minister Kean was somewhere in the background of that discussion. That has not been suggested
publicly, but I am in no doubt of that. That is the background and the view that the bill rejects. I place that context
on the agenda.
It is clear why we have to reject the idea that you can have it all. The State, as we stand here today, is
heading towards a debt of over $180 billion. The State has recorded its largest deficit of $11 billion—and that is
before we get to the figures that the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer have talked about, being the $7 billion
worth of pressure on the State budget that concerns them as they move towards the June economic statement.
Those things have been debated recently in this House. What we have not recalled is the fact that those figures
are in some ways understated. The last budget contained an incredible detail at page 5-11 of Budget Paper No.1.
It was the smallest piece of punctuation but represented the biggest black hole seen in the budget for a long time—
a small asterisk that revealed an $8 billion hole in the capital program. That is to say, the footnote to the capital
program, which in this year was supposed to cost $22.6 billion, revealed it was in fact much higher. The footnote
that applied to that said this:
In the 2022-23 Budget, this allowance for capital slippage is set at $8.0 billion in 2022-23.
The number that was in the budget, adding up to that $11 billion deficit, was $22.6 billion. But the number of
schools, hospitals and roads that were promised was above $30 billion. The asterisk meant that an additional
$8 billion that had been promised out in the world was $8 billion smaller when it made it to the budget papers.
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: It's hardly a black hole if we told you about it, mate.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I acknowledge that interjection and say to the Leader of the Opposition
that it is hardly up in lights if it is in a tiny footnote.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 6
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Well, read the bloody document.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I did read it, and I raised it at the time—I say through you, Mr President.
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Well, stop going on about it.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I won't stop going on about it.
The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to make his own contribution.
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: And I will later.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I encourage that. I simply raise the point to reject the idea that you can
have it all. The election drew a real line under that. In one sense, the Leader of the Opposition is right to say,
"Why are you revisiting ancient history?" It is because we need that idea to be dead. The idea that you can have
it all needs to be killed. We need to acknowledge that government and budgets are about choices. We have to kill
the idea dead that in State politics you can have it all, unlike every family or individual who has to make tough
financial choices. We have to kill that idea dead, and there is no more important time to do it. The election drew
a big line through that approach; the idea was rejected when the Opposition tried to present it again. The trouble
is that the idea is not dead when it comes to many of the things that we are debating in State politics today. When
it comes to support for home ownership, the Opposition's position is still that we should have both schemes—that
is, $700 million plus $700 million. It continues with the idea that in home ownership you can have it all. When it
comes to Active Kids, the Opposition puts the view, despite the fact that it cut that program, that it should be
reinstated in an $800 million decision.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: But you are cutting Active Kids.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of The Nationals will
have the opportunity to contribute to the debate if they wish, and they should do so from the lectern rather than
from the benches.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: Thank you for that observation. I encourage them to contribute to the
debate. I make that clear. I will not labour the point too much, but after campaigning for a generation for asset
recycling these freshly minted anti-privatisation campaigners—these enthusiasts for the modern mood—seem to
have drifted back to the idea that you can have it all. That is the idea we seek to kill dead. It is not historic. The
2022-23 budget paper printed in black ink and with $42 million worth of new spending measures probably should
have been printed in red ink. That would have been a more appropriate way to present it to the public. This is not
ancient history. It is a live debate. As we bring these bills forward, I say to the Opposition that we cannot have it
all. A family and an individual cannot have it all. Everyone knows that. Former leaders of the State knew that. It
is not a view that would have been put in front of the public by Howard or Costello. It would never have been put
by Hawke, Keating, Carr, Egan or Greiner, and it should not be put today in this place or in public by members
opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will be called to order if they persist with interjecting.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: It is a view that the Government simply will not put. Having said that, the
Government is pleased to introduce the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023. The bill proposes
amendments to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989. The Government made an election commitment to
impose a two-year pay freeze for politicians. The pay freeze will achieve savings that can be used to help fund the
essential workers and essential services that keep New South Wales running, and the bill delivers on the election
commitment. Members of both Houses receive remuneration determined by the Parliamentary Remuneration
Tribunal in accordance with the Act. Members' remuneration consists of a basic salary under part 2 of the Act and
additional entitlements under part 3 of the Act.
In addition, recognised officeholders, being those members who hold certain parliamentary or Executive
Government roles, receive an additional salary and expense allowance as set out in schedule 1 to the Act. That is
based on a percentage uplift applied to the basic salary. The amount of members' remuneration is subject to
determinations made by the tribunal under the provisions of the Act. The tribunal may make a determination fixing
the amount of the basic salary at such time as the tribunal thinks fit or as the Minister directs.
The tribunal makes annual determinations regarding additional entitlements on or before 1 June in each year, or
such later date as the Chief Commissioner of the Industrial Relations Commission directs. The practice of the
tribunal has been to make a single annual determination each year that determines any changes to both the basic
salary and additional entitlements. The most recent determination of the tribunal was made on 24 May 2022. The
tribunal made determinations of both basic salary and additional entitlements and these took effect on and from
1 July 2022.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 7
This bill inserts a new section 4A into the Act that imposes temporary arrangements for the determination
of basic salary. The new provision provides that a determination of basic salary by the tribunal must not fix an
amount that would increase the basic salary to an amount that is more than the amount determined to have effect
from 1 July 2022. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the new section 4A and section 4 (3), the
new section will prevail. Section 4 (3) requires that, in making a determination, the tribunal gives effect to the
same wages policies the Industrial Relations Commission is required to give effect to under section 146C of the
Industrial Relations Act 1996. Under this bill, the provision will be repealed automatically at the end of the day
on 30 June 2025. This provision has the effect of freezing the basic salary of members at the amount that was
determined by the tribunal last year until 30 June 2025.
The bill does not impact the tribunal's annual determinations under part 3 of the Act regarding additional
entitlements. Additional entitlements include matters such as the electoral allowance, communications allowance,
general travel allowance, Sydney allowance, and the equipment, services and facilities allowance, all of which are
important to the work of members. Section 10 (1) (a) of the Act sets out the principle that additional entitlements
are provided for the purpose of facilitating the efficient performance of the parliamentary duties of members.
Additional entitlements are necessary for members to be able to perform their duties and serve their constituents
in the best possible way. For this reason, additional entitlements will continue to be reviewed. The provisions of
the bill will be taken to have commenced on the day that the bill was introduced into Parliament.
The amendments proposed by this bill will honour the Government's election commitment to freeze MP
pay for the next two years. I thank the members in both places who have indicated their support for this approach.
The Government does not do this happily. However, it does believe it is necessary given the other measures that
it will shortly introduce and debate in the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023, and
given some of the other choices the Government will have to make in relation to budget pressures about which it
has been quite public and looks forward to updating the House in more detail. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTORY AND OTHER OFFICES REMUNERATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023
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 Roads, Minister for the Arts,
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (10:44): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government is pleased to introduce the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023.
The bill travels together with the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023, which I have just
introduced, and a number of other election commitments that the Government has made that seek to reinvest
important public funds in rebuilding essential services. The Government made an election commitment to impose
a two-year pay freeze on the remuneration provided to senior public servants. This pay freeze will achieve savings
that can be used to help fund the essential workers and essential services that keep New South Wales running.
This bill implements that election commitment.
It is important to note that public servants falling under the various Crown employees awards are not
affected by this bill and the Government will negotiate these new agreements in the normal way. Senior public
servants are generally remunerated in accordance with the provisions of the Statutory and Other Offices
Remuneration Act 1975. That Act provides for the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal to make
determinations under a number of different provisions as to what is the appropriate remuneration, or bands of
remuneration, for certain roles.
The Act provides for determinations for the following offices. Part 3 of the Act concerns judicial and
non-judicial officer holders, such as independent statutory appointees. A full list of the offices covered by part 3
determinations is contained in schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Act. Part 3A of the Act concerns executive office holders.
The background to the tribunal's determination of 21 July 2022 under section 24C of the Act describes the persons
covered by part 3A in the following terms:
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 8
1. The Chief Executive Service and Senor Executive Services were employed under the provisions of the former Public Sector
Employment and Management Act 2002 (PSEM Act). That Act was repealed in 2013 and replaced with the Government
Sector Employment Act 2013 (GSE Act).
2. There may be a small number, if any, transitional former senior executives subject to the transitional arrangements provided
for in Schedule 4 of the GSE Act, and executives employed in the NSW Police Force Senior Executive Service and the
NSW Health Service who continue to be eligible for remuneration packages as determined under Part 3A of the Statutory
and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975 (SOOR Act). For that reason, the Tribunal will continue to make a determination
for the SES remuneration ranges. The Tribunal will review these arrangements each year to determine whether further
determinations are required.
In addition, determinations under part 3A are also made under transitional provisions in relation to certain police
senior executives and administrative senior executives under the Police Act 1990, as well as the specialist medical
skills determination and the general medical skills determination, all of which are relevant to who is covered under
this Act. Part 3B of the Act concerns senior executives, and includes secretaries of departments of the public
service, the Commissioner of the NSW Police Force, public service senior executives under the Government
Sector Employment Act 2013, NSW Police Force senior executives under the Police Act 1990, New South Wales
health service senior executives under the Health Services Act 1997 and transport service senior executives under
the Transport Administration Act 1988. The tribunal makes its annual determinations of remuneration to be paid
on and from 1 July in each year.
I turn now to the detailed provisions in the bill. The bill is in three schedules, and I will deal with each of
them sequentially. Schedule 1 amends the existing provisions of the Act. The first amendment at schedule 1
item [1] is to amend section 6AA of the Act, which concerns the requirement of the tribunal to give effect to
declared government policy on the remuneration for public sector staff. Currently, that section applies to:
determinations made under part 3A of the Act of any alteration in the remuneration packages for executive office
holders within the meaning of that part, and part 3A applies to executive office holders; and determinations of any
alteration in the remuneration packages applicable to executive bands within the meaning of part 3B, and part 3B
applies to senior executives. Section 6AA (2) of the Act states:
In making a determination to which this section applies, the Tribunal is to give effect to the same policies on increases in remuneration
as those that the Industrial Relations Commission is required to give effect to under section 146C of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
when making or varying awards or orders relating to the conditions of employment of public sector employees.
The bill will omit subsection (2) and insert new subsections (2) and (3) that requires the tribunal to give effect to
any policy about the remuneration of executive office holders and senior executives that is declared by the
regulations to be an aspect of government policy required to be given effect to by the tribunal. That is consistent
with the requirement currently in section 6AB that relates to part 3 office holders, which I will speak about in
more detail later. The regulations made under that provision will be able to set out a policy and adopt a policy that
is set out in another document. The provisions will therefore remove the current necessary statutory nexus between
the wages policy that applies to public sector employees under the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and allow for a
specific policy to be applied, under the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975, only in relation to
the most highly remunerated public sector employees.
Schedule 1 item [2] inserts a new savings and transitional provision that makes provision for machinery
matters in relation to the regulation to be enacted by schedule 2. Schedule 2 establishes the Statutory and Other
Offices Remuneration (Executive Office Holders and Senior Executives) Regulation 2023. That new regulation
is the instrument that will implement the pay freeze for executive office holders and senior executives. The
regulation prescribes a policy that the tribunal is not to make a determination that has the effect of awarding an
increase in remuneration that takes effect before 1 July 2025.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends the existing Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration (Judicial and Other
Office Holders) Regulation 2013. It omits clause 5A of that regulation. Section 5A is a provision regarding a
temporary wages policy that had effect for 12 months and was inserted on 29 May 2020 by the Statutory and
Other Offices Remuneration (Judicial and Other Office Holders) Amendment (Temporary Wages Policy)
Regulation 2020. That provision has now expired and can be repealed. The schedule will insert a new clause
5A that imposes a temporary policy that the tribunal is not to make a determination that has the effect of awarding
an increase in remuneration that takes effect before 1 July 2025. That provision will be made pursuant to section
6AB of the Act, which provides that the tribunal must, when making a determination regarding the alteration in
the remuneration to be paid to an office holder covered by part 3 of the Act, give effect to any policy concerning
the remuneration of officer holders that is declared by the regulations to be an aspect of government policy that is
required to be given effect to by the tribunal. That new provision will apply for two years to the exclusion of the
other policy contained in clause 6 that otherwise sets a wages policy for the tribunal to apply in making
determinations regarding judicial and non-judicial other office holders. The provisions of both the regulations
established by and inserted by schedules 2 and 3 to the bill, which give effect to the pay freeze, will expire at the
end of 30 June 2025.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 9
The amendments proposed by the bill will honour the Government's election commitment to freeze senior
public servants' pay for the next two years. The Government did not make that commitment lightly. It is a
reflection of budget pressures and the difficult decisions that must be made elsewhere because of those pressures.
It is a decision made with a view to reinvesting in rebuilding public service capacity, in particular, essential
workers in the public service who are delivering for the public. I thank them for their work. I commend the bill to
the House.
Debate adjourned.
FIRST HOME BUYER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023
Second Reading Speech
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (10:55): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government is pleased to introduce the First Home Buyer Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The
Government was elected with a comprehensive plan to help everyone in New South Wales enjoy a safe and
comfortable place to go at the end of each day and in particular to help more people buy a property they can make
into a home. A place to call home is fundamental to everyone's wellbeing and ability to pursue their dreams. It
provides a sense of security and a foundation to start a family. Owning one's own home has been called the
Australian dream and rightly so because doing so provides a permanent base to put down roots and become part
of a community.
Buying a first home is a significant milestone in life, but it has become more difficult to achieve. First
home buyers face higher hurdles than in previous years, meaning it now takes longer to save the money needed
for a deposit. First home buyers in the 1990s took around six years to save a 20 per cent deposit and one year to
save stamp duty. It now takes around 10 years to save a 20 per cent deposit and two years to save for stamp duty.
That is based on a New South Wales household with a median household income saving 15 per cent of their
income to purchase a medium-priced dwelling. The Government went to the last election with a clear policy to
end the forever tax on the family home that was introduced without a mandate by the Perrottet Government. That
land tax was comprehensively rejected by the people of New South Wales at the election in March. Instead, the
people of New South Wales chose Labor's plan to better target assistance to those buying a home of up to
$1 million, with increased support for those buying above $650,000.
The bill will help first home buyers who earn low incomes and find it more difficult to save enough while
paying someone else rent. The bill will close off access to the former Government's forever land tax scheme,
sneakily called First Home Buyer Choice, which provides a choice between paying stamp duty or a forever tax
on a family home purchased for up to $1.5 million. That scheme was a false choice—pay stamp duty now or pay
land tax for as long as you stay in that home. It also unfairly offered the biggest discounts on stamp duty to first
home buyers who already had enough purchasing power for properties well above the average price for houses in
regional areas and apartments and modest houses in Sydney metropolitan areas. As a result of the changes the
Government is introducing more first home buyers will not pay stamp duty and more will get a concession. None
will pay a forever tax. The thresholds will cut off at a $1 million purchase price so that the cost of the assistance
program will benefit those who truly need help to buy their first home, especially as interest rates rise.
I now turn to the detail of the bill. I refer, first, to increasing First Home Buyer Assistance Scheme
thresholds. The bill will expand support for first home buyers by increasing the thresholds that apply under the
First Home Buyer Assistance scheme from 1 July 2023. The first home buyer stamp duty exemption threshold for
the purchase of a dwelling will increase from $650,000 to $800,000. No stamp duty will be paid by first home
buyers purchasing a home up to $800,000. Currently, a first home buyer purchasing a home for $800,000 needs
to pay off stamp duty of $31,090 or opt into the former Government's land tax and pay an annual bill, starting
around $1,500.
The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions.
Members
REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: As the Leader of the Government is unwell, I advise that I will be taking
questions relating to her portfolio responsibilities during question time today.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 10
Questions Without Notice
COMPREHENSIVE EXPENDITURE REVIEW
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (11:00): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance.
Comprehensive expenditure reviews are classified by the OECD, the IMF, the McKenzie Institute and other
experts into distinct models, depending on the design, parameters and the methodology adopted for the review.
Will the Minister advise the House whether the comprehensive expenditure review that she is conducting is a
bottom-up review, a top-down review or a joint review? What work was done before beginning the review to
agree on a standard taxonomy of inputs, outputs and outcomes to ensure a consistent, like-for-like comparison
across ministries?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am delighted that he has finally decided to give us
some input into the comprehensive expenditure review that I have been speaking about so much. I am delighted
to see the constructive way that the Leader of the Opposition has been spending his time, clearly, since question
time yesterday in order to provide us with this feedback. I look forward to hearing more of this during question
time. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are doing the review in a systematic and careful way.
We are making sure to engage directly with Ministers and with their agencies to ensure that we are being
careful and cautious about how the Government is spending its money. It is an enormous privilege for us to be
able to take government and to be in a position to be making these important decisions that impact on communities
each and every day. We take that very seriously which is why we are taking the microscope to how the
Government is spending its money. It is $114 billion worth of public taxpayer money. The reason we are being
so cautious is that we are deeply concerned about the debt levels to which the former Government led us. That is
why we are carefully and cautiously working through exactly how the Government is spending its money.
The Hon. Wes Fang: Cuts, cuts.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Is there a methodology?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I note the interjections from those opposite. Whilst they were in
government, less and less information was disclosed to the public about how they were spending their budgets.
During my eight years in Opposition, not much information was published in the budget papers. I note that during
question time the Treasurer is studying the former budget papers. That kind of efficient use of time is exactly why
he is such an excellent Treasurer of this State and why it is such a privilege to work so closely with him.
[Opposition members interjected.]
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: It is a serious point. The publicly disclosed information in the
budget papers, particularly over the course of my eight years in this place—
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: Point of order: The Minister has now had 2½ minutes to answer this
question. The question, which was reasonably specific, asked the Minister to identify the methodology that she is
using for the purposes of conducting the review. We are well aware that she is conducting a review. For the
remaining 30 seconds, she should at least direct her attention to a generally well-accepted process for adopting a
methodology to do that review to make sure that there is an understanding between ministries about how that will
be conducted.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister was being directly relevant in the first part of her answer. She has
broadened that scope just a little, so perhaps she might refine her answer back to the original question at hand.
The Minister has the call.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I was distracted by the budget papers on the table. Let me be very
clear: We are conducting a line-by-line audit, and we will be finding all the waste that the member missed during
his period as the Minister for Finance.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (11:04): I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her
non-answer. Does the Minister have a formal set of terms of reference or a clear set of parameters and an agreed
methodology for her review, or is she making it up as she goes along?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:05): I am happy to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we do have terms of reference. As the former
Minister for Finance, and as a former member of the Expenditure Review Committee and Cabinet, the member
would be aware that there are certain restrictions on what I can speak publicly about. But I assure the member that
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 11
we have terms of reference and that we are working through this in a methodical and careful way. I am working
through this in close consultation with the Treasurer, the Premier and my Cabinet colleagues in order to ensure
that the people of New South Wales are getting value for money out of the money that is expended on their behalf.
Those opposite may have made it up as they went along during their 12 years in government, but let me
assure members that we are working through this line-by-line audit in a careful and conscientious way because
we take the responsibility of government seriously. We understand the privilege of being on the Government
benches, and we will ensure that the people of New South Wales are getting value for money for the essential
services that they rely on each and every day. That is what we are elected to do, and that is what we take seriously.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (11:07): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the finance Minister
elaborate on her initial answer when she spoke about restoring integrity to the New South Wales budget and
ensuring that all outcomes for big expenditure programs have clear targets and accountability? She spoke of how
the Treasurer spends all day and all night studying his budget papers. Can the Minister assure the House that the
outcome-based budgeting of the former Government not only will be continued but also will be made genuine
with improved proper, genuine targets and a process of accountability by which those targets and expenditures
can be reported to the people of New South Wales?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:08): I thank the honourable member for his second supplementary question. I have taken a close look at the
budget papers that specifically deal with outcome-based budgeting. I was rather surprised by the lack of detail and
rigour in the figures in those budget papers. It is something that we take seriously when reporting to the people of
New South Wales the actual targets that we have and whether we are delivering against those targets. We are not
looking for more obfuscation. We are not looking to hide things from the people of New South Wales. We want
to be honest, open and up-front about what we are seeking to do with those valuable taxpayer funds that we are
expending.
It is true that there was the terminology "outcome-based budgeting", but that delivered less information for the
people of New South Wales. If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed through both Houses under
the previous Government—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Some Opposition members are sailing very close to the wind.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: —you will see less detail and less information for the people of
New South Wales. We take this seriously. We are serious about fixing essential services in New South Wales.
[Opposition members interjected.]
Members opposite who are interjecting are the ones that oversaw chronic teacher shortages in our schools,
temporary employment of nurses in our hospitals at the end of a global pandemic and hundreds of millions of
dollars of blowout for the care of our most vulnerable—
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Point of order: The member asked an excellent second supplementary
question and was getting a direct answer from the Minister. The member is entitled to hear the answer, as is the
rest of the House. The din of noise coming from the Opposition is such that no-one can appreciate the information
the Minister is disclosing, especially considering it is directly relevant to the question.
The Hon. Damien Tudehope: To the point of order: What the Treasurer is saying to the member is that
he is clearly not listening to the answer. The question asked whether there are formal terms of reference. We have
not heard one single word in relation to that. It asked: Is there a clear set of parameters? We have not heard one
single word.
The PRESIDENT: That was not the second supplementary question asked by the Hon. Mark Latham.
There is no point of order.
The Hon. Mark Latham: Point of order: Having asked the question about outcome-based budgeting—
an important issue in accountability for the people of New South Wales—I thought I was receiving a serious,
informative answer from the Minister for Finance, until I could not hear any her anymore. I put it to you that,
while I am no angel, I can make an assessment that you have lost the control of the proper proceedings of this
House. I know you were a former colleague of those who are causing all the noise and interruption, but it is time
to bring some order to the House so a serious question that is being answered is a serious way can actually be
heard.
The PRESIDENT: I say two things to that. The first is that the Minister was being directly relevant—the
Hon. Mark Latham is quite right. She was giving a serious answer to his second supplementary question. The
second is that this place has always had, particularly in question time, a robust countenance. I do not seek to
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 12
eliminate that entirely, but it must be done within parameters and within limits. People must be able to be heard.
To that end, members will be called to order if they start to interject too riotously.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: In the few seconds I have remaining, I simply say that we are
absolutely committed to providing a clear update to the people of New South Wales in September when we deliver
a budget informed by our comprehensive expenditure review. We will take a close look at the outcome-based
budgeting process that was previously in place to ensure that the people of New South Wales know what their
money is being spent on.
TEACHER WORKFORCE
The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (11:12): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for
Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources, representing the Minister for Education and Early Learning. Under
the previous Government there was an increase of 8,817 temporary teachers in New South Wales. Will the
Minister update the House on how the Government is providing teachers with more secure employment and
supporting students in New South Wales?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sam Farraway to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Bronnie
Taylor to order for the first time.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:13): I welcome the question from the Hon. Anthony D'Adam. I take this opportunity to place on the record
the diligent work that he has done over many budget estimates—we were quite the team—and particularly in
uncovering the rate of insecure work that occurred in our teaching workforce under the previous Government. In
2011 there were 11,695 full-time teachers but by the end of its12-year term there were 21,366 temporary teachers
in our schools.
These are not secure jobs that let you plan your life. These are not secure jobs that help you get a loan,
where you can take out a mortgage to buy a house. There was an 82 per cent increase in temporary teaching
positions in our State under the former Government. Temporary employment makes teaching less attractive but,
worst of all, it results in poorer outcomes for our students. When the members opposite were in government, we
had the fastest falling education outcomes in the world. It is directly linked to the fact that our teaching—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may think she is speaking sotto voce—
she is doing quite a good job—but I can still hear every word she is saying.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: I am happy to be loud.
The PRESIDENT: She is welcome to make a substantive contribution down the line but not at this
moment.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: She will be.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: On 12 February last year the current shadow education Minister
said, "providing temporary positions to teachers is a good thing". Providing temporary, insecure jobs is a good
thing? What were the results of those temporary jobs? It resulted in worse outcomes for our students. It resulted
in chronic teacher shortages across our schools.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sarah Mitchell to order for the first time.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: It meant that the signature program that the former education
Minister undertook to solve chronic teacher shortages in New South Wales led to 13 teachers being recruited. At
a time when we had thousands of vacancies in our schools we recruited a couple of teachers from overseas.
The PRESIDENT: I have asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a number of times to cease
interjecting.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I am delighted to update the House that in five months members
opposite converted exactly zero temporary teachers despite promising to do so. In just 60 days we have made
more than a thousand offers for secure jobs to temporary teachers. We are proud of what we are doing in
government.
TEACHER WORKFORCE
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (11:16): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. As the
Treasurer has informed us, the comprehensive expenditure review the Minister is conducting will identify
productivity savings. What new productivity savings has the Minister identified to offset the cost of meeting the
demand from the NSW Teachers Federation for a 15 per cent pay rise over two years?
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 13
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:17): I welcome the question from the current shadow education Minister.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order: The Minister seems to delight in not calling me by my
parliamentary title.
The Hon. Stephen Lawrence: That's a bit precious.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: I have two points of order then. Previously you have ruled that we have proper
titles and that I am either the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Hon. Sarah Mitchell. I am very proud to
have been a Minister—I said this last time. The Minister seems to delight in referring to us as former Ministers,
which is inappropriate. I also take offence to being called "precious" for wanting to be addressed by my correct
parliamentary title. I know the Hon. Stephen Lawrence is new but he should be nice to people.
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: To the point of order: I address the first point of order that the Deputy Leader
of the Opposition has made. The Minister referred to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as the shadow education
Minister.
The Hon. Scott Farlow: She said "current".
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: It is within the realms of the House and parliamentary debate, particular for
a shadow Minister, to be referred to by their shadow titles. I know that because I was constantly referred to as the
shadow Treasurer.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Were you referred to as "the current shadow Treasurer"?
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Yes, I was referred to as the current shadow Treasurer. While I was a member
of the Opposition I also had various members speculate about my future jobs and whether I would be sacked as
shadow Treasurer.
The Hon. Rose Jackson: You got promoted!
The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: How did that work out?
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: It worked out really well, now that you mention it. I am no longer the shadow
Treasurer; I am the Treasurer. It is within the realm of accepted parliamentary discourse for a shadow Minister to
be referred to as a shadow Minister. Adding the adjective "current" makes no change. The Minister was acting
within the bounds of ordinary parliamentary discourse.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: To the point of order: Mr President, you made very clear rulings about people
being referred to by their current titles two days ago and the previous week. Government members continue to
flout your rulings. Members on this side of the House, after the Hon. Mark Latham's point of order, were called
to order swiftly and promptly. I believe that there should be fair rulings in this place. If members of the
Government continue to flout your rulings because they are being derogatory, they should be called to order in a
fair and proper manner.
The PRESIDENT: I will make a ruling on this because it is an interesting point. I made the point that
members should be referred to by their correct titles, and that is what I ask all members to do. That having been
said, from time to time throughout debate it is not unreasonable to make a comment that a member on the other
side of the House formerly held the office of Minister. That is not flouting the ruling; that is simply a statement
of fact. But the Hon. Bronnie Taylor is quite right to say that members should be treated with respect and should
be introduced by their correct title, and I ask all members to continue to do that.
I uphold the member's second point of order. The term "precious" is unnecessarily offensive and I ask the
member to withdraw the comment.
The Hon. Stephen Lawrence: I am happy to withdraw that comment.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome your ruling that we can use
facts in parliamentary debate. I find the shadow education Minister's question about the productivity savings we
will be seeking from the NSW Teachers Federation interesting. I assure the shadow education Minister that the
Government is engaging with the Teachers Federation, particularly the Deputy Premier and education Minister.
She has been excellent in her engagement with the Teachers Federation and with the Independent Education
Union. The Government understands that the chronic teacher shortages that students and schools are facing will
not be solved without genuine engagement and an actual conversation with the worker representatives of those
organisations. I thank them for their constructive engagement. We want to solve those problems together. We
want to ensure that when our students go to school there is a teacher in front of them. The teacher in front of a
student is the single biggest factor in that student's success. We want to make sure that teachers have as much time
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 14
as possible to focus on teaching, on individualised learning and on the important work they are doing in the
classroom.
The shadow education Minister asked me about the productivity savings the Government will be making.
I have made the point frequently that I will not canvass exactly what is going to be in the comprehensive
expenditure review. I will not be ruling things out or ruling things in. I will not give the House a weekly update
on what we are considering. I look forward to giving a full report to the House and to the people of New South
Wales when we announce the budget in September, and to being honest with them. I assure the member that we
are engaging with teachers in a constructive way to address the concerns they are outlining. They are not new
challenges; indeed, the Teachers Federation and the Independent Education Union consistently raised with the
former Minister the fact that the administrative burden teachers were under was crushing them. With much fanfare,
those opposite announced a fantastic initiative called the Quality Time Program. What did that resolve? There
was not a single minute of reduction in administrative time for our teachers. [Time expired.]
The PRESIDENT: Before I call the next speaker, I welcome to the public gallery the student leaders
from high schools in New South Wales who are attending the Secondary Schools Student Leadership Program
conducted by the parliamentary education unit. As they can see, we are in the middle of a very robust question
time today. They are all very welcome.
FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT
Ms SUE HIGGINSON (11:24): My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government,
representing the Leader of the Government in her capacity representing the Minister for Planning and Public
Spaces. The former Premier and the Prime Minister made statements to the effect that there should be no new
developments on flood plains in New South Wales following the catastrophic flooding events of last year.
Communities in Yamba, Tweed Heads and other coastal areas are facing extreme development pressures. Some
developments were approved 25 years ago. What is the Minister doing to develop climate adaptation plans to
reform the planning system to protect communities and the environment from inappropriate developments that
are vulnerable to floods, fires and other climate-driven catastrophes?
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts,
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (11:25): I thank the
member for her question. I know she has been active in the policy area of climate adaptation planning and in
advocating on the issue of climate change, an issue that should concern us all. I also recognise that she is from the
north of the State and has played a real role in those North Coast communities, which have been so hard hit. It is
a subject we have discussed in the House. Our thoughts have been with them—in particular yours, Mr President.
The member has played a real role in those communities, so I understand why she asked the question.
It was a commitment of the incoming Government to tackle this issue. I can report to the House that work
has begun. The Government is planning for and mitigating against the impact of floods by drafting new rules that
will be coming into place and by streamlining planning processes to stop developments on flood plains. Of course,
that is not work that the State Government can do alone or without working closely with its agencies. It requires
working with councils. It requires the Greater Cities Commission to play a role and the Department of Planning
and Environment to lead the work. Each of those agencies has begun work exploring the changes that could help
to mitigate that type of development without hindering the supply of housing, something that is of real concern to
the Government and especially to the Hon. Rose Jackson, who is leading some of that work for the Government.
We have to be able to do both of those things if we are going to tackle those issues.
Members are aware that the 2022 independent flood inquiry led by Michael Fuller and Mary O'Kane made
28 recommendations for future improvements to the way New South Wales plans for, prepares for, responds to
and recovers from natural disasters like floods. The inquiry identified a range of things, including that the value
of flood plains can be unlocked while also ensuring that they are safely enjoyed to their full potential. The inquiry
identified that new buildings must be built out of harm's way and made more resilient. Consistent with those
findings, the Government has committed to drafting new rules and streamlining planning processes to stop
developments on flood plains, and to charging the Greater Cities Commission and the Department of Planning
and Environment with developing those rules within our first 12 months of government while coordinating with
local councils. That work is underway. I am advised that I will be able to update the House further in the middle
of the year; I look forward to doing so. It is an important question and important work that is underway.
RECONCILIATION WEEK
The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (11:28): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for
Agriculture. This week is National Reconciliation Week, a poignant time to learn about our shared histories and
the cultures and achievements of First Nations peoples. The theme of National Reconciliation Week 2023 is "Be
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 15
a Voice for Generations". What is the Minister doing to make sure that First Nations cultures and perspectives
inform land management?
The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,
and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:28): I thank the honourable member for his great question
on National Reconciliation Week. Land management, or care of country, is intrinsic to the first custodians of the
continent. That is why Local Land Services [LLS] is partnering with First Nations organisations to share
traditional land management and ecological knowledge to help protect and strengthen Aboriginal cultural heritage.
The Local Land Services Aboriginal Engagement Strategy works at both State and regional levels to enrich
relations, create opportunities and enhance respect for Aboriginal people and communities. Amongst other things,
the strategy aims to award at least 3 per cent of the total domestic contracts for goods and services issued by Local
Land Services to Aboriginal-owned businesses; increase the number of Aboriginal employment opportunities
facilitated by LLS; increase the percentage of Aboriginal employment to a minimum of 3 per cent across all grade
levels in LLS—I know we can do better than that but at least it is worthwhile to have a bare minimum; and double
the number of Aboriginal executive and leadership roles across the organisation.
The LLS Aboriginal Ranger Program was created to provide meaningful career pathways for Aboriginal
people across New South Wales. Local Land Services also supports Aboriginal communities to manage the land
they own and care for it through support and training in various land management techniques. I am delighted to
say that LLS has created a career pathway program in the Hunter to empower Aboriginal knowledge holders and
Elders to share cultural knowledge and land management techniques with community in the region. LLS also
assists Aboriginal communities to undertake cultural burning to help mitigate the risk of bushfire. When I visited
Local Land Services in the Hunter, I met with the Indigenous people who are running the program and have been
trained in that program. They will continue to do that work across that region. I hope we can expand that fantastic
program across New South Wales. I am delighted to update the House on those vital programs. They ensure that
First Nations culture and perspectives inform and enrich land management across New South Wales.
The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the Legislative Council student leaders from high schools from across
New South Wales who are attending the Secondary Schools Leadership Program conducted by the Parliamentary
Education and Engagement unit. You are all very welcome.
RODEO CODE
The Hon. EMMA HURST (11:31): I direct my question to Minister for Agriculture and Western
New South Wales. The New South Wales Code of Practice for Animals Used in Rodeo Events states:
The Code … should be reviewed at intervals of no longer than 2 years to maintain the highest possible standards.
However, since the code was published in 1988 it has never been reviewed or updated. Given the review is now
33 years overdue, will the New South Wales Government commit to undertaking a review of the rodeo code
within the next 12 months?
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Rodeo, rodeo; tomato, tomato.
The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,
and Minister for Western New South Wales) (11:32): I am going to take a swing. Is it rodeo or rodeo? Good
point. I appreciate the question from the honourable member. I note her longstanding interest in animal welfare
issues. I look forward to working with the honourable member and her party on how we can enhance animal
welfare across New South Wales. Quite a number of Acts are involved in protecting animals and making sure that
we can work with animals in the way that we need to across agriculture. I look forward to working with
stakeholders across the area to make sure that we get the balance right. I acknowledge the passion of the Animal
Justice Party and the role it plays in the Parliament, particularly in this Chamber, in pursuing animal protection
measures. It forces us, quite rightly, to make better collective decisions on behalf of the animals the party seeks
to defend and for the welfare of animals across agriculture in New South Wales.
In relation to the review of that particular code, I note the question. It is extraordinary to me that it has not
been reviewed for 33 years. I will get advice on the circumstances of that review and why it has not happened for
33 years. Indeed, I am not sure who was in government 33 years ago or which successive governments have failed
to undertake that review, but it is clearly outstanding. I will take advice on why that has happened and what we
can do to progress that assessment. I will come back to the House and the member with an update on what we can
do to progress that issue.
MVP VENTURES
The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (11:34): I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. What does the
Minister say to Meead Saberi, co-founder of footpath.ai—a startup promising advanced map routing and
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 16
wayfinding tools—who applied for a minimum viable product grant with MVP Ventures, having been assured
that decisions on applications were made within 40 days, only to be told 45 days after applying that applications
for the MVP Ventures program are currently on hold as part of a sector-wide comprehensive expenditure review
and will remain on hold until the Government makes decisions for the 2023-24 budget?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:35): I thank the honourable member for her question and congratulate her on her inaugural speech last night.
To the particular individual whom the honourable member spoke about—I did not catch their name or the
specifics—I must say that that is exactly what we are doing. The Government has paused a range of grants
programs in order to make a thorough assessment of the state of the budget. Government members are serious
about doing so in a careful and methodical way. We are not going to be signing cheques and pushing money out
the door as we make difficult decisions to try to fix the mess that was created by those who were in government
before us. The laziness and lack of discipline of those former Ministers who sit across from us today meant that
they could not make tough decisions. We are not afraid of making tough decisions. We are making them. We are
working through this process in a careful and methodical way. I understand that that might be disappointing for
those particular individuals involved. I understand that—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Sam Farraway will cease interjecting.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: But these are tough decisions that we must make. There is
$114 billion worth of Government spending, and the budget that was passed through this House by those opposite
meant that we were headed for $180 billion worth of debt. We do not think that is sustainable. We do not think
that is acceptable for the people of New South Wales.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume her seat. The odd relevant, pithy or humorous
interjection is welcomed by all sides of the House, but a constant stream of consciousness is not relevant, pithy or
amusing. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I can assure those opposite and the community of New South Wales
that we are taking care and making deliberate decisions as we prepare the budget. I note the Treasurer, who was
diligently working away, as he does, pointed out to me a page from the budget. I refer honourable members to
page 5 – 8 of the Budget Statement in Budget Paper No. 1, which shows that the total expenses predicted under
the previous budget were going to decline by $6 billion. Members opposite had their own plan for cuts but they
were not up-front or honest with the community. They hid it in the budget papers. But do not worry, Mr President.
We are going to get to the bottom of it.
The PRESIDENT: Order! We will wait until there is silence in the Chamber before I allow the next
question.
NORTH COAST MINISTERIAL VISIT
The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (11:39): My question is addressed to the Minister for the North Coast. The
Minister recently went to the North Coast. Will she advise the House on the outcome of her visit?
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (11:39): I thank the
honourable member for the question. I have been to the North Coast a couple of times but I was there again
recently. One of the great things about being the Minister for the North Coast is how that portfolio reflects and
elevates the work I am doing in my other portfolios. One of the key challenges, and probably the biggest challenge,
the North Coast is facing is a housing crisis. There was a housing crisis on the North Coast and in the Northern
Rivers before the flooding event. The North Coast was already thousands of dwellings behind where it needed to
be for a healthy vacancy rate prior to the flooding. Then that catastrophic event occurred and the situation is now
incredibly dire.
On my recent trip, I went to Lismore and visited the mayor, the local member, the Northern Rivers
Reconstruction Corporation and one of the pod villages. Then I went back to meet with the Northern Rivers Joint
Organisation of councils. It was fantastic to sit down with Sharon Cadwallader, the mayor of Ballina, and talk
about their challenges. I also met with the Rous County Council water team. The Government will release its far
North Coast regional water strategy soon. It was great to talk to the Rous County Council about some of the
content of that strategy and how to deal with the water challenges on the North Coast and in the northern region.
It was great to see Tamara Smith and Richie Williamson at that meeting. It was a really fantastic opportunity.
There were no partisan politics. Everyone was having a really great open conversation, from Tamara and the
mayor of Byron to the mayor of Ballina and Richie. Everyone was having a really thorough conversation about
addressing some of those challenges.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 17
We visited the Ballina Hot Meal Centre—a beautiful place with a really beautiful story about the local
Rotary club and the Cherry Street Sports Club stepping up to provide that service. They make hundreds of meals
with no current government funding for that work. The centre is seeing an increase of people needing meals.
I shout out Beatrice from Alstonville, a great-great-grandmother in her late eighties who has been volunteering at
the centre for decades. It is wonderful to see the community spirit and the volunteerism that goes into those kinds
of programs, but they should not always have to rely on that. They should not always have to rely on people
volunteering their time to get those programs off the ground. I visited the Mullumbimby Safe Haven Hub in my
capacity as the Minister for Mental Health.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Hear, hear!
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: It was great, and I give credit to the former Minister for her support for
mental health. I am not trying to politicise it. It is doing great work. It is run by the primary health network in the
area. I finished my visit at a site that Ballina Shire Council is trying to get off the ground for affordable housing.
It was a busy day, and there is a lot more work to do.
The PRESIDENT: Before I call on the Hon. Mark Latham, I welcome to the gallery the school captains
of both Alstonville and Mullumbimby high schools.
STATE BUDGET
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (11:43): My question is directed to the Treasurer. I congratulate him on his
public comments expressing determination to end the Matt Kean era of massive debt and deficit in New South
Wales fiscal policy. Accordingly, as he goes through his budget papers that are never out of sight, what is the
Treasurer doing to overcome the way in which previous budgets went deeper and deeper in debt and deficit as
they funded more and more Commonwealth responsibilities? Tens of billions was spent on climate change, child
care, labour force participation programs, university research and development, GP clinics, primary health care
and other duplicated spending which encourages Canberra to do less via reverse cost shifting. What advice has
the Treasurer received on how defunding Commonwealth responsibilities would return the New South Wales
budget to surplus and pay down the huge public debt the new Government has inherited?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (11:43): I thank the honourable member for his question.
