Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011

Hansard & Papers » Legislative Assembly » 25 November 2011 » Full Day Hansard Transcript » Item 8 of 49 »

Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011 (Proof)
About this Item
Speakers - Smith Mr Greg; Speaker; Rees Mr Nathan; Doyle Mr Bryan; Robertson Mr John; Davies Mrs Tanya; Deputy-Speaker (Mr Thomas George); Daley Mr Michael; Provest Mr Geoff; Amery Mr Richard; Furolo Mr Robert; Hay Ms Noreen; Park Mr Ryan; Zangari Mr Guy; Barr Mr Clayton; Parker Mr Jamie; Lalich Mr Nick; Moore Ms Clover; Watson Ms Anna; Tebbutt Ms Carmel; Piper Mr Greg; Mihailuk Ms Tania; Torbay Mr Richard; Burney Ms Linda; Hornery Ms Sonia; Perry Mrs Barbara; McDonald Dr Andrew; Lynch Mr Paul; Hazzard Mr Brad
Business - Bill, Division, Agreement in Principle

POLICE AMENDMENT (DEATH AND DISABILITY) BILL 2011
Page: 6
Agreement in Principle

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [10.27 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

I ask members to refer to the second reading speech which was given in the other place on 9 November for the major principles of the bill. I note that a number of amendments to the bill were made in the other place. I also note that the Government has been involved in extensive negotiations over the terms of the bill, and in this regard the efforts of the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party should be acknowledged.
Indeed, it was the Christian Democratic Party that proposed the amendments that the Government agreed to support and which I will now briefly describe.

The first and second amendments deal with the respective contributions to the costs of the scheme by the Government and police officers. The amendments clarify that the 4.6 per cent of police salaries referred to in the bill represents the proposed long-term cost to government. The second amendment will, in effect, cap the contribution of individual police offers to a maximum of 1.8 per cent of their salary. The third amendment expands the transitional arrangements to capture those police officers who were on the path to medical discharge and who might have had a reasonable expectation of receiving a benefit under the old scheme. The Government has committed up to $70 million extra to accommodate this amendment, which is over and above the $240 million it has already allocated to fund transitional arrangements under these reforms.

The fourth and fifth amendments provided for the Government's tabling in Parliament of the current insurance proposal and the Government's commitment to enhance it in a number of ways. It will give effect to the Government's commitment to increase the proposed income protection benefit to 75 per cent for up to five years. The Government has agreed to invest up to a further $10 million—that is roughly equivalent to another 1 per cent of salaries—into the proposed insurance to increase benefit levels. The fifth amendment provided an extension to the period of workers compensation top-up available under the transitional arrangements from six months to nine months. The ninth amendment extends this period outside the transitional arrangements. The sixth, seventh and eighth amendments provided a role for the Police Association in reviewing the costs of the scheme and providing advice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Treasurer.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to contribute to debate.

Mr John Robertson: I'll take it up.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am sure you will.

Mr GREG SMITH: The final amendment provides a clear role for the Industrial Relations Commission in helping to determine any disputes regarding the responsibility of the Police Force to offer injured officers appropriate and suitable duties. The death and disability insurance scheme for police officers is unsustainable, both financially and operationally, and is in need of urgent reform. Of greatest concern is that the scheme's design encourages officers to leave work due to injury rather than supporting their rehabilitation and return to employment either within or outside the NSW Police Force.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn people in the gallery that if they are not silent during this debate they will be removed from the gallery. I am sure all members will be interested in the full debate on this bill and every member will have an opportunity to speak. I will not allow interjections during other speakers' contributions. I realise it is a controversial issue and highly emotive, but people will be removed from the gallery and members will be removed from this Chamber if they continue to interject and show off. Members will remain silent. The Attorney General has the call.

Mr GREG SMITH: In practice the combination of entitlements has seemingly and perversely encouraged injured officers to stay off work and pursue a medical discharge rather than engage in rehabilitation and return to work. One cannot ignore the fact that, if left unchecked, death and disability and workers compensation for police will cost New South Wales $4.4 billion over the next four years. Including the flow-on cost to the workers compensation scheme, the death and disability scheme is currently costing $15 million a week, or $12.5 million more than it should. It is a scheme that is unsustainable and requiring urgent reform, not just for the sake of the New South Wales budget or the operational strength of the NSW Police Force but also for the injured officers that this scheme is failing. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr NATHAN REES (Toongabbie) [10.32 a.m.]: What a sad and sorry day this is as we debate this latest instalment from the anti-worker manifesto of O'Farrell's Government. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition came to power in March and brought in a budget that has reduced real wages for workers across New South Wales. A budget measure got rid of the Industrial Relations Commission's discretion. This Government put up rents for pensioners in Department of Housing accommodation and increased childcare costs. This bit of legislative dross that it has brought to the Chamber today after ramming it through the other place yesterday in a tawdry deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party, which crumbled at the first sign of any resistance, is an absolute disgrace. If you are a spiv in this town, Barry O'Farrell is your man. If you are a shyster, Barry O'Farrell is your man. If you are a snake oil conman, Barry O'Farrell is your man. But if you are an ordinary worker in this State, Barry O'Farrell is in your pocket.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I understand that this is an emotional and a difficult issue—

The SPEAKER: What is the member's point of order?

Mr Brad Hazzard: I ask that the member be asked to address other members in this place by their appropriate title.

Mr John Robertson: When you start we will. Your leader leads by example every day.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is out of order. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. I understand the point of order. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Toongabbie has the call. He is making appropriate introductory remarks at this stage.

Mr NATHAN REES: As I was saying, the member for Ku-ring-gai is in your pocket if you are an ordinary worker in New South Wales, part of an ordinary family that has done nothing wrong, who goes out to work each day, pays the rent, pays the mortgage and rears the children. If you are a shyster though, Barry O'Farrell is in your corner. We know conservative governments' form when it comes to industrial relations and related matters but this attack on the 16,000 men and women of the NSW Police Force who keep our streets safe, keep our homes safe and keep families safe across the State, is an absolute disgrace. There are 16,000 men and women and on average about 160 of them in each of our electorates. The member for Oatley is sitting in the Chamber studiously avoiding eye contact because he knows that with a margin like his 160 police men and women in his electorate, their wives or husbands, their families and their mums and dads will make the difference between his winning and losing a seat next time round. He is embarrassed at this mathematical reality that exists not just for him but for the gentleman next to him, the member for Campbelltown, who ought to know better as a former police officer. It has taken eight short months before he started garrotting his colleagues in the NSW Police Force.

In the event that there is an argument for reform of this scheme, the way to do it is by sitting down with Police Association representatives and negotiating in a sensible, adult and mature fashion. That is the way it has been done for more than a century in Australia. Instead we have this exercise of pushing legislation through the other place with the help of the Shooters and Fishers who talk a big game but who fold at the first sign of resistance. It is absolutely extraordinary. It is yet another reminder that when one changes a government one changes a State. Back in March the people of New South Wales elected a Coalition Government on the basis of openness, transparency and accountability. We can all mouth the contract that the Premier put to the people of New South Wales. Instead he has gone about dismantling this scheme in a fashion that can only be described as underhand and entirely dismissive of the Police Force and its representatives. The hypocrisy is extraordinary. I will not labour the point but this is a Government that saw fit to arrange legislatively for one of its own member's disabilities to be accommodated so that he could sit in this place. They made arrangements for that without any drama whatsoever. But if you are a police man or woman keeping people safe across the State it is an entirely different story. I quote the following comments from police officers:

I have a recurring dream where I 'wake up' in the dream thinking that one of my young children ... is standing next to the bed, When I open my eyes, it's not my child, but one of the deceased children that I have dealt with, that I have carried, that I have placed into the morgue. They look like they did when I last saw them. Then I look at the end of my bed and I see the rest of them sitting there, exactly how they were. Some are dripping wet, I pulled them out of the pool. Some are crushed, as I removed them from motor vehicles, others have head injuries, only 18 months-old, because their mother caved their heads in. These are real, these are the jobs that I did. When I wake up I am crying. I have to leave the bedroom so my wife doesn't see me do this.

That is from an officer, Detective Inspector Jason Puxty, and is testimony to the extraordinary psychological impact that is potentially there every day for these officers.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn people in the gallery that there should be no noise from the gallery.

Mr NATHAN REES: Officer 35423, Daniel Danvers, said this:

I have made all available attempts to recover and return to my previous physical capacity. My journey has been a long and painful one, all with the end goal to return to full duties at work. I endure pain every single day. I can't sit for long. I can't stand for long. I am depressed. Only those who have suffered such injuries and been relegated from fit, active people to hobbling cripples can understand the damaging psychological effects that accompany the obvious physical ones.

Officer 41893, Simon Shannon, said this:

From the moment I was injured I have always intended to return to work, and did return to work on a restricted basis before my last two operations. But as my injuries have still not allowed me to recover to my pre injury health, the end result is still uncertain. If the worst case scenario happens and I am unable to return to work, where does that leave my family. This new system is simply a means of casting me aside without care. I have never felt so let down, alone and under pressure.

This document details in extraordinary depth the psychological and physical impact that arises from day-to-day events on the job for police officers in New South Wales and is recommended reading for all members before they vote on this tawdry bill. I have seen some pretty offensive assaults on workers in New South Wales, most of them in the past eight months by this Government. There are decent men and women on the government benches who believe that this legislation should not proceed. In the Government's own ranks—and I see some of them here today—are at least four former police officers—and on occasion it makes me feel safe in this Chamber. Those former police officers are the member for Myall Lakes, the member for Campbelltown, the member for Dubbo and the Minister for Police, who ought to know better.

When it comes to looking after its own members this Government sees fit to make special arrangements for them but when it comes to the NSW Police Force it is an entirely different story. The hypocrisy of this Government is extraordinary. What have we seen from this Government? In New South Wales workers will receive a 2.5 per cent pay rise if they are lucky, which is less than the inflation rate. This Government has stripped away the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission and increased rents for pensioners and battlers.

The Government is now making an assault on the police death and disability scheme which for injured or deceased police officers is the only thing that stands between destitution and a reasonable means of providing for their families and paying the rent or the mortgage. This is an outrage and this bill ought to be opposed. It should have been opposed in the other place by the gutless wonders otherwise known as the Shooters and Fishers Party. The Opposition will oppose it in this place because it is the wrong thing to do. It is morally objectionable. Labor will never support offensive legislation such as this which strikes at the heart of decency in New South Wales.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I need to address the gallery briefly to say that it is a rare opportunity for members of the Police Force to be witnessing a debate on a bill of this importance but I do ask the gallery to refrain from clapping, cheering or commenting. I understand you are emotional about this bill, as we all are, but I ask you to refrain from doing that.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: You will be removed from the gallery if you continue to interject and I do not want to do that, but you will be removed from the gallery. You have authority outside, I have authority here and I do not want to remove you, but I will. Please let us all be fair during this debate and listen to each other, and have respect for each other.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE (Campbelltown) [10.42 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Opposition member were listened to in silence and the member for Campbelltown has that right as well in this Chamber.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE: I served for 27 years with the police, first, with the NSW Police Force—which was known then as the New South Wales Police Service—second, with the New South Wales Police and, third, with the NSW Police Force. Having reached the rank of Chief Inspector, I am the highest-ranked police officer to have entered the New South Wales Parliament. I was awarded the Centenary Medal for services to policing in the community and I received a Commissioner's Commendation for my courage and devotion to duty during an affray. In fact, one of the proudest aspects of my police career was to initiate the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 2004 which prevented police from being sued directly by offenders. Police still enjoy that protection today.

Ms Noreen Hay: It was a Labor Government.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE: It was initiated by me.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member not to respond to interjections and I ask the member for Wollongong to cease interjecting.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE: I was also a proud member of the Police Association for over two decades and I am a published author in its journal. The bill before the House seeks to amend the Police Act 1990 to require the NSW Police Force to take out approved death and disability insurance for police officers who otherwise are not covered by the now closed Police Superannuation Scheme; in other words, officers who were employed after April 1988 and who now comprise the vast majority of the NSW Police Force. The bill provides that, with the concurrence of the Treasurer, the Minister can approve an insurance policy that provides death and disability benefits for our members of the NSW Police Force. Any proposed insurance policy needs to provide fair and adequate financial support for police officers who are injured on the job. The Government believes that this bill will provide such coverage.

The proposal is to take out commercial insurance in order to replace the current scheme and the workers compensation top-up entitlement. To ensure the viability of the new system, the Government will contribute an additional 1 per cent over and above the original commitment of 3.6 per cent of salaries, as well as an additional 1 per cent over 12 months, to take benefits to 75 per cent of salaries for up to five years. Neither the bill nor the Government seeks to make any changes to death benefits and a lump sum benefit for total and permanent incapacity will still be made available through these provisions. As a result of negotiations with the crossbenches and the Police Association, the total and permanent incapacity benefits have been significantly improved from what had been initially proposed under the package. It is proposed that income protection benefit will be paid instead of the partial and permanent incapacity benefit and unlimited workers compensation top-up.

The bill includes a power to make a regulation to provide for additional provisions that may or may not be included in any improved insurance policy, in addition to participation in injury-management initiatives and other transitional provisions not specified in the bill. A draft regulation was a tabled last night in the other place, which would require an approved insurance policy to incorporate the improved total and permanent disability benefits scale. In relation to the transitional provisions included in the bill, proposed section 199K includes a provision for transitional coverage to officers during any period when no approved insurance policy is in place. The additional coverage provided for will be equivalent to any payments made to officers covered by the approved policy. The bill will also establish a framework under the existing State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987 for regulations that allow police officers to relinquish their additional benefits cover, which provides death and total disability cover, and to be covered by the new scheme being proposed today.

