Member For The Hills

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown) [4.42]: I move:

That Anthony Charles Packard be ordered to attend in his place in this House on the next day of sitting to respond to the notice of motion given by the member for Campbelltown on 27 March 1992.

I felt compelled to move this motion in this form because it is the only way the House can debate the serious matters involving the behaviour of the honourable member for The Hills. Of course, there is a precedent for such a motion. This motion is in the same mould as that moved by the current Premier in 1986 concerning Richard Charles Mochalski.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order.

Mr KNIGHT: The circumstances are similar.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order.

Mr KNIGHT: Only the names have been changed to identify the guilty parties. My motion calls upon the honourable member for The Hills to be ordered to attend on the next sitting day to answer the serious allegations made against him. For three reasons such a motion is necessary. The first reason relates to compelling the Government to stop its cover-up and bring on the long, overdue debate concerning the honourable member for The Hills. The second reason relates to natural justice - to ensure that the
Page 3234
honourable member for The Hills has the opportunity to defend himself in this House before we pass judgment on his activities. The third reason relates to ensuring that the honourable member for The Hills is compelled to give to this House an account of himself rather than sit in mute contempt of the Parliament. I will deal now with each of the three reasons why the motion is deserving of the support of the House. I deal first with the matter of putting an end to this Government's protection of the honourable member for The Hills and its refusal to allow the House to debate his behaviour. The notice of motion I gave on Friday, 27th March, concerning the behaviour of the honourable member for The Hills is one of the most serious motions concerning a member to come before this House since the commencement of the Fiftieth Parliament.

Mr Moore: On a point of order. I submit that the precise terms of the motion do not permit the honourable member for Campbelltown to address the terms of the notice of motion given by him on 27th March. He is permitted only to address those issues which will enable him to canvass the reasons why the honourable member for The Hills should attend in his place. He should not deal with the merits of the motion. The honourable member for Campbelltown might be asked to commence by indicating why, if the motion is so important, he has postponed it on a significant number of occasions.

Mr Knight: On the point of order. I am grateful that I have been given 30 minutes, with the possibility of an extension of 10 minutes, in this debate because it is clear that the Minister for the Environment intends to take up a large amount of time taking points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Campbelltown will give me the benefit of his contribution on the point of order.

Mr Knight: For the benefit of the House and for your benefit, Mr Speaker, I wish to reiterate the sentence I was uttering at the time the point of order was taken. I said that the notice of motion I gave on Friday, 27th March, concerning the behaviour of the honourable member for The Hills is one of the most serious motions concerning a member to come before this House since the commencement of the Fiftieth Parliament. I said that this is a serious matter. We are now debating a motion which seeks to compel the honourable member for The Hills to come into the House and respond to it. Quite apart from the fact that I should be entitled to talk about the motion in some form, I have not even reached that stage. All I said was that it is a serious matter. The Minister for the Environment is a little quick out of the blocks today.

Mr Moore: Further to the point of order. The point of order does not relate to the seriousness or otherwise of the motion, notice of which was given by the honourable member for Campbelltown on 27th March. The terms of the motion of 27th March are monumentally irrelevant. The motion of 27th March could require the honourable member for The Hills to come into this Chamber and fulsomely embrace the honourable member for Campbelltown, pat him on the back, or do what the honourable member for Campbelltown frequently does - knife someone in the back. I submit that the nature of the motion of 27th March is irrelevant. All that is required is for that notice of motion to be in existence and to have been given and, therefore, to be in the possession of the House. The nature of the motion, the terms of the motion and any matters relating to the merit or otherwise of the motion are totally irrelevant. The only matters which the honourable member for Campbelltown is entitled to address are why Anthony Charles Packard should be ordered to attend in this House and what reasons the honourable member for Campbelltown has for believing that the honourable member for The Hills, who has been in this Chamber on every sitting day, will suddenly suffer from
Page 3235
Legionnaire's disease, pleurisy, or something else and not attend in the Chamber tomorrow. That is the whole purpose of that part of the motion. The honourable member for Campbelltown should deal only with the question of why the honourable member for The Hills should respond to the motion, without dealing with the merits of the issues in that motion. He knows that debate is confined to those matters.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order. The Opposition anticipated that points of order would be taken because of the subject-matter of the motion. There are ample precedents for this. Former Speaker Kelly was in the Chair when the present Premier was arguing for the former member for Bankstown to attend in his place. The terms of this motion are specific. If this motion is carried we will have to entertain debate on the motion notice of which was given on 27th March. For that reason the House should be made aware of why Anthony Charles Packard should be ordered to attend in his place. The fact that the honourable member for The Hills is in this Chamber is not relevant. What is relevant is that the motion states that the honourable member for The Hills should be ordered to attend in his place to respond to this motion. If this motion is carried, the honourable member for The Hills will be asked a series of serious questions which are included in notice of motion No. 3 on the general business paper of today. The Leader of the Government was too quick out of the blocks. In my view, the honourable member for Campbelltown clearly was in order. He had only been on his feet for a short time. Mr Speaker, your ruling on this point of order is very important. It is obvious that this whole debate will be rendered useless, which might be the Government's intention. A vast number of honourable members wish to speak in this debate. We need to ensure that there will be free flowing debate so that this matter can be properly discussed by the Parliament. I want you to think seriously about the prospect that this Government may be intending to frustrate free speech in this Parliament.

