Get Involved - Parliament

COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022

Published on: February 2022

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-122681

COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 15 February 2022.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (10:05:02):

I lead for the Opposition in debate on the COVID‑19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. Over the past two years, the COVID pandemic has significantly changed the way we live, how we deliver services, the way we work and socialise and the importance of a well‑funded and functional public health system. In particular, the pandemic has shown us how technology has accelerated to become a much more permanent fixture in every aspect of our personal and professional daily lives. Working from home, or WFH, is undoubtedly a permanent fixture in the way employees and employers engage in the workplace, and it is no different for the delivery of public administration. The use of technology for meetings, interviews, discussions, debates, and to conduct group meetings and ballots, is now much more common than it was prior to the pandemic.

The general thrust of the bill makes permanent changes in allowing technology to be a permissible and legal way to conduct workplace and public administration activities. The bill covers a diverse range of portfolios ranging from strata management, environmental planning, mental health, retail leases, community land management, contract cleaning industry working arrangements, and flexibility in accessing long service leave, just to name a few. The bill permits, for example, the use of technology to conduct formal meetings, hold public hearings, conduct interviews between parties, undertake assessments, vote and conduct ballots, lodge documents, manage records and indeed, under the Interpretations Act 1987, it allows the tabling of documents in Parliament even when the House is not sitting, but excluding when the Parliament has been prorogued.

Labor will not be opposing the bill, but it will be proposing some amendments to improve it. The proposed amendments are reasonable and aimed at minimising the risk of inadvertent adverse outcomes as a result of adopting the bill in its current form. The vast majority of the proposed changes are administrative and involve non‑complex public administration functions or processes. This simplicity may not apply to the proposed use of technology for complex scenarios involving individuals in our community who are experiencing serious mental or emotional health difficulties. Further, the proposed changes to long service leave are significant and change the original intent of accessing and using long service leave. Whilst technology will continue to play a much greater role in our daily lives, both personal and professional, it should never be a first option or an automatic substitute for face‑to‑face meetings, interviews or assessments for situations which are personally complex and involve the human frailties of people who are in very difficult personal, emotional or psychological circumstances.

For example, schedule 1.12 amends the Mental Health Act 2007 to allow a medical practitioner to use an audiovisual link as part of an examination or observation of a person's mental state. The findings from this examination or observation could result in that particular individual being placed under guarded public supervisory care for an unspecified period. This is a sensitive and significant outcome for any individual and their close family or personal support network. Whilst technology may be an option, in difficult and complex situations like this we should be careful and not instantly use technology as a replacement for face‑to‑face meetings. It may be more efficient to use technology, but that does not mean it is more effective.

guarded public supervisory care.

An audiovisual assessment will present difficulties in taking into account the contextual nature of the examination and the individual's response. Full body language movements, close facial reactions, tonal responses and physical surroundings are important factors that create a more accurate understanding of what a patient is saying or not saying and provide clues as to why responses are being provided in a particular way. An inaccurate assessment could lead to an individual being allocated These are the issues that we have raised and there will be ongoing discussions with the Government. Once those amendments are finalised, they will be presented to the Legislative Assembly and perhaps even to the Legislative Council.

Given the complexities of the situation and the difficulties and challenges that the individuals involved arecurrently experiencing, this is not an unreasonable amendment. We owe it to individuals and their families to ensure that the most accurateform of assessment takes place rather than one that is technologically and timely more efficient.In agreement with the Treasurer's office, the Opposition will move an amendment to include that a review be conducted within 18 months so that theproposed changesbeing put before the House operate effectively and efficiently,as originally intended.In addition,the amendments will require that the Treasurer table a report to the Presiding Officers of both Houses by 30 December 2023. As agreed with the Treasurer's office, schedule 1 [4] and 1 [5] and schedule 1 [11] and 1 [15] will be excluded from the reviewand therefore the amendment to the Constitution Act 1902 is temporarily extended until 26 March 2023. The amendment to the Interpretation Act is for clarification purposes and the amendments to the Retail Leases Act 1984 are designed to preserve the protections that were granted to eligible tenants during the pandemic.

I will also briefly refer to schedule 1 [11] regarding long service leave. Historically the purpose of long service leave was to allow an employee to takethat leave in blocks to ensure that they have a well-earned rest after long service. There was a distinctdifference between long service and annual or flexible leave.The proposed changes are significant as they change the entitlement to anyadditional leave or perhaps an additional flexi day.But during the pandemic a number ofemployees were accessing their long service leave to meet their specific personalcircumstances.A number of workers felt that the flexibility in the changes to longservice leave worked to their advantage. However, that flexibility alreadyexists because an employer and employee can come to an agreement on when long service leave is taken.

Labor will continue to monitor how the proposed changes to long service leave work to ensure that when they are adoptedin future they will continue to benefit both employers and employees in creating a productive workplace. Labor wants to ensure that when employees take long service leave under this flexible arrangement, it done in the spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit to both the employer and the employee.During the pandemic frontline workersin our health system and transport, as well as teachers, carers and retailworkers worked hard to keep us all safe and our economy moving.Labor's amendments are based on good faith to ensure that the bill can beimproved and does not inadvertently disadvantage workers. Creating productive workplaces ensures that the changes proposed operate effectively and efficiently, as they were originally intended. That is why the review requirement plays an important part in theamendments.

Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills) (10:13:23):

It is a pleasure to speak in debate on of the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. On behalf of the Treasurer, the member for North Shore and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer for COVID Recovery introduced the bill in this place on 15 February. She set out the intent of the legislation, focusing on the important aspects of the bill in her speech. I support the bill and commend that speech to the House but focus today on some aspects in the bill that enable business and consumer flexibility.

When the pandemic began in 2020, New South Wales rapidly introduced emergency measures to support businesses and consumers to respond to the challenges that they faced. Those challenges were present not only in the business and consumer space but also in the workplace, in the education space, entertainment areas, travel and in our day-to-day social interactions. The changes in respect to business and consumer responses included sensible regulatory change that gave consumers and businesses flexibility to adapt to the new ways that they were doing things. As a result, New South Wales businesses could adjust their settings based on those unprecedented circumstances and some businesses flourished, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic.

Consumers were given more flexibility around when and how they accessed goods and services. Many of those changes involved switching from paper processes to more digital delivery. Physical distancing was supported by the removal of a number of compliance burdens. Those removals allowed small businesses greater flexibility to operate at home or to prepare food for delivery, which sometimes meant the difference between shutting up shop and keeping people in jobs. Some businesses flourished as they amended their practices. One which comes to mind in my electorate of Seven Hills is the Yummi Pet Products factory at Ballandella Road, Toongabbie, which I had the pleasure of visiting on Monday. It is an outstanding family business connected to the Pendle Hill Meat Market, which provides goods—particularly meat, fruit, vegetables and other items—and services for the surrounding community and communities across western Sydney.

Pendle Hill Meat Market is also connected to a farm in the southern highlands which is held by the owner. The family business is almost running a circular economy. More importantly, the owners of Yummi Pet Products discussed with me the difficulties the business faced in staffing and sourcing supplies as well as the rapid increase in freight charges. They also mentioned how the Government support helped them keep workers in jobs and helped them keep their business trading open. It was not unusual for the pet industry to increase quite rapidly during the periods of COVID lockdowns. In fact, ours was one family that bought a new pet during that time. I should put on record that the name of my pet is Oakley. The pet industry has been growing for a number of years, but it definitely grew during COVID. I say well done to the Yummi Pet Products factory at Ballandella Road, Toongabbie, for having the flexibility and agility to keep its doors open and keep people employed during those times.

Productivity Commission White Paper2021

The rigorous economic evaluation of stakeholder engagement has shown that retaining many of those changed measures will provide net economic benefits for the whole of the community. That evaluation is supported by feedback from stakeholders that a number of measures should be permanently retained because they promote flexibility. The bill seeks to make a number of those measures permanent. In total, the measures in the bill will deliver $2.4 billion in economic benefit for New South Wales over the next decade. The recommended that COVID-19 regulatory reforms be retained, unless it could be shown that there was no net public benefit. The amendments in the bill will ensure that these regulatory reforms continue. They have proven to have net ongoing benefits to both businesses and consumers, supporting New South Wales in its COVID-19 economic recovery.

I turn to the measures in the bill that promote flexibility. The bill will make permanent a number of temporary provisions that would otherwise lapse in early 2022 and that will promote greater flexibility for both businesses and consumers. These include such things as allowing community associations, strata schemes and retirement villages to continue to be able to meet and vote electronically. This is an opportune time give a call out to two of the villages in my electorate that have recently been using that option. One is the residents committee at the Willows Retirement Village at Winston Hills, which I had the opportunity of visiting just prior to the COVID period to see its new upgrades. I formed an understanding about what a great connection there is between the residents of the Willows village and their families who reside nearby, in both Winston Hills and Northmead. Likewise, the residents committee of the Constitution Hill Retirement Community on Centenary Road at Constitution Hill has had the ability to meet and vote electronically, and I commend that village for its great work for not only the residents but also the surrounding community.

Another change is that mandatory questioning under a range of Acts will be able to continue to occur electronically. The change relates particularly to allowing interviews and questioning to be conducted remotely by audio link and audiovisual link under Acts such as the Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Crown Land Management Act, the Fisheries Management Act, the Mining Act, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and the Water Management Act.

The bill will continue to provide flexibility for employers and their workers about how and when long service leave should be taken. Prior to 2020, when the temporary amendments came into operation, the Long Service Leave Act of 1995 was quite prescriptive about when leave could be taken. For example, unless there was an agreement between the employer and the worker to split long service leave in a manner specified in the Act, leave had to be taken in one continuous period.

Extension of time

The provisions in the bill will allow leave to be taken, by agreement, in multiple periods of no less than one day. They will also allow an employer and a worker to reach a mutual agreement about how much notice should be given before the taking of a period of such long service leave. Not only would that have economic benefits; one could also imagine the benefits that would bring to the employee and the employee's family. Economic benefits of $1.9 billion will be delivered by allowing employees to access long service leave more flexibly, with benefits for both employees and employers. []

These benefits will largely accrue to employees from the value they get from taking their long service leave in the form that most suits their needs. Where employees take small parcels of time off, there can be fewer disruption costs to business. Greater flexibility regarding long service leave arrangements also allows employees to take their accrued leave with the agreement of their employer rather than having to be stood down or made redundant.

