Sessional Orders

Mr WEST (Orange) [5.26]: I move:

That the sessional order setting out the days and hours of meeting during the Budget Sittings be amended by inserting after "Thursday 26 October 1995 9.00 a.m.-7.00 p.m." the following dates and times:

"Tuesday 31 October 1995 2.15 p.m.-10.30 p.m.
Wednesday 1 November 1995 9.00 a.m.-7.00 p.m.
Thursday 2 November 1995 9.00 a.m.-7.00 p.m."

Today is the last day on which the Leader of the House can give notice of Legislative Assembly estimates committees. His failure to amend Standing Order 284 is in breach of the standing orders of this House. Because of that failure it is appropriate that this House sit next week. As of today 17 Government bills are listed for debate on the notice paper. Debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill also has to be completed. Last night and this morning we had extensive debate on that bill. If the House does not sit on the days I have proposed, honourable members will not be able to discuss adequately that bill and other bills listed on the notice paper.

My motion calls for an additional three sitting days next week to assist the Government to avoid the traditional end-of-session rush and log jam of legislation. I have no doubt that the Government would wish to avoid that situation. My motion will provide the Government with such an opportunity. In addition to government matters on the notice paper there are 16 non-government bills and in excess of 25 private members' motions, some of which were given notice of today. Clearly, we will not get through that program in the time frame available to us. I know that the Minister for Police and Leader of the House will argue that we cannot sit next week because Ministers have to attend estimates committees. If the Minister opposes this motion I ask him, first, to make a categorical statement to this House that every Minister will be attending estimates committees next week.

The second aspect is that the Legislative Council moved a motion to hold estimates committee hearings. This House has not yet moved a motion to comply with the standing orders that state explicitly that estimates committee hearings shall be appointed. The Leader of the House said that at some later stage an estimates session will be held as a Committee of the Whole. That does not comply with Standing Order 284, which refers explicitly to the establishment of estimates committees. How convenient this decision is. When the Leader of the House sat in opposition he was all for accountability of Ministers. He pushed it down the throats of coalition members every day. He said it was important for the Opposition to question Ministers about the functions of their portfolios.

How things have changed now that the Labor Party is in office and he is a Minister! He often tells the House that this was not something that was the quirk of the last Parliament; it was a genuine attempt by all parties to turn around some of the basic traditions that had continued since the year dot when Executive Government rode roughshod over the Parliament. Parties of all political persuasions were guilty of that. However, the last Parliament overturned that tradition. I would have hoped, and I believe other honourable members would have hoped, that it had been changed forever. Sadly, it has not. After all the pious words in opposition, the Labor Party now fails to honour the people of this State. The Labor Party also fails to honour those honourable members on the crossbenches who worked faithfully with them during the last Parliament. The coalition Government was certainly put under much pressure by the Labor Party, which said to the crossbench members that accountability was a marvellous thing. Those crossbench members have now been duped.

I say to the Government that if during its term it fails to get the numbers by one, and the support of the Independents is needed, it may well rue the day that the decision was made to change these procedures so quickly. The estimates committee hearings ensure the Parliament has control, accountability and the ability to question the Executive Government. Honourable members must remember that the estimates committees established by the Legislative Council do not provide for the participation of honourable members of the Legislative Assembly. Honourable members of this House cannot attend those committee hearings to ask questions. This motion provides the opportunity for honourable members in this House to hold estimates committee hearings, which right will not be given away without a fight.

Mr Whelan: You hypocrite!

Mr WEST: You are the hypocrite! You stood here and said to the honourable member for Bligh, to the honourable member for Manly and to the honourable member for South Coast: This is a marvellous thing. We will back you. We have signed the charter of reform.

Mr Whelan: On estimates?

Mr WEST: On estimates and everything else.

Page 2363

Mr Whelan: We will have estimates.

Mr WEST: Will estimates hearings be held by the Legislative Assembly next week? If the Legislative Assembly does not hold estimates committee hearings next week, the House should sit, as the motion says, to carry out the important principle of accountability for the benefit of Opposition members and backbench members of the Government. The Opposition is well aware how upset Government backbench members are. Is the Labor Party holding an extra caucus meeting tomorrow? The standing rules prevent my quoting newspapers, but the Sydney morning papers certainly make interesting reading about the problems of the Government. Ministers are riding roughshod over backbench members, who should be given the opportunity to question Ministers about the Government's behaviour. The House could not consider a more important motion than this. Clearly, honourable members will not have the opportunity to participate in estimates committee hearings, as had been programmed.

