Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [4.21]: I move:

That this House censures the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism for misleading Parliament on both the issues of further subsidies to bus operators and cuts to bus services that follow his changes to the School Transport Subsidy Scheme.

In recent weeks there has been enormous angst in the community about the Minister's administration of his portfolio and particularly the savage cuts to the school transport subsidy scheme. In the last few days the Minister - at best carelessly, at worst destructively; or reflecting his lack of competence - has chosen to say one thing to bus and coach operators and the community outside the Parliament and another to members in this House. It is this issue that goes to the very heart of discharging one's ministerial responsibilities with integrity, honesty, professionalism and competency. Though the Opposition is reluctant to move against the Minister so early in his mismanaged career, we consider it is appropriate to take him to task for his administration of this portfolio, and particularly for his misleading the community. I have received many phone calls from bus operators who of course, like most of the industry, feel that the Minister is largely irrelevant in the Cabinet and to the management and operation of his portfolio. The bus operators are concerned about exactly what the Minister meant at a so-called joint press conference with the Bus and Coach Association on the steps of the Parliament. On 23 October the Australian Associated Press reported that the Minister said:

Operators are eligible for increased Government subsidies if they believe a particular service cannot be provided on fares alone.

That statement has been verified and confirmed by countless journalists in this building. I am careful to quote directly from reputable sources in the
Page 2354
media that are independent of the Government and the Opposition. The AAP wire report of 23 October led with this statement:

The State Government today conceded -

that is an interesting point -

that the bus services in Sydney's fringes -

that demonstrates a degree of ignorance -

would be affected by cuts to the free transport scheme. Transport Minister Brian Langton refused to confirm or deny -

probably because he did not know, does not know and is not capable of knowing -

reports that operators were being forced to wind up hundreds of route services to stay in business. He said the real impact of the cuts was not quantifiable -

again because he has not done his homework -

but ruled out massive cuts to services.

On one hand he does not know the answer, but on the other he is prepared to at least make that clarification. The report continued:

The Government would ensure that no commuter was disadvantaged by cuts to services. There may be some effect on smaller services, particularly in fringe areas of metropolitan urban areas -

Mr Langton: On a point of order: I am sure all honourable members appreciate the attempt by the honourable member for Ermington to assist those who are print handicapped by reading large slabs of articles in recent wire reports. However, I do not feel it is appropriate to the debate. The honourable member must be able to verify the veracity of those quotes before he can use them.

Mr PHOTIOS: On the point of order: nothing is more central to this debate than whether the Minister said or did not say something. He and I will take umbrage with that in the course of this debate. I am happy to detail specifically that I am referring to a media wire that was the subject of widespread media speculation. If I cannot refer to what the Minister said in the public arena, the debate cannot proceed.

Mr Langton: Further to the point of order: it has been established in this House on many occasions that if a member is to use a newspaper as the basis for debate, he must be able to absolutely verify its veracity. The honourable member cannot do that and, therefore, does not have the right to use that material.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point taken by the Minister for Transport is that if the member wishes to quote from a document, he should do so only briefly and he should identify the document from which he has quoted.

Mr PHOTIOS: I am referring now to an AAP wire that was used by the media - television, print and radio; all of whom were present and can verify it.

Mr O'Farrell: And it has never been disputed.

Mr PHOTIOS: It was never disputed by any journalist downstairs who heard the Minister say that there would be subsidies for bus operators. The Minister has twice misled the public. On one hand he has told operators they will be eligible for increased government subsidies. Then in this House he has denied his commitment of the previous day about subsidies to bus operators to maintain services. As reported in Hansard of 24 October, the Minister said:

There will not be any backdown on the Government's decision, because the decision is the right one . . . I did not make that statement yesterday.

All of the journalists downstairs were somewhat surprised at that comment. I spoke with many of them today and none can reconcile the Minister's statement in the House with the statements he made outside the Parliament. It is fair to say that there is now confusion amongst senior officials among bus and coach operators as to what precisely the Minister means. The Minister is aware that these cuts will savage bus routes and will impact upon hundreds of thousands of bus commuters. On 12 October in the Daily Telegraph Mirror journalist Ben English reported:

BCA spokesman Roger Graham said because each bus service would cost $50,000, the Government's aim to save $100 million could result in 2000 route closures, if most parents chose not to pay for their children's fares.