It is important that we get this new system right and that is why the bill provides for ongoing reviews of the costs of the scheme and for the independent Auditor-General to undertake a performance audit of the new provisions within 12 months of the new arrangements coming into place. Indeed, it is timely that this bill is being debated in this place only a day after the Auditor-General released volume seven of his 2011 report to Parliament. This volume focused on law and order and emergency services, including a particular focus on the police death and disability scheme. In tabling his report, the Auditor General had this to say about the existing scheme:

The increase in the number of claims is concerning, not only from a financial perspective, but also from the impact on the New South Wales Police Force more generally.

He added:

Actions taken to address the unfavourable trend in claims have had no impact to date.

That is why the Government introduced this bill. Put simply, the current death and disability scheme is just not sustainable from an administrative, operative and financial point of view. As has been extensively outlined, the current design of the scheme is leading to increases in officers remaining on long-term sick leave for significant periods. During the past financial year, over 1,100 officers took long-term sick leave. Indeed, at any one time there can be between 600 to 800 officers away from duty on long-term sick leave. That equates to approximately the number of officers in three or four large local area commands who are not available for service. Clearly, the current scheme is broken. This year, if nothing is done the scheme is expected to cost the people and taxpayers of New South Wales a total of $762 million.

With no signs that the long-term sick leave problems are being resolved, as highlighted by the Auditor-General's report to Parliament, and with advice to the Government that the costs associated with the scheme could grow to as high as $4.4 billion over the next four years, it is only responsible that the Government act, and act now. There is no question that members opposite had ample opportunity to address these issues, but they failed to act for at least the past four years when the advice clearly articulated that the scheme was failing. Indeed, this year is not the first year that the Auditor-General has outlined the problem. It was first raised as an emerging issue in 2007. Again in 2008 the Auditor-General outlined:

"… the financial benefits are likely to discourage return to work and may make medical retirement the preferred option for some who wish to leave the Force.

Yet again in 2009 and 2010 the beleaguered scheme was raised in the Auditor-General's reports to Parliament as one of the most significant issues facing the NSW Police Force. And members opposite still failed to act. They were privy to actuarial advice which clearly showed that the scheme was out of control. Only yesterday, in volume seven of his report to the Parliament, the Auditor-General stated:

The Force's liability for the Death and Disability scheme is based on an independent actuarial assessment. The Death and Disability liability has grown significantly by $169 million or 147 per cent since 2007-08 and by 49 per cent in 2010-11. The partial and permanent incapacity (PPI) claims paid, a component of the Death and Disability scheme, has increased by 47 per cent to 415 claims in 2010-11.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mount Druitt will come to order.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE: These observations are not myth; they are facts—facts that members opposite chose to ignore.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Shellharbour will come to order. The member for Wollongong will come to order.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE: This Government is taking decisive action.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr BRYAN DOYLE: The new arrangements will focus on getting police officers back to work, fix the detrimental impact on operational activities and in turn reduce costs. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind all members that I require respect for speakers this morning and for all speakers to be listened to with respect and in silence.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [10.53 a.m.]: What a sad day. On the last sitting day of Parliament this year we are dealing with a bill that was pushed through the upper House in the cover of darkness. The Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011 was rammed through without consultation by a Government with one of the most appalling track records of backflips when it comes to the way it treats the people of New South Wales and, in particular, the people we rely on to protect us every day. This is a bill of deception, and this is a Government of deception. In the 7½ months it has been in office the Government has deceived the people of New South Wales. Worse than that, the Government's first act was to protect one of its own members to ensure that he could keep his benefits; seven months later the Government is sticking it to the police. That is the deception.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Baulkham Hills will come to order.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The second deception in this argument is that the Minister is a former police officer, and the Premier spent at least four years trying to convince the people of New South Wales and in particular serving police officers that he would stand with them. I have lost count of the number of times I heard him say—and the number of times the police would have heard him say this—that he would be a Premier who stands beside them. Last night the Premier got up and walked away. The Premier walked away from the people we rely on every day to keep our streets and communities safe, although he had spent so much time on trying to convince them that he would stand with them. The deception does not end there. The deception is the argument that the scheme is unsustainable and that the only people who acknowledged that the scheme was unsustainable were Government members. I have followed this debate closely and at no stage have I heard the Police Association or rank and file cops state that the scheme is sustainable or that it does not need change.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Baulkham Hills will come to order. He will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: The deception and one of the lowest acts is to paint the police and their association as somehow being in denial. They all knew that there needed to be change but the argument is about the basis upon which that change occurs. The changes should not be snuck or rammed through the Parliament but by negotiating a proper package that ensures we look after those on whom we rely each and every day. The Government is now beholden to an insurance company rather than looking after the New South Wales police. The Government said, "We've got to get this bill through the Parliament now or the insurance company will walk away." What a disgrace. Government members claim leadership but they are being led by an insurance company that will offer a premium for only 12 months and that could walk away and leave our police in limbo again.

The Government claims that it wants to look after cops, but all this bill does is rip at the heart of police officers. The shame and disgrace is that no doubt we will hear pathetic contributions such as the one we heard from the member for Campbelltown, who talked about himself and who sits in this Chamber while being protected by police out on the street. Someone once told me that people who get up and talk about themselves have nothing constructive to say, and we have all seen evidence of that today. All I heard was the member for Campbelltown talking about himself. He deceived this place by saying that he was a member of the Police Association when in fact he resigned from the association while he was still on the job. So he should not come into this Chamber and make out that he has a track record of which he is proud.

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition about making personal reflections on other members. I ask him to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: Why do we see—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not need the assistance of the member for Wollongong. He is doing quite well on his own.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: This week we saw an historic event in Macquarie Street. For the first time ever 5,000 police officers marched on Macquarie Street. But the historic aspect is that they were 5,000 uniformed police officers. Five thousand police officers took the unprecedented stand of marching while in uniform. They did so because they are concerned about the way the Government is treating them and the contempt being shown by the Premier and the Minister for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families. Police officers confront some of the ugliest circumstances and people in our society on a daily basis. They find themselves at road traumas, at house fires and in domestic violence situations that most of us cannot even begin to comprehend. They do it because they believe in this job. But they also do it because, up until now, governments of both persuasions have been prepared to look after them; to make sure that they and their families are properly looked after if some tragic event occurs to them in the workplace.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with Stephen de Lorenzo's mother here in Parliament House. Stephen De Lorenzo was shot in circumstances where people were being held hostage. He went in, did not know where they were and was shot. Two and a half years later he wants to come back to work, but he cannot. Under the Government's scheme he is going to find himself left hanging in limbo, much worse off. Those men and women on the highways every day are the first at road trauma incidents. I have friends who work in the highway patrol. They have told me some of those stories. I know, just from what they tell me, they are not telling me the full story, but I can see in their eyes the effects that those incidents have on them. Those people, more than anyone else, deserve to be treated with some decency and dignity.

They should not be treated in the appalling manner that the Government proposes to deal with them—by smashing legislation through and being unprepared or unwilling to negotiate a settlement on these issues. This Government will continue to deceive the police. The Government has done a massive disservice to the people we rely on, who wear a uniform every single day. This Government, by doing what it is doing, is making them and their families suffer, under the guise of saying, "This is unsustainable and the Police Association will not help us out."

One of the real tragedies here is that if the Government was fair dinkum, it would also be dealing with the staffing arrangements that local area commanders find themselves faced with. Local area commanders deal with the staffing issues when a police officer wants to come back to work on partial duties. The problem is that someone coming back on rehabilitation is included in the staff numbers. No allowance is made for those local area commanders to manage that situation appropriately. If the Government were fair dinkum, it would not be ramming this legislation through and not addressing that issue. Members on the Government side are saving that we did it. We would never have done this to these people. Government members can say whatever they like about us. They can try to blame us.

More importantly, everyone sitting in the gallery and everyone else who puts that uniform on every day knows that we would never have done this to them. The Government has stuck a knife into them with this bill. It has ensured that, when they go to work, their families will not know what is going to happen to them and how they will manage. This will hang around the Government's neck like a rotting carcass until March 2015. It will get worse and worse, On 20 January this year Barry O'Farrell as Opposition leader said, "My team unashamedly backs our cops."

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Not even here.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: He is not even here—but not backing out cops. On 27 July 2009 our current Minister for Police and Emergency Services said, "I believe that police perform an extraordinary role in our communities and their benefits should reflect the dangerous work they do." The thing that everybody is discovering about you lot—apart from deception—is that you will say anything to get yourselves elected.

The SPEAKER: Order! I suggest the Leader of the Opposition direct his comments through the chair.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: But when you land in office, you do the complete opposite. Whether you are a police officer, whether you work in national parks, whether you work in transport, wherever you work in the public sector, this Government says nothing of its reform plans. It lands in here and just takes to workers with a knife. What it has done to the cops in New South Wales will forever be the most disgraceful and despicable act by any government in the history of this State when it comes to looking after our front-line cops. That is why 5,000 police marched outside this place. Those sitting in the gallery know a Labor government would never have done this to you. A Labor government would never have done this to our front-line cops. I hope from this day until March 2015 our front-line police never forgot what this Government is doing to them and their colleagues who stick their necks out every single day in some of the most dangerous circumstances.

Police officers, unlike most other workers, cannot simply say, "I am not going into a particular work area because it is not safe." It does not work like that for them. If they started doing that, we would all be very concerned. But this Government is making them think twice. Every time they are confronted with a dangerous or unknown situation, they have to think twice. They do not have to think only about what is going on in there and what they might confront; they have to think about what might happen when they walk in and if something terrible happens to them, what is going to happen to their family, to their kids, and who is going to look after them? The one thing they know for certain after today is that the Government will never look after them and never look after their families.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [11.07 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. At the outset I congratulate the Hon. Michael Gallacher MLC, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for his strong leadership to address the misdirection and financial blowout of this current death and disability scheme. This policy was originally designed to protect and rehabilitate police, but is now costing police by driving up sick leave and providing a financial disincentive to remain in the police force. It is putting extra strain on existing officers who need to pick up the workload of those officers on sick leave. Regrettably, the current trend of claims and financial incentive to leave rather than rehabilitate has seen the original budget of this scheme breached by $2.5 million per week—until it is now costing the New South Wales taxpayer $15 million per week. The whole scheme is now costing $780 million per year. This exponential growth in the scheme's cost is simply unsustainable. This fact was confirmed by the Auditor-General in 2008. The cost of the scheme will soon be equivalent to 50 per cent of police salaries. The necessary changes to this policy were made clear to the former Labor Government, but it chose to do nothing and allowed the problem to keep growing. Once again those opposite have left a mess for the Liberal Party and The Nationals to fix—and we will.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will be heard in silence.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: Let me highlight to the House some of the scary numbers we are talking about here. A $762 million cost is anticipated this financial year—a potential $4.4 billion cost over the next four years.

Mr Guy Zangari: Not as scary as what they have to face every day.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fairfield will come to order.

Mr Geoff Provest: Why didn't you fix it rather than just sit there?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Tweed will cease interjecting. The member for Mulgoa has the call.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: There is a 152 per cent increase in the number of officers taking long-term sick leave since the commencement of the death and disability scheme. Our Government is committed to fixing this scheme in an endeavour to get injured officers back into the workforce. The new scheme will be the most generous for police officers in our country. Originally, the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill was introduced as an affordable—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will cease arguing across the Chamber.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: Originally, the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill was introduced—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wollongong to order.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES:—as an affordable, appropriate and respectful process to recognise genuine and permanent injury, disability or, more devastatingly, the death of police officers. While the financial blowout of this scheme must be brought under control, more essential is the support and retraining of injured officers to retain their knowledge and skills within our Police Force. Under Labor's scheme we heard of stories where officers were encouraged to take a payout and retire rather than rehabilitate, retrain and be retained in the Police Force. It is proposed that the new scheme will provide 100 per cent of salary for nine months after injury, followed by income protection at 75 per cent for up to a further five years; lump sum payments for officers who are totally and permanently disabled; and death benefits, which remain unchanged from the current scheme.

In addition, the Government has committed an additional $70 million to extend transitional arrangements that will now capture more than 300 officers currently on sick leave. Furthermore, we have committed a record $15 million over three years to improve injury management practices within the NSW Police Force. Police are aware of the plans that were in place under the former Government's management of this scheme, yet funding and resources were not available to implement those plans. However, our Government will make funding available from the fourth year onwards to allow for the most successful trial initiatives to be funded on a long-term statewide basis. We value the livelihoods of our police officers and want to ensure that, wherever possible, rehabilitation and retraining are available so that these valued members of our public service are gainfully employed.

In the 2011 June quarter, 67 per cent of police who left the force did so for medical reasons. We simply cannot afford to lose so many experienced and skilled officers when we could be rehabilitating and retraining them. Recently the Minister announced several changes to the original scheme following consultation with stakeholders. Our Government will invest another $70 million to ensure that officers already booked for an independent medical examination will be covered under the current partial and permanent disability benefit scheme. This will ensure certainty for the 302 officers currently awaiting medical assessment. We have introduced also a safeguard to the system by allowing the Commissioner of Police discretion to provide additional financial support to injured officers in extraordinary circumstances.

