CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
New South Wales Agriculture Centres of Excellence
Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.18 p.m.]: I ask the House to give priority to my motion, which relates to the success of the Government’s centres of excellence concept and the rationalisation of its laboratory services relating to veterinary services. While many of these issues commenced some two to three years ago, the grants to support these institutions are only just coming on line. Today is a good opportunity for the House to debate this matter. I wish to highlight the success of the restructuring of New South Wales Agriculture. In fact, many organisations are now voting with their pockets and are supporting New South Wales Agriculture’s restructuring. They have increased funding to a number of services, which I shall outline should my motion receive precedence.
During 1995 and 1996 the Opposition made a number of claims about the restructuring of New South Wales Agriculture. This motion would provide a good opportunity, as we lead into the election in March next year, to again hear what the Opposition said in 1995 about the restructure in agriculture, to assess whether its predictions stood up to the test of time and to analyse the results of the restructuring. I ask the House to vote in favour of my motion receiving priority so that we can discuss further the expansion of agricultural services, its impact on rural areas and its support not only from regional areas but also from various non-government funding bodies that have voted with their pockets. I ask the House to support my motion.
Electricity Privatisation
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [3.20 p.m.]: The motion of which I have given notice is more urgent for the following reason. Yesterday in another place the Treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon. Michael Egan, in answer to a question from the Opposition, said in relation to electricity privatisation, "My view on the question of the privatisation of our electricity utilities has not changed at all, nor has the Premier’s." The man in charge of the finances of this State is at complete variance with the current leader of this State, the Premier of New South Wales. There is a total divergence; a total split.
Mr McManus: On a point of order. I am reluctant to take a point of order on the Leader of the Opposition, but I would draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the standing orders, particularly Standing Order No. 120(4), which clearly indicates -
Mr COLLINS: We are back to that, are we? We are going to interrupt on your Ministers in future! Are we playing that game again? The honourable member for Bulli is deliberately wasting time.
Mr McManus: Standing Order 120 is very specific -
Mr COLLINS: We will put up objection after objection to every Minister. We will do the same thing.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr McManus: The Leader of the Opposition opened this debate by attacking, first, another member, which is against Standing Order No. 120. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to draw him back to the leave of the motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have extended a degree of latitude to members speaking in this priority debate. I will continue to do so.
Mr COLLINS: The single biggest initiative that can be taken to improve this State and its finances is an issue on which the Premier of this State has today done a monumental backflip. This is short-sighted opportunism at its worst. This is a cowardly retreat by a Premier. This is a Premier who has failed to deliver to the people of New South Wales for generations to come on a policy
Page 8312
that he said, in his words, was "one of the most important steps that could ever be taken by a State government". It was the Premier of this State who said that it is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. It is the Premier of this State who said that the longer privatisation is delayed, the more jobs are at risk.
It was the Premier of this State who said, "New South Wales, under my plan, will stride into the next century free of public debt, and that means a more secure future for every man, woman and child of this State." If it were so important then, it is important now. What the Premier said then was the truth, and it is the truth now. The truth does not change. It was the Premier of this State who said that the arguments are simply overwhelming, and they represent an opportunity to give New South Wales a more secure future. It was Michael Egan, the Treasurer of this State, who said that there are huge financial benefits of selling now, there are huge risks down the track if we do not, and the reality has dawned that privatisation of this industry is inevitable. It was the Treasurer of this State who said that the onus would be on privatisation opponents "to show where the money otherwise is coming from to build better schools, better hospitals and other infrastructure". That is what we gather here to discuss. That is what we are here to improve.
What the Premier said today makes him and his Government the laughing-stock of the business community and the finance world. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of economics knows the bunkum that the Premier is perpetrating. He cannot be allowed to do a backflip on this issue and get away with it. The people of this State see right through him. Mark our words: whoever wins the next State election, privatisation of the electricity industry is inevitable, and Bob Carr knows it. The most cursory glances at the financial choices confronting New South Wales leave no doubt about the windfall available now to this State, which will recede dramatically as the years pass. Everything the Premier and the Treasurer said over the past two years stands. In other words, it is by that they will be judged. Yet today, we have a Premier in conflict with his Treasurer. Which one is telling the truth? [Time expired.]
Question - That the motion of the honourable member for Mount Druitt be proceeded with - put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mr Gibson Mr Rumble
Mrs Grusovin 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 Woods
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson
Noes, 44
Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr Oakeshott
Mr Blackmore Mr O’Doherty
Mr Brogden Mr O’Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Small
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Mr Jeffery Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kerr Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Fraser
Mr Merton Mr Smith
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Page 8313