He said that industry surveys, not those of the Government or the Opposition, confirmed that as a reality. Under that scenario, New South Wales faces a critical future. Battling families will suffer from savage cuts to the school transport subsidy, and when the $24 tax is imposed kids will be exposed to dangerous risks on the streets because their parents will not be able to afford to send them to school by bus. Despite the Minister's protestations about capping this scheme and the impact on commuter services across the board - which affects pensioners, workers, mums and dads, shoppers, in fact everyone because bus routing, not just school bus routes, will be cut back - he stands condemned and censured today for misleading the House by saying there were to be no subsidies.

To say twice in this House, and outside to the Bus and Coach Association and the public, that there would be no subsidies makes him either a fool - and that is not hard to accept, given his current performance - or incompetent. Senior level members of his department certainly think he is incompetent. The industry thinks he is irrelevant. It paints a grim picture of a Minister for anti-public transport. The scheme is getting out of control; every day another story breaks in the media. The Minister wants to contain it, and no doubt the Premier tells him to pull it into line, but he cannot. It is out of control. But the worst is yet to come. Next year thousands of families will have to pay for this Minister's follies, and leading up to the next
Page 2355
election hundreds of thousands more will not have bus services because of this man's battle against public transport. He is flying in the face of a social justice policy and a social equity policy that we demand in this House.

It is also fairly clear that the Minister has used his scant knowledge and appreciation of this issue and sought to mislead the House about cuts to services. Here it is even more graphic. It is so clear as to bring home to the Minister the sad and sorry truth. I think he should apologise to the House for misleading it in relation to services. On 12 October, as reported in Hansard, he said, "There will be no loss of services, whether by route buses or school buses." That statement was without qualification. It was a short sentence that this Minister is capable of getting out - not getting right, but getting out. But this week - it only took him a couple of days - outside the Parliament he said, "There may be some effect on services, particularly on the fringe of metropolitan areas" - and even credited himself as the perpetrator of the changes - "as a result of changes to the school transport subsidy scheme."

He wants to have it both ways. He wants to get parents punch-drunk on a scheme of change, which he says in the House will lead to no - none, unqualified, full stop - reduction in services. Then a couple of days later outside the House he said that it will have an effect. He concedes that the industry knows it will have an effect, and he knows the industry is right. He acknowledged that my point is right, by conceding that he got it wrong when he misled the House last week, as reported in Hansard. Clearly this Minister has got it wrong twice. He is at least required to apologise to the mums, dads and kids whose safety is at risk because of his lack of integrity, his lack of honesty and his lack of sincerity in pursuing this issue. It continues today. RailNet is the latest misconception. RailNet is to be separated from his portfolio and he knows it.

Mr Langton: On a point of order: the motion clearly relates to buses, not to trains. I ask that the honourable member be directed back to the leave of the motion.

Mr PHOTIOS: On the point of order: I was but making passing reference to demonstrate a catalogue of misleading of the House. There is a parallel, giving that -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The motion is quite specific.

Mr PHOTIOS: It is very clear from the nature of these cuts that hundreds of thousands of people will be affected by Langton's folly, as it is known in the industry today. That is the new approach to a policy designed to take 200,000 kids who now enjoy the right of free travel to a free school; a policy supported with absolute consistency by the coalition Government for seven years, even when various departments suggested that it be reviewed. We rejected that suggestion. We did not Yes Minister these proposals like this bloke did. We did not Yes Minister the proposals of the Treasury. The Public Accounts Committee made a very modest proposal when the coalition was in Government, but that also was rejected as we strongly supported the right of students to free travel to free education.