The Government also will invest an additional $10 million into the proposed insurance scheme for a 12-month period to bring benefits up to 75 per cent of salaries over five years. The Government has introduced this bill to establish a new scheme that is financially and, more importantly, operationally viable. Under the new measures an insurance policy will be purchased that will provide our injured officers with a lump sum benefit should an officer die, and I stress that the amount is unchanged from the existing death benefit; a lump sum benefit if an officer is totally and permanently disabled due to an injury, with the regulation now providing the scale of benefits; and an income-protection benefit that begins after a nine-month waiting period following injury, during which time an officer's salary is maintained at 100 per cent by the NSW Police Force. This will provide 75 per cent of salary for up to a further five years.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Leader of the Opposition has made his contribution.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: The cost blowout of this scheme is another example of the inept financial management of those opposite when in government to manage complex budgets and to make tough decisions for the benefit of this State. Those on that side of the House left a financial mess for the Liberal Party and The Nationals to fix. We will fix the mess.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Wollongong will have an opportunity to contribute to debate.

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: For a number of days the Government has been involved in lengthy negotiations on the bill with the Police Association, and a number of concessions were made. These include transitional arrangements from the old death and disability scheme to the new one. The Government has committed an additional $70 million package to capture more than 300 police currently on long-term sick leave. Police officers will receive a 100 per cent workers compensation top-up for a period of nine months. At the completion of this period, they then will receive 75 per cent of their wage for a period of up to five years. The total and permanent disability benefits for police officers will be enhanced by an additional $10 million to increase benefit levels. I congratulate the Government on making the tough decisions necessary to get New South Wales back on track. The amendments to the police death and disability scheme will deliver a financially sustainable scheme that is focussed primarily on seeing injured police officers rehabilitated to return to work. These changes will ensure that a death and disability scheme remains available for our police officers for the long term. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [11.16 a.m.]: What a day of contrast for me. This morning I rose early and joined the Leader of the Opposition and others from all political and community cross-sections to walk in the inaugural White Ribbon Day Walk in Coogee organised by Superintendent Gavin Dengate from the Eastern Beaches Local Area Command. I congratulate him on that wonderful gesture. Shame on this Government! From 14 September 2009 until the March 2011 election I had the privilege of serving as the Minister for Police in this State. On many occasions I said that I wished all New South Wales citizens could fulfil that role if only for a day because of their various conceptions of what the police do: the tough stuff they encounter, the good things they do, all their deeds, protections and gestures, and all things that go hand in hand with policing. I ask all citizens to imagine their conceptions of the police and multiply them many times over. It was a privilege for me as the Minister to see what our police face. Often it is said that society can be judged by various measures. Some people say society can be judged by how it treats its old people. Others say that measure is how society treats its animals. A government can be judged by how it treats its workers. By that measure this Government is a disgrace.

Mr John Sidoti: You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk, my friend.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: You will be walking the walk out the door when this mob gets hold of you. Do not sit there and brag to me, big mouth.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order!

Mr John Robertson: He's in Drummoyne. Just remember Drummoyne.

Mr John Sidoti: Fancy politicising it.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order!

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: One of the first acts of this Government—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I call the member for Maroubra to order. The behaviour of the member for Maroubra and the member for Drummoyne is unparliamentary. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. Members will be heard in silence.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: One of the first acts of this Government was to attack workplace safety laws. It then attacked cuts to real wages. Then it emasculated the Industrial Relations Commission. But this one absolutely takes the cake. We can forget about the detail in this tawdry bill. We know the scheme had issues, which the police and their association acknowledged. All they wanted was to have serious negotiation on the matter. There is no compelling reason why we should be here at this moment debating this bill on this day.

There is no reason why the Government could not have sat down with police and the Police Association over the Christmas break and come back with a mutually acceptable conclusion on the first sitting day of Parliament next year. This is just sneaky and disgraceful behaviour. In his introduction of the bill this morning the Attorney General said that there was negotiation, and there was. There was negotiation over the last two days in this place with politicians but no real negotiation with people sitting in the gallery, and that is the real shame with this bill—forget the detail.

Police are used to being hit, even sometimes from behind; it is part and parcel of their duty. But they are not used to being hit from behind by their Premier, by their Minister and by people like the member for Campbelltown, one of their own, who today signed his own political death warrant. Thankfully for all of us, one of the attributes of police is that they do not back down from a fight. They will not back down on this one. They said the other day and this morning—and I believe them—that they will not forget and they will not forgive. The police, the Opposition and the citizens of New South Wales who care about police will lose this battle today but we will not lose the fight. I say to the Government that is already swaggering around, drunk with its own arrogance because of the distorted nature of numbers in this place: forget about the numbers in this place; there are 16,000 police, 4,000 unsworn officers and 300,000 public servants who have absolutely no trust in this Government any longer. That is the real story inherent in this bill.

When a Government loses the confidence of its most outstanding citizens, that is not only a demonstration of its lack of moral compass it is a judgement drenched in shame. I like to think that for 16 years when officers pulled on their uniforms in the morning they knew they were supported by their family, the police family internationally and by the citizens of New South Wales and, despite our difficulties from time to time, they knew they had the overwhelmingly support of the former Labor Government. That has all been destroyed forever today. It is a sad indictment of this Government that when officers pull on their uniforms in the morning they know they do not have the support of the Premier, the police Minister or any Government Minister, despite all this "BS" rhetoric today. Actions speak louder than words. If members opposite want to support police, they should vote with the Opposition when the division is called. Because of the distorted nature of the numbers in this place it will take some time but today is the beginning of the end of the O'Farrell Government. Police will make sure of it.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. Not a single member in this place can deny very real issues are posed by the current scheme both from an operational and a financial perspective. Clearly the current scheme is not working. Should the scheme remain unchanged, this year it is expected to cost the taxpayers of New South Wales some $762 million. That is, $299 million on the scheme, which is more than 10 times the original cost estimated in 2005; workers compensation premiums of $273 million, a 742 per cent increase since 2005; and a workers compensation hindsight adjustment of $190 million.

This is not a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. The former Government admitted it was aware of the problem but it did nothing. Under the former Government there was financial mismanagement, abuse of power and a lack of services. What we have heard from Labor is sheer hypocrisy. Members opposite stuck their heads in the sand, ignored the problems yet now seek to take the high moral ground. On 26 March 2011 the people of New South Wales sent a clear message to Labor that they had had enough of financial mismanagement and the Government not delivering services. Those opposite are the very same members who, when in government, were responsible for ignoring the warning signs and creating the crisis we face today, whether it is the now shadow Treasurer who was Labor's last police Minister, or two former Labor Premiers.

The Opposition has known for some time—it could be argued they have known for years—that the current scheme, as it presently operates, provides a disincentive for officers to return to work. The scheme does this by topping up the statutory rate salaries and making lump sum death and disability benefits payable on medical discharge. I highlight some of the large and scary numbers involved. A $762 million cost is anticipated this financial year and a potential $4.4 billion cost is anticipated over the next four years. There has been a 152 per cent increase in the number of officers taking long-term sick leave since the commencement of the death and disability scheme.

The Government has introduced the bill to establish a new scheme that is financially and, more importantly, operationally viable. Under the new measures an insurance policy will be purchased. It will provide our injured officers with a lump sum benefit should an officer die. I stress that the amount is unchanged from the existing death benefit. It will also provide a lump sum benefit if an officer is totally and permanently disabled due to an injury. The scale of benefits will now be provided for in the regulation. The income protection benefit begins after a nine-month waiting period following injury, during which time an officer's salary is maintained at 100 per cent by the NSW Police Force. This will provide 75 per cent of salary for up to a further five years.

Finally, in the event of total and permanent disability, the insurance policy will pay both the lump sum benefit and the income protection benefit, which can be commuted to a lump sum at the insurer's discretion. This package is not just about reforms to the design of the current scheme. I am pleased to highlight that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services has announced a recent injury management fund comprising a $15 million investment over three years. It is critical to fund those injury management initiatives, as prioritised by the NSW Police Force, to be trialled and evaluated over an initial three-year period.

The Government has acted on the facts and is addressing the crisis created by members opposite. It has presented a long overdue package of reforms. These important reforms not only will bring the costs of the scheme down to sustainable levels but also will do more to support injured police officers. This bill is about standing behind our police officers.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [11.27 a.m.]: I join my colleagues in opposing the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011, which is being debated in this House following its passage through the Legislative Council last night, a most disappointing result in my view. I acknowledge all the communications sent to my office by way of phone calls, emails and letters from not only my constituents but serving police officers and their families across the State. They have asked me and other members of Parliament to reject the bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: I note, too, the demonstration held outside Parliament last Tuesday by thousands of uniformed police officers. As a member of this Parliament for 28 years and prior to that a policeman for 13 years, I have never seen a demonstration by so many police officers opposing a Labor or Liberal government. I was very surprised at the strident and passionate way that police officers in uniform spoke about the Government and the commissioner. In the 1970s era nobody would have been game to talk publicly about senior management.

An interesting point was raised by some members of this House, particularly those on the Government side, about the politics of this debate and the bill. I will not take up too much time of the House as I want to give other Labor members the opportunity to say a few words. Over the years debates between Labor and the Coalition have always involved somewhat of a bidding war. I argued both in the Parliament and during my time in the Police Force about which side of politics was best for the force. I recognise the fact that even when the Labor Party won an election by a landslide the majority of the Police Force voted with the Coalition. When Sir Robert Askin was Premier he was passionately supported by the Police Force. As a serving officer, I found it hard to win a debate in the meal rooms of the police stations I worked at when I said that perhaps a Labor Government would be better for the Police Force.

When Labor came to office in 1976 and through to the 1980s I think governments of both persuasions did the best they could for the Police Force. Some months after I came to this place Pat Hills, the then Minister for Industrial Relations, added an interest component to the superannuation contributions of members of the Police Force. It is surprising that until1983 when officers left the Police Force they received what they had contributed but no interest. I was very proud to talk about the fact that we introduced that bill. I give credit to the Coalition for changing when it came to office in 1988 the law about how police gave evidence in court. Before then every policeman who gave evidence in a not-guilty court matter had to remember every word of their statements and recite them parrot fashion. Police officers would study their statements for weeks, committing them to memory, which created a lot of anxiety and stress. I raised that issue in a private member's statement in the early 1980s, and I give John Dowd, the then Attorney General, credit for changing that practice so police can now present signed statements.

The point is that there has always been a battle between both sides of politics as to which party has done most for the Police Force, and the beneficiaries of that battle have been the serving members and those who leave the force through injury. Government members claim that the Labor Party was tossed out of government because we mismanaged this or that—fair enough. I was successful in that campaign and I cannot remember a single Liberal candidate or any member sitting opposite saying, "Elect us because we are going to change the police death and disability scheme." Those opposite might rewrite the reasons that we lost the election but this policy and this bill were not mentioned once by the Coalition before the election in March.

Mr Michael Daley: Just the opposite.

Mr RICHARD AMERY: As the member for Maroubra says, it is exactly the opposite. Government members made detrimental comments about Labor's campaign and claims about what would happen if a Coalition Government were elected. Many superannuation schemes, workers compensation schemes and pension schemes lose their viability from time to time. Down through the history of this place and in various public service areas changes have been made. Either existing rights were preserved and the new rules applied to new members or changes were made following protracted negotiations. But this Government announced as part of its budget—this is the sad thing—a policy that caught the police, and everybody else, off guard.

The speeches today by Coalition members were drafted by the New South Wales Treasury. My speaking time is limited but I make this point: Policing is not only a difficult profession but a dangerous one, as many members of Parliament recognise. I can also tell the bean counters in Treasury that it is an expensive profession. It does not come cheap to equip the Police Force with the correct vehicles, police stations and refurbished facilities. It is the nature of their job that officers sustain injuries. That is expensive for the taxpayer. But in my 28 years as a member of Parliament not one taxpayer has walked into my office and asked, "Could we do something about the money we are spending on the Police Force?" Not one.

I reject this bill. Studies in New South Wales, in Australia and throughout the world recognise the very difficult and special attributes of policing. Every overseas study has examined the physical and emotional risk to police officers. Perhaps the current scheme needs some reform, but I reject the claims that Labor did nothing. We addressed the campaign of the Police Association over many years and considered the physical and emotional damage caused to police officers. That is why the scheme was introduced. If the scheme requires reform then it will happen, but I urge the Government to talk to the Police Association because it will probably have some solutions. The shenanigans surrounding this legislation—ramming it through on the last sitting day before the Christmas break—are an appalling indictment on the Coalition Government. It has lost the trust of the police for many decades.

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Visitors in the public gallery have been warned by the Speaker about their behaviour. I ask that they observe the debate with the respect that the community has for this place.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Not any more.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I ask the member for Macquarie Fields to repeat his comment.

Dr Andrew McDonald: I said, "Not any more."

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I place the member for Macquarie Fields on a call to order.

Mr John Robertson: Oh!

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [11.37 a.m.]: I am pleased to join my colleagues on this side of the House and to stand with 16,000 police across New South Wales to oppose this deplorable bill. Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011 should not be before the House in this form. I recognise that all governments face many challenges: balancing a wide range of competing demands with limited resources is always a challenge. Meeting the community's expectations to provide hospitals, schools, roads, transport and police requires making choices and setting priorities. The State's resources are limited and choices need to be made about who gets a new hospital, which kids will get new classrooms, which community will get its road upgraded, and what pay and conditions our public servants will enjoy. All governments are faced with these challenges, but it is its response to those challenges that a government will be remembered for.