[Interruption]

Honourable members opposite established the rules yesterday.

Mr Collins: On the point of order. It is better for this threshold discussion to occur now rather than later on the motion moved by the honourable member for Campbelltown. I thoroughly endorse the point taken by the Leader of the House. I draw to the attention of the House the specific terms of this motion, that is to say, why the honourable member for The Hills should be called before the House on the next day of sitting, which is tomorrow, when this has been on the parliamentary notice paper since the honourable member for Campbelltown raised it more than a month ago. The honourable member for Campbelltown must demonstrate to the House why tomorrow is so pertinent. He has raised a series of allegations which are currently under investigation by the New South Wales Police Service. I would have thought that what the honourable member for Campbelltown should be looking at is bringing on a debate after the results of that investigation are known. Why pick this time? Why pick this particular moment? There has been nothing new added to the allegations, which have been given to the police department.

Mr Knight: Further to the point of order. I will deal with two matters raised by the Attorney General. First, he is correct that there has been a notice of motion on the business paper for quite some time, as a private member's motion. He is not correct in saying that I have not attempted to bring that on. As recently as earlier today I attempted to bring it on and, as always, the Minister for the Environment, refused me leave. The motion says to the member for The Hills, "Attend and answer the
Page 3236
resolution". It does not say, "Turn up and vote with the Government because they are a vote short and they need you". It does not say, "Turn up because we like to look at you across the Chamber". It says, "Turn up to answer this resolution".

Mr Moore: Further to the point of order. The honourable member for Campbelltown should have his attention drawn to the terms of the notice of motion, the terms of which do not require the honourable member for The Hills to answer; they require him to respond. It is one of the unfortunate things of the modern transcription service that they cannot include in Hansard the sound that would be the appropriate response.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I anticipated that a point of order of this type could be raised. The closest parallel to be drawn in terms of precedence is the rules of debate which, until recently, applied to the suspension of standing orders in question time to discuss a substantive motion that may or may not be of concern to the House. Honourable members will be aware of the rulings I gave ad nauseam in regard to the parameters of those debates. Those rulings made it clear that the member wishing to move a suspension motion to bring on a substantive motion cannot deal in depth with the subject-matter of the substantive motion.

The honourable member for Campbelltown raised a point that the Government may be attempting to block free speech in this Parliament. Government, Opposition or crossbench members may use whatever devices are available under the standing orders of this House to seek to do whatever they wish, and it is for the House to determine the course it should take based on the procedural rules of the House. I think the matter raised by honourable member for Campbelltown was somewhat of a red herring.

The Minister for the Environment submitted that when speaking to the procedural motion the honourable member for Campbelltown had no right to allude to the seriousness of the substantive matter. I believe that is an overstatement of the level of restriction which should be placed on debate of this particular procedural motion. It is clear that the honourable member has to establish why this matter should take precedence of other business on the next sitting day. Therefore, to some extent, in support of his case he has to allude to reasons why it is important enough to take precedence at that time. It will then be for other members of the House to put a counter argument. In this debate, instead of just having one speaker from each side - as would have been normal, under the old suspension motion - more than one member from each side may, and I have no doubt will, contribute. I warn all honourable members at this stage of the debate that they are confined to generally arguing why this subject-matter should take precedence of other business on the next sitting day. The terms of the substantive motion that will be brought on if this procedural motion is carried are very detailed and explicit. Neither the honourable member for Campbelltown nor any other member may give explicit detail of the matters set out in the substantive motion. Within those terms, I propose to allow the honourable member for Campbelltown to continue but I warn him that I will apply the same rules as I would apply to a motion to suspend standing orders under the old rules.