The Leader of the House circulated a temporary schedule providing dates and times for estimates committees. That temporary schedule has been abandoned for honourable members of this House, who are now denied the opportunity to take part in estimates committees. Rather than turning back the clock and facing a log jam of legislation at the end of a session, I urge all honourable members, particularly those from the Hunter and electorates over the dividing range, who are concerned about changes to Pacific Power, to stand up and be counted. Those honourable members should say to Ministers, "Here is your opportunity for accountability not just within caucus but by publicly demonstrating to your constituents that you have courage and are prepared to earn their support." That procedure can be adopted if honourable members agree to attend this House next week on a three-day normal sitting basis to debate the budget and deal with the backlog of bills. After that the House can find out when estimates hearings will be held as required by the standing orders.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [5.36]: This is a dark hour for the Parliament of New South Wales. I support the motion of the honourable member for Orange. I shall also address the abandonment by this Government of the principles of the charter of reform and the Government's broken promises. The charter of reform, to which Labor Party members were signatories, says:

The New South Wales Government, having considered the submission from the Independent Members, accepts that over the 135 years since the advent of responsible Government in New South Wales in 1856, the balance of power between the Parliament and the Executive Government has shifted unduly in favour of the Executive Government.

This attempt to escape proper scrutiny is a shift of power back to the Executive Government. The charter of reform at page 5 in paragraph I clearly makes the following statement:

Estimates Committees for the Parliament in accordance with current Sessional Orders.

I also draw the attention of honourable members to a letter dated 1 July 1991 from the then Leader of the Opposition. In that document he clearly indicated his unqualified support for the charter of reform and spoke about the importance of open and accountable government. That document, which he signed, states under the heading "Parliamentary Committees New Committees":

BUDGET ESTIMATES COMMITTEE. Support Parliamentary Estimates Committee which should be in place in time for 1991 Budget.

The Labor Party waxed lyrical when it was in opposition, but now the attitude is changed. We are experiencing an abandonment of the democratic process in this House in a number of areas. The procedure for consideration of urgent motions is being abused daily by the Government as it uses the numbers to bring on debate about totally non-urgent matters. Day after day the contest on urgency is uneven as the Government uses its numbers. Today the Government used another initiative to essentially erode the benefits of private members' morning when a somewhat spurious notice of motion by the honourable member for Bulli was given preference over another 22 notices of motions to enable its debate to commence at 11.30. Consequently this pushed another matter off the agenda. It is a shame this Government takes this procedure. Members of this House are required to abide by a set of printed rules called the Standing Rules and Orders. Standing Order 284(1) provides:

During second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill on motion of a Minister, the House shall appoint Estimates Committees.

The Leader of the House is not complying with that standing order. Next week four full days of estimates committee hearings have been abandoned. The motion of the Legislative Council has been used as an excuse to abandon those committees. It is a grab for power by the Legislative Council. It is somewhat ironic in that the Legislative Council cannot amend appropriation legislation. Therefore, the only parliamentarians who can amend appropriation legislation - members of the Legislative Assembly - will be excluded from participating in that committee process. Because I will not have an opportunity to play a proper role in estimates committees, I am of a mind to vote against this budget. Members of the Opposition should give consideration to voting against it also because they are being disenfranchised. I hope one of the Government members is absent from the House when the motion is voted on; it will bring the Government down.

The decision to abandon estimates committees is a stupid one. The Democrats argued in the upper House that they saw the role of the committees as similar to that of the Senate committees. The Senate is different from the Legislative Council because the Legislative Council cannot vote on the Appropriation Bill, it can only move notations. Estimates committees may be a clumsy attempt to try to reach into the appropriation process, but they should not be abandoned on the excuse that the
Page 2364
Legislative Council has designed its own version of committee. The Auditor-General in his paper entitled "The Challenge of Change - Public Sector Auditing", which stated that estimates committees could be improved, said:

The reach of questions that can be asked by members of Estimates Committees seems exceedingly narrow. Under some interpretations, questions cannot relate to achievements met by the most recent year's expenditures. Moreover, only budget entities are subject to Estimates Committees which means that bodies such as the Audit Office which receives no direct budget appropriations (but which is entirely dependent on Government funds) escapes scrutiny.