These amendments bring strong economic and productivity benefits. In total, the measures in the bill will deliver $2.4 billion in net economic benefits for New South Wales over the next decade. Some $500 million worth of these net benefits will come from removing barriers to digital processes in areas such as electronic meetings for strata schemes and regulatory interviews. The greater flexibility in how meetings and voting can occur will deliver significant time and cost savings for meeting attendees, where virtual processes are used alongside or in place of in-person attendance. Digitalisation of processes will also promote social distancing during subsequent outbreaks that may occur across the State.

It is clear that sensible measures should be retained permanently for the ongoing benefit of all of the community. As we continue to deal with the ongoing economic effects of the pandemic, our regulatory settings must be fit for purpose and responsive. Most importantly, they must be flexible. Quality regulation ensures our economy functions optimally and consumers and businesses have the flexibility to adapt as the world changes. The bill will ensure that net ongoing benefits from these sensible regulatory changes are retained. With these amendments, consumers and businesses alike will enjoy the benefits that come with their permanent implementation. In summary, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LEE EVANS (Heathcote) (10:25:57):

I speak in support of the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. At the outset of the pandemic, our work practices changed and became more flexible as people experienced working from home for the first time. By extension, so did the way in which many employees were able to access the use of their long service leave in a more flexible way to suit their needs. In response to the pandemic, the Government rapidly introduced amendments to the Long Service Leave Act 1955 to allow an employer and a worker to agree to take long service leave in smaller blocks, no less than one day. It also allowed an employer to give workers less than one month's notice to take their long service leave, but only by agreement. This supported the survival of many businesses across the State and allowed people to draw upon their hard-earned leave entitlements in a way that suited them and their families.

Prior to 2020, when the temporary amendments came into operation, the Long Service Leave Act was quite prescriptive about how leave could be taken. Unless there was agreement between the employer and the worker to split long service leave in a manner specified in the Act, leave had to be taken in a continuous period. Employers also needed to give one month's notice to employees when directing them to take long service leave. During lockdowns, many employees may have been stood down or made redundant rather than having the option of using their entitlements.

The prescriptiveness of the Long Service Leave Act reflects the historical purpose of long service leave, which was first introduced in Australia in the early 1800s. The original purpose of long service leave was to give long-serving public servants the opportunity to travel back to England, Europe or elsewhere for an extended period, safe in the knowledge that their jobs would be there on their return. Thankfully, it no longer takes 90 days to visit merry England. Along with the improvements in international travel, our workplace culture has changed. In recognition of the change in how we live and work, the way in which entitlements are able to be taken too should change. It is crucial that the legislation remains fit for purpose and meets the needs of the community as it stands today. For the Long Service Leave Act to continue to be relevant to the modern workforce, greater flexibility is needed to reflect how we live and work today.

The bill's purpose is to make permanent the temporary measures currently contained in sections 15A and 15B of the Act. The provisions in the bill allow for leave to be taken, by agreement, in multiple periods of no less than one day. This will apply to leave taken in advance and to accrued leave. It will also allow an employer and a worker to reach a mutual agreement about how much notice should be given before taking a period of long service leave. The bill also contains consequential amendments relating to the keeping of leave records and defining what a "day" is for workers who do not work a fixed number of weekly hours. Those amendments will provide more clarity for employers and ensure that they are paying their staff correctly under the new flexible arrangements. The amendments will not only help with the continued management of the pandemic and our longer term economic recovery but also, importantly, provide employers and workers with greater flexibility to make arrangements about how best to take long service leave.

Economic evaluation of the changes found significant net benefits of around $1.9 billion over 10 years. Largely, those benefits will accrue to employees from the value of taking long service leave in the form that most suits their needs. That could involve an employee taking a day off every fortnight for family commitments or as part of a phased retirement. Employers can also benefit from increased productivity and lower absenteeism associated with employees working more flexibly. When employees take shorter periods of time off, business will experience lower disruption costs. For instance, employers would have to spend time and money hiring and training temporary staff to cover for employees who take long service leave in large blocks.

The public sector already enjoys those benefits of long service leave and it is time that private sector businesses and employees enjoy them as well. Employer organisations and unions alike support flexibility in how employees take their long service leave, as long as it is done by agreement. Many have had a taste of the benefits of greater flexibility and do not want to revert to former restrictive practices. The bill ensures that long service leave provisions in New South Wales promote greater flexibility for employers and employees alike. The bill also amends the Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave Scheme) Act 2010, which entitles a worker to a pro rata payment instead of long service leave if they have permanently left the industry and have at least five years credited service.

The proposed amendment shortens the waiting period for eligible workers to access a pro rata payment from 20 weeks to 10 weeks. That adjustment will support workers who have left the industry due to unforeseen events such as COVID-19. The bill inserts a new regulation‑making power that will provide flexibility for the agency to prescribe a period shorter than 10 weeks for a worker to access their entitlements. That ensures that cleaners can access a pro rata payment faster should the need arise, particularly in the event of future pandemics or outbreaks. The time frame will be prescribed following the necessary regulatory impact assessment and stakeholder consultation. Removing the waiting period will allow cleaners faster access to their entitlements without undermining the objectives of the scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) (10:33:22):

On behalf of The Greens I am pleased to contribute to debate on the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. The Greens recognise that COVID has introduced great challenges and, in many situations, tremendous sadness because of the death and hardship that the pandemic has imposed on people. However, the bill presents an opportunity to take some positives by incorporating many of the elements that have been foisted upon us and recognising the accelerated trends that already exist, such as working from home and conducting remote meetings. I will address some of those positive elements introduced by the bill, but I also have questions for the Minister about issues relating to internet requirements and the challenges for people who may not be technologically literate or whose economic situation or proficiency with modern communication tools might be lacking.

The reduced waiting period to access long service leave is an important step forward in providing greater flexibility for employees and businesses and is acknowledged as a positive element. An issue raised by one of my constituents is the importance of enabling mental health examination or observation of people who have been detained in a mental health facility under the Mental Health Act 2007 to be done by audiovisual link. Obviously, where practicable we would like the medical professional to do it in person, but where that is not possible an audiovisual link would accelerate the procedure, which is very important for the family and the person undergoing the observation or examination. It can be distressing for an unwell person to have a lengthy wait to see a medical professional for assessment or observation, so allowing those to be conducted by audiovisual link is an important step forward.

It is important to my community and to communities around the State that planning panels and the Independent Planning Commission [IPC] are able to hold public hearings and meetings online. Many people prefer them to be held in person but being able to hold them online is important. Obviously online hearings require a different approach. There must be an opportunity for the procedure for an online IPC hearing or planning panel meeting to be clearly explained. I am not sure whether guidelines have been issued to the IPC or to planning panels to make clear how the online meeting process works. I have been part of online planning panel meetings that have been a little bit cumbersome at times.

Accordingly, has the Government considered whether clear guidelines will be issued to people holding those important online activities? Many matters considered at IPC hearings or at planning panel meetings are quite contentious. People want to be involved and have their say. Has the Government considered or produced a clear set of guidelines so that people who want to appear before those panels can be heard clearly and understand the process. I know a lot of that has been developed, especially through the planning process, but has the Government put its mind to such guidelines? I request that those processes be developed, given that the bill allows for hearings and meetings to be held exclusively online.

I raise the issue of strata committee meetings. Some people in our communities—sometimes but not always they are older people—might not know how to use Zoom or other online meeting mechanisms like Teams. How do we recognise those people and their contributions? How do we include people who are not internet literate in an online strata committee meeting? Has the Government considered that? Is the Government considering issuing guidelines or providing other support for people? Generally a real estate agent or some kind of manager will convene a strata committee meeting. Will any advice be provided to them? For example, will they provide a terminal or a place where people can go if they are not internet proficient or do not have access to an online meeting tool?

In my electorate, some older people cannot use Zoom or are not proficient with it but do not want to be excluded from their strata committee meetings. Even though some people on the strata committee would love to exclude them, how do we make sure those people are included? Has the Government thought about that? Will guidelines be issued to support the development of an inclusive online process? On balance, online processes are often preferred. While we can say someone who is not proficient with the internet may not be able to attend a meeting via Zoom or Teams, by the same token sometimes travelling quite long distances to a strata committee meeting could be a challenge as well. So it is all about finding the right balance. That is why I ask whether Government members have turned their minds to how they can ensure that people who may not have a high level of internet literacy will not be excluded from these meetings and to make sure that they are able to fully participate in strata committee meetings. That is particularly important because now only 75 per cent of strata committee owners are required to vote to demolish their building and redevelop it. I want to make sure that in those circumstances every single person is able to participate in the meeting and to make sure that we have put our minds to that.

All in all, the bill is an example of how we can try to take some of the positives out of what was and continues to be a very tragic global pandemic. A lot of these elements are really important. I know that the Minister for Health has had the same consideration in a briefing that we received yesterday, and I acknowledge that this can make a very positive contribution. The modelling in the Minister's second reading speech talks about $2.4 billion in benefit over the next decade—my goodness, those assumptions in the model must be pretty good. I do not doubt that there are net economic benefits but I am not sure if it is $2.4 billion.

I am not going to ask the Minister to show us the modelling, but I think that it is pretty clear that there is a lot of benefit. This is why we as a country need good internet. Some of our friends representing rural and regional New South Wales have real problems with internet connectivity. High-speed internet will be the backbone of our economy and our communities in the future and that is why we need to be investing in it and supporting it. All in all, I acknowledge that the bill makes positive contributions. I simply ask that the Minister communicate to the House any thoughts that Government members have had around those issues of accessibility.

Ms WENDY LINDSAY (East Hills) (10:41:22):

The pandemic has caused many of us to change how we work and live, and it has certainly changed our lives in many ways—in the way we have meetings and contact with family. Many of these new ways of working and living were already possible; however, most people chose to meet face to face rather than via Zoom. But obviously the pandemic has caused these practices to be adopted now as part of our normal everyday lives. As part of its response to the pandemic and the changes it necessitated, the Government introduced a raft of regulatory changes to remove barriers to modern ways of working and living. This has assisted many community groups to meet when, for example, sometimes it would have been more difficult for parents with young children to participate in things like P&C meetings if they had primary schoolchildren as well as little ones at home. So it has improved the way that some groups meet. Now that we are returning to face to face meetings, they can do hybrid meetings and get the best of both worlds.

