Consideration Of Urgent Motions

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [3.23]: I would have thought that, following the tragic events of yesterday and the unprecedented amount of comment about the untimely death of Anna Wood, Opposition members would have joined with the Government to debate this motion now, rather than trying to prevent it coming on as a matter of urgency. It is a matter of the utmost urgency for a large number of reasons that affect each and every one of us on a personal basis. The motion is urgent because there would not be a parent here today, a teacher within this State, a member of the community, a commentator - indeed, a concerned citizen - who would not be outraged by the untimely death of Anna Wood and the disastrous manner in which it occurred.

Earlier today the Premier outlined a number of issues relating to drug taking in this State. It is a pernicious evil, it is a hidden evil, it is a prevalent evil and it is an evil that has the potential to hit and hurt every one of us in this society. It is therefore timely that we turn the attention of the House today to this issue, to debate the reasons that such a tragedy could occur, and to consider what we can do as a government, what we can do as parents, what we can do as community leaders, and what our schools can do to prevent such tragedies happening again. It is not good enough to put off such a motion until tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. Some may argue that such a debate has been put off for too long already, that if we had concentrated sooner and in a more serious way on the evils of drug taking and how it is affecting our youth today, perhaps Anna Wood would not be dead today.

I feel very strongly about this most serious matter. We cannot waste any time debating this issue. It is all very well for Opposition members to bleat about the motion, but I can assure them that if they want to turn this motion into a political issue, they are making a big mistake. This issue is not about politics; it is of concern to each and every one of us. It is as much a concern to honourable members opposite, as individuals and as community leaders, as it is to everyone on this side of the House. I welcome the opportunity, and I hope the Opposition will respond in kind, to debate this matter in the way in which it should be debated today. I welcome any constructive comments that the Opposition may have about this motion.

It is the responsibility of each and every member of this House, while the community is expressing an opinion about this matter, to debate this issue. One has only to tune in to every half-hour radio bulletin, to listen to talkback radio, or to listen to talk in the streets to know that people are concerned about it. For that reason this House should debate the issue and express an opinion on it. The House should point out quite clearly and plainly to the community at large why it is dealing with this matter now: to put at ease the minds of parents, of students in our schools, of teachers, and of the rest of the community in relation to this matter. It is all very well for the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to play cheap political tricks, but he should contribute to the debate in a positive way. We should all respond to the urgency of this matter, and do so in a positive way. [Time expired.]

Page 2347

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.28]: It is with great sadness that I speak about the urgency motions, particularly given the Government's self-gratifying and patronising manner of dealing with the issue. The matter is so serious that it should be debated by a means other than an urgency motion. If the Government were to bring on a full and open debate about drugs, security and problems with kids, I am sure the Opposition would support it. But to indicate there is ongoing drug problem that bedevils every society and to use this opportunity to grandstand is quite sickening.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the member confine his remarks to the subject matter of his notice for urgent consideration.

Mr PHILLIPS: I understand that I have to explain why the subject of my motion is more important than the Government's grandstanding. This is the first time as a member of this House that I have seen such behaviour from any government to use this type of issue to its advantage. The subject of my urgency motion has to be dealt with in this House today because it concerns a decision about the New South Wales electricity industry that goes before caucus tomorrow. This House needs to debate this issue now. We will not have much opportunity for debate after caucus meets tomorrow and gags the honourable member for East Hills, the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Newcastle, the honourable member for Wallsend, the honourable member for Lake Macquarie and the honourable member for Swansea. This House is entitled to debate this issue urgently today. Labor's decision to break up Pacific Power will diminish this State's major electricity generator, and will allow the electricity industry to be dominated by our Victorian neighbours. The Government's decision will help Victoria rather than the people of New South Wales. There is no guarantee, despite the Government's assurances, that the break-up of Pacific Power will lead to lower electricity prices. There is no proof that Pacific Power has to be broken up to achieve lower prices.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order: the honourable member is debating the subject rather than giving the reason his motion should have urgency.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: the honourable member is going to the substance of the debate. The Opposition does this all the time, debates the substance of the motion. The honourable member has an opportunity in the five-minute period allotted to him to prioritise the subject of his motion. Instead, he has offered a lame-duck excuse that he regards the subject of his motion as being more important than this House debating the most important issue facing this State and nation today. Yet the honourable member wants to talk about prioritising this matter. The Opposition should stick to real priorities.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will confine his remarks to seeking to convince the House that his motion should receive priority over that of the Minister.

Mr PHILLIPS: My motion is important because the Government is driving headlong into a brave new world of national competition without producing an economic analysis, as required under the national competition policy. That policy states that the Government must do it. It is urgent that the House debate this issue before the Government makes a decision on it tomorrow. My motion is urgent also because the break-up of Pacific Power will cost between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs in the electricity and coalmining industries, and will have a severe impact on our ability to export steaming coal. That is why this issue is urgent, and must be debated today so that the Government will come clean on the issue. The competition policy statement says that before competition is introduced - [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion for urgent consideration of Mr Aquilina be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Ms Moore
Mr Clough Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Thompson

Page 2348

Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Mr Kinross Mr West
Mr Longley Mr Windsor
Ms Machin Mr Zammit
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Beck
Mr Neilly Mrs Chikarovski
Dr Refshauge Dr Kernohan

Question so resolved in the affirmative.