He makes a very good point around cost shifting between jurisdictions, especially between the Commonwealth
and the State. I cannot help but note that he made reference to the Matt Kean era when he was Treasurer, and I
cannot help but notice, as he has pointed out in the budget paper I am looking at, that in the Matt Kean era, last
year expenditure in New South Wales went up 26 per cent—in one year; one in four additional in one year. The
Government benchmarked that and looked at every budget from every Australian government going back to the
seventies to find out who else accelerated expenditure as much as Matt Kean did. Move aside Dr Jim Cairns; the
record is gone. The great Jim Cairns' record is gone. The actual budget biggest expense increase by any Treasurer
in any government of any political persuasion in the past 40 years was Matt Kean, and he gave only one budget.
What is more interesting is that the previous Government hiked expenditure by 26 per cent in one year but
then cut it again by 5 per cent and 5 per cent in the next two years—cut, cut, cut. There is $6 billion due to be cut
next year, and an additional $5 billion to be cut in the year after that. That is before we get to the $7 billion that is
not even in the budget. The Government has been accused of "cut, cut, cut", and I am looking forward to
Opposition members saying what they were going to cut. They were planning to have $6 billion worth of budget
cuts.
The Hon. Mark Latham is right to ask what I am doing about cost shifting with the Commonwealth. Firstly,
Treasury is engaging very heavily with the Commonwealth Grants Commission to make sure it is reflecting the
true cost of delivering government services by State government. Secondly, we are working through each of the
Federation funding agreements on the infrastructure side to make sure that New South Wales is, first, getting its
fair share and, second, the cost of delivering infrastructure is properly reflected.
Thirdly, when it comes to the general purpose grants or specific purpose grants, we are making sure the
Commonwealth is acquitting its responsibilities. Those are the first three aspects. But the Hon. Mark Latham is
quite right; the previous Government signed the State up to a variety of schemes that were otherwise the
responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. The irony is that the former State Liberal Government signed
us up to those arrangements because the Liberal Party in Canberra would not do it for good or for ill.
Scott Morrison would not act so Matt Kean put it on our credit card. The Government is going through every one
of those initiatives—[Time expired.]
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (11:47): I ask a supplementary question. It felt like the Treasurer was just
warming up with his outline of what has gone wrong in the State budget. Will he elaborate on those points and
give a commitment to the Parliament and the people of New South Wales that he will act not as a de facto
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 18
Commonwealth Treasurer, funding Commonwealth responsibilities, but act solely in the best interests of
New South Wales, and that he will end the burden on future generations of huge public debt that they and their
children have to pay down?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (11:47): I can give the member that assurance. As I was
saying, we are working through each of the areas that Matt Kean signed us up for to determine whose
responsibility they are. It is the fundamental responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to make sure that,
for example, universities are funded.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: What about child care?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I am also of the view that it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth
Government to make sure child care is funded; that is true. Equally, it is pleasing that the new Federal Government
is taking those core responsibilities much more seriously than the Government it replaced. Equally it is very good
that the Federal Government is now prepared to act and invest in those areas which were ignored for 12 years by
the former State Government and its counterpart in Canberra. That is a good thing. I was pleased to see tentative
and clear steps around improving primary care in the Federal budget, which is the Commonwealth's responsibility.
It is good to see that Jim Chalmers is acting in that regard, because everyone should be able to access a GP and
we want more people who can use primary care to go to primary care at the same time so we have more space in
our emergency departments for those who need acute care. That is just some of what I am doing to properly acquit
that responsibility.
But I will be straight with the House: This is difficult. It is tough to do, but we are determined to do it.
The Government will, therefore, be going through the budget line by line and making sure that we are acquitting
our core responsibilities of making sure that our schools, hospitals, emergency services and the core
responsibilities of State Government—our transport system, amongst others—are well funded. We will work in
partnership with the Commonwealth in the national interest to get reform, but I send the very clear message that
the Commonwealth has its responsibilities and we have our responsibilities. We will go about this in that frame
of mind. As the Government hands down the budget in September, I look forward to clearly spelling out a costed
plan that is responsible and directs the public's dollars to the public's priorities. [Time expired.]
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (11:49): I ask a second supplementary question. Does the shadow
Treasurer—
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: He's the Treasurer.
The Hon. Mark Latham: That's you.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Yes. Does the Treasurer now resile from his support for each of the
programs identified by the Hon. Mark Latham when he, as the shadow Treasurer at the time, supported each and
every one of the measures in the budget that was presented to the House?
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (11:50): I cannot speak to what the shadow Treasurer
thinks. But with regard to what the Treasurer thinks it is fair to say that the idea that, in the year prior to the
election, I, as shadow Treasurer, supported every line item of the budget is not how I recall events. I made it very
clear at the time that with regard to what the previous Government handed down we had a few points of difference,
it is fair to say, with the budget. If the Opposition wants to talk about what points of difference we had with the
previous Government's budget, let me be very clear. I could read my speech again to reiterate what we said. We
were so disappointed that the previous Government did not budget, for example, to make sure that more teachers
were permanent.
We also had a clear point of difference with the previous Government about the fact that it was prepared
to fund trade commissioners in New York, London and Tokyo, pumping massive amounts of money into an
extraordinary display of hubris at the same time as we had shortages of essential workers in our schools and
hospitals. That was a key point of difference. We had a huge point of difference with the previous Government
about the fact that it was engaging in financial engineering of the Transport Asset Holding Entity. We also had a
huge point of difference with the billions of dollars of bailouts it budgeted to pump into icare, having mismanaged
and rorted that scheme for years. The proper answer to the question, which I appreciate from the shadow Treasurer,
is that I disagreed with the budget last year but the Government is fixing it this year.
JOB CREATION
The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (11:52): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. What impact
on jobs in New South Wales is the Minister expecting from the suspension of programs supporting startups, such
as the Minimum Viable Product grants? University of New South Wales Director of Entrepreneurship David Burt
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 19
warns that this is a terrible outcome for New South Wales-based startups, which are responsible for all net new
jobs created. Cathy Lyall from Seed Space also warns that the suspension is likely to lead to companies relocating
to more founder-friendly States such as Victoria, where initiatives such as Startup Victoria have had an incredible
impact.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:53): I thank the honourable member for her question about support for startups and small business. I reiterate
my previous answer, which is that I have been forced to pause the grants programs that were in place under the
previous Government. I did that as a member of the upper House committee into grants. Members opposite are
asking questions about the way that grants were administered under the previous Government. For the first time
we saw bushfire grants politicised, so we are very cautious about grants programs.
The Hon. Wes Fang: Point of order: My point of order is under Standing Order 65 (5), which states that
an answer must be directly relevant to a question. The Minister is straying into areas that are not within the scope
of the question that was asked. The Minister is not being directly relevant. I ask that she be brought back to the
leave of the question for the remaining two minutes of her answer.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister is being directly relevant, but she should remain so for the rest of her
answer.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I return to where I was, which is that being a member of the Public
Accountability Committee inquiry into grants means that I have a deep level of concern about the way grants
programs were administered under the previous Government. That is why this Government paused grants
programs as the first part of its comprehensive expenditure review, as the first part of cleaning up the mess that
members opposite created. It is a bit rich for former Government members, who politicised bushfire grants funding
and provided almost a quarter of a billion dollars worth of funding designed for council amalgamation—
The Hon. Scott Farlow: Point of order: The question from the Hon. Susan Carter was a very direct
question about startups. It was not about any other grants programs or the former Coalition Government; it was
about what this Government is doing when it comes to startups. I ask that the Minister be directly relevant to the
question.
The PRESIDENT: I have sympathy with the point of order. The Minister is beginning to stray from the
leave of the question. I instruct her to be directly relevant to the question.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: In relation to the part of the question around the support in place
for startups, I assure the House and the startup community that Government members will work closely with our
Federal Labor colleagues. I commend the excellent work that Federal Minister Ed Husic is doing through the
National Reconstruction Fund and through a range of other measures, particularly around the changes—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have said the Hon. Sam Farraway's name twice but I have not yet called him
to order. I will do so if he continues to interject.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I commend the Federal Minister for the very important work he is
doing, particularly around the changes to procurement. That is something the Government is really interested in
doing, to provide support to small startup organisations to access the procurement policy. That was direct feedback
that I received when I was the shadow Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation around the support that
government could provide. Instead of pushing valuable taxpayer money out the door with little rigour, the
Government is interested in engaging with the startup community.
The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (11:57): I ask a supplementary question. In light of her answer, can the
Minister for Finance confirm that all grants programs have now been suspended?
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(11:57): I can update the House and the member that the Government is taking a very close look at grants
programs before they are administered.
The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Rose Jackson to order for the first time.
NIGHT-TIME ECONOMY
The Hon. SARAH KAINE (11:58): My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Music
and the Night-time Economy. Will the Minister advise the House on what New South Wales can learn
internationally about the importance of a strong and vibrant night-time economy?
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Roads, Minister for the Arts,
Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, and Minister for Jobs and Tourism) (11:59): I thank the
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 20
Hon. Sarah Kaine for her question. If ever there was an answer to sing to, or perhaps throw some lyrics in, this
would be it—but I am sorry to disappoint members. I apologise. I recognise the role the Leader of the Opposition
has played over the years in entertaining and delighting the Chamber. As in other things, as a government we hope
to do better over time on that matter.
Recently night tsars in charge of night-life from around the world—London, New York, Berlin, Montreal,
Singapore and Paris—arrived in Sydney to see the city's night-time economy coming back to life. I was pleased
to welcome those international guests on behalf of the New South Wales Government. They spoke at the inaugural
NEON International Night-Time Economy Forum, which was a first for Sydney. They observed that New South
Wales is now the only jurisdiction in the world with a Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy. I had
suspected that to be the case, but finally I have confirmation from those international night-time tsars. It turns out
that the rest of the world wants their own! They are back off home to lobby their governments and Ministers to
have such a Minister in place.
I encourage the Opposition to get a spokesperson for this important area of policy. I was disappointed to
see that the shadow Cabinet line-up does not include a shadow night-time economy Minister. There are a range
of good candidates. I recognise the Hon. Natalie Ward, who chaired the important parliamentary committee that
dealt with the lockouts. Prior to coming into Parliament, the Hon. Jacqui Munro's credentials on this matter were
well on the public record. Perhaps the Opposition could look to some of the younger members of the Chamber?
The Hon. Chris Rath, employed during the day as Opposition Whip, could perhaps stray further at night.
Obviously the Hon. Taylor Martin, one of the youngest members—
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: What about me? That is ageist.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: The Hon. Bronnie Taylor is putting herself forward. All these members are
welcome.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: Only in the regions.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Regional night-life.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: That is exactly right. I encourage the Opposition to join in this international
movement. Those international night tsars who came here are keen to have any supporters. It is an international
policy movement. I was happy to welcome them here.
The Hon. Scott Farlow: It's our policy!
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: Well step up! The Hon. Scott Farlow now wants a job. I encourage
members to come forward and take up the mantle. Their time is now.
The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice.
Supplementary Questions for Written Answers
COMPREHENSIVE EXPENDITURE REVIEW
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (12:02): My supplementary question for written answer is directed to
the Minister for Finance. Will the Minister provide the terms of reference, parameters, agreed methodology and
timetable for the comprehensive expenditure review?
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.
COMPREHENSIVE EXPENDITURE REVIEW
MVP VENTURES
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (12:02): I take note of the answers from the Minister for Finance. We
are no clearer on the methodology being used to conduct this so-called comprehensive expenditure review. It does
seem to be a case of making it up as one goes along. However, what we do know is, as Paul Kelly so sweetly
sings:
From little things big things grow
From little things big things grow
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 21
The Minimum Viable Product grants are well targeted to help entrepreneurs kickstart a new enterprise with
flow-on benefits for jobs and the New South Wales economy. With these grants now indefinitely frozen, some of
the little things they would have helped grow will now die, cut off at the roots by the laser. From little things, big
things grow.
As a father and grandfather, watching little children learn to swim is a delight. The First Lap voucher
program helps ensure that those "little things"—children aged between three and six years old—get at least five
structured swimming lessons, the foundation for a lifetime of water safety, and can grow into big things. How is
the comprehensive expenditure review assessing the value of preventing child deaths by drowning through First
Lap? We are not getting any answers. From little things, big things grow. Active Kids vouchers can make the
difference in enabling families faced with cost-of-living pressures to pay for the next season's sport for their
children. A 2021 review by the University of Sydney found that this program:
… shows promise as a scaled-up intervention to increase children and adolescents' physical activity participation.
This increased participation in physical activity leads to lifelong habits, with health benefits for the individual and
savings to the Health budget. From little things, big things grow. A hallmark of the previous Government was that
it had vision. It understood what cost-of-living pressures were about. It understood that we should be directing
our budget priorities to families. It was a government that in fact renovated the State. It was a government that
had a laser-like focus on delivering new hospitals, new schools, new roads and new railways, all of which were
for the benefit of the people and families of this State. From little things, big things grow.
STATE BUDGET
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (12:05): I take note of answers given by the Treasurer and the Minister for
Finance. Certainly it is true that the Coalition is an expert on little things becoming big things and growing even
bigger because it has grown the budget larger than Jim Cairns ever did. It was more profligate than any
Treasurer—Commonwealth or State—in the history of our nation. It took a budget that was in reasonable shape
and grew it bigger and bigger into deeper and deeper debt and deficit. What caused the cost-of-living crisis in
Australia? The Leader of the Opposition just pretends that this money grows on trees or drops from the sky, or
that he finds it at the bottom of the garden every morning. What caused the cost-of-living crisis in Australia was
the major contribution of huge budget deficits to inflation. One cannot stimulate the economy to the extent of
Frydenberg and Matt Kean—a massive expansion of fiscal policy leaving debt after debt and deficit after deficit—
without an impact on inflation. It is self-evident. It is basic fiscal policy 101 that if one drives these budget deficits
and overstimulates the economy, one ends up with inflation.
We have ended up with this dreadful cycle of interest rate rises, where the Reserve Bank made a terrible
misjudgement, and we are getting bigger and more interest rate rises than we otherwise would have needed. This
is the cause of the cost-of-living crisis. It is no good playing the harp and pulling the heartstrings about the Active
Kids program and learn to swim. For decades in New South Wales kids learnt to swim without the nanny state
intervention of State subsidies. The kids joined up to sporting clubs without State government vouchers and
subsidies. There comes a point—and I hope this is understood by the Treasurer and Minister for Finance—where
someone needs to break the cycle. One can go into deeper and deeper deficit—worse than Jim Cairns, worse than
anyone in our history—and drive up inflation and interest rate rises and then turn around and complain about
programs that had to be cut, but that cycle just makes things worse.
The cost-of-living crisis is real. Members ought to visit that community cafe in Sadleir, in the western
districts of Liverpool. In politics one does get cocooned from the extent of these problems. Members are on a
good earner and we go all right, but go out there and see hundreds of working people lining up to take charity
such as food parcels and clothing for their kids in winter. This crisis is real, debilitating and cruel. At some point
we need to break the cycle of debt and deficit to bring inflation under control. I know that is an objective in
Canberra; surely it has to be an objective in Macquarie Street.
Yes, some of these decisions are tough, but the easiest thing for this Government to do is to recognise that
funding Commonwealth responsibilities is completely unnecessary. The Wran, Unsworth, Carr, Rees and Iemma
governments—one can go back to McKell and Cahill and Renshaw—never saw any need for New South Wales
to be funding child care, which has long been a Commonwealth responsibility, nor labour market participation
programs, university research and development or GP clinics. None of those governments ever thought it was
necessary. [Time expired.]
MVP VENTURES PROGRAM
The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (12:09): I take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance about
minimum viable product [MVP] grants. There is some hypocrisy among members opposite. They come to the
Chamber and ask for support for bills to inspire confidence in the people of New South Wales and give certainty
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 22
to their futures. But the reality is that there is a delay on the confidence-inspiring grants that are required by startup
businesses. New South Wales has a fantastic startup culture. The Sydney Startup Hub alone employs 6,000 people.
There is also a western Sydney hub. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has already frozen the Boosting
Female Founders Initiative grants, which are MVP grants that benefit women founders in particular. The MVP
Ventures Program grants go up to $200,000 for minimum viable products, which is so important for women
founders with pre-seed and seed funding.
Even Dan Andrews has recognised the value of those startup grants. Although startup founders in Victoria
may risk having to work from home for an extended period, at least they know they have the support of their
Government to start up and grow. In Australia, particularly in New South Wales, over 30 businesses are Australian
unicorns, which means that, like Atlassian and Canva, they have been able to expand globally and become
billion-dollar companies. When in government this side of the House was a recognised leader in startups, with the
Sydney Startup Hub, in quantum computing and the space industry. We created the $30 million NSW Future
Industries Investment Program. Founders need that type of support. It assures them they have the confidence of
their government to grow.
It is clear that this Government will continue to delay giving founders and small business people the
confidence they need to start. Meead Saberi is a recognised leader at the University of New South Wales who is
doing incredible work with his students to make sure that there are more jobs in New South Wales and there is
more private investment coming through. We must ensure that private investment flows to this State so that there
is more productivity, more employment, and the opportunity to take risks in business. That is a crucial part of the
Liberal philosophy. We must ensure that people feel like they receive reward for their effort. Without reward for
incredible—
The Hon. Sarah Kaine: What about reward for essential workers?
The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO: The problem with this Government is that it will not invest in private
enterprise, which can give back through taxes that will inevitably support those social programs.
FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT
Ms SUE HIGGINSON (12:12): I take note of the promising answer given by the Deputy Leader of the
Government representing the Leader of the Government representing the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
in the other place. Planning is so fundamental in the face of our changing climate. Unfortunately, our system is
not keeping up with the changes we are experiencing at the local landscape level and in local communities. In
New South Wales we are bound by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, a wonderful piece of
legislation introduced in 1979. It includes some fantastic visionary ways of doing planning well and doing it
differently to how it was done in the past. It has evolved over the years; however, it has not taken the major steps
towards much-needed reform. That is clear in places such as flood plains, where local communities feel extreme
development pressure that is colliding with the best interests and function of the environment. We must keep those
communities safe from harm. Communities in Yamba, the Tweed and the South Coast face extreme pressures
from developments that were approved up to 25 years ago.
The pressure from developers and the cost opportunities to enliven those development consents are causing
perverse outcomes across the landscape, including housing developments that will quite frankly put people under
water. Bad planning has happened in the past in my community of Lismore, and it is happening now. But the
Government gave a promising answer to my question on this issue. It appears that the Government is astute, and
its eyes are open. But the community cannot wait 12 months. Great minds, visions and experts have put on the
table the sorts of things we must be doing now. We must impose a moratorium to stop the developments that will
put people at risk of harm from flood and fire. Most importantly, we must stop taking out essential native
vegetation that stands between the extinction and survival of many unique threatened species that this State is
lucky to have.
STATE BUDGET
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (12:15): I take note of the questions that were asked of the Treasurer
and the Minister for Finance, who are doing the job that those opposite should have done prior to the election.
They are now on the Opposition benches because they did not do that job. Day after day Opposition members try
to get us to reveal the minutia of what we are reviewing to reprioritise the budget. I do not know if it is lost on
those opposite, but the election result was about reprioritising the budget to reflect what people in the real world
want.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Tell us what you want.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 23
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: We want 10,000 permanent teachers. We want more nurses. We want
more firefighters. We want more paramedics. We want a decent health system that looks after people. The election
was fought and won on those things. You lost because you misplaced your priorities. Instead, you gave out grants
to fund follies, like the $90 million grant for some sort of park rehabilitation in Hornsby. You rorted bushfire
grants.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mark Buttigieg will direct his remarks through the Chair.
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: Trade commissioners were mentioned earlier in question time.
Multimillion-dollar payments have gone to them to perhaps promote the State overseas. Those opposite blame us
for wanting to lift the wages cap when the wages of working people have been suppressed for 10 years and
inflation is running at 7 per cent. We want to build schools in areas like Gregory Hills, where generations of
people have been crying out for them. Guess what? We need money to do that. We have a restricted quantum
because we have been left in an abject mess by those opposite—the biggest debt in history. We have to reallocate
funds for those priorities. The Minister for Finance and the Treasurer are reviewing the budget to find the money
to fund the things we were elected to do. Members opposite blame us for trying do the things we were elected to
do. I shudder to think how long it will take them to get back into government. They are in denial. In the past two
months they have learnt nothing from their election loss.
TEACHER WORKFORCE
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (12:18): I take note of a number of answers given today. I start with the
answer from the Minister for Finance to my question about the productivity savings being identified in
negotiations with the unions. Those opposite love rewriting history. That is obvious during question time every
day. But that was a serious question about what productivity savings measures are being identified through that
process. It is particularly important for education because there are always trade-offs when those decisions are
made. The reality of productivity savings in education—
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: When did you answer a single question that we asked you?
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: You had your go.
The PRESIDENT: Order! My earlier ruling on sotto voce comments made by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell
applies equally to the Hon. Courtney Houssos.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: Productivity savings measures in education can be things like increased
class sizes and staff development days during school holidays, which parents and teachers deserve to know about
when negotiations are going on.
For the Minister to say that she is not going to rule things in or out creates a level of uncertainty about the education
sector in this State. I also find it astounding that the Minister has twice represented the Minister for Education and
Early Learning in her Dixers. I am not sure why she is not doing them in her own portfolio. But there is a rewriting
of history. On the topic of making temporary teachers permanent, the Minister said that we did not convert a single
teacher in our time in government.
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: Not a single teacher. Look at the upper House inquiry.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: That's wrong. You need to check your notes because that is factually
incorrect. When we were coming out of the pandemic, we had an agreement with the union to have a moratorium
on the staffing arrangements where we could do temporary-to-permanent conversions. Hundreds of teachers were
converted in that process, which then laid the policy foundation for the larger temporary-to-permanent conversion.
In the election, we announced 15,000 positions—11,000 teachers and 4,000 school support staff. Those opposite
talked about 10,000 teachers but now suddenly in government they are also doing 15,000 because that was our
policy that work had already begun on before the election. So the idea that Labor did this without any work by us
is incorrect.
The Minister also indicated that the work we had done to save teachers time had a zero-hours saving. That
is also factually incorrect. We know that we met our target of a 20 per cent reduction in administrative burden for
teachers within the time frame that we had in place. I suggest the Minister does not merely read the notes that she
is given but that she makes sure she is not misleading the House in her answers. My final point relates to child
care. In his answer the Treasurer said that he believes that child care should be the purview of the Federal
Government and should be funded by it. That concerns me, as the shadow Minister for Education and Early
Learning, because this House legislated a Childcare and Economic Opportunity Fund to address some of the
serious issues in child care. The Government needs to be honest about whether it is going to continue with our
massive reforms in early childhood education. We know they are important. Hopefully those opposite do as well.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 24
COMPREHENSIVE EXPENDITURE REVIEW
The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (12:21): I contribute in respect of the various questions that the
Minister for Finance fielded in relation to the activities of the Expenditure Review Committee—a topic that has
been referred to at length as the black hole. Issues regarding the activities of that committee and the black hole
really relate to the forward estimates in the budget. For about half a century it has been common across all levels
of government in Australia to do three-year forward estimates. I had some humble experience of that myself on
Dubbo Regional Council, where there is a forward estimates system. It is important to note the objectives of the
policy of forward estimates, which is basically to provide strategy and discipline to the budget. I am no expert in
it but, from my activities on Dubbo council, I can say that there are a couple of objectives and parameters to the
process of forward estimates. One is that in the forward estimates you assume that the current expenditure and
policy objectives of the Government will continue over the three-year period. One can understand why that is
important in terms of budget strategy and discipline.
The three-year estimates from the former Government's budget last year omitted a number of important
things that those opposite now pretend to care about. It is important to focus on that. When, for example, we field
questions designed to cause alarm in the community about various systems of vouchers, it is important to ask if
those things were in the forward estimates. I turn to some of the specific details. It is interesting to hear all the
questions that have been asked, but we have not heard those opposite specifically address whether or not those
things were in the forward estimates. The 1,100 nurse positions in the forward estimates are unfunded from
30 June 2024, $100 million of Destination NSW funding is not in the forward estimates and the Active Kids
vouchers are unfunded to $350 million from 30 June 2023. I invite those opposite, if they speak in the take-note
debate, to address specifically if those things were in their forward estimates.
JOB CREATION
MVP VENTURES PROGRAM
The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (12:24): Despite the invitation of the last speaker, I take note of the answers
given to my question and supplementary question to the Minister for Finance, in particular the answer in which
she said that in terms of all the programs to support innovation, new investment, job creation, wealth creation and
growing of the economy, the Government was going to take a close look while everything was on hold. The
Government may have the luxury of putting everything on pause while it looks, line by line, at every program,
but the people of New South Wales who are engaged in creating and growing businesses, jobs and investments
do not have that luxury. Jesse Wu from Afterwork Ventures notes:
Startups don't have the luxury of time to wait around for governments to get their sh*t in order. Many were in the middle of (incredibly
onerous) application processes, only to be unceremoniously notified the whole program was shutting down.
This is disrespectful behaviour to the people of New South Wales. I argue that it is short-sighted behaviour that
does not recognise the great opportunity that startups provide. David Burt, who oversees the UNSW Founders
program, said that the MVP grant program was "one of the most effective and important startup support programs
available". Perhaps that should be considered in the line by line review? The last data that he saw was from 2020.
It showed that, from only 181 grant recipients, 830 jobs were created—307 full-time equivalents and
523 contractors. That is an average of 8.9 full-time equivalents per startup. Fifty-four had raised a total of
$231 million in equity. Importantly, 22 reported export revenue of close to $8 million, and that cohort had an
almost 90 per cent survival rate.
If you want to address budget programs, you grow the pie. Investing in startups is a fabulous way to grow
the pie. I am concerned that we are seeing incoherent policy settings. Today we heard from the Special Minister
of State that one of the objects of the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment Bill 2023 is to address the flight
of workers from New South Wales to other States. Flight to Victoria and other places is exactly what will happen
if we do not continue to invest and give certainty to startups.
MVP VENTURES PROGRAM
The Hon. SARAH KAINE (12:27): I contribute to the debate to take note of the answers regarding grants
projects. Last week I spoke in my first take-note debate and mentioned that I was shocked by the hypocrisy that
I witnessed. I did not think that I was easily shocked. Sadly, after another week in here, I am not even surprised
anymore. A member of the Opposition just talked about this Government disrespecting the people of New South
Wales. I find that astounding given the way that the previous Government treated hundreds of thousands of public
sector workers. Members opposite now want to talk about one particular grant program, which I am not suggesting
is not important. In fact, the Government is committed to innovation. The startups that come up with those MVP
grants are important, and hopefully they do end up as our next Atlassian.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 25
But I could not stay quiet when I heard contributions from members opposite about reward for effort.
Reward for effort should not be limited to the private sector; it equally applies to those vital workers who look
after us in our schools, hospitals and all of the places that are so important for keeping the community of
New South Wales safe and well. When members of the Opposition talk about grants in important areas, I advise
them to steer clear of suggesting that the disrespect emanates from this side of the House.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. SARAH KAINE: I reiterate that the Opposition should be clear about where the greatest
amount of disrespect has come from for the workers of New South Wales over the past 12 years. It clearly does
not rest with this side of the House, or with the finance Minister, Treasurer and other ministerial colleagues, who
are trying to sort out the mess left by the Opposition.
TEACHER WORKFORCE
The Hon. WES FANG (12:30): In the remaining brief minutes, I take note of answers given today by the
Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Education and Early Learning. It seems quite odd that a
Minister in this House is representing a Minister in the other place. I suspect I know why. I suspect it is because
the Minister in the other place is—
The Hon. Courtney Houssos: Because we worked closely before the election and we continue to work
closely together to fix the problems that you created.
The Hon. WES FANG: Mr President, are you going to allow those interjections?
The PRESIDENT: It is a bit rich for the honourable member to interject all the time when other members
are speaking and then expect others to not do it to him. The member has the call.
The Hon. WES FANG: I think saying I do it all the time is probably a bit of a stretch, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: The member has the call.
The Hon. WES FANG: I suspect that the Minister for Finance is answering questions for the Minister
for Education and Early Learning because she probably does it better than the education Minister. That is
interesting. I think it is actually a point that—
The Hon. Anthony D'Adam: Point of order: The purpose of this debate is to take note of answers, not to
take pot shots at various members in this House or in the other place. I remind the member that making adverse
reflections on a member of this House or the other place is unparliamentary and should be done by way of
substantive motion, if he wants to do it at all.
The PRESIDENT: I do not uphold the point of order at this stage, but I will be listening very closely.
The member has the call.
The Hon. WES FANG: I suspect that the answers are probably directed better by the Minister for Finance.
She is probably a frustrated education Minister. I think that is a reflection of the fact that she is in this job that has
to do—
The Hon. Anthony D'Adam: Point of order: The member cannot reflect on another member. He just
said, "She must be a frustrated education Minister." That is a clear reflection on a member. It is inappropriate, it
is unparliamentary, and it should be called to order.
The PRESIDENT: The member's time is about to expire. In terms of reflections on members, that was a
pretty gentle one, so we will let that one through to the keeper.
Pursuant to standing orders, debate is interrupted to allow the Minister to respond.
TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (Minister for Finance, and Minister for Natural Resources)
(12:33): In closing today's take-note debate, I note that after eight question times I have finally been asked by the
Opposition whether we have terms of reference for the comprehensive expenditure review that I am undertaking.
Well, yes, of course we do. When I say we are undertaking this in a careful and methodical way, it means that we
have terms of reference, that we have a plan we are working through and that we will speak to the community and
the Parliament about our plans for the budget in September.
After watching the previous Government over eight years from the Opposition benches and through a
series of budget estimates hearings, I had grave concerns about how those opposite managed their time in
government. Those concerns only grew in question time today by the fact that it has taken them eight question
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 26
times to reveal that conducting a review means having a plan for how it will be done. But I am delighted that they
finally got here. One of those difficult decisions that we have had to make is to pause not all but a range of
discretionary grants programs. I understand the impact of that on individuals, including those that were announced
today.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.
The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: These are tough decisions that we have to make. They are tough
decisions that have impacts on individuals. The reason we are making these decisions is that I am not prepared to
sign onto every single person in New South Wales having an unsustainable debt level of $15,000. I am not
prepared to sign onto having a $180 billion worth of debt. I am not prepared to sign onto the short-term policies,
pursued by those opposite, that led to temporary teachers in our schools growing by 82 per cent.
As the Minister responsible for procurement, I am keen to engage with the start-up community—like our
excellent Federal Minister Ed Husic, who is making changes to the way that procurement works at a Federal
level—to allow start-ups and smaller companies to gain access to government procurement contracts. When
companies want to go overseas and expand, often the ability to access Australian Government contracts is
important in providing that. I am keen to do that.
Earlier in the week during question time, I spoke about swings that we saw across Camden. The new
member for Riverstone reminded me about some of the swings that were in his electorate. Holsworthy, Miranda,
Ryde, Terrigal—do not worry, we are coming for them as well. It takes a particular level of bravado, after losing
the election, to come to this Chamber and bemoan the lack of funding for things like the First Lap voucher and
the Active Kids voucher, which were not funded under their own budget. [Time expired.]
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Deferred Answers
FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL
In reply to The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (10 May 2023).
The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales,
and Minister for Western New South Wales)—The Minister provided the following response:
1. Feral pigs have a high reproductive rate and populations can recover quickly during good seasonal conditions, as have
occurred across large areas of New South Wales in the past few years. Baiting and aerial shooting (supported by trapping
and ground shooting) can be highly effective at reducing feral pig populations, provided there is active participation by
private and public landholders in priority areas - achieving higher levels of participation is a focus for LLS. The LLS aerial
shooting programs have removed over 57,400 feral pigs across the New South Wales landscape during the
2022-2023 financial year.
2. Federal Government processes already exist to allow export of feral pig products as per other wild harvest industries such
as feral goats. The limitation is demand for the products at an acceptable price point, noting the challenging economics of
wild harvest industries and the problem of variable supply.
3. In New South Wales, all aspects of firearms management, licencing and ownership are controlled by legislation under the
Firearms Act 1996 and Firearms Regulation 2017 which are administered by the NSW Police Force.
Under the Firearms Act 1996, a primary producer is able to apply for a Category D firearms licence with a 1-, 2- or 5- year
duration. Among the prescribed "genuine reasons" to qualify for a Category D Firearms Licence is participation in an
"Authorised Campaign" being conducted by or on behalf of a Government Agency.
4. There has previously been a feral pig harvesting industry in Australia, supported by a regional network of chiller boxes in
New South Wales. However, in the same way that kangaroo and feral goat harvesting is challenged by logistics, economics
and variable supply, the Australian feral pig industry declined due to export markets lack of demand at an adequate price
and hence low returns for the local supply network. This situation has not improved and prices of wild boar meat (e.g. in
Europe) would have to increase substantially to encourage local industry to re-engage in feral pig harvesting.
DEPARTMENTAL SECRETARIES
In reply to The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (11 May 2023).
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Energy, Minister for Climate Change, Minister for the
Environment, and Minister for Heritage)—The Minister provided the following response:
The employment of the Secretaries of Treasury, Department of Education, and Transport were terminated under section 41(1) of the
Government Sector Employment Act 2013. Under the Act each Secretary is entitled to a payment equivalent to 38 weeks' pay and
unused recreation and extended leave.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 27
Written Answers to Supplementary Questions
ENMORE PARK
In reply to the Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (31 May 2023).
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast)—The Minister provided
the following response:
I am advised:
The Department of Communities and Justice Homelessness Outreach Support Team [HOST] works collaboratively with
partners to provide support and assistance to people sleeping rough in the Sydney, South Eastern Sydney, Northern Sydney
District.
Assertive Outreach teams patrol Enmore Park at least three times a week.
• HOST provides regular assertive outreach to the Inner West which covers Enmore Park.
• HOST last attended Enmore Park on 31 May 2023 at 1.00 p.m. Two tents were sighted, contact was attempted but
no response was forthcoming and zero children were sighted.
The Department of Communities and Justice's HOST teams and assertive outreach partners will continue to assist and
support our homeless community.
Our State is facing a housing and rental crisis and we are taking this issue seriously.
The PRESIDENT: I shall now leave the chair. The House will resume at 2.00. p.m.
Bills
FIRST HOME BUYER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023
Second Reading Speech
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (14:01): I seek leave to have the balance of the second
reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Currently, a first home buyer purchasing a home for $800,000 needs to pay stamp duty of $31,090 or opt-in to the former
Government's land tax and pay an annual bill starting around $1,500 and continue paying for as long as they own the property.
The stamp duty concession threshold will increase from $800,000 to $1 million. This is a sliding concession where a first home buyer
purchasing just above $800,000 pays a small proportion of the full stamp duty that would otherwise be payable and a first home buyer
purchasing just below $1 million will pay most of the full stamp duty that would otherwise be payable.
This Government's support for first home buyers will come without any obligation to pay an ongoing annual land tax.
People buying their first home will enjoy an advantage when bidding on the same property as an investor
Extending the residence requirement
The bill will also increase the residence requirement under the First Home Buyers Assistance scheme from six months to 12 months
to target the benefits to owner-occupiers and not investors.
The 12-month continuous occupation of the property as their principal place of residence must commence within 12 months of the
first home buyer taking possession to satisfy the residence requirement.
For consistency, this extended residence requirement will also apply to first home owner grants for new homes and the duty deferral
for owner-occupier off-the-plan purchases.
The Government's fiscal outlays on first home buyer support are intended to increase the owner-occupied share of New South Wales
dwellings, helping more young people to get into their own homes earlier in life.
In practice, under current policy around 30 per cent of people who receive a first home buyer duty exemption or concession become
landlords within 12 months of completing the residence requirement, renting their properties out. The duty concessions received by
this group are helping neither home ownership nor housing affordability. The change made with the Government's new policy will
help to reduce the direction of these fiscal subsidies to a group of landlords.
Closing off the former government's false 'choice' scheme
The bill will close off access to the so-called First Home Buyer Choice land tax scheme from 1 July 2023.
The former Government had commenced the scheme on 16 January 2023, shortly before the election.
Dominic Perrottet's land tax on the family home was introduced without taking the new tax to an election.
That scheme helps pay for properties up to $1.5 million. This is not appropriately targeted, as the Sydney median price for a home is around $1 million.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 28
Around 50 per cent of the benefit of the stamp duty exemption has been going to just 13 per cent of first home buyers who can afford a home between $1 million and $1.5 million.
Those first home buyers who have already opted into the scheme will be grandfathered. This means that they will continue paying
annual land tax until they sell the property.
Many first home buyers who have opted into the scheme and bought a house for $1 million or more have avoided a large sum of
stamp duty, so it is appropriate that they continue to pay what they have agreed to. But our better targeted assistance program will no
longer force future first home buyers paying less than $800,000 to do this, and it will no longer give first home buyers who can
already afford more than $1 million or more a publicly funded boost to their purchasing power.
Timeline
Mr President, the Government is working closely with relevant public and private sector system operators to ensure there is a smooth
transition on 1 July 2023.
First home buyers who sign a contract to purchase a home on or after 1 July 2023 will be able to benefit from the increased support
under the First Home Buyers Assistance program we bring to this house today.
Access to the land tax scheme will not be available for those who sign a contract on or after 1 July 2023.
Fairness
Mr President, 84 per cent or five out of every six people buy their first home for less than $1 million. This bill is for them.
It gives them an advantage against investors and established home owners who do have to pay stamp duty when purchasing another
home.
The former Government's scheme allowed first home buyers paying above $1 million up to $1.5 million to avoid stamp duty if they
opted to pay a land tax.
That scheme did not help home buyers paying between $650,000 and $800,000 anywhere near enough, but it gave a tremendous
boost to people who were spending more than $1 million on their first home.
Only 13 per cent of first home buyers currently spend more than $1 million up to $1.5 million on their first home. Yet 50 per cent of
the total stamp duty being waived under the old Government's scheme was helping this group. Much more help was going to people
buying more expensive homes than people struggling to buy a lower-cost home.
The so-called choice for home buyers between $650,000 and $1 million was to pay land tax instead, but the stamp duty discount for
people with less to spend was much smaller.
Labor's scheme simply abolishes stamp duty for people paying up to $800,000 for their first home, and it gives concessions up to
$1 million without asking first home buyers to sign up to a land tax instead.
Labor's scheme is better for most people and it is also fairer for people living in all parts of New South Wales.
Over the two financial years before the Liberal's introduced their "choice" scheme, 45 per cent of people who received first home
buyer assistance were from outside metropolitan Sydney.
Since the Liberal scheme began in November 2022, just 16 per cent of the people who opted into the new scheme bought a first home
in regional and rural New South Wales.
The National Party should be ashamed of supporting a policy which gave so much more support to home buyers paying up to
$1.5 million, and gave much less help to families trying to buy their first home in places like the Tweed, Coffs Harbour, Orange and
Bathurst, where the average home costs more than $650,000.
Labor's plan to abolish stamp duty for all first home buyers up to $800,000 will benefit the people who need it in Sydney and in
regional New South Wales.
A family in Seven Hills in Sydney's west paying $755,000 for their first apartment will not pay any stamp duty and will be $21,844
better off under Labor.
A family paying the average price of $799,000 for their first home in Coffs Harbour will not pay any stamp duty and will not be
forced to "choose" a land tax. They will pay nothing under Labor.
A family buying their first home for the average price of $906,000 in Fairfield will pay around $16,000 instead of the $36,000 they
would have paid under the Liberals—and again, no land tax.
A family in Dubbo buying their first home will continue to pay no stamp duty and be $17,000 better off than an investor trying to
buy the same $500,000 property—but they will not be subsidising a government program by giving a first home buyer, with
$1.4 million to spend, a $61,000 discount on their stamp duty like they were under the Liberals!
We have heard from members opposite about how popular their scheme was—but it turns out the scheme was particularly popular
amongst people who could already spend a lot more, and much less popular among people struggling to pay the average price of a
home.
It was generous, and very well-taken up by people paying more than $1 million for their first home, but the benefit was marginal for
people paying between $700,000 and $800,000.
On current trends, by the year's end more than 5000 people paying between $700,000 and $800,000 who would have paid stamp duty
or a land tax under the Liberal's policy will instead pay nothing, thanks to the changes we introduce today.
The old policy was not about giving people a choice. It was classic Liberal Party policy to give some people with more money more
choice, while working people and people in regional New South Wales got far less.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 29
We congratulate people who have the means to buy a home for more than $1 million to start their family journey. They deserve what
they have worked for and they have our best wishes, but the needs of a young couple struggling to buy an apartment or a modest
house in places like Merrylands, Mudgee or Macksville are the concern of this Government, and our program will help more people
live in a home of their own.