With 200,000 kids suffering, with 2,000 routes going, with bus operators on the breadline, with hundreds of buses to go, this Minister smiles. His industry is suffering so acutely that hundreds of buses will be taken off routes and thousands of bus routes will be cut, yet he smiles at the damage he wreaks. He is responsible for cutbacks in his public transport portfolio. He cannot offer commitment to infrastructure. Now he wreaks havoc on children whose safety is at risk, whose families will have to battle with a parent tax of $24, and on bus operators who will have to take services off the road. He is a Minister for anti-public transport. That will be the hallmark of his career as he faces a Cabinet reshuffle in a few months. He is a clayton's Minister: the Minister we had to have when we did not want him. He is the Minister whom this Premier wants to get rid of as quickly as he can. There will soon be a Cabinet reshuffle and this Minister will be removed, as he should be. Today's motion, even if on party lines it is not passed, makes it very clear that this Minister's days are numbered as the industry looks at him increasingly critically and with contempt. [Time expired.]

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [4.36]: I have no intention of wasting the time of the House on the specious yappings of the honourable member for Ermington, so I will keep my response as brief as possible. I want to point out to the honourable member for Ermington that today is the anniversary of the Charge of the Light Brigade. I should also warn him that his pathetic attempt to attack this Government over much-needed and very long overdue changes to the school student transport subsidy scheme will end in the same tragic way as that tragic battle did 141 years ago. Yesterday the honourable member for Ermington asked me if I stood by my comments that I would "Provide financial support to bus operators who would otherwise have to axe services", to which I replied, "I did not make that statement yesterday." I was right yesterday. I am right today. But I can tell honourable members who is wrong: the honourable member for Ermington. The honourable member for Ermington has it completely wrong, but I do not think that would come as a surprise to anyone in this Chamber. He has got it wrong before. He got it wrong when he said rail fares would rise by 300 per cent. He got it wrong when he said he had documentary evidence to prove his case. He was shown to have got it wrong when the discerning journalists in the press gallery of this Parliament demanded that he produce that non-existent documentary evidence. As we all know the honourable member for Ermington -

Page 2356

Mr Photios: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, a short while ago you ruled that RailNet was outside the leave of the motion. Train fares which may or may not go up and which I may or may not have commented on are not related to this motion. In fact, only a few minutes ago, the Minister pointed out that trains were not the subject of this motion. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct the Minister to exercise some intellectual discipline and stick to the motion, which clearly relates to buses and bus policies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has drawn a very fine line. No point of order is involved.

Mr LANGTON: The incredible and almost unlimited ability of the honourable member for Ermington to get it wrong was amply demonstrated in his comments in the Daily Telegraph Mirror this morning. He said that I promised to invoke the Public Transport Act to increase subsidies as a last resort. I quote:

Under the Act . . . operators are eligible for increased Government subsidies if they believe a particular service cannot be provided on fares alone.

Unfortunately, the honourable member, who on most days has trouble finding his way along Macquarie Street, has no idea what he is talking about. What he said this morning is absolutely incorrect. He did not even have the name of the Act of Parliament correct. It is quite simple. The Passenger Transport Act - not the Public Transport Act - covers two types of contract, commercial and non-commercial. Non-commercial contracts refer to services that are fully remunerated by the Government on a fixed rate that reflects the cost of providing the service and an appropriate rate of return for the investment involved.

Non-commercial contracts do not have a minimum service level requirement. They simply require a service to be provided irrespective of the level of patronage. Then there are commercial contracts, and these contracts do have minimum service levels. Even the honourable member for Northcott knows that. He should tell his mate, the honourable member for Ermington. Commercial contracts do not provide subsidies to unprofitable bus routes. That is the legislation. Revenue for commercial contracts comes from passenger fares, not from Government subsidies. School student transport payments are revenue for the half-fares for students carried on those buses. Commercial contracts also include revenue that is a reimbursement for the provision of half-fare concessions for pensioners and the unemployed.

If an operator on a commercial contract considers a particular route has become unprofitable, it is up to that operator to design and market his services over the whole of the contract area to maintain profitability. Commercial contract holders do not receive subsidies for particular services and therefore cannot receive increased subsidies. I really have trouble getting that message through to the honourable member for Ermington. I take advice from that well-known canine trainer, Barbara Woodhouse, who keeps saying that the only way to leave an indelible message is to repeat, and repeat, and repeat a message to try to get it imprinted in the brains of even the dullest. Here I go again; I will try once more to get it through to the honourable member for Ermington.