The community has moved on from paper or in-person processes to digital delivery. Long service leave could be taken in smaller blocks and with less notice, by agreement between the employer and employee. Social distancing has meant digital delivery of certain processes and greater flexibility to business, which had long been advocated for and, with the pandemic, became a necessity. Allowing documents to be handled digitally instead of through physical paper processes also supported physical distancing during the pandemic. It has also supported more modern and less costly ways of working amongst businesses, government and consumers.

The modern world has definitely changed rapidly, and the pandemic has revealed that our regulatory environment must also keep up with that changing environment. Fit for purpose regulation promotes innovation, competition and economic growth, and that was certainly evident with a lot of businesses which, during the pandemic, had to look at how they functioned and worked, and pivot their business. Innovation became key in managing the pandemic and their customers. Fit for purpose regulation promotes that innovation. We undertook a rigorous economic evaluation. Stakeholder engagement has shown that people were happy with retaining many of the measures that we had to put into place throughout the pandemic and continuing to manage some of those regulations moving forward, as it was more cost effective for their businesses.

Items in the bill also propose that there is that net economic benefit for the community of about $2.4 billion over 10 years. We have listened to stakeholder feedback and heard loud and clear that these measures should continue in non‑pandemic settings. As I was mentioned earlier, we are now moving back to meetings in a hybrid form, where some are face to face in the room and others are involved over Zoom. These benefits also flow to business, employees and consumers, primarily from time savings and greater flexibility. As recommended by the NSW Productivity Commission white paper, measures with a net public benefit should be retained. The bill helps to do exactly that.

The amendments modernise how we work and live and bring with them a host of economic benefits for the people of the State. The bill will make permanent a number of temporary provisions which would otherwise lapse in early 2022 and will also provide more modern ways of working and living for businesses and consumers. These include allowing community associations, strata schemes and retirement villages to continue to meet and vote electronically. I have spoken to many community groups in my electorate. Being able to now run their meetings in a hybrid way has proven to be very beneficial.

I use an example of a stroke group that meets in my electorate of East Hills. With COVID, meeting via Zoom was beneficial for them as a lot of their members obviously had compromised immune systems. To be able to hold their meetings by Zoom was beneficial. They have continued with that and also still meet in person for those that choose to meet regularly. Others who perhaps are not particularly well can still join the meeting via Zoom. Some of the ways in which we have changed have definitely assisted community associations to embrace their members and continue to meet. Being able to vote as an association via these new regulations will certainly be beneficial and allow for some of those community groups to continue.

Mandatory questioning under a range of Acts will be able to continue to occur electronically as an alternative to in-person questioning. Medical practitioners and specified accredited persons will be able to conduct examinations of mentally ill and mentally disordered persons virtually when an in-person assessment is not suitable to assess whether the person requires detention. The benefits from this greater modernisation are large. It is expected that retaining changes to enable digital processes will provide net economic benefits of $500 million over the next decade for New South Wales through time and transport savings. For instance, an owner who wishes to attend a strata meeting will save time and transport costs where they attend virtually. They will have the option of dialling in from a location that is convenient for them and voting electronically.

One of the things I used to do before becoming a member of Parliament was manage the strata of business units in Milperra. They had chosen not to have a strata manager manage their property but to self‑insure and self‑manage, so I used to assist them with the requirements to undertake their AGMs and reporting required under strata management. The electronic changes that have now been put in place would have been of great benefit because businesses are obviously busy working and trying to manage their businesses. They had to attend strata meetings in person, on site, when they would like to be conducting their businesses. The changes are of great benefit to those strata owners because it means now they will be able to hold those AGMs in person, in a hybrid way or via the internet, and still be able to legally vote to maintain their AGM and strata requirements.

The bill will also continue to provide flexibility for employers and their workers about how and when long service leave may be taken during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the temporary amendments coming into operation in 2020, the Long Service Leave Act 1955 was quite prescriptive about how leave could be taken. The provisions in the bill will allow, by agreement, leave to be taken in multiple periods of no less than one day. It will also allow an employer and a worker to reach a mutual agreement about how much notice should be given before taking a period of long service leave. This would allow employees to take their long service leave in the form that most suits their own needs, promoting modern ways of working. For example, this could involve an employee taking a day off every fortnight for family commitments, or as part of a phased retirement. The benefits from this reform for employees are estimated to be worth a staggering $1.9 billion over the next 10 years.

Benefits will also flow to employers from increased productivity and lower absenteeism associated with employees being able to work from home in more modern and flexible ways. Where employees take smaller periods off there will also be fewer disruption costs to business. Our continued economic recovery requires that regulatory settings be adaptable to the changing pace of the modern world. The bill will contribute to New South Wales economic recovery by making permanent a range of regulatory changes which promote more modern ways of working and living. The changes in the bill allow the community to continue to benefit from the opportunities by digitalisation and more flexible work practices. By making these measures permanent, businesses and individuals will continue to reap the rewards from the added productivity and modernisation that they bring. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) (10:50:33):

I speak in support of the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. Almost overnight the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed the way people and businesses could work, live and operate. In many cases it accelerated trends already occurring in our economy, such as the shift to digital and online processes. Many of these changes were long called for reforms to align outdated rules to contemporary ways of working and doing business, for example, digital delivery replaced paper processes.

It also updated burdensome compliance rules to reflect modern ways of working. A number of associations and incorporations have been able to meet and vote electronically without having to meet in person to amend their constitution to allow electronic meeting and voting. Investigations and assessments under a range of Acts are now able to be done electronically in line with many other aspects of our lives. Stakeholder feedback has been overwhelmingly in support of the continuation of these measures. The bill will make permanent the ability to use these technological changes so that New South Wales can continue to take advantage of digital options and the productivity benefits they bring for consumers and businesses.

As a member of Parliament I very much enjoyed the use of audiovisual links and telecommunications during this pandemic because it enabled communication and connection with the community when we could not physically meet and talk about issues. It also assisted my role in working with departmental and ministerial staff when we could not physically meet to continue to progress issues that I was working for or fighting for on behalf of my community. Without the access to technological advantages, such as digital technologies, these issues, problems and challenges would have stalled. Thankfully, with technology as it is, we have been able to continue to work during the lockdown periods and to continue to progress these issues to find solutions and resolutions for members of my community and the associations I support.

After a thorough evaluation it is expected that retaining changes to enable digital processes will provide a net economic benefit to New South Wales of $500 million over the next decade through greater flexibility and time savings. This includes changes to meetings and voting in a number of areas, including strata, community management associations, associated incorporations and retirement villages. Owners corporations and community land associations will also be able to keep and affix an electronic form of their seal, and electronic service of records will also be allowed more easily. This will save time and compliance costs for businesses.

Rigorous economic evaluation has found that making permanent the changes for strata and community land management associations will lead to net economic benefits of $213 million over 10 years respectively. These benefits are largely from the time and cost savings of not having to arrange and attend meetings in person. For instance, an owner who wishes to attend a strata meeting will save time and transport costs where they attend virtually. They will have the option of dialling in from a location that is convenient for them and voting electronically. Likewise, a member of a community land management association can attend meetings remotely, again saving time and travel costs. If the meeting is held completely online the association will also save on venue hire fees. In addition, these amendments will permanently allow associations to use technology to conduct meetings and for members to vote on resolutions, even if the constitution of the association does not expressly allow such measures to be used.

The measure is expected to deliver $236 million in net economic benefits over the next 10 years, largely from time and travel costs saved where incorporated association members attend meetings virtually. The constitutions of many associations do not make provision for the conduct of meetings or voting using technology. That is because many associations were constituted over the past 25 years and their constitutions were not updated when the capacity to hold meetings and vote remotely was introduced into the Associations Incorporation Act 2009. For example, these measures will enable association committees to authorise necessary payments to creditors or to comply with their statutory obligations even if they cannot conduct face-to-face meetings.

The proposed amendments will also provide a sensible solution for allowing members to vote via modern technologies, such as email or videoconferencing. This will provide long-term flexibility for associations and greater choice. It will save costs that arise from having to meet formally to amend a constitution. Regulatory officers will also be able to undertake questions via audiovisual link for the purposes of questioning under different natural resources legislation. Both regulators and interviewees stand to gain from the changes due to travel time and transport costs saved when interviews are conducted online. Depending on the location of the interview they may also save on other travel expenses, such as accommodation and meals.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979—the planning Act—is also being updated to allow planning bodies, including the Independent Planning Commission NSW and the Sydney and Regional Planning Panels, to continue to hold their public meetings and hearings, either online or by audiovisual means, as well as in person or a hybrid of these arrangements. This change again provides the necessary flexibility to planning bodies and how they conduct their hearings and other meetings. It also ensures that they can continue to carry out their functions safely in a post-pandemic world.

Extension of time

This functionality, this flexibility to either conduct their hearings in a hybrid model or fully online is also helpful and important for members of my electorate, where a significant amount of planning and development is underway. It will enable people to participate in planning panels and the Independent Planning Commission processes, if not to make a submission in relation to the impacts of planning proposals on local communities or individual families, to follow the proceedings online. If people are at work or for some other reason are not able to attend in person, they can still track the progress of the issues that impact their family or local community and follow them closely. []

Retaining this measure is estimated to lead to benefits of $2 million over the next 10 years, largely due to attendees saving travel time and transport costs when they attend planning body meetings online. Each of these digital process amendments will provide significant benefits and flexibility to the community. With most of these reforms it is regional New South Wales that will benefit most from this shift to digital and online. Many of the savings from greater use of digital options are likely to be largest in regional areas where, for example, members of the public may have to travel longer distances to attend a strata committee or incorporated association meeting. I urge this House to review its decision to cease the provision of online connection for members of Parliament to connect to their work.

I know the State is moving back to normal in all manner of ways after the crisis of the pandemic, but I feel quite strongly that this House should provide the opportunity for members who may be physically unable to come to Parliament to conduct their roles and fulfil their duties as MPs by connecting online to the operations of the House. For rural members, it could be due to some natural disaster in their electorate or inability to get flights or to travel, but it would also apply to any member who may be unable to come to Parliament because they may be feeling unwell or to a new mum who is on maternity leave and still wants to participate in her role as a member of Parliament.