The Leader of the Democrats in the upper House, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, made some relevant comments. She talked about the opportunity to get access to the off-budget sector, the statutory authorities. The idea of estimates being divided into portfolio areas is also a good one. The estimates process should not be abandoned, it should be improved. Let us have joint committees. Let us not disenfranchise the members of the lower House. The Legislative Assembly should be put first. The next three weeks provides us with adequate time to play a roll in consideration of the estimates. The Leader of the House has said to me, "Don't worry, on 15 and 22 November, on Wednesday nights, we will have a few hours of estimates consideration." That is not acceptable. It is not in the spirit of the charter of reform. It is not in the spirit of Labor Party promises when it was in opposition. It does nothing to provide accountability and scrutiny. The Leader of the House has also suggested that members will have an opportunity to participate in the Committee of the Whole; but we will not have the detailed access to Ministers and their support staff that we want. We should be enhancing the role of the committee process, not abandoning it. It is a dark hour for the House.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [5.43]: I wholeheartedly support the motion, and the comments of the honourable member for Manly that this is a dark hour for this House. I had hoped that after the experience of the Fiftieth Parliament, the opening up of the democratic process and the processes of accountability - that had the full support of the then Opposition - we would not experience such regression so quickly. We are into the twenty-fifth day of the tenth month of this year, yet this Parliament has sat for only 20 days. Last night I heard a most extraordinary comment: honourable members of the upper House have been told that they cannot sit because it is too expensive. It is too expensive to have a sitting day! If that is the pressure under which honourable members of the upper House are operating, the whole process is a farce.

As the honourable member for Orange has pointed out, although there are 23 private members' notices of motion, a number of private members' bills and a good deal of legislation on the business paper, this House will not sit next week because the Government has agreed to abandon joint estimates committees, allowed members of the law-making body of this Parliament, the Legislative Assembly, to meet with members of the Legislative Council to question Ministers about their allocations. They gave all members of Parliament across the political spectrum an opportunity to cross-examine Ministers and bureaucrats on budget allocations. I recall members of the former Opposition, some of whom are now members of this Government, saying to me when the joint estimates committees process was introduced, "What a fantastic mechanism this is. This is something really good that has come out of the Fiftieth Parliament. It is marvellous that we can cross-examine Ministers about their allocations."

That at least one Minister attended an estimates committee with 18 bureaucrats is evidence that the process put Ministers under real pressure; they were accountable for what they were doing with taxpayers' money. The establishment of estimates committees was a vital reform of the Fiftieth Parliament. As the honourable member for Manly said, the Leader of the Opposition at the time - the present Premier - agreed most enthusiastically to the proposal. I recall that at the time, with great fanfare, he invited the non-aligned Independents to his room. All the television cameras were there, we signed the agreement, and he made public statements about how important it was to maintain public accountability, how important it was to have participation, and how he would embrace these reforms when he became Premier. What a sorry state we have reached.

This year we have sat on only 20 days. Private members' notices of motions were today made a mockery of by the honourable member for Bulli, with the concurrence of the Speaker and the Government. The Minister for Small Business and Regional Development today made a mockery of question time. I would like new honourable members on both sides of the House to understand that before the Fiftieth Parliament and the charter of reform we did not have a viable question time in this Parliament. I am led to believe - although I was not a member of this place in those days - that Premier Barrie Unsworth was the past master of the 40-minute answer. He was able to take up all the time for questions by responding to only one question. I experienced his being a master at the two-hour debate. Question time is not only a time when Ministers receive dorothy dix questions, answers prepared by their departments for them to read; it is a time when Ministers can show how they are enjoying their portfolios, that they are right on top of their responsibilities and are happy to answer questions. That is why question time should be vigorous and why we should be sitting next week. I recall the Leader of the House when he was the leader of the previous Labor Opposition saying to me nearly every day, "You know, Clover, what we have to do is have more sitting days."

Mr Whelan: Did you ever agree?

Page 2365

Ms MOORE: I do agree. I do believe that we should sit. The people of New South Wales have elected us. I am the monitor for sitting hours, honourable members know that.

Mr Whelan: You want to sit, but you don't want to sit.

Ms MOORE: I do not mind being the self-appointed representative of the families of members of this Parliament to ensure that we do not sit all night, as John Dowd used to have us do - 30 hours straight on one particular occasion! It was legislation by exhaustion. It was so badly managed, it was a nightmare. We all felt exhausted. There was no logical or well-reasoned debate because members were asleep in their rooms because we were sitting until two, three, four and five o'clock in the morning. I will fight that while ever I have breath in me. The Minister is trying to turn the clock back to the dark old days. Following those reforms this Parliament was described as the most progressive in the Westminster system, with true accountability and participation, and backbenchers on both sides were able to move motions or bring legislation forward to be debated and voted on. Backbenchers were able to ask questions. The Leader of the House knows that question time was extended not so that the Opposition could ask only five questions, as happened during the question time farce today. What a nonsense.

We extended question time so that 10 questions, not five, could be asked by members; if members had not managed to ask 10 questions by the end of the 45-minute question time, the period was extended. That provision is such an important part of the charter of reform, which is all about participation and accountability and the democratic processes. If this House is not going to sit next week, and if we are not to have estimates committees, I cannot but help ask the Premier, and the Government, what they have to hide. Why will they not allow urgency? The Leader of the House knows that he was the one who put the proposal to the Independents - who took it to the Government of the day - that we must have urgency to allow Opposition members and the Independents to raise very urgent matters that they would not otherwise have an opportunity to bring before the House.

Motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow Business with Precedence Notice of Motion No. 1 to be concluded before the taking of Private Members' Statements and for the sitting to be extended for this business, with members not being permitted to call a division on any question or call attention to the want of a quorum after Private Members' Statements have commenced.

Ms MOORE: If question time is to be abused, as happened today, and if urgency is to be abused, as we have seen every sitting day, and if private members' notices of motion are to be abused, as we again saw today, we must ask what the Government has got to hide. Why does the Premier and Ministers not answer questions other than their own dorothy dixers? Why will they not allow urgency and have debate, for example, about the Sydney showground? I have received no answers to that question. Two proposals for urgency have not been agreed to, yet the Leader of the House was the very one who put the proposal to the Independents. We took the proposal to the government of the day to allow non-government members a window of opportunity to bring forward an urgent or important matter that they would not otherwise have had the opportunity to discuss. We have been abused by Ministers, who can make ministerial statements, who can give dorothy-dix answers to questions, and who at any time can suspend standing and sessional orders to put matters of importance before the House. The Government is denying this opportunity to half the members of this House. The Government has only a majority of one. One by-election could change that.

Mr Gibson: Not one by-election - two.

Ms MOORE: For the moment. Let us just consider -

Mr Whelan: Consider the motion.

Ms MOORE: I am considering the motion in the light of circumstances. We all know that in a political situation circumstances can change. I assure the Leader of the House that I will fight hard to maintain these reforms as I fought to get them in the first place. I want to put on the public record my strongest personal disappointment in the Leader of the House and the Premier, because they were both deeply involved in that process. We met with them week in and week out. They gave the strongest possible commitments in this House and in all those meeting rooms that they were totally committed to accountability, reforms and participation. The Minister has turned the clock back. It is a regression.

Mr Jeffery: You did believe them, did you?

Ms MOORE: Yes. I do happen to believe in people and in commitments publicly given.

Mr Whelan: So do I.

Ms MOORE: I would like to see you carrying out those commitments. In these pathetic 20 sitting days we have seen an appalling attack on the Auditor-General. What a marvellous contribution the Auditor-General made to the Fiftieth Parliament and is continuing to make to this Fifty-first Parliament. He is the public servant accountable to the people of New South Wales to ensure accountability and probity. I strongly support his Luna Park report, what he did with the Roads and Traffic Authority, and indeed what I hope he will do with the showground. It is extraordinary that the Government has not only tried to turn the clock back on question time, notices of urgent motions, and private members' day, but also that it has attacked the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Auditor-General.

Page 2366

Mr Jeffery: The Ombudsman will be next.

Ms MOORE: It will be the Ombudsman. We will see the winding down of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has made such a real difference to probity and accountability, particularly in the public service. It is so sad that on the twentieth sitting day of the Fifty-first Parliament we are debating the winding back of the clock on participation and accountability. I strongly support the motion. I call on the Government to reinstate the estimates committees so that members of the Legislative Assembly, the law-making Chamber, will be able to cross-examine and question Ministers and their bureaucrats. We will not have that opportunity, I understand, next week. I would be delighted to hear the Minister say that indeed we are having estimates committees in which we could all participate.

Mr Whelan: Not even this very successful Government could have Ministers in two places at once.

Ms MOORE: We have all had a taste of democracy. I do not think the Minister will be able to turn the clock back or get away with having us sit until 3 or 4 a.m. Members have tasted something different.

Mr Whelan: Has that happened in the last six months?

Ms MOORE: No, it has not, and we are watching to make sure it does not happen. You did try to do it - and we have sat for only 20 days. If we do not sit next week, given that we have sat so few days, what will happen at Christmas? Will we be sitting right up to that point?

Mr Whelan: Yes, we will.

Ms MOORE: I do not mind sitting extra days. We have been elected to this Parliament. One of our prime functions is to debate and vote on legislation. I do not believe that the people of New South Wales want us to be in this Chamber at 3 a.m. The people of New South Wales would like half the Parliament to be made up of women. Most women have family responsibilities. We hear all this cant from the Government about how it wants women to participate in the Parliament, but it does not get down to the practicalities of allowing women to go home to their baby sitters or to finish at hours that women feel comfortable with - and that is not at three o'clock in the morning! These are important issues. We will fight hard to ensure a continuation of a democratic participatory Parliament, not a return to the Parliament of the 1980s. I call upon the Leader of the House to reinstate the estimates committees. I call on him not to allow his Ministers to abuse question time or urgency. I also call on him to allow all members of the Parliament to participate, just as in opposition he appreciated the Independents allowing him to participate actively so that he could make a real contribution in the Fiftieth Parliament.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.59]: I have a degree of sympathy for the two Independent members who have spoken in this debate, but I have absolutely none for Opposition members on this matter. The Government finds itself in the following position. The legislative agenda, namely the estimates committees, has been the subject of a deliberate hijack by members of the minor parties in the Legislative Council. They have conspired, with the consent of the National Party and the Liberal Party, to have established estimates committees of the Legislative Council. I know that because I met with the seven crossbench members of the Legislative Council and I asked them if they had the numbers. The answer was yes, because they had the support of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Treasurer, who was also present, said they were guilty of hijacking.