There is no backdown on the Government's reforms of the school student transport scheme. The reforms are set in concrete. Bus route services will be maintained. I repeat that the Government is happy to look at operators' claims on a case-by-case basis - as I have been saying for the last couple of days. The Department of Transport will provide technical advice to operators who consider that some of their routes may be unviable. Any operator who wishes to vary his commercial contract will need irrefutable evidence that the changes are in the best interests of the travelling public and the taxpayer. If an operator is not prepared to maintain the terms of his commercial contract, the Government may be forced to call tenders for a more efficient operator to take over.

That is exactly what has been said inside and outside this Chamber for days. At the press conference to which the honourable member refers I did not use the word subsidy. The honourable member has the transcript of the interview. The word subsidy was not used. I did not say we would provide a subsidy. I said we will look at assistance on a case-by-case basis. Assistance can be in all sorts of forms, as I have outlined in this House during the last couple of days. I said in this House last week - the honourable member quoted from Hansard what I said last week - that there would be no reduction in services. I stand by that: there will be no reduction in services. The honourable member also quoted that I said outside this House that changes may have some effect on operators. Yes, I stand by that, too: of course it may have some effect on operators.

We will therefore take whatever action is appropriate to make sure services are maintained. How even the thickest of members opposite - the honourable member for Ermington - can suggest that somehow there is a dichotomy, I do not understand. I do not intend to waste the Parliament's time dealing with the mad yappings of the honourable member. The Department of Transport and the Bus and Coach Association are continuing their discussions on the implementation of the school students transport scheme reforms. I can assure all members of the House that there is an enormous degree of goodwill on both sides. I can assure the honourable member for Ermington that these reforms will be implemented and route services will be maintained. I reject the motion out of hand.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [4.47]: I listened carefully to the Minister, hoping that he would answer the very serious charges brought by
Page 2357
the honourable member for Ermington in this debate. What we got from the Minister, as usual, was no answer. He is a bit like one of those comic texta balloons - all balloon, no answers. He is running out of steam, and he has absolutely no answers.

Mr Whelan: I am next. Be careful.

Mr O'FARRELL: I accept the bipartisan show of support. If the Minister for Transport keeps performing as he is in the House - hopelessly - Bob Carr will actually date his letter of resignation, it will be submitted to the Governor, and the honourable member for Auburn will be fitted for his ministerial car at long last.

Mr Harrison: On a point of order: the honourable member for Auburn, who has nothing to do with this debate, has been mentioned. I ask the honourable member for Northcott, who has tried in such a disgusting manner to draw the honourable member for Auburn into this debate, to apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair accepts that the reference by the honourable member for Northcott was to illustrate in a humorous manner the point he was making.

Mr O'FARRELL: I am sure there will be enough ministerial reshuffles over the next four years that even the honourable member for Kiama will finally make it to the ministry. This debate is about two issues - about cuts to services, and about subsidies to bus operators. I may be a new member in this House, like the member for Peats, who is trying to interject, but the good news is that I was not educated under a Labor education system, and the better news is that I can read plain English. On 12 October the Minister was asked by the honourable member for Ermington, "Will he guarantee no loss of bus services to either school students or the State's commuters?" That simple question required a simple answer.

Mr Photios: From a simple man.

Mr O'FARRELL: From a simple man, indeed. The Minister said it twice in his reply. The first time he said, "There will be no loss of services, whether by route buses or school buses." He went on to say, "To summarise, there will be no loss of services to people who need to use buses in New South Wales, whether by route buses or school buses." It is interesting to note that that is not what he said outside this place on 23 October. Mr Speaker asked earlier that if I or the honourable member for Ermington quoted media material, we source it. We are happy to source it. The source is Australian Associated Press and it is dated 23 October.

Mr Langton: On a point of order: I raise the same point of order I raised earlier. If members use quotations from newspapers or wire services as the sole basis of a debate in this Parliament, they have to be able to confirm the veracity of that report.