Mr KNIGHT: If the member for The Hills is unable to satisfy the House that he has an adequate defence to the serious allegations raised about his behaviour, it could well lead to a later resolution to expel him from the House. The Westminster tradition is to bring on, at the earliest opportunity, serious matters affecting the standing of members and governments yet these conventions appear to mean little to the Greiner-Murray-Windsor government as it desperately tries to cling to office while it lurches from crisis to crisis. This Government, in its death rattle, is terrified of any exposure of the
Page 3237
skeletons in its cupboard. No member of the Government will stand up and defend the behaviour of the member for The Hills. Indeed many Government members have indicated privately they wish to see him gone.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order. I call the Minister for Justice to order.

Mr KNIGHT: The Premier will continue to protect the member for The Hills until the end of the parliamentary session for the basest of political motives. The Government cannot afford to be one number down in the parliamentary sitting. Indeed in the early hours of Wednesday morning of this week the Premier was saved by a single vote from being compelled to stand aside while the subject of the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry -

Mr Moore: On a point of order. I submit that the honourable member for Campbelltown is now addressing matters that bear no relationship whatsoever to the motion before the House, which is why Mr Packard, as named, should be required to attend in his place to answer a motion on the next sitting day. Even to assume the most charitable interpretation and substitute "answer" for "respond", the honourable member for Campbelltown is restricted to an extraordinarily narrow compass. You, Mr Speaker, have advised him so, as recently as three minutes ago - which is within the limited attention span of the honourable member for Campbelltown. I would suggest you bring him back to that which he is allowed to address.

Mr Knight: On the point of order. The Premier has publicly indicated his support for the member for The Hills. He has said that he supports Tony Packard. We are here to debate a procedural resolution as to why the member for The Hills should be compelled, on the next sitting day, to come and answer charges. The reason that we have even to debate this procedural resolution is that the Government is engaged in a cover-up to protect him. The Premier's behaviour in protecting him from parliamentary scrutiny is surely within the limits of this debate.

Mr Collins: On the point of order. The honourable member for Campbelltown has just suggested that the honourable member for The Hills has to come and face charges. There are no charges, to the best of my knowledge, and I ask him to withdraw that comment.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order. A member cannot, on behalf of another member, request that a matter be withdrawn. I was concerned that the honourable member for Campbelltown was straying a little beyond the tight limitations of this debate. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to define the lengths to which a member can go. I will have to make a determination from time to time as specific matters arise. I warn the honourable member for Campbelltown at this stage that he is restricted to establishing why this subject should take precedence on the next sitting day. That does not necessarily permit him to encompass argument on a motion which may be brought on at another time. He may only argue why it should take precedence.

Mr Packard: On a point of order. The honourable member for Campbelltown said that I was to be summonsed to answer charges. No charges have been laid. I request that you direct him to withdraw his remarks.

Page 3238

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am grateful for the suggestion that the honourable member's remarks should be regarded as a personal explanation. I am not certain that the remarks of the honourable member for Campbelltown called for a withdrawal. There will be ample opportunity in this debate for these remarks to be refuted.

Mr KNIGHT: If the member for The Hills wants to say something, he can speak in this debate. Honourable members await a contribution from him with great interest. To conclude what I was saying about the reason this procedural motion is necessary, one only has to observe the behaviour of Government members in their attempts to prevent this debate today - let alone the next debate - and their consistent and persistent attempts to refuse leave to bring on the substantive motion to establish clearly to the satisfaction of any genuine person why the Opposition has to resort to moving this procedural motion today. In turning to the second aspect of the motion, I want to quote the words of the Premier in the debate on the motion to compel Richard Charles Mochalski to come before the House. The Premier, while Leader of the Opposition, provided a powerful argument to support why a member should be compelled to explain to the Parliament actions that may reflect on the dignity and integrity of the Parliament.

