Consideration of Motions to be Accorded Priority

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.24 p.m.]: I thank the member for Murray-Darling for welcoming my motion. Last weekend the National Party held its annual conference. At that conference The Nationals passed a motion to support the development of a nuclear power industry and a commercial international nuclear waste facility in Australia. Today, by way of motion, I will give the Opposition the opportunity to place on record its views on the issue. This is one of those issues that keeps popping up from the conservatives. We had John Howard and his 25 nuclear power stations around Australia, which the Opposition ummed and ahhed about, that they were not too sure about. Then last weekend we had The Nationals come up with the motion at its conference, held in that regional city—

Mr Gerard Martin: —of Kirribilli.

Mr STEVE WHAN: —of Kirribilli, where many members of The Nationals hang out—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The purpose of giving members the opportunity to argue why their motions should be accorded priority is to establish why one motion should have priority over another. It is not to allow members to engage in debating the motion—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. I allow a certain amount of flexibility to both sides of the House in relation to motions to be accorded priority. The member for Monaro may continue.

Mr STEVE WHAN: My motion should be given priority because this is something that has happened just recently and it is an issue of great concern to the people of New South Wales. They want to know through this motion why it is that yet again The Nationals are exposing their bunch of climate change sceptics through the motions that were passed at the conference—euphemistically described by the member for Barwon in his newsletter as "supporting more research into climate change and its effects". In fact, if one reads the motions—I hope I will have the opportunity to do that—they show the scepticism that The Nationals still have about the existence of climate change. This is an important issue that the people of New South Wales want to hear about—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: Once again the member for Monaro is debating the content of his motion rather than establishing why his motion should have priority over the Opposition's motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is about to give reasons why his motion should be given priority. He will be granted similar flexibility. The Leader of The Nationals will not raise any further points of order in this regard.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I will be interested to see if the Leader of the Opposition observes the same standard that the Leader of The Nationals suggests that we on this side of the House should observe. That is one of the reasons why this motion should have priority today. The subject matter of this motion is current; it is topical for the people of New South Wales. They will be interested to know about some of the things The Nationals discussed at its conference. I would certainly like The Nationals to have the chance to tell the House about its motion calling for—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Coast will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: —the reintroduction of the gerrymander. That might be a nice one! While we are talking about why this motion should have priority, let us compare it to the Opposition's motion. The motion from the other side will be another down-in-the-gutter exercise from the Leader of the Coalition who observes no standards on his side. The Leader of the Opposition will no doubt try to seriously lecture members about standards. However, if the Leader of the Opposition cared about standards the member for Coffs Harbour would not be on the front bench.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Last week the court found the member for Coffs Harbour guilty of telling lies about another person. A court of law found him to have fibbed, and he got a $70,000 fine.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: If the member for Monaro wants to launch an attack on the member for Coffs Harbour, it should be done by way of substantive motion. The member should be directed to confine his remarks to establishing priority.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will continue.

Mr STEVE WHAN: When comparing the two motions it is important to look at the standards that apply on each side of the House. Clearly, we see an inconsistency in the standards applied by the Leader of the Opposition. A person has been found by a court to have defamed somebody—

Mr Wayne Merton: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129, which refers to relevance. Clearly, the member for Monaro is referring to a matter concerning the member for Coffs Harbour that is currently before the court—

The SPEAKER: Order! The speaking time of the member for Monaro has expired. The Leader of the Opposition will now give reasons why his motion should be accorded priority.


Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [3.30 p.m.]: My motion should be accorded priority because New South Wales has a crooked government. My motion should be accorded priority because that is the only reasonable conclusion anyone could draw from the Premier's answers in question time today. The Premier would have us believe that his office was not involved in dealing with the sworn statements. He kept referring to "DPC" this and "DPC" that. "DPC" stands for the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The Premier claims that documents given to the Department of Premier and Cabinet about the third most senior Minister in his Government did not go to his office. He would have us believe that staff in his private office did not inquire of John Della Bosca how many people were at the dinner.

My motion should be accorded priority because we need to know what the Premier's staff thought when only four sworn statements were released despite the fact that they knew nine people were at the dinner. Every day this affair goes on the cover-up grows. My motion should be accorded priority because it is time for the Premier to do the right thing; it is time to do what the Government refuses to do. My motion should be accorded priority because it is time for the Independent Commission Against Corruption to investigate this matter. A reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption from an individual or a member of Parliament does not necessitate an inquiry. However, a reference to the commission from Parliament requires an inquiry and a report back to Parliament. We need a guarantee that there will be an inquiry and a report.

The failed member for Bathurst said that police are investigating the matter. They are investigating a narrow issue—two sets of sworn statements. The Premier likes to hide behind a police investigation. He alleged today that that investigation would get to the bottom of those issues. If the police investigation will examine the issues raised in question time, why will the Premier not apply the same standards to his staff that he applied to John Della Bosca? He stood aside John Della Bosca pending a police investigation. Why will he not stand aside—

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition is now traversing matters that are the