Conclusion
The bill targets assistance to first home buyers in the $650,000 to $1 million price range who are finding it difficult to get their first
home.
To afford this assistance, the Government is closing access to the former Government's land tax scheme and targeting our assistance
program to those who have less than $1 million to spend on their first home.
From 1 July 2023, these significant changes will help thousands of first home buyers achieve their dream of ownership.
I commend the bill to the House.
Second Reading Debate
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (14:01): The Opposition opposes the First Home Buyer Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. The bill represents a retrograde step in our taxation system and, even worse, represents an
increase in the barriers to entry for first home buyers. Its key measure is to deprive first home buyers of what has
proven to be a very popular choice: to opt out of paying a large amount of up-front transfer duty of up to $66,700
and instead accept a small, annual property fee. While the Opposition opposes the bill, it has a number of key
amendments that it will move to preserve the power first home buyers currently have. If the amendments are
accepted, it will support the bill. Before I turn to the reforms in the bill, I wish to discuss the history and the case
for stamp duty reform.
Stamp duty was introduced to New South Wales in 1865 and has been an entrenched feature of the property
market since then. It is a mechanism that was suited to a housing market where prices were much lower relative
to household incomes and there were fewer and less frequent transactions because mobility was limited. However,
the way we live and work has changed significantly. Now young Australians are likely to change jobs 17 times
across five different careers over the course of their working lives. The increased mobility in the labour market
and the higher frequency of career changes means we ought to make it easier for housing to be transferred so that
people have the housing they need, when they need it and where they need it. Further, the increase in housing
prices relative to household income has meant that it has become much harder for first-time buyers to purchase a
home.
Since 1990 New South Wales average earnings have trebled. However, average house prices have
increased by around five times and average stamp duty on dwellings has increased by more than seven times.
Meanwhile, home ownership has declined from around 70 per cent in the 1990s to around 64 per cent today. For
younger people aged 25 to 34, the national rate of home ownership sits much lower, at around 41 per cent in
2019-20. It is also taking first home buyers longer than ever to save the funds they need for a deposit and to cover
the stamp duty. The average sales price has grown from six times the average annual earnings in 1990 to 9.5 times
the average annual earnings in 2020. For the full-time worker who earns an average annual earnings and saves
15 per cent of their income, stamp duty adds two-and-a-half years to the time required to save a deposit of
20 per cent of the cost of the average New South Wales property.
Another problem created by stamp duty is the friction it adds to transactions. Many people often stay in
homes that do not suit their families or their lifestyles because of the large, up-front transaction costs of buying a
property, including stamp duty. Finally, the current stamp duty system gives rise to bracket creep, with stamp duty
collecting more and more revenue as house prices increase. I note that Sydney's housing prices, driven primarily
by higher interest rates, have cooled since hitting their peak in early 2022 but still remain at record highs compared
with a decade ago. It is clear that our society and our housing market has changed and so too should our property
tax system. In the late 1990s the introduction of the goods and services tax by the Commonwealth was meant to
be accompanied by phasing out State taxes such as stamp duty. While most forms of stamp duty were phased out
as part of that process, stamp duty on property transactions still remains a key revenue raiser for State
governments.
Numerous expert reports have called for reform to the stamp duty system, including the Harvey report
entitled Review of state business taxes from 2001; the Independent Pricing and Remuneration Tribunal's Review
of State Taxation report from 2008; the Henry review of Australia's future tax system from 2010; the
NSW Financial Audit 2011; the ACT Taxation Review 2012; the Commonwealth Productivity Commission report
entitled Shifting the Dial from 2017; and the New South Wales Productivity Commission White Paper 2021. A
variety of think tanks have also recommended the replacement of stamp duty with a broad-based land tax,
including The Centre for Independent Studies in 2008, The McKell Institute in 2016, the Grattan Institute in 2018
and The Australia Institute in 2020. The former Government also undertook substantial work and consultation on
the issue of property tax reform through the 2020 NSW Review of Federal Financial Relations chaired by David
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 30
Thodey; the 2020 Treasury property tax consultation paper; the 2021 property tax progress paper; and a
parliamentary inquiry into the provisions of the First Home Buyer Choice policy as it was being legislated.
The overwhelming consensus is clear. Stamp duty creates friction in transactions, disincentivising the
transfer of property, and presents a significant barrier to the entry for new entrants—namely, first home buyers.
In short, it is a bad and inefficient tax. While there have been lots of calls for change, there has been very little
courage. But the former Government had the vision to initiate reform to create a dynamic taxation system that
better reflects the way the housing market has changed and how people engage with housing. There is a better
way. First Home Buyer Choice represents the beginning of a better way for us to structure our property tax system,
to help our economy and to help home owners. It provides immediate relief to first home buyers by removing the
up-front barrier that stamp duty presents and shaving up to two years off the time it would take for them to save
up for a deposit by giving first home buyers the choice between traditional, up-front stamp duty or a small, annual
property fee.
The system puts young people and young families first by giving them the ability to choose to get into the
housing market sooner and pay less if it works best for them. The system has a protection to ensure that bills are
indexed according to the gross State product, but with a cap of 4 per cent to avoid volatility in payments. The
current system also adopts a key measure to increase the number of owner-occupied dwellings by applying a
different rate for investors. An owner-occupier who opted into the scheme would pay $400 plus 0.3 per cent of
land value, while an investor would pay $1,500 plus 1.1 per cent of land value. That increased rate for investors
ensures that first home buyers are given an advantage in a property market they are struggling to break into.
The difference in relative burden faced by owner-occupiers and investors helps to shift prices in a way that
supports higher home ownership. The bill before us does away with that important design principle. We have seen
the success of the scheme already, with 8,576 first home buyers opting in. Some 2,393 purchasers in Western
Sydney alone have chosen to opt in, which represents just over 45 per cent of all property purchases. Over
$200 million in up-front stamp duty has been saved. People are voting with their purchases. They want this choice
and they are exercising it. I remind the Treasurer that during the second reading debate on the Property Tax (First
Home Buyer Choice) Bill 2022 he said:
Labor has decided to vote against the Premier’s proposal. We refuse to aid and abet Mr Perrottet in his quest to introduce a land tax
on people’s homes, without a mandate from the people themselves.
He has repeated that today. What better mandate is there than the informed economic decisions of individuals
choosing to opt in to the First Home Buyer Choice scheme? Despite the hubris of those opposite, who claim to
have a mandate, I remind them that they did not in fact win a majority government. The people of New South
Wales did not accept their horrible scare campaign on First Home Buyer Choice and their continued uptake is
proof of that. Instead of giving people a choice, with this bill Labor seeks to deny choice to thousands of future
first home buyers, instead lumping them with the burden of up-front stamp duty. It goes to the very heart of Labor's
paternalistic, big-government philosophy that the Government knows better than the individual. Members on this
side of the House do not accept that.
We know it is individuals, not governments, who are best placed to make decisions about their own
economic future. That is why the Liberals and Nationals were proud to take an expansion of the First Home Buyer
Choice scheme to the last election. The expansion would have allowed first home buyers who opted in to the
scheme to buy a second property and increased the thresholds by $50,000 each year so that the scheme kept up
with the price increases that occur in property markets. That is what reform in the right direction looks like:
Making our system more dynamic and adaptable to the realities of our property market. However, instead of
moving in the right direction to a better system, this bill represents a retrograde step.
While the Opposition does not oppose the raising of the exemption threshold to $800,000 and the increase
in the concession rate up to $1 million, as set out in the bill, it is lazy policy to continue the use of stamp duty
concessions. Stamp duty concessions have been in place for many years. However, they have not reversed the
declining rates of home ownership. Further, the lack of indexation of those concessions means that in due course
fewer first home buyers will benefit from any form of assistance as home prices increase and bracket creep limits
the opportunity of being part of the scheme. Additionally, the bill would reimpose transfer duty of between
$40,090 and $66,700 on those first home buyers who purchase property for between $1 million and $1.5 million.
Let us be clear: This is a tax hike for thousands of aspirational people and working families who are simply
looking to break into the housing market. It is a regeneration of class warfare by the Labor Party, which, despite
knowing that Sydney's median house price is $1,230,581, wants to make it harder for people to get a home in an
area they wish to live in, work in and raise a family in. The claim that the current policy does not assist regional
New South Wales is disingenuous as it fails to reflect that the median house price in our regions is below the
existing thresholds for stamp duty concessions. It means for the first home buyers purchasing a median-priced
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 31
house in Marsden Park, they will have to pay the full stamp duty of $47,913. In Bankstown, where the median
price is above Labor's million-dollar threshold, they will have to pay around $50,883 up-front. Labor's policy
reflects a failure to understand the changed nature of housing.
Labor wants your first home to be your last home. Labor members do not believe in making it easier for
anyone to upsize or downsize so that they have the housing that they need when they need it. They do not believe
in helping anyone to get into the market sooner. Instead they will keep home buyers in a system where they will
compete against wealthy investors who can afford to pay large, up-front stamp duty. They do not believe in
trusting home buyers to make decisions about their economic future. Moreover, the bill would create a less
favourable situation for most of those people purchasing a property for between $850,000 and $1 million
compared to the choice available under the First Home Buyer Choice scheme. In his second reading speech on
the bill in the other place, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces said:
A family buying their first home for the average price of $906,000 in Fairfield will pay around $16,000, instead of the $36,000 they
would have paid under the Liberals—and, again, no land tax.
The Minister mistakes the amount of transfer duty under Labor's plan by about 33 per cent. It would be $21,247,
not around $16,000 as he misleadingly told the House. He also misleadingly stated that under the Liberals they
would have paid $36,000 in transfer duty. That is misleading because it ignores the key element in the excellent
scheme that the bill seeks to abolish—choice. I note that the former Treasurer raised that very concern in the other
place during debate on the bill last night, yet the Minister failed to respond or correct the error of the calculation
in relation to the stamp duty that he indicated would be paid. I invite the Treasurer to clarify that point.
Under the former Liberal-Nationals Government's First Home Buyer Choice scheme, those first home
buyers could choose to avoid the up-front $35,860 in transfer duty and pay a small amount of annual property tax
instead. For a typical house in Fairfield valued at around $900,000, the break-even point would be around 29 years,
which is well past the average 10 years that first home buyers stay in the first home they move into. If First Home
Buyer Choice remained an option with Labor's proposed concessional transfer duty, then it would still be around
15 years before the break-even point for a house and around 33 years for a unit. The Minister also stated that the
scheme outlined in the bill would be:
… a sliding concession where a first home buyer purchasing just above $800,000 pays a small proportion of the full stamp duty that
would otherwise be payable and a first home buyer purchasing just below $1 million will pay most of the full stamp duty that would
otherwise be payable.
However, when compared with the existing First Home Buyer Choice policy, it starts to be less favourable
somewhere around a purchase price of $850,000, depending on whether it is a unit or a house and on the ratio
between the purchase values and the land values in a particular area. This short-sighted reform by Labor has a
minimal impact upon the rate of first home buyers making purchases. In fact, modelling on this policy by the
Parliamentary Budget Office indicated that it is expected to increase first home buyer volumes by an average of
0.6 per cent over the four years to 2025-26.
For Labor to act as though this reform will be revolutionary for first home buyers is a fiction. Instead, it
will disempower thousands of first home buyers by abolishing their choice. We will seek to amend the bill to
protect the interests of first home buyers and preserve the choice they have embraced so eagerly. The Opposition
will move an amendment to delete schedule 2 from the bill, which will have the effect of maintaining the First
Home Buyer Choice scheme in full rather than just for those who have been fortunate enough to take advantage
of it before 1 July 2023. The amendment will leave in place the parts of the bill that increase the threshold for
exemption from transfer duty and for a sliding concession on transfer duty.
The previous Liberal-Nationals Government raised the threshold at which no transfer duty was to be paid
by first home buyers to $650,000. The Opposition has absolutely no objection to raising the threshold further to
$800,000. We need to do everything we can to get more aspiring working families into affordable homes for the
first time. The measure will save first home buyers up to $31,000 in transfer duty. However, the Opposition will
move a further set of amendments to index the threshold to annual changes in the median price of house transfers
in Sydney for the June quarter each year. For example, the median price for the June 2022 quarter was
5.83 per cent higher than in June 2021. Indexing the thresholds to reflect fluctuations in the median cost of homes
is a more sensible approach than waiting for the benefit of the threshold to be eroded by bracket creep over several
years before increasing it by legislation at the whim of the Parliament to produce revenue at any particular time.
We need a scheme that ensures that the catchment of first home buyers remains in place as it is today.
The third measure in the bill increases the residence requirement for first home buyers to occupy the home
for a continuous period from six months to 12 months. The Minister in the other place stated that this aspect of
the bill is designed to increase the share of owner-occupied dwellings, which is a welcome goal. However, he
stated:
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 32
In practice, under the current policy around 30 per cent of people who receive a first home buyer duty exemption or concession
become landlords within 12 months of completing the residence requirement, renting their properties out. The duty concessions
received by this group are helping neither home ownership nor housing affordability. The change made with the Government's new
policy will help to reduce the direction of these fiscal subsidies to a group of landlords.
If purchasers are selling 12 months after the six-month residence requirement—18 months after purchase—the
reform to change the residence requirement to 12 months will have no material impact upon the length of time
people transact. The Opposition is concerned that aspect of the reform will give rise to unintended consequences
for purchasers who, through unforeseen circumstances, need to transact sooner and will be punished with the
imposition of the full duty. If the goal is to increase owner-occupied properties it makes sense to have different
rates applied to owner-occupiers and investors. The current policy has this in place under First Home Buyer
Choice. The Opposition welcomes more clarity on this matter and will move to retain the six-month occupation
rule.
The requirement is also to be applied to eligible tenants purchasing a home under section 278 of the Duties
Act 1997. An eligible tenant is defined as a person who is "a tenant of the Department of Housing, or is a tenant
under the Community Tenancy Scheme administered within the Department of Family and Community Services,
or is a tenant of the Aboriginal Housing Office". On the face of it, that seems to be counterproductive to the goal
of freeing up public and Aboriginal housing by giving tax breaks in the form of exemptions from transfer duty to
tenants seeking to purchase a home. We welcome some further clarification on that issue. Finally, the Hon. Natalie
Ward will move an Opposition amendment to include an exemption from or a concessional rate of stamp duty for
people fleeing an existing residence due to domestic violence. There should be no impediment to someone seeking
to buy a home as a result of leaving their current residence due to domestic violence. We should encourage some
form of opportunity for home ownership by providing such people with an exemption or a concessional rate of
stamp duty for the purchase of buying an alternative residence.
Housing affordability is at a crisis point in Sydney. The bill represents a tinkering at the edges of economic
reform. Walking away from landmark reform will only serve to entrench the existing problems in our housing
market. During the election campaign we foreshadowed expanding our scheme by way of opportunities for people
fleeing domestic violence. We sought to expand the scheme by indexing it each year. At the heart of the First
Home Buyer Choice scheme was stamp duty reform designed to eliminate a bad tax. I ask members opposite, who
are hell-bent on going down this path, why is it that they think returning to a scheme that entrenches stamp duty
on property transactions is a viable and productive way of dealing with the property market in this State. This was
their opportunity to potentially expand the scheme. It was their opportunity to be seen as reformers. Adopting the
bill and entrenching stamp duty is a return to the Labor of the sixties and seventies, when it could no longer think
in terms of reform but only in terms of the way things used to be done.
It is a tragedy for the people of this State that we are not more imaginative, more bold and more enterprising
in the way we see our role in this place. People expect us to be reformers. They expect us to be able to make hard
decisions and, as I said earlier, they expect us to be courageous. The bill is the opposite of courageous. It
entrenches notions of the so-called forever tax and the scare campaign built around that forever tax that never
existed. Members opposite know that the majority of people do not live in their first house much longer than seven
years or eight years after purchase, and yet they persisted in continuing a scare campaign on the basis that it was
a forever tax. That was misleading. They knew it was misleading yet, for political expediency, they persisted in
trying to defeat our scheme and return to the archaic taxation system of stamp duty. They persisted in that
campaign.
The Government has lost an opportunity to demonstrate that it can continue with reform. It has lost an
opportunity to tell the people of this State that it wants to be involved at the heart of property transactions to reflect
the manner in which people live their lives today. We do not live in a society where taxation should be developed
on the basis of how it was in the 1860s. The bill takes us back to a taxation system entrenched in the 1860s. We
had an opportunity to move away from that, but the bill brought to the Parliament today is a move to eliminate a
reform that could have been much more special. It would have been a great credit to the new Treasurer to
acknowledge that our reform was a proper and good reform that was worth expanding.
That would have been his opportunity, which he never took. It will be to his undying shame that he did not adopt
that when he had the opportunity to do so.
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Undying shame?
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: He acknowledges the label. In years to come when we assess the
manner in which we have avoided making home ownership more affordable and the way this bill has avoided
more appropriately reforming our tax system, he will bear the label of it because he is the Treasurer in a
government that had the opportunity of expanding on proper and good reform. He is aware of all the reports,
which are bipartisan in nature. The McKell Institute, for example, is no friend of the Coalition, and yet it's
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 33
entrenched view was that this is the sort of reform needed for property taxation in this State. But the Treasurer
comes into this House and says, "No, we will take you back to the 1860s and to the Labor policies of the 1960s
and 1970s."
On a personal level, I intimately know the struggles that first home buyers have with stamp duty payments.
Calculating stamp duty is part of their loan transaction for the purposes of completing a purchase of a new
property. The Treasurer talks about a forever tax; the forever tax that first home buyers pay is the borrowing of
the extra money they need to complete the purchase. That is a forever tax. They will forgo that money forever on
the basis that they have to find that lump sum to purchase a property. Today is a sad day because a newly minted
Treasurer has brought to the House one of his signature proposals of abolishing proper reform.
I do not say this willingly, but I thought he was better than this. With the articulation of his positions as
shadow Treasurer and his deep knowledge of financial and fiscal systems, I thought, if elected—and I hoped that
he would never be elected but, in any event, he has been—we would get a Treasurer who would recognise that
the bill before the House is not the way to go. I thought he would have said, "Notwithstanding that this was
introduced by my political opponents—forget that—this was worth doing." Yet he introduces this bill to the House
and says, "Hopefully I will get it passed this afternoon and it will contribute to the coffers of the Government for
the purposes of preparing my budget in September." Perhaps the budget will be in October later this year. Is it
going to be September or October?
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: It will be 19 September.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Is that set in concrete?
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: We have announced it.
The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: He hopes to use the bill as the basis of predictions for his budget later
this year. I understand that he wants to be seen as a financial manager, but doing so at the cost of proper reform
in this place is a tragedy not only for this Parliament but also for the people we serve and first home buyers. People
will look back on it as a tragedy that this Parliament vandalised proper reform introduced by the previous
Government instead of taking the opportunity to expand upon it. Other members will move amendments later.
I urge the House to reject the abolition of the First Home Buyer Choice component of the bill. I urge
members to potentially accept the increase in the exemption rate and the concessional rate. That is a position that
the Government can either accept or reject. That is its decision. We would have had to make similar decisions.
Ours was to give people the opportunity to make choices, and to index the property tax. It is the Government's
choice to increase the exemption in concessional rates. But it should not make that choice at the expense of
jettisoning proper and good reform. I urge members to reject the component of the bill that removes the First
Home Buyer Choice scheme, which has been already taken up by so many people in this State. It was proper and
good reform.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:34): On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to debate on the First Home Buyer
Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. When the Property Tax (First Home Buyer Choice) Bill 2022 was first put
forward by the previous Government in an incredibly rushed manner in the dying days of the last parliamentary
term, as I am sure members well recall—not how one would do a proper reform—The Greens successfully moved
to refer it to an upper House inquiry. Evidence presented during that inquiry made it crystal clear that the First
Home Buyer Choice scheme was neither a sensible first step towards a broad-based equitable transition away
from stamp duty to land tax nor a valid housing affordability measure. Evidence given during that inquiry said
that the previous Government's scheme would be likely to push prices up if anything. On that basis, and given
that the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the scheme could be better spent on other measures like
increasing housing supply through direct investment by the Government, The Greens voted against the bill. Our
position has not changed.
Further, in the upper House, The Greens attempted to delay the start date of the Perrottet land tax scheme
until after the State election, given the Labor party committed to repeal the scheme if it won. I moved an
amendment at that time that would have had the impact of avoiding the whole debacle we now find ourselves in
by ensuring that the scheme would not take effect until after the election—and only then if the government elected
was not going to move to repeal the scheme entirely. The Labor Opposition at the time had made it patently clear,
as early as November last year, that it would repeal the rushed and incomplete Perrottet scheme should it win the
election. At the time, I said in this place that the amendment would have given more certainty for first home
buyers while potentially saving the Government millions in administrative costs and hassle.
Labor did win the election and, true to its word, is now moving to repeal the previous Government's
legislation. But now we have to have a big hoo-ha about it and spend time and money unpicking something that
should never have been introduced in the first place. As I warned last year, we have now created a separate class
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 34
of home owners, a small group of people who have taken up the scheme and will now be grandfathered under it,
necessitating all of the infrastructure and resourcing among banks, financial advisers, conveyancers, a sub-team
of public service officials in New South Wales, and a continuing stream of work for the Valuer General's office
that we did not need.
What a wasteful and confusing process begun by a former Coalition government without the courage to do
stamp duty reform properly, and continued on by the new Labor Government in the form of the bill. The one
silver lining to the whole messy debacle at the expense of the people of New South Wales is that the bill goes
beyond a simple repeal of the botched Perrottet scheme and makes some small headway towards making the
property tax structure ever so slightly more progressive by increasing the stamp duty-free threshold from $650,000
to $800,000 and introducing concessional treatment for purchases between $800,000 and $1 million. The Greens
have long supported a well-managed, broad-based and equitable transition from stamp duty to land tax. As I have
said many times before, we have the benefit of our experience shepherding in stamp duty reform as part of the
Labor-Greens Government in the Australian Capital Territory. We know that any reform must be well planned,
equitable and avoid unintended negative consequences on an already cooked housing market.
Stamp duty is an old-fashioned tax that has had its day and should be transitioned out, but let us not kid
ourselves that the only barrier to housing affordability in this State is stamp duty. Until we address the fact that
investors and property developers have been allowed to treat houses as a commodity at the expense of people
having a place to call home, we will not see any real improvement in housing affordability. Australia's housing
affordability crisis will not be fixed with a tweak to a first home buyer scheme. It will not be fixed simply by
creating more supply. It will take a number of reforms to actually make a difference to housing affordability, and
those reforms must be built on the fundamental premise that housing is first and foremost about providing people
with a home and not a commodity.
Housing profiteers have been allowed to run rampant in this country. The number of empty houses across
our State on any given day is disgusting and far exceeds the number of homeless people. Whether they are people's
second, third or fourth holiday homes, sitting empty until they choose to use them, whether they are let out on
short-term rental or used exclusively for Airbnb, or whether they are deliberately kept empty and preserved for
sale in a capital gains play, these homes should not be allowed to sit empty while hundreds of thousands of people
are without a home and millions of Australians are in housing stress.
The Government must rein in profiteering on the essential public good that is housing. Tax incentives at a
State and Federal level must be adjusted not only to curb investor activity at the expense of home owners, but also
to incentivise investors to keep their housing occupied. We must recognise that government can take a direct role
in building housing. Many more things can be done to address the housing crisis. In that context we deal with the
repeal of this piffling bill, which does not touch the sides of what is required to ensure that every person in our
State has a roof over their head. The Greens support the bill for the same reasons that we rejected the Perrottet
scheme when it was proposed. This is not the end of the story. We need real courage and leadership from the
Government to address the housing affordability crisis, which means standing up to property developers and
re-embracing the role of government in building housing itself.
The Hon. CHRIS RATH (14:41): I oppose the First Home Buyer Legislation Amendment Bill 2023.
The starting point in debate on the bill should be to look at the problem we are trying to fix. Every member knows
that housing affordability is a huge problem. It has often been debated in the House and it was certainly a key
issue during the State election. The statistics are quite worrying. In 2006 in Sydney the median house price was
8.5 times the median income, but in 2021 that figure had risen to 15.3. Housing affordability has deteriorated
significantly in Sydney over the past 20 years, so clearly something needs to be done. All members agree that this
is a problem, so this is not one of those situations where there is a misdiagnosis of what the problem is. Members
across the Chamber hold different views of what the solution is. The Opposition views part of the solution as
giving people a choice between paying a stamp duty or a small annual land tax, which is what we brought to the
election. I will speak more on that shortly.
If the tax system were created from scratch today, stamp duty would not be used. It is an incredibly
inefficient, unfair and outdated tax that is not fit for purpose. However, we must look at the system that is already
in place because we do not have the benefit of creating a tax system from scratch. Every tax review commissioned
by the Labor Party or the Coalition going back decades has said that stamp duty is an inefficient, unfair tax that
should be phased out. The tax review that is probably quoted most often is the 2010 Henry tax review,
commissioned by the then Federal Labor Government. In my view it is probably the most comprehensive tax
review of all time. It is great reading. The review identifies stamp duty as being volatile, inequitable, inefficient
and inconsistent with the needs of a modern tax system. It is a volatile form of revenue because it is subject to
Australia's ever-changing property prices and, more particularly, the highly fluctuating quantum of property
transactions; it is inequitable because people who move more frequently pay more tax, irrespective of their income
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 35
or wealth; and it is inefficient and outdated because the tax's high dead-weight loss is created from discouraging
transactions, meaning property is misallocated away from its most valuable use.
Housing affordability is a huge problem in Sydney and elsewhere in New South Wales and stamp duty is
an unfair, inefficient, outdated and complex tax. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where members on one side
of the Chamber want to do something about getting rid of stamp duty and improving housing affordability in this
city and this State and those on the other side do not. I will speak about the first principles before I go into the
specifics. Stamp duty is a bad tax not only because it is infamously productivity stifling but also because it puts
up a huge barrier for first home buyers to enter the market. That means those aiming to upsize to suit their family
needs are inhibited from moving, elderly Australians are remaining in their oversized homes for longer than is
necessary, investors find their assets even more illiquid as they hang on to their properties for longer to recoup
the cost of stamp duty, and labour is inefficiently allocated to housing, as people are less likely to move to change
jobs or their location of employment.
Stamp duty is a terrible tax that is worsening the housing affordability crisis in Sydney and elsewhere in
New South Wales. I agree with The Greens' very principled position that stamp duty should eventually be
abolished in its entirety. I say to those who think that the legislation introduced by the previous Government at
the end of last year does not go far enough that it was a first step. Of course, nobody likes stamp duty. As I said
at the beginning of my speech, it would not be used if the tax system were created from scratch, but it remains an
important first step for first home buyers.
NSW Treasury modelling under the previous Government a couple of years ago indicated that if stamp
duty were abolished entirely and replaced with a land tax model, home prices would reduce by 3 per cent to 4 per
cent and gross State product would rise by 1.7 per cent because of productivity increases. So stamp duty should
not be used unless it has to be. The Labor Government in the Australian Capital Territory [ACT] did something
about it a few years ago, and it should be applauded for that. It moved to a system where, eventually, no property
owner in the ACT will have to pay stamp duty. The ACT Government should be commended for that economic
reform. The previous Government's bill was slightly different. It was an important first step that, ideally, would
have happened with a phased approach. The fundamental difference between the New South Wales reforms and
the ACT model was that the ACT locked in properties indefinitely, whereas we wanted to give people a choice.
At the heart of the bill, which seeks to repeal the First Home Buyer Choice scheme, is who to trust to make
financial and housing decisions.
Do people trust their own judgment on what is in their best financial interest when buying property or do they
trust the Government's judgment? What we did in government was give people a choice. We did not believe that
government should make that choice for them. We believed that individuals were capable of making that choice.
If they decided to pay stamp duty, they could. No-one was forcing them to go down the path of a land tax—
nobody. If the land tax was so unpopular, why did so many people sign up for it as opposed to the stamp duty? It
is because when people are given a choice, they do not choose stamp duty.
When we gave people a choice, they chose the flat rate annual land tax. That is what our modelling showed,
and we called on the Government to release the more up-to-date data that would show how many people have
chosen stamp duty and how many have chosen the land tax since we left government. I think members will find
that people would have chosen the land tax option instead of stamp duty in definitely two-thirds of property
transactions between $800,000 and $1.5 million—probably more like 80 per cent. If it is so unbelievably
unpopular, why do people keep choosing the land tax over stamp duty?
I tackle this issue of the Government's mandate. When parties get elected they say that they have a mandate
to do certain things. No doubt this Government brought this policy to the election and would phrase it as it having
a mandate to do this. Putting aside for one moment the fact that it is a minority government in the Legislative
Assembly—and certainly the Government holds a minority of seats in this Chamber—a mandate does not mean
that we as the Opposition give them a blank cheque on everything. We need to stand up for our voters. Certainly
35 per cent of the State voted for us and, in many ways, we betray our voters and the policies we brought to the
election if we capitulate on our policies to the Government's mandate. The Opposition also has a role to fight for
its policies, which we believe are in the best interests of the State. We cannot betray our voters by simply agreeing
to the Government's so-called mandate.
It is important to keep the current arrangements for a couple of key reasons. By having stamp duty we are
really saying to first home buyers, "You can't enter the property market yet. You have to wait maybe another
2½ years"—that is what some of the modelling says—"to save up for the stamp duty. We know you want to enter
the property market now. You already need to save up your 20 per cent deposit to get into the market as well as
all the other associated costs, but you can't enter the property market just yet! We are going to make you wait
because we are also going to impose this huge stamp duty on you." I think it is incredibly unfair to say to young
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 36
people, "We know better than you. We're going to make the decision for you. You don't get a choice about stamp
duty versus land tax. We are going to make you wait up to 2½ years so you can afford to pay the stamp duty. You
can't enter the property market just yet."
Fundamentally, people choose the land tax over the stamp duty option because it is in their best interests
financially to do so. People are really sophisticated when it comes to the property market, particularly in Sydney
but across the State. It is a real Sydney ethos for people to research the property market. They are more across the
detail and well informed than ever before. People can barely start a conversation in Sydney today without talking
about the property market. It happens when we get our hair cut, when we talk to a barista, and when we chat to a
taxidriver. People are talking about the property market everywhere. People are incredibly well informed about
the property market in Sydney. We trust their judgement to make their own best financial decisions over the
Government making the decision for them.
If we tell them they have a choice, most people will say, "Well, this is my first home. Your first home is
rarely your forever home. I'm probably not going to be here longer than a couple of years. Maybe I'll be here for
five or six years." But the time it takes to break-even when paying stamp duty versus land tax is often more like
20 years. People do not stay in their first home for 20 or 30 years. Often they stay in their first home for a very
short time. It might only be a couple of years, but say it is about 10½ years, which is what some of the modelling
shows. It is still far better for the vast majority of people to pay land tax rather than stamp duty unless they intend
to live in their first home forever. I do not know about you, Mr President, but my first home was a one-bedroom
apartment. Certainly I do not want to live in my one-bedroom apartment for the rest of my life. I will probably
break-even in 30 years' time. In the vast majority of situations it makes much better sense financially for
individuals to pay land tax.
Previously the Labor Party did support reform in this way. It did support stamp duty reform under its
former leaders Jodi McKay and Luke Foley, including the ability to pay stamp duty in instalments over several
years. But it seems its members have jettisoned all notions of reform now they have come to government. All
reform has been thrown out of the window. The system we put in place is incredibly fair because it also takes into
account the indexation relating to basing the property tax on gross State product [GSP] rather than on property
values. That is important. As members have seen in the past few years, property prices fluctuate quite radically.
During 2020 and 2021 we saw prices radically increasing, and only of late have prices come down a little bit. The
fairer system—which we predicted—was to peg it to GSP because it is a more stable metric. Instead of a person
having their tax radically fluctuate from year to year, it would only gradually change year on year. It is incredibly
fair.
In many ways, the system we brought in was tax reform without losers. When tax reform is introduced
there are often winners and losers. Sometimes it becomes very unpopular because of the number losers that get
wrapped up in the process. With the tax reform choice we brought in, there was essentially no losers. Probably
the one loser was the Government, with a slight hit to its revenue, which we took into account when we were in
power. But otherwise there are no losers. I do not think this Government would say there are any losers.
Essentially the Government is trying to say that people in the $1 million to $1.5 million property bracket
are rich and do not deserve what the Premier called a "subsidy". There is a serious difference between not paying
a tax and a subsidy. This is not a subsidy; it is simply a version of tax reform. Essentially those opposite are saying
that the vast majority of people living in Sydney who have opted for the land tax can afford to pay within the
$1 million to $1.5 million bracket and that somehow because they are buying a property for $1 million they are
absurdly rich. I inform the House that $1 million does not get anyone much in Sydney. It might be a one- or
two-bedroom apartment—that is hardly living the high life! But that seems to be the language being used by
Government members. They are calling it a subsidy for those living at the top end of town in their $1 million
apartments, as though it is some sort of extreme luxury.
There is no doubt that Government members will try to push the bill through today. But they must
understand that to capitulate to their demands with their so-called mandate would betray our voters. We did not
lose the election and lose certain seats because of the First Home Buyer Choice policy. I believe it was a net
benefit to us during the campaign, not a negative. There are many reasons why the people of New South Wales
may have been tired of the previous Government. I do not say that we did not make mistakes. Of course, we made
mistakes and misstepped. Of course, there is a longevity factor when a government has been in power for 12 years.
But this did not cost us votes at the election; it probably increased our share of votes to 35 per cent and helped us
retain seats. This important economic reform should be protected. I sincerely hope that the bill does not pass today.
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (15:00): I contribute to debate on the First Home Buyer Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. I have followed with great interest the ongoing debate on the previous Government's
forever tax. I agree with the new Government that it is a forever tax. The then Treasurer who became the Premier
tried to build a nice little tax earner that would evolve over time into a long-term land tax on the residential home.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 37
The land tax on the residential home would not be indexed every now and then; it would be indexed every year
on a three-year rolling basis, as far as I understood it. Any property bought by choosing land tax over stamp duty
would be affected by land tax. The former Government pushed the nonsense argument that new home buyers
would not be negatively affected because they would sell their house in the next five or 10 years and roll it over.
If that process continued, then eventually there would be a growing stock of land tax affected properties and
people would become land tax renters of their forever home. That is why the former Government realised that it
was an unpalatable proposal.
If the aim is to maximise the amount of long-term revenue from property taxes, then from an economic
rationalist point of view it is good to get rid of stamp duty because it is lumpy. When the property market is
running hot, the Government does well. When the property market slows down, revenue takes a hit. If a
generational creeping land tax is built into this process that allows families to be treated as renters and land
taxpayers in their own forever home, then we will see a breakdown of the family unit and a breakdown of the
long-term stability of the workforce. The whole thing will go to hell, especially with increasing inflation and
increasing unimproved capital value [UCV]. We have seen some incredible growth in UCV over the past three,
four and five years. I have personally benefitted from it.
First home buyers would be paying a capital gains tax, effectively, on money that they have not actually
realised. A family who is finding it hard to pay for food, fuel and electricity in our renewable world of bonhomie
and "Aren't we doing so bloody well?" will suddenly have to find more money for an extra tax every year to pay
the Government. It might not affect me or other members in the Chamber, but it will be a super tax for future
generations of the State. We do not want that. It will change the very nature of families, the way we work and
who we are. It is great to see Treasury putting these issues to government, but it is even better to see the
Government considering the long-term effects. The short-term effect is that the current Treasurer would like to
see the lumpy amount of money that will come in the next two or three years. You will ride the cycle in your own
favour. That is probably why this is happening.
At the end of the day, my analysis is that former Treasurer Perrottet's proposal was simply unpalatable and
unassailable. By the time he became Premier it had morphed into some sort of new home buyer scheme that gave
home buyers a choice. They could choose to pay the huge lump of money in stamp duty, live in the house and
then sell it in a growing property market. And guess what? They would get that stamp duty back. So what bullshit
are we listening to? "We sold the property within three to five years and, guess what, we made a profit." So what?
If you elected to pay a land tax on the property, then that property may well be land tax affected forever. That is
also a problem. It is a terrible sleight of hand. I understand the economic rationalist argument for it: It creates
long-term stability, and the growing property market puts a nice growth tax in place for government. That make
a lot of sense for Treasury and the Treasurer.
The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party supports the amendments covered in the bill. While we
fundamentally believe in a low tax environment and limited government intervention in markets, we believe that
the bill is a step in the right direction for addressing the issue of housing affordability and assisting first home
buyers in our State, including those in the bush. The bill aims to provide increased support and assistance to first
home buyers, particularly those earning lower incomes who face significant hurdles in saving for a deposit. The
bill seeks to close off access to the previous Government's forever land tax scheme, which imposed an ongoing
tax on family homes purchased for up to $1.5 million. That scheme was unfair and failed to target those in genuine
need of assistance. Instead, the proposed amendments will increase the thresholds for stamp duty exemptions and
concessions under the First Home Buyer Assistance Scheme, benefiting those purchasing homes up to $1 million,
which covers a good proportion of homes bought in rural and regional New South Wales.
The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party has always understood that stamp duty poses a significant burden
on first home buyers. In recent years, the time required to save a 20 per cent deposit and stamp duty has
significantly increased. In the 1990s, it took around six years to save a 20 per cent deposit and one year to save
stamp duty. Today, it takes approximately 10 years to save a 20 per cent deposit and two years to save stamp duty,
based on a median household income in New South Wales. That demonstrates the growing challenge faced by
first home buyers in entering the property market.
The proposed changes in the bill will alleviate that burden by increasing the first home buyer stamp duty
exemption threshold from $650,000 to $800,000, meaning that first home buyers purchasing a home up to
$800,000 will no longer have to pay stamp duty. Additionally, the stamp duty concession threshold will increase
from $800,000 to $1 million, providing relief to those purchasing homes just above the previous threshold. Those
changes will help thousands of first home buyers fulfill their dream of home ownership and reduce the financial
strain when entering the property market. It will help them get their feet on the first rung of the ownership ladder.
The amendments will also provide a rare bias for the bush. We will see an increased number of new home
buyers in the bush taking advantage of those concessions. It is not often to see this type of potential bias even
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 38
inadvertently favour the bush. The original proposal by then Treasurer Perrottet did not even exempt the family
farm. We have always opposed an ongoing annual tax on the family home or one that targets family farms. We
have always said that we will consider reasonable legislation. We support the proposed amendments because the
aim is to create a fairer and more equitable system that benefits those in genuine need.
The Government's plan to increase the residence requirement under the First Home Buyers Assistance
Scheme from six months to 12 months is a sensible step to ensure that the benefits are targeted at owner-occupiers
rather than investors.
This change will encourage people buying homes to occupy their purchased properties for a longer duration,
supporting the goal of increasing the owner-occupied share of New South Wales dwellings. The bill seeks to close
off access to the former Government's First Home Buyer Choice land tax scheme, which was not appropriately
targeted and primarily benefited those purchasing homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We support
redirecting those resources to the proposed assistance program, so that it will benefit those who truly need help
buying their first home.
It is essential to consider the long-term benefits that a thriving housing market can bring to the agricultural
sector and regional economies. A healthy and stable community relies on the ownership of homes and farms by
families, as they form the foundation of our society. By facilitating home ownership for first home buyers, we are
not only supporting families but also stimulating economic growth and fostering community stability. In
conclusion, this legislation is a positive step towards addressing the housing affordability crisis and supporting
the aspirations of first home buyers in our State. By increasing thresholds, introducing an extended residence
requirement and abolishing the forever land tax scheme of the former Liberal Government and its Nationals
yes-men, the bill provides a fair and inclusive framework that promotes home ownership, stimulates economic
growth and strengthens our communities.
The Hon. EMMA HURST (15:10): I speak on behalf of the Animal Justice Party on the First Home
Buyer Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The bill makes a number of significant changes to stamp duty and land
tax for first home buyers. Firstly, it amends the thresholds in the First Home Buyer Assistance scheme, so that
first home buyers will pay no stamp duty on a property worth up to $800,000 and will receive a reduction in stamp
duty for a property worth between $800,000 and $1 million. This is a significant increase on the previous threshold
for stamp duty relief, and appropriately so. Property prices in New South Wales have continued to increase
dramatically, along with interest rates, which makes it much harder for people to enter the market and buy their
first home. NSW Treasury estimates that five out of every six first home buyers will be eligible for a stamp duty
exemption or concession under the changes in the bill. That is excellent. Not having to pay stamp duty, or paying
reduced stamp duty, makes it just a bit easier for first home buyers to enter the market and may be the difference
needed to allow a person to afford their first home.
