I contribute to debate on the Revenue, Fines and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. I do not doubt that the three young men in the gallery have come here for the specific purpose of the debate. It is the nuts and bolts of government. Often people think that that is the hustle and bustle of question time, but this is in fact the core business of governing. The bill makes various amendments to revenue and fines legislation to address anomalies, to clarify provisions, to respond to court decisions and to reduce compliance costs. Another important thing it does is modernise a number of Acts to move with the digital age. We live in a world where we all have smartphones. We conduct a lot of business on our digital devices, and it is important that the legislation keep pace with that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you were a keen listener to my inaugural speech, in which I gave some of my professional history. But what I did not go into too much detail about was that, many years ago, I was an IT project manager in the superannuation industry. One thing that kept me up late at night and caused many long meetings and many headaches were regulatory changes from our Federal colleagues and how to respond digitally. We offered a website to our superannuation members. There were regular changes to regulations in the superannuation industry, and we had to respond to those. It is somewhat ironic that I stand in this place today. The shoe is on the other foot in that I am now debating legislation that would impact superannuation and has a bit of a digital flavour to it.

Because of that background and my passion for digital government, I speak on some of the amendments that touch on changes to digital instruments and that kind of thing. Among the 12 Acts that are being updated are the Duties Act 1997, which is being amended to clarify the timing and location of the execution of electronic instruments; the Fines Act 1996, to broaden Revenue NSW's ability to share information with Service NSW; the Police Act 1990, to enable information-sharing arrangements between the NSW Police Force and Revenue NSW in respect of fines information for law enforcement purposes and investigative functions; and the Taxation Administration Act 1996, to share some information between the important agencies of Revenue NSW, NSW Treasury and Service NSW.

Specific amendments for electronic instruments need clarifying. Every year, we do more and more transactions online. In fact, just before I came into the Chamber, I quickly put an electronic signature on some documents someone was waiting for and emailed them. That raises some questions that the legislation has not quite caught up to—namely, when and where those documents were signed. This bill seeks to clarify that kind of thing. For instance, when an electronic instrument is first executed, it is important to work out when the duty is due and whether any interest or penalty tax should apply. Under the Duties Act 1997, an electronic registry instrument is first executed when it is first digitally signed by a subscriber to the network, such as a legal practitioner. However, there are instances when that is not the case. An example is a transfer or contract of sale a legal practitioner is not involved in. The amendment addresses that by having the time when an electronic instrument is first executed deemed to be when it is executed. That makes sense.

The other issue is where someone is when they affix their e-signature. That is important because it determines whether duty is due for certain purposes. If someone electronically signs a document in Queensland, is duty due in New South Wales? The bill will address that problem by deeming that, when a trust is electronically signed, the place of execution is where the trustee is based. In effect, it can be anywhere in the world, even in space. The amendment will mean that, if someone electronically signs a document for a trust located in New South Wales, it is in fact in New South Wales. Those amendments are consistent with the existing principles under the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 in relation to electronic communications generally. Most importantly, when we deal with things of a digital nature, they will improve customer service by providing certainty, clarity and efficiency, and they will ensure that revenue legislation stays up to date with practices in an ever-increasingly digital world.

The other issue I speak on concerns changes to the Payroll Tax Act 2007. I note that the previous contributions touched on phoenix activity, which I speak on as well. Phoenix activity is when, before a company is liquidated and to avoid paying its debts, the directors or shareholders move the company's assets into another company. We have seen in the press some examples of some rather disreputable operators doing that time and again. It is a major concern for Commonwealth and State regulators. I note that a couple of years ago the Commonwealth Government brought in director identification as a means of cracking down on phoenix activity. Regardless of what the company was or what the new company is, the director ID follows a director and would be able to track that.