Mr Moore: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.

Mr Moore: The position you just drew to the attention of the honourable member for Campbelltown is that he has to address a number of elements, the primary and imperative one of which is why this should come on on the next sitting day, why a matter earlier proposed to take priority over matters on some earlier sitting day is irrelevant, and I suggest to you that the honourable member for Campbelltown should be required to address why the matter that he proposes in his notice of motion of 27th March should take priority over a range of other matters listed on the business paper for tomorrow. I draw to your attention that not once has the honourable member for Campbelltown addressed, for example, notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 under general business for bills tomorrow, the various orders of the day for private members' bills tomorrow or the private members' general motions, which have precedence over the honourable member's motion for tomorrow. But one critical element -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for the Environment is starting to debate the motion. Honourable members are well aware of the point of order. I can only repeat at this stage that the challenge the honourable member for Campbelltown has to face is to keep his remarks relevant to the question.

Mr KNIGHT: I intend to quote what the former Leader of the Opposition said in an identical debate before Speaker Kelly, who was not known for his leniency to the Opposition. On 19th November, 1986, the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai spoke on the motion calling on the then member for Bankstown, Mr Richard Charles Mochalski, against whom allegations of business impropriety had been made, to attend the Parliament to respond to a notice of motion. The then Leader of the Opposition stated:

The Opposition believes it to be the obligation of any Parliament to bring before it a member who is under attack, so as to give that member the opportunity to answer allegations.

Page 3239
He went on to quote Sir Henry Parkes approvingly as follows:

Every member of the Assembly will forget what is due to himself and the great institution to which he belongs, if he, for a moment, seeks to remit the defence of its honour and dignity to any court of law . . . It may be that the parties concerned in this transaction will have to be proceeded against by criminal information in the courts; but that is not the course for us to take in relation to members of our House. We are custodians of our own character, and the moment we forget that we stand in that august position we shall have no character to preserve . . . If it becomes known abroad that members of the House have acted in a way in which . . . Mr Baker . . . has acted, and we take no notice of it, we cannot complain of whatever other persons may say . . .

The Premier, the then Leader of the coalition Opposition, went on to say:

We all have duties as members of this House that transcend party loyalties, that are more important than our obligations to the Executive Government.

The test of whether or not a member should be called before the Parliament is laid down in those words of the Premier. The test is not whether a member is charged, or has been convicted; the only test should be that he must answer allegations that impinge upon the character of the House. The Opposition has raised numerous allegations against the member for The Hills relating to his activities as the head of the Packard Motor Company. I can confirm for the House today that the most serious of those allegations are now the subject of extensive investigation. I do not intend to deal with them, but just in passing, before the Minister for the Environment gets completely out of his seat, to indicate that the Australian Securities Commission has a large team engaged in a formal investigation of the business dealings of the member for The Hills. Similarly, the New South Wales Police Force - senior officers of the serious crime squad - are investigating the bugging and covert activities in surveillance of the member for The Hills. But these are not matters -

Mr Moore: On a point of order. I suggest it does not matter what matters they are not, in the words of the honourable member for Campbelltown; it is what they are that is important, and they are a gross flouting of your ruling as to how far the honourable member for Campbelltown is able to go in addressing issues.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot uphold the Minister's point of order. As I have said, it is within the ambit of the motion for the honourable member for Campbelltown to emphasise the seriousness of the matter in general terms as the reason why the matter should be brought on.

Mr KNIGHT: These are not matters merely for the police or the Australian Securities Commission in relation to which the member for The Hills may, in the short term, refuse to answer questions on the grounds that the answers may incriminate him. The obligations placed on a member of Parliament are greater than those placed on an ordinary citizen. The member for The Hills is under an obligation to this Parliament and to his electorate to explain his actions as principal director of the Packard Motor Company; otherwise, the dignity and integrity of this Parliament are seriously impugned. The member for The Hills sat silently, day after day, while the Opposition produced documents, including statutory declarations that raised serious doubts as to the propriety of his activities as a member of Parliament. It is not as though the member for The Hills does not know about the allegations made against him. Unlike Richard Charles Mochalski, the member for The Hills is not physically absent from the Parliament. [Extension of time agreed to.]