Secondly, the bill requires that to be eligible for a stamp duty exemption or concession, the first home
buyer must live in the property for at least 12 months. This is an increase on the current requirement of only six
months and it is a change I support. We do not want this scheme to be used to facilitate investment properties, or
for people to purchase homes they plan to live in only briefly and on-sell. The idea is to support people to secure
a home they intend to live in, not inflate the property market. The final aspect of the bill, and perhaps the most
controversial, is that it repeals the former Coalition Government's opt-in land tax scheme for first home buyers,
which allowed first home buyers purchasing properties up to $1.5 million to opt to either pay one-off stamp duty,
or an ongoing land tax. This repeal will not affect anyone who has already opted into the land tax scheme. They
will be "grandfathered" in and will not be disadvantaged.
The Animal Justice Party was never opposed to the Coalition's opt-in land tax scheme and in fact supported
it when it was introduced into the House, when it was the only first home buyers relief on the table. Now we are
in a position where we need to make a decision as to which scheme is better and which option will benefit more
first home buyers—and, perhaps most important, which option will benefit first home buyers that are most in need
of support to enter the market in the first place. At the time the Coalition's bill was introduced, an exemption could
only be received for a property worth up to $650,000, and reduced stamp duty for properties worth between
$650,000 and $800,000. These low-price caps, coupled with rising house prices, limited the number of first home
buyers who could access any form of stamp duty concession or exemption.
When the land tax scheme was introduced by the Coalition, the modelling showed that quite a lot of first
home owners would be better off if they chose land tax, particularly if they planned to stay in their first home for
only a few years. However, if the bill today passes and the price threshold for accessing stamp duty exemptions
increases, the situation for first home buyers will be very different. The data shows that the vast majority of first
home buyers purchase a property worth less than $1 million. That means that when Labor's new scheme comes
into effect, approximately 84 per cent of first home buyers will pay reduced stamp duty, or no stamp duty at all.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 39
It seems clear to me that Labor's bill is putting a larger number of first home buyers in a much better financial
position than they would have been under the Coalition's previous scheme.
Labor's bill effectively eliminates the need or benefit of the opt-in land tax scheme for someone buying a
property worth less than $1 million. For example, someone buying a property worth $800,000 no longer needs to
consider whether they will be better off paying up-front stamp duty or land tax because they will not have to pay
any stamp duty. Labor's scheme also targets stamp duty exemptions and concessions to people who are most likely
to need the help; that is, those first home buyers purchasing property under $1 million. While I am very
sympathetic to the fact that property prices have increased dramatically and a lot of people are struggling to find
affordable homes to purchase, the reality is that a first home buyer who can afford to buy a property over $1 million
is not the person most in need of government assistance.
For those reasons, while we think both schemes have merit, if we must pick one plan over the other, the
Animal Justice Party supports the Labor proposal as being of more benefit to the community as a whole.
I acknowledge that when we get to Committee of the Whole, amendments will be put forward by the Coalition to
omit the sections of the bill that would repeal their land tax scheme, effectively seeking to keep both schemes.
While obviously keeping both schemes running would be ideal, we also recognise the huge budgetary implications
this would have, particularly in relation to the $7 billion black hole we keep hearing about, and the many other
pressing priorities of the Government, including fixing the broken social housing system.
With that in mind, we need to consider who would benefit most from the opt-in land tax scheme once
Labor's stamp duty reforms come into play. It seems that the first home buyers who are most likely to be "better
off" under the opt-in land tax scheme, if both are in place, are the small percentage of people buying a property
worth over $1 million, which is the cut off for receiving any stamp duty concessions and exemptions under Labor.
The Coalition plan will no longer benefit people buying their first home on the lower end of the price scale and
will serve only to benefit first home buyers who are buying homes on the higher end of the price scale where they
cannot access other concessions. At the end of the day, I do not think this is where we should be targeting
government support.
While the bill and the debate has been focused on the challenges facing first home buyers, it is important
to acknowledge that property ownership is an enormous privilege and one that remains out of reach for far too
many people in New South Wales. Everyone, no matter their income or situation, deserves a safe and secure place
to call home. In addition to helping first home buyers, we also need to urgently update our rental laws, fix our
broken social housing system and support people facing housing insecurity. We should not lose sight of this. The
Animal Justice Party is always looking to make decisions that are in the best interests of animals, people and the
planet. Having looked at this issue closely, and compared the scheme put forward by Labor versus the Coalition,
we believe that Labor's bill has more to offer people who are struggling to enter the market. We recognise the
merit of both schemes but feel that on balance Labor's plan is the better one. Given that, the Animal Justice Party
supports the bill and I commend it to the House
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (15:17): I speak in debate on the First Home Buyer Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. It is an indictment on the new Labor Government that one of its first legislative actions in
this place is to make life harder for first home buyers across the State and to tie more first home buyers into paying
the most mundane of taxes—stamp duty. The Hon. Chris Rath spoke earlier about the detrimental impact of stamp
duty. A Federal financial relations reform package, and a discussion, revealed that this tax was one of the worst
taxes in New South Wales and we tried to transition people from it. The legislation seeks to repeal the Property
Tax (First Home Buyer Choice) Bill 2022 which was instrumental in giving first home buyers a choice.
Many members in this Chamber who made contributions to the debate were against that policy, but
fundamentally it gave home buyers a choice. Opposition members believe that people should be able to choose
whether it is better for them to enter into an arrangement with the Government whereby they pay an annual fee
on their property or pay stamp duty up-front. As mentioned by some members—the Hon. Emma Hurst might have
referred to it in her contribution—if purchasers plan to stay in a property for a certain number of years and take
the first step on the property ladder it is better to enter into an agreement with the Government to pay the small
annual fee for six or seven years rather than pay a large stamp duty fee up-front. Half of those who buy a home
sell their property within 10 years.
That percentage is even higher for first home buyers as they take that step on the property ladder to attaining
property ownership.
There have also been some misconceptions in the Chamber about what that package actually does. The
Hon. Robert Borsak mentioned that it transferred the property over to this scheme. That was not part of this at all;
it attached to the first home buyer, and it was on that property alone. During the election campaign, the Coalition
proposed that that first home buyer would be able to move onto the scheme with future properties. Of course, that
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 40
is not before the Chamber today and will not be with this legislation. Nothing changes the nature of that property.
That property would then go back onto the market. It could, of course, be part of the First Home Buyer Choice
package or alternatively could be sold with stamp duty attached to it. Nothing changes the property. It is not
changing properties or some stealthy agreement to change properties over to a land tax regime. The package was
also mentioned with regard to property increases and price increases. There is an explicit cap of 4 per cent, which
is at the high end. A weighted average is applied on that over several years to try to make sure that there are not
undue or unnecessary increases in the price that first home buyers pay as part of that fee.
First Home Buyer Choice is founded upon the cornerstone value of the Liberal Party: the freedom of
individuals to make the best decision for themselves and their families and not to be dictated to by "Big Brother"
governments. The "Government knows best" attitude of the Labor Government will backfire. Should the bill pass,
we will look back to the repeal of the Coalition's successful first home buyer legislation as a massive step
backwards in helping first home buyers into their homes. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, when
members opposite talk about the previous Government not having a mandate, that mandate was provided by those
people who voluntarily determined that this was the best option for them and opted to become part of that First
Home Buyer Choice package and to pay that annual fee. I know from feedback amongst the community that many
people waited for that to be able to get into their first home sooner.
Housing affordability is one of the biggest economic and social challenges that we face as a society today.
We know from the Government that 314,000 homes must be delivered in the next five years. We need to get more
people into homes; we need to get more people buying their own homes. The First Home Buyer Choice package
afforded more people that opportunity. It is undoubtedly one of the most important public policy discussions for
this Parliament over its term. So much so that almost every member who made an inaugural speech that I attended,
particularly members on our side of the House—I note two great contributions from the Hon. Susan Carter and
the Hon. Jacqui Munro in this place—spoke extensively about what we needed to do when it came to housing
affordability; providing more homes; helping people aspire to the dream of home ownership; and making that
dream a reality. It is something we need to deliver in a measured, practical and effective way in order to address
the issue.
A key focus of mine as the current shadow Minister for Planning and Public Spaces—I use the word
"shadow" after what was discussed earlier today—is ensuring we can deliver the best landscape to build more
homes and help first home buyers get onto the property ladder sooner. It also makes this critical work harder if
effective policies are being repealed. What do members opposite loathe so much about giving people options to
decide for themselves? As the Leader of the Opposition made clear in the second reading debate in the Legislative
Assembly, why have two-thirds of eligible first home buyers taken up First Home Buyer Choice if it is such a bad
policy? Of the more than 5,000 properties opted into in the First Home Buyer Choice scheme, 45 per cent have
been in Western Sydney—the powerhouse of our State. When campaigning in Western Sydney during the election
in the electorate of Winston Hills—an electorate that we proudly retain with a fantastic member in Mark Taylor—
I was thrilled to hear from people all over who had benefited from this excellent policy.
Sadly, Labor wants to abolish choice and force first home buyers purchasing a median-priced house in
Parramatta to pay stamp duty, whereas under the Coalition scheme they will avoid an up-front fee of $59,000.
The First Home Buyer Choice scheme can cut up to two years off the time needed to save for a deposit. This saves
young people two years of paying rent, when they are instead paying off a mortgage to own an asset. Forcing
more people to rent for longer can only make pressures in the rental market even worse. Removing the Coalition's
successful scheme will simply make it harder for people to enter the property market. I do not want to have to
clean up more Labor mess should the Coalition form government at the next election—we are optimistic of doing
so if the Government continues to make policy choices like this.
That is exactly what the bill will do. It is a lack of choice for first home buyers and a harder market to
break into and will only make life harder for prospective first home buyers. I had the same trouble when we were
trying to buy our first home. We had saved up the money for the deposit and we simply did not have the money
to pay for the stamp duty. We were still scrounging around a year later, trying to find more money. It meant that
when we were finally able to purchase our own home, the property market had increased by $100,000 in that year
for a modest apartment at that time. If we had been able to get in the market sooner and opt to pay something like
the First Home Buyer Choice program, we would have entered the market at a time when it was not inflated.
That is the situation faced by many people in this State and their home ownership aspirations are lessened.
The Government now runs around acting as if first home buyers had been forced to adopt the property tax when
it could not be further from the truth—they have voted with their feet. I feel as though I need to bring a dictionary
into the Chamber every day this week to explain to my Labor colleagues what basic words mean. Today's word
of the day is "choice": "where people can decide between multiple options and make the decision that they think
is best".
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 41
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: Hang on, let me check.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I do not have the source, whether it is from Macquarie or
Merriam-Webster or Oxford, so the Treasurer can choose his own adventure. I will have to improve my notes.
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: ChatGPT.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: Only members on the other side of the Chamber are using chatGPT this
week. It is not hard to work out. Just sit down and do the maths—I am sure members opposite are good at that.
The Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I am writing tutorials.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I am sure you will be. Between $850,000 and $900,000, the Coalition's
First Home Buyer Choice scheme would still be more attractive than paying between $10,000 and $20,000 in
up-front stamp duty for the average buyer who would be moving out of that property within 10 years. For the
significant majority of first home buyers buying at over $900,000, the Coalition's scheme still offers a better deal.
I listened to the Treasurer try to justify the Labor policy in the Chamber earlier today. He tried to spin the bizarre
story that every home over $1 million—where Labor support runs out—is being bought by people with ample
resources to buy a home. In Sydney, that is simply not the case. It is not the case in somewhere like Ryde; in
Drummoyne, that is definitely not the case.
It is not the case even in Parramatta. For example, a three-bedroom house in the electorate of Auburn,
represented by my good friend Lynda Voltz, is on the market for $1.1 million right now. In the electorate of
Granville, three-bedroom homes in Merrylands and Guildford have a price guide of more than $1.05 million.
These modest family homes in suburban areas in Western Sydney are not the mansions that Labor wants us to
believe; they are fantastic homes for growing families that Labor wants to make inaccessible from potential first
home buyers by ripping away any support.
A theme is emerging with this Government: a very loose commitment to the truth on absolutely everything.
The Government likes to pretend that it has a strong mandate for these changes when its mandate is thinner than
crepe paper. Members opposite need to remember they are a first-term Government that does not have a majority
in the lower House and definitely not one in this Chamber, although coalitions seem to be emerging. This is a
government that crawled over the line into office. Yet it runs around acting like it has a mandate for absolutely
everything. The people who have elected to choose the First Home Buyer Choice program have shown their own
mandate in supporting this policy.
If the scheme was such a failure, why are first home buyers opting into it? That is two-thirds of all eligible
purchases. Clearly, the punters out there were impressed with this policy, and they voted with their feet. Of course,
it is a matter for the Government. The Opposition will not stand in its way if it chooses to increase the threshold
for first home owner concessions. But the Opposition will never resile from its First Home Buyer Choice policy.
We will stand up for measures that will make it easier for first home buyers. We want more people to be home
owners and we want there to be more supply. If the bill passes today into law, future generations of first home
buyers will be deprived of choice and forced to pay the most regressive tax of all; that is, stamp duty. Opposition
members will not stand for that.
The Hon. SUSAN CARTER (15:29): I contribute to debate on the First Home Buyer Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. Back to the Future was a great 1980s film franchise, but it is a very bad basis for revenue
policy. The bill should be opposed because it is a backwards step. It represents a running away from innovation
and fails to recognise that stamp duty is a real barrier to home ownership. The bill is authoritarian in tone.
It removes a choice currently available to first home buyers and increases the initial acquisition cost of housing.
Importantly in the current climate, it also increases the time required to save to be able to buy a house.
For decades voices have railed against stamp duty. In this debate we have heard members cite much of the
research and recognise stamp duty as a barrier to home ownership. Along the way some exemptions have been
made and some tinkering has been done around the edges, but the First Home Buyer Choice program represented
real and effective reform. It was a brave step by a strong government not afraid of positive reform. It focused on
helping younger Australians enter the property market, and it has been very popular. The voters have voted with
their feet in exercising their choice under the program. It is innovative and a concrete initiative to engage with the
impediment to home ownership constituted by stamp duty. To axe it, as the bill attempts to do, is a giant leap
backwards.
By providing that a compulsory tax must be paid at the time of acquisition, the bill will lock many people
out of the market and, in a climate of rising rents, require that they save for a longer period before they can hope
to achieve their dream of home ownership. The effect on a first-time purchaser of a home valued at just over
$1 million is stark. Home buyers can currently choose between an up-front payment of just over $40,000 or an
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 42
annual fee of just over $2,000. How long does it take to save $40,000, especially when paying more for electricity,
food and rent? Today's news that the indexation rate on HECS-HELP debts has jumped to 7.1 per cent is yet
another blow to young, would-be home owners. It is estimated that the indexation rise alone will wipe $15,000
off the average graduate's borrowing capacity, delaying home ownership even further.
Would-be home owners must feel like Tantalus, with the dream of home ownership dangled before them
but always slipping out of reach. By contrast, the introduction of the First Home Buyer Choice scheme offered
real relief and hope. It was practical and empowering, and it should be retained. The scheme was estimated to
reduce the total time to save and achieve home ownership by at least two years, a positive for would-be home
owners. The argument that the bill will remove an ongoing cost in the form of a land tax for home owners is false.
Many first home buyers will now have to pay a significant amount of up-front stamp duty which, in almost all
cases, they will have to include as part of their borrowing. They will pay stamp duty up-front and then keep paying
interest on that stamp duty year after year. They will pay both an up-front charge and a yearly impost. That is
hardly a reform.
I acknowledge that the bill preserves the stamp-duty-free threshold and seeks to increase it to $800,000.
But where does that leave those who, under the current scheme, could choose to pay the yearly property tax on
houses valued at up to $1.5 million? The House has heard the argument that those first home buyers are rich and
do not need support to access the housing market. Well, what does a home between $1 million and $1.5 million
look like? Realestate.com.au tells us that it looks like a starter home in much of New South Wales. In Bowral,
$1.2 million will buy a three-bedroom, single-storey house with a backyard, close to a school—not a mansion but
a great place for a family to start. In New Lambton, near Newcastle, $1.2 million will buy a two-bedroom,
single-storey house with a backyard, in walking distance of schools—a starter home. In Woonona, in the greater
Wollongong area, $1.3 million will buy a three-bedroom, two-storey house near a huge selection of childcare
options for those with young children.
I know I sound like a real estate agent, and that is because I am quoting a real estate website. In Campsie,
just over $1.3 million will buy a two-bedroom, single-storey house. In North Epping, $1.4 million will buy a
three-bedroom villa. That is not Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous; it is solid starter-home territory. That is the
territory which the First Home Buyer Choice scheme facilitated and which will be denied if the bill passes. Many
people in New South Wales will have to save harder and wait longer to buy their first home. It is a retrograde bill
that should not be supported.
The Hon. JACQUI MUNRO (15:36): I contribute to debate on the First Home Buyer Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. I have to hope that the Government's repeal of the good and popular First Home Buyer
Choice scheme is a political stunt, because it is such an objectively bad policy position that a responsible
government could never endorse it. Unfortunately, it is no benign political stunt. The regressive return of stamp
duty and the move from land tax has individual and economy-wide effects. If the Government will not listen to
me, will it listen to economists? Will it listen to first home buyers?
I turn to some of the public commentary on the issue. The reality, which has been spoken about by my
colleagues on this side of the Chamber, is that stamp duty is a bad tax. We see headlines such as "Stamp duty is a
bad tax", "'A terrible tax': Is it time to abolish stamp duty?", "A stamp duty cut may sound crazy now but it's a
bad tax due an overhaul", "Time to stamp out stamp duty", "Abolish stamp duty" and "Let's be honest, stamp duty
is a terrible tax killing economic growth and productivity". My favourite, which really sums it up, is the ABC
News headline "NSW land tax and stamp duty debacle again shows how politics trumps policy". That is the sad
reality under this Government. As the Hon. Chris Rath mentioned, the Henry tax review has some choice words
that we must heed. The report states:
Stamp duties are a highly inefficient tax on land, while land tax could provide an alternative and more stable source of revenue for
the States.
… land tax is one of the most efficient means of raising revenue.
…
Reforming land tax and conveyance stamp duty arrangements, along with the proposed changes to the taxation of rental housing and
Rent Assistance, will go some way toward improving housing affordability.
Is that not what it is all about? It is about improving housing affordability, securing our State's financial position
and growing our economy. That is what the Treasurer should be focused on.
Now I turn to the experts. In 2021 the NSW Productivity Commission's submission to the Federal inquiry
into housing affordability and supply in Australia stated:
Stamp duty imposes costs on people at all stages of life. … Growing families that desire to be closer to schools may face significant
costs. Older Australians who own their home are less likely to downsize to more suitable housing.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 43
A piece by the Grattan Institute is titled NSW should swap stamp duties for a broad-based property tax.
It is the title of the entire submission. It goes on to say this:
NSW has one of Australia's least efficient tax systems, with each dollar of revenue raised costing the economy 30 cents. The
NSW Government should abolish stamp duties and replace them with a general property tax ...
The economic gains from that reform would be large. Shifting from stamp duty to a broad-based property tax
could leave New South Wales between $4.1 billion and $5.2 billion a year better off according to estimates based
on the excess burden of taxes. These are the cold, hard facts that the Treasurer is unfortunately unwilling to accept.
That is why I suspect the policy is, in fact, a political stunt. The Labor Government took its role in opposition far
too literally and decided to oppose the land tax policy simply as a point of political differentiation. Little did they
think that, in minority government, they would have to answer for their policy positions. I still have not heard one
reason why this is a useful policy in the long term. If we have a responsible Treasurer who is committed to the
long term, then he could surely listen to the experts, if not to me, about how this will impact our economy and
people over the long term.
My suspicion is that this policy is a way to continue the sugar hit of stamp duty that the Government will
need to rake in at the expense of the better long-term policies that we could implement. The reality is that we have
been primed for a September budget full of cuts, and if this is the way to give the coffers a sugar hit to make up
for spending over the next four years—until they make it to the next election—then that is something they are
apparently willing to do. It is very concerning that this Government is acting at the long-term expense of the
residents of New South Wales in favour of its own political prospects.
I go back to the idea that there are macro and micro effects. Individually, the concept of choice has been
explained clearly. According to one of my favourite sources for definitions, Urban Dictionary, choice is "a word
to describe a favourable situation; describing something enjoyable; top-notch; of utmost quality". It is choice. It
was a choice policy that those on our side were able to implement. Unfortunately, the Government refuses to
accept the fact that the choice that has been offered to New South Wales residents has been taken up with great
effect. If it was not a popular policy, why would people be choosing it? The only rationale for implementing the
Government's policy is that it strengthens the coffers in the short term at the expense of the long term, because we
hear from economists and experts that land tax is an efficient way to tax and to continue to grow our economy.
I do not know about those opposite, but I have been contacted about this by people in my age cohort. This
tax will impact young people particularly. An example of the messages I have been getting says this:
Stamp duty is an absolutely ridiculous and inefficient tax, not just for first home buyers but the entire economy. The upfront cost is
crazy for first home buyers, but it also doesn't make sense to make them pay that upfront rather than paying a tax over time and letting
them invest that money for a return.
That is the kind of mood that I continue to see. A real estate agent who specialises in first home buyers contacted
me and said that his clients would be hugely affected. That is the reality of the property market in New South
Wales and particularly around Greater Sydney. In areas with high numbers of families, like Sutherland, the median
house price is about $1.4 million. In Parramatta it is $1.1 million. Those areas should be desirable to live in. We
should encourage people to live in our suburbs, and we should encourage people to invest their money in the way
that they choose. That is why the optional land tax was so popular.
I go back to the macro view. If a government is looking at the long term and thinking it will be in
government for eight to 12 years, we would expect it to adopt policies that benefit people over that time frame.
But that is clearly not the case. This policy is geared towards the next election. It is about making sure that, by
September, the Government has some dollars in the bank, because, unfortunately, growing the pie and growing
the economy is not part of the strategy that we are about to see. Instead, we will have regressive taxes that will be
imposed upon us for evermore. Considering the increase in the value of land and property over the past decade
and more, the reality is that prices will increase. Does that mean that stamp duty will continue to be waived for
greater and greater purchase prices? It is unclear how this is a sustainable tax in the long term.
This impacts women, in particular, in addition to young people. When we talk about women who want to
enter the property market, particularly single women, we need to understand that choice should be at the heart of
how they invest. Think about the fact that investors are encouraged and incentivised to act under this policy.
Somebody who may not wish to live in a property that they would get a stamp duty exemption for will buy that
property for the benefit, rent it out and themselves rent a property in the city. We do not want to see that cycle
continue. We on this side of the House believe in property rights. We believe that the people of New South Wales
should be able to choose and afford to buy the property that they want to live in. We want people to be able to
afford their own homes so that they can bring up their families in the manner of their choosing.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 44
Previous speakers have already referred to mobility. Unfortunately, stamp duty reduces mobility. We want
to make sure that the property market is expanded so that we have an increasing supply of homes and that the
people who wish to buy a house are incentivised to do so—when they need to downsize, in addition when they
buy their first home. People in a big house—with a big backyard and maybe a swimming pool, if they are lucky—
where they have brought their family up and have many beautiful memories may not want the maintenance or the
rates associated with a larger property when their children leave and hopefully buy their own homes. But, if they
are disincentivised to downsize to an apartment, a terrace or a smaller home, they will not do so. The supply of
larger housing stock will be restricted, because people are not incentivised to move out.
I still have not heard why this policy could possibly be good in the long term. I have seen evidence that
land tax is good for individuals in people choosing to take it up. I see no reason why the choice of land tax or
stamp duty as desired cannot be maintained and why we cannot continue, as the Hon. Chris Rath spoke about, to
wind back stamp duty as a policy that exists at all. We want to get to a point where land tax is a fundamental part
our tax system. I spoke about tax in my inaugural speech. I think wholesale reform is absolutely necessary. I also
said that I am not a destinationalist; I am a directionalist.
It is about making moves to ensure that those policies become better over time both for our citizens and our budget.
The First Home Buyer Choice scheme clearly does that.
This regressive move is disappointing. I feel passionately about that on behalf of my own age group and
of course the younger age groups who will be locked out of the property system through these measures. We have
spoken about the gap between houses worth $1 million and $1.5 million. Essentially, that is a huge part of the
property market in Australia, New South Wales in particular and Sydney even more so. In the spirit of ensuring
good, long-term policy, I urge the Government to reconsider the repeal of this good and popular scheme. I urge
the Government to listen to the people of New South Wales who have chosen to opt in to the First Home Buyer
Choice scheme, rather than having to work much harder to pay for their first home by choosing to pay stamp duty.
As the Hon. Scott Farlow said, people are being outplayed by the market. As much as they try to save, they
will continue to find that the increasing proportion of stamp duty in that cost becomes further out of reach as time
goes by. We must ensure that those people can get into the property market and buy their first home. At the micro
and macro levels, it is clear that the First Home Buyer Choice scheme was positive for people in New South
Wales. The Government is acting in its self-interest, rather than in the interests of the people of New South Wales,
by repealing this scheme. I will be very sad to see the Government vote in favour of the bill because I, my friends,
people in my cohort, first home buyers and people fleeing domestic violence—and people would have chosen to
pay land tax under First Home Buyer Choice for a variety of other reasons—will be shut out and our choice will
be removed. This political stunt will have repercussions for individuals and the budget for years to come.
If Government members will not listen to members on this side of the House, if they will not listen to the
thousands of home buyers who have chosen land tax over stamp duty, if they will not listen to the economic
experts—who are despairing at the winding back of the progress achieved by the former Government—who on
earth will they listen to?
The Hon. NATALIE WARD (15:52): I oppose the repeal of First Home Buyer Choice under the First
Home Buyer Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. It is a very sad day in this place. We are denying choice to people
who want to participate in the economy, who want to build the great Australian dream, who want security and
safety, and who want to be able to choose their future and determine where and when they buy a home. As I reflect
on the bill, I am saddened by this day, as are many people who do not have the joy of owning their own home or
of entering the market at this time. We should be building for the future, for generations ahead—not just for this
budget cycle but for future generations, for our children's children. I believe that is what we did as a government.
We looked not only to the next election but also to our children's children and giving them choice.
That is particularly important given Government members have spoken repeatedly of the challenges they
face in balancing the budget due to the state of the economy and other global challenges. One would have thought
that empowering more people to participate in the economy would have been one of their first priorities. Rather
than standing for progress, it seems they are standing in the way of progress by cutting out this choice and by
cutting out the opportunity for people to participate in the home ownership market. In particular, they stand in the
way of young people purchasing their first home, they stand in the way of progress and they stand in the way of
aspiration.
First Home Buyer Choice legislation was designed to provide first home buyers with a choice. It is very
simple. If one likes the existing system, that is fine. Go ahead and pay stamp duty. But if it is unaffordable or
unattainable, or if it will set one back 10 years from entering the market, then why would we not empower those
people to find another avenue of entry? First Home Buyer Choice legislation was designed to provide first home
buyers with a choice. We get to choose a number of things in our lives: We choose our friends, we choose our
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 45
partner, we choose whether or not to have a family and, for those of us in this House, we choose to join a political
party and stand for Parliament. Ultimately, we have a choice about the opportunities we want to take and we have
a choice about how we vote on legislation.
Government members are saying to the people of New South Wales, "We are taking away your choice.
We are taking away that opportunity." Members on this side of the House know that this freedom flows through
the Liberal Party. We are a party that believes in individual choice and individual freedom. The essence of the
Liberal Party and of Australia is that we aspire for more for everyone in our community, and people can choose
how they view that success. That goes to the great Australian dream of home ownership. It goes to the very
fundamental being of families and the family unit. It goes to the safety and security that comes from owning one's
own home and not being at the behest of others.
Buying a home for the first time is one of the most critical milestones in an individual's life. Those of us
who are lucky enough to have been there remember that very clearly, and the struggle that it takes to get there.
Why on earth would we not make it better for the next generation? That is why I cannot for the life of me
understand the decision of the Government to remove that choice for individuals who are trying to buy their first
home. The First Home Buyer Choice scheme has empowered first home buyers to fast-track their path to home
ownership, should they choose, by selecting an option that best suits their financial circumstances and personal
aspirations. Since January more than 4,800 first home buyers applied to take part in the program. The numbers
are evidence of the success of the program.
Choosing to pay land tax over an up-front stamp duty cost is a huge choice. Land tax provides opportunity
for people to fast track their participation in the market. New South Wales Treasury modelling showed that some
of those first home buyers who opted in to the program would be ahead for up to 63 years before they reached the
value of the stamp duty. Today we are looking at the prospect of taking away a very significant opportunity for
them to get ahead—by up to 63 years. We all know the challenges of saving for an initial deposit and stamp duty
to buy one's own home. We know the challenges of the cost of living at the moment. All of us in this place know
that is a challenge. But it is particularly challenging and stressful for many young people and families who want
to buy their own home, establish themselves in the market and have their own space.
We know that everyone's financial position is different. First Home Buyer Choice allows people to choose
the tax arrangements, cash flow, timing and opportunity that will work best for them. Fundamentally, that is what
Australians are about. If a first home buyer expects to live in their first home for several decades or longer, they
might decide to pay stamp duty. Some families do choose to stay in the same home for many years, but many do
not. For someone who is struggling to save the up-front costs on their first home purchase, or for those who do
not plan to hold that first home for decades, property tax is preferable. The numbers are absolutely clear. In other
words, it is a choice. With interest rates as high as they are and potentially increasing, the high cost of living is at
the forefront of what the community is thinking about right now. The Government has chosen to make it even
more difficult for them to achieve the great Australian dream.
As members of the Government know, rates of home ownership in New South Wales have fallen from
70 per cent in the 1990s to around 64 per cent in 2021. That is not good and should not be encouraged. The
national rate of home ownership for younger people aged 25 to 34 trying to get into the housing market for the
first time is much lower. That is devastating for communities and generations. The former Government challenged
that head on and decided to offer an opportunity, pathway and choice. The Opposition knows home ownership is
a challenge in Australia. Rather than invest in that progress and in the next generation, the Government has elected
to stop progress.
Many of my colleagues and I have been contacted by young people looking to enter the housing market.
Today I spoke with Priya, who is 27. She said, "I would dearly love, as would my sister, to buy my first home."
She is living at home. She wants to invest in the market and become a home owner. She is working hard; she has
finished her education and is a professional. She cannot become a home owner. She said, "I would have invested
in this. I did not have time, and I can see that this is now a door that is closing on my future. It will set me back."
That is devastating for her and her family. She will continue to live at home. As a parent of teenagers, I understand
her parents' frustration, and love, of that. Priya can see years dissipate before her eyes, and that is a challenge.
When people buy their own home they also become a ratepayer, investing in their local community and
council, paying for the upkeep and upgrade of their local area. They invest not only in home improvement but
also the economy when they seek to improve their homes or invest in them. Look at the great rates of IKEA and
Freedom Furniture sales. The Opposition knows that home ownership is about stability for families and the need
to not move from rental property to rental property. Home owners then become invested in their community as
they raise children and join sporting associations, clubs, churches and schools. They become participants in their
communities, and this bill will take that away.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 46
The Government's housing affordability strategy is basically the punchline to: What comes first? The
chicken or the egg? On the one hand, the Government is saying that we need more homes. It is the "get out of the
way" strategy. The Minister for Homelessness says, "Let's get out of the way of more homes." On the other hand,
the Government will not make it easier for first home buyers to choose where they want to purchase their first
home. If reform and progress lie at the heart of this Government, and it speaks of reform and the future, the bill
and the Government's agenda do not cut it. The bill is unfair to a generation of people who had hope and
opportunity, and that is seen in the numbers of the current scheme.
I will move a number of amendments on behalf of the Opposition in relation to access for domestic violence
victim-survivors. In my former role as the Minister for Women's Safety and the Prevention of Domestic and
Sexual Violence, I saw very closely the need for, and importance of, having a safe place to rest, recover and
rebuild. Having a safe place is fundamental to that recovery. Looking at my amendments through an economic
lens, they are an opportunity for the Government to get victim-survivors into a place where they can rest, recover
and rebuild and get on with their lives. That is important not just for them but for their children and community.
I will move those amendments during the Committee stage.
Today is a sad day for New South Wales. We are saying to future generations that they will not have a
choice and we will close the door on them. For what? For one budget cycle. That is sad when expenditure in
certain areas do not benefit many people, like the Ultimate Fighting Championship and scrapping Active Kids
vouchers. The current first home buyer scheme sets up the next generation for success and ultimately sets the
Government up for success. Today is a very sad day. I oppose the bill, but I will move amendments to it.
The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (16:03): In the short time that New South Wales residents have had
the wonderful choice about the way in which they purchase their home, many have found the ability of choosing
a small annual land tax over stamp duty to be the best option for them. Home buyers were given a choice that
suited their lifestyle and circumstances. The land tax goes to the value of opportunity, freedom, aspiration and
reward for an initiative. So far, more than 5,300 properties have been purchased in New South Wales using the
option of a land tax over the hefty and obstructive stamp duty. More than 8,600 first home buyers have already
been helped. Imagine how many more would have had the opportunity if the choice was to continue. Furthermore,
more than $200 million in up-front stamp duty has been saved. Clearly the chance to bypass the onerous stamp
duty and opt for a small annual tax was an appealing chance for many young Australians, allowing them to get
into a home sooner.
Home ownership rates have been sharply declining for both young and middle-aged adults over the past
30 years, due largely to housing affordability. The need to save for stamp duty in addition to a deposit adds an
extra two years to the time needed to save for a first home. By removing the impediment of stamp duty, more
young people are able to get into the housing market immediately. This Government is very good at using language
to try to frame the debate in a way that marks the former Government as greedy overlords looking to tax the people
of New South Wales into the ground, euphemistically referring to the land tax option as a forever tax. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
The current first home buyer scheme is about choice, opportunity and signing up for the dream of home
ownership. First home buyers of today are not like first home buyers of 50 or 25 years ago. They do not stay in
their first homes forever, as the many career changes that are now the norm mean changing locations and homes.
The choice the previous Government's reform gave first home buyers was to get a foot in the door and achieve a
dream. It is about giving people the choice to make what they understand to be the best decision for them and
their future and finances. Our lifestyles have changed, and the First Home Buyer Choice was a reflection of the
changing way in which we look at home ownership.
Labor has insinuated that the land tax unfairly benefits very wealthy people who are buying homes over
$1 million. Have they looked at the property prices in Sydney recently? Those buying a $1 million home are not
moving into some decadent mansion that the phrase "million-dollar home" still seems to conjure up. The median
house price in 2022 for Parramatta, Sutherland, inner south-west, Baulkham Hills and Hawkesbury all exceeded
$1 million. First home buyers who are looking to purchase a home over $800,000 should be given a choice. If the
Government gets its way, the bill will be a step backwards for the people of New South Wales. We were given a
glimpse of real and historic reform, and now we face a return to the policies that keep housing affordability at
crisis levels and dampen the hopes of aspiring home owners.
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES (16:08): I oppose the First Home Buyers Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. Eliminating the Liberal-Nationals First Home Buyer Choice is a backwards step for the
State. The Labor Government's first home buyers bill will do nothing to assist housing challenges facing first
home buyers in New South Wales.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 47
Simply modifying the transfer duty thresholds falls short of delivering the comprehensive tax reform necessary to
distance ourselves from a tax system widely acknowledged as flawed. For many first home buyers purchasing
properties valued between $850,000 and $900,000, the First Home Buyer Choice remains more appealing
compared with paying an up-front transfer duty ranging from $10,000 to $20,000, with the break-even point
ranging between six and 30 years. For those buying properties over $900,000, the First Home Buyer Choice offers
a better deal.
Home ownership across the nation has fallen over the past 20 years to just 41 per cent for individuals aged
25 to 34. To empower people in New South Wales to reclaim their dreams of homeownership and forge a future
where the possibilities are limitless, we had to break away from the norm and chart a new course. Data from
Revenue NSW has shown that 5,210 properties were purchased using the Coalition's First Home Buyer Choice.
Yet the Labor Government repeatedly refuses to release complex data on the Coalition's successful First Home
Buyer Choice scheme, which hinders fair analysis. Instead it presents selective data without providing an
opportunity for proper examination. The fact is that the alternative proposed by Labor lacks transparency.
The Coalition maintains its support for the First Home Buyer Choice, not only because it directly benefits
first home buyers by saving them up-front transfer duty, but also because it is a preliminary step towards broader
reform of the flawed tax of transfer duty. That is why the Coalition increased the transfer duty thresholds to exempt
or provide concessions to more first home buyers while in office. Despite the need to provide greater support for
individuals and families and address the rising cost of living, the current Labor Government fails to offer any
specific details or demonstrate how it will address the cost-of-living pressures faced by households. First home
buyers are grappling with one of the world's most expensive housing markets, and this bill restricts support for
them by imposing exorbitant stamp duty on individuals and families.
Overall home ownership rates in New South Wales have declined from 70 per cent in the 1990s to
64 per cent in 2021. And as I mentioned earlier, among younger individuals aged 25 to 34, the national rate of
home ownership is even lower, sitting at approximately 41 per cent in 2019-20. First home buyers are taking
longer than ever to save the funds necessary for a deposit and stamp duty. In the 1990s the median New South
Wales household set aside 15 per cent of its income for around six years to save for a 20 per cent deposit on a
median property and for one year to save for stamp duty. Presently that same household needs approximately
10 years to save for a 20 per cent deposit and two years to save for stamp duty.
Members on this side of the House strongly believe people should have the choice to make a decision that
best reflects their personal financial circumstances. Members on the other side claim that the current choice offered
to aspiring first home buyers is a "forever tax", despite the Premier selectively quoting figures. The truth is that
for a median-priced home in Sydney, first home buyers would be burdened with a $50,000 stamp duty bill. For
properties above $800,000 in many cases an annual land tax option would provide better value for money for first
home buyers, as evidenced by the number of people who have chosen the scheme in its brief operational period.
It is unsurprising that the Premier lacks a detailed understanding of his Government's supposed plan to
address housing affordability. Even his own planning Minister incorrectly referred to the current First Home Buyer
Choice as a "land tax"—not once or twice, but 16 times—in his second reading speech. To clarify for members
opposite, the First Home Buyer Choice is not a land tax. It could not be any clearer. The frequently asked questions
section on the First Home Buyer Choice website explicitly states:
There are no proposed changes to land tax. Land tax is an annual tax levied at the beginning of each calendar year on the total value
of all the land you own that is above the land tax threshold.
Since we are discussing taxes, let us not forget that the former Labor Government introduced 11 new taxes and
increased taxes 21 times during its time in office. In stark contrast, the Liberals and The Nationals implemented
31 tax cuts, delivering over $9 billion in tax relief savings for households and businesses. Labor is known for
imposing high taxes while in office, while the Liberal-Nationals Coalition represents the interests of individuals,
families and businesses. We only need to look at what Labor would do to achieve its alleged budget savings and
productivity gains and how many programs currently alleviating cost-of-living pressures for families and
businesses would be eliminated. When Labor previously managed the budget in 2010, essential projects were left
unfunded, resulting in a staggering $30 billion infrastructure backlog that paralysed our State. When Labor cannot
manage the budget it will turn to the citizens of New South Wales to pay its debts.
These are undoubtedly challenging times for individuals, families and businesses across the State. We face
a tough economic environment, characterised by high inflation, rising interest rates and cost-of-living pressures.
If members on the other side were genuinely committed to addressing cost-of-living pressures, they would
acknowledge the $7.2 billion that the Liberal-Nationals Government invested in 2022-23 to alleviate such
pressures for households throughout New South Wales. That investment included $608 million in stamp duty
relief for first home buyers, which entailed introducing the first home buyer property tax option and continuing
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 48
first home buyer stamp duty exemptions. Members on the other side find it impossible to accept that the Coalition
has introduced the most significant property tax change in New South Wales history by providing a choice to pay
either an annual property payment or stamp duty for properties up to $1.5 million. The measure lowers the up-front
costs of purchasing a property and shortens the time required to save for a deposit by up to two years, expediting
the pathway to home ownership for so many people. And it was in addition to the Coalition's comprehensive
package to help address housing affordability for first home buyers, informed by expert advice, including from
Glenn Stevens, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia.
Since the introduction of that support package in July 2017, more than 170,000 people had accessed first
home buyer duty concessions by May 2022. Each person saved up to $24,740 in that period, which increased to
$31,335 between August 2020 and July 2021. Between July 2017 to May 2022 over 40,000 people received first
home owner grants, which are currently worth $10,000 each. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics
confirm that the annual number of housing finance approvals to New South Wales first home buyers more than
doubled over the 12 months to May 2022, compared to the low in the 12 months to April 2017. The
Liberal-Nationals Government averaged over 70,000 building approvals a year for new homes in its last term of
office.