Mr O'FARRELL: On the point of order: when I worked for a Minister once upon a time, most Ministers had access through their offices to the AAP wire. There has been no retraction through the AAP wire of that statement. The Minister has had two days to do so. There can be no point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The essence of my observation is being lost. I said that only passing reference can be made to newspaper articles.

Mr O'FARRELL: The passing reference is that on 23 October the Minister said outside the House there may be some effect on services, particularly on the fringe of metropolitan urban areas, as a result of changes to the school student transport scheme. Clearly that is misleading the House. That is exactly what the motion is about, and the honourable member for Ermington deserves congratulations once again for exposing this Minister. The second issue relates to subsidies for bus operators. Yesterday the Minister was asked by the honourable member for Ermington:

How much has the Minister set aside for every bus and coach operator in his new subsidy scheme announced yesterday, resulting from his decision to cut the free school transport scheme? When will he announce the guidelines for the new bus operator subsidy scheme?

In answer the Minister said:

Contrary to the implied statement in the question of the honourable member for Ermington, at no stage yesterday did I mention the word "subsidy".

Again I will mention in passing the AAP wire service which states:

Operators are eligible for increased Government subsidies if they believe a particular service cannot be provided . . .

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: this is a matter of censure, not a matter of speculation. It is a very important point. If you want to have a resolution in this House that is based on newspaper reports you are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's time for speaking has expired.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.52]: This is the greatest waste of time I have ever seen. A Minister of the Crown is being censured because of an alleged newspaper report. Even former Speaker Rozzoli would not have been bold enough to have permitted anything like that to be presented in his party room. The honourable member for Hawkesbury would have put his foot down and said, "You cannot do that." The honourable member for Ermington is giving veracity to everything that is said in the newspaper so he can use it in the House and, in this case, against a Minister. This motion is a waste of time. The honourable member is depriving members of their rightful opportunity to address the Appropriation Bill. No evidence has been provided, except the most flimsy, indirect evidence out of an
Page 2358
alleged newspaper report - not more than one, but only one alleged newspaper report. The honourable member for Ermington has displayed his complete ignorance and lack of knowledge. His failure to provide proof will result in his resolution being lost. Frankly, I was so moved by what the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism said, there is no way he should be censured. I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" with a view to inserting instead the following words:

"commends the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism for his success in bringing efficiencies and effectiveness to transport services in New South Wales after seven years of neglect and maladministration of the previous Government."

That is what the resolution should be. The honourable member for Ermington has had a political lesson today. Regrettably, the Minister for Transport has educated the shadow minister on the various administration Acts, that is, the relevant statutes that fall within the administration of the responsible Minister. The Minister told him what legislation applies. Fools should not be educated at any time, but the honourable member for Ermington has proved an exception today. I shall tell the Minister for Transport I do not want him to educate these fools any more, I do not want him to take them through the Acts of Parliament for the purpose of educating them. There has been no evidence. The Minister said commercial contracts do not provide subsidies for unprofitable bus routes; there will be no backdown on the Government's reforms to the school students transport system - they are set in concrete; bus route services will be maintained; the Government is happy to look at operators' claims on a case-by-case basis; and the Department of Transport will provide technical advice to operators who consider some of the routes to be unviable.

The difference between the various contracts must be understood. The Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism must stop educating members of the Opposition about statutes in his portfolio and about commercial contracts, or he will be in trouble. Any operator who wishes to vary a commercial contract will need to provide irrefutable evidence that the changes are in the best interest of the travelling public and of the taxpayer. The Minister for Transport has answered those questions fairly and squarely. The Opposition has yet to provide any evidence. The honourable member for Ermington has shown his lack of knowledge and understanding by trying to obtain proof from a newspaper report. It is a wonder it did not come from the "Bullamakanka Times"! He wants to give veracity to anything that appears in a newspaper to suit his own purposes, to waste the time of this Parliament by bringing a serious resolution, namely, a censure of the Minister for Transport. The honourable member for Ermington should be censured, because he is a time waster. This debate has proved that he is a fool, and that he is not on top of his shadow portfolio, because he has been given an educational lesson today in this Chamber, but he did not take it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The behaviour of the honourable member for Ermington is most disrespectful. This is not the first time the member has attracted the adverse attention of the Chair in this regard. I warn him that a repeat by him of such behaviour will result in his removal from the Chamber. I suggest that other members contain their enthusiasm and allow the honourable member for Gosford, who seems particularly eager to do so, to address the House.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.56]: Truth is the first casualty of war, and truth is the first casualty of this Government. If ever a government was built upon lies and deceit it is the Carr Labor Government, not only in relation to its lies in March but its persistent lies and dissembling of the truth since then. The Minister has been caught out not only for his incompetence but also for his lack of veracity. For that reason this House is meeting this afternoon to censure him, as he rightly deserves to be censured. He no longer possesses the confidence of this House or of honest people throughout New South Wales. This is the man who said, on 12 October in relation to the budget, that there will be no loss of services, whether they be group buses or school buses. Outside the Parliament this very week he said there may be some effect on services, particularly on the fringe of metropolitan-urban areas as a result of the changes to the school student transport scheme. The Central Coast Advocate reported, in an article about this Minister and this Government:

