Mr ALISTER HENSKENS ( Ku-ring -gai ) ( 11:57 :50 ): The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Amendment (State Owned Corporations) Bill 2016 is regrettably another example of a sniping Opposition concerned only about criticising the Government in any way it can rather than proposing constructive matters for the better governance of this State. It is instructive that in 16 long, dark horrible years of government by possibly the worst administration of this State, the Labor Government, those opposite never proposed what they are now proposing, that is, to put the 14 State owned corporations under this legislation. Three of the 14 corporations have voluntarily opted into the Commonwealth privacy regime, under section 6F of the Privacy Act 1998. Those corporations have assessed the business environment in which they operate and their organisational environment and have deemed that it is appropriate in a constructive and responsible way to come under the Commonwealth legislation.

In the Stalinist world in which Australian Labor Party members operate they think every business, regardless of circumstances, and every State owned corporation ought to be, with a stroke of a pen and without consideration of their operational requirements and individual circumstances, automatically brought under the privacy legislation. Have Opposition members spoken to any of the 11 State owned corporations to see whether they ought to be brought under this legislation? Have they done any analysis or considered how those State owned corporations conduct themselves to see whether that would be appropriate? Of course not. This is the Stalinist one-size-fits-all approach that we often see from the member for Liverpool and the Stalinist, communist, one‑size-fits-all world in which he operates. Why does he operate in that world? Should we be surprised? What life experience did the member for Liverpool bring to this place when he walked in the door in 1995? What business has he operated? What real-world experience does he bring to the table and to the Parliament?

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: Branch stacking.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: The only numbers he has counted have been in branches with phantom members. That is the only world he has operated in, not the real world of business or commerce. I inform the House and the member for Liverpool that businesses are slightly more subtle and varied in the way they operate than the Stalinist world of ignorance in which he operates. The member has no life experience of operating an enterprise. It is utterly inappropriate that, without any consultation with the 11 State owned corporations that will be affected by the bill, he proposes to change their operations with the stroke of a pen.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH: He would nationalise them if he could.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: The member for Coogee reminds me that the Australian Labor Party introduced the bank nationalisation bill.

Mr RON HOENIG: In 1948.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: Those opposite are still living in 1948.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Point of order: I am being accused of wanting to nationalise these organisations; they are State owned corporations, you idiot.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Ku-ring-gai will stop inciting Opposition members. They were far better behaved when they were asleep

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: I apologise for waking up the member for Liverpool and causing that interjection.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: I thought he was still asleep.

Mr ALISTER HENSKENS: He does sleepwalk. The Government opposes a blanket application to all State owned corporations without any consideration being given to their particular operating circumstances. The Government considers that to be utterly irresponsible. We want to get privacy reform right so that it is introduced in a considered way, not with the stroke of a pen in a Stalinist, one-size-fits-all manner. The Government will assess the impact on the various individual and unique State owned corporations before any legislative changes are made. The people of New South Wales have elected a Government that understands a little about the way in which businesses operate and they expect us to take that approach. For those reasons we oppose the bill.