I have begun discussions with members of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee to raise my concerns and to request that they re-examine the decision to cease providing that option, because it is really important, no matter what happens in the future, that we have the opportunity to continue our roles as members of Parliament. Even if members are physically unable to be physically in this place, they can still perform their duties through online means, having been elected by the people of their electorates to do so.

While those processes bring added flexibility and productivity benefits, the bill contains a number of safeguards to ensure no-one is left behind, including those with low digital literacy. The amendments generally ensure that most meetings or assessments can be held via an in-person method, while still allowing for the added flexibility of a digital option. Consultation with key groups such as the Retirement Villages Association and the Property Council of Australia has ensured the legislation is fit for purpose. If any resident needs the in‑person option, it will continue to be mandatory in this context. In addition, a managing agent in a strata scheme or secretary of an owners corporation or association must ensure that reasonable steps are taken so that each person entitled to vote can do so when the new amendments take effect. A medical practitioner or accredited person must not undertake questioning via audiovisual means unless satisfied that the examination can be carried out with sufficient skill and care.

The amendments in the bill provide much-awaited digital flexibility in a number of areas across the community. They incorporate safeguards to ensure no-one is left behind, as I have just articulated. The benefits will be far reaching: Meeting digitally will enable greater participation, particularly where long commute times are involved or for those in regional and rural areas. They are sensible next steps in our regulatory reform agenda, bringing savings in time and cost to the people of New South Wales. I urge all members to support the bill.

Dr JOE McGIRR (Wagga Wagga) (11:02:29):

I make a small contribution to the debate on the COVID‑19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022, and my comments will address two aspects of the bill. The first aspect concerns changes to the Mental Health Act 2007 that will allow audiovisual links to continue to be used when assessments are being carried out for the purpose of detention. The use of audiovisual technology in the area of mental health has been growing, but slowly. It is an important adjunct to therapy, particularly in rural areas. In my area, we have had an access line for two decades and for the past 15 years we have had remote mental health assessments using audiovisual technology. That has enabled patients in communities that do not have access to psychiatric expertise to be assessed without having to travel into a major centre such as Wagga Wagga. It avoids travel and all the complexities of transport for someone who is distressed, and it provides care as close to home as possible.

Up until the pandemic, sadly, the assessments required by the Mental Health Act for the permanent detention of someone who is mentally ill or mentally disordered had to be conducted in person. That meant that people were required to be transported just for that reason. During the pandemic, we found that audiovisual links work just as well and that the assessments can be almost as effective—perhaps not in every case, but in most cases—and I welcome the fact that that will now continue. I believe it is a step forward in providing care for our rural and regional communities, and I congratulate the Government on taking that decision.

I add to that my distress that the Federal Government has wound back rebates for telehealth in mental health and psychiatry. During the pandemic, telehealth has been an avenue for people in rural and regional communities like mine to access mental health care at relatively low cost. That is now being wound back, which is something that we should look askance at. It is not right, and the Federal Government should look again at that issue. I have certainly taken it up with the local Federal member in my electorate, but I welcome the decision to extend those provisions under the Mental Health Act.

The second area I want to talk about is the changes to the Retail Leases Act 1994. As I understand it, the changes proposed in the bill to the Retail Leases Act mean that the protections that have been negotiated for lessees in commercial leases during the period of the pandemic under the Retail and Other Commercial Leases (COVID‑19) Regulation 2022 will continue beyond 13 March, when the regulation will end. That is very welcome. There is no doubt the pandemic has made it very tough for many businesses, and one of the hardest hit industries that I have heard about is the motel industry.

The small mum-and-dad operators in motels in my electorate and throughout regional New South Wales have seen a very significant drop in tourism due to the restrictions on travel related to the pandemic and complicated by the sudden changes to the public health orders, which really played havoc with their ability to forecast their income stream and, frankly, to make a living. The provision for compulsory mediation, with the result that rents were waived and deferred and arrangements were made, has kept those businesses going. It is very important that what was negotiated at that time is not allowed to be wound back, so I endorse the fact that those protections will now be continued under the bill.

That highlights an issue that has come to the surface because of the pandemic. The pandemic exposed what I call the curse of the ratchet clause in commercial leases, particularly for motel operators. They are commercial leases, not retail leases, so they do not fall under the Retail Leases Act 1994. They prevent rent being paid by a lessee dropping below a certain level, despite the fact that an independent valuation might say that the rent should be significantly lower. Ratchet clauses do not operate in Victoria and other States, but they do in commercial leases in New South Wales.

They are a real curse for small motel operators, as has been exposed during the pandemic. Despite the fact that small motel operators, especially in rural areas, have suffered great drops in their income, the ratchet clause means they cannot get a commensurate reduction in the rent they pay when their rent is reviewed. We need to remove the ratchet clauses from commercial contracts involving those small businesses that are not protected under the Retail Leases Act. I have spoken on this issue before in this House, but I revisit it briefly because I have continued to receive representations on it. A motelier in Wagga Wagga approached me and said:

The possibility of New South Wales falling in line with the other States with the removal of this clause will have an enormous impact on our industry and allow a financial and, quite frankly, an emotional recovery to hopefully take place. We are just seeking a fair current market value. With the clause in place we are at the mercy of our landlords, who will be attempting to increase rental to recoup some of their begrudgingly lost revenue.

Another regional New South Wales motelier wrote to me from outside the Wagga Wagga electorate—of course, this issue has ramifications throughout rural New South Wales—and again said that ratchet clauses were a significant additional burden that has come after the increased competition they are facing not just from other motels but from the Airbnb market, and with reduced travel during the COVID pandemic. This motelier told me that by far his largest cost is rent. Unfortunately, while his lease has a provision for a market review of rent, it is overridden by the ratchet clause, which effectively puts a floor in the rent. If this motelier's income was holding steady, or indeed rising, it would not be a problem, but in the current situation it is causing enormous difficulties to the point where, in this particular case, the rent is now more than 30 per cent of gross income. This business operator's attempts to negotiate with the landlord have met with little success, he told me, and it is likely that annual rent rises will continue to be applied, regardless of market conditions. He said:

The ratchet clause is a very unfair instrument and only benefits the landlord and at a heavy cost to the tenant. A market review is not only fair but would also benefit the landlord in an improving market and takes away the opportunity for one party to bully the other.

I have also been informed by an industry representative that the impact of the ratchet clauses in New South Wales "places an additional burden on the industry that curtails investment, modernisation and the incentives to add value to the tourism experience of guests". This representative went on to say:

Currently, unlike retail shops in New South Wales and typical commercial leases, motel leases are not covered by the retail tenancies legislation and do not have the ability to have fair market rental review adjustments to the rental paid.

He went on to say:

Unlike retail and commercial tenants, motel businesses are purpose built facilities that are not easily relocated next door.

Extension of time

It is not like, having signed a 25-year lease, you can say, "That is not enough. I am going to move to another town and set up again." Unfortunately, the situation is that these operators are often effectively locked in. Again I make the point that motels play an important role in regional communities. In some of the towns in my electorate there might be only one motel. They often give back to their communities through sponsorships and donations to schools and sporting clubs. They are very much part of the fabric of small rural communities and small rural communities that have motels take pride in them because they make them a destination that can be visited. I request a small amount of additional time. []

I thank my colleagues for their enthusiastic endorsement. To recap, the ratchet clauses mean that rents never go down, even when market conditions mean that the rents being charged are far too high. Ratchet clauses mean that rents only go up, regardless of the harsh realities faced by small motel operators. Since investigating this issue I have discovered that in fact there are other businesses, in particular bars and hospitality venues, that are suffering the same situation. I received that information from the Small Business Commissioner. The answer would be to amend the Retail Leases Act and to include small motel operations and other businesses that are suitable under this Act, where ratchet clauses are prohibited.

I have approached the Government on this matter. I met with Minister Tudehope last year. He was very sympathetic and certainly my view is that there was acknowledgement that something should be done on this issue. At that stage the direction was to wait for a review of the Retail Leases Act, which was apparently going to happen within the next 12 months. It has not begun, which is very disappointing. I understand and acknowledge that there has been a lot on the Government's plate in one way or another with the pandemic, but businesses in this particular situation cannot wait another 12 months for a review of the Act, and that means we need to look at other solutions.

I have approached the Small Business Commissioner. I understand that there is an action that the Government could take right now that would help, at least partly, in this situation, which is that the Government could extend the current regulation or create a new regulation that would make mediation compulsory. Under the regulation that we are talking about today, mediation was made compulsory and there were requirements about rent deferral and rent waiving. In this particular situation we are not talking necessarily about rent deferral but we are talking about going to compulsory mediation. That would not eliminate the ratchet clause but it would open up a process to a much fairer settlement. It would also allow negotiation that would take into account a range of factors that impact on the lease, so you would get a much more creative—and I think much fairer—outcome. This is much better than going to a tribunal and getting lawyers involved on a single issue, which can be expensive and takes time, and because it concentrates on only one issue you may not be getting the value you would in a negotiation or mediation situation.

My information from the Small Business Commissioner is that the mediation processes have been successful. They have led to good outcomes, with agreements negotiated. The requirement for businesses in this particular situation to undergo compulsory mediation would be at least something we could do to avoid this unfair situation where small businesses in this category are facing unfair rents. We can develop solutions that are fairer and that, frankly, create more value. A by-product would be that it would allow the Government to determine in greater detail the issues that are faced by small operators with commercial leases prior to the much-promised review of the Retail Leases Act. Most importantly, it would give small businesses in rural communities operating motels and hotels—the mum-and-dad businesses that are providing such an essential service—a fair go. That is an extremely important thing. In the meantime, I support the bill and particularly the extension of the protections that were negotiated under the commercial leases Act.

Ms LIESL TESCH (Gosford) (11:16:46):

I too speak to this important bill, the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022, and recognise the benefits to our community, but I would also like to speak about the importance of continuing the policy that allows workers across New South Wales to work from home. We can do more work to support regional and rural communities by allowing, and facilitating through policy development, our workers to work from home. We have clearly seen that this increases the productivity of human beings. It has been a great opportunity, especially for people from the Central Coast. I did a survey leading into the very first lot of COVID—it was a little tick-a-box for one to two, two to four, four to six and over six hours—which indicated that we had people from the Central Coast spending more than six hours a day commuting to their workplace. This extends to the place of Greater Sydney and traffic congestion. We are spending so much money building expressways and freeways whereas if we shapeshift our workplace we free up the congestion that is clogging our great city and stopping or decreasing productivity.