The former Government made a conscious decision—a choice—to protect the wages and conditions of public servants in New South Wales. The Labor Government regarded those who heal our sick, those who teach our children and those who protect our communities as worth defending. The former Labor Government, like the current Government, had the choice to cut wages, neuter the Industrial Relations Commission and hack into the benefits of our public servants. But the former Government said no. When it comes to our men and women in blue, Labor recognises the nature of their work, the risk they take, and the important role they play in protecting our community. When it comes to their protections and their confidence that they will be looked after in the event of an incident or accident at work, we believe our police deserve a system that gives them certainty and real protections.

As a Labor member of this House, I am naturally predisposed to protecting the conditions of employment for the men and women of our State, so I was naturally concerned about the bill before this House. But it was not until I sat down and talked with two local police from my community that I fully understood their concerns and the ramifications of this bill. One of the officers I talked with shared their story and it hardened my resolve to oppose this bill. That officer had attended an incident where gang members had shot dead a fellow police officer. He was shot in the head and died. The officer whom I talked with witnessed the incident and was caught in the gunfire. Even worse, the officer who died was related by marriage to the officer I talked with. Not surprisingly, this incident traumatised my constituent.

As a result, the officer received compensation through the scheme. The payout was modest but it is expected to support this officer—who is unable to work in any capacity—for the remainder of their life. This person is only 28 years old and has a six-year-old son. Under the provisions of the bill, that officer will no longer have access to this payment. They will be left to fend for themselves or to try to find work, despite their disorders and health problems. I was moved by that story. It highlights the human face of this bill and reminds us that governments have choices about the decisions we make. By deciding to hack into the conditions and protections of those who protect our communities, this Government has made the wrong choice.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [11.41 a.m.]: I support the Opposition in opposing what I consider to be an absolutely disgraceful bill. The fundamental change outlined in the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011 will move death and disability benefits from an award under the Industrial Relations Act to a commercial insurance scheme. I say to the member for Campbelltown, "You should hang your head in shame; you are backing an insurance company and keeping"—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Wollongong will direct her comments through the Chair and not across the Chamber.

Ms NOREEN HAY: He should hang his head in shame. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Michael Gallacher, revealed that he is trying to force through these changes to police death and disability scheme entitlements because the insurance company has given the Government a deadline. Who is governing this place? Who is making the rules? Who is listening to the decisions? This is about getting in with the insurance companies as quickly as possible. What is the wrong with the Industrial Relations Commission?

[Interruption]

I suggest the member for Coffs Harbour should not get personal. That was a staggering admission by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services on the day that 5,000 police officers marched in front of Parliament House—which was a first. I have been a member of Parliament for some years and heard some strange arguments but I find it amazing that today Government members blamed every man and his dog—particularly the dogs—for the changes that are taking place without due consultation. Will they explain why, at a couple of minutes to midnight, the Government rammed this legislation through the Legislative Council before sending it here? A couple of days ago I made a contribution to a debate about mental health—it is appropriate that the member for Vaucluse is at the table. I referred to police with mental health problems and to the effect on them when their lives and those of others are threatened. I have seen police attend a shocking suicide in a car in a park and they were visibly shaken. I do not know how they cope with and get over such events. I will never know how they do the jobs they do and face what they face.

When officers are trying to recover from such an event, they and their families—we must remember that their families live constantly with the risk of losing them—are under duress, dealing with shock, hurt and pain. They should not be pressured and forced back to work before their time just because they will be at a financial disadvantage if they do not. It is a disgrace. The member for Campbelltown took credit for the changes that the Labor Government made in 2004. He said he initiated them, but nothing goes through this place without the party having the numbers. This Government has the numbers, with a great majority, and it is just taking the mick. Government members are not arguing their case. Leopards do not change their spots; it was always going to be thus, as I said during the election campaign. This Government has established a pattern of deceit second to none. The Coalition told the unions and the Police Association that they had nothing to fear from the election of an O'Farrell Government. Have a look now. I said at the time that it would always be thus because leopards do not change their spots. This is what that lot opposite does: attack public servants whenever possible.

I am also interested in how the Government will save all this money. I have heard from Government members only how much money the scheme will create and how the police will be so much better off. Where will the Government make the savings? It will make the savings by removing the involvement and the existence of the Industrial Relations Commission. The Government is preventing the Police Association from arguing the case for officers before the Industrial Relations Commission. It is doing the same to teachers, to nurses and to all those public servants who trusted and voted for the Coalition. I can say only that this Government is doing what traditionally people who know politics tell you to do: hurt the electors early and they will forget by the next election. I congratulate the member for Mount Druitt on pointing out what was not said during the election campaign. Before the election the Coalition told the unions and everyone else they had nothing to fear. Yet it has been anti-union since forming government. The Government has attacked unions, the Industrial Relations Commission and the public service. That is the established pattern of deceit from this Government—not to mention it blames everyone but itself. I argue that, along with hanging their heads in shame, Government members should apologise to every single police man and woman in this State.

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [11.47 a.m.]: A couple of months ago we debated the Library Amendment Bill 2011 in this Chamber. Fifty-two Government members spoke to the library bill and now those gutless wonders are not in the House. Their leader has not shown his face and the gutless wonders opposite will say nothing to the police men and women who are in the public gallery today, to the 5,000 who marched on Macquarie Street and to the thousands across this State who protect us day in, day out. New South Wales police have delivered 17 out of 17 crime categories that are stable or falling. The Government came to power with a massive majority. The lot opposite came to this place with law and order in New South Wales the best it has ever been. It is an absolute disgrace for the Government to treat this place with such contempt.

As I say, 52 Coalition members spoke about the stupid library books they read when they were kids yet today they will not defend the men and women who protect their wives, husbands, children, extended family and communities by doing one of the most difficult jobs people can do. It is an absolute disgrace, and they should hang their heads in shame. Today is a dark day for police men and women, for those who want to join the NSW Police Force and for our community because the people who sit on the green leather benches in the comfort of the Parliament cannot protect those who protect us. It is an absolute disgrace. Every single one of them ought to hang their heads in shame. When they go back to their electorates they should apologise to their local area commanders. They should move from that side of the House to this side before this debate concludes.

I want to acknowledge some people in the gallery whom I worked with when I was chief of staff to a former police Minister. I acknowledge Peter Remphrey, Scott Webber, Greg Black and from the southern region Jason Hogan. As I said, I worked with these men when I was chief of staff to a former police Minister. Did we always agree? Of course we did not. But I will tell the House what we did differently from what those opposite do. We sat around a table and talked, and we talked in a spirit of cooperation and understanding. I never once said to these men and women that I understood what it was like to walk in their shoes. I did my very best, with the then police Minister, to bring forward policies and initiatives that enhanced the NSW Police Force and recognised the work they did.

That is what being in government is about. It is not about ramming through ideologically-based legislation. It is not about listening to Treasury buffoons every time they pull out their stupid graphs and say, "expenses high, income low". Fools—we have all seen them. Government members should wake up to themselves. I say to Government members that when they get a speech written by a ministerial staffer, especially one who has been vetted by the Treasurer's office, for heaven's sake, do not read it—or at least go through and scratch out half the stuff that those buffoons have written. They are not the types of speeches that members should make in this place. Members are here to represent their communities; they are not here to represent a North Shore accountant sipping a gin and tonic. This place is about members representing their communities, and there can never be a more important group to represent than those on the front line who protect our wives, our husbands and our children.

Let me also tell the House about the time I spent this year inside a police station working alongside officers in the Wollongong Local Area Command. I took the opportunity one Saturday night to accompany police in the police truck. We started at 10.00 p.m. and finished at 3.30 a.m. I did it quietly and without any fanfare. I did it because I wanted to get an understanding, albeit slight, of what these men and women experience every day. For those who have not done it—and it is pretty obvious that lot opposite has not—I urge them to spend some time with those men and women on a Saturday night between 11.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. Police life is very different from that of people in a cosy, three- or four-bedroom home, air conditioning or blanket on. Police experience the very worst of society and they carry out their job with dignity and respect. They do it because, until today, they had a sense that governments backed them. They had a sense that this place protected them as much as they protected us.

On behalf of this Parliament, I am very sorry that the police officers present today have witnessed one of the most disgraceful attacks on the men and women who protect our community. I say to the men and women in the public gallery today, to the 5,000 who were outside Parliament the other day and to all those across the local area commands: the Opposition may be small in number but we are determined to work and fight for you and with you to ensure that this Government is held to account. On a day in March 2015 police officers will have an opportunity across Campbelltown, Myall Lakes and every other electorate in this State to send a very clear message to the Government that this is not the way to treat people who protect our wives, our husbands and our children. I thank each and every one of the police officers who have come here today. They are witnessing an attack on their basic rights. On this side of the House we will stand with you and fight this every single step of the way.

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Again, I remind those in the public gallery that clapping is not tolerated.

Mr Nathan Rees: If you don't like it, remove them.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I will remove the member for Toongabbie if he does not behave appropriately.

Mr John Robertson: Oh, that's a turn-up right there.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! That shows the reverence and the respect that the Opposition has for the House.

Mr John Robertson: That's a bit harsh.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! My comments were directed to the people in the gallery. The Leader of the Opposition should know that clapping is unparliamentary behaviour.

Mr John Robertson: I do know.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! If that is the case the Leader of the Opposition should respect the rules of this House.

Mr John Robertson: I do.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Leader of the Opposition should lead by example.

Mr John Robertson: I am; I am following theirs.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! All Opposition members should hang their heads in shame at the disrespect they are showing to the House. Clapping is not tolerated. I ask the people in the public gallery to respect that.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [11.58 a.m.]: I oppose the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. The O'Farrell Government, with the help of guns and Moses, has truly done the dud deal of the century with this legislation that slashes entitlements for police officers who are injured and disabled while on the job protecting the community. I speak on this bill as the elected member for Fairfield and to stand up to this Government on behalf of the hardworking police of Fairfield, Holroyd and Bankstown, and of course all other local area commands across this great State of New South Wales. In the history of this State we have never seen so many rallies and protests in front of this Parliament in the short space of eight months. No group has been untouched by this callous Coalition Government. On Tuesday 22 November 2011, 5,000 police officers were outside Parliament to rally against this Government's cuts. This Government should hang its head in shame at its disgraceful plan to rip apart entitlements for police officers who are injured or disabled in the line of duty.

If this Government—which is only eight months old—has not sunk low by cutting entitlements for our local police officers who are seriously injured or disabled in the line of duty, then I do not what low is. To highlight the harshness of this legislation, under the Government's changes the total and permanent disability lump sum payment for a 44-year-old officer would be reduced from 8.5 times that officer's salary to a paltry 1.64 times the salary. This equates to a 44-year-old senior constable from Fairfield, Holroyd, Bankstown or any other local area command who is made permanently disabled whilst on the job having the total entitlements cut from $766,000 to $147,600 for the rest of his or her working life. That is $147,600 to pay off the mortgage, to send the kids to school, to put food on the table and to pay the bills until reaching retirement age.

The Premier and the police Minister earn more than $147,600 per year. Yet the Premier and the Minister do not go to work with the very real possibility that they may not come home in the same physical state as when they walked through their front doors in the morning. Police officers do. It is part and parcel of the vocation they have accepted to keep the community of New South Wales safe. Why does this Government expect police officers who are injured or permanently incapacitated whilst doing their jobs—and their families—to survive for the rest of their working lives on a package that is less than the Premier's and Minister's yearly salary? This has been a constant theme in the policies from this Government. It is a complete separation from the realities of everyday life. Members of Parliament know how tough it is for the working families of this State. I know that many families in Fairfield are under significant financial stress. Police are not excluded from the pain of financial stress. One can only imagine what the introduction of this legislation will do to families of police officers who are hurt in the line of duty.

I ask my parliamentary colleagues from the neighbouring electorates of Smithfield and Granville to stand up to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and oppose this legislation. They call themselves community advocates; they are merely politicians. How will the member for Smithfield be able to look police in Wetherill Park, Holroyd and Fairfield directly in the eye tomorrow and say to them, "I am standing up for you"? How will the member be able to talk to Superintendent Lennon and Superintendent McFadden knowing full well that he cannot get proper results? The Premier knows that. He even said when he came out to Smithfield during the election campaign, "Is this the best we've got?" Shame on the member for Smithfield—shame. The member for Smithfield is letting down the community and putting many lives at risk. Those are the lives of the hardworking people in the local government areas of not only Fairfield but Holroyd and Penrith as well. The O'Farrell Government has blindsided police officers across New South Wales with this unprecedented legislation, slashing the entitlements of injured officers.

I call upon the Minister to withdraw this legislation immediately and return to negotiations with the NSW Police Association. We cannot expect our local police officers to go to work each and every day and put their lives on the line for our community if there is no guarantee that they will be looked after should something go wrong. The O'Farrell Government's attack on the death and disability compensation entitlements of police ultimately will harm the community. If the O'Farrell Government does not come to its senses and dump this unfair proposal, it is a very real possibility that local police officers will vote to commence level 4 industrial action. It is unfortunate that police will have to resort to level 4 industrial action. That will mean that police officers will respond to only emergency calls such as violent incidents, urgent car crashes and domestic assaults. It is time for the Coalition Government to take care of the hardworking men and women of the NSW Police Force.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [12.02 p.m.]: I spent most of the day yesterday preparing a speech for this debate. Quite frankly, I do not think it is necessary to deliver it. I have been listening to the debate and I know what is going on. It is really simple. At the moment we have in place a scheme that has problems. The police recognise that, those opposite recognise it, and we recognise it. Everyone is on the same page. This is a matter that requires some conversations and people coming together at the table to fix the problem. Everyone agrees on that.