The First Home Buyer Choice scheme empowers first home buyers with the option to choose between
paying up-front stamp duty or a small annual property tax when purchasing their first home. That choice is built
on a fundamental value of the Liberals and The Nationals—the freedom to choose. The reform introduced by the
Coalition allows first home buyers to overcome one of the most significant barriers to home ownership and allows
them to achieve their dream. Purchasing a first home is a critical milestone in a person's life. Under this Labor
Government many will be locked out of the market. Homes are where families are raised, where we spend time
with friends, and where we create living memories. Unfortunately, many young people today see the dream of
owning their own place as unattainable. That is why the Coalition embarked on an important reform, restoring
power to first home buyers across the State.
First Home Buyer Choice opens new opportunities for first home buyers to enter the market and take the
first step on the property ladder. By bypassing one of the biggest hurdles faced by many individuals when buying
their first home—stamp duty—the Coalition's policy has reduced the time required to save for a home. It has
helped more young people throughout New South Wales become home owners and raise a family in that home.
It is regrettable that the Government prefers to engage in a campaign of misrepresentation and change a
ground-breaking and effective reform in our State.
Government members are communicating a lack of genuine concern for the best interests of the people of
New South Wales. They demonstrate a disregard for prioritising reforms and show their sole agenda revolves
around repealing substantial and transformative reforms. In many ways, they are betraying the young people and
families in New South Wales who stand to benefit from the Coalition's ground-breaking reforms. The fact is that
we should prioritise the young people in this State. Everything we do should be about giving them choice in
managing their financial obligations. Unfortunately, the bill before the House today will do nothing but fail young
people. For these reasons the Opposition does not support the bill.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I remind members to stand and seek the
call.
The Hon. WES FANG (16:19): I make a brief contribution to debate on the First Home Buyer Legislation
Amendment Bill 2023. I start by saying that we do not need to be here because the Government's position has
come out of politics, not policy. Government members opposed the previous Liberal-Nationals policy, not from
a policy position but rather just as something to oppose. Today our hand is being forced. Throughout the election
campaign the Labor Party continually articulated that it would repeal the current policy, which is accepted and
appreciated by first home buyers who purchase a property for between $1 million and $1.5 million. It is not
unreasonable that a first home buyer in some metropolitan areas has to pay that amount for their first home. The
existing scheme means that it is less likely they will miss out because they have the option to not pay stamp duty
on their first home.
There is merit in some of what the Labor Party has brought forward today. The increase to the point at
which concessions are implemented has merit, and members on this side of the House acknowledge and support
that. People like me who live in regional areas often say that if people cannot afford a house in Sydney, they
should come to the regions. Despite the fact that property prices have increased in recent times—there are always
market fluctuations, especially given the current circumstances—the measures in the bill to increase the level up
to which a first home buyer would get relief from stamp duty has merit and the Opposition supports that.
As a Parliament we should be doing everything we can to assist first home buyers purchase their first
homes. While there is no doubt that those in rural and regional areas are in a better position to access the housing
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 49
relief proposed within the parameters of the bill, first home buyers in metropolitan areas facing a purchase above
$1 million have been forgotten by the Government. That is a real tragedy. The Opposition offered choice to first
home buyers, whereas this Government is seeking to remove it. Not only that, first home buyers who do not have
the luxury of buying a house under $1 million will be forced to pay all the stamp duty.
I know amendments to the bill will be proposed. I also understand the politics of how we ended up in this
situation. I urge Government members to think about what the bill proposes and the people who will be impacted
by this decision. First home buyers who do not have the luxury of buying of a house for under $1 million—which
is becoming increasingly prevalent—should have the choice that the previous Government offered if they are not
eligible for stamp duty concessions as outlined in the bill. Let us make the support as wide as possible to help
New South Wales first home buyers reach the Australian dream. I urge all members to support the Opposition
amendments. While I suspect many members have already experienced the joy of first home ownership, many
other people will not be able to do so if the bill is passed.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:25): In reply: I thank all members who made
contributions to the second reading debate: the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Damien Tudehope; Ms Abigail
Boyd; the Hon. Chris Rath; the Hon. Scott Farlow; the Hon. Robert Borsak; the Hon. Emma Hurst; the Hon. Jacqui
Munro; the Hon. Natalie Ward; the Hon. Aileen MacDonald; the Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones; and the Hon. Wes
Fang. Government members remain of the view that we would prefer to see more first home buyers pay no tax
instead of a land tax, and help go to those who are most at risk of being pushed out of the property market
altogether as interest rates rise.
The Government also remains of the view that at a time when cost-of-living pressures are immense, asking
people to pay a land tax on their family home is asking them to pay a tax on an asset that does not earn income,
which then requires them to use their other income to pay that tax. For a long time property prices have risen
much faster than people's incomes. For as long as that continues, under the previous Government's scheme, the
tax will rise even if incomes do not. That is why the Government is proposing the changes in the bill. Various
members raised matters for which they sought specific replies. It is more appropriate to provide those replies in
the Committee stage, because their comments were made in support of foreshadowed amendments that will be
considered in the Committee stage, should the bill pass through the second reading stage. I commend the bill to
the House.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The question is that this bill be now read
a second time.
The House divided.
Ayes ................... 21
Noes ................... 17
Majority .............. 4
AYES
Banasiak Faehrmann Lawrence
Borsak Graham Mookhey
Boyd Higginson Moriarty
Buttigieg Houssos Murphy (teller)
Cohn Hurst Nanva (teller)
D'Adam Jackson Primrose
Donnelly Kaine Suvaal
NOES
Carter Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)
Fang (teller) Martin Roberts
Farlow Merton Ruddick
Farraway Mihailuk Taylor
Latham Mitchell Ward
MacDonald Munro
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 50
PAIRS
Sharpe Tudehope
Motion agreed to.
In Committee
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): There being no objection, the Committee will consider the bill
as a whole. I have before me one set of amendments, those being Opposition amendments on sheet c2023-025G.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (16:37): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 15 on sheet
c2023-025G in globo:
No. 1 Principal place of residence requirements
Page 3, Schedule 1[1], lines 2 and 3. Omit all words on the lines.
No. 15 Principal place of residence requirements
Page 5, Schedule 3, lines 3 and 4. Omit all words on the lines.
The bill seeks to amend the residency requirements not just for applicants for First Home Buyer Assistance and
the First Home Owner Grant but also for eligible tenants of the Department of Housing community tenancy
scheme and the Aboriginal Housing Office who seek to purchase a home, and for those purchasing a home off the
plan. Failure to comply with the residency requirements for each of these three distinct categories of home buyers
will leave them liable to pay any duty for which they were given an exemption or concession, or to repay any
grant that they were given. The current provisions require these home buyers to occupy the relevant property as
their principal place of residence for no less than six months or face the cost of paying duty or repaying a grant.
The bill seeks to make the residency requirement twice as onerous as it currently is by increasing it from
six months to 12 months. This is not a matter that was canvassed publicly by the Government prior to the
introduction of the bill. The only justification offered is a claim that some 30 per cent of first home buyers become
landlords within 12 months of completing the residence requirement—that is to say, within 18 months of
purchasing the first home. We are not told how often this occurs within 12 months of purchasing the first home,
which would be the only relevant piece of data in this context.
There are many legitimate reasons why those who have in good faith purchased a new home may need to
move out, perhaps temporarily, between six and 12 months after purchasing it. These include new job
opportunities, job losses affecting financial factors, family matters—including illness requiring an extended visit,
perhaps overseas—and so forth.
I acknowledge that the relevant Acts each provide the chief commissioner with a limited discretion to waive the
residency requirement in certain circumstances. However, doubling the length of the residency requirement could
have an unnecessary impact on the number of such applications, which is undesirable. As a former Parliamentary
Secretary to the Treasurer, I have dealt with a lot correspondence on that matter and I can say that it comes up
frequently.
A glaring example of unintended consequences is including eligible tenants who would otherwise be
helped into a home, which would free up a place in public or Aboriginal housing or in a community tenancy
scheme, but who cannot take the risk of having to pay duty for failing to stay in that home for 12 months. The
Treasurer has simply done a text search for "residency requirement" and mindlessly changed it everywhere it
occurs from six months to 12 months. The two Opposition amendments would delete those provisions from the
bill and leave the six-month residency requirement in place. If the Government wishes to return in the future with
a more targeted and better justified proposal for amending the residency requirement, then that could be duly
considered on its merit. The Opposition has moved sensible amendments in good faith. I commend them to the
House.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:40): This is the first time I have had the opportunity
to participate in a debate in the Committee stage with the Hon. Rod Roberts in the chair. I congratulate you and
honour your wisdom. I am sure I am likely to breach it a few times.
The Hon. Bronnie Taylor: He knows how to suck up.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: There is a reason why I am on this side. The Government does not
support the Opposition amendments. We are restoring the position of the former Government to the original
incarnation of the scheme when it introduced the first home buyer concession arrangement. In fact, we are
reverting back to the settings that were first introduced by Treasurer Berejiklian or Treasurer Perrottet. As a matter
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 51
of principle, if we offer a public benefit for the purpose of promoting owner occupation, then we should tie that
benefit to a requirement to occupy, and 12 months is a reasonable time. We do not accept the claim that this is an
extra burden. It is about ensuring some of the original integrity and safeguards that were in the scheme in first
instance. I hear the Opposition's claim that the bill will affect others, but I point out that the Government has not
received such advice and nor has it been contacted by anyone in the sector. Should any of those concerns arise,
we will deal with them in good faith.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (16:42): The Greens do not support Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 15. Similar
to the contribution of the Treasurer, we have not been contacted by tenancy groups, housing affordability peak
bodies, or anyone with an interest to say that extending the residency requirement will cause a problem. To our
knowledge, the Coalition Government introduced the scheme, which incentivises early landlording in
circumstances where properties would otherwise be available for genuine first home buyers. For that reason, we
support the extension from six months to 12 months to make sure that this relief for first home buyers is targeted
to those who need it.
The Hon. EMMA HURST (16:43): I indicate that the Animal Justice Party will not support the
Opposition amendments. As I indicated in my second reading contribution, changing the minimum residency
requirement from six to 12 months is a positive move. The scheme should not be used for people to quick flick
properties or further inflate the property market. It should be used for people genuinely looking to settle into their
first home. Requiring them to live in the home for 12 months goes some way to ensuring that it will be. I also note
that hardship provisions are already embedded in the duties Act to protect people if their circumstances
dramatically change due to loss of employment or illness during the first 12 months of living in the property. For
those reasons, the Animal Justice Party does not support Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 15.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Scott Farlow has moved Opposition amendments Nos 1
and 15 on sheet c2023-025G. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The Committee divided.
Ayes ................... 17
Noes ................... 21
Majority .............. 4
AYES
Carter MacDonald Munro
Fang (teller) Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)
Farlow Martin Ruddick
Farraway Merton Taylor
Franklin Mihailuk Ward
Latham Mitchell
NOES
Banasiak Faehrmann Lawrence
Borsak Graham Mookhey
Boyd Higginson Moriarty
Buttigieg Houssos Murphy (teller)
Cohn Hurst Nanva (teller)
D'Adam Jackson Primrose
Donnelly Kaine Suvaal
PAIRS
Tudehope Sharpe
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. NATALIE WARD (16:52): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 2, 12 and 14 on
sheet c2023-025G in globo:
No.2 Application to victims of family or domestic violence
Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 3—
[1A] Section 69A
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 52
Insert after section 69—
69A Regulations must apply scheme to victims of family or domestic violence
(1) The object of this section is to enable a victim of family or domestic violence to be
eligible for a concession or exemption from duty on a similar basis to a person acquiring
a first home if the victim—
(a) leaves home as a result of the violence, and
(b) within a reasonable time after leaving home, acquires a home.
(2) The regulations must contain provisions that give effect to the object of this section.
(3) Subsection (2) does not have effect until 1 September 2023.
(4) In this section—
acquire a home includes acquire a vacant block of residential land intended to be used
as the site of a home.
victim of family or domestic violence means a person who has been the victim of a
domestic violence offence within the meaning of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal
Violence) Act 2007.
No. 12 Application to victims of family or domestic violence
Page 4, Schedule 2. Insert after line 2—
[1] Section 4A
Insert after section 4—
4A Regulations must apply scheme to victims of family or domestic violence
(1) The object of this section is to enable a victim of family or domestic violence to be
eligible to opt to make land subject to property tax on a similar basis to a first home buyer
if the victim—
(a) leaves home as a result of the violence, and
(b) within a reasonable time after leaving home, is the transferee under an eligible
transfer.
(2) The regulations must contain provisions that give effect to the object of this section.
(3) Subsection (2) does not have effect until 1 September 2023.
(4) In this section—
victim of family or domestic violence means a person who has been the victim of a
domestic violence offence within the meaning of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal
Violence) Act 2007.
No. 14 Application to victims of family or domestic violence
Page 5, Schedule 3. Insert after line 2—
[1] Section 7A
Insert after section 7—
7A Regulations must apply scheme to victims of family or domestic violence
(1) The object of this section is to enable a victim of family or domestic violence to be
eligible for a first home owner grant on a similar basis to a first home owner if the
victim—
(a) leaves home as a result of the violence, and
(b) within a reasonable time after leaving home, enters an eligible transaction.
(2) The regulations must contain provisions that give effect to the object of this section.
(3) Subsection (2) does not have effect until 1 September 2023.
(4) In this section—
victim of family or domestic violence means a person who has been the victim of a
domestic violence offence within the meaning of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal
Violence) Act 2007.
The three amendments relate to giving victims of family or domestic violence access to the scheme. It will come
as no surprise to members that it is important to me, as the former Minister for Women's Safety and the Prevention
of Domestic and Sexual Violence, that we consider the opportunity to provide a safe space for victim-survivors
to heal and rebuild. That is the intent behind the amendments, to enable them to access the scheme and have the
opportunity to buy their own home to rest and recover.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 53
The amendments insert identical provisions in the Duties Act 1977, the Property Tax (First Home Buyer
Choice) Act 2022 and the First Home Owner Grant and Shared Equity Act 2000 to enable a victim of family and
domestic violence to access a duty exemption or concession, or a grant, or to choose a property tax, rather than
the transfer duty available to a first home buyer, without needing to be a first home buyer. To give context, they
may have purchased a home already but be fleeing that home. Providing access to measures that would assist them
to buy their own home was part of the Coalition's landmark policy. In opposition we seek to apply that to the bill.
Many victims of family and domestic violence may be able to stay in their homes because the perpetrator
is required to relocate, particularly under our Staying Home Leaving Violence policy, but sadly that does not
always happen. Having to leave—and the associated uncertainty and family upheaval—is one of the greatest
contributors to the ongoing trauma of the domestic and family violence they deal with. A victim of family and
domestic violence who has had to leave home as a result of that violence, and who has the opportunity within a
reasonable time after leaving home under those circumstances to acquire a new home, deserves the same support
as offered to first home buyers—the opportunity to restart and rebuild. The amendments provide for the detailed
criteria and processes for that support to be made by regulation and allow three months for the regulations to be
made. We feel that is a fair period. It gives a fair opportunity for those people to get into the market and rebuild
as they literally start over.
The amendments do not in any way interfere with the other aspects of the bill. They stand alone and provide
the opportunity to victim-survivors to access what we believe should be a bipartisan opportunity for them to
rebuild. Obviously, if the bill does not pass in a form that includes the abolition of the First Home Buyer Choice
for purchases from 1 July 2023, amendment No. 12 would be moot. I urge all members to support the amendments,
which are designed to help victims of family and domestic violence flee from that violence. I spent many hours
meeting with victim-survivors and frontline support services who indicated to me, as I am sure they would to the
current Minister, that it is a priority for them to get into a safe space, rebuild and have stability for them and their
children wherever possible. To establish a new home and a new life is one of the critical first steps to rebuilding.
Addressing the uncertainty of not being in their own home, after having to flee because the perpetrator is not able
to be removed, is critical to their recovery. It is also an economic imperative. I urge members to consider the
amendments to provide that opportunity to victim-survivors and commend them to the Committee.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (16:57): I acknowledge the work done by the Hon. Natalie
Ward when she was the Minister. It is important that we ensure that supporting victim-survivors of domestic
violence remains above politics and that we debate these amendments in a spirit of seriousness and respect. The
Government has carefully reviewed the Opposition's amendments. The Government does not support them
because we announced two weeks ago that we have established a task force to be co-chaired by the Minister for
the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and Minister for Women; and Domestic Violence NSW.
The job of that task force is to develop the criteria that would allow the Government to provide support to victim-
survivors of domestic violence through a shared equity scheme. The Government has taken that view for two
reasons. Firstly, we think that by pursuing reform through a shared equity scheme we are more likely to be in a
position to assist people to leave violent relationships and also recover and return to home ownership.
The second point of that task force is to properly consult with people around how to define a victim of
family or domestic violence for the purposes of accessing such schemes. It is important that we undertake that
consultation because that is not an easy question to answer. Obviously, there is a continuum of violence in
relationships, and it is appropriate that we work respectfully with experts in the area to properly define that criteria.
The Government anticipates receiving and considering the results of that task force as part of the budget process.
We will deal with that in the budget on 19 September 2023, which I look forward to delivering. As a result, we
do think that we should allow the task force to do its work.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (16:59): A lot was said during the election campaign about domestic violence
initiatives. Both major parties came out with a range of perhaps innovative but, on the whole, quite surprising and
largely unwanted initiatives, like the idea of stamp duty exemptions for women fleeing domestic violence and the
stuff about background checks. A whole lot of things were announced by both sides during the election that were
not evidence-based and were not asked for by the sector, and the sector was increasingly annoyed. The sector is
so experienced and so knowledgeable on what they are talking about. Chair, you sat through the coercive control
inquiry.
The Hon. Natalie Ward: Point of order: While no doubt well intended, the honourable member is straying
far beyond the amendments before the Committee. Chair, I ask that you direct the member's comments to her
contribution in debate on the amendments before the Committee. This discussion is not about the election
campaign of various parties or about the sector; it is about the amendments before the Committee, which I think
are very straightforward.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 54
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: To the point of order: Chair, as you will shortly find out, my contribution is aimed
at pointing out why these are such misguided amendments and how they were drafted based on the same
misunderstandings shown during the election campaign.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I intend to give the member that latitude. The member has the
call.
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD: As we saw during the coercive control inquiry, we and the sector know that very
few people get convicted of domestic violence. It is nice that women fleeing domestic violence can have a
document, all signed and sealed, that they can take to the Tax Office to claim some sort of exemption from having
already purchased a home and wanting to be part of the first home buyer scheme. It is not just that the sector did
not ask for anything like this and has been lukewarm in its response to the Government's similar proposal about
shared equity. If implemented in the way that it has been suggested, it would be practically incapable of being
used by anybody. In the context of a sector that is crying out for proper emergency crisis housing and proper
reforms, to offer up these sorts of amendments now and push what was a misguided election initiative in the
context of this repeal bill is misguided.
We appreciate the new Labor Government's commitment to doing this properly. The task force has been
established, as far as I can tell. That task force will look at what the situation is for women fleeing domestic
violence, and what would actually make a difference when it comes to rebuilding their lives, having financial
security and being able to move forward. A lot of gender norms permeate our property laws and our taxation laws,
and we could be doing a lot of things that would be a lot simpler than this. Couples who have been together and
have had their first home may have broken that relationship for whatever reason. Whether they have gone down
the court procedure, whether they wanted to go to that level, or they just no longer wanted to be with each other,
we should make changes to our tax laws to allow individuals to then also get back onto the property ladder in a
way that does not punish them for those prior relationships. We can do a lot here. The Labor Government's
approach to work with the sector to see whether it would make a real difference in practice is welcome. For those
reasons, we will not support the Opposition's amendments.
The Hon. EMMA HURST (17:04): I speak briefly to indicate that the Animal Justice Party will not
support the Opposition's amendments. I recognise the work of the Hon. Natalie Ward in this space and her genuine
passion in this area. However, the Animal Justice Party believes that it is critically important to ensure that people
leaving domestic violence situations are able to access secure housing, along with their children and animal family
members, whether that be emergency housing, social housing, rental accommodation or purchasing a home.
We are concerned that the amendments put forward are not the best use of revenue to support survivors of
domestic violence. In particular, I am concerned that the definition of a "victim of family or domestic violence"
contained in the amendments is far too narrow as it captures only the rare situations where there is a conviction
against the abuser. That means it could exclude many genuine victim-survivors of domestic violence from gaining
access to this scheme. On top of that, few victim-survivors leave a violent situation with the financial ability to
purchase a home. Even with the assistance of the first home buyer scheme, it is simply out of reach for most
survivors, and it means that the benefit of the amendments is narrow. It will not provide the support needed to the
majority of people. It could benefit a tiny proportion of victim-survivors, but it will not target those who need help
the most. Many in the domestic violence sector have expressed similar frustrations.
As we have heard today, the Government is working on expanding the Shared Equity Home Buyer Helper
scheme, in partnership with Domestic Violence NSW. My understanding is that the Government is working with
the sector to determine how to best capture survivors of domestic violence in the scheme, not just those few who
have successfully had their abuser convicted in the court system. We believe that is a better and more considered
approach rather than inserting a narrow definition of domestic violence victims in this legislation. For those
reasons, the AJP will not support the amendments at this time.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Natalie Ward has moved Opposition amendments
Nos 2, 12 and 14 on sheet c2023-025G. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The Committee divided.
Ayes ................... 17
Noes ................... 21
Majority .............. 4
AYES
Carter MacDonald Munro
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 55
AYES
Fang (teller) Maclaren-Jones Rath (teller)
Farlow Martin Ruddick
Farraway Merton Taylor
Franklin Mihailuk Ward
Latham Mitchell
NOES
Banasiak Faehrmann Lawrence
Borsak Graham Mookhey
Boyd Higginson Moriarty
Buttigieg Houssos Murphy (teller)
Cohn Hurst Nanva (teller)
D'Adam Jackson Primrose
Donnelly Kaine Suvaal
PAIRS
Tudehope Sharpe
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (17:15): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 3 to 11 on sheet
c2023-025G in globo:
No. 3 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1[2], line 5. Omit "$1,000,000". Insert instead "$1,000,000, as indexed in accordance with subsection
(3A)".
No. 4 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 5—
[2A] Section 74(3A)–(3D)
Insert after section 74(3)—
(3A) On 30 September 2024 and on 30 September in each subsequent year, the amount in
subsection (3)(a) must be adjusted—
(a) in line with the percentage change between—
(i) the amount reported for the June quarter in the same year, and
(ii) the amount reported for the June quarter in the previous year, or
(b) if an amount is not reported for the purposes of paragraph (a)— in accordance
with an equivalent methodology prescribed by the regulations.
(3B) In subsection (3A), amount reported means the amount in the Median Price of
Established House Transfers (Unstratified); Sydney as reported by the Australian Bureau
of Statistics.
(3C) The Chief Commissioner must, before 30 September in a year, publish the adjusted
amount that will apply on 30 September in the year.
(3D) The adjusted amount must be published in the Gazette.
No. 5 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1[3], line 7. Omit "$800,000". Insert instead "$800,000, as indexed in accordance with subsection (4)".
No. 6 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1[4]. Omit "$1,000,000" from the formula. Insert instead "A".
No. 7 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1[4]. Omit "$200,000" from the formula. Insert instead "B".
No. 8 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 9—
[4A] Section 78A(2), definitions of "A" and "B"
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 56
Insert after the definition of N—
A is the amount referred to in section 74(3)(a).
B is the amount referred to in section 74(3)(a) minus the amount referred to in subsection
(1)(a).
No. 9 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1[5], line 11. Omit "$800,000". Insert instead "the amount referred to in subsection (1)(a)".
No. 10 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1[6], line 13. Omit "$1,000,000". Insert instead "$1,000,000, as indexed in accordance with section
74(3A)".
No. 11 Indexation of amounts
Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 13—
[6A] Section 78A(4)–(7)
Insert after section 78A(3)—
(4) On 30 September 2024 and on 30 September in each subsequent year, the amount in
subsection (1)(a) must be adjusted—
(a) in line with the percentage change between—
(i) the amount reported for the June quarter in the same year, and
(ii) the amount reported for the June quarter in the previous year, or
(b) if an amount is not reported for the purposes of paragraph (a)— in accordance
with an equivalent methodology prescribed by the regulations.
(5) In subsection (4), amount reported means the amount in the Median Price of Established
House Transfers (Unstratified); Sydney as reported by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics.
(6) The Chief Commissioner must, before 30 September in a year, publish the adjusted
amount that will apply on 30 September in the year.
(7) The adjusted amount must be published in the Gazette.
The nine amendments would improve the provisions in the bill which would set new thresholds for an exemption
from transfer duty or a concession in the rate of transfer duty by indexing those amounts, set by the bill at
$1 million and $800,000 respectively. The amendments would also adjust the formula for the concessional rate of
transfer duty to account for the indexation.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the real-world value of the exemption from transfer duty
or a concessional rate of transfer duty is not eroded over time, especially during periods like the current one, in
which median house prices have risen rapidly. The Australian Bureau of Statistics separately reports median house
prices for Sydney and for the rest of New South Wales. While the median house price for the rest of New South
Wales is sitting at $700,000 as at December 2022, well below the $800,000 threshold proposed in the bill for an
exemption from duty, in Sydney it is sitting well over it, at $1.27 million.
For that reason, the amendments propose indexing the two threshold amounts by varying them in
September each year, beginning in September 2024, in line with the percentage change between the amount of
the unstratified median price of established house transfers in Sydney, as reported by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics for the June quarter that year, compared with that reported for the June quarter in the previous year.
Included is the usual provision for using an equivalent methodology prescribed in the regulations if the data is not
reported. The amendments do not depend in any way on whether First Home Buyer Choice is retained or abolished
from 1 July 2023. They simply ensure that the real value of exemptions from duty or a concessional rate of duty
for first home buyers is preserved.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (17:17): The Government does not support the
amendments. Here is why: Firstly, when the House looked at the property tax bill last year, the then Government
did not index its thresholds whatsoever. Opposition members say they are all for automatic indexation; it seems
that is a new position that they have miraculously reached in the past few months. I accept the fact that there is no
particular desire for consistency in the position adopted by the Opposition; nevertheless, that is the first reason.
The second reason is that when it comes to important questions to do with taxation, the Government thinks that
every case needs to be considered on its own merits. But, in general, the principle that should prevail is that the
Parliament should deliberate and decide itself.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 57
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (17:18): The Greens do not support the amendments for much the same reasons as
those the Treasurer laid out. We need more oversight by Parliament, not less, when it comes to complicated
impacts on the housing market. We do not support an automatic indexation.
The Hon. EMMA HURST (17:18): I indicate that the Animal Justice Party will not support the
amendments. While we appreciate that there is likely to be a continued increase in housing prices, and there may
well be a need for the Parliament to increase the thresholds for stamp duty exemptions and concessions down the
line, it is appropriate for the Parliament to have oversight of such an important decision that will affect the ability
of the Government to generate revenue. Automatic indexation of the thresholds would have significant budgetary
implications. Given the many competing priorities of the Government and the pressing need for funding in other
sectors, it is appropriate that we do not build in any increases to those thresholds and instead require the
Government to come back to the Parliament when it becomes necessary to review the thresholds.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Scott Farlow has moved Opposition amendments
Nos 3 to 11 on sheet c2023-025G. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Is leave granted to ring the
bells for one minute?
Leave granted.
The Committee divided.
Ayes ................... 16
Noes ................... 19
Majority .............. 3
AYES
Carter MacDonald Mitchell
Fang (teller) Maclaren-Jones Munro
Farlow Martin Rath (teller)
Farraway Merton Ruddick
Franklin Mihailuk Taylor
Latham
NOES
Banasiak Faehrmann Lawrence
Borsak Graham Mookhey
Boyd Higginson Murphy (teller)
Buttigieg Houssos Nanva (teller)
Cohn Hurst Primrose
D'Adam Kaine Suvaal
Donnelly
PAIRS
Tudehope Jackson
Ward Sharpe
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (17:24): I move Opposition amendment No. 13 on sheet c2023-025G:
No. 13 Retention of First Home Buyers Choice
Page 4, Schedule 2, lines 3–10. Omit all words on the lines.
The amendment would delete the provision of the bill that removes choice for first home buyers for purchases
from 1 July 2023. Having canvassed the merits of retaining this choice and its benefits for most first home buyers
purchasing a property valued between $850,000 and $1.5 million—during the second reading debate on the bill
we heard arguments from many members on this side of the House to that effect—I make the observation that the
amendment would leave intact the changes in the thresholds for transfer duty exemptions or concessions while
preserving the free choice for those for whom it would remain beneficial. Supporting the amendment would leave
no first home buyer in New South Wales worse off after 1 July 2023 than they are now. I commend the amendment
to the House.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 58
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (Treasurer) (17:25): The Government does not support the
amendment as it is reckless. It shows that the Opposition fundamentally no longer cares about the condition of the
State's finances. Labor made a clear election choice. We said that if we were elected we would introduce our
stamp duty concession so that more first home buyers would pay no tax instead of a land tax. We said we would
fund that by repealing the previous Government's policy. The two schemes were cost comparable at the time they
were costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. The fact is that to keep both schemes operating would cost the
State an additional $700 million at a time of record debt, rising interest rates and a budget under pressure as a
result of $7 billion of unfunded expenses that we inherited. It is reckless, irresponsible and shows that the modern
Liberal Party is trying to have it both ways. The reality is that the Liberal Party has abandoned any concept of
being responsible fiscal managers. It has lost the ability to appropriately decide how the public's dollars should be
spent to maximise the public's interest. If the Liberal Party no longer cares about any of those principles, what
does it stand for?
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (17:26): The Greens do not support the amendment. It is not only financially
reckless but it is also evidence of a quite stubborn Opposition that is yet to find a real agenda in this place. I look
forward to it finding a real agenda. If it wants to spend the next four years coming up with a broad-based, equitable,
progressive, whole-of-system transition away from stamp duty to land tax, we would be very open to hearing
about that.
The Hon. EMMA HURST (17:27): For the reasons articulated in my contribution to the second reading
debate, the Animal Justice Party will not support the amendment, which seeks to remove the part of the bill that
repeals the Coalition's optional land tax scheme. While in an ideal world it would be great to keep both the new
stamp duty concessions and the optional land tax scheme, the New South Wales Government would have to forgo
a significant amount of revenue. That money could be better spent fixing the social housing system, which Labor
says it plans to do.
I am very sympathetic to rising apartment and house prices and I understand it is difficult for people to
enter the market or find a home under $1 million in Sydney. But I also recognise that we have a tight State budget
and many important community services are desperately in need of funding. Difficult decisions must be made.
I believe Labor's stamp duty scheme will benefit more first home buyers and will target support to those people
who need it. That is the scheme that the Animal Justice Party supports. For that reason we do not support the
amendment.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Scott Farlow has moved Opposition amendment No. 13
on sheet c2023-025G. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Is leave granted to ring the bells for one
minute?
Leave granted.
The Committee divided.
Ayes ................... 16
Noes ................... 20
Majority .............. 4
AYES
Carter MacDonald Mitchell
Fang (teller) Maclaren-Jones Munro
Farlow Martin Rath (teller)
Farraway Merton Ruddick
Franklin Mihailuk Taylor
Latham
NOES
Banasiak Faehrmann Mookhey
Borsak Graham Moriarty
Boyd Higginson Murphy (teller)
Buttigieg Houssos Nanva (teller)
Cohn Hurst Primrose
D'Adam Kaine Suvaal
Donnelly Lawrence
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 59
PAIRS
Tudehope Jackson
Ward Sharpe
Amendment negatived.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:
That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House without amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Adoption of Report
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Third Reading
The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) AMENDMENT (DIGITAL
EVIDENCE ACCESS ORDERS) BILL 2023
First Reading
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, 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.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I move:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: I move:
That the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for the next sitting day.
Motion agreed to.
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (SYDNEY WATER AND HUNTER WATER) BILL 2023
Second Reading Debate
Debate resumed from 30 May 2023.
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (17:36): I speak on behalf of the Opposition in this debate as I represent
shadow Water Minister Steph Cooke from the other place, my colleague in The Nationals, who is present in the
gallery tonight. I voice my strong opposition to the Constitution Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter Water)
Bill 2023. The bill, as it currently stands, fails to protect the basic right of all people in New South Wales to access
safe, reliable, publicly owned water. It discriminates against the 1.85 million individuals who obtain their water
from utilities other than Sydney Water and Hunter Water, leaving us questioning the Labor Government's agenda
regarding the privatisation of WaterNSW and other local water utilities across the regions.
Over the past five years New South Wales has been battered by two extremes—as my colleague stated in
the lower House. We suffered through the worst drought in our history, only to be then hit by one of the wettest
years on record, resulting in devastating floods. The effects of these disasters were felt across the Central West
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 60
communities, where I live, and right throughout regional New South Wales. Our water resources have been
stretched and tested like never before, and it has reinforced the importance of securing our water supplies for the
future. It is in this context that we debate the bill, which seeks to amend the Constitution Act 1902 to guarantee
the continued public ownership of Sydney Water Corporation and the Hunter Water Corporation.
While I am in favour of ensuring public ownership of those crucial water utilities, I must make absolutely
clear my deep concern with the bill in its current form. It falls far short of guaranteeing access to safe, reliable,
publicly owned water for every citizen of New South Wales rather than just those in Sydney and the Hunter region.
The bill excludes from its protections the 1.85 million people who obtain their water from other utilities.
That glaring omission raises serious questions about the Labor Government's intentions towards the future
privatisation of WaterNSW and the 89 local water utilities that service regional, rural and remote New South
Wales. Those water utilities play a critical role in delivering safe, secure, efficient, sustainable and affordable
water supply and sewerage services. They protect public health and the environment and support economic
development and livability. Yet they too have been left out of the bill, leaving them vulnerable to future
privatisation. Earlier this week in a media release, the chairman of the Country Mayors Association, Mayor Jamie
Chaffey, rightly pointed out:
Regional Councils also rely heavily on our utilities for our future viability. That has never been more critical than now.
That fact has been validated by the recent member survey identifying financial viability as our most pressing
concern. The deputy chairman of the Country Mayors Association, Mayor Rick Firman, eloquently summed it up,
emphasising the vital need for water to remain in the hands of our communities through local government. This
is not just about utilities; this is about our lifeblood. It is about the essence that fuels our communities and our
lives. He goes on to say that water is life and control of our water must rest in our hands. On 10 May 2006 in this
Parliament, former Nationals member for Murrumbidgee Adrian Piccoli stated:
Water is of critical importance in New South Wales.
…
Water is at the forefront of most people's minds.
He also said that water is the lifeblood of all communities. The shadow Minister for Water and I both agree that
those words remain as true today as they were then. In a State as vast and diverse as ours, the management and
provision of water is a complex and vital task. It is clear that the task is the responsibility of not only Sydney
Water and Hunter Water but also key bodies such as WaterNSW and the 89 other water utilities. Consider
WaterNSW, which supplies two-thirds of the water used in our State and is responsible for protecting the Greater
Sydney drinking water catchment and supplying raw water from their storages to communities, customers,
industry and the environment. Despite the crucial role that WaterNSW plays in our State's water infrastructure, it
is not included in the protections of the bill. The omission of WaterNSW is a glaring oversight and an unacceptable
neglect of an essential component of our overall water supply system. How can we talk of safeguarding our water
resources if we fail to protect the organization that provides the bulk of our water supply?
WaterNSW is not the only one left out in the cold; it is all of regional New South Wales when it comes to
water. The bill must include WaterNSW and the 89 other water utilities for the basic right of all people in
New South Wales to access clean water, regardless of their postcode. Water security has been a priority for
successive governments. The former Coalition Government implemented programs such as the Country Towns
Water Supply and Sewerage Program and the Safe and Secure Water Program, investing in critical infrastructure
to support regional communities. However, the future of those programs remains uncertain under the current
Labor Government. I call on the Government to prioritise the investment in and protection of regional, rural, and
remote water infrastructure with the same commitment shown to renewable energy. The future of many towns
and villages relies on ensuring water security and infrastructure development. The Opposition will move
amendments to the bill. The amendments moved in the Legislative Assembly will be moved again in Committee.
The Minister for Local Government in the other place, representing the Minister for Water in the
Legislative Council, said that the bill is deficient. The Hon. Ron Hoenig admitted that the bill is deficient by
offering a joint select committee to look into the bill but not until after the bill passes. Surely, the Legislative
Council is the house of review. For the past four years crossbench members touted that this House is the master
of its own destiny and is the house of review. While I support that in principle, how can members not support
sending this deficient bill, which was admitted by Ministers of the Labor Government, to a committee. The bill
should be reviewed and investigated, but, according to the Government, only if it is rammed through the upper
House so Government members can look like they have been busy and had a full agenda all week. They are ticking
boxes for Premier Minns.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 61
Members talk of unintended consequences. If that is the case, should we not have a joint select committee
investigate them? Unintended consequences were raised during debate in the other place, and I suspect in this
place as well. No-one from the Government, including the Minister for Water, can tell me what the unintended
consequences are. The Government talks about not having a mandate to make sure we pass legislation that is not
deficient. It also says there is no mandate to privatise regional water utilities. I totally disagree with that. The
Minister for Water attended a meeting in Parliament House of the Country Mayors Association, representing
85 per cent of regional and rural New South Wales, to talk about water and had a captive audience.
The Hon. Rose Jackson: And I spoke to them, and I answered this question, and they were nodding and
clapping, and you were there, and you saw that.
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: I acknowledge that interjection. The Minister for Water did turn up. She
gave a speech. She hung around for five minutes for some questions, and then she said, "Sorry, country mayors,
I'm too busy. I need to go get a photo with Julia Gillard."
The Hon. Rose Jackson: To talk about mental health. Sorry if you do not care about mental health.
Apologies. Is it not an issue in regional New South Wales?
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: No, it was a fan club. "We had to go with Premier Minns. We needed to
go and get a photo for TikTok and Facebook with Julia Gillard."
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will confine his remarks to the bill.
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: That meeting of country mayors was the perfect opportunity to have
meaningful dialogue with them about their regional water utilities and how they can be protected against future
privatisation by this Labor Government, which clearly must have a secret agenda. If there was no secret agenda,
why do we not expose the flaws of the bill and make it better? Let us ensure that all water infrastructure in the
State is protected. Let us have that joint select committee. But, no, we need to ram it through this Parliament, tick
some boxes and sell a narrative to the media that the Government has been busy this week, so we are going to
pass deficient legislation!
In conclusion, the Opposition truly and genuinely believes that water security can be and should be
enshrined with this bill in the New South Wales Constitution Act for everyone in the State, irrespective of where
they reside. If the Labor Government genuinely aims to protect end-to-end water supply, it should support the
Opposition amendments, which seek to include WaterNSW and local water utilities in the bill. Let us work
together to safeguard the fundamental right of all New South Wales residents to access safe, reliable and publicly
owned water. Let us support a joint select committee to find the deficiencies and make the bill better.
The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (17:48): On behalf of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, I support
the Constitution Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter Water) Bill 2023. The Shooters believe the bill is a
positive step towards protecting the interests of the people of New South Wales and ensuring the long-term public
ownership of Sydney Water and Hunter Water. We also believe the supply of water and provision of sewerage
services is a natural government monopoly that must be protected for the good and security of the State. During
the recent election campaign the Government made a promise to the people of New South Wales that it would
take measures to safeguard Sydney Water and Hunter Water from privatisation. I and other members of the
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party have always said we will consider legislation on a case-by-case basis and
support good legislation that benefits the people of New South Wales. Today we fulfill that commitment by
supporting the bill.
Under the current legislative framework, a future government could attempt a backdoor privatisation
without seeking the agreement of Parliament or obtaining the permission of the people. Such actions have been
witnessed in the past with the dodgy deals that were part of the previous Liberal-Nationals Government's
day-to-day modus operandi. The detrimental effects of privatisation over the past 12 years are clear. Our electricity
assets, ports and toll roads were sold off and essential services were operated by private entities, leading to
increased costs for the public. Dividends that should have been reinvested into the State's budget were redirected
to private operators. People are being burdened with ever-increasing costs and rising expenses. The Shooters
support the blocking of any attempt at privatisation. The process of privatising Sydney Water and Hunter Water
should not occur behind closed doors in secrecy but under the public spotlight and the scrutiny of Parliament.
Schedule 1 to the bill inserts proposed part 10 into the Constitution Act 1902. It specifically addresses the
continued public ownership of Sydney Water and Hunter Water and emphasises that the storage and supply of
water, provision of sewerage services, stormwater drainage systems and wastewater disposal are vital aspects of
those corporations' main undertakings. The Shooters support the provisions that protect the core functions
necessary for the corporations to serve the people of New South Wales. While the focus of the bill is to safeguard
the public ownership of Sydney Water and Hunter Water, it does not limit or constrain their day-to-day operations.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 62
The bill provides that routine business operations can continue, including the sale or disposal of landholdings or
other assets or services, as long as the main undertakings of the corporations remain in public ownership.