A major sticking point in Bob Carr's first budget is the change to the school bus pass system.

The article continued:

The government should thrash out the problems with the bus companies and leave the students alone . . .

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Was the honourable member for Gosford not in the Chamber when I ruled on the use that members may make of newspaper articles?

Mr HARTCHER: I am only quoting, Mr Speaker, I am not citing this at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is exactly the point I made. The member may make only passing reference to such articles; they cannot be used to establish fact. The member is quoting directly from it.

Mr HARTCHER: I am not quoting it as a fact.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is quoting it directly. I ask him to desist.

Mr HARTCHER: The Central Coast Advocate stated, in the closing words of the article, "You've run off the road with this one, Mr Carr." Not only the lack of credibility of the Minister is at
Page 2359
stake, well attested though it is, but the lack of credibility of the Government is at stake. Nonetheless, this censure is devoted to him. It is your day today, Brian. You deserve a day and you are getting a day.

Dr Refshauge: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, you have ruled many times, particularly resulting from Opposition points of order, that members should be referred to by their correct titles.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. Standing orders provide that members should be addressed by their correct titles.

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister has run off the road. He has not only run off the road but also betrayed the people and little children of this State. At the end of the day that is what this is about. It is not simply about money; it is about the Government and the Minister putting money ahead of the safety of little children. If ever there was a man with a lack of ability and lack of capacity to stand up for the children of this State whom he is supposed to be assisting through the school bus transport system, and if ever there was a man caught out, it is this particular operator. Not only did he resign on 21 August and not attend the Cabinet meeting on 22 August; he went on television the following day and denied that he had resigned. What did he do when that question was put to him in Parliament this afternoon? He ducked it; he dingoed it. He was not prepared to lie to the House, as he was prepared to lie to the 3 million people who saw him on television denying that he had resigned. They all saw the Minister deny it on television, yet he was not prepared to say that in Parliament this afternoon.

Mr Harrison: On a point of order: the honourable member is introducing matters that are well outside the leave of the motion. He is talking about allegations of resignations and so on, which are not mentioned in the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The motion is specific.