The Liberal Party and the National Party made a deliberate decision to remove the right of the Legislative Assembly to have coordinated estimates committees, as had been foreshadowed. I ask honourable members to look at the schedule of proposed sitting dates that I distributed. That schedule shows estimates committees for the Legislative Assembly on Monday, 30 October; Tuesday, 31 October; Wednesday, 1 November; and Thursday, 2 November. It also shows Private Members' Statements on Thursday, 16 November, followed by the Committee of the Whole. The Government had every intention of following that schedule, until the conspiracy between the crossbench members of the upper House and those with whom the honourable member for Bligh intends to vote.

Ms Moore: What are you going to do about it?

Mr WHELAN: I will tell you in a minute. The honourable member for Gosford had some interesting things to say about the role of the Legislative Assembly. He said:

The Parliament is based upon the Westminster system, and the primary focus of the power of this House lies in the control of the budgetary process . . . The Legislative Assembly is the focus of this Parliament and the basis of its powers is money bills and finance.

The honourable member continued:

The Legislative Assembly controls the Government; the Government is accountable to the Legislative Assembly. The function of government is to handle the finances, to manage the assets and to provide the services of the State, including the public service.

Members of the Liberal Party know full well that in their joint conspiracy with crossbenchers from the upper House they have hijacked the budgetary process for the first time since 1856. They agreed with the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. Members with whom the honourable member for Bligh is going to vote agreed that they would have sole prerogative in relation to the budget estimates. Thank goodness for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. At least he realised there were constitutional requirements in
Page 2367
relation to the return of the budget. He also drew attention to the lack of probity, in that the Legislative Council had no rights in the financial processes of government. Thank heavens he realised there was a problem, otherwise it would have been forced down out throats.

The motion seeks that this House should sit on Tuesday, 31 October; Wednesday, 1 November; and Thursday, 2 November. The notice paper states that the upper House wants the Minister for Police; the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries; the Premier; the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development; the Minister for Sport and Recreation; the Minister for Public Works and Services; the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning; the Minister for Gaming and Racing; the Minister for the Environment; the Minister for Education and Training; the Minister for Corrective Services; and the Minister for Agriculture to appear at upper House estimates committees at the same time that the honourable member for Ermington has proposed that this House should sit.

I know that Ministers are good, but they cannot be in two places at once. My primary role is to be in this House. Is it suggested that the Premier should appear before a Legislative Council estimates committee instead of being present in this Chamber for question time? If that happened, press releases would be issued stating that the Premier is not interested. This motion is based on hypocrisy and on a hijacked agenda. Ministers will answer questions at Legislative Council estimates committees and arrangements have been made in relation to compliance - but not compliance by the Legislative Assembly with anything that the Legislative Council asks. Government Ministers have been placed in a position in which they could be accused of not being accountable to the Legislative Council if they do not attend.

Dr Macdonald: You are certainly not being accountable to the lower House.

Mr WHELAN: I will come to that position, because I believe it is redeemable. Ministers have to attend the estimates committees of the Legislative Council on 31 October, and on 1 and 2 November. The Ministers I have named will be there. Other Ministers will attend on other days. The Government has also agreed to have statutory bodies included in the budgetary process. Independent members opposite wanted that provision, and it has been included in the charter of reform. The honourable member for Bligh is going to vote with these hypocrites - the same people who offered her the poisoned chalice.

When negotiations were held I asked the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby if she had discussed the matter with Independent members of the lower House, and her answer was no. I said that Independent members would be distressed because this hijacking would deny all members of the Legislative Assembly their rightful position in the budgetary process and would destroy any opportunity for them to be involved in the joint estimates committees. The system of joint estimates committees was flawed, it was not perfect. However, it was a joint approach and it worked well. This proposal was the result of a power-hungry grab by minor parties in the upper House in collusion with the Liberal and National parties.

Ms Moore: You have colluded, too.