Page 3240
Indeed, the Government depends upon the vote of the member for The Hills for its very survival. It must have him here. The Government knows full well that the Opposition would not grant a pair. It is not as though the honourable member for The Hill is not often in the Chamber. Indeed, in my 11 years in this House I have never seen a member consistently spend so much time in the Chamber as the member for The Hills. He cannot leave the building in case the Government falls, yet he cannot remain in his room in case the media catch up with him. The dining-room closes between meals -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Campbelltown is now straying from the reasons why the motion should be brought on. I direct him to return to the substance of the motion.

Mr KNIGHT: The member sits in mute contempt of the Parliament. He offers no explanation, no excuses, no apologies, no defence of his actions. He can run, but he still has a very thick hide. It is not as though the member for The Hills is the first member to have serious allegations raised against him. It has happened to many members. Yesterday allegations were made against the honourable member for Ashfield. Within minutes he was on his feet to confront the allegations and to offer a persuasive defence and an indication and vindication of his integrity. When serious allegations were raised about the Premier concerning his involvement in the White River Timber Company, he confronted the allegations in the House. Though some honourable members might have been somewhat underwhelmed by his defence, he did make a case that his party could support, which precluded the Labor Party moving for his expulsion. Similarly, a former member for Balmain, Roger Degen, defended himself in this House against serious allegations. His defence was satisfactory to his party, satisfactory to the media, and the honourable member for South Coast voted against his expulsion.

Mr Moore: Why did you bring on this motion while the honourable member for South Coast is away ill?

Mr KNIGHT: He would be speaking on our side.

Mr Moore: That is not what he said.

Mr KNIGHT: The Minister should not verbal the honourable member for South Coast. On other occasions the honourable member for The Hills has taken the view that silence is golden. I can reveal to the House that in his first election campaign he profited from a donation of $1,243.67, the source of which he declined to reveal.

Mr Moore: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I accept the point of order that I anticipate is about to be taken by the Minister for the Environment, which I uphold. The honourable member for Campbelltown is beginning to debate substantive matters.

Mr KNIGHT: What does it say about a member who will not, cannot and does not defend himself? Under our criminal code a person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty but the standards expected of members of Parliament are justifiably higher. Sir John Fuller, a former leader of the then Country Party - a predecessor of the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads - in the Legislative Council in debate to expel the Hon. A. E. Armstrong said:

Page 3241

We are members of a sovereign law-making body and for this reason the House itself is given a measure of responsibility in the control of the behaviour of its members. In our democracy, in the Parliamentary institution in the free world, it is essential that the standing of members of Parliament in the eyes of the community should be maintained at the highest level. It is necessary to maintain standards for the very preservation of the institution of the Parliament itself.

Yet the Government, which is hellbent on self-preservation, seeks to reduce the standards the Premier swore to uphold when in Opposition. The Premier, who wants the honourable member for The Hills out of the Parliament, acts like a political St Augustine. His prayer is, "Let Tony Packard be chased out of the Parliament, but not just yet". Contrast this with the behaviour of the most recent Labor Premier, Barrie Unsworth. When Rick Mochalski failed to come before this House to satisfactorily answer allegations made against him, Premier Unsworth made it clear that the parliamentary Labor Party would not support Mochalski. Mochalski resigned in disgrace even though he was not then, or at any later time, convicted of a criminal offence. At this point I shall summarise the case for this motion.

First, the Government is adopting a parliamentary stonewall stance in the face of serious allegations against one of its own members, a member whose support, however dubious, it depends upon for its survival. This motion gives the House the opportunity to tear down that wall and expose the honourable member for The Hills to the scrutiny of Parliament, the media and the people of New South Wales. Second, the motion orders the honourable member for The Hills to attend in his place on a day in which the House can resolve what it might do about the allegations made against him. It sets a date for that debate and it ensures that he is here for it. No one wants to condemn the honourable member for The Hills in his absence. Third, the motion compels the honourable member for The Hills to respond to the nature of the motion concerning the serious allegations made about his behaviour. The allegations about the honourable member for The Hills are of the utmost seriousness. When compared with the situation of Richard Charles Mochalski they appear not merely as bad but also unflattering. As the proprietor of the Packard Motor Company, the honourable member for The Hills or his employees engaged -