I believe the benefits of this legislation are fantastic. It allows inclusion in consultation of key groups, who do not have to attend various meetings and situations to have input. I thought the member for Balmain spoke very wisely, because not all of our seniors have equal access to the internet to be able to contribute to their strata—or whatever their organisational structure is—when not attending the meetings in person. I need to say that—and I am sure the member for Barwon will reiterate this—the working from home movement has given my community an incredible quality of life that we, as members of Parliament, should be pushing to continue. Families should be able to continue within communities. The hybrid model of working from home has been successful and surveys have shown that people want to continue working for two or three days in the city and two or three days at home. As I said, losing six hours a day is massive, along with the cost of Opal cards, parking, wear and tear on the car, and fuel. The emotional contribution as a result of people spending six hours more with their family is so important.

The hybrid working from home model has incredible benefits for people with disabilities. Having access to our workplace, even here in the Parliament, has been challenging. Getting on and off public transport, getting parking and getting into buildings or sitting at workspaces that are not accessible can be hard. People with disabilities can contribute from their home, which is perfectly designed for them. They are able to transfer work to their home, rather than trying to come into a new workplace and go through all of those barriers again.

Women have also benefitted from working from home. Women continue to take on carer and childminding roles. The ability for Jo, in my office, to be able to pick up her kids, continue her work and contribute to our team has been incredibly important. I do not think Jo is the only woman in New South Wales who appreciates the ability to work from home. It is not only benefitting emotional and human wellbeing; the financial contribution to our economy by working from home has been fantastic. Every single day 40,000 commuters were heading down the expressway to Sydney and spending $440,000 in the city, which is great for the city economy. But, at the beginning of COVID, we had an absolute boom in our local retail. People were buying coffee, spending money in restaurants, getting their haircut and doing their dry-cleaning in their local communities. It was fantastic. The benefits to regional and rural communities are really important.

Closer to Home

The report by Business Western Sydney highlighted the benefits of hybrid workplaces in western Sydney. It stressed that we need a balanced city, where we can support both the rich and poor alike. London is doing a great job focusing on this and not forcing people to move for work when they can effectively work from home. We currently have a city that empties out of western Sydney and moves, which is financially not sensible. We are spending so much money on transport links and shifting the bottlenecks, but the congestion impact remains. That comes at a huge economic cost, where the movements of our goods and services across the city are being strangled by the transport of people to and from work when we can be working from home.

The environmental benefits of not getting in a car every day are huge. Our community car parks are not clogged to the brim and it is not a stressful battle to get onto trains. The environmental benefits of not having 40,000 people heading down the expressway every day are massive for the long-term future of the planet. As well as that, there are time and quality of life benefits. With people working from home, members of Parliament have the ability to invest differently in community infrastructure and wellbeing. Parents have got the time to contribute to sport in the evening rather than just being the crazy taxi transport that happens on the weekend.

The working from home movement is important, but the Liberal Federal Government has failed to deliver on the NBN. I am sure it has happened in rural communities such as Barwon, but the mountain districts have highlighted the absolute failure of the Federal Government. People in those communities are not able to do the work they need to do from home. There are also cost of living benefits. As the cost of living increases, the saving of travel costs is really important to mums and dads across our communities. We have already seen pockets hit hard as the cost of fuel increases.

The other challenge we, as members of Parliament, face with the working from home movement is the changing shape and cost of housing in regional communities. The Central Coast has seen the biggest increase in rental costs and an absolute lack of available rental properties, as well as housing market prices going through the roof. What was a $500,000 or $600,000 fibro shack pre-COVID now costs over $1 million in my community, which is devastating for young locals. The failure of the Government to deliver additional supportive public housing and affordable social housing solutions is disappointing. It is something that my office deals with every day. Sydney is also the highest tolled city in the world. The saving of up to $80 a day from tolls to people's pockets is a huge benefit.

I briefly add to the member for Mulgoa's comments. It is important to have flexibility when situations arise that mean that we cannot attend Parliament. It is a great consideration to be able to include us in the decision‑making if we are unable to get here because of whatever complex responsibilities or health issues we have at home. I also support the words of the member for Wagga Wagga on the importance of allowing mental health examinations and observations for persons detained in mental health facilities to be conducted via audiovisual means. I am sure I speak on behalf of anyone in a regional or rural community about the lack of psychiatric support in our communities.

Anything we can do to free up the psychiatric system to be able to support people living with mental illness is really important. Allowing this to occur without the complexities, organisation and cost of travel by doing things via telehealth, rather than in person, is important. In closing, I reiterate my disappointment in the Federal Government. Dr Gordon Reid is the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Robertson. On numerous occasions, we have spoken about the Federal Government's winding back of access to digital health, especially for people who need it for mental health.

Mrs MELINDA PAVEY (Oxley) (11:25:42):

In speaking to the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022 I am reminded of how extraordinarily the people of New South Wales, Australia and the world have responded to this pandemic. How quickly our bureaucracies in New South Wales were able to respond and react to it needs to be appreciated and recognised. A dark side to the pandemic was the tragedy of people not being able to be with their loved ones. My mother was unable to spend the time she wanted to with her dying sister in the last three weeks of her life. But the positive was how quickly we moved to change as a society. I truly appreciate how hard our public servants worked on this front. We can be proud of the way we have led this State.

Whilst this legislation will bring back some of those changes, some are going to stay for good. They are good changes. Before I go into detail, I pick up on some of the comments made by the member for Gosford. On the whole, they were good comments. The pandemic has shown us that we can work differently but, having been in small business and in charge of staff, chefs, wages and bookshops, it is hard to do that from home. There is a class of workers that can work from home, but it does not suit everybody. You cannot be a hairdresser from home unless you have got local government approval and a salon constructed in your backyard.

We have seen an incredible increase in the cost of real estate in regional areas, which is putting enormous housing pressure on us all, through this pandemic. People now know that they can live in paradise. They have finally cottoned on to what the National Party has been saying for a long time. If you get the balance right, you can have a better life, which is putting pressure on housing prices at the moment. We are working through policy solutions for that, which we need to do as a society.

I also pick up on the member's comments about telecommunications and acknowledge that we were the first State government in Australia to put mobile towers into regional areas. Sadly, they are not going to be the answer for every home in remote and more difficult to get to areas, but I remind people about the new capacity within Sky Muster that Telstra puts out. It is heavily subsidised. I thank the National Party for fighting for that at the Federal level. Customers can be paying $34 a month and for that money they can stream Netflix, do their business and have audio and telemeetings. It is easy for us to talk about the negatives, but there are some solutions, and if we have those solutions we should talk about them.

I will also pick up on comments made by the member for Wagga Wagga. It is very important to acknowledge that the failure of service delivery through the regions—whether it is in psychiatric services, other specialties or GPs—should be put at the feet of the Australian Medical Association and the medical colleges who decide who gets to be a specialist and where they are pulled from. The problem is that these colleges are based in Sydney. They are based in capital cities and their decisions are made based on who knows who and what. We know it. We tried to reform this area. Over time, many governments have tried. It is a formidable job for any government to carry out that reform.

I will not have anyone speak down about telehealth. I acknowledge the member for Wagga Wagga's comments on that front. I was sitting on the bench during a basketball tournament at Tamworth, talking to another mother. We were meant to be watching the clock, but we got chatting. She told me that her son was saved by telehealth, provided by Royal Far West. He was able to access psychiatric services before his issues escalated. I give that very personal example of how telehealth can be a great service, because there is such limited ability to access medical services in our regions due to the way the colleges and the AMA train medical practitioners and where they decide they should go. I think that needs to be said.

A raft of sensible regulatory changes were made at the outset of the COVID‑19 pandemic. We switched from paper processes to digital delivery. Yes, it is important that we stay the course with digital delivery, but we must also acknowledge that some people, like my parents, are very stubborn and will not be part of those modern processes. I get quite cranky with my parents because they are very bright and quite capable of using technology, but they remain stubborn. Some people do not have the capacity to use technology, so we need to ensure that they have other options. Interviews and investigations were able to be conducted electronically via audiovisual link [AVL]. We were able to validly hold and vote at strata meetings via AVL. This was really important. While some estimates show that over 90 per cent of the New South Wales population have access to the internet, the bill contains appropriate measures to ensure that these new and improved processes do not exclude certain people from participating in community processes.

After thorough evaluation, it is expected that retaining changes to enable digital processes will provide net economic benefits of half a billion dollars for New South Wales over the next decade. The majority of those benefits will come from both time and travel cost savings. The ability to meet digitally has substantially cut commute times and the costs that come with commuting. But as we adapt to a more modernised and flexible world, safeguards must be in place for those without the necessary technological skill and knowledge. In an increasingly digitised world, we must remember those with low IT literacy—like my parents. Consultation with a number of stakeholders informed the development of permanent amendments to account for those needs. The amendments generally ensure that most meetings or assessments can be held via an in‑person method, though still allowing for the added flexibility of a digital option.

Voting in retirement villages can still be done in person, in addition to electronically. Consultation with key groups such as the Retirement Villages Association and the Property Council of Australia has ensured that the legislation is fit for purpose, meaning if any resident has the need for the in‑person option it will continue to be mandatory in this context. A managing agent in a strata scheme, or secretary of an owners' corporation or association, must ensure that reasonable steps are taken so that each person entitled to vote can do so when the new amendments take effect. The bill will also include a regulation‑making power to prescribe the minimum reasonable steps that must be taken if electronic voting is to be used in either of those circumstances, which the Government will consult with the sector on. In addition, pre‑meeting electronic voting has been removed from the new amendments to ensure that no‑one is disadvantaged by that process. Stakeholder feedback was heard loud and clear on that topic.