Mr WHELAN: I have not colluded. I cannot be in two places at once. It is not possible for me to appear as Minister for Police in the Legislative Council to answer questions and to be in this Chamber as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Opposition has set the timetable. The Leader of the Opposition in the upper House has moved a motion that lower House bills will not be dealt with automatically for five days and Legislative Council bills will not be dealt with for 10 days. Talk about hijacking government programs! The honourable member for Bligh said we need more sitting days. She will have more sitting days because we will be sitting until at least Thursday, 14 December.

Ms Moore: How many days will that be for the year?

Mr WHELAN: This is an election year. The Parliament did not resume until June because of the election.

Ms Moore: In March.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, and there are certain constitutional requirements that have to be complied with. Perhaps the honourable member for Bligh can be reminded of the statutory requirements of 40 days for the return of writs, members being sworn in and other provisions of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. She will then realise that it was not possible for Parliament to resume until June. This will be the first time sittings of the Parliament have continued so close to Christmas, and that is exactly what the Government will do. As for a conversation that I had with the honourable member for Manly, it is true that I told him - and I will honour this commitment - that the Government has contemplated sitting additional nights for the purpose of additional budgetary processes. I am keen to enable as many honourable members as possible to make speeches in the budget debate. However, debates such as those that have taken place today obviously call into doubt my expressed desire.

We will sit additional hours. This is not a matter that I can agree to without consultation. The program shows that we will sit on Wednesday, 15 November, Thursday, 16 November, Wednesday, 22 November, Thursday, 23 November and perhaps Friday, 24 November, for the purposes of completing the estimates process and debate in Committee of the Whole House. The Government's priority, which members opposite know only too well but are trying to frustrate, is to ensure that the
Page 2368
budget process finishes by the last week in November, and we will do that. Until then, there will be additional time in which honourable members will be involved in the budgetary process either by way of budget speeches or in the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr Macdonald: Not the estimates committees?

Mr WHELAN: You cannot have estimates committees. We will not waste money having estimates committees when we have an estimates committee of which honourable members opposite are members. Opposition members have forced this on the lower House. The only good news is that next year the Government's budgetary process will occur in May. I hope that Independent members opposite will tell crossbenchers in the upper House that what they have done is outrageous. We are also willing to make the estimates process, the joint House estimates process, meaningful. We want the process to provide greater accountability. Honourable members are aware of the farce of the previous process; it was an absolute joke.

Ms Moore: It could be improved.

Mr WHELAN: Of course it could be improved, and we will improve it by providing greater accountability. When we were in opposition we wanted to have statutory authorities. We have agreed that that will happen, and we are happy for it to happen. For argument's sake, the process could be improved by changing the period for questions and restricting the number of questions and the number of answers given; and allowing more questions on notice and more time for questions on notice. We could use some of the examples of the Senate estimates committees. The Senate is not perfect, but its estimates committees operate better than ours. The motion moved by the honourable member for Orange is framed in hypocrisy. He was probably part of the process. The House will sit on more days, until 14 December. I give an undertaking that there will be additional sitting days, and I shall notify honourable members of the dates. I can indicate that the Parliament will sit late on Wednesday, 15 November, and Wednesday, 22 November. That is advance notice. However, I would not put those dates in the diary just yet.

Ms Moore: It's anti-family.

Mr WHELAN: There is a terrible contradiction; you want to sit longer and on more days. Would you like to sit on 19, 20 and 21 December? You talk about family friendly hours. When do parents have to be at home? Parents must be at home more than ever during school holidays. Members opposite are saying that the Parliament should sit through the whole school holiday program. They can have family friendly hours, but if the House sits during the school holidays they will have no family left. It is a ridiculous suggestion. The Parliament will sit longer to get through the budgetary program.

The honourable member for Orange mentioned that the Government has 17 outstanding bills. I can assure him that the Government has every confidence that those bills will pass through the Parliament. The bills will be debated in the Chamber, and we will have a full and frank discussion on the Government's legislative program. There will be additional sitting times, and I will notify honourable members of them. I have indicated that Wednesdays and Thursdays will be late nights and, indeed, we may have to sit on some Fridays as well. We are determined that honourable members will have an opportunity to examine the budgetary process in a meaningful way. I hope that honourable members will see their way to reject the motion, which is framed in hypocrisy.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [6.15]: The Leader of the House has just treated honourable members to a diatribe in which he used the word hypocrisy on a number of occasions. If ever there was an exercise in hypocrisy, it came from the other side of the House in the contribution from the Leader of the House. The motion is simple. It will commit this House to sit on three days next week for the carriage of business, and it will allow the House to determine what it does during those sitting hours. The business to be dealt with could include debate on the functioning of estimates committees and carriage of the Parliament's business in terms of bills and general notices of motion or question time - or it could preclude those things. All this motion states is that the House should commit itself to sitting between certain times on three days, 31 October and 1 and 2 November.