Furthermore, Sydney Water and Hunter Water are not precluded from entering into commercial arrangements that
provide value for money and improved customer service outcomes, as long as they do not involve the sale or
disposal of their main undertakings. The Shooters are cognisant that Sydney Water and Hunter Water are
responsible for supplying services to nearly six million people in Greater Sydney, the Blue Mountains, the
Illawarra and the Hunter regions, so the Government must keep those essential resources under public ownership.
While it may be unusual for a State Parliament to insert policy-related provisions into the Constitution, it
is done with the clear intent of protecting the interests of the people of New South Wales. I have a history of
expressing my concerns about proposed and previous privatisations, so I support the call for a line to be drawn
under Sydney Water and Hunter Water. The Shooters also understand that, at its core, the bill recognises that safe,
reliable, publicly owned water is not just a need, it is a constitutional right. It is about safeguarding the interests
of our people and ensuring that our essential water services remain in public hands. By enshrining those
protections in the New South Wales Constitution, Parliament will send a clear message to future governments that
the privatisation of Sydney Water and Hunter Water will not be considered without the explicit approval of the
elected representatives of the people.
New South Wales should learn from what happened to the Three Waters Reform Programme in
New Zealand. The privatisation of Sydney Water and Hunter Water, as well as possibly water assets in rural and
regional New South Wales, may lead to similar issues as those faced by local governments in New Zealand,
including underinvestment, a lack of accountability, a potential disregard for public interests and a reduction in
credit ratings. Our focus should be on improving the public management and accountability of water
infrastructure, rather than transferring ownership to private entities for short-term financial gain or budget
balancing by incumbent governments.
When discussing Sydney Water and Hunter Water, we should not forget about water supply and services
to regional and rural New South Wales. People in the bush should have the same level of service and security of
water supply as their city cousins—something that was never on the radar of the city-focused Liberals. Rural and
regional water needs to be considered and protected. The Shooters believe, having discussed it with the Minister,
that a joint inquiry into regional water supply, security and service standards is the best way to go. If anyone
questions why that is the case, they should look at the Three Waters Reform Programme.
The Hon. Sam Farraway: We should before we pass the bill.
The Hon. MARK BANASIAK: No, we should not. The Three Waters Reform Programme in New
Zealand tried to corral 67 local government services into one to protect them from privatisation and it has caused
a God-almighty mess. What The Nationals are proposing could do the same. We should take our time to get it
right. I am not against protecting rural and regional utility services, but let us get this right by having a deep look
into how to do it. Rural and regional utility services are not just one entity; we are talking about a number of utility
services. If New Zealand cannot get it right as a country with 67 local government services, how are we going to
get it right as a State with far more? Let us take a breath and have a look. I support an inquiry into this issue.
I thank the Minister for listening to us and having a sensible discussion about this. It is refreshing to have a sensible
discussion with a water Minister; it has not happened in four years. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
supports the bill, demonstrating our commitment to the right of the people of New South Wales to accessible and
affordable water services.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (17:55): I make a contribution to debate on the Constitution Amendment
(Sydney Water and Hunter Water) Bill 2023. I start by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of Ms Steph
Cooke, the member for Cootamundra and shadow Minister for Water in the other place. She has done an
exceptional job on behalf of the Opposition in relation to the bill. It is worth mentioning that debate on the bill in
the lower House was gagged. In her second reading speech the Minister for Water spoke about how important a
bill that amends the Constitution is, so it is very serious. The Minister said the Opposition's amendments were a
disrespectful way to treat our Constitution. I make the point that gagging elected members from making their
views heard in the other place after, I believe, an hour of debate is also disrespectful and that needs to be called
out.
I will briefly mention the comments made by my colleague the Hon. Sam Farraway and the Hon. Mark
Banasiak. It is clear that the Government has its training wheels on. It is rushing in a bill because it ran a scare
campaign during the election that the former Government was going to privatise Sydney Water and Hunter Water.
We were not; there was no intention to do that. The bill is the Government's signature piece of legislation. I get
that. I have been in Parliament for 12 years, so I understand how politics works. But what the Government has
done is admit its inadequacy. The fact that the Minister for Local Government in the other place has already said
that a joint committee would be set up to look at how to protect regional water assets from privatisation, that this
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 63
is a complex issue that involves difficult changes shows that the Government understands that something is
missing from the bill.
I take the point of the Hon. Mark Banasiak about passing the bill first and then constructing the legislation,
but not privatising regional water if that happens. But what is the rush? If the Government has no intention of
privatising Sydney Water and Hunter Water, why does it not take the time to do the work now? It should be
diligent in what it is doing and put forward a bill that is ready and covers everybody, no matter where they live—
whether that is in Sydney or regional New South Wales. I look forward to hearing from the Government,
particularly from the Minister, on the Opposition's amendments in the Committee stage.
The bill seeks to amend the Constitution Act 1902 to ensure the continuous public ownership of Sydney
Water and Hunter Water. As many of my colleagues in the other place and the Hon. Sam Farraway have done,
I express my concern that the current version of the bill fails to adequately protect the fundamental right of every
individual in our great State to access safe, reliable and publicly owned water. In the past five years New South
Wales, particularly the regions, has seen some extreme weather conditions—from the worst drought in history to
the record-breaking floods. Those have deeply impacted communities across regional New South Wales. Water
is the lifeblood of those communities. Regardless of location, it is our duty as a Parliament to prioritise the security,
management and infrastructure of water resources for all citizens across New South Wales.
Regrettably, the current version of the bill discriminates against the 1.85 million people who rely on water utilities
other than Sydney Water and Hunter Water.
Mr President, while I would love to think that the large crowd gathering in the gallery is here to listen to
me talk about Sydney Water, I suspect they are not. I say to them, feel free to stick around! However, what I will
do, given the time and earlier considerations of the House, is adjourn this debate so we can hear the inaugural
speech of the Hon. Cameron Murphy.
Debate adjourned.
The PRESIDENT: According to the resolution of the House earlier this day, it being 6.00 p.m.
proceedings are interrupted to allow the Hon. Cameron Murphy to make his inaugural speech.
Members
INAUGURAL SPEECHES
The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the gallery this evening the family and friends of the Hon. Cameron
Murphy, including his wife, Agatha, his daughter, Ariadne, and his son, Finbar; his father-in-law and former
Commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Professor Ozdowski; his mother-in-law, Hanna
Ozdowski; the Hon. Michael Kirby, AC, CMG, former justice of the High Court of Australia; Alan Ashton, former
member for East Hills; the Hon. Meredith Burgmann, former President of the Legislative Council; Chris Haviland,
former member for Macarthur; Paul Lynch, former member for Liverpool; Daryl Melham, former member for
Banks; Peter Nagle, former member for Auburn; Ian West, former member of the Legislative Council; Dr Greg
Woods, KC, former judge of the District Court of New South Wales; Pauline Wright, magistrate of the Local
Court; Commissioner Daniel Sullivan of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission; and Councillor
Linda Downey of the City of Canterbury Bankstown Council.
The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (18:00): Tonight I start by acknowledging that this Parliament sits on
Aboriginal land—the Gadigal land of the Eora people, never ceded—and I pay my respect to their Elders past,
present and future. Recently the Premier spoke at a law reform dinner where he lightheartedly called me "the great
disruptor". It was a reference to my recent preselection, but it really does sum up much of my family history and
my own life. I hope his humour also proves to be prescient; I am definitely in this place to make change.
My mother was Ingrid Grzonkowski. She was a Polish-German refugee born under fascist occupation who
migrated to Australia in the early 1950s. She came to this country without a word of English and with no
possessions. The family escaped starvation in refugee camps in Europe, looking for a better life. Her father, my
grandfather, had never even heard of Australia when he came here. He wanted to take his family to America for
a new life but came here out of necessity and a belief that his family could not endure further time in refugee
camps. There was a boat leaving for Australia, and he took it with his family in the hope of a new life and a new
beginning.
My mother taught me to value community, family and opportunity, and not to waste time because she
thought life was fragile and short. She was also one of the toughest people that I have ever known. She was
typically German: a perfectionist, efficient and very unsympathetic towards failure. It was a product of her
upbringing and the challenges she faced as a child. She never suffered fools and was not the parent to turn to for
sympathy as a young child. She made up for that in spades through her wonderful capacity to love and to infect
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 64
others around her with her love for life. I am sure that my mother's strength was what held us together as a family
after my father died.
My father was Lionel Murphy, a man about whom much has been said. Born to Irish parents, he was a
barrister, a senator, a reforming Attorney-General and a senior member of a government that transformed
Australia. He died a justice of the High Court. Before all of that, he was a scientist. He loved innovation, scientific
advancement and new gadgets. In 1986, just a few months before he died, he wanted to do something special so
he took my brother and I on our first family holiday of sorts. We chartered a small plane and went to Siding
Spring, near Coonabarabran. I remember the vivid beauty of flying between the Warrumbungles and landing in a
small town that was absolutely in the middle of nowhere. For two nights we stayed there and went up the mountain
to see Halley's Comet through the Anglo-Australian Telescope and its smaller counterparts. My father got to
engage with astronomers on their theories about comets, life and the universe itself. We were happy, able to forget
about his illness and the problems in the world around us for a weekend.
My father was an intellectually curious person yet was always steadfast in his beliefs. He believed in the
dignity of the individual. This was the foundation of his vision of better government, fairer laws, modern courts
and a transformed society. I was reminded only the other day that he reformed the Senate, introducing the
committee system that was mirrored across all parliaments in Australia, including in this House. I miss him every
day, but I am very lucky to not just have memories. My father left a body of work that I can now appreciate for
its forward-thinking brilliance. He wrote judgements in plain English. He believed that the law should be
democratic, accessible to everyone.
Neal v The Queen [1982] 149 CLR 305 is one such judgement. Mr Neal had sworn and spat at an officer
of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and received a harsh jail sentence in the
Queensland court. The magistrate had chastised Mr Neal not just for his conduct on the day in question but also
for his general activism, saying, "it is only the likes of yourself who push this attitude of the hatred of white
authority that upset the harmonious running of these communities". In his judgment in Neal, my father was quoting
Oscar Wilde in the Soul of Man Under Socialism when he said of Mr Neal:
If he is an agitator, he is in good company. Many of the great religious and political figures of history have been agitators, and human
progress owes much to the efforts of these and the many who are unknown. As Wilde aptly pointed out … "Agitators are a set of
interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community and sow the seeds of discontent
amongst them … Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization". Mr Neal is entitled to be
an agitator.
In one way, Neal was a simple sentence appeal. But really it was a case about power—who has it, who does not
have it—and a criticism of its unequal allocation. My father was a supporter of Aboriginal people. Much of his
life's work was about their advancement and liberation. This is a passion I share and a cause I am committed to
furthering through my work in this place.
My father lived a wonderful life of achievement, but I also saw him suffer and endure the worst of public
life and ill health. But just like suffering, being an agitator is absolutely necessary. Like my father, but in my own
way, I have often found myself in the position of the contradictor, the agitator and the activist. All these words
really describe a person who stands by their beliefs, especially when they are unpopular. Disruptors, in the true
sense of the word—not to be confused with the way that modern tech companies exploit workers and break laws
until they change them.
Disruptors are people who refuse to accept the status quo and who see something that is wrong or that could be
improved. If that is what I am, then it is a good thing.
As a young adult I was drawn to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, a voluntary organisation founded in
1963 which receives no government funding and has a proud history of advocating for the protection and extension
of civil rights in this State. Its members believe that the basic rights of the individual should be protected from
government interference. The council has supported peaceful protesters from its inception, including those who
participated in the first Mardi Gras in 1978, by providing lawyers to appear pro bono for people charged by police.
It has assisted people protesting the incarceration of asylum seekers and fighting for the preservation of the natural
environment.
Its membership and leadership consist of people from across the political spectrum who demonstrate that
it is always possible to find common ground and work together to find a consensus and to achieve change. It is an
organisation that has nurtured wonderful advocates for change. I have had the pleasure of working with people
like the Hon. Michael Kirby, Pauline Wright, Joan Locke, Michael Kennedy, David Bernie, Stephen Blanks and,
more recently, Josh Pallas, and so many others during my time in that organisation. Its leaders trusted me and
elected me president of the council in 1999. I was only 26 years old, but perhaps it was a mix of my youthful
energy and the experience and knowledge of others that made us a force for positive change.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 65
In 2015, after years of resisting the excesses of lawmakers, I decided to seek a seat in Parliament. People
in the left of the Labor Party—including Tom Kelly, Philip Boulten, SC, Alan Ashton, Linda Downey and Daryl
Melham—placed their faith in me and supported me as the candidate for East Hills. They did so because they
knew I would represent the principles they—and I—have spent our lives fighting for. They knew that I would be
an agitator. It was a close election in 2015, but perhaps that is an understatement. Three days before election day
I was subjected to a criminal smear campaign organised and executed by rogue elements in the Liberal Party. It
was New South Wales politics at its worst. Suffering and smear are part of public life. I already knew that but it
was my wife, Agatha, and my children, Finbar and Ariadne, who have borne the brunt of it and will be forever
affected by it. I am eternally grateful for their love and support.
Politics is a battle of ideas where parties and individuals debate the policies and ideals that they stand for.
Smear, like violence and corruption of elections, has a tendency to destroy the democratic system that we cherish.
Good people shy away from public service because of it. After that election defeat I almost immediately went to
the bar where people like Ian Latham and Martin Schume and the wonderful people at Denman Chambers offered
me a home. As a barrister I specialised in industrial law, criminal law and intellectual property. Perhaps inevitably
I also developed a speciality in protest law. It is not a specialty you hear spoken about often, probably because
there is no money in it. Increasing concern in the community about climate change has increased the intensity of
protest action. In turn the Executive and the Parliament have responded with more punitive sentences and
restrictions. I have represented, pro bono, more than 130 environmental protestors—mostly from Extinction
Rebellion—over the past few years, most of them before the recent changes in this place that doubled the penalties
for peaceful protest and some after it.
I have seen over time police imposing stricter and stricter bail conditions to prevent people from attending
further protests. Restrictions on travel, association, communication and gathering have all been imposed. Before
the recently increased penalties, bail conditions were generally removed by the court after charge. I recall on one
occasion appearing for 87 Extinction Rebellion protestors and all bar one of the protestors had the charges
dismissed. They were simply participating in a non-violent protest. After the recent increase in penalties, it was
noticeably harder to have those bail conditions removed. Magistrates are now considering bail in the context of
charges with penalties at the highest end of the Local Court's jurisdiction. Many of these peaceful protestors are
at a greater risk of jail from minor breaches of the onerous bail conditions than they are from the original offence
of obstructing traffic or the like.
I have also represented organisations in advance of protests when they came to me for advice in seeking
protest authorisation. These have included diverse groups such as one concerned with asylum seeker rights,
another against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and those wanting to protest against religious vilification or
discrimination. Once there was even a proposed protest in support of coronations. The members of that group
feared that the upcoming coronation would be cancelled, although they also had a most complicated theory as to
why someone else—not Charles—was the rightful king.
In New South Wales a group wanting to protest invariably must approach the NSW Police with an
application. A failure to do so might lead to prosecution for offences like obstructing a road, which is a normal
consequence of any decently sized protest. Generally, in my experience, police often try to stifle such applications.
In most cases the groups were dissuaded from even applying for permission or they were told it would be denied
unless they moved to a place around the corner—a place out of sight. The message is that you must plan your
protest away from people, away from traffic and outside peak hours. What is left is a protest that hardly anybody
will see or hear. Even trade unions, who have a limited exemption from these laws, have been told they cannot
organise events in front of our town hall because of the minor disruption it would cause to the light rail transiting
in front of it.
I believe in the right to protest—indeed, it is the most important right. Peaceful protest by its very nature
is designed to engender discomfort, irritation and disruption. It inevitably blocks roads, which is the precise
conduct the new laws I just spoke of are aimed at. Protest is necessary in order to draw attention to a cause, to
alert others to the issue and to encourage them to stand with you in advocating for change. There are, of course,
many protests that I do not agree with. It makes me angry when I see movements of hate on our streets. It makes
me angry when I am stuck on a train or in a car for hours because of a protest. But this is a very small price to pay
for part of the cost of a functioning democracy. We must tolerate that with which we do not agree because free
expression is the lifeblood of our democracy.
Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act and the recent protest laws have created a system in New South Wales
where many people only peacefully protest with permission. That places us on a path to a society such as that
which exists in many places internationally where people cannot truly agitate for change. These laws will not
entirely stop peaceful protest but they will unnecessarily place good people into contact with the criminal justice
system just for standing up for their beliefs. The rule of law goes hand in hand with the right to protest in fomenting
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 66
a vibrant democracy and a fair society. Imperfect as it may be, as I well know from my work as a barrister, our
justice system works. I will staunchly defend and support it as a parliamentarian.
The human rights that underlie our justice system—the rule of law, the right to a fair trial and the
presumption of innocence—are universal. Every human being has them and deserves to have them observed. If
they are taken from one of us, all of us lose them. As a lawyer and a civil libertarian, that means that you do not
get to choose your causes. While you often stand up for those with whom you feel solidarity, you sometimes must
stand for even those who disgust you because human rights are universal. On occasion, those you despise the most
also need your counsel the most. We must ensure that everyone has access to advice and to representation. We
must ensure that the presumption of innocence continues to be upheld. It is both a legal principle that applies in
criminal trials and an expression of the fundamental decency of our society.
I am troubled by any punishment, censure or measure that applies to a person before a finding of guilt, on
account of a mere allegation. As a child, I lived through two of the worst examples of trial by media. I saw the
way that Lindy Chamberlain was treated. It was not just a media frenzy, but a frenzy that led directly to a flawed
investigation and prosecution. Later, I saw my father treated in a similar way. Everyone, no matter who they are
or what they are alleged to have done, is entitled to the presumption of innocence, inside and outside of the
courtroom. Whatever else I think about the horrific event that occurred in Cooma recently, I was pleased to hear
the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Karen Webb, remind us of the importance of the presumption of
innocence in relation to the police officer who is now facing charges. It has taken hundreds of years to develop a
criminal justice system with rules that provide fairness and ensure that we punish people only when it is proven
that they have committed a crime. The fact that we have been able to do so is one of the great achievements of
our society. It is also something that must be staunchly defended, and that is what I will do in this place.
Witch-hunts are not a legitimate form of justice and they must be called out. They contaminate the legal process
and destroy lives.
Furthermore, I will always stand up for the rights of workers in this place. Workers deserve fair pay and
I look forward to our new Government removing the public sector wage cap as a priority. Particularly, we must
stop the scourge of workplace injuries and deaths, and until then do more to support people through legal and
investigative processes that take many years to conclude. My practise in industrial law involved mainly appearing
for workers and trade unions. In work health and safety prosecutions, I often appeared as a separate representative
for workers. When someone is injured or killed in their workplace, it has a devastating and traumatic effect on so
many people. Workers that I have represented have had to recount and relive the events that led to the death of a
colleague hundreds of times, as have I as their lawyer, SafeWork investigators, the Coroner, police and
prosecutors, not just in the hours after the tragedy but for years afterwards. That process is necessary but it takes
its toll on everyone involved. We need to improve it and we must provide proper support for the mental health of
everyone involved.
I support social diversity and the collective ability to look after all people. I support protection in the law
against vilification. Nobody should be persecuted because of who they are or what they believe in. The protection
of minorities makes the whole of society stronger. Our diversity is our strength. The recent election was civil and
dignified. I cannot help but contrast it to the 2015 campaign in East Hills. I commend Dominic Perrottet and Chris
Minns for showing us all that we can have an election that is squarely focused on the political debate rather than
personal attacks. Each of them exercised restraint and consistently refused to engage in personal attacks, whether
against each other or towards others suffering from personal failings. Despite many opportunities presenting
themselves and even encouragement from some quarters to turn negative, they were unwilling to do so and we
are all better off as a result. In that spirit, I intend to serve in this place in a way that seeks unity, and to find
common ground where possible. I reject the politics of smear and personal destruction. I hope to forge good
relationships and commit to a civil and bipartisan spirit. But I will always stand up for my beliefs.
We should continually question whether traditions are relevant and look for ways to improve them. I note
that next year we will celebrate the bicentenary of this House, which is a recognition of 200 years of representative
democracy, of sorts, in New South Wales. We should use that as an opportunity to reflect on the ways that we can
improve the House and the State to make it more democratic and representative. I have a proposal. When the term
of our current Governor expires in 2024, we could hold an election for her successor. I would like to see a process
where anyone on the electoral roll can be nominated for Governor of this State. It may be that for such a figurehead
position acceptable limitations on the election process may be appropriate. Perhaps paid political advertising could
be limited and the NSW Electoral Commission advertise the election and encourage people to participate and cast
their ballots electronically. The two leading candidates with the highest number of votes could face a run-off
election. The winner of the ballot would become the new Governor of New South Wales.
I started this speech talking about a commitment to the dignity of the individual, which defined my father's
life work and which he instilled in me from a young age. I have tried to emulate that commitment throughout my
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 67
working life. I started my career as a trainee with the forestry division of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime,
Mining and Energy Union [CFMMEU] in the 1990s. The CFMMEU is a powerful and successful union that
advances the industrial interests of its members. Like me, it believes in the importance of broader social activism.
My comrades at the CFMMEU have stood with me throughout my adult life. They then supported me in
preselection for this place because they know who I am and what I stand for.
I acknowledge and thank them, particularly Rita Mallia and Darren Greenfield who are here tonight. There
are many people who supported me on my journey. I thank my parliamentary colleagues Lynda Voltz and the
Hon. Anthony D'Adam, as well as the former member for Liverpool, Paul Lynch, for always being in my corner.
I thank the rank and file members of the Labor Party, as well as union comrades, who supported and voted for me
in my preselection to be in this place. You cannot, in a major party, be elected without being preselected. I cannot
tell my story about landing here without talking about my preselection—though in some ways the less said the
better.
I am in the Labor Party because I believe in its ideals and its principles. I believe in social justice, fairness,
and equality. I believe that government can and should be a force for good in our society. It should do more, not
less. I have always believed in democracy and been a lifelong supporter of rank and file ballots. A wonderful thing
about them is that sometimes they have unpredictable outcomes. I was not the first choice of the factional leaders
of my party to be on our ticket; in fact I was not any of their choices. Neither the left nor the right had me on their
tickets at the recent ALP State Conference. While I was not on any of the factional tickets, the Labor Party is a
wonderful, democratic institution. The rank and file of the party decided that they did want me to represent them
and the people of New South Wales in this place nonetheless.
My pitch to conference delegates was simple: If you like the way the factions in the party have been running
things, then you should not vote for me. But if you want an agitator for change, you want something different,
then I am your candidate. My old comrades at the CFMMEU and the Maritime Union of Australia joined together
with new ones at the Electrical Trades Union and the Health Services Union in their support for me. Rank and file
members of the left, like Shannen, Cian, David and Zac, stepped up to run my campaign, and ordinary party
members voted for me. I had no idea at the time but my good friend Rodney Cavalier tells me that only two people
in the long history of the NSW Labor Party—more than 130 years—have won preselection against the factional
tickets. The first was in 1961 and was a disruptor, also called Murphy. My father was preselected for the Senate
against the factional tickets. The second was me, in 2022. My party wanted a disruptor in sending me to this House
and I hope to live up to that in the most positive way. In my view, being a disruptor from time to time is an
honourable thing. I want to challenge the status quo, to contribute to the battle of ideas and to help bring out the
best in this place. If I do those things I will be true to those whose support and influence has brought me here.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Members and officers of the House stood and applauded.
Bills
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (SYDNEY WATER AND HUNTER WATER) BILL 2023
Second Reading Debate
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (18:35): As I was saying earlier, regrettably the current version of the
bill discriminates against the 1.85 million people who rely on water utilities other than Sydney Water and Hunter
Water. Moreover, by omitting other utilities from its scope, it raises concern about the future privatisation of
WaterNSW and the 89 local water utilities serving regional, rural and remote areas of the State. This leaves us to
question the agenda of NSW Labor on this issue. We all know that water is a precious resource that has been at
the forefront of people's minds, both in areas where we know that it is scarce, such as western New South Wales,
and even here in Sydney where awareness of its value has grown. The significance of water security management
and infrastructure cannot be overstated and it is crucial that those responsible for the supply and delivery of water
have confidence in their future.
I delve briefly into the background of the bill. In the other place the Premier in his second reading speech
highlighted that the aim of the bill was to make privatisation of these entities more challenging. However, as
I have said, there are significant issues with the bill as it stands. Of the eight State-owned corporations governed
under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, three are responsible for the delivery, supply and management of
water and sewerage services in New South Wales. While the bill addresses Sydney Water and Hunter Water, it
omits WaterNSW, which is also a State-owned corporation that supplies two-thirds of the water used in our State.
I know that the Minister mentioned the fact that these two State-owned corporations are Sydney Water and Hunter
Water but in her second reading speech she did not address WaterNSW. I invite her in her reply to outline how
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 68
she sees that as being any different. We know that WaterNSW also plays a vital role in protecting the Greater
Sydney drinking water catchment. It manages 42 storages, including major supply dams like Warragamba Dam.
Its reach extends beyond Greater Sydney into regional areas. WaterNSW supplies rural water not only to Sydney
Water and Hunter Water but also to various councils and local water utilities.
These entities, governed by the Local Government Act and the Water Management Act, among others,
deliver a safe, secure, efficient, sustainable and affordable water supply to 1.85 million people who live in regional
New South Wales. These are local water utilities that have been omitted from the bill, either deliberately or
because of a glaring oversight from those opposite that demands immediate rectification. It is no surprise that
representatives from regional communities like me, the Hon. Sam Farraway and National colleagues in the other
House, have spoken out against the bill. We are doing that because we have had representatives from regional
communities talk to us about how apprehensive they are about their exclusion from the bill. They are looking to
the Parliament for assurance and protection. I echo the comments made by the Hon. Sam Farraway about the
country mayors. I thank them for their feedback. They remember that in 2008 the then Labor water Minister,
Nathan Rees, initiated an inquiry to address sustainable water supply and sewage management in
non-metropolitan New South Wales.
It was a cause for concern for local councils and for water utilities because it threatened to remove their control
over water and sewerage services. Retaining the ownership and control over water assets is as crucial today as it
was in 2007 and 2008.
That is why our country mayors are speaking up. They remember. They know what had happened under
previous Labor governments, and this Government is showing again how the Labor Party does not offer protection
from privatisation to those in the bush. It is happy to give that protection to those in Greater Sydney, the Illawarra
and the Hunter regions but not to those in rural, regional and remote areas. It is disheartening to see such
inequitable safeguards being proposed. The Premier himself has stated that drinkable water is an essential
constitutional right. I agree with that. The point is that that should be the case regardless of anyone's location.
The Government should be supporting the proposed amendments that we will be putting forward in the
Committee stage. That is the best way to demonstrate its commitment to govern and provide for all citizens, not
just those in specific regions. If those opposite genuinely believe that water security should be enshrined in the
New South Wales Constitution Act, noting how important our Constitution is, they have the opportunity now to
ensure that it is the basic right of every individual in our State to have access to clean water, regardless of their
location. During the election campaign, the Premier made a statement saying that he does not possess expertise
about regional New South Wales. That has been demonstrated fair and square on the floor of this Chamber tonight.
That is why we must make sure that the foreshadowed amendments of the Opposition in the Committee stage are
supported. We have to make sure that every resident of New South Wales has that support and constitutional
protection, regardless of where their water meter might be located.
In my final remarks, I indicate that my colleague the Hon. Sam Farraway will move a number of
amendments that are identical to those moved in the lower House. We urge colleagues to consider supporting
those amendments. We will agree to the second reading of the bill in order to debate those amendments. Should
they not be passed—if we follow what happened downstairs, that may well be the case—then The Nationals will
make their thoughts known during the third reading debate of the bill. I foreshadow that for colleagues. I once
again say that there is an opportunity now to get this legislation right and include everywhere across the State,
including regional New South Wales. That is exactly what members should be doing.
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (18:41): I feel compelled to participate in debate on the Constitution
Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter Water) Bill 2023, having been such a long-time campaigner against
privatisation. Firstly, I congratulate my colleague the Minister for Water for bringing this important election
promise to the Parliament, delivering on a key election promise of putting a nail in the coffin of privatisation. It
is breathtaking that Opposition members come to this Chamber and try to somehow sell the idea that they are
these great advocates of protecting public utilities against privatisation when they were addicted to privatisation.
I remind the House of some of the income-producing public assets that they wantonly flogged off: the
Sydney Desalination Plant, Port Botany, Port Kembla, Eraring Energy, Mt Piper and Wallerawang power stations,
the Port of Newcastle, Green State Power, Bayswater and Liddell power stations, and Colongra Power Station.
I have already listed 11 assets, and that only covered those between 2012 and 2014. Let me go through some
others that members will remember from recent memory: Transgrid, Kooragang Island Advanced Water
Treatment Plant, Ausgrid, titling and registry business of the Land and Property Information, Endeavour Energy
and WestConnex. These were essential monopoly assets transferred from the public's hands into private operators,
and now those opposite want to come to this Chamber and tell us that they want to protect public assets on behalf
of the people of New South Wales. It just does not wash.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 69
Members will also remember the emblematic example of the incompetence of the Liberal-Nationals
Coalition, the worshippers of the private sector. It sold Vales Point Power Station to Delta Electricity for
$1 million. Last year, Vales Point Power Station was onsold to Sev.En Global Investments, an overseas company.
We have heard that story before. Reportedly, the resale price for that Vales Point Power Station was at least
$200 million. Anyone listening to this debate or reading Hansard will be thinking, "We really got a dodgy deal
when that mob were in power, didn't we? We really did." For those opposite to now come to this Chamber and
try to move amendments to the bill to give the impression that they are pro public ownership and anti-privatisation
just does not wash.
The Government is delivering on a key election promise. It has only been a tick over two months since
25 March and we are delivering on a key election promise. Again, the proceeds of some of those sales were
justified, and continue to be justified, week after week in this House because of this euphemistic asset recycling
portrayal that those opposite are on about. It went into things like the new regional fleet built in Spain, which is
expected to be 1,205 days late and over $1 billion over budget. Design changes are expected to cost the taxpayer
several hundred million dollars. Let's not forget the New Intercity Fleet built in South Korea. The trains could not
even fit tracks or tunnels and are now over three years late. The Sydney Metro project is estimated to be overrun
by at least $12 billion and will not be in action until years after the estimated time frame.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Point of order—
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: Those opposite do not like it.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: I am allowed to take a point of order. We are having a civil debate. This is a
bill about Hunter Water and Sydney Water; it is not a bill about trains or anything to do with transport. The
member should be relevant to the bill before the House.
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: To the point of order: I was being directly relevant because the whole
bill is about keeping Sydney Water and Hunter Water in public hands. I was pointing out the folly of the addiction
of those opposite when it was their policy to privatise everything.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): There is no point of order.
The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: Considering that record, why would anyone trust the Liberal-Nationals
Coalition to keep essential public assets of Sydney Water and Hunter Water in public hands? Let's not forget that
former Premier Gladys Berejiklian made an ironclad guarantee in the lead-up to the 2019 election not to sell any
further assets but then proceeded to privatise assets like the remaining public stake in WestConnex. Those opposite
are proud that they transferred public wealth to private monopoly toll roads, so the poor old people of New South
Wales have to pay a motza just to travel from point A to point B. They have no credibility, and the bill should be
passed forthwith.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (18:46): On behalf of The Greens, I speak in support of the Constitution
Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter Water) Bill 2023. The bill amends the Constitution Act 1902 to ensure
the continued public ownership of the Sydney Water Corporation and the Hunter Water Corporation, along with
their primary undertakings. The Greens have always advocated for the public ownership of essential services. We
support the intent of the bill to ensure that Sydney Water and Hunter Water remain in public ownership and are
managed in the public interest rather than being subjected to the whims of market forces.
The bill has come about as a result of internal Treasury documents that revealed that in 2020 and 2021 the
New South Wales Government, under then Treasurer Dominic Perrottet, had been considering privatisation
options for Sydney Water. A 2020 document prepared by KPMG outlined the "financial challenges" faced by
Sydney Water, stating that "major structural changes were being contemplated". One of the KPMG documents
prepared in April 2021 included a proposal titled "Majority Interest Asset Financing Model" that suggested a
structure allowing Sydney Water to sell a 49 per cent stake in a recycling plant, a decision that would effectively
privatise a significant portion of the entity. Despite the fact that Sydney Water, the State's largest water utility, is
responsible for supplying drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services to over five million people, those
discussions about its future and those workings were being made behind closed doors. So The Greens support the
move to legislate requirements for an Act of Parliament to be passed if any future government plans to privatise
Sydney or Hunter Water.
My Labor colleagues have been quick to point to the Liberal-Nationals Coalition's record of privatisation
of essential services and toll roads, but it is important to put on record during this debate the Labor Party's history
of privatisation and the long-term impacts that that legacy has had on our State.
The previous State Labor Government privatised a slew of essential services. I was in this House in that
Government's dying days in 2010. Bob Carr's Labor Government initially sought to privatise all aspects of
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 70
electricity generation in the 1990s before the proposal was crushed by the New South Wales union movement and
rejected by the ALP State Conference.
By 2010, when I had entered Parliament, Labor took a second and much more successful crack. Just before
midnight on 14 December 2010 and an impending electoral defeat, then New South Wales Treasurer Eric
Roozendaal announced the sale of the State's public electricity assets. Public electricity retailers Country Energy
and Integral Energy and the output from power generator Eraring were sold to Origin Energy for $3.3 billion.
EnergyAustralia, the output from the Delta West generator, the Mount Piper extension and two Marulan
development sites were all sold to the Hong Kong company TRUenergy for $2 billion. That laid the groundwork
for the O'Farrell Liberal Government to sell the State-owned generators, which it did not waste any time doing.
It is worth noting that the Government is now actively considering buying back Eraring, with the Minister
for Energy telling The Sydney Morning Herald that the Government would intervene to keep the station going if
needed. The Government has also committed to creating a publicly owned energy corporation to provide
affordable, accessible and reliable energy. The Greens support that. It has been our policy for years, but New South
Wales should have retained ownership of its energy assets and corporations in the first place.
Labor also made the decision in 2010 to privatise WSN Environmental Solutions, which at the time boasted
11 waste recycling, processing and disposal facilities across Sydney. The Public Service Association labelled that
planned sale a "short-sighted money grab" in which the business was being sold for a "song". Although there are
local government-operated waste services, one cannot help but think that a strong State-owned waste recycling
business might have gone some way to address the waste crisis that New South Wales is currently facing. I note
that Local Government NSW welcomes the bill and recognises the Government's mandate to protect Sydney
Water and Hunter Water from any potential privatisation given it was a key election priority.
Despite the Labor Party's sordid history of privatising State assets in New South Wales, it is the lesser of
two evils when it comes to privatisation. It is hard to stomach seeing the Liberal Party and The Nationals being
anti-privatisation crusaders after spending the past decade lauding their asset recycling model and selling whatever
public services and assets Labor had not managed to sell off before them. The Coalition under Premier Mike Baird
privatised Hunter Water, an engineering consultancy subsidiary of Hunter Water Corporation, and outsourced the
management of Hunter Water's 25 wastewater treatment plants to private operator Veolia.
The offloading of public expertise has contributed to the de-skilling of the public sector that has led to what
the Auditor-General identified last year as "instances of over-reliance on consultants and the outsourcing of
expertise". The Coalition sold off the State's interest in WestConnex to Transurban while undercutting the value
of the project by excluding over $4 billion in construction costs from the sale price. As members have heard time
and again in this place, motorists are now being slogged by Transurban, which bought WestConnex for a steal.
Transurban is licking its lips at the hundreds of millions of dollars in toll subsidies soon to be introduced by the
Minns Labor Government. The Coalition's disastrous $5 billion worth of secret bus privatisation contracts have
left Sydney commuters waiting for buses that never come. I will address the Opposition's amendments in
Committee.
Having outlined Labor's record on privatisation, which was 12 years ago—a fairly long time—I welcome
the new Labor Government. It seems to be a very different government to the previous Labor Government in its
dying days when Eric Roozendaal sold off everything at the stroke of midnight. The Greens support the bill and
its intent. We will continue to support good bills put forward by Labor, particularly bills that protect public
essential services and the people who work for them.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM (18:54): Listening to the previous speaker, one can only wonder if Labor's
record on privatisation is too dreadful. Why did the new leader of The Greens Ms Abigail Boyd announce a Labor-
Greens coalition as governing in New South Wales. It was maybe to the surprise of the Labor Party.
The Hon. Rose Jackson: She can speak for herself.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I acknowledge the interjection that Ms Abigail Boyd should speak for
herself. We are all waiting to see the tabling of the coalition agreement between Labor and The Greens, which
obviously will reflect heavily on questions of privatisation. One Nation opposes the privatisation of Sydney Water
and Hunter Water. They are natural monopolies that are not suited to privatisation, and they are also utilities that
have performed quite well, measured by the paucity of public complaints about them. Those of us who have been
around for a while know that we do not really get complaints about Sydney Water and Hunter Water. The taps
turn on. The pricing seems to be reasonable. There are many more complaints made about other utilities in
New South Wales. I do not know of a single complaint about Sydney Water that has come through my office.
As far as I am aware, that is not something that has featured in parliamentary debate over the past four years. The
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 71
argument for privatisation appears to be very weak. If a utility is performing to a high level of public satisfaction
and there are much greater concerns in New South Wales, why would anyone be considering privatisation?
I heard the protests of Opposition members that they were never going to move forward with privatisation.
One can only wonder what happened at the Wollondilly candidate seminar in the very fine town of Picton prior
to the last election when the Goulburn and Wollondilly electorates had candidates lined up at a table holding rapid
democracy signs that could be turned around to answer "yes" or "no". When the question "Do you support the
privatisation of Sydney water?" was asked, the local government Minister—
[An Opposition member interjected.]
They are being disowned. Apparently it does not matter, but it mattered at the time. It seemed to be a very
honest assessment of what was going on in the minds of the Coalition. The then Minister for Local Government—
someone in the Cabinet—holding the marginal seat of Goulburn, Wendy Tuckerman, put up the paddle "yes" in
support of the privatisation of Sydney Water. The paddle of a no lesser figure—a very substantial figure—the
then Government Whip and member for Wollondilly, who obviously had whipped around opinion in the
Legislative Assembly as to where the Coalition stood on privatisation, also said "yes". Every other person along
the table, including the now member for Wollondilly, said "no". That seemed to be some sort of nascent
declaration of Coalition interest in privatisation. I do not think the Coalition can wipe that away.
The Opposition says that the bill is based on a complete furphy, a falsehood, and they had no interest in
privatising Sydney Water, but at least two members, a Liberal member of the Cabinet and a Liberal Whip at the
time, put up a "yes" as their answer on the privatisation of Sydney Water. The debate on the bill, the bill itself and
the amendments has come down to a battle of the stunts. It seems to be straight out of the stable of Hawker Britton.
Labor announced it was going to write the non-privatisation of Sydney Water and Hunter Water into the
Constitution Act. Nobody had thought of having economic questions in the Constitution Act before. What does it
mean going forward? It means that any government in the future—a Tuckerman-Smith government—wanting to
privatise Sydney Water and Hunter Water would just try to get the numbers—
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Just imagine.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Hopefully they will do a bit more than just put up a paddle. They will put
up a bill and have an argument for it—who knows—and hopefully have an argument in the election campaign.
The Tuckerman-Smith government would put up a privatisation bill and seek to repeal the provisions that are now
before the House.
Amending the Constitution Act has all the hallmarks of the Hawker Britton campaign strategy. Its advisers would
have said to the Government, "Look, we've got some polling here saying there's some public concern about
privatisation. People don't want Sydney Water in particular privatised. How can we get it up there for another day
and a half in the election campaign cycle?" The public think the Constitution is the one in Canberra, a really big
deal where one needs a referendum to change it and then it is set in stone. They do not really know that in
New South Wales the Constitution is an Act of Parliament that can be amended willy-nilly by Parliament at any
time.
Basically, what happened is Hawker Britton proposed that the Government write the non-privatisation and
protection of Sydney Water and Hunter Water into the Constitution Act to get a day and a half of media coverage.
That was the Labor Party campaign stunt. I suppose it worked well for them. They got themselves into minority
government and into a Labor-Greens coalition, as announced by the leader of The Greens, Ms Abigail Boyd. Now
we see an even bigger stunt from Nationals members, who are asking what about all of our country water utilities?
They were as mute as Trappist monks for 12 years on the protection against privatisation of country utilities. They
never made any proposals to protect those utilities over 12 years in government. Now they have worked out, after
extensive meetings with country mayors over Chinese in Dubbo—
The Hon. Sam Farraway: No, that's the Government. The Government had Chinese meals.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Tara didn't go.