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister should be censured not only for his serial resignation but also for misleading the House. He told the people of this State that operators are eligible for increased government subsidies if they believe that a particular service cannot be provided by fares alone. However, at question time today the Minister said that there will not be any backdown on Government assistance. The Minister should resign because he is a disgrace to the Parliament and to this State. [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [5.01]: This is an unbelievable waste of time. The Opposition is trying to censure the Minister for Transport for allegedly misleading the Parliament on two issues. The first issue relates to whether the Minister said that subsidies would be provided to bus operators. Clearly, the only alleged evidence that the Opposition has is a report by Australian Associated Press. Opposition members have refused to vouch for the accuracy of that report. They have refused to put themselves on the line and say that the report is accurate. They know that if they mislead Parliament in that way they will be turfed out. They are not prepared to say that the report is accurate. Indeed, the accuracy of the report was described by the honourable member for Northcott when he held up three fingers and said that there were only two reports. There is a lot of counting going on there.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: the motion before the House is clear. It relates to the censure of the Minister for Transport; it does not relate to any activities in which the honourable member for Northcott may or may not be engaging.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The Deputy Premier is responding to what the member said in his speech.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Opposition has moved a serious motion but it not prepared to vouch for the accuracy of the report on which it claims the Minister allegedly misled the House. The Opposition also said that the Minister misled the House in regard to cuts to bus services. The Minister did not mislead the House; he said it exactly as it is. He said that there would be no cuts, and there are no cuts. As the Minister explained, as a result of the changes there may be some reconfiguration of services but there will be no cuts. If the children of this State need those bus transport services, the Minister has guaranteed that they will receive them. If bus operators want help, the door is always open for the Minister to provide that help.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. The Deputy Premier will be heard in silence.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Just as the honourable member for Northcott showed his amazing incompetence with regard to accounting, the honourable member for Ermington was unable to find something to say on an incredibly dismal day for the Opposition. When we were in opposition we experienced sitting through tactics meetings, thinking "My God, there is nothing going on". In the early days we could not find anything to do. Members opposite are facing the same problem. All they can do at the moment is talk about leadership challenges. The honourable member for Ermington, with his great expertise of leading the marginal seats campaign, could not see what was happening across the border in the Gladesville electorate.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: the motion is not about electoral boundaries. The Minister should come back to discussing the reconfiguration of routes, to which he referred.

Page 2360

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Deputy Premier will return to the leave of the motion.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is obvious that the motion has no substance - there is not a skerrick of substance to it. This is a desperate Opposition. I suggest that members opposite go and look after their electorates, rather than fight among themselves trying to work out who will be the next Leader of the Opposition and wasting the House's time by moving such spurious motions. I will be supporting the amendment.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [5.06]: There is nothing to reply to. What has been put forward by the Opposition today is absolutely baseless and has no veracity. For the Opposition to have the hide to move such a supposedly serious motion against a Minister, without any evidence whatever, is wasting the time of the House. It is a waste of time and money when there are many other important issues to be discussed. There is simply nothing to reply to. All I can do is urge honourable members on both sides of the House to support the erudite amendment. With a degree of humility I shall read it:

. . . commends the Minister for Transport and Minister for Tourism for his success in bringing efficiencies and effectiveness to transport services in New South Wales after seven years of maladministration by the previous Government.

Only one significant thing has happened today as a result of the motion: the sliver of credibility that the honourable member for Ermington had before today has gone.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [5.08], in reply: A censure motion is a critical debate for a Minister. The most salient feature of this debate was revealed by the Minister's colleague, the Deputy Premier. I am sure that the Deputy Premier was speaking on behalf of the Government when he announced that the Government's new solution, the mark III solution, to the savage cuts in services for the public is reconfiguration of the timetable. The Minister for Transport said that there would not be cuts in services. There is no greater evidence of the Minister's lies and his lack of credibility than the fact that one of his colleagues got up in his defence and conceded that there would be changes - he called it reconfiguration. I ask the Minister how he could better describe cuts to services by a government defending itself than as a reconfiguration. The Deputy Premier's message to bus operators - I shall leave the Minister alone for a moment because the Deputy Premier is our focal point, given the Government's announcement - is that the new approach of the Government, when condemned for its cuts, is to announce that it will make the cuts. The Government's defence is that it is consistent.

The Deputy Premier said that there will be a reconfiguration. By definition, he re-emphasised the statement made by the Minister for Transport during the joint press conference with Roger Graham of the Bus and Coach Association. I want to emphasise that our case does not rest solely on the misleading statements made in this House by this Minister, or simply on the Australian Associated Press wire. It has also been confirmed broadly by the press gallery and by the Bus and Coach Association. The Daily Telegraph Mirror, a newspaper for which I have great regard, has tenaciously taken up this case, day in, day out, pursuing the Minister in relation to these bus cuts. In its latest exposé, bar one - yesterday's coverage - it indicated that the threatened bus routes were on the Minister's agenda and that there may be a reprieve. Last week in this House the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism said there will be no loss of services, whether by bus routes or school buses. This week in Parliament he said there may be some effect.