The Minister for Police spoke about a deliberate conspiracy on the part of Opposition members and members of minority parties in the upper House. There may be an agreement between those members to implement a strategy, which emerged in the way that it did, to have estimates committees confined to the upper House. However, there is absolutely no reason that this House, a sovereign Parliament, must agree with any such decision that comes from the upper House. When a message comes from the upper House requesting that Ministers cooperate by appearing before upper House only committees, all we have to say is that we do not agree with the request; if the upper House wants to have estimates committees, and if it wants Ministers to attend those committees, we must have joint committees. We would then suggest a program and ask the Legislative Council to concur with our request for joint committees on this basis. We will then agree to have Ministers from the Legislative Assembly attend those joint committees.

The upper House can make whatever decisions it wants under its sovereignty. But there is no constitutional power that dictates the wishes of that House on the conventions of the Legislative Assembly. Undoubtedly, what motivated Opposition members and members of the minority parties in the upper House was that they suspected,
Page 2369
probably correctly, that if they did not have estimates committees there would be no estimates committees at all. The releasing of a piece of paper by the Leader of the House stating that we will have estimates committees on certain days was an exercise in brinkmanship, and will not result in there being joint estimates committees.

Since the budget was delivered in the first week of this section of sittings in September the Minister for Police has had the opportunity to put a motion before the House detailing the provisions for joint estimates committees. To this stage, nearing the end of October, no such motion has appeared. There is nothing to stop the introduction of such a motion, irrespective of any resolution of the Legislative Council. The clear indication that that gives to members of the Opposition and the minority parties and Independents in both Houses is that this Government did not intend to have estimates committees in accordance with the intention of the standing orders of this House. If the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills is terminated without resolving the question relating to the establishment of estimates committees, this Government will be in breach of the standing orders.

The Government, for whatever reason - and I would not even start to think what it might be - wishes to avoid scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill by members of the Legislative Assembly within a committee process. The Minister for Police contradicted himself in his contribution to this debate by saying that although the previous estimates committees were not perfect they worked well. Later in his debate he said they did not work very well at all, they were useless, the whole system was a farce and was not worth the time expended on the estimates committees and the Government was going to dream up some you-beaut system next year which would correct these problems. We do not have any more faith in his protestations about the intention for next year than we have any faith in his intention to allow us to debate the estimates in committees on this occasion.

I am sure the honourable member for Orange will concur that if we had a Hansard transcript of the meetings of the Standing Orders Committee when it discussed the creation of estimates committees it would show the full flow of pious utterances from the Minister for Police, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as he then was, and the current Minister for Education and Training. The Minister for Education and Training with extraordinary eloquence argued the importance of those opportunities being made available to the Opposition. He argued about time factors, the number of questions, the duration of answers and said repeatedly how important and fundamental to the democratic process these estimates committees were. The Minister for Police trivialised the whole matter in his contribution to the debate.

The Minister for Police spoke about the need for extra sitting days, extended sitting times in the evening to get a proper budget debate and a proper estimates committee, presumably in the Committee of the Whole House, and to get through the various bills and motions which are on the business paper. The honourable member neglected to tell the House that the only reason the Government is in this parlous situation of having to contemplate extra sitting days and extended hours is because it has frittered away week after week of potential sitting days earlier in the year. Only one other honourable member has been a member of this House for longer than I have. We have sat through exactly the same number of sessions.

Mr McBride: Name him!

Mr ROZZOLI: The Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development is one of a very select group of members who have been here for a considerable period. It includes also the honourable member for Orange, the honourable member for East Hills, that wise and erudite member of the Government and me. No matter what the circumstances regarding elections - whether they were held at the beginning or the end of the year - never has there been a budget session start so late, start so limply and be so inadequately addressed. That is an absolute indictment of the incompetence and mismanagement of the Leader of the House, who must bear the responsibility because of his position, and of the whole of the Government: the Premier and the members of Cabinet because they combine to draft the program for government. It is the Government that drives the sitting days of any Parliament because it sets the legislative program.

It is of no use the Minister for Police saying at this stage that there is a shortness of time, that we will have to sit extra days, or that we might have to sit between Christmas and New Year. The only reason for the Government being in that situation is its total incompetence in setting a proper parliamentary program. The Leader of the House gave as reasons the fact that the election had been held on 25 March and there were certain statutory times for returns of writs and all that sort of thing. The House could have commenced to sit at the end of April or early May and could have sat every day between then and now. There is absolutely no statutory bar on the sittings of the House. The sittings could have been organised whenever the Government wanted to organise them. The Government has chosen not to have this House sit on very many days this year. It has already demonstrated its desire to gag legislation and to block probing debate. The Government stands indicted and should not have the confidence of the people of New South Wales that it is competent to govern.