The Hon. Scott Farlow: I thought it was Indian.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I thought skewered Toole was on the menu in Dubbo. That is really what
happened. That is really what they were talking about in Dubbo, and it came about. It is the "battle of the stunts",
which happens in politics from time to time. I think The Nationals have been nimble on their feet to try to outflank
the Government on this. I will be interested in the views of The Greens because after all their rhetoric after
privatisation, surely they would be supporting the amendments for public ownership.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: You would think. Break the coalition.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 72
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Break the coalition agreement. We have not seen it yet but The Greens are
going to rip it up and support The Nationals amendments to protect the public ownership of country water utilities.
I would expect that, but I fear The Greens will not be doing that. Despite the coalition they announced with the
Labor Government, The Greens are going to vote against The Nationals amendments and leave open the
possibility of the privatisation of country water utilities. The Greens are no longer the party of Shoebridge, who
in this place lobbied for transparency measures. The Greens now oppose Standing Order 52 requests. They always
did things for domestic violence survivors but they voted down an amendment on that earlier on. The Greens are
like a sideshow alley magician who grabs a cloth from a bag, lifts it over his head, it drops down and then he
disappears completely. The Shoebridge Greens have disappeared completely from the Chamber. Hang on, they're
back.
Ms Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: I know the member has a really weird, unhealthy obsession with
The Greens, but the bill before the House, like many of the bills that are debated, has nothing to do with The
Greens. The member can never help himself. I ask that he be brought back to the leave of the bill, which is about
privatisation and Sydney Water.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): The honourable member will address the bill
and the issue of privatisation.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I just enjoy magic tricks. The Shoebridge Greens have disappeared and
they are turning themselves inside out as contortionists. They have become the parliamentary version of the Kama
Sutra trying to understand the positions they have arrived at. We will go to those questions in the Committee
stage. I am sure Ms Cate Faehrmann will outline The Greens' position on the privatisation of water utilities. One
would think a party that has railed consistently against privatisation would support an amendment to put
anti-privatisation in the Constitution Act, but that is for a future debate. On the question of changing the
Constitution Act, it is an unusual circumstance in New South Wales that we do not have referendums anymore to
change our Constitution. Perhaps the right way to handle the question of changing the Constitution Act on the
question of the ownership of Sydney Water and Hunter Water should be subject to a referendum of the people to
find out their point of view. Why was that not put forward by the Labor Party?
The Hon. Rose Jackson: We had the election.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: You got 36 per cent of the vote and minority government in the other
place, so I am not too sure the mandate argument applies. I have heard that before. From the Opposition the
Smith-Tuckerman doctrine swept away the idea that no-one ever talked about privatising utilities, but on the Labor
side I am not too sure the mandate argument applies. I think it was the Minister who said the community
overwhelmingly backed this proposal. Only getting around one-third of the vote and being in minority
government—I think they can do better than that. I believe questions should be put to the people of New South
Wales. The Hon. Cameron Murphy had an idea earlier on. We are all running to be Governor now. Big public
housing down there and nice trips to Dubai instead of getting your hands dirty opening this wretched place. Plenty
of ideas are coming forward for testing the views of the people.
I have done a bit of research on this. Since Federation, New South Wales has had 16 referendums, mostly
on the question of closing times for pubs and hotels. Starting in 1916, the 6 o'clock swill was approved. The people
were asked whether they would close the pubs—I do not know what was wrong with them back then—at 6 o'clock,
7 o'clock, 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. It wasn't my ancestors voting because they chose to close
them at 6 o'clock and instituted the 6 o'clock swill. There was another dreadful one; I almost fell off my chair
when I read it. In the year of my birth, 1961, the people were asked whether they approved of a bill to abolish the
Legislative Council.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Bring it back.
The Hon. MARK LATHAM: I am putting forward some proposals for a referendum, but we do not want
to get too carried away with resurrecting that idea from 1961. Some questions should never be asked because the
answer is horrifying. There was the breakaway movement for a new State of New England, rejected in 1967.
Sunday trading of alcohol was not approved. One could not have a drink on a Sunday. Again, my ancestors missed
that vote in 1969. Finally, we got into the rhythm of successful referendum questions, starting in 1976 with
daylight savings. Then they democratised this place. Of course, the people approved of that. There were also
referendums about the four-year parliamentary term, changes to the disclosure of certain pecuniary interests,
filling casual Senate vacancies, the fixed four-year term under the Fahey Government and the independence of
the judiciary.
New South Wales has not had a referendum question since 1995—28 years without asking the people their
view. If we are proposing to change the Constitution Act, I would have thought it is good practice to consider the
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 73
possibilities of a referendum. It is probably more relevant to have a referendum on preserving the public ownership
of Sydney Water and Hunter Water than voting for the Governor. That is my proposal for the Government to
consider if the bill is rejected or if it does not like the amendments moved by The Nationals. It is probably best
that these questions are put to the people rather than being subject to political stunts at election time.
In closing, I endorse the views of Gerard Hayes of the Health Services Union, who said about the bill that
the Government should have higher priorities, such as the abolition of the wages cap. Even Mr Hayes knows there
is an element of stuntism in proposing this after the election campaign. The Government should have more
substantial matters to bring before Parliament than a bill that a future Tuckerman-Smith government could easily
repeal, along with its pro-privatisation agenda, and all of this will, in the end, count for very little.
The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (19:08): The Hon. Mark Latham is very right, that the Constitution
Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter Water) Bill 2023 is a political stunt. The bill was announced in the last
week of the election campaign when the Government, then in opposition, was scrounging around, obviously with
a bit of polling under its belt, trying to look for something to get a bit of media. The Hon. Daniel Mookhey, as the
then shadow Treasurer, would have said that no more could be done, all the policies had been costed and there
would be no bing-bang announcements.
So they came up with this bill. As the Hon. Mark Latham mentioned quite rightly, recently Gerard Hayes said in
an interview on Ben Fordham's show, "If the Premier's view is that it's more important to prioritise legislation to
prevent privatisation of a facility that is not going to be privatised then I think he is missing the boat. The
Government came in with commitments and those commitments have taken second place to potential
privatisation." That is what Gerard Hayes, the backer of the Hon. Cameron Murphy, told Ben Fordham. Members
should be mindful that this was something the Liberals and The Nationals were never going to do when it came
to Sydney Water and Hunter Water.
If the Government wants to come in here with a political stunt, it had better make it a good one. It had
better actually protect water assets across New South Wales, not just Sydney Water and Hunter Water. This
measure by the Minns Labor Government is nothing more than a political stunt. This Mediscare 2.0 was seen
throughout the campaign, and I give credit to the Hon. Bob Nanva for the execution of that campaign. "Save
Sydney Water!" they said—that is, save the thing that did not need to be saved because nothing was ever going to
happen to it. Labor has run ideas, such as Sydney Water being privatised, that no rational person would ever
suggest because they are so ridiculous. The lies we see are worse from election to election.
Deep down, I know that every member of the now Government knows in their heart of hearts that Gerard
was right: that members on this side of the House were never going to privatise Sydney Water or Hunter Water
and there is no need for this legislation. Seeing that it has made it to this House, we will not stand in the way.
However, we want to make sure that members opposite are true to their word. If they are genuine and believe this
is essential to protect Sydney Water and Hunter Water—and that this House needs to deal with it—it had better
protect all water assets. Members can see amendments to that part already.
I turn to the detail of the bill—or, in reality, the lack of important inclusions in the bill. Part 10, section
57 (6) defines "water corporation" only as:
(a) the Sydney Water Corporation,
(b) the Hunter Water Corporation.
That is it. The water security of New South Wales is only enshrined to Sydney Water and Hunter Water. The bill
fails to outline any of the other water assets or authorities associated with water services in New South Wales. Of
most concern to me, as shadow Minister for the Central Coast, is the exclusion of the Central Coast Water
Authority. I thank the hardworking member for Terrigal in the other place, Adam Crouch, for highlighting these
concerns in the debate in that House. As he stated in the Legislative Assembly's second reading debate:
The Central Coast Water Authority is the third-largest urban water supply system in New South Wales.
The authority caters to 365,000 people on the coast. It supplies water to the entire Central Coast as an essential
piece of State infrastructure, with three dams, three weirs, three treatment plants and more than 2,000 kilometres
of pipeline. The Central Coast Water Authority is owned by the Central Coast Council and is left out of this
legislation. I know that members will consider amendments in the Committee of the Whole stage today. The
Coalition proposes amendments that will consider resolutions to the concerns that have been raised. As the
Hon. Mark Latham pointed out, if The Greens are genuine in this debate then hopefully they will join us in
supporting those amendments.
It is very curious that Labor has excluded regional water assets from inclusion in this legislation. Why? Is
it because it has no grand plans for these water agencies? Do they potentially have their own privatisation plans?
Or is it because those opposite just do not think about the regions? They do not think about the bush or the Central
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 74
Coast. If water agency assets need to be protected from a threat that does not exist, even according to Gerard
Hayes, why is this only the case in the Sydney metropolitan region and the Hunter and not in other regional areas?
I make this observation: The only side of politics that was talking about the privatisation of water assets in the
election campaign was the Labor Party. Those opposite seem weirdly obsessed with something the Coalition was
never going to do.
How do Labor members go home, whether to the bush or the Central Coast, and explain to their constituents
that it is more important to look after Sydney Water and Hunter Water than regional water authorities such as
Central Coast Water Authority or those in the bush? Of course, the people of the Central Coast have great Liberal
representatives in Adam Crouch and the Hon. Taylor Martin, who are standing up for them and their interests,
while unfortunately Labor members have left those people high and dry. I am sure Labor candidates will be back
in three years and nine months asking for the votes of the people on the Central Coast. However, I assume they
are not standing up for them in this Chamber today when supporting this legislation.
The bill before the House is light on detail and has not considered water assets in regions all over our State.
The Opposition will be very interested to hear from the Minister for Water in her reply as to why only two water
corporations have received constitutional protections. For the Labor Party to complete its political stunt, it is
passing this clearly thought out, one-page piece of legislation. Labor just wanted to trot out the line of "acting on
day one", doing the most important thing of stopping the privatisation of something that was never going to be
privatised anyway. Those opposite have not concerned themselves with the detail and have not thought of the
bush or regions like the Central Coast, nor the water assets right across the State, including WaterNSW.
I commend in this place the shadow water Minister, Steph Cooke, who is in the gallery today and has been
a great fighter when it comes to the legislation before the House. The Labor Government has never had a plan to
deliver in the interests of the State. All it is doing is orchestrating lousy political stunts like the one before us
today. Passing legislation has real consequences and many opposite do not yet realise this. Legislation is more
than just a press release or a social media tile. The early days of this Labor Government are just a stunt show and
the performers are falling flat.
The Hon. WES FANG (19:15): I contribute to debate on the Constitution Amendment (Sydney Water
and Hunter Water) Bill 2023. I begin somewhere I was not expecting to begin when this debate started: agreeing
with Ms Cate Faehrmann on some stuff, which concerns me greatly.
The Hon. Sam Farraway: Wes!
The Hon. WES FANG: I know. But Ms Cate Faehrmann outlined quite perfectly the obsession that the
Labor Party has with privatisation. That is where the fear lies with members on this side of the House regarding
this bill. Before us is a bill that is deficient. The Hon. Ron Hoenig, the Minister for Local Government in the other
place, acknowledges that it is deficient. He knows the Government has screwed up.
The Government has got its training wheels on and does not know what it is doing. It has put a bill forward
that stops only two entities from being privatised, forgetting the other 89 water utilities that exist in rural and
regional New South Wales as well as WaterNSW. How reckless! How short-sighted is the Labor Party to put
forward a bill that only protects two entities. Was it an error? Maybe that is what the Labor Party wants us to
think. Maybe those opposite want us to think that they are just a bit silly, they have made a mistake and it is all
going to be fixed later on by an inquiry from the Hon. Ron Hoenig. Or, as members on this side of the House
suspect, is this like in 2007 and 2008 when those opposite had an inquiry about how to privatise rural and regional
water assets? When country mayors came here last week—
The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine: Not again with the country mayors!
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Acknowledge that.
The Hon. Sam Farraway: Get that on tape.
The Hon. WES FANG: I will acknowledge that interjection from the Hon. Sarah Kaine. "Not again with
the country mayors," she says. Members on this side of the House will stand up for country mayors.
The Hon. Rose Jackson: Because they preselect you. We get it. You need their votes. It's okay. We know
that's how it works.
The Hon. Sam Farraway: That's a good clip, too. Thanks, Rose.
The Hon. WES FANG: Thank you, Rose. Mr Assistant President, I ask you to rule that interjections are
disorderly. I understand the Minister is under pressure tonight—
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 75
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): Order! I remind members that interjections
are disorderly. I ask all members, whether interjecting or responding to interjections, to cease doing so. I ask all
speakers to please direct their comments through the chair rather than across the table.
The Hon. WES FANG: We know that the Labor Party has a history of seeking to privatise rural and
regional water assets. We know Labor has tried to do it in the past. Is that what we are seeing here tonight? Is that
why Labor is so reluctant to support what we want to do? I have never seen a government so reluctant to accept—
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I remind all members that interjections
are disorderly, as is responding to them.
The Hon. WES FANG: This should be a straightforward thing. We know that the Labor Party has
acknowledged that there is a mistake here. We know that Labor has screwed up because only two entities are in
this bill. It is either a screw up, or it is deliberate. There is an old saying that when you are deciding between screw
up and deliberate, take screw up every time. I am not so sure that is the case this time. Is there a secret plan from
Labor members to prioritise metropolitan assets and enact what they tried to do last time they were in government,
which was to privatise regional and rural water assets? Is that why Labor is so reluctant? Is that why The Greens
are on board with them? Is that why The Greens, who apparently are a bastion of anti-privatisation, are not willing
to back in the amendments that we will put forward to protect regional and rural water assets?
Labor says it fights privatisation. The Hon. Mark Buttigieg said that he rails against privatisation and that
he was driven to make a contribution because he was so anti-privatisation. Yet, the minute we identify that there
are 89 regional and rural water assets and WaterNSW that have been left out of the bill, and we ask Labor to take
the bill away, to fix it and bring it back to the House, both of those reasonable requests are rejected. What do we
see then? We see the amendments that we put forward rejected at every opportunity, both in the other place and,
it would appear, by those opposite tonight.
The amendments that we will put forward tonight do nothing more than include rural and regional water
assets and WaterNSW in the bill. We are happy to say that we will not privatise Sydney Water or Hunter Water.
We said that during the election campaign and we are happy to back the bill in now. All we are doing is seeking
to have our communities represented. The Country Mayors Association, Jamie Chaffey—
[A Government member interjected.]
The Hon. WES FANG: Do you have that much disregard for country mayors? Have you met with them?
Were you there? I know the Minister for Regional New South Wales wasn't there. The Labor Party doesn't care
about country mayors. Your Minister couldn't turn up.
Ms Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: This is the second time that the member has tried to explain what
the country mayors are saying and, each time, he has not spoken through you but has been distracted and gone off
course. Could you bring him back, because I am keen to hear what it was.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I ask all members to not be distracted and
to address the Chair.
The Hon. WES FANG: My apologies, Mr Assistant President. It is difficult when the interjections are so
disorderly from those across the Chamber. I put my case forward here not for myself but for the people of rural
and regional New South Wales. That is important. The Hon. Mark Latham said that The Greens were not the party
of David Shoebridge. We also know that the Labor Party is not the party of the Hon. Mick Veitch. This would
never have happened if Mick Veitch was still here. Mick Veitch would have fought for rural and regional
New South Wales. He would have told the Labor Party that this bill has to go back to the drawing board. He would
have stopped rural and regional communities being treated as second-class citizens by the Labor Party. He would
have stood up for country mayors and would not have been sledging them from across the Chamber. The
Hon. Mick Veitch would have stood up for our communities. Members opposite have failed. They need to support
our community.
The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine: Point of order: This is my first point of order, and I am sure the Hon. Wes
Fang will correct me if I am wrong—
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I will correct you if required.
The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine: I am not entirely sure, but I think that part of the tirade that I just heard was
suggesting to—
The Hon. Sam Farraway: What's the standing order? What's the point of order?
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 76
The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine: Relevance is one and the other is casting aspersions on those of us on the
opposite side of the House. The Hon. Wes Fang does not know what we think of various things and is casting
aspersions.
The Hon. WES FANG: You've said it. You were yelling it across the Chamber.
The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine: I didn't say it.
The Hon. WES FANG: To the point of order: The President gave a ruling last week that wide latitude is
to be given during second reading debates. In particular, the President ruled that during debates on revenue, which
I would say that this certainly is, even wider latitude is given.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): We have always given wide latitude in
second reading debates. That does not include shouting at each other across the Chamber and seeking to insult
each other. The honourable member will continue and address the Chair.
The Hon. WES FANG: I note that the Labor Party is not the party of Mick Veitch anymore. As the chair
for the Committee 4 Wagga acknowledged the other day, they are the city-centric Labor Party. They are certainly
not the party of rural and regional communities. They have a chance to fix that by taking the bill away from this
House and fixing it or adopting our amendments. Other than that, it is all rhetoric. It is a stunt.
The Hon. CHRIS RATH (19:27): I support the Constitution Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter
Water) Bill 2023, although I call into substantial doubt its necessity. It was the week of the election when Chris
Minns broadcast his intention to enshrine government ownership of Sydney Water into the New South Wales
Constitution. Indeed, it was the last formal press conference, convened by Chris Minns on 24 March, when voters
were told they must elect Labor to "put Sydney Water in the Constitution and avoid future Liberal governments
enacting a backdoor fire sale of Sydney Water".
The now Premier's words were not a desperate defence of an asset at risk. Rather, it is clear that this bill is
solely the conclusion of a typical Labor scaremongering campaign. The Perrottet Government had already
emphatically ruled out any privatisation of Sydney Water. Weeks before Minns held this election eve press
conference, former Treasurer Matt Kean exclusively addressed the claim and he said, "There will be no
privatisation of Sydney Water and there will be no privatisation of Sydney Water assets." In essence, we are voting
on a bill seeking to protect that which was never at risk. What this tells the people of New South Wales is that the
agenda of the new Labor Government is abundantly clear—political stunts not political process, puff not policy,
and good gimmicks as opposed to good governance.
The time spent debating the bill is nothing more than time wasted by the Minns Government.
At the crux of the bill is the false axiom that Sydney Water is not currently protected. I remind members
that Sydney Water is a statutory State-owned corporation. It is simply not possible to sell Sydney Water by stealth
or by backdoor fire sale, as Labor has suggested. Any such sale would require an approving Act of Parliament to
pass both Chambers. The bill does not offer any significant further protection. Even if government ownership of
Sydney Water were enshrined in the Constitution, a future government could hypothetically reverse that decision
by, again, an Act of Parliament. The bill is just puff; it is not real policy. It is a stunt, and not even a good one.
It is either a half-done stunt or a Labor stuff-up. NSW Labor simply wants to play politics with our State's
constitution.
We should not gloss over the fact that it is unconventional to move political issues from the realm of the
Chamber into the State's Constitution. I worry about the dangerous precedent that may set for future legislation
from this Government. Are we willing to let our State's Constitution, the legal framework by which our State is
governed, become a political football? Our Constitution is a rule book. It is not like other constitutions that one
reads about around the world, with grand declarations of human rights, and life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Our State's Constitution is essentially a bland document, a bland rule book. It is certainly not a political
document. I am nonetheless unsurprised. The bill is a concentrated example of the outcomes sought by
a government addicted to headlines. Pointscoring in the media is its sole focus.
It is clear that the bill is not only ineffective at protecting water assets but also misses an enormous
proportion of them. Two-thirds of water used in New South Wales is not covered by the bill because it is not
managed by Sydney Water or Hunter Water but instead by WaterNSW. Does the Labor Government have a secret
agenda to privatise excluded water assets? The bill totally ignores the 1.85 million people who obtain their water
from water utilities other than Sydney Water and Hunter Water. Why is that? Is it incompetence, a political stunt
totally devoid of substance or a genuinely deceptive bill covering up a plan for future privatisation of assets such
as WaterNSW? Does Labor have a secret plan to sell off Warragamba Dam? Absurd as that question might sound,
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 77
that is the scaremongering that we were subjected to during the recent election. It is just Mediscare 2.0. It has no
basis of fact whatsoever.
The bill includes no provisions for the 89 local water utilities across regional, rural and remote New South
Wales, indicating a further disregard for those outside of Sydney. To borrow the language employed by Labor in
supposedly justifying the bill, how can regional, rural and remote families in New South Wales be sure of the
security and stability of their water assets? Labor has excluded them simply because of where they live. I find the
mandate question incredibly interesting. They supposedly have a mandate to enshrine Sydney Water and Hunter
Water in the Constitution, but they do not have a mandate to enshrine WaterNSW or the Warragamba Dam in the
Constitution. The Government is essentially saying that it is not going to do anything except that which it brought
to the election. There will be no legislation, no regulation changes, no reviews and no dollars spent. It is not going
to do anything unless it was taken to the election. That is not how government works. Parties bring certain policies
to the election and they get voted in or they do not, depending on those policies. But governments make a huge
number of decisions every single day. They make decisions that never went to an election, whether there is
a mandate or not.
If a party comes up with a good idea, like the Liberal Party has done for WaterNSW, it should be adopted.
A mandate is not needed to adopt a good idea. If those protections are good enough for the people in Sydney, they
are good enough for people living in regional, rural and remote New South Wales. It is telling that the supposed
Sydney Water privatisation issue was one of the key pillars of Labor's campaign in March. Rather than discuss
substantial policy or present an alternative vision for a stronger State, it resorted to misleading the public in an
attempt to win votes. Frankly, I believe New South Wales deserves better than this Government. I sincerely hope
the next four years of this Labor Government will not be defined by the same addiction to spin and announcements
devoid of substance, which categorised Labor's election campaign. Chris Minns is yet to convince us.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (19:35): In reply: I thank
all members who contributed to debate on the Constitution Amendment (Sydney Water and Hunter Water) Bill
2023. I address some of the issues that were raised, but not all of them. I understand that we will move to the
Committee stage next, so I will save some of my remarks for my contribution to that debate. A number of members
raised the issue of whether Sydney Water was ever at risk of privatisation. Members opposite repeatedly said that
it was not at risk, that this has been a scare campaign made up by the Labor Party and that there was never any
consideration of or concern about the privatisation of Sydney Water. That is blatantly untrue.
During the last campaign we obtained a document through an order of this House titled "Future Funding
Strategy", which makes it pretty clear that it is about future funding plans for Sydney Water. On its first page the
document states, "The shareholders", as in the shareholding Ministers, who were then Minister Tudehope and then
Treasurer Perrottet, "have large future cash requirements"—indeed, they do, and I have spoken about that—"and
have been seeking cash inflows through asset recycling." The next page is about "defining the problem" and the
issues they faced. The first dot point is "cash required to fund government plan—active discussions on debt levels
and asset recycling with Treasury". It is right there in black and white on page 2.
Page 6 lists the options for going forward—the future funding strategy. Option two is "partial or full sale
of Sydney Water through an offer to buy shares". So they are saying, "We could sell the whole thing but, look,
we could also sell individual assets or systems." For example, the assumption used was the sale of all wastewater
assets. The former Government considered the option of selling the entirety of the State's wastewater assets. To be
clear, wastewater assets are the systems that Sydney Water uses to deal with our sewage. There was active
consideration of selling it all and putting private profit above wastewater management. There was active
consideration of both options. This future funding strategy document contains reference after reference to active
consideration of the privatisation of Sydney Water. It is utter nonsense to suggest that we have conducted a scare
campaign not based on fact. The facts are right here.
I draw attention to another fact that was often referenced by those opposite, which is one of former Premier
Perrottet's famous phrases: Past performance is the best predictor of future performance. I like that phrase too
because the pattern of privatisation is clear. Reference was also made to the comments of former Treasurer Matt
Kean during the 2019 election ruling out the sale of Sydney Water.
During debate it was suggested that because he ruled it out, the bill is unnecessary. Let us remember the context
in which that frantic, last-minute comment was made by the Treasurer: Two days before the Premier had
completely refused to rule out a sale of Sydney Water. He had refused to clarify whether or not Sydney Water
was being considered for sale when directly questioned about it multiple times. We know why—because it was.
After the then Government realised that it went badly—it had privatised everything else, it had these plans
and then suddenly realised the political mistake that it had made—the Treasurer tried to clean that up. Labor's
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 78
history of privatisation has also been referenced during the debate, and in interjections. We utterly disavow and
reject that history. I make no bones about the fact that previous Labor governments were in error in pursuing
privatisation agendas. Some of us in the Labor Party who were not in Parliament at the time consistently oppose
that agenda and are proud to be in this place now as Ministers in this Government to chart a new path forward for
the Labor Party.
Those opposite may not like that Labor is able to learn and disavow its mistakes. I hope they hold on close
to the mistakes that they have made. I am certainly not ashamed to say that the past Labor governments made
mistakes. I do not mean to call out Assistant President Primrose as someone who at that time was very vocal about
those mistakes—sadly then in the minority—but he has been proved right. Others who stood alongside him at the
time and those of us who were not then in Parliament were vocal advocates in opposition to that agenda. We are
proud to now be leaders in this Government, charting a new path forward for NSW Labor.
It has also been suggested that the constitutional protection that the bill offers is insignificant, irrelevant or
unnecessary. I reject that too. This is not new. The Victorian Parliament has pursued exactly this agenda.
Additionally, the parliamentary process that we are introducing in the bill is very important because, again, look
at the history in 2019.
[Opposition members interjected.]
I sat silently for both of your contributions, so show some respect. In 2019 former Premier Gladys
Berejiklian committed to no privatisation.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The Minister is correct in her comment about listening without
interrupting. I think reciprocal respect is due and honourable members should be guided to provide the Minister
with the opportunity to complete her contribution.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): I uphold the point of order: This is an
important debate. The Minister is replying to a number of points that were raised by members. Given the gravity
and respect required of this matter, the Minister will be heard in silence.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I was addressing some of the issues raised during the second reading debate
about whether the constitutional protection that the bill seeks to enshrine is necessary. I was drawing attention to
the history in 2019 when former Premier Gladys Berejiklian made the commitment of no plans for additional
privatisation. After the election there was a complete and utter betrayal of that commitment. It was a betrayal of
the trust of the New South Wales community who voted for the Liberal Government in 2019 based on that
commitment. We then had the privatisation of the buses and WestConnex.
That occurred with no parliamentary oversight or parliamentary process. That is what we are trying to
rectify in this place. It is true that, in future—hopefully many years down the track—if the Coalition is
overwhelmingly elected to the Government benches again, it could pass a law to undo this provision. I want to be
honest with the community about that. If in the future the Coalition is overwhelmingly elected to government, it
could pass a law to undo this protection. After passing that law it could sell Sydney Water and Hunter Water. The
community needs to know that risk exists. But we have at least put in place a parliamentary process so that the
Parliament will have a say in that hopefully far, far future. A law will have to be passed. This Chamber will be
able to try to stop that happening. Giving this Chamber and this Parliament the opportunity to try to stop that in
future is incredibly important.
The requirement of a parliamentary process for a future potential privatisation is significant. We know that
because it was not required in 2019, billions of dollars of assets went out the door. There was nothing we could
do about it. That is why we are pursuing constitutional protection. That is why we are not taking anyone at their
word. I have absolutely no trust in the statements and the flowery comments claiming, "We are never going to do
that. We would never try to do that." I am sorry; the trust is gone. It went out with the $93 billion of assets that
were sold. The bill will deliver on our commitment to protect our essential assets from privatisation. I will address
additional concerns regarding the amendments during the Committee of the Whole. I commend the bill to the
House.
The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (The Hon. Peter Primrose): 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 Opposition amendments on sheet c2023-033.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 79
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY (19:46): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 8 on
sheet c2023-033 in globo:
No. 1 Water Utilities
Page 2, clause 1, line 3. Omit "Sydney Water and Hunter Water". Insert instead "Water Utilities".
No. 2 Water Utilities
Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed Part 10, lines 4–7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead—
Part 10 Public ownership of water utilities and undertakings
57 Water utilities and undertakings to remain in public ownership
No. 3 Water Utilities
Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed section 57(3), line 18. Insert "as a water corporation" after "under an Act".
No. 4 Expanded meaning of sale or disposal
Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed section 57. Insert after line 19—
(3A) To avoid doubt, a partial acquisition by a water corporation of an asset being an asset necessary
to enable the water corporation to carry out its principal functions under an Act as a water
corporation, where the remainder is owned by an entity that is not a public entity, is also taken to
be a sale or disposal of a main undertaking of the water corporation.
No. 5 Expanded meaning of sale or disposal
Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed section 57(6). Insert after line 30—
public entity includes the following—
(a) the Crown in the right of the State,
(b) a Minister,
(c) a State owned corporation within the meaning of the State Owned Corporations Act
1989,
(d) a public or local authority,
(e) a water corporation,
(f) a subsidiary of an entity referred to in paragraphs (a)–(e).
No. 6 Water Utilities
Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed section 57(6), definition of water corporation, lines 31–33. Omit all words on those lines.
Insert instead—
water functions means the following—
(a) the storage or supply of water,
(b) the provision of sewerage services,
(c) the provision of stormwater drainage systems,
(d) the disposal of waste water.
water corporation means a public or local body that exercises water functions or holds assets in
connection the exercise of water functions, and includes the following—
(a) the Sydney Water Corporation,
(b) the Hunter Water Corporation,
(c) Water NSW,
(d) a water supply authority within the meaning of the Water Management Act 2000,
(e) a local council or county council exercising water supply functions under the Local
Government Act 1993, Chapter 6, Part 3, Division 2, but only in relation to the exercise
of water functions.
No. 7 Critical assets to be owned by water corporations
Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 33—
58 Water Corporations not to lease or use private critical assets
(1) A water corporation must not, unless authorised by an Act of Parliament—
(a) lease a critical asset from an entity that is not a public entity, or
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 80
(b) enter into an agreement or arrangement with an entity that is not a public entity for the
use of a critical asset owned by the entity.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a renewal of a lease, agreement or arrangement that was in effect
at the commencement of this section.
(3) In this section—
critical asset means any real property, plant or equipment necessary to enable a water corporation
to carry out its principal functions under an Act as a water corporation.
public entity has the same meaning as in section 57.
water corporation has the same meaning as in section 57.
No. 8 Water Utilities
Long title. Omit "the Sydney Water Corporation and the Hunter Water Corporation". Insert instead "certain water utilities".
The Opposition moves amendments with the intention of improving and strengthening the bill. The Minister is
missing the point. We have had the election and the Coalition has been clear that it does not wish to privatise any
water infrastructure in the State. The Minister holds up something about placards and former members and a
former Cabinet Minister. The reality is that the Minister is missing the point. We are seeking to strengthen and
improve the bill through our amendments. During the second reading debate, we were asked why we did not do
anything during our time. It is quite simple: The status quo was such that there was not a problem. We were not
privatising water infrastructure in the State. The now Labor Government has disrupted that status quo by
introducing the bill. In the view of the Opposition, in particular the National Party, the bill completely cuts out
regional New South Wales and we are looking to fix that problem. That is why we have moved amendments to
strengthen the bill.
The bill amends the Constitution Act 1902 to ensure continued ownership of the Sydney Water Corporation
and Hunter Water Corporation. We have argued very forcefully that it falls desperately short when it comes to
protecting the basic right of people in this State, wherever they live and no matter their postcode. In his second
reading speech the Premier said we need to ensure that we have safe, reliable, publicly owned water.
Put simply, the bill discriminates against the 1.85 million people who obtain their water from water utilities other
than Sydney Water and Hunter Water. There are several problems with the bill, and that is why our amendments
seek to provide real solutions.
Of the eight State-owned corporations governed under the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, three of
them are responsible for the delivery of supply and management of water and sewerage to the people of New South
Wales: Sydney Water, Hunter Water and WaterNSW. As we have discussed throughout the debate, WaterNSW
protects the Greater Sydney drinking water catchment and supplies raw water to the 42 storages to communities,
customers and the environment right across metropolitan and regional New South Wales. But omitting WaterNSW
from the bill fails to safeguard a future government from selling off the assets held by WaterNSW.
Earlier this week, in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, Minister Jackson said, "Both Sydney Water
and Hunter Water are statutory owned corporations and can be safeguarded against privatisation by an amendment
to the Constitution Act." So too can WaterNSW. It is a State-owned corporation. It can be safeguarded by an
amendment to the Constitution Act, supporting the position of the Opposition's amendments as circulated, and
ensuring that WaterNSW is afforded the same protections as Sydney Water and Hunter Water. In addition to
WaterNSW, 89 local water utilities are responsible for delivering the safe, efficient, sustainable and affordable
water supply and sewerage services to the 1.85 million people in regional New South Wales. Local water utilities
are governed in New South Wales by the Local Government Act 1993 and the Water Management Act 2000, but,
astonishingly, they too have been left out of the bill. The Opposition's amendments that I have moved will address
that omission.
The shadow water Minister, who has joined us in the Chamber for this debate, and I reject in the strongest
possible terms the suggestion by the Minister that regional councils had not been consulted in the preparation of
these amendments. We need to go back to last Friday. The Minister herself was the guest speaker and heard
directly from members of the Country Mayors Association. Despite what the Hon. Sarah Kaine said, the
Opposition respects what key stakeholder groups and key representative bodies like the Country Mayors
Association have to say. We do not just diss them like the member did earlier when she interjected from the
Government benches.
As the guest speaker, the Minister heard directly from the captive audience of 85 per cent of the
membership of the Country Mayors Association who were in attendance at the Theatrette in Parliament House. It
was the perfect opportunity to discuss this important bill and the protections that are needed for regional
New South Wales. I sat in at that meeting and spoke with the mayors from the beginning to the end; I was there
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 81
after the Minister left with the Premier to get some photos with Julia Gillard. The mayors sought the support from
Minister Jackson that local water utilities would be included in the bill. The Forbes shire mayor, Councillor Phyllis
Miller, said, "In response to my question about local government retaining ownership of local water utilities in
regional New South Wales that I asked at the meeting of Country Mayors, the Minister for Water Rose Jackson's
response was that it would be the case, and I understand this to mean that she supported this being enshrined in
the Constitution." That was last week. We move on.
At its board meeting, the Central NSW Joint Organisation moved a motion: "That the board (1) advocate
regarding the local government water ownership; and (2) the Central NSW Joint Organisation supports an
extension to the current protection from privatisation to be extended to WaterNSW and local water utilities." The
biggest local government representative organisation and a significant joint organisation in regional New South
Wales gave direct feedback, moving it by way of motion. They came to Parliament House to talk to the Minister
themselves. Yet we are still moving amendments to the bill that the Government will not accept. It wants to ram
the bill through, tick the box and tell The Daily Telegraph and SMH, "Look at us. We have done so well. We are
going to pass deficient legislation tonight by not protecting water utilities and water infrastructure in regional
New South Wales." It is little wonder that the local water utilities that shadow Minister Steph Cooke has consulted
with are seriously nervous about being omitted from the bill and are looking to this Parliament.
They are looking to what has happened in the other place and in this place tonight to ensure that they are
protected. The Minister for Water wants to ignore history. She cannot ignore history, because the reality is that
some National Party members in the lower House were mayors in 2007 and 2008, and they remember the inquiry
that was established by the Minister for Water Nathan Rees to examine sustainable water supply and sewerage
management in non-metropolitan New South Wales. The member for Clarence and the member for Northern
Tablelands made some cracker speeches and reflections in the other place. They were involved in local
government at that time and they remember the shock waves the inquiry sent through local water utilities right
across the bush, and the fight that those councils and mayors had against the removal of water and sewerage
services from their control. Retaining ownership and control of their water assets remains as important today as it
was in 2007 and 2008.
I return to the Country Mayors Association [CMA]. Despite the interjection and the insult that somehow
the National Party and Liberal Party rely on the CMA for preselections, the reality is that the CMA has plenty of
Labor Party mayors. Shoalhaven City Council has Labor membership. A new and recent member—
The Hon. Anthony D'Adam: Point of order—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I have been waiting for a Government member to take a point of
order. The Hon. Sam Farraway is now straying from the amendments. We heard a lot of this stuff in his
contribution to the second reading debate. I have been very liberal and allowed him go on for some time, but
I draw him back to the amendments.
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: I will revisit the views of Country Mayors Association. I quote, because
I think there was—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): I hope there is a nexus between the views of the Country Mayors
Association and the amendments, because that is what I have drawn the honourable member back to.
The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY: There is. The Country Mayors Association stated:
… on behalf of its members, is calling for an expansion of the scope of the Bill to include all local government-owned assets to stay
in the hands of Local Government to ensure Local Government will never lose control of its most important asset - our water.
Deputy chairman of the CMA Mayor Rick Firman stated:
Our CMA members have spoken loudly and clearly … We strongly and respectfully call on our new State Government to please
include the protection of our water in the NSW Constitution … it really is critical that our members are listened to.
Mayor Chaffey said:
CMA has long held the position that our water and sewer utilities must remain in the hands of Local Government, not State
Government or any other entity or be privatised. Do not touch our water. Add Local Government to the Constitution change.
On 10 May the Premier said in the Legislative Assembly:
Members on this side of the House believe that drinkable water is an essential constitutional right, and it will be interesting to see
what the Opposition does in relation to that important constitutional change.
Earlier this week the Minister for Water in The Sydney Morning Herald also stated, "We do not take amendments
to the Constitution lightly." As the Opposition, we do not either. We do not to oppose the Government's bill. We
are here to strengthen it—to amend it and make it better—but Government members are hell-bent on not allowing
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 82
that to happen. Let me be very clear. Members on this side of the Chamber do not take the amendments lightly.
That is why we have worked hard. In particular, the shadow Minister for Water has worked incredibly hard to
ensure that this "important constitutional change", to quote the Premier again, is done correctly and thoroughly.
We have identified the gaping holes in the bill—big enough to drive a truck through—and we have sought to fix
them.
The gaping holes mean that the constitutional safeguards in the bill are afforded only to those living in
Greater Sydney, the Illawarra, the Blue Mountains and the lower Hunter. Those exact same safeguards are not
afforded to the people of regional, rural and remote New South Wales. The Government must support our
amendments, thereby demonstrating that it is governing not just for Greater Sydney, the lower Hunter, the Blue
Mountains and the Illawarra but for all areas in this State.
The Opposition believes that water security should be enshrined in the Constitution Act and this should be
done regardless of where someone lives in New South Wales. It is disappointing that there was a lost opportunity
here. Local government Minister Ron Hoenig—representing the water Minister downstairs—let the cat out of the
bag. He admitted that the bill is deficient, that there was consultation with the crossbench and that the idea of a
joint select committee had come up. We support a joint select committee having a look at it.
A committee could hear from the CMA, local councils and the water utility operators themselves. It could
hear from Labor mayors, Liberal mayors, Nationals mayors—who cares. It should just go and listen to mayors.
That opportunity was there. We could very well have had a short and sharp inquiry through a joint select
committee. We could have held an inquiry to make sure the stakeholders and those in the bush were heard and
then come back to this place to improve the bill and pass it. But no, we are here tonight to ram through the bill
because this is about politics; it is not about protecting water and ensuring it is not privatised in the bush. This is
to tick boxes so that the Government looks good this week and completely disrespects and disregards the views
of those in the bush.
If the Government and all members of this place were truly genuine and serious about protecting the end-to-
end water supply in New South Wales, they would support the amendments. Members would look to have this
process strengthened and improved, so that one of the first bills passed in this Parliament could be a better bill.
The Government could say it was governing for all, not just those living in the Sydney Water and Hunter Water
areas. It could govern in a way that ensures that communities, councils and their water utilities are protected.
There was talk earlier about WaterNSW just being a retailer. We can have that debate. But the reality is
that in the bush local government and the local water utilities are the infrastructure, the asset holder and the retailer.
Local government is the closest government to the people. It is what the community sees, hears and works with
every single day of the week. There was the opportunity to fix the bill properly and to strengthen it. Instead,
I suspect that the Government is more interested in politics than actually fixing the bill, and we will see the result
in the vote on the amendments that I have moved tonight.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (20:02): The Government
opposes the amendments from the Opposition. I will talk about why that is in relation to each of them, as they
have been moved together. Specifically, the Government opposes the amendments that seek to expand the scope
of the bill as it relates to Sydney Water and references in amendments No. 4 and No. 7 that seek to limit the
capacity of Sydney Water and Hunter Water to participate in lease and other partnership agreements. If those
amendments are successful, it would prevent the expansion of the Sydney Desalination Plant. I wish the Sydney
Desalination Plant was not a private entity. The privatisation of it was a terrible shame and a bad deal for
New South Wales. It was an example of the interest of those opposite in privatising our essential water utility.