I was out the front of Parliament House on Tuesday and I listened to Scott Weber tell us about the process that has taken place: how the police were invited to participate in conversations up to a point, but were then shut out, then all of a sudden they were slapped over the head with this monumental disaster. Those opposite tell us the Police Association has been involved in the conversation right along. So I am torn on the question of who to believe—those opposite or the police. I am backing the police. I think the police are telling us the truth. I think the police have been shut out of this conversation. All they want and are asking for is to be able to return to the table and have discussions with the Government to try to find a solution. That is what this debate is about.

I have insurance. When I look for insurance I normally get a piece of paper that says, "This quote is valid for 28 days," or "14 days". The Government has a quote for an insurance policy, and the quote will be valid for a certain period. Clearly, the end of that period is approaching. Instead of having the conversation with the police, the Government has looked at its insurance quote and said, "No, this State is more important than a conversation with police." Let us be clear about how simple this problem is. The Government has an insurance policy and it has a chance for a conversation. Those opposite are choosing the insurance policy instead of the conversation. It is as simple as that: they are choosing to meet an insurance deadline instead of having a conversation with the Police Force.

I wish that police work was safe. I wish that police did not have to go to accidents in which people died, to suicides, or to incidents such as children being abused. I wish they did not have to see and hear these terrible things. I wish they did not have to attend the scenes of crimes, but they do. But that is not the reality. We will always need police to do that. If we are to keep calling on our police to do that type of work, we have to keep talking to police about the resources they need to do that. This is a chance to have such a conversation. We should be talking to police about the resources they need to enable them to continue to do their duties and feel safe and supported, and confident that things will be all right no matter what happens on the beat.

The Government has either an insurance scheme or a conversation. Those opposite are choosing the insurance scheme, and in doing so choosing to neglect our hardworking men and women of the Police Force. Those opposite do not deny that they are hardworking, and we do not deny that they are hardworking. Those opposite do not challenge the fact that police do terrible and dangerous work, and we do not debate that they do terrible and dangerous work. There is so much that all in this Chamber can sensibly agree on. But what we cannot agree on is that the Government has chosen the insurance policy over a conversation. We on this side of the Chamber are saying to the Government: Please take the conversation path. We ask the Government to put this legislation on pause, hold it over, go and get a new insurance quote and spend the three months until February next year having the conversation. The Government has an insurance quote today, so it can definitely get another one tomorrow, or another one in December, January or February. Take the time to have the conversation, please.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [12.07 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens in opposition to the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. Before I do so I recognise the work of the Police Association and the officers who have worked diligently to highlight the huge problems and impacts that the bill will have on the members and serving staff of the association. I recognise also the efforts of The Greens in the other place and the Labor Party for standing firm, despite the inconsequential amendments moved in the upper House by the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party. Those amendments, though not opposed by The Greens or Labor, do not go far enough to address the issues that have been legitimately raised by the association and its members.

I will not speak at length, but I will highlight a few key issues. The bill does three things. First, it terminates the existing industrial award-based scheme for death and disability payments—the rights of police will be terminated under this bill. Secondly, it replaces that scheme with entitlements to death and disability payments that are in accordance with an insurance policy, but the bill does not establish what those rights will be under that insurance policy. The bill acts in only one direction: it takes away rights, but it does not establish rights. Third, and the important point in terms of future action that the association will take, the bill amends the Industrial Relations Act to remove the jurisdiction of the commission to deal with any death and disability award entitlements in the future. It removes the ability of this independent umpire to set a future fair scheme for death and disability entitlements. It takes away rights, and in their place establishes a regime that has no guarantees and removes the right of police to go to the independent umpire to establish a fair scheme. This is a three-pronged attack on the rights of police, the rights of workers in this State, and the rights of police to a fair and just scheme.

The Greens accept that costs have gone up under the death and disability scheme, and we acknowledge that the former Government did little to address that. We also accept that the number of police claiming death and disability benefits under the scheme has clearly increased. We note, however, that neither this Government nor the previous Government has taken any concrete steps to address the key issue. A slashing of benefits should not be the Government's first step in reducing the costs of compensating injured police. The first thing the Government should have done at the beginning of this year was consult with the Police Association to work out new ways to deal with injured police and to work out ways to change the culture in the NSW Police Force so that police officers with a psychological injury are treated with respect from day one and in such a way that they can remain on duty.

The Government should have examined the appalling figures and considered the fact that only a fraction of injured police return to suitable duty. The Government should have considered the existing award provisions that allow the Commissioner of Police to approach police officers and have them placed in the many hundreds of suitable and available duty positions in the NSW Police Force. Those award provisions have almost never been used. If the Government had turned its mind to finding decent jobs that give injured and partially incapacitated police respect and decent pay and that allow them to use the skills and attributes developed while in the Police Force it could have used the existing provisions of the current award, but it failed to do so. Instead, the Government has sought to address the symptom—the large payouts—rather than the cause, which is how we manage and support our police in their jobs.

We all recognise that police perform dangerous work in the interests of all people. As a councillor on my local council for the past 12 years and as a former mayor I have been privileged to work with an outstanding number of front-line police officers who do fantastic work throughout my electorate, often with insufficient facilities. Everyone knows that Leichhardt Local Area Command uses Glebe police station because Leichhardt has insufficient facilities. But the officers' work in that command is consistent and they do a sterling job. This Government has not committed to engage in good faith with the Police Association. Instead of sitting down and negotiating with police and their representatives the Government negotiated with a private insurance company. The Government came back with a scheme that might fit its budget, but it most definitely does not fit the priorities of injured officers.

In a scenario provided by the Government in its own modelling—and I thank Mr David Shoebridge, who has carriage of justice issues in the upper House and has done a lot of work in analysing the numbers—under this scheme a psychologically injured police officer who can do a modicum of work outside the Police Force when he or she is discharged will see their benefits cut from $569,000 to just $76,000. This scheme slashes the benefits available to police officers. Will police who exit the scheme realistically find other meaningful employment? There is an undertone in what we have heard from the Government that the police have been rorting the system and that is why the cost has increased so much—that these people may be trying to scam the system to get a lump sum payout. Let us look at the facts.

The statistics tell the truth. On average these police officers are 40 years of age, they often have a young family, and they have served an average of 15 years in the force before they are medically discharged. Effectively, they are professional police officers who have developed their careers, and when they are medically discharged because of a psychological injury very few of them find any kind of meaningful employment. The figures are very clear. Only 2 per cent, or one in 50 of those people who exit the scheme, obtain full-time employment. When part-time employment is taken into account—for example, stacking shelves in a supermarket or some other such task—only 15 per cent have found that kind of part-time employment. These are officers who are not rorting the scheme and they are not shirkers; they are officers who have been genuinely injured and have suffered serious debilitating injuries, and 85 per cent of them cannot find any form of employment after they leave the Police Force. These officers need help and support and the Government should be working at the front end of this problem to support the injury management process and the occupational health requirements of police.

I have received many emails and letters, I have visited my local police station in Glebe and I have heard stories from officers about the impact on them of their work. This Government should be negotiating with the Police Association. The insurance policy expires on 23 December, so the Government has until then to take up this policy—that was revealed yesterday. The Government could have kept negotiating, it could have recalled the House to discuss this after another month or so of negotiations, but the Government is not interested. We must ensure that this Government is held responsible for these issues, and I believe the Police Association should take further steps now because the right to go to the Industrial Relations Commission has been taken away from them. I look forward to working with the Police Association and I call on the Government to withdraw this bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The member for Cabramatta will be heard in silence.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [12.14 p.m.]: I oppose the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. As other speakers have said, this is a dark day for New South Wales and for New South Wales police. It is also a dark day for the Liberal Party because of its despicable act of going to an election promising not to touch anything, saying that everything would be fine, that they would look after all the workers in the State and that they would not touch the Police Force, yet within seven or eight months they whack a bill on the table that is taking away the rights of the police to go to the Industrial Relations Commission and argue their case if needed. This bill is a blatant attack on our police and an attack on our community. My electorate of Cabramatta is served and protected by two local area commands—Cabramatta and Fairfield—that have great police officers and great commanders.

The hardworking officers at those two commands front up for work every single day, fearlessly confronting situations when the rest of the community call on them for help. The police on our streets are a symbol that during times of chaos order is present and that order will confront chaos and restore peace and civility. Our police protect us and our community, and they do a damn good job of it. As a local member I have always made a commitment to address any concerns of our hardworking men and women of the NSW Police Force and to do everything that I can to support them. For this O'Farrell Government to terminate the existing industrial award-based scheme for death and disability payments and replace it with a weak, watered-down version is not on. The Police Association will not stand for it, the Labor Opposition certainly will not stand for it and at the next State election the Premier will find out that the voters will not stand for it either.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members who wish to have private conversations should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr NICK LALICH: I was proud to stand beside my Labor colleagues on Tuesday and applaud and cheer what was reported to be more than 5,000 uniformed policemen and policewomen as they marched on this Parliament in protest against these laws. It was unprecedented in the history of Australia that police have marched on Parliament House in protest—5,000 uniformed officers of the NSW Force were forced to take a stand against their own disgraced Government. Their anger was palpable that day, and that anger remains strong amongst our brave men and women of the NSW Police Force. They have the support of the community. New South Wales Labor left office in March this year with the NSW Police Force at its highest-ever level—we left more than 15,300 police officers to protect our community.

The scheme that the former Labor Government introduced recognised that the occupational health and safety risks to police officers are both latent and active. Our legislation recognised that police work is dangerous and that police officers put their lives, their bodies and their minds at risk every time they pull on their blue uniform. New South Wales Labor understands the great commitment and sacrifice made every single day by our brave serving officers. We protect our police, we take care of our injured and we take care of the families of those who, sadly, make the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

I do not want to mention the officer's name but I refer to the booklet entitled "Police Association of NSW " and police officer 25701. That gentleman has been in the Police Force for about 23 years. In 1995 he injured his knee while on duty. He had to have a knee operation and after surgery and an extended period of rehabilitation he returned to full operational duties. Unfortunately, 12 months later, he injured the same knee and had to undergo the same operation. He returned to full operational duties after some rehabilitation. In 2010, the same knee was injured again. This time he was told he could not work. He tried to return to work, but the medical profession indicated that he could not, so he was going to be put out to pasture. What got me was the last paragraph that he wrote. He recently had to front an independent medical examination and he writes:

The results of the IME [independent medical examination] I don't know. What I do know is that I believed that if I ever found myself in this position, I would have the peace of mind of knowing that my interests would be looked after by my employer and that my family's future would be secure. Instead I find myself emerging from one nightmare into the uncertainty of another. I don't expect sympathy or charity. I do expect to be treated in a fair and just manner. The proposed changes to the D&D scheme will further punish and penalise those members of our police force who have sacrificed their health and well-being, along with their quality of life as a direct result of their service to their community.

The result of the new legislation from the O'Farrell Government will be a reduction in the benefits available to officers, particularly those who have suffered psychological issues. In this day and age society understands that psychological injury and strain can be just as bad as physical injury. Our mental health is a key factor in our overall health and this fact must be recognised as we move forward. This bill significantly reduces entitlements available to police officers in almost every scenario, including spinal injuries, major psychological trauma and permanent physical injuries. By removing the Industrial Relations Commission from the equation, the O'Farrell Government is taking out the independent umpire in the hope of saving a buck. Its members are telling injured police and all other serving police men and women that they do not need a fair level of protection.

As a community, we ask our police force to protect us from danger every day, to pound the pavement to fight the evils of crime. We arm police officers with batons, guns and tasers, recognising the danger of the situations that they are likely to encounter, and now the Government wants to take away their benefits when injury occurs. Policing is dangerous—there can be no argument about that. There will always be, as unfortunate as it is, an element of society that brings danger to the ordinary community. That element of society must be faced and the community must be protected. That is why we have more than 15,000 men and women doing their duty of serving and protecting the community. We expect our police officers to protect us, but this Government will not protect them. The New South Wales Labor Opposition will continue to stand up for the rights of those who protect us. Five thousand uniformed cops made a statement in a sea of blue on Tuesday. The O'Farrell Government will find that the community sends a strong statement at the ballot box at the next election. I oppose the bill.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [12.23 p.m.]: I speak in support of the police, particularly inner-city police, and oppose the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011, which will cut workers' compensation benefits to police officers injured at work as part of a restructure of the police death and disability scheme. Currently, police officers injured at work are entitled to their full wages until they return to work or leave the force. Under the bill, this full payment will only be paid for the first six months, after which entitlement will drop to 75 per cent and then 65 per cent for the rest of a five-year benefit period.

The police do a difficult job in an extremely stressful environment. In the inner city they are at particular risk of violence on weekends and late at night, and when dealing with massive crowds of intoxicated people. They are subject to violence, assaults and abuse—I know of one young police officer who had her teeth knocked out by a drunken patron—yet our police never hesitate to break up brawls or intervene in violent situations. Police officers are the ones who attend scenes that most of us do not even want to hear about—gruesome, distressing scenes of neglect and cruelty that show human nature's darkest and ugliest side. They are there when people experience unbearable pain and suffering.