Pre‑meeting electronic voting may occur but only if a general resolution is passed by the members of a strata scheme. This is to ensure that there is transparency and fairness in the voting process, and to lower the risk of fraud. It will put the necessary safeguards in place so that all interested parties may have their voices heard in the appropriate manner, unless the scheme deems pre‑meeting electronic voting the most suitable method for all members. In contrast, a resolution will not need to be passed for general meetings and voting via an electronic method, as there was little stakeholder concern in this area. Prior to COVID‑19, medical practitioners were already permitted to undertake audiovisual assessments of mental health patients—as they should be and as we need them to be. The amendments will allow an accredited person to conduct an assessment via audiovisual link, and will remove the requirement that to use AVL a medical practitioner has to be in a different facility to the patient. But a medical practitioner or accredited person must not undertake questioning via AVL unless satisfied that the examination can be carried out with sufficient skill or care.

Extension of time

The benefits of AVL are not limited to mental health assessments. The bill also gives regulatory officers the power, under several pieces of natural resources legislation, to undertake investigations and interviews via AVL. Prior to the temporary COVID‑19 measures, this was not possible. Regulatory questioning via AVL is an additional option. I seek an extension of time. []

Going forward, it is expected that these amendments will lead to around 25 per cent of interviews taking place electronically, particularly where lengthy travel is required in our regions. Industry stakeholders did not perceive that questioning via AVL compromised fairness, meaning we can be confident that integrity during electronic questioning will be maintained. Numerous other safeguards will be in place, with the procedural requirements laid out under each relevant Act. Again, I point out that we have one of the highest ratios in the world of doctors per head of population. Too many of our medical professionals are sitting in the capital cities and there are not enough of them in our regional communities. But this bill proposes sensible changes for the long term. I acknowledge that the member for Barwon represents a very large, complicated and diverse electorate. This bill makes changes that will benefit people in electorates such as his.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is also being updated to allow planning bodies, including the Independent Planning Commission and the Sydney District and Regional Planning Panels, to continue to hold their public meetings and hearings online or by audiovisual means, as well as in person, or a hybrid of these arrangements. Prior to COVID‑19 those bodies were able to hold their meetings only in person. The bill will provide the necessary flexibility to planning bodies in how they conduct their hearings, although they will not be forced to hold online‑only meetings. Where planning bodies conduct meetings or hearings entirely or partly online, they must ensure that the meeting is recorded and made public. The final digital process amendment in the bill concerns incorporated associations. Many incorporated associations were constituted over 25 years ago, meaning they are well out of date. Under prior legislation, incorporated associations had to explicitly state in their constitution that meeting and voting electronically was permitted. The bill will allow for this to take place, even without amendments to the constitution of an association. To protect those without the means of joining electronically, an incorporated association will not be forced to hold meetings or vote via electronic methods.

The bill will provide the greater digital flexibility that has been long called for by the community. Crucially, these amendments will ensure that the net ongoing benefits of these measures are not lost. Most importantly, consultation has ensured that the legislation remains fit for purpose and inclusive. As a result, the necessary safeguards are in place for those with low IT literacy, ensuring that they may continue to have their voices heard in the community. Again, I thank all public servants who acted quickly to implement digital processes during the pandemic. Ironically, as I said earlier, digital processes will ultimately save this State about half a billion dollars in years to come. When the pressure was on, we were able to pivot and change the way we did things. I thank all of the industry bodies who participated in the consultation process, such as the Retirement Villages Association and the Property Council of Australia, and all of the other groups who have been involved in conversations to bring about these changes. It would have taken years, if not decades, to have achieved these changes without COVID. I am very proud of everyone who has worked in this space. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ROY BUTLER (Barwon) (11:39:09):

I will make a brief contribution to debate on the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. When all this started, the Parliament granted significant powers to the Government. We were dealing with an unknown enemy; we did not know how the virus would behave or what would be the impact on our society. That power was granted in good faith, acknowledging the seriousness of what was ahead. My colleagues and I have no objection to changes that allow ongoing efficiency or reduce costs. One of the few silver linings to the pandemic has been the modernisation of work practices—work from home, use of online platforms and teleworking potential for regional New South Wales. Given the costs of the pandemic, we need to take all the benefits we can.

On the issue of teleworking, members would be aware that in November 2020 I introduced a bill to this House to enable regional public servants to work remotely with a view to attracting people from the city to work and live in regional New South Wales. Unfortunately, that bill was not successful. However, in January the following year the Government implemented something very similar to my proposal. But on the ground in regional New South Wales public servants do not have that ability to work remotely—something that I urge the Government to move forward on.

I ask the Minister in his reply to address the inequity that exists for many regional areas and their limited connectivity to data, or the people who do not use technology easily and, therefore, their ability to take advantage of some of these provisions. People should have a choice to participate; they should never be forced onto online platforms as that simply will not work with current digital connectivity levels and technology literacy in the west of New South Wales. What concerns me—I want to ensure that this legislation does not do this—is that we are giving this Government extraordinary and ongoing power to create and change rules without the scrutiny of the Parliament. Regional New South Wales was frequently thrown into turmoil when city-centric changes were made. It took days to resolve and created further confusion when flawed rules were necessarily changed. I cannot see anything like that in this bill.

My support for these provisions is limited to those circumstances in which procedural fairness and the quality of service provision are not compromised. That should be assessed on an ongoing basis. I ask the Minister in his reply to address the concern that procedural fairness and the quality of service provision are never compromised. I thank the Minister for these changes and for an opportunity to discuss them. Elected representatives need to be part of the decision-making process as it leads to better outcomes.

Mr DAVID LAYZELL (Upper Hunter) (11:42:10):

I support the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. A raft of sensible regulatory changes were made at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic to give people in New South Wales the freedom and flexibility they would need to adapt and survive. Our State rapidly switched from paper processes to digital delivery and we have seen some paradigm shifts in the way in which we live and work. A number of associations and incorporations have been able to meet and vote electronically. Interviews and investigations were able to be conducted electronically via an audiovisual link. While these processes bring added flexibility and productivity benefits, the Government has also accounted for those with low IT literacy when making these amendments permanent.

While some estimates showed that over 95 per cent of the New South Wales population have access to the internet, this bill contains appropriate measures to ensure that these new and improved processes do not exclude certain people from participating in community processes. We know of the challenges within regional New South Wales of getting good and reliable internet and we are aware of people's IT literacy levels. This bill will try to ensure that no-one is left behind and the benefits of these technology improvements are felt by all as we progress forward. After a thorough evaluation it is expected that retaining changes to enable digital processes will provide net economic benefits of $500 million over the next decade for New South Wales. The majority of these benefits will be a result of both time and travel cost savings. The ability to have meetings digitally has substantially cut commute times and the costs that come with those. But as we adapt to a more modernised and flexible world, safeguards must be in place for those without the necessary technological skills and knowledge.

In an increasingly digitised world we must remember those with low IT literacy. Consultation with a number of stakeholders informed the development of these permanent amendments in order to account for these needs. These amendments generally ensure that most meetings or assessments can be held via an in-person method, although still allowing the flexibility of a digital option. For instance, voting in retirement villages can still be done in person, in addition to electronically. Consultation has been undertaken with key groups such as the Retirement Villages Association and the Property Council of Australia. That has ensured the legislation is fit for purpose, which means that if any resident has the need for an in-person option, it will continue to be mandatory in that context.

In addition, a managing agent in a strata scheme or a secretary of an owners corporation or association, must ensure that reasonable steps are taken so that each person entitled to vote can do so when the new amendments take effect. The bill will also include a regulation-making power to prescribe the minimum reasonable steps that must be taken if electronic voting is to be used in either of these circumstances, and the Government will consult with the sector. In addition, pre-meeting electronic voting has been removed from the new amendments to ensure no-one is disadvantaged by the process. In this regard stakeholder feedback was heard loud and clear. Pre-meeting electronic voting may occur, but only if a general resolution is passed by members of a strata scheme. This is to ensure transparency and fairness in the voting process and a lower risk of fraud. It will put the necessary safeguards in place so that all interested parties may have their voices heard in an appropriate manner—unless the scheme deems pre-meeting electronic voting the most suitable method for all members. In contrast, a resolution would not need to be passed for general meetings and voting via electronic method, as there was little stakeholder concern in that area.

I turn now to the important matter of mental health. Prior to COVID-19, medical practitioners were already permitted to undertake audiovisual assessments of a person in a mental health facility if they were in another location. The amendments will allow an accredited person to conduct an assessment via an audiovisual link and remove the requirement that a medical practitioner has to be in a different facility to use audiovisual links. The medical practitioner or accredited person must not undertake questioning via audiovisual link unless satisfied that the examination can be carried out with sufficient skill or care. The benefits of audiovisual links are not limited to mental health assessments. The bill also gives regulatory officers the power under several pieces of natural resources legislation to undertake investigations and interviews via audiovisual links. Prior to the temporary COVID-19 measures that was not possible. Regulatory questioning via audiovisual links is an additional option and, where it is unreasonable for one or both parties, an in-person interview can occur.

It is expected that going forward these amendments will lead to about 25 per cent of interviews taking place electronically, particularly where lengthy travel is required in our regions. Industry stakeholders do not perceive that questioning via audiovisual links compromises fairness. That means we can be confident that integrity during electronic questioning will be maintained. Numerous other safeguards will be in place with the procedural requirements laid out under each relevant Act. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979—the Planning Act—is also being updated to allow planning bodies, including the Independent Planning Commission and the Sydney district and regional planning panels, to hold their public meetings and hearings either online or via audiovisual means, as well as in person or as a hybrid of these arrangements. Prior to COVID-19, these bodies were only able to hold their meetings in person. The bill will provide the necessary flexibility to planning bodies in how they conduct their hearings, although they will not be forced to hold online-only meetings. Where planning bodies do conduct meetings or hearings entirely or partly online, they must ensure the meeting is recorded and made public.

The final digital process amendment concerns incorporated associations. Many were constituted over 25 years ago, meaning these are now well out of date. Under prior legislation, incorporated associations had to explicitly state in their constitutions that meeting and voting electronically was permitted. The bill will allow for this to take place even without amendments to the constitution of an association. To protect those without the means of joining electronically, an incorporated association will not be forced to hold meetings or vote by electronic methods.

