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 ( 18:47 :06 ): 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 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 ( 18:55 :04 ): Listening to Ms Cate Faehrmann, 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 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.

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 ASSISTANT PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Peter Primrose ): The 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 six 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 six o'clock, seven o'clock, eight o'clock, nine o'clock, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. It wasn't my ancestors voting because they chose to close them at six o'clock and instituted the six 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 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 : 4 1 ): 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 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 : 5 3 ): 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. Dr 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—

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.]

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 communities.

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?

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 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 of 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 : 35 ): 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, 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 :07 ): 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 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 opposed 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 close 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.

The Hon. SAM FARRAWAY ( 19:47 :02 ): By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 8 on sheet c2023-033 in globo:

No. 1Water Utilities

Page 2, clause 1, line 3. Omit "Sydney Water and Hunter Water". Insert instead "Water Utilities".

No. 2Water Utilities

Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed Part 10, lines 4–7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead—

Part 10Public ownership of water utilities and undertakings

57Water utilities and undertakings to remain in public ownership

No. 3Water Utilities

Page 3, Schedule 1, proposed section 57(3), line 18. Insert "as a water corporation" after "under an Act".

No. 4Expanded 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. 5Expanded 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. 6Water 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)WaterNSW,

(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. 7Critical assets to be owned by water corporations

Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 33—

58Water 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

(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. 8Water 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 has joined us in the Chamber for this debate. She and I reject in the strongest possible terms the suggestion by the Minister that regional councils were not 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 of New South Wales [CMA]. Despite what the Hon. Dr 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 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 NSW 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 understood this to mean that she supported this being enshrined in the constitution.

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. 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 to 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 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 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, but it 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 : 1 4 ): 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.

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. As I said, 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 to 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 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.

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 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, I will. 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 : 4 2 ): 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, 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 : 2 1 ): 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 CHAIR ( 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 the bill requires amendment. If a committee looks at 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.

Ayes15

Noes21

Majority6

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:

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 : 40 ): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL ( 20:39 :5 8 ): 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.

Ayes32

Noes5

Majority27

Motion agreed to.