Examples of stressful situations that police officers in my electorate have recently been exposed to include attending and informing the family of a 16-year-old boy who had hanged himself and then, within days, attending a 72-year-old woman who had also hanged herself. Another incident involved attending to a woman who had accidentally run over her young child. I understand that this was very traumatic for officers, particularly those with young children. I remind the House of the Kings Cross police officer who was brutally bashed while walking to work in the early hours. After two years of treatment and rehabilitation, she returned to work. Some years ago in Surry Hills a public housing tenant got a gun and shot four of his neighbours at close quarters. I was there when the police had to enter the premises and deal with the bodies, and I watched them being carried out in body bags. This regular exposure to violence and stress creates serious risk, over and above most other occupations, of injury at work, be it physical or psychological. We also need to be very aware of the stress on families. The only other areas in the same league are the work of firefighters, ambulance workers and our armed forces. We ask these people to go far beyond what most people in the community are asked to do in terms of earning a living or making a contribution.

Police officers know the risks that they will face when they join the Police Force. They also know that their work is not particularly highly paid when compared with other areas. They do their job because they want to protect the community, and this work can be really rewarding. They carry out extraordinary public service and I have great admiration for them. I have worked with the police in my electorate and in the City of Sydney for many years, and I admire what they do. We ask them to take risks that we do not ask other people to take in their working day. It is therefore only fair that we guarantee that, if something goes wrong in this high-risk environment and it prevents them from working, they and their families will be looked after.

Our police agree that the compensation scheme must be financially viable, but they want it to be fair and they would like to work with the Government to achieve that. The NSW Police Association reports that under this bill New South Wales police will have the least protection in the country. I think that is shameful. I understand that the Government hopes that a reduction in benefits will encourage more police officers currently on disability benefits to return to work. Police officers and their families consider this a cynical approach, and I share their concern that before reducing benefits the Government should improve support, prevention and rehabilitation programs. I also point out that firefighters and ambulance workers who have similar income protection benefits in their compensation schemes—and deservedly so—are quite concerned that this change in policy will soon be extended to their schemes as well. I oppose the bill.

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) [12.28 p.m.]: I contribute to debate on the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. I condemn the O'Farrell Government for this gutless attack on our police. I say to this anti-worker Government: These workers will never support or trust you again. The lot opposite just cannot help themselves when it comes to cutting the throats of workers. It is in their DNA. It is the first thing that they did when they got into government. Since being elected, the O'Farrell Government has systematically attacked nurses, then teachers and then TAFE. It has capped wages, which in real terms is a cut in pay. This Government removed the independent umpire and then had the hide to say it was Labor policy. For the record, Labor has never removed—and would never remove—the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission.

This is a sad day for the hardworking, brave men and women who are our police officers. They are the very people who, day in and day out, night in and night out, protect and maintain the security of our community. Our police deserve better treatment than this treatment from the Government. Government members should hang their heads in shame.

I have had conversations with police within my electorate and I have the highest respect for their work. The Lake Illawarra local area commander, Superintendent Wayne Starling, provides a professional, competent and highly efficient command. More than 300 police officers work in that area command. These men and women chose their career largely because of their commitment to the community. They attend fatal accidents, and often know the victims. They bravely attend domestic violence sieges and they place the lives of the general public ahead of their own. The psychological injuries that police suffer can be simply soul destroying. They often require ongoing counselling and medication. The effects of these injuries have resulted in suicides of police officers and breakdowns of family units due to post-traumatic stress disorders. This has been well documented and well researched.

With the introduction of this bill our brave police officers will be forced to return to work carrying both physical and mental injuries. The financial security of these workers has been destroyed. I believe that the people of New South Wales are realising that this anti-worker O'Farrell Government will do all in its power to ensure that our most valued workers—such as nurses, teachers and now our police—have no protections whatsoever. I believe that we will lose workers in New South Wales due to these types of bills being rammed through at midnight. I believe that our police deserve better. They should have protections that ensure their health and wellbeing and their financial security should they be injured on the job. The work that our police undertake is not ordinary: policing is not an ordinary profession. The work our police undertake is dangerous and their families cannot be sure that they will return home each night.

I am so strongly opposed to this attack on our police that I will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in relation to any future actions that they would like to proceed with. I give that commitment to all police across New South Wales. This Government obviously has no idea about the dangers that police face every day. Police may be working smarter to reduce the crime rate but that does not mean that the crimes they encounter are any less awful or any easier to deal with. Police officers still get hurt in their pursuit of bringing criminals to justice. A survey conducted among the New South Wales Police Force has found that 63 per cent of officers believe that policing has become a more dangerous job over the past five years—an argument in itself as to why the death and disability scheme should remain. Interestingly, the survey also found that a whopping 94 per cent of officers believe that the current protections under the death and disability scheme should be maintained.

Our police are expected to put their own safety at risk every time they put on their uniforms. However, this Government is more concerned about cutting costs rather than protecting the lives and livelihoods of our police officers and their families. Where is the Premier while we are debating this important bill? I call on Barry O'Farrell to come into the Chamber to face these workers and tell them why he is cutting their death and disability scheme. If the Premier is watching this—and he should be—he should come down here this minute to face the police officers in the gallery.

Mr Richard Amery: He will probably do that.

Ms ANNA WATSON: Don't hold your breath. The unprecedented attack on the death and disability scheme that is being rammed through this House is nothing short of disgraceful. It is a gutless attack. There is no question that this scheme—like most schemes—needs to be adequately reviewed and finetuned to ensure that it is financially sustainable over the long term. Workers, especially our police, deserve more from Treasury. We cannot simply compare costs versus people. We need to focus on rehabilitating officers, helping them to manage their injuries and ultimately assisting them to return to work.

[Interruption]

I would expect a comment like that. That says more about you than it says about me.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Shellharbour will refrain from responding to interjections. The member for Baulkham Hills and the member for Keira will cease interjecting.

Ms ANNA WATSON: The death and disability scheme recognises that the workplace occupational health and safety risks to police officers are both latent and active. It provides for those officers who are killed or injured in the line of duty and it provides for their families. The bill significantly reduces entitlements available to police officers in almost every scenario, with the exclusion of death, including spinal injuries, major psychological trauma and other permanent and ongoing injuries. Removing the scheme from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission and eliminating the death and disability scheme status as an industrial entitlement will mean that police will have no capacity to argue to an independent umpire for a fair level of protection.

It would be more appropriate for this Government to focus its energies on injury prevention measures for our police, thereby reducing the number of officers who are confronted with serious physical and psychological injuries in the first place. That seems to be a commonsense approach, but there is nothing common sense about this Government. The bill being rammed through this House today is all about slashing costs and has no regard for the very men and women in whom we entrust the safety and protection of our communities and our families.

We will be faced with a workforce of injured officers who will be forced to return to work before they are ready. Those who are unable to be returned to work will simply be thrown onto the scrapheap. This legislation is a disgrace. The way this Government has handled negotiations on this bill is the overriding reason that our police feel so aggrieved by the process, as demonstrated by their presence in the gallery today. A week before the bill was introduced to Parliament the Police Association was handed a copy of the bill—before the negotiation process had even reached a conclusion. I strongly oppose this bill. I apologise to police officers and their families for the treachery of this Government.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [12.36 p.m.]: I oppose the Government's proposed changes to the police death and disability scheme. Many speakers have eloquently and passionately expressed their opposition to this scheme, so I intend to keep my comments brief. Nonetheless, in all the time I have been a member of Parliament I cannot recall seeing anything like the scene that we saw earlier this week in Macquarie Street. It was a sea of blue uniforms. Police turned out in their thousands to protest the Government's changes to the death and disability scheme.

As members of Parliament we are familiar with the men and women who work for our local police commands. All of us know that police take their commitment to serving their local community extremely seriously. We know that by their nature police are cautious—even conservative—when it comes to industrial action. Yet what we saw earlier this week demonstrates the level of anger and the sense of betrayal felt by police in New South Wales. It was momentous for the police to come out to protest in such huge numbers.

The fundamental changes outlined in this legislation to move death and disability benefits from an award under the Industrial Relations Act to a commercial insurance scheme represents a major change to how these matters are dealt with and will lead to a reduction in benefits available to police officers, particularly those who have suffered psychological injuries. The bill significantly reduces entitlements available to police officers in almost every scenario, including spinal injuries, major psychological trauma and other permanent physical injuries. In removing the scheme from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission police will have no capacity to argue to an independent umpire for a fair level of protection.

There is no doubt that the Government's handling of this issue has been appalling. A week before the bill was introduced into the Parliament the association was handed a copy of the bill—before negotiations had even reached a conclusion. Whether it is police or teachers or public servants, the O'Farrell Government does not seem to understand and does not even try to understand the importance of consulting, negotiating and working with the organisations that represent employees. There is a need to consult on and negotiate changes that impact on employment conditions. The police men and women of New South Wales deserve no less.

When the current death and disability scheme was introduced by the Labor Government it was recognition that police work by its very nature places officers at risk of injury or death over and above any other type of employment. Every single day police officers take risks that most of us would not be prepared to take. They see society at its worst. They witness scenes of terrible trauma and bloodshed and they put their personal safety on the line so that we can all be safe. If police are injured on the job, the very least they can expect is that they and their families will be adequately looked after. They should not have to fear, if they can no longer look after their families, that the State will not step in to do it for them.

I admire the dedication and commitment of our police force. I work closely with the Marrickville, Newtown and Redfern local area commands. I have great respect for the police men and women who work in those commands—people such as Inspector Eddie Billet, who earlier this year was awarded the Australian Police Medal. But it was during my time as Minister for Community Services that my eyes were opened to the traumatic and dangerous nature of police work and the ongoing impact of that work, particularly the psychological impact, on the health and wellbeing of those officers.

For most of us the abuse of children is too horrifying to contemplate, but police in the joint investigative response teams are at the front line of such investigations. Police who work in child protection, and Community Services caseworkers, deal with cases of the most awful physical and sexual abuse of children daily. They interview the children, they witness the injuries and they make sure that those who commit those types of offences are brought to justice. They do some of the toughest child protection work, but it also affects local area commands right across New South Wales. When Community Service caseworkers have to knock on the door of a dangerous household to remove a child, they ask the police to accompany them. When domestic violence occurs, the police attend. When people do really awful things to children, the police attend to pick up the pieces—and sometimes they literally pick up the pieces.

It is unacceptable that police who suffer psychological injury as a result of their responsibilities will not have a death and disability scheme to appropriately look after them and their families. It is unacceptable that police officers may now think twice before going into dangerous situations. It is also unacceptable that police officers now feel that the Government does not respect the job they do. Police must be confident that the community and the Government respects and understands their important work. This situation could have been different. The Police Association has said on many occasions that it accepts that changes need to be made to the way in which police injuries are managed; it simply wanted changes to occur as a result of consultation and negotiation so that police officers and their families are adequately protected. Surely that is not too much to ask for the police men and women in this State who do so much to keep us all safe. I urge members to vote against the bill.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [12.42 p.m.]: Along with other members I will soon be voting on the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. I feel an obligation to comment on the bill but no-one should be under an illusion that anything that could be said in this debate, no matter how compelling or how right, will change the inevitable outcome that this bill will be passed. The election in March gave the Government a broad mandate for change. Whilst I acknowledge the need to reduce the cost of the police death and disability scheme, I cannot accept the extent of change that will flow from the passing of this bill nor the timing of the appearance of the bill before this House.

In recent weeks I have had communications from a range of police ranks and I have heard a range of views on this matter. Obviously there will be a range of views because this complex matter deals with peoples' lives—not just the lives and wellbeing of police officers, but of their families as well. As the member for Lake Macquarie I am proud of the service police provide to our community, even under the duress of long-standing under-staffing of the local area command and barely adequate provision of facilities and workplaces. As Mayor of Lake Macquarie, from time to time I am pleased to host the presentation of police awards in the council chambers. I am reminded at those times of the great service given by our dedicated officers, who are loyal to their communities and to each other. Where would we be without them?

Today almost every member of this House has acknowledged the sorts of situations faced by police. They go to work every day not knowing what they will face, but they do know whatever they face it may be something that most of us would not even care to think about. I acknowledge that there is a genuine need to address the growing costs associated with the death and disability scheme. From what I have heard, not only from every speaker in this debate but also from police, almost everyone agrees on that. The term "mortgage buster" has been coined. That term is used for compensation claims that would not be condoned by any fair-minded person because they are an unjustifiable cost to the community. It is a generalisation and sleight against the vast majority. Police officers perform a job that can be unsavoury and one that entails a greater risk than most occupations. Anyone would expect a range of self-interest and dedication to duty among our police, but that does not justify removing or reducing a fair level of protection against workplace injury.