Phoenix activity is important because those companies may avoid paying tax and, obviously, cause quite a bit of harm to individuals, businesses and other creditors. I touch on those other creditors because in my electorate thousands of houses are going up every month. Quite a few tradies live and work in the area. Time and again, I hear stories about tradies who are effectively done over by phoenix operators. Tradies work on apartment buildings or houses and, unfortunately, turn out to be subcontracted to a phoenix operator. The company winds up, the directors bail and the tradies go without pay. A lot of tradies in my area are very small business operators with one to five employees. Sometimes it is just that person and their partner. They are very small operations, and not being paid for a job could be the difference between whether or not they put food on the table or whether they are able to pay their mortgage.

I received correspondence from a former constituent of mine who is a building manager. He has had some troubles with phoenix operators in terms of trying to sort out defects and issues with some buildings he looks after. He states in his correspondence, "Perhaps one of the most painful experiences is when individuals find themselves entangled in a situation where they believe they are on the right side, guided by contracts and agreements meant to protect them. Yet, as they navigate through the labyrinth of legal proceedings, they often end up facing heartbreak and disillusionment. This is not the kind of justice system we deserve, nor is it the legacy we want to pass on to future generations." That is heartbreaking stuff. If I were to read the rest of that correspondence, I think members would see the impact of that type of activity on people across our State. It is important that we deal with it. [Extension of time]

Companies can group together like-minded companies for the purposes of payroll tax to reduce their payroll tax liability. But, as these phoenix companies do what they do, it is estimated that there is a potential revenue leakage of about $85 million. We obviously cannot afford to see potential revenue leakage, given the perilous state of the budget. We heard some of those numbers earlier, including the $7 billion black hole. It is incumbent upon this Government to clean up the mess of the previous one and start plugging some of those leaks so it can provide services and infrastructure to the good people of New South Wales.

I speak on the proposed amendments relating to information sharing. One such amendment relates to Service NSW and Treasury. Currently, the Taxation Administration Act and the Fines Act prohibit Revenue NSW from disclosing information obtained in tax or fines administration except in certain prescribed circumstances. The amendment seeks to change that. It would allow Service NSW to effectively verify that persons applying for grants are able to do so. If someone has faced a fine—if someone is, perhaps, being investigated for fraud—that would make it easier for Service NSW to potentially flag that person or organisation and make sure that they are not able to commit that offence again.

We have seen frankly disgusting examples in the media of people abusing the system after tragic events such as the bushfires and the floods around Lismore. We need to balance looking after taxpayers' money safely with the fact that in situations like those, where people's entire houses have either been burnt down or flooded, they have effectively got the clothes on their back. They do not have identity documents, they do not have their bank cards and they do not have any cash, so it is important for governments to be able to get that money out the door. But, as we have seen, people have abused that. The bill will go some way to stopping some of that horrible activity.

Finally, I speak on the proposed information-sharing arrangements between the police and Revenue NSW. Currently, the Fines Act does not allow the disclosure of fines and information to the NSW Police Force to support criminal investigations unless the disclosure is to administer or enforce a specific fine. What that means, in effect, is that currently the police do not have the kind of information that would aid an investigation. An example could be where and when a car may have sped through a red light camera or may have been pinged for speeding or received a parking fine. That information could be very important in solving serious crimes such as homicide, kidnapping, armed robbery or sexual assault. It could also help in determining the location of a missing person. With missing persons, the quicker we find them, the more chance there is of them surviving and not suffering from serious long-term injuries. Sharing that information would obviously be very important.

The other thing to note is that the information could also potentially help to exonerate people. If someone happens to suffer identity theft, or if someone is wrongly suspected of committing a crime and is being investigated by the police, they could be exonerated if they could prove that they were not in the location of the crime. They can say, "I was in fact doing 120 down the Hume Highway when I shouldn't have, and here is my fine," and we can exonerate them. I think that aspect is also important. To wrap up, I note that the Government has consulted the relevant agencies, including the Information and Privacy Commission and some other important agencies and committees. I commend the bill to the House.