The bill will provide greater digital flexibility, which has been long called for by the community. Crucially, these amendments will ensure the net ongoing benefits of these measures are not lost. But, most importantly, consultation has ensured the legislation remains fit for purpose and inclusive. As a result, the necessary safeguards are in place for those with low IT literacy, ensuring they may continue to have their voices heard in the community. I encourage all members of this place to support this timely bill.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) (11:51:14):

I make a contribution to debate on the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. As we have heard from a number of speakers, this is a reflection on progress made over two years of rapid learning and nimble responses to the various challenges presented to the community and the Government by the COVID-19 pandemic. As we recall, a number of pieces of emergency legislation were put through this place in an attempt to protect the community and allow us to continue to function at the same time as being protected by amending the way in which we did business and other things in society. Just as businesses themselves had to pivot quickly and find other ways of operating, so too regulatory authorities had to be nimble enough to recognise the changed landscape and provide ways in which the community could continue to go about its daily life, to the extent possible, but doing it differently. The legislative reforms that occurred over that time were quite numerous.

The learning on the part of the Government and the community is that many of the changes that were introduced are worthy of continuing and that, beyond the pandemic, there are gains to be made through greater flexibility in terms of the way we operate and greater flexibility in freeing up some existing regulatory and statutory rules relating to employment, leave, leases and so on to allow the community to operate more productively in the future, even beyond COVID. That is not to say that all the emergency measures are being continued. In fact, this package reflects the fact that many measures are expiring. They have reached their end date, their time has come to pass and they will no longer be continued. But others are specifically being extended or being made permanent, for experience has taught us that they are useful measures.

A whole range of Acts are being amended: the Associations Incorporation Act, the Community Land Management Act, the Strata Schemes Management Act, the Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave Scheme) Act, the Long Service Leave Act 1955, the Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Crown Land Management Act, the Fisheries Management Act, the Mining Act 1992, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, the Water Management Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Mental Health Act and the Retirement Villages Act 1999, among others. Clearly these sensible, discrete and finite measures apply in a wide range of areas, and it makes sense to identify those opportunities to continue the benefits that the changes delivered.

As previous speakers have pointed out, many of the improvements simply allowed for electronic or online communication in place of what previously had to be in-person meetings or communication. By making that simple change, we allowed people to maintain physical distancing during COVID and to continue to operate. We found that in many circumstances it makes sense to allow that opportunity to continue. That does not prevent people from meeting in person in those contexts in future, but it does allow online or remote meeting and communication as alternatives in an ongoing, legal manner. We have heard that this occurs in different contexts—for example, strata community meetings, mental health assessments or regulatory officers asking people questions for the purposes of enforcement under various Acts. In each context where it has proved useful, convenient and productive to allow remote communication to continue, the legislation proposes to permit it.

One of the few benefits of COVID is that we have been forced to review the way in which we do things and, in some cases, identify that we could have been doing them in a smarter way all along. I have heard some discussion today about the learning around working from home. We have all had to do it. We have all had to find the joys or downsides of working from home. There are some of both. Working from home certainly has had its advantages in terms of reducing travel time and reducing cost. But I think we all recognise that there are also some limitations to working from home. Many people craved the contact with other human beings that comes from being back in the workplace. But I point out, as a member for a rapidly urbanising area in the peri-urban fringe, that the ideal may not be working from home so much as working near home. One goal of town planning in our city ought to be to create opportunities for workplaces to be located near residential areas, not at great distances from them, and that new development precincts should have employment centres as well as residential components.

Extension of time

If we can reduce the daily commute from west to east in the morning and from east to west in the evening— which has been a long-time aspiration for people in western Sydney—then we can improve the way in which the whole city operates. That requires investment in employment-generating opportunities in western Sydney; it is a broader principle about locating workplaces nearer to homes and not separated by vast distances. I think the pandemic has underscored that. It has shown how important it is to have that opportunity. Yes, many of us have worked at home for a long time, but the sweet spot—the ideal spot—might be to work quite close to home, still be able to separate the home from the workplace and still be able to have contact with other people during the day, but not have the long commute and not have the expensive infrastructure requirements that those distances create. I will focus for a few moments on the long service leave component of these changes. It is true that the Long Service Leave Act used to be very prescriptive. []

The Long Service Leave Act was quite prescriptive about the manner in which leave could be taken and the timing of that leave. Even with agreement between worker and employer, there were constraints around that. The changes made in response to COVID have significantly increased the level of flexibility. It still requires the agreement of employer and employee, but it means they can agree to a wider range of measures and opportunities. That is an important step forward. Obviously, long service leave is intended to be available after a period of time so that an employee can refresh, recuperate and experience a different side of life. But the prescriptive rules that made it so hard to take that leave other than at prescribed times proved to be cumbersome and ineffective during a pandemic. It has been helpful to people to be able to alter their pattern at relatively short notice and for smaller periods of time than the Act would have required. Going forward, retaining that greater flexibility, while still requiring agreement between the employer and employee, will benefit all those in the workplace. It is a principle that should be extended: Where employers and employees can talk to each other and come up with mutually agreed positions that work for both of them, the law should not get in the way unnecessarily of those agreements.

I will discuss the protection for tenants put in place by the emergency COVID measures and the bill's preservation of some of those accrued protections whereby tenants are not forced into immediate and great difficulty because of a sudden end to available support. It is a valuable thing that the bill preserves what was gained. Tenants, many of whom are small businesses in our communities, have faced great difficulty. I have talked to a number of people in shopping centres in my electorate of Riverstone. It has been tough. At times foot traffic has vanished. The lack of certainty due to frequent changes, subsequent waves and the necessary responses of governments has made it very hard for businesses to plan, to replenish stock and to know what to order and when. Staffing rosters have been thrown into chaos at different times. It has been a challenging time.

Where commercial tenants and particularly the small businesses in our community have been able to get some protection, we would not want that to be immediately lost and frittered away. So I am pleased that the bill preserves those gains. Clearly, landlords need certainty too. Everyone needs certainty. No doubt, the sooner we can return to a predictable landscape, the better for all of us. This bill is a step in that direction in providing the certainty that people need to enable them to plan what they will do next. The measures in the bill will assist in that process at least. Hopefully, the broader landscape of the progress of the pandemic will not prevent that from occurring and there will be greater certainty going forward so that all parties in these commercial transactions will know where they stand.

The numerous remote and online meeting and communication strategies set out in the bill are great advances for the community generally. We have all learnt to make better use of technology and to get up to speed with what is available—even somebody of my generation. Minister Dominello, who is in the Chamber, is way ahead. He is online at this very moment. We have all had to adjust, which has been a good thing. It was a shock to the system and very sudden. I reflect on the experience of schoolteachers who had to go through the huge revolution of teaching children remotely, not quite at a moment's notice but it was not much more than that. All parts of the community have had to make those adjustments. It would be a shame if we lost the gains that came from that. We will not necessarily go back to doing things in exactly the same ways. Let us hope that some of the learnings and gains can be preserved for the benefit of the community going forward so that our laws, in this case, can reflect the benefits of the flexibility that we have learnt during the pandemic. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr NATHANIEL SMITH (Wollondilly) (12:04:06):

I support the COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Bill 2022. In 2020 when the pandemic began, New South Wales rapidly introduced emergency measures to support businesses and customers to respond to the attendant challenges. They included sensible regulation changes that gave customers and businesses the flexibility to adapt to new ways of doing things. As a result, New South Wales businesses could adjust their settings based on the unprecedented circumstances. In some cases, they flourished, despite the challenges imposed by the pandemic. In my electorate of Wollondilly, it was almost a tale of two cities. We have Wollondilly local government area [LGA], which is in Greater Sydney, and Wingecarribee LGA, which is in regional New South Wales. When the lockdown occurred, people were travelling from a regional area into Greater Sydney and from Greater Sydney into Wingecarribee. When certain rules were imposed, some streets had one side in Greater Sydney and the other side in regional New South Wales, so different restrictions applied.

Throughout the pandemic it was always an interesting day in the electoral office when I had to explain the different rules that applied in the electorate. That made it hard for businesses but, as I said, some businesses flourished. For example, a business called Send Eats, which is a bit like Uber Eats, has been set up in the Wingecarribee area. It started with one driver and now has three or four drivers to provide people with meal deliveries. In my electorate of Wollondilly, especially in the Wingecarribee area, close to 50 per cent of residents are over the age of 65. Obviously, they are in the group that is more vulnerable to COVID, so they were getting a lot of takeaway meals and grocery deliveries. So some businesses flourished but others suffered big time. The New South Wales Government and the customer service Minister did a magnificent job. Service NSW received thousands of calls and requests every day. It was a mighty effort to get our community through it, and businesses are now surviving because of the great work of Service NSW.

Customers were also given more flexibility in accessing goods and services, which often involved switching from paper processes to digital delivery. Physical distancing was supported via the removal of a number of compliance burdens. Allowing small businesses greater flexibility to operate at home or prepare food for delivery sometimes meant the difference between shutting up shop and keeping people in jobs. Rigorous economic evaluation and stakeholder engagement has shown that retaining many of those measures will provide net economic benefits for the community. Feedback from stakeholders supports the permanent retention of a number of measures because of the flexibility that they promote. We had the same response from participants in the virtual town hall that the Minister and the Small Business Commissioner conducted for Wollondilly businesses over Zoom. Randall Walker, who runs the Southern Highlands Key Stakeholders Group, was a magnificent facilitator. The Minister heard directly from community members who run small businesses about the good things and the things that could improve, which was great feedback for the Small Business Commissioner and the Minister.

Productivity Commission White Paper

The bill seeks to make a number of existing measures permanent. In total, those measures will deliver $2.4 billion in net economic benefits for New South Wales over the next decade, which is huge. The  2021 recommended that the COVID-19 regulatory reforms be retained unless it could be shown that there is no net public benefit. The amendments in the bill will ensure that those regulatory reforms continue. They have proven to have net ongoing benefits for business and consumers, supporting New South Wales in its COVID-19 economic recovery.

I turn to the measures in the bill that will promote flexibility. The bill will make permanent a number of temporary provisions that would otherwise lapse in early 2022. They will promote greater flexibility for businesses and consumers and include allowing community associations, strata schemes and retirement villages to continue to meet and vote electronically. The bill enables mandatory questioning under a range of Acts to continue to occur electronically. The bill will also continue to provide flexibility for employers and their workers about how and when long service leave may be taken. Prior to the temporary amendments coming into operation in 2020, the Long Service Leave Act 1955 was quite prescriptive about how leave could be taken. For example, unless there was an agreement between the employer and the worker to split long service leave in a manner specified in the Act, leave had to be taken in one continuous period. The provisions in the bill will allow leave, by agreement, to be taken in multiple periods of no less than one day. It will also allow an employer and a worker to reach a mutual agreement about how much notice should be given before taking a period of long service leave.