The bill is typical of the most problematic of matters to be raised in this House over many years. It is an unholy marriage of something that is supportable and something that is not. The public have made it clear that police deserve adequate compensation for injuries suffered at work, yet that protection is to be slashed in the quest for financial savings. I do not question the need for those savings but I am unconvinced of the extent of this bill's response to the problem. I applaud the intention of supporting injured officers returning to work, but I do not believe the bill has arrived at a workable solution to the financial problems of the current scheme. I repeat my disappointment that we are discussing the reduction of protection for genuine hard-working police officers who take risks on behalf of the public every day. The bill should not have been pushed through as the last order of business for this year, and certainly not when it is clear that the Police Association is aware of the need for reform and has indicated that it wants to work with the Government to resolve the matter. I oppose the bill.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) [12.45 p.m.]: The O'Farrell Government has pulled another policy from the bottom drawer. Surprise, surprise, this proposal was not signalled before the election. When the scheme was first introduced in 2005 the then shadow Minister, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, described the legislation as "long overdue" and a "significant leap forward". In 2005 Mr Andrew Constance, the member for Bega—who is suspiciously absent from the Chamber today—also described the bill as "long overdue". In fact, he said:

The [then] Opposition recognises the importance of this legislation in supporting the efforts of New South Wales Police ... Not having an appropriate scheme in place over the last 17 years has been an enormous frustration for New South Wales Police. It is therefore pleasing that through the association and its lobbying that an outcome has been reached that is satisfactory to all parties involved.

I ask the member for Bega: Why the change of heart? Once again the O'Farrell Government has proven itself all too willing to say one thing in opposition yet do another in government. The changes to the death and disability scheme join a growing list of broken promises, including the disastrous public sector wages policy, the solar bonus backflip and the upcoming sale of the electricity industry. The O'Farrell Government has declared war on the New South Wales Public Service and the latest casualties in this ideological onslaught are the brave men and women of our police force. I am, and always will be, a strong supporter of my local police officers. As I have informed this House on several occasions, police in Bankstown face a number of unique demands and pressures that add to the immense stress of their job—tragically last year we lost one of those officers.

Once again the Government has introduced major legislation, which has significant consequences, without providing time for proper consideration. It argues that it needs to pass this legislation by the end of the year. Why then was it not introduced sooner? The Parsons review was certainly introduced very quickly. The Parsons review, which undertook an audit of police resources across the Sydney metropolitan area, could potentially result in police officers being moved from greater western Sydney, for example, to local area commands on the North Shore.

Surprise, surprise, Mr Gallacher has refused to make the Parsons review public but he gave that review plenty of time. He is allowing no time whatsoever for the review of this scheme. He has pulled out a whole range of misleading figures, but rather than explaining them and taking a good look at the factors that might be preventing injured police officers from returning to the work force he has run a misleading media campaign. He has fed information to various media outlets in an attempt to soften the ground for the Government's announcement. The Government has disgracefully implied that the system is being rorted by police who are seeking exorbitant mortgage buster payments. That is absolute fiction. We on this side of the House know that.

The Government has acted deliberately to attempt to outmanoeuvre the Police Association rather than working with the association to reach a better outcome. The Government is desperate to strip away the entitlements of public sector workers and avoid the scrutiny of the independent industrial umpire. This is at the core of the Government's industrial relations policy—removing the oversight of independent bodies in order to consolidate power with Ministers. I note that under proposed section 199B the police officers contributing to State funds under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 or the Superannuation Act 1916 are excluded from this amendment, as are those officers who are contributors to the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987. Unfortunately, once again newer officers within the Police Force will suffer while older officers receive the support they deserve. It is important to note that the scheme is not fully funded by the taxpayer. Police officers contribute 1.8 per cent of their salary to the scheme. I ask the Minister in his reply to advise the House what will happen to the funding that has been taken directly from police to date.

It is also likely this proposal will impact adversely on the force's ability to recruit new officers. Police have a tough job and the death and disability scheme provided prospective officers with the reassurance that if the worst did happen they would receive the support they deserve. The O'Farrell Government is ensuring that new police officers will not get a fair deal. I do not know how the brave men and women of the Police Force get up in the morning and go to work when they know that that day could be their very last. Until today they at least had a scheme in place that gave them some assurance that their families would receive the financial support they need to pay mortgages and bills and raise their children when they are not there so see them grow up. It is an absolute disgrace. Shame on you, Barry O'Farrell. Shame on you, Mike Gallacher. Shame on all members opposite. The member for Campbelltown should hang his head in shame because this is an absolute disgrace. The bill itself deserves only one fate—to be dumped in the bin, and that is where I will put it.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [12.53 p.m.]: I oppose the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011. I acknowledge the police in the electorate of Northern Tablelands: the New England command, part of the Oxley command and part of the Barwon command. I openly acknowledge those hardworking men and women and say thank you for the work they do. It is disappointing that this bill is before the House at this particular time. I have looked at the issues in detail. I will not be using emotive language against members.

I spoke with the Police Association and the association opened its contribution to the discussions by saying it was prepared to negotiate. The association acknowledged, as I do, that the previous scheme needed changing. It is important that we acknowledge that. I then applied the fairness test because I think that is the best way to go: What would the community say is fair and reasonable in the circumstances to support police officers given what they do and what they see? I will tell the House what the community said to me. It said the Government clearly was attempting to speed this up because it has the numbers, particularly in this Chamber, and it wants to ram this legislation through before the end of the session. I agree with that observation. It is disappointing given the willingness to negotiate.

Some of the comments I have heard that have drawn comparisons with other professions are offensive to the Police Force. I say that because although some members have worked for the Police Force, I work closely with the Police Force officers in my electorate. I have seen firsthand many of the incidents that would be reported to us as local members of Parliament. They make me very sad. I have not brought notes today because I did not want to speak from notes. I recall an incident where a police officer in the heart of my electorate—I will not say where—attended a fatal accident in which his son was killed, and he did not know that had happened until he arrived at the scene. I can assure members that there are not too many professions whose members are exposed to that situation. There are not too many professions whose members are exposed on a daily, weekly and monthly basis to the most difficult and challenging circumstances that face members of the Police Force.

To recognise that a system needs change without acknowledging the special circumstances that our front-line police and their families endure is in my view to look at things from purely a budgetary perspective. We need to see the people perspective that the police have to deal with in the front line on a daily basis. There has to be recognition of that difference. I listened to the debate in the other place and I have listened to some of the debate in this place. It is disappointing to hear members use terms such as "thugs" and "frauds". That is offensive in the context of a debate about our police. The most important thing to me, given the contribution I have made, is that in many respects the police and the public service had every right to expect there would be proper consultation and that they would be looked after because that is the commitment they were given prior to the election. Also, a number of members of this place signed pledges to say, "We will support the Police Association and we will support our police."

Mr Ryan Park: Name them.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I have previously named them in debate and I can assure the House I am looking forward to seeing how they vote when a division is called. Some of them have indicated to their communities that they intend to cross the floor. From my perspective it is important that we honour the commitments we make to people so that they are aware they can trust this place and the people in it. Once that trust is breached, anything goes. That is not the way to run a democracy and it is not the way we want to be perceived.

I know there are many members who wish to speak and I indicated that I would speak for only five minutes. This bill should be rejected. The opportunity should be taken for further negotiation, given the goodwill that exists to do that. There is no need to rush the bill through today; it could be dealt with in February after proper negotiation has taken place that recognises the need to change the old system. I make that point because that change should have occurred previously. The Government cannot have it all its own way. It cannot argue that when it does not agree with something, such as the Federal Government's carbon tax, we should survey the community and listen to what the community says and not rush legislation through, and then attempt to ram a reform like this through the Parliament. That is utterly inconsistent and unfair. Supporting the police requires us to do what is fair. This is not fair. I urge members to reject the bill.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [1.00 p.m.]: Before I begin speaking on the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011 I acknowledge Prue Burgan in the public gallery. When the rally took place on Tuesday—an extraordinarily powerful rally and something I will never forget—I stood on the verandah of Parliament House and watched the thousands of police officers who attended, bravely wearing their uniforms and making a clear statement to members and to the Premier, that they would not accept being treated in the disrespectful manner in which this Government is treating them. It was extremely powerful and I wanted to share that with you. I will never forget Prue's words—and I feel quite emotional saying that. I will never forget the description she gave and the picture she painted of the daily life of a police officer. She described her commitment and the sorts of things that police experience that stay with them every waking moment. I will never forget her description of the house fire and the effect that attending that fire had on her personally. I want to put that on record today, Prue.

Picking up the remarks of the member for Northern Tablelands, the distasteful haste with which the bill is being debated shows the disrespect that the Government has for our police force. I have been a member of this place for almost a decade. Although members take part in banter to and fro, at the end of the day we are here for one reason and that reason is to make society a better place. I make a prediction to the Government: The decision you are about to make will hang around your necks heavily for the rest of your time in this place and beyond. The police of this State are asking to be treated with respect and to be given the opportunity for meaningful and proper discussion on this bill. The member for Strathfield may raise his eyebrows—and I put that on record—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Strathfield will come to order. The member will direct her comments through the Chair. I advise her not to respond to interjections.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Police are asking for something very simple: proper discussion, proper consultation and to be respected for the role that they play in society. Think for a moment what our society would be like without the dedication, professionalism and the daily operations of the police. Our society would be lawless, with many people being hurt and their lives broken. What the Government is doing today in this debate is bringing on such a society by not treating the good people who care for us with the respect and decency that they deserve. Police just do not go out and deal with crime. We all attend community fairs and other community events and the police are there with stalls, showing kids through the police cars and doing the things that help to build our community. I want my remarks today to be remembered for drawing to the attention of members that the police are part of the fabric of society and one of its main building blocks. Our police also set an example for young people, and that is really important.

This bill shows the Government's total disdain for our police officers who work so hard to keep our streets, homes and loved ones safe. This bill is about taking away protections for police who are injured on the job. It removes protection from police who are stabbed, beaten, shot or otherwise injured or who are killed in the line of duty. I cannot understand why there cannot be a pause button pressed on this in order to allow for the proper discussion of this important issue to take place.

This bill takes away the independent process set up to ensure police are protected. It puts police at the mercy of a private sector insurance scheme. I was the Minister for Fair Trading and I assure people that private sector insurance schemes are not always secure. We do not need to think back far to remember how insecure they can be. On Tuesday I joined with people on the front verandah of this place to see an amazing show of strength and solidarity. I say to the Premier that the Government is foolish if it cannot see the strength and solidarity of the police. I am proud that the police on Macquarie Street were in their uniforms, demanding to be heard. They called for Barry O'Farrell to tell them to their face that their welfare does not matter, because that is what the Premier's gutless bill tells them.

The Opposition recognises the vital role of police in our society. I always do what I can to support police in the Canterbury electorate. My electorate has the Campsie Local Area Command and the Ashfield Local Area Command, and I know the work our local police do. Not so long ago I was at the Canterbury police station and I was told that one of the main duties the Canterbury police undertake is attending domestic violence incidents. We heard about that the other day. I was also the Minister for Community Services and I know the havoc that domestic violence causes, particularly to the children involved. I know what it does to those little people. It destroys their trust in society and takes away their capacity to imagine a future. Think about that—that a child's capacity to imagine a future is taken away by this dreadful scourge. It is police such as those in the gallery that front up to such situations before anyone else. I take my hat off to the New South Wales Police Force for doing that. The police attend homes that are chaotic and put their lives on the line every day to protect us. They are the first on the scene of road accidents, domestic violence incidents, brawls, robberies and murders. They do a wonderful job for our community and support young people and victims.

It is of concern that the Government has pushed the police to the point where they feel they are forced to take extreme action. This is not a random act where the police are going to be a bit difficult. It is only when police are pushed to the limit that they take action. The police are angry and hurt at the Government's total disregard for their welfare. They feel that they are being sacrificed for the sake of a dollar—and they are being sacrificed for the sake of a dollar. The community also feels betrayed. Police have told us that if this bill goes through they will feel fear every time they put on their uniform and that they will hesitate before they place themselves in dangerous situations, because they have families too. We should remember that. Up till now all police officers knew that they and their families would be taken care of if anything happened to them. That security has been taken away by this bill. They will no longer be sure that they or their families will be financially or emotionally supported if they fall whilst carrying out their duty to keep us all safe. It is a low act—a really low act. It is a cowardly act that, as I said, will hang around the necks of Government members for the rest of their careers.

All members have said that changes are needed. The Police Force wants open and honest negotiations because police deserve to be heard. But, true to form, the Government decided to rush this cruel bill through without any consultation. It has refused to deal with the issue properly. As other members have said, there is no reason for the bill to go through today, yet the Government is pushing it through. The Opposition opposes the bill: we will oppose it until our last breath. We will not support any changes unless they are supported by the Police Association. I urge the House to vote against the bill. The police deserve our support and respect. They put their lives on the line for us every day. The least we can do is ensure that they and their families are taken care of when they are hurt and injured. The Government is foolish to take this action. I say for the third time that this will hang around the Government's neck forever.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [1.10 p.m.]: Today I will give the House six reasons for strongly urging Government members to vote against this draconian bill titled the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011, and I will elaborate briefly on them. The six reasons are: first, the law and order platform on which the Government was elected in 2011; secondly, the importance of attracting quality staff to the profession of this worthy New South Wales Police Force; thirdly, my personal experiences; fourthly, our moral responsibility to ensure that we protect our comrades in the public sector and in the Police Force in particular; fifthly, the bill will reduce the fair dinkum, existing industrial-based award scheme to one involving an insurance policy; and, finally, acknowledgement of all members of the Police Force, including those in the public gallery today.

First, before the March election the Liberal-Nationals campaigned on a law and order platform. Indeed, during the last Government they produced community newspapers weekly to show that they had been out with the police that week and that they were arguing on the essential quality of law and order. I wonder how they now feel about this bill, which is so important to the Police Force, and whether they will support it. My second point is about attracting quality staff to this worthy profession. It is something I think about when we talk about the difficult job police do in such a large State as New South Wales. The pay is not high and the work is extremely hard and dangerous. I wonder how this bill will attract people to this worthy profession when they are being told that they will not be protected if they get hurt.