The reality is, it was sold. If these amendments pass, Sydney Water will not be able to partner with the desalination
plant to expand its operations. That is a critical issue for a city like Sydney. The desalination plant is already
supplying 15 per cent of our water supply. We are probably going to need to expand it as we enter into a more
climate-variable future and need to augment our rainwater supply. That is a huge risk for a city like Sydney.
Similarly, a number of water filtration plants that Sydney Water uses to clean and provide our high-quality
drinking water in Sydney are operated currently by private entities. The Prospect Water Filtration Plant deals with
80 per cent of our drinking water. If the amendments are successful, those arrangements will be put at risk. The
partnership that Sydney Water has with either the desalination plant or the private operators of some of its water
filtration plant will be made illegal under the amendments moved by those opposite. Hunter Water leases land at
Walsh Point from the Port of Newcastle as part of its crucial drought response. Again, I do not support the
privatisation of the Port of Newcastle—wasn't that terrible? Wasn't that a bad deal? But the reality is the Port of
Newcastle was privatised, and Hunter Water partners with the Port of Newcastle as a part of its critical drought
response. That would be made illegal under the amendments moved by the Opposition. That is the consequence
of the amendments.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 83
The partnerships that Sydney Water has with either the desalination plant or private operators of some of
its water filtration plants will be made illegal under the amendments moved by those opposite. As part of its crucial
drought response, Hunter Water leases land at Walsh Point from the Port of Newcastle. I do not support the
privatisation of the Port of Newcastle. That was terrible; it was a bad deal. But the reality is the Port of Newcastle
was privatised, and Hunter Water partners with the Port of Newcastle as a critical part of its drought response.
That would be made illegal under the amendments moved by the Opposition. That is the consequence of the
amendments. The partnerships that Sydney Water and Hunter Water have will all be gone because of the reckless
and ill-conceived amendments from the Opposition.
WaterNSW plays a critically different role to Sydney Water and Hunter Water. I apologise if Opposition
members do not know the difference between a bulk water supplier and a water retailer. Sydney Water and Hunter
Water are water retailers. They are the profitable part of the operation. They are the bits that were at risk, as seen
in those documents. They are the bits where when a private operator is given a chance, suddenly the bills go up,
they are gouging customers and cutting costs. That is the risk the Government is trying to mitigate. WaterNSW is
a bulk water operator. It plays a completely different role.
A critical part of that role is the operation of our dams. If the Opposition had thought through its
amendments, the operation of dams is where the rubber would hit the road. WaterNSW partners with the private
sector for renewable energy storage programs using its dam infrastructure. The entire energy package the previous
Government put together is premised on private operator engagement in renewable energy. A critical part of that
is the pumped hydro and storage. To its credit, WaterNSW is partnering with private operators to deliver
renewable energy storage in their dams as part of the pumped hydro scheme. Arrangements all over regional
New South Wales lead to that conclusion. All those projects provide energy security and jobs in regional
New South Wales. They are partnerships between WaterNSW and the private sector, and they are all put at risk
because of the ill-conceived amendments from the Opposition. WaterNSW also has a substantial landholding in
regional New South Wales—
[Opposition members interjected.]
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Order! The Minister will resume her seat. It is well known that
I am not as tolerant as other occupants of the chair in this place. The Minister was mute during the Hon. Sam
Farraway's contribution. I am sure she was extremely tempted to interject, but she did not. She paid the member
the courtesy that he deserves as a member of this Chamber. She also adhered to the standing orders of this
Chamber. The Minister and the Hon. Sam Farraway have both been warned during the day by other occupants of
the chair. This will be my last and only warning before I start calling members to order. I anticipate that they will
want to be in the Chamber for the division. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I was outlining the reasons that WaterNSW has not been included in this
bill and the potential serious consequences of the Opposition's amendments. As a bulk water supplier and dam
operator, WaterNSW has partnerships with private entities in the renewable energy market. Those partnerships
would all be put at risk by the Opposition's amendments. They go beyond that. WaterNSW is a substantial
landholder in regional New South Wales. It has 174 grazing and agricultural lease agreements with private
farmers, including operations like animal grazing. Those arrangements would be put at risk if the Opposition
amendments pass, because WaterNSW would no longer be able to engage in lease arrangements with private
entities or private individuals.
So much for The Nationals being the advocates of regional New South Wales. The Opposition's
amendments would put 174 farmers who lease WaterNSW land to run their grazing operations out of business.
That is because the ill-conceived Opposition amendments would add WaterNSW to this bill despite the fact that
it does a completely different job from Sydney Water and Hunter Water. They would not only add it to the bill
but also prevent it from engaging in lease arrangements with any private individual or entity.
It is not just land for agricultural purposes; it is boat ramps and recreational areas. It is a whole range of leases
and partnerships that WaterNSW makes regarding its land and assets in regional New South Wales. All of those
will be gone if the amendments pass. When we said that the consequences of amending the Constitution are
serious, we were not joking. There are real consequences if the amendments pass and they will be substantial in
the regions.
I turn specifically to the concerns about the local water utilities. I have dealt with the Sydney Water, Hunter
Water and WaterNSW components of the amendments and why all of those are incredibly risky and a mistake.
I start with the Country Mayors Association. I was invited to visit the Country Mayors Association and I accepted
the invitation with pleasure. I had a fantastic discussion with them about housing and mental health. I apologise
that I had to leave early to meet the chair of Beyond Blue, one of the major mental health organisations in this
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 84
country, not just this State. Millions of people rely on Beyond Blue. I am sorry that I had to leave and meet the
chair and general manager. I apologised and was up-front.
One of the mayors asked me a question that had nothing to do with this bill. It was: Does the State
Government have an agenda to take over local water utilities? I gave a direct and clear answer: No, we have no
such agenda. It had nothing to do with the bill and I am extremely concerned that, despite the hundreds of people
who saw that exchange, I have been verballed and taken out of context. I was asked one specific question about
the bill by another mayor: "Why aren't you including local water utilities in your bill?" I gave a comprehensive
answer along the lines of what I have said today, which was basically, "We haven't consulted with you and that is
really disrespectful." That was the abridged version of my comments. And they all nodded along. Jamie Chaffey,
the chair of the Country Mayors Association, has my phone number. He has never called me and has never sought
to talk to me about the bill.
The Hon. Stephen Lawrence: The Hon. Sam Farraway misled the House.
The Hon. Sam Farraway: Point of order—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Minister will resume her seat.
The Hon. Sam Farraway: I accepted your last ruling, Chair. I have listened to the Minister. She is getting
to an important point. But the Hon. Stephen Lawrence is interjecting from the Government backbench. He accused
me of misleading Parliament.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The same rule applies to everyone. I will make an example of the
Hon. Stephen Lawrence. I call the Hon. Stephen Lawrence to order for the first time.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I was outlining the circumstances of my dialogue with the Country Mayors
Association, which is that I was asked one question in relation to the bill. I gave an answer that seemed to be
widely accepted by the room. After that I heard nothing. No-one has written to me. Mayor Chaffey has not called
me. He has my phone number. I saw the press release. I had no notice of it; I was not contacted in relation to any
of the concerns in it. As I said, a question was asked and no concerns were raised. So I texted Mayor Chaffey:
Hi Jamie. I saw your press release. As you have my direct number, you are welcome to talk to me directly at any stage about concerns
you have. That has always been the approach I have taken, as I hope demonstrated by our prior chat and my attendance at the meeting
on Friday.
The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: You are verballing a mayor.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: Sorry, I don't know if you heard the bit where I said that they put out a
press release verballing me without calling me or writing to me.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Minister will direct her comments through the Chair. She
will not further incite other members.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I said:
… as I hope demonstrated by our prior chat and my attendance at the meeting on Friday. Rose.
Mayor Chaffey replied:
Minister, I welcome conversations. The CMA appreciate your commitment to regional councils and working together for positive
outcomes.
He then wrote in a text message to me:
Please consider adding local government to your protection measures via the constitutional change.
I am not verballing him.
So I am not verballing him. He sent me a text message yesterday, I think, after sending out a press release
misrepresenting my comments at the Country Mayors Association. I draw the attention of the House to the
comments made by Local Government NSW, the peak local government body in the State. It has seen the bill and
the Opposition's amendments, and it considers it critical to consult with the local government sector on how the
bill is best implemented. It states:
The 89 local water utilities [LWUs] across NSW have incredibly diverse and complex operating models, and partner with a range of
entities in their critical water supply functions. One size fits all approaches are rarely the solution for local government, and this is an
area that requires close involvement of the local government sector in any proposals for reform.
The Government and Opposition can go press releases at 50 paces on this, but it is clear that the local government
sector is not united in any way in supporting the Opposition's amendments—in fact, it has articulated very clear
concerns with them. I appreciate the concern of local governments about their future status. Obviously, the
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 85
Government has no interest in privatising any water utilities, but that is a decision for local governments to make.
The Government respects their autonomy and democratic rights to make decisions for themselves. There are
extremely important protections regarding the private activities of local governments under the Local Government
Act but, fundamentally, if local councils do not want their local water utilities privatised, they should not sell
them. That decision is theirs. That is the control and autonomy they have and the Government respects that.
The Government is very interested in an ongoing conversation with local governments about the
governance arrangements that they would like, having made clear that we have no interest in taking over local
water utilities—in fact, we just want to support them to do their job. If, as a result of that, they feel they need
additional protections, the Government is extremely open to that, but that is a conversation we need to have openly,
honestly and clearly with them. The way the Opposition has proposed its amendments clearly will have a range
of unintended consequences that will remove autonomy from local governments and remove their capacity to
make decisions about the services they deliver in their communities. I seek an extension of time.
Leave granted.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: When I have previously raised the potential unintended consequences of
the Opposition's amendments, it has been said, "What are they? Name them." Well, let's do that. If the Opposition's
amendments are agreed to, Singleton Council, which has a partnership with AGL Macquarie to deliver water to
one of its small communities and joint venture arrangements with other mines for water supply in others, would
be breaking the law. Bega Valley Shire Council and City of Coffs Harbour have entered into lease arrangements
with private sector partners to build and operate their plants for a period of time before handing back operational
responsibility. Those arrangements deliver greater value and financeability for councils. They would also be
affected by the Opposition's proposed amendments. Narromine Shire Council partnered with a specialised water
treatment company to install an advanced water treatment plant during the drought. After commissioning, the
company operated the plant remotely and attended the site for routine maintenance, in support of the council. The
Opposition's amendments would stifle such innovation where it is needed most, in our regional communities, in
times of drought.
Emergency treatment plants during drought would also be affected. Possible solutions during drought
include private entities installing modular plants for groundwater. We have to take those kinds of actions to ensure
that our towns do not run out of water. A number of local water utilities partner with private operators—local
plumbers and maintenance contractors—on the ground in their communities to support them in operating their
services.
As a result of the amendments, which would include local water utilities in the bill and prohibit them from
partnering with or leasing any part of their work or plant from private operators, all of those specific unintended
consequences that I have just outlined would occur. That is reckless and dangerous. It is a stunt by those opposite
to make it look like the new Government does not care about regional New South Wales.
I know that The Nationals are smarting after the election loss and that this is a try-on, but it is utter
nonsense. I will not be lectured by those opposite who say that Government members do not care about regional
water security and quality when there are hundreds of towns in category five for extreme or very high-risk water
security and water quality, after 12 years of neglect and delay by those opposite. I will not be lectured when we
are trying to get it fixed—literally flying into Walgett and saying, "How has this happened? Let us try to turn the
situation around." And now we see this, and it is disingenuous, reckless and dangerous. It has real consequences,
as I have outlined. We oppose the Opposition amendments, and I call on the House to reject them and support the
bill that delivers on the mandate to stop privatisation in New South Wales.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (20:20): I very reluctantly oppose the amendments put forward by
The Nationals, because of course The Greens would love to support amendments that genuinely strengthened any
bill that was about preventing the privatisation of public assets. We would be genuinely engaging with the
amendments if we thought that the attempt was genuine. I note the contribution of the Minister, who has gone
through the history of stakeholders lobbying in support of the amendments. Of course, there have been none. No
stakeholders have lobbied the crossbench or The Greens to support the Coalition amendments.
I understand there was a threat back in 2007-08. Again, the Labor Party had a sordid history at that stage.
It was then dabbling in potential privatisation and actually privatised certain energy organisations, which I spoke
about in my contribution to the second reading debate. Opposition members are talking about the inquiry that
happened in 2007-08. The Coalition got into government in 2011. If the local water utilities were so concerned,
did the Coalition act at that point? Did Opposition members have the Country Mayors Association and the local
water utilities hounding them as soon as they were in government to please take action to ensure that their local
water utilities were not privatised? If it was such a big bad threat under the Labor Government back in 2007-08,
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 86
then from 2011 to 2022 would have been the time to actually put in place legislation to assure those local water
utilities that the then Government would not do that.
I also note that the Minister read out some of that fantastic content from a document that was uncovered
by an order for papers in this place that indeed said that privatising Sydney Water was under active consideration.
There were no documents about the local water utilities. In fact, there was nothing from the Country Mayors
Association, whose members I met with via Zoom in the lead-up to the election and who talked me through their
election platform, including—
The Hon. Wes Fang: Via Zoom? You did not go to see them?
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: And I went to their conference; I went to their political leaders' forum as
well. Were there any questions about privatising local water utilities at that election forum? No, there were not.
When I was meeting with Jamie Chaffey on Zoom and he was talking me through their priorities, there was no
mention of the threat of local water utilities being privatised.
Sure, there was stuff to help with metering. There was a little bit about water security, as the Minister has indicated.
The fact is that over the past 12 years members opposite did nothing to help local communities genuinely have a
more secure water supply. But we have been lobbied by Local Government NSW, which has urged us to support
the bill before us. It has talked with us about the shortcomings—that is putting it politely—of the Opposition's
amendments. It has talked of the complexities and the fact that Local Government NSW and local councils have
not been consulted. It is honestly unbelievable, given the history of those opposite with privatisation and
everything they did with water in those 12 years.
I phoned Steph Cooke to see whether I could get her to convince The Greens to support the amendments.
As I said, I genuinely wanted us to support something if there was a threat and the amendments were a genuine
attempt to do what was potentially needed to protect local water utilities. But indeed they are not. Not a single
stakeholder has genuinely been requesting or advocating for this. All they are doing is supporting this political
stunt. Those opposite have no agenda and this is all they can bring up this week. It is pathetic, really, and it is sad.
We do not support the amendments.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (20:26): I do not intend to make a long contribution but there are a
couple of things I want to say in response to the Minister's comments on the amendments. She said that this is
about water retailers and not bulk water suppliers. If you are talking about WaterNSW as a bulk water supplier, if
it is privatised there is nothing to stop an entity that purchases WaterNSW from starting to charge excessive
amounts of money for water. There are flow-on effects of that. There would be implications if something like
WaterNSW as a bulk provider was privatised. Hence the reasons—
Ms Cate Faehrmann: Did you know this three months ago? Did you know it when you were in
government?
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: We had no plans.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Rod Roberts): Order! Ms Cate Faehrmann was heard in silence.
She will show the Hon. Sarah Mitchell the same respect.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: Currently we have a bill before the Committee about the privatisation
of water supply. Now is the time to be talking about the elements of this bill that are deficient. That is exactly
what these amendments are trying to address. The Minister also made points in reference to this being about water
retailers, and that local governments can make decisions about things they are doing. But we know this is
something Labor looked at when it was last in government. We know right now that the Government has the
power to intervene in local government and local councils and take over their water supply. We know it. The
country mayors know it. They are concerned about it because Labor has tried it once.
I also say to the Minister—I say this in a genuine way because I think she is not doing a bad job—that
when you are in government and make decisions, people will be critical of what you do. The country mayors are
allowed to be critical because they do not agree. With respect to Jamie Chaffey—in the interests of full disclosure,
he is the mayor of my local council and I know him well—he has sent the Minister a text as the chair of a
significant regional mayors' peak body saying, "Please include us in what you're doing". That is a genuine thing
for him to do as a stakeholder. Using Gunnedah Shire Council as an example, it is responsible as a water retailer.
I am a ratepayer in Gunnedah shire and I get my water bill from it—sometimes it is a little bit too high. But there
would be real concerns and impacts on regional people if it was to be privatised.
The whole point of these amendments is to provide those same safeguards for people in regional New South
Wales as for those in Sydney. That is not a big ask and it is something we should be doing. Throughout the debate
today members have admitted that there are deficiencies in the bill. There is talk of a committee, so we know that
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 87
the bill requires amendment. If a committee looks as this bill seriously, the likelihood is that we will be back here
debating it sooner rather than later because there are things missing.
This is an opportunity to move some amendments that will make it better.
The last point I make, which I invite the Minister to respond to if she chooses, relates to the Minister
referring to the impact that this would have on leasing agreements that already are in place. The Minister also
spoke about the desalination plant, local government leases, land, et cetera. There is a very clear part of
amendment No. 7, which states:
(2) Subsection (1)—
that refers to water corporations not being permitted to lease or use the asset—
does not apply to a renewal of a lease, agreement or arrangement that was in effect at the commencement of this section.
There is no threat to any of those existing lease arrangements. This is covered in the grandfathering clause that is
already in the amendment. I would really like the Minister to respond to that part because the safeguards are there.
The grandfather clause is written in with that amendment. I will listen to any advice the Minister can provide, but
I think it is important that the Minister addresses that, if she choose; it is a matter for her.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The Hon. Sam Farraway has moved Opposition amendments
Nos 1 to 8 on sheet c2023-033. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The Committee divided.
Ayes ................... 15
Noes ................... 21
Majority .............. 6
AYES
Carter Latham Mihailuk
Fang (teller) MacDonald Mitchell
Farlow Maclaren-Jones Munro
Farraway Martin Rath (teller)
Franklin Merton Taylor
NOES
Banasiak Faehrmann Lawrence
Borsak Graham Mookhey
Boyd Higginson Moriarty
Buttigieg Houssos Nanva (teller)
Cohn Hurst Primrose
D'Adam (teller) Jackson Ruddick
Donnelly Kaine Suvaal
PAIRS
Tudehope Sharpe
Ward Murphy
Amendments negatived.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Rod Roberts): The question is that the bill as read be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I move:
That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House without amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Adoption of Report
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I move:
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 88
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Third Reading
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness,
Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Youth, and Minister for the North Coast) (20:39): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (20:39): The Nationals have been clear from the beginning. It is
imperative to keep the State's water infrastructure under public ownership. We proposed amendments. The
Committee considered our perspective and has not supported the amendments. The Nationals cannot support the
bill as it stands. There is no guarantee that the Government will rectify the existing gap concerning regional and
rural New South Wales. Our constituents elected us to represent them and to advocate for their needs. We must
heed that call. We have a responsibility to stand up for the people who chose to elect us. As the Leader of
The Nationals, Dugald Saunders, has indicated in the other place, we will introduce our own bill to guarantee
support for regional areas. We look forward to rehashing these issues and giving members some time to consider
what we put forward. The Nationals will not support the third reading of the bill.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Is leave granted to ring the bells
for one minute?
Leave granted.
The House divided.
Ayes ................... 32
Noes ................... 5
Majority .............. 27
AYES
Banasiak Higginson Mihailuk
Borsak Houssos Mookhey
Boyd Hurst Moriarty
Buttigieg Jackson Munro
Carter Kaine Nanva (teller)
Cohn Latham Primrose
D'Adam Lawrence Rath (teller)
Donnelly MacDonald Roberts
Faehrmann Maclaren-Jones Suvaal
Farlow Martin Ward
Graham Merton
NOES
Fang Mitchell Taylor (teller)
Farraway (teller) Ruddick
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House
WITHDRAWAL OF BUSINESS
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: On behalf of the Hon. Penny Sharpe: I withdraw Government business
notice of motion No. 1.
Adjournment Debate
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. ROSE JACKSON: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 89
BOWEL CANCER
The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (20:45): This week 300 Australians will be diagnosed with bowel cancer
and it will claim the lives of 103. In New South Wales, 4,974 people are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year.
While the risk of bowel cancer increases significantly with age, the disease does not discriminate, affecting people
of all ages. Alarmingly, bowel cancer rates are up 266 per cent among 15- to 24-year-olds. In Australia, one in
10 people diagnosed with bowel cancer are under the age of 50. Each year, that is 1,680 young people. People
born in 1990 onwards have double the risk of colon cancer and quadruple the risk of rectal cancer compared with
people born in 1950.
Research has found that because they are young, young people are often overlooked for bowel cancer. That
contributes to a delay in diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Young people spend between three months and five
years seeing multiple doctors before a diagnosis. They may make 10 or more visits to GPs. Early onset bowel
cancer patients perceive age bias as a barrier to diagnosis for the deadliest cancer in people aged 25 to 44. The
statistics suggest that young people should never be told that they are too young to have bowel cancer. The good
news is that if it is caught in time, almost 99 per cent of bowel cancer cases can be successfully treated. June is
Bowel Cancer Awareness Month, Bowel Cancer Australia's event to raise awareness of Australia's second
deadliest cancer.
I acknowledge the wonderful bowel cancer nurses and stoma therapists, including the telehealth nurses
who provide care for those in regional and rural New South Wales. A stoma nurse is a special sort of person. They
provide preoperative and postoperative support for those with bowel cancer, often sighting where stomas will be,
which can be a physically and mentally difficult thing to cope with. I give a big shout-out to Kirsti Dixon, who
was my senior policy adviser in Health. I worked with her at Prince Henry Hospital a long time ago in my 20s.
We worked there together for a number of years and then ended up in Cooma hospital together. I married a farmer
and she married a lifty in the ski fields. We have enjoyed a wonderful relationship. She is an incredible and
respected stomal therapist. She is back doing frontline nursing, which is terrific. Stoma nurses are experienced in
caring for people who have had surgical treatment for their bowel cancer and require a temporary or permanent
ileostomy or colostomy.
This week there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of primary care. The Treasurer spoke
about it today. Primary care is important, but prevention and screening is also important.
Being an ex-McGrath breast cancer nurse, I know that we have got great results for breast cancer treatment
in this State and in this country because of our fantastic screening program. I commend the people who are now
speaking about making the bowel test available for people under 50. I am 54—I know everyone wants to say I do
not look it—and I get that little test in the mail. It comes to me in Nimmitabel. I know that people think, "Oh, my
goodness. I really don't want to do that." But I urge everyone to do it. I was speaking to a friend the other day who
is my age. She had absolutely no symptoms, but she did the test in her bowel kit and found out that she has
advanced bowel cancer. She has just gone through nine months of treatment. I urge everyone today to please use
their platforms, social media and conversations to tell people about this.
I have said it many times in this place, but do not let the abnormal become normal. Do not let an abnormal
bowel habit become something that you think is normal, because it is not. Prevention is better than cure. I urge all
members in this Chamber and throughout this Parliament to acknowledge that through the privilege we have of
serving in this place, whatever your political bias, we have a responsibility to make sure that we are promoting
things like Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. It might be mentioned in a conversation or something on your social
media tile that prompts someone to do the test. It honestly could save a life. We all have a responsibility to do
that. To everybody out there, use your bowel kits and do the test. If anyone is over 50 like me, they come for free.
If anything is abnormal, please see your GP and get a bowel kit. Bowel cancer is affecting young people at an
increase of 226 per cent, and that is concerning.
ANTI-PROTEST LAWS
Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:50): Another Australian State has fallen before the march of authoritarian fossil
capital. This week the South Australian Labor Government, in lock step with the coalition of reactionary
conservative political parties, passed new laws criminalising the peaceful, disruptive protest actions of brave
climate defenders who are awake to the reality of the existential threat of climate change induced by fossil fuel.
After this shameful act, peaceful protesters will now face a $50,000 fine or a three-month jail sentence. The
New South Wales Parliament carries a heavy burden of blame and responsibility for ushering in this new
authoritarian era. A little over a year ago, New South Wales passed new laws explicitly targeted at the peaceful
actions of activists, particularly those who criticise and challenge the power of fossil fuels and the ruling capitalist
elite. Those new laws brought in fines of $22,000 and jail sentences of up to two years. Protesters were harassed
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 90
by police, subjected to outrageous and punitive bail conditions, and even subjected to military-style raids by
camouflaged and heavily armed police.
Those laws, far from provoking outrage and defiance by most political parties in this place, were gleefully
rushed into law with barely any resistance. Every single day in this Parliament there is so much heat and
determined opposition between supposed opposite sides of the political spectrum on some of the most mundane
and inconsequential legislation. When it came to the question of this most precious and vital right in our society,
it was all quiet on the western front. The Greens, the Animal Justice Party and a few progressive Independents
were the only voices to speak out and fight in defence of our right to dissent. Far from being the canary in the
coalmine—oh, the irony—those disgusting and undemocratic laws birthed in New South Wales became the
template to be replicated across this country.
I note the valiant efforts of my South Australian Greens colleagues Rob Simms and Tammy Franks to
stymie the passage their Parliament's version of these laws. In a marathon week that included a 14-hour filibuster
effort, they fought and raged but were ultimately unsuccessful in their attempt to halt them. The knowledge that
history will judge their actions kindly is cold comfort, indeed, and I know their disappointment and feeling of
desolation well. The New South Wales laws are currently before the courts being challenged on their
constitutional validity.
I thank the Knitting Nannas and the Environmental Defenders Office for their efforts to preserve our
democratic freedoms of speech and assembly. A cohort of climate defenders from Rising Tide also faced court
today, charged for briefly halting the passage of a train bearing coal that was destined to be burnt and would spew
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, inching us further towards climate annihilation. I thank those brave
activists. They knowingly put themselves at risk of arrest, of being fined or imprisoned, fully aware that the risk
to them, and to the rest of us, of continued inaction on the climate crisis is a far graver one.
By disrupting a coal train, the Rising Tide group engaged in a classic act of peaceful protest, the kind of
non-violent direct action that has been a critical component of the movements that have paved the way for so
much social change over the decades.
This crackdown on protest is not unique to Australia. That playbook is being adhered to by governments
captured by fossil fuel interests around the world. In the United Kingdom, protesters are facing increased jail
sentences, and when they face the courts they are being gagged from even explaining their reasons for protesting,
with activists charged with contempt of court for even mentioning the scientific realities of impending climate
breakdown. In the Netherlands earlier this week 1,400 protesters were arrested for protesting government inaction
to avert climate change. Trace the passage of these new laws, and of the criminalisation and over-policing of
activism, and you will trace the corrosive influence of the fossil fuel industry. There is a term for this: It is called
state capture. It is called crony capitalism, where craven politicians and political movements allow the wizened
and bony hands of the fossil fuel powered elites to pull their strings. Protest is an essential corrector to the mistakes
of governments. It is an essential part of any healthy democracy. It is the conscience of the people.
We have to continue to vigorously resist the authoritarian state-captured creep that is tearing down our
fundamental rights, and we must continue to take the fight to those with the most to gain from quashing our
freedoms, chief among them being the fossil fuel industry. It feels like we are on the back foot right now, but
every day is a new chance to struggle and to win. We find ourselves with a new Government in this State and a
new opportunity to right these wrongs. Just as New South Wales was the first to fall, setting off a cascade of
repression around the country, there is still hope that a change of government could see a change of fortunes, not
just here in New South Wales but in a wave across the continent. Every day is a chance to be better. I encourage
everyone, particularly those in this place, to seize that opportunity and actually stand for something bigger than
themselves.
WESTERN NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME
The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE (20:55): My adjournment speech is about crime in the Dubbo region
and in western New South Wales generally. In my time involved in local government in the Dubbo region, and
now in State Government, it has been an issue of constant concern. I have worked closely on the issue in
conjunction with my previous colleagues on Dubbo Regional Council and with Dugald Saunders, the member for
Dubbo, since he has been in that position. Lately community concern has spiked and it is correct to say that crime
in certain categories has also spiked. The expression of community concern started with a range of things
occurring on social media. That, in part, was sparked by the fact that juvenile criminals were choosing to broadcast
their activities on social media and in a corresponding way that accelerated community concern. It then reached
the mainstream media and there has been a fair bit of coverage about crime rates.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 91
In the Dubbo region we are very fortunate not to have high rates of violent crime in the public sense. For
example, you are not at a greater risk of suffering a robbery in public, or anything of that nature. Tourists thinking
about visiting Dubbo do not have to worry or be scared off by that. As a consequence of entrenched levels of
social disadvantage, we suffer from elevated crime rates in certain areas, particularly what could be called
low-level property crime and very high rates of domestic violence. In some categories, that is two to three times
the State average and that is unfortunate. It spikes up and down. The ABC recently chose to publish some statistics
about property theft which showed, perhaps unsurprisingly, a low around 2010, 2011, then quite a high peak
around 2016, which tracks with the ice epidemic that was occurring at that time. It shows from around 2020 a
spike in property crimes in the Dubbo region, so that community concern is certainly very understandable.
A councillor chose recently to take a motion to council to call a crime summit and bring State political leaders
and so forth to Dubbo. That was not supported by the council at the end of the day. It chose to look more at a
crime prevention strategy and so forth. I certainly do not criticise that decision.
In my previous term on council, we had a strong focus on securing for Dubbo a range of programs,
including a Drug Court, a Youth Koori Court and a drug rehab centre, and we wanted a Justice Reinvestment
project for Dubbo. We got the first three of those. I might have said this in my inaugural speech, but I commend
Dugald Saunders for his hard work on those projects. It was very much a collaboration with the previous State
Government. But the fourth of those things, the Justice Reinvestment project, is worthy of more scrutiny. I am
sure members will have heard about the success of the Justice Reinvestment project in Bourke—the Maranguka
project—in driving down crime rates. A crime summit or something of that nature in Dubbo would be or would
have been a good opportunity to push that sort of thing. But I will continue in my capacity as an MP—and I know
Dugald Saunders will, too—to look closely at that to address issues of crime. Because, fundamentally, we need
the policing services and that side of the equation to be taken care of.
Long-term strategic projects that tackle the underlying causes of crime have a meaningful impact and let
young people live meaningful lives. Those projects include the Youth Koori Court, which has just got up and
running in Dubbo and is incredibly exciting. It also includes drug rehab centres. We are having some issues around
the location, but I am confident that will be built soon. It will help people and families to progress away from
those issues. The Drug Court, which has started its operations, will work in conjunction with the rehab centre. So
there is certainly hope on the horizon for the beginning of those fundamentally important projects.
TAX REFORM
The Hon. CHRIS RATH (21:01): The following words beckon for the defence of small-government
policy and the free market. They are also the words chosen by my good friend Harry Stutchbury to explain the
impetus for his new book, Markets and Prosperity, a collection of 17 essays from politicians, academics, business
leaders and journalists:
It's not a good time to be an economic rationalist, a small-l liberal, a libertarian, a neo-liberal, a Keating-Labor technocrat, a classical
liberal or a small-government conservative. The curves of history have shifted, temporarily at least, away from smaller government
and incentive-based policy to paternalistic, economic virtue-signalling.
Markets and Prosperity is set to be launched on Thursday 15 June at the Centre for Independent Studies. I eagerly
await being able to read the insights contained within, which reflect a variety of professional experiences and
political beliefs. It will also be launched within the NSW Young Liberal movement on 23 June, organised by my
fantastic staffer, Lachlan Clark. Engaging our future leaders with substantive ideas as opposed to populist rhetoric
on the left or right is always for good governance of tomorrow.
I am fortunate enough to have been able to make my own contribution to the book, which focuses on the
opportunity State governments have for productive and meaningful economic reform at this Parliament's level.
I invite members, including the Treasurer—and certainly those other Ministers within the Labor Government—
to read Markets and Prosperity in order to understand where they can leverage markets and incentives to solve
our most acute problems. However, should members not have the time to read the text in its entirety, I will
summarise my contributions for the benefit of the House.
I have submitted four ideas for discussion. First, as I said in my inaugural speech, I outline the necessity
for and means by which we could phase out payroll tax. The 2010 Henry tax review commissioned by the Rudd
Government identified payroll tax as the third most inefficient tax—not just in New South Wales, but of all taxes
nationwide. The inefficiencies and market distortions caused by payroll tax are multifaceted and are often
worsened by bandaid solutions. An example of this is the distortionary payroll tax threshold—tweaked slightly
budget by budget—making businesses sit beneath the threshold amount to avoid the tax and causing an enormous
deadweight loss across the economy. Removing payroll tax entirely will require either replacement by a more
efficient tax or an extended phasing-out period, which I identified to be 20 years.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 92
I discuss both options in detail within the book. The next proposal is similarly critical of the inequitable, volatile
and inefficient tax of stamp duty, which we have heard a lot about today. It is particularly topical given the
Government's abolition, as of today, of the First Home Buyer Choice policy. I cannot overstate how significant of
a barrier stamp duty is for first home buyers. The ideal scenario for the abolition of stamp duty is to gradually
increase the stamp duty free threshold, which can initially apply only to first home buyers, before extending it to
all owner-occupied properties.
The approach of measured and steady change links to the third chapter, which is on refocusing and
restraining expenditure. Much of refocusing expenditure links to my previously stated opposition to
pork-barrelling and the need for taxpayer funds to be spent only on essential government functions. Restraint
involves committing to a genuine effort to ensure expenditure growth does not outpace that of revenue. The
Government must always maintain a triple-A credit rating to guarantee we are ready for crises such as the
COVID-19 pandemic of the past few years. We have come out of the pandemic in a relatively secure position
because of the strong financial management of the previous Liberal-Nationals Government, and restraining
expenditure will ensure this security continues.
The final section looks at privatisation and asset recycling. Where appropriate, unlocking capital from
selling or leasing one asset to fund other critical projects should not be shied away from. I emphasise, where
appropriate; certain assets should remain within the remit of government. However, privatisation should not be
discussed as an inherently evil concept. There are many historical examples where privatisation has allowed us to
build new productive infrastructure. These are simply my own thoughts within one section of the book. Finally,
I give a shout-out to my super smart staffer, Cooper Gannon, for helping along the way.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Ms SUE HIGGINSON (21:06): Last week record high sea surface temperatures, record high global air
temperatures and record low global sea ice extent were all recorded on the same day. This week the South
Australian Government spent 14 hours debating Labor's draconian new anti-protest laws aimed at cracking down
on young people fighting for their future. I commend my Green colleagues in that place for their fierce resistance
and their work to try to prevent South Australia from becoming the next State to fall in the cascade of States that
have introduced anti-protest laws. Unfortunately, as happened here in New South Wales, the laws were pushed
through.
Young people across the world, in this country and this State have taken to the streets, the bridges, the
ports, the waters and the trees calling for their governments to take action on climate change and end the
destruction of our planet through extracting, exporting and burning fossil fuels and logging our precious native
forests, sending us deeper and deeper into the climate crisis. Yet, instead of heeding their calls to take strong
action against climate change, the people making the decisions to send us down this path—many of the people in
this place and other parliaments across the country—are taking dangerous steps to silence dissent. It is absolutely
time to stop the nonsense. The best way to prevent climate activists from blocking traffic on the Sydney Harbour
Bridge or from blockading coal trains into the Port of Newcastle is to take action on climate change. We do not
need to pass draconian laws that violate our civil rights. We need to end coal and gas, end native forest logging,
engage in earth repair and prepare our communities and infrastructure for increasing temperatures and
climate-induced disasters. And we need to work with our neighbours to do the same.
In Newcastle last month brave activists from the movement Rising Tide climbed aboard and surrounded a
coal train of 100 carriages full to the brim with coal. As the sun rose on 16 April, the train was halted and held up
for five hours. One by one, police officers arrested activists young and old and, eventually, the coal operation
continued. Every year over 130 million tonnes of coal travel out of the Port of Newcastle to fuel the climate crisis.
Among those Rising Tide activists were amazing young Greens members Taylor Vandijk and Cooper Riach, who
faced court today. They received convictions and excessive fines under the laws that protect the interests of fossil
fuel companies over their rights, as young people in this State, to live in a safe climate.
They will appeal and justice will eventually prevail, but what an absurd disproportionate and costly response.
In contrast, fossil fuel giant Santos is bullying landholders across the most important agricultural land in
the State. It is literally threatening farmers who do not want the Hunter Gas Pipeline to cut through their land. It
is a pipeline that will facilitate the destruction of the Pilliga and the Liverpool Plains for gas extraction that will
fuel the climate crisis. But Santos is threatening that if landholders do not say yes, it will exercise its legal right
under an authority provided by this State to force its way onto their land. Santos gets the State-sanctioned legal
protection to bully farmers, invade their lands, destroy the Pilliga, threaten our water and food security and cook
the planet, while young people who wish to protect their futures and the planet, who peacefully protest or engage
in acts of non-violent civil disobedience are being punished, fined and sent to prison.
Thursday 1 June 2023 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 93
It is time for members in this place to stop this nonsense and the attack on young people who are begging
us to use our power and privilege in this place to take real action on climate change. Young people like Cooper
and Taylor, who live with the honest and real fear about their future and this beautiful blue-green planet and have
the courage to take a stand, need and deserve our support and work. Taylor and Cooper are part of the incredible
and growing movement working to see an end to coal and gas in this State by 2030, and the end of logging across
our public native forest estate as soon as possible and begin the repair. Today, like every day, I salute the courage
of the activists, protestors and those who have the courage to engage in acts of non-violent civil disobedience. I
am absolutely committed to using my position in this place to repeal the anti-protest laws that have been passed
over the past 12 years in this place, enshrine the right to protest in our law and ensure that no person in this State
ever goes to prison for engaging in an act of non-violent civil disobedience as part of a genuine protest. That is
what a mature democracy demands, and that is what a mature democracy needs.
MOSAIC BRANDS LIMITED
The Hon. Dr SARAH KAINE (21:11): Prior to joining this place, I was an executive at the
NSW Employee Relations Inspectorate in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. For those who may not be
aware, the NSW Employee Relations Inspectorate enforces New South Wales industrial relations regulation and
promotes a culture of compliance in local government, transport and private sector workplaces. This includes
compliance with the Long Service Leave Act 1955, Local Government (State) Award 2020 and various transport
industry determinations. The inspectorate engages in a range of tasks to ensure that workers within the New South
Wales jurisdiction have access to information and education services about industrial regulation in New South
Wales and can lodge individual complaints when employers are not compliant with those regulations. The
inspectorate also contains the strategic investigation team, which utilises a strategic enforcement model to
proactively identify and audit organisations.
Today I recognise the hard work of the public servants at the Employee Relations Inspectorate and
congratulate them on the result of their recent prosecution of Australia's largest specialty fashion group, Mosaic
Brands Limited. The Mosaic Group includes well-known brands such as Millers, Noni B, Rivers, Katies and
Rockmans, and has 1,110 stores nationally. Mosaic pled guilty to underpaying 223 of its workers across
324 offences and has been issued with a $29,000 fine. This prosecution is the largest number of offences
prosecuted simultaneously in New South Wales for long service leave underpayments. It is also a record penalty
for the inspectorate. I echo Minister Cotsis' statement that the New South Wales Government is committed to
standing up for workers and investigating businesses that are short-changing their staff.
This result is fantastic, but what we often fail to recognise and hear about in these results is the amount of
work that has gone into this from our public servants to secure the result. This prosecution is the result of hundreds
of hours of work by multiple inspectors. From calculations to communications, it is quite difficult to grasp the
work that was put in to ensure this outcome. Today I acknowledge my former colleagues, the public servants who
are committed to service of people of New South Wales and who put in hours of work to ensure that this outcome
was delivered. Thanks to their hard work and dedication, 223 low-paid mainly women workers have had their
entitlements recovered. Mosaic has committed to conducting a full audit, which should ensure that no other
workers across its brands have been underpaid.
While I am proud of what the team has achieved, I take a moment to consider the penalty amount. While
$29,000 is a record penalty, one must consider its ability to act as a deterrent to a company whose revenue in the
last financial year was nearly $620 million. That is not a comment about the judge's decision but rather about the
maximum penalty amounts for wage theft in this State. We must not forget that incorrect payments of long service
leave are indeed a form of wage theft.
In New South Wales the maximum penalty for an offence under the Long Service Leave Act is 20 penalty
units, which, with the current penalty unit of $110, is $2,200. Comparatively, in Victoria an offence under the
Victorian Long Service Leave Act carries a maximum of 60 penalty units for a body corporate, which is
approximately $11,000 at the current penalty unit rate. In Victoria the penalties also apply for every day during
which the offence continues, which can lead to a significant penalty. Given the results of the Mosaic case, it is
time we consider whether our penalties under the Long Service Leave Act are proportionate and appropriate,
particularly for large corporations, and whether they truly serve their purpose as a deterrent to committing wage
theft against the workers of New South Wales.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that this House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 21:16 until Tuesday 20 June 2023 at 12:30.