The economic benefits of $1.9 billion will be delivered by allowing employees to access long service leave more flexibly with benefits for both the employers and employees. These benefits will largely accrue to employees from the value they get from taking their long service leave in the form that most suits their own needs. Where employees take smaller periods of time off, there can also be fewer disruptive costs to businesses. Greater flexibility regarding long service leave agreement also allowed employees to take their accrued leave with the agreement of their employer, rather than having been stood down or made redundant.

In conclusion, as we continue to deal with the ongoing economic effects of the pandemic, our regulatory settings must be fit for purpose, responsive and, most importantly, flexible. Quality regulation ensures that our economy functions optimally and customers and businesses have the flexibility to adapt as the world changes. The bill ensures that the net ongoing benefits from these sensible regulatory changes are retained. With these amendments, customers and businesses alike will enjoy the benefits that come with their permanence. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (12:11:41):

On behalf of Mr Matt Kean: In reply: I thank all members who have contributed to debate on the bill, which seeks to permanently retain a range of COVID regulatory reforms that have proven ongoing economic benefits for businesses and individuals. I thank the members for the electorates of Macquarie Fields, Seven Hills, Heathcote, Balmain, East Hills, Mulgoa, Wagga Wagga, Gosford, Oxley, Barwon, Upper Hunter, Riverstone and Wollondilly. It reflects the interests of members of the House not only in ensuring that we respond to the challenge of COVID but also that we deliver regulatory outcomes and make changes where necessary to improve circumstances for businesses, employees and members of the community.

I respond to some of the comments from my colleagues in the debate of the bill. I thank the member for Macquarie Fields, who is in the Chamber, for his contribution to the debate and welcome the Opposition's support for the bill. The member spoke rightly about the impact of COVID-19 on the way that we live and work and the need for our legislation and regulations to be responsive and flexible to these changes, which we agree with. I acknowledge that the member for Macquarie Fields has identified that he will move an amendment to the bill. The Government will consider any of the amendments that are proposed during the consideration in detail phase of the bill.

I note the member's concerns about long service leave flexibility and the potential transfer of liability from employer to employee. I reassure the member for Macquarie Fields that the proposed changes promoting flexibility in workplaces about how and when long service leave may be taken can be only by agreement between the employer and employee. It is not the intention of the Government to provide an employer with an unfettered ability to direct workers to take leave in shorter periods. Whether or not they enter into these types of arrangements is a matter for each individual employee. These changes are about providing greater flexibility for employers and their employees, and they will allow employees to take their leave when it best suits their needs.

With respect to concerns about mental health assessments, I reassure the member that the amendments will facilitate additional alternatives only where it is not reasonably practicable for a medical practitioner to conduct an initial in-person assessment. Where assessments by audiovisual link [AVL] occur, extensive existing safeguards are in place under section 27 of the Mental Health Act 2007. For example, this initial assessment is only the first step in a process under the Mental Health Act 2007 that requires at least two examinations—or in some cases three examinations where there is a difference in opinion between the first and second examinations—to determine whether the person requires detention.

The amendment extends the option of AVL to accredited persons. These are senior mental health clinicians who are already able to conduct initial assessments in person under section 27A of the Mental Health Act and where it is not reasonably practicable for the assessment to be conducted in person by a medical practitioner. Benefits of the amendment will accrue to regional and rural areas in particular in the form of avoided ambulance costs and avoided costs to patients from time spent travelling to another facility, waiting at a facility to be assessed and then returning home. To ensure that there is continuity of high-quality care, I understand that NSW Health will be consulting with stakeholders to set guidelines for assessments via AVL, which will be of benefit to all relevant clinicians, including accredited persons.

I note the contribution of the member for Balmain and welcome his support for the bill. The member spoke about the importance of long service leave flexibility and the practical benefits of having the option of mental health assessments via audiovisual link. The member also spoke about the benefits of having the option of online meetings and raised concerns about guidelines for enabling access to people who want to be involved. This was in relation to online meetings for planning bodies. Let me reassure all members that a thorough process of stakeholder consultation has ensured that there are appropriate safeguards in place to enable access and participation as part of these amendments. For example, particularly for online meetings of planning bodies, the legislative provisions ensure that if an Independent Planning Commission [IPC] public hearing is held online, it must be live streamed so that members of the public can listen to or view it.

If a planning body carries out its business at a meeting held electronically, members who speak during the meeting must be able to be heard by other members. Recordings of meetings conducted online that are required to be held in public must be made publicly available on the website of the planning body. I also note that the IPC has several guidelines to promote community participation, including its 2019 community participation plan and public hearing guidelines. I understand that the IPC has also prepared an addendum to the public hearing guidelines to provide additional details regarding public hearings and public meetings held during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the addendum clarifies that the technology to be used for each hearing or meeting is selected to maximise its effectiveness for participants based in the area where the project is located. It also includes the requirement that proceedings of these hearings and meetings be streamed live online and a transcript published on the commission's website.

The member for Balmain also spoke about safeguards for strata committees. For strata schemes, the amendments will include provisions so that when meetings are conducted electronically and voting takes place, the managing agent in a strata scheme, or secretary of an owners' corporation or association, must take reasonable steps to ensure that each person who is entitled to vote at the meeting can participate in and vote at the meeting. The bill will include a regulation-making power to prescribe the minimum reasonable steps that must be taken if electronic voting is to be used in either of these circumstances, which the Government will consult with the sector on. Examples of reasonable steps include ensuring that the technology chosen is easily accessible to all lot owners and that its use does not incur excessive costs.

I thank the member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Gosford for their contributions to this debate. I welcome the support of the member for Wagga Wagga for remote mental health assessments via audiovisual link, which was particularly impactful considering his own professional experience in representing regional health. I also welcome the support of the member for Gosford for these amendments, which will enable the options of online and digital processes to the benefit of businesses, communities and individuals. I welcome the contribution of the member for Barwon. He pointed to the need for ongoing assessment of these new changes and ensuring that we have adequate safeguards to enable in-person participation alongside digital or remote options. The Government agrees with those comments and I reassure the member that the bill contains appropriate measures to ensure that the new and improved processes do not exclude certain people from participating in community processes, that no-one is left behind and that the benefits of those technological improvements are felt by all.

Consultation with a number of stakeholders informed the development of the permanent amendments, accounting for those needs. The amendments generally ensure that most meetings or assessments can be held via an in-person method, though still allowing for the added flexibility of a digital option. For example, voting in retirement villages can still be done in-person, in addition to electronically. Consultation with key groups, such as the Retirement Village Residents Association and Property Council of Australia—as referred to by some of my colleagues—has ensured that the legislation is fit for purpose, meaning if any resident needs the in‑person option, it will continue to be mandatory in that context.

Once again I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. As we continue to deal with the ongoing economic effects of the pandemic, our regulatory settings must be fit for purpose, effective and flexible. I welcome the support of those opposite for the bill, which ensures that the net ongoing benefits from the sensible, practical regulatory changes made during COVID are retained. With the amendments, consumers and businesses alike will enjoy the benefits that come with their permanence. I commend the bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in detail requested by Mr Anoulack Chanthivong.

Consideration in Detail

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):

By leave: I will deal with the bill in one group of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 and 2, and schedule 1 be agreed to.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (12:21:19):

I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2022-012B:

Report on amendments made by COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Act 2022

No. 1

Page 2. Insert after line 10—

3Report on effectiveness of amendments under COVID-19 and Other Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reforms) Act 2022

(1)The Treasurer must, within 18 months after the commencement of this Act, conduct a review of the amendments made by this Act, other than the amendments made by Schedule 1.4, 1.5, 1.10 and 1.15 of this Act.

(2)The purpose of the review is to determine whether the amendments continue to —

(a)operate effectively and efficiently, and

(b)achieve the intended policy objectives underlying the amendments.

(3)The Treasurer must, by 31 December 2023, give a report about the review to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament.

(4)A copy of a report given to the Presiding Officer of a House of Parliament under subsection (3) must be laid before the House within 5 sitting days of the House after it is received by the Presiding Officer.

(5)This section is repealed on 31 January 2024.

The amendment speaks for itself. It is a review clause to ensure that we monitor the changes and that they operate effectively as originally intended.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (12:24:31):

The Opposition amendment would require the Treasurer to review the effectiveness of the amendments made by the bill within 18 months of its commencement. The Treasurer would then need to table a report about the review to the Presiding Officer of each House of Parliament by 31 December 2023. The purpose of the review would be to determine whether the amendments continue to operate effectively and efficiently, and achieve the intended policy objectives.

Schedule 1.4, schedule 1.5, schedule 1.10 and schedule 1.15 to the bill are excluded from the review on the grounds that the amendment to the Constitution Act 1902 is a temporary extension until 26 March 2023; the amendment to the Interpretation Act 1987 is to clarify requirements for the tabling of documents when a house of Parliament is not sitting; and the amendment to the Retail Leases Act 1994 is to preserve protections granted to eligible tenants during the pandemic for the time they were in place and do not represent substantive change. The amendment is supported by the Government as it is consistent with ensuring that the legislation remains fit for purpose, inclusive and achieving its objectives.

The amendment is also consistent with the Government's approach to those measures to date. Last year the Government undertook a rigorous evaluation of a number of temporary COVID-19 measures in line with the recommendation in the NSW Productivity Commission's white paper that included thorough stakeholder consultation. That evaluation found that retaining the measures in the bill permanently would deliver net economic benefits of $2.4 billion over the next decade. Quality regulation ensures that our economy functions optimally. The proposed review of the measures within 18 months will ensure that the measures in the bill continue to provide ongoing benefits for businesses and communities in a post-pandemic world.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):

The question is that Opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet c2022-012B be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery):

The question is that clauses 1 and 2, and schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2, and schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Third Reading

Ms FELICITY WILSON:

On behalf of Mr Matt Kean: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.