Mr Moore: On a point of order. The honourable member for Campbelltown is now seeking to traverse matters of substance encompassed within the notice of motion he gave on 27th March. Even taking the most charitable view of the time lost from that allocated to him because members on the Government benches have felt it necessary to raise points of order to have him brought back to the motion, he has nevertheless had a significant period of time to address his motion. He should not now, towards the conclusion of his remarks, be permitted to canvass those matters that are contained in or related to the motion of 27th March. It is clearly outside the order of debate, and such discretion as you, Mr Speaker, have permitted him in which to make passing references to the matter has certainly been more than charitably extinguished prior to this time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Campbelltown cannot go to specific detail and I direct him back to leave of the motion.

Mr KNIGHT: Without going into the specific detail, I remind the House of the seriousness of the motion which I am seeking to have the House compel the honourable member for The Hills to answer. It is clear that at every opportunity the Government will attempt to prevaricate, use parliamentary procedures, tricks and outright attempts to suppress the truth to prevent this happening. The reasons why Parliament needs to compel him are because the motion asks the member to answer allegations about breaches of the Listening Devices Act, which is a criminal offence if proved.


Page 3242
Mr Moore: On a point of order. The honourable member for Campbelltown is now seeking to deal with the specific nature of matters contained in his notice of motion. He should not be permitted, no matter how inferentially, to go through it paragraph by paragraph at this time, he having had a more than adequate fair go from this House to deal with matters within the standing orders.

Mr Knight: On the point of order. I am referring to a motion that asks the honourable member to answer another motion which details allegations of breaches of the civil law and the criminal law. I have not yet debated the substance of those, and I will not have that opportunity because of the activities of the Minister for the Environment. Surely even the Minister for the Environment cannot be frightened of my mentioning matters that are on the parliamentary notice paper and which have been reported already by the media.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is in order for the honourable member for Campbelltown to list the matters if he wishes. Certainly as this motion refers to that motion a reiteration of the motion is in order.

Mr KNIGHT: We have a motion asking the honourable member for The Hills to be compelled to respond to another much longer motion which deals with a range of scandalous conduct, starting at item (a) and ending at item (m). I am sorry that notice of that motion was given some weeks ago because the matters that have since transpired indicate that it could be extended considerably. Despite overwhelming documentary evidence provided by the Opposition, the honourable member for The Hills has refused to defend himself. The Premier, the Attorney General and the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment have accused the Opposition of gutter politics, yet none of them has been prepared, and I challenge them tonight to be prepared, to defend the record of the honourable member for The Hills. I assure them that if they do so I, for one, will not be taking points of order saying that they are outside the leave of the debate. However, I would be surprised if anyone needs to canvass that position. They have wanted to shoot the messenger rather than face the implications of the message. If the Premier were fair dinkum about the ethical standards of this House and if he were half sincere in what he himself said as Leader of the Opposition five years ago, he would have insisted long ago on a full and proper explanation in this House from the honourable member for The Hills. In conclusion I wish to quote again the Premier's own words in the Mochalski debate on an identical motion. The Premier said:

The charges against the honourable member are of the gravest kind. In any business in New South Wales if a responsible employee had been adjudged guilty on the balance of probabilities of this sort of conduct, that employee undoubtedly would be dismissed. The charges are so grave that they cannot do otherwise than reflect upon the character of every member of this Parliament.

Only a full explanation can dispel the cloud over the member. Until that is done the cloud remains, not only over the member but over the Premier, the Government and indeed over the entire House itself.

Mr MOORE (Gordon - Minister for the Environment) [5.17]: Earlier this week I had occasion to liken the honourable member for Campbelltown to a Carpo of the einsatz kommando extermination squads.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order for the second time.


Page 3243
Mr MOORE: The honourable member for Campbelltown asks me is he getting a promotion. He understands the classic admission, that is, that he is sliming for a promotion; he wants to be an obersturmbahnführer in the einsatz kommando of the Reich.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.

Mr MOORE: And indeed it comes with the uniform, the Sieg Heil and the rest of the other fascist attitudes that are behind this motion.

Mr J. H. Murray: On a point of order. I take offence at the manner in which the Minister is directing his remarks to the honourable member for Campbelltown. Earlier in the debate, Mr Speaker, your predecessor ruled that a member should address another member in the House, in particular the honourable member for Smithfield, by his electorate name. I ask that the Minister do the same here.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Certainly that is the case. Members should address other members by their electorate names.