I was made aware of this through my experiences during my first appointment when I was sent to teach in a public school in Walgett. During my first two weeks of teaching in an isolated, remote and poverty-stricken town I spent the time crying because I felt far removed from my family. However, I felt more sad for another group of people in Walgett. I got to know the police in Walgett as well as my fellow teachers. Most of us were in our early twenties. In the first week I went home crying because my job was difficult: I saw the kids coming to school and the conditions in which they lived. A few tears were cried by many of the police when they first started working in Walgett too. We were isolated in the area and there was nowhere for a copper to go to have a social life in a town like Walgett.

The young teachers and police officers worked hard every day. The police witnessed alcoholism, domestic violence, poverty, isolation and generational unemployment every day. I also saw the effects of such things in the school every day. When the police were off duty where could they go in Walgett? The next town was 115 kilometres away. The police had absolutely no social life, and they endured the hardships forced on them in Walgett. During my time in Walgett I learnt to respect the police and the hard work they do, as well as what they had to endure when they were not at work.

My fourth point is about the Government's moral responsibility to ensure that its protects our comrades and workers. What is a democratically elected government in New South Wales if it does not protect the livelihoods of the people who are sent out in a dangerous job on a daily basis? My fifth point is that the bill reduces a fair dinkum industrial award to an insurance policy scheme. I am sure that, like me, many people have had experiences with insurance policies. I know how the insurers treated the business owners and the community when they made claims after the flood in Wallsend in 2007 and the reluctance of the insurance companies to provide benefits for those who had paid their insurance premiums. I wonder how this change will affect the Police Force and how the insurance policy will protect the workers.

Finally, I acknowledge all members of the New South Wales Police Force. Members of the community have extremely high expectations of what they want the police to do for them. I acknowledge also the stoicism of the police in the public gallery today. They have sat and listened to us for 3½ hours and they have shown their best manners, although they must be very angry about what is happening. To me, that reflects the dignity with which they go about their jobs, and I pay my greatest respects to them.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [1.17 p.m.]: First, I acknowledge each and every person in the public gallery—the brave men and women of the New South Wales Police Force. Today will go into history as the saddest day for the men and women who wear the blue in this State. Only a brave and foolish person would take on the hardworking and brave police, as we saw on Monday. The police are not taking the actions of the Premier and the Government lightly; and nor should they. I totally support the brave stance of the police. I acknowledge also the hardworking men and women of Flemington Local Area Command. It is a difficult command. The police in the gallery today know the challenges that exist in my local community. I thank them.

As I drove into the city this morning I was thinking about the hard work of the local police that resulted in finding the person who allegedly killed the beautiful man who was going to his mother's home to deliver some groceries in Graham Street, Auburn, a few months ago. They not only supported a family that has been grieving for all these months but also found the alleged perpetrator of that offence who will now face justice. Today I thank all those who were involved in that case as I know how much it means to that family.

The former Labor Government introduced the death and disability scheme in recognition of the fact that police upholding public safety often are subjected to risks that sometimes have long-term detrimental effects on their lives. Police officers often sustain injuries that result in them never working again. I have a document from the Police Association of New South Wales that paints a picture of the day-to-day lives of those who work in the NSW Police Force. It is filled with many heart-breaking stories of the risks faced by police officers as a consequence of serving our community. All sorts of assertions have been made about the difficulties inherent in the death and disability scheme, including increased claims and issues regarding financial sustainability. No-one, including the NSW Police Force, has shied away from the fact that consideration must be given to the affordability of the scheme. An independent umpire must achieve a negotiated settlement. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction, especially in light of the fact that police officers indicated clearly at the outset that they are prepared to negotiate. Since its election the O'Farrell-Stoner Government has proven to be no fan of the Industrial Relations Commission or independent arbitration.

I note that a number of amendments were negotiated in the other House. That negotiation should have taken place at the commencement and not at the conclusion of this process. This Government should have negotiated with those who will be most affected by any changes to this scheme. Having said that, these amendments do not go far enough; they do not deal adequately with the issue before us. How do we support police officers and their families and, in particular, police men and women who literally put their lives on the line every day in the service of our community? The uncertainty around that issue in itself is an added burden to those who are already suffering from a fate that they did not wish for themselves or anyone else. I will quote from the booklet I received from the Police Association of New South Wales as the statements made by police officers in this document are more powerful than any argument I could ever make. Daniel Danvers states:

My journey has been a long and painful one, all with the end goal to return to the full duties at work. I endure pain every single day. I can't sit for long. I am depressed. Only those who have suffered such injuries and been relegated from fit, active people to hobbling cripples can understand the damaging psychological effects that accompany the obvious physical ones.

And now I am in limbo. ... I have been paying into the NSW Police Death & Disability fund since its inception in 2005. Now, the NSW Government is immorally rescinding it and replacing it with a much inferior model. What am I supposed to do? ... I'm at a crossroads and I need the Government's help, not their derision.

Dave Llewellyn wrote about suffering an injury on the job, as well as dealing with major depression—something about which I know not only in my past life as Minister for Mental Health in this State but also from my family circumstances and from those close to me who suffer depression. Dave Llewellyn had this to say:

What I do know is that I believed that if I ever found myself in the position, I would have the peace of mind of knowing that my interests would be looked after by my employer and that my family's future would be secure. Instead I find myself emerging from one nightmare into the uncertainty of another. I don't expect sympathy or charity. I do expect to be treated in a fair and just manner.

We owe Dave Llewellyn and every police officer no less than to treat them in a fair and just manner. There was talk earlier by Government members about police officers seeking government assistance, which is an issue of justice. Last night the Hon. Charlie Lynn subjected the Legislative Council to stories about soldiers who suffered trauma and went back to battle. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. However, the Hon. Charlie Lynn totally missed the point and showed a complete lack of understanding about these complex issues. If the Hon. Charlie Lynn read the document that has been supplied to all members of Parliament he would realise how simplistic he has been. I strongly oppose this bill on behalf of all police officers and their families in New South Wales.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [1.26 p.m.]: I will speak only briefly in debate on the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011, which quite simply is a disgrace. This is a day of shame for the New South Wales Parliament and for all those who vote for this bill whose names will be recorded in Hansard forever. Their body language as they read their Treasury-written speeches said it all. Their backs were turned to the gallery, the Chamber was empty and no other Coalition members were present. Coalition members spoke on 15 occasions about the carbon tax—an issue for which they have no carriage. This is all about money. Government members described the police death and disability scheme as being out of control but Opposition members have described it as fair. The former Labor Government would never have introduced it if it was not fair.

The proposed scheme is government by insurance company. Clearly those opposite have no idea what it is like to be a police officer, how dangerous and tough it is and the unique risks faced by police officers, which is why the death and disability scheme was introduced in the first place. In reality nobody dies in a shift in politics. The injuries to police can be acute but they can also be cumulative, such as those faced by highway patrol officers who deal daily with the deaths of a number of people. The knowledge that a fair safety net is in place when they go to work would give them some comfort. This disgraceful bill has been rammed through both Houses in the dead of night with unseemly haste. This ambush without negotiation is a disgrace. It condemns injured police to poverty while rich and powerful members of Parliament can make a decision about whether to have the chicken or the duck for lunch.

Members of the Shooters and Fishers Party members who observed the recent police demonstration outside Parliament House deserve a special mention. They said nothing as 5,000 police officers walked past Parliament House and they sold them out for 30 pieces of silver. I guarantee that their bill will be sent to Barry O'Farrell. We do not know when and we do not know where but we know that it will not be cheap. This Government, which has no morals, ignored our serving police officers and the people of this State. It had no mandate to do so and it made no mention of its intentions prior to the election. If we had a conscience vote this legislation would not get through the party room. When Government members vote on this bill we will observe how many of them look you in the eye. They will not do so as they know that this legislation is unjust and unfair.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to direct his comments through the chair.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: The worst thing about today was witnessing the little kids in the gallery which this Parliament has failed. This is a disgraceful day in the history of New South Wales. I apologise on behalf of this Parliament for what we are doing to our serving police.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [1.29 p.m.]: I oppose the Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Bill 2011, which is a bad bill. Because of the way in which the Government has dealt with this bill it is not only bad legislation but also shameful legislation. I am delighted that I am able to speak in debater on this bill as one of the core responsibilities of members in this place is to ensure proper and adequate conditions of employment and consequent schemes. If the Government is not doing that it is not doing its job properly. In that context it is important for members to make a contribution to debate. It is extraordinary that, on my count, only four Government speakers have contributed to debate on this bill, and that from a Government that is always prepared to tell us the size of its margin. This Government has a massive margin and many members but where are those members when it matters—when they have to face a gallery filled with police officers who have taken an entirely reasonable position and who are opposed to what this Government is doing? Thirty-two Government members spoke in debate on the library bill—a 28-word bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Liverpool does not need the assistance of Opposition members.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I understand the importance of libraries, but to have 32 members speak in debate on the library bill and only four on the police death and disability bill shows the complete lack of moral courage and integrity of current Government members. I am astonished that the member for Dubbo has not made a contribution to this debate.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order and restrain themselves.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: We have heard a lot about and by the member for Dubbo, except in this debate. It is all right for him to grab the media coverage, but what about coming into this Chamber and doing his job? What about speaking in debate on this bill? That degree of courage and integrity seems to be completely lacking not just in the member for Dubbo but in most Government members. This bill is typical of Tory behaviour. Before elections they get their conga line of candidates and drape themselves in law and order policies. They love also surrounding themselves with police. But not when it comes to looking after workers' conditions because their DNA prevents them from doing that. The essence of this Government is in destroying the Industrial Relations Commission and in doing over death and disability schemes. That is the essence for which it stands. This is a shameful bill. It is shameful in its substance and in how it has been dealt with. The words on which I shall conclude are simple: Shame, Barry, shame!

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [1.31 p.m.], in reply: On behalf of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services—

Mr Michael Daley: Where is he?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: He actually is in the upper House.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The debate is almost concluded.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I specifically thank the members representing the electorates of Toongabbie, Campbelltown, Blacktown, Mulgoa, Maroubra, Tweed, Mount Druitt, Lakemba, Wollongong, Keira, Fairfield, Cessnock, Balmain, Cabramatta, Sydney, Shellharbour, Marrickville, Lake Macquarie, Bankstown, Northern Tablelands, Canterbury, Wallsend, Auburn, Macquarie Fields and Liverpool. I acknowledge their contributions, particularly in light of the fact that this clearly is a difficult issue for members broadly. Obviously, the Government's concerns include that the current scheme provides a significant financial disincentive to return to work, either within the NSW Police Force or in outside employment. Ultimately, this disincentive is not in the best interests of individual police officers or the community. The recent review of police injury management practices recommended that the scheme be reviewed urgently to remove the significant financial disincentive for officers to return to work. The Government understands that the proposed replacement scheme remains the most generous scheme for police officers in Australia.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Through this legislation, the Government is extending its support to injured officers beyond their medical discharge.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Some unkind observations were made regarding the member for Dubbo. I point out to members on both sides of the House that the member for Dubbo currently is representing the Minister responsible for water resources at the major Federal meeting in Canberra, which has been underway for two days.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind Opposition members that this morning I ensured to the best of my ability that all speakers were listened to in silence.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Again, I thank all members for taking part in what has been a difficult debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

[In division]

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will restrain themselves for this division. We all understand the emotion involved but we will refrain from insulting each other across the Chamber. I will remove members from the Chamber and their names will not be recorded as voting on this bill if they continue with this appalling behaviour. I will remove one member from each side of the Chamber. Visitors in the gallery have been patient and restrained. Members will act likewise and take their seats quickly. I inform visitors in the gallery that the taking of photographs is not permitted. Members will cease arguing across the Chamber.

Ayes, 59
Mr Anderson
Mr Annesley
Mr Aplin
Mr Baird
Mr Barilaro
Mr Bassett
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Bromhead
Mr Brookes
Mr Casuscelli
Mr Conolly
Mr Constance
Mr Cornwell
Mr Coure
Mrs Davies
Mr Doyle
Mr Elliott
Mr Evans
Mr Flowers
Mr Fraser Mr Gee
Mr George
Ms Gibbons
Ms Goward
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Holstein
Mr Humphries
Mr Issa
Dr Lee
Mr Notley-Smith
Mr O'Dea
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Owen
Mr Page
Mr Patterson
Mr Perrottet
Mr Piccoli
Mr Provest Mr Roberts
Mr Rohan
Mr Rowell
Mrs Sage
Mr Sidoti
Mrs Skinner
Mr Smith
Mr Speakman
Mr Spence
Mr Stokes
Mr Stoner
Mr Toole
Ms Upton
Mr Ward
Mr Webber
Mr R. C. Williams
Mrs Williams
Tellers,
Mr Ayres
Mr Maguire


Noes, 23
Mr Barr
Ms Burney
Mr Daley
Mr Furolo
Ms Hay
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally
Mr Lalich Mr Lynch
Dr McDonald
Ms Mihailuk
Ms Moore
Mr Parker
Mrs Perry
Mr Piper
Mr Rees Mr Robertson
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Torbay
Ms Watson
Mr Zangari
Tellers,
Mr Amery
Mr Park


Pair


Mr Grant Ms Burton

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.