Let us just focus on those two phrases. Last week there will be no loss of services; this week there may be some effect. Blind Freddie knows that Langton's folly is being unfolded in a tragic story today. This question relates not just to the Minister's credibility. It relates also to the impact on hundreds of thousands of commuters, not just the kids, mums and dads who will have to pay, but the pensioners, workers, and mums and dads who will want to use bus services. Mr Roger Graham says 2,000 services will be cut. The Minister asks where the evidence is for this assertion about the Minister's commitment. There can be no greater evidence than that given yesterday, in front of the Minister, by the chief spokesperson for the Bus and Coach Association, who said, "The Minister stated unequivocally that they will be looked at." He confirmed the Minister's commitment. I do not think a bus operator could ask for any more.

The bus operators of this State need this new bus transport subsidy scheme that has been announced. The new scheme announced by the Minister during the last week will clearly cost a lot of money, but the Minister does not know how much. In the Daily Telegraph Mirror he is quoted as saying that it is impossible to estimate how much protecting services would cost. In yesterday's Daily Telegraph Mirror the Minister was quoted as saying that he did not know how much it would cost. I have been given an estimate by bus and coach industry sources that confirms it will cost millions of dollars, because thousands of services will be cut, and hundreds of buses taken off the roads, yet the Minister maintains that there will be no loss of services, whether by route buses or school buses.

The Opposition would like the Minister to tell the House how the subsidies will be paid. The Minister said the Act enables the Government to provide a financial contribution to operators in order to subsidise their services if they cannot operate on fares alone. The Minister has given the same advice to the bus and coach industry. There are only two ways of providing that financial support. Either the Government adopts the approach taken by
Page 2361
the Deputy Premier, that is, to reconfigure, rewrite, reduce and cut services - something the Minister has been desperately trying to avoid admitting - or it provides a fist full of dollars.

As Alan Jones pointed out to the Premier on his radio program yesterday, $100 million will not be saved. Alan Jones asked the Premier how he could save $100 million on the school transport subsidy scheme on the one hand, yet provide bus operators with a new subsidy scheme to bail them out financially, and at the same time maintain services. Of course Mr Jones got it right, as he often does. The reality is this Minister has got his sums wrong and the $100 million will be severely cut back by as much as $50 million when the services have to be supported. Every bus operator and coach company will be able to apply for financial support under the Act. Every one of them is entitled to have this Minister and his department provide financial compensation so that there will be no loss of services, whether by route buses or school buses. In other words, if you cannot raise it through the fare box, the Government will provide a cross-subsidy.

The Minister has misled the House in relation to cuts to services. Outside this House he said there would not be a loss of services, but in the House he said there will be. Outside the House he said that bus operators are eligible for increased Government subsidies, but in the House he said there would not be any backdown, and that he did not make that statement. Today, on Rail Net, on his resignation, on one issue after another, this Minister has demonstrated gross incompetence, a faulty memory, and an inability to maintain a consistent line. He cannot tell the truth. He will not tell the truth. He will not stand by the bus and coach industry. One day he offers support and the next he retracts it. He deserves to account for these tawdry lies. Langton's folly will haunt him next year when the services are cut. In 1997 when the cap of $450 is introduced, every student -

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order: on three occasions now during my service in this House the Minister has threatened me. I would seek your advice on matters of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to make a personal explanation, he should do so at the appropriate time.

Mr O'Farrell: Mr Speaker, I seek your advice on a matter of privilege.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should seek such advice at the appropriate time.

Mr PHOTIOS: This Minister has lied to the House on a number of occasions. Yesterday he continued when he said that the first railway station to be opened in 60 years was at Warabrook. But the Minister got it wrong: it was Metford station that was opened in March. The Minister did not know that a couple of months ago a new railway station had been opened at Metford. Time and time again the Minister fails to do his homework and he gets it wrong. He misleads the House with perennial relentlessness. His actions will haunt him just as soon as the damage resulting from these savage changes to the school transport subsidy scheme is felt early next year. [Time expired.]

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
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
Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Page 2362

Mr Aquilina Mr Beck
Mr Carr Mrs Chikarovski
Ms Hall Dr Kernohan

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the ayes and declare the question to be resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.