Mr MOORE: I was addressing the honourable member for Campbelltown by his electorate name and attributing to him a variety of moral and ethical attributes associated with those who hang first and try later. They are the fascists, the totalitarians who reject any notion of decency and fair play. The honourable member for Campbelltown is probably the only person who could jump from left to right and raise the average IQ of both factions. He is also probably the only honourable member who could jump from left to right and raise the moral standards of both factions, although in the case of the right it is an incrementally and infinitesimally small part of that process.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.

Mr MOORE: The motion that has been moved by the honourable member for Campbelltown seeks to set aside all business of the House tomorrow to require the honourable member for The Hills to respond to a notice of motion given by the honourable member for Campbelltown some time ago. The business of the House notice of motion we are now debating itself went on the notice paper some time ago and the honourable member for Campbelltown declined to bring it on.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The Government Leader of the House knows the truth of the matter and must affirm the truth of the matter. This afternoon and on two other occasions to my knowledge the honourable member for Campbelltown or I attempted to move the suspension of standing and sessional orders to enable this debate to come on. There has been no delay at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ashfield should appreciate that that is not a point of order but an explanation which he is at liberty to put into the debate at a later time.

Mr MOORE: I repeat for the record that I have challenged the honourable member for Campbelltown to move a motion in the proper form, namely a censure motion - a motion that the Premier and I were prepared to face - that I acknowledged across the Chamber would be taken upfront. If the honourable member for Campbelltown wishes to talk about the prioritisation of business to deal with issues, even the most cursory, even the most humble and new member of this Parliament - which
Page 3244
certainly does not apply to the honourable member for Campbelltown who is neither humble nor new and has few other attributes to attract us to him - he must know in his heart that if on 27th March he had had the guts to move a motion to censure and condemn the honourable member for The Hills, or any of the forms of motion that comprise within the Westminster tradition a censure motion, which is a very precise and formal nature of condemnation that someone can put on a member, then he knows, because I have told him so in this House, that the Government would bring it on as demanded by the Westminster conventions. The honourable member for Campbelltown has not had the guts to do it up until now.

Mr Photios: No guts Knight.

Mr MOORE: No guts, no start. That is what the honourable member for Campbelltown is all about. What he is really all about is paying his dues - blood money. The honourable member for Campbelltown is demonstrating that there is no price too low that he is prepared to pay. There is absolutely no reason why all of the business of the House for tomorrow should be set aside to deal with this matter when the honourable member for Campbelltown knows - because I have advised him in this Chamber - that if he used the proper forms of the House, if he had the guts to move a censure motion, it would be brought on for debate. He also knows that if he had the guts to move a censure motion, the same view would be taken by me as I took about the censure motion about me, that I was entitled to a fair trial and investigation elsewhere on issues, without having this man, using the word at its most charitable, this person who is a spiritual descendant of the Eichmanns of World War II - I invite honourable members to look at his haircut -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. The Chair has been as tolerant as possible, given the nature of the debate. If members wish me to be far more severe with them than I have been in the need to maintain the order of the House, I shall be more severe. I ask all members to co-operate and use common sense in this debate.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order for the third time.

Mr MOORE: The honourable member for Campbelltown is a case of "if the peak leather fieldcap with silver eagle and flashing silver lightning stripes fits wear it" -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Justice to order for the second time.

Mr Knight: On a point of order. My point of order is not the abuse that the Minister for the Environment heaps on me but my worry for his health as he proceeds to become more and more excited. He is under great pressure. Mr Speaker, I ask that you restrain him a little.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr MOORE: The solicitude of the honourable member for Campbelltown for my health rivals only that of Dr Mengele for the twins of Belsen.

Page 3245

Mr Photios: On a point of order. If it is not offensive to the honourable member for Campbelltown - he probably delights in the commentary - on behalf of the honourable member for Campbelltown I am offended, even if he treats those comments as a compliment to his character.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington knows full well that, first, there is no point of order and, second, he cannot take a point of order on behalf of another member. If another point of order of that nature is taken, the member will be removed from the House forthwith.

Mr MOORE: The Government -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders the debate is interrupted.