Mr WEST (Orange) [6.26], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Hawkesbury in particular for his contribution. Because of the
Page 2370
length of his service in this House he clearly does have a memory of events going back over a very long period of time and, in particular, is able to assess the changes that have occurred through various governments. He has made some telling points. The honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh have also indicated to this House very lucidly that they feel they were conned, having sat through the last Parliament, by what could only be described as the collusion of the then Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ashfield, who is now the Leader of the House, in setting up these processes for which they were enthusiastic, but which now are to be dumped. If the Leader of the House were sincere he would admit to the House that the Government has something else it must do before this motion is decided.

Last evening a message was reported to the House from the Legislative Council for the first time formally advising that the Legislative Council would hold its estimates committees and informing us of the membership of those estimates committees. The times of the hearings of the committees are now a matter of public knowledge. The honourable member for Ashfield should be saying that the Legislative Assembly intends to send a message back to the Legislative Council advising that this House does not accept the message, but insists on there being joint estimates committees. It is ludicrous for the Leader of the House to suggest that my colleagues on this side of the House and I have colluded with the Independents in the upper House. He is in collusion because he has failed to put before the House a motion that insists on maintaining the rights of the Legislative Assembly. That is the Minister's very simple, basic failure. The Leader of the House also said that he could not be in two places at once. If the Leader of the House and the Government do not insist on joint estimates committees the Minister for Police will be scheduled to attend an estimates committee on Tuesday next week between the hours of 9.30 a.m. and 12 noon, so he would be able to be in this House for question time on that day.

Mr Gibson: He would miss caucus.

Mr WEST: He would miss caucus anyway. At the moment the Government needs every member it can get in caucus. On each of the three days I propose that this House should sit only two Ministers would be absent and not available for question time. I accept that on Tuesday, 31 October, the Premier will be absent. The Premier should not be absent during question time. It would be easy to reschedule estimates committee sittings and substitute the estimates committee dealing with the Department for Mineral Resources and Fisheries with the estimate committee dealing with the Premier's Department. I am sure that the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries would not mind missing question time; he would be happy to be out of this Chamber.

If we followed that simple procedure it would solve the problem on that day, thus enabling this House to sit. We could debate the Appropriation Bill and get through some of the other bills listed on the notice paper. Ministers involved in estimates committees could, in fact, do both. It would be a simple administrative procedure, if only Government members applied their minds to it. The Leader of the House, in response to the honourable member for Bligh, said, "When have we had late night sittings under my leadership? It has never happened." Let us have a look at the record. There was one occasion. On 8 June we sat until 2.15 a.m.

Mr McManus: And who caused it?

Mr WEST: It does not matter who caused it. The Leader of the House, who made that statement, signalled that the sittings of this House would be extended on a number of days. Those honourable members who have made commitments to their families will not be able to honour those commitments. We heard earlier from the honourable member for Bligh how difficult it is for honourable members to make decisions and worthwhile contributions at a late hour of the night. The Minister for Police is not coping adequately with his responsibilities. He has failed. If he were fair dinkum he would say, "Let us send a message to the Legislative Council stating that we do not accept its proposal."

[Interruption]

That motion was not moved by the Opposition. If you send a message of that nature to the Legislative Council we will vote for it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Orange will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr WEST: I have a very real concern. The Leader of the House said he will give us time to debate matters in Committee, which will comply with Standing Order 283, but he has not explained how that will prevent us from breaching Standing Order 284. Standing Order 284 states that, after second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, this House must have estimates committees. If the Minister for Police does not suspend that standing order before the conclusion of the second reading debate he will be in breach of it. I do not want that to happen. Clearly, the Minister for Police is in a position to move a motion to enable this House to appoint joint estimates committees. He should come into this House and say, "We will go to the Legislative Council and insist on joint estimates committees." Even if he does not do that he should support my motion because, on the three days to which I have referred, only two Ministers will be absent during question time.

It is standard procedure for other Ministers to answer questions on behalf of those who are absent. Yesterday the Minister for Police was unable to be in the House during question time because the Lieutenant Governor was in his electorate. The Premier said that, during his absence, he would
Page 2371
answer questions directed to the Minister for Police. The way in which this House is being administered at the moment amounts to a farce. This House needs additional sitting days to debate the matters to which I have referred. My motion provides for those additional sitting days. The Leader of the House, who said that this Government should be more accountable, should put his money where his mouth is. I urge all honourable members to support my motion.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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 Downy Mr Rozzoli
Mr Ellis Mr Schipp
Mr Fahey Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Mr Kinross Mr Turner
Mr Longley Mr West
Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

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 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 Windsor
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr Aquilina
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Carr
Mr Debnam Mr Debus
Dr Kernohan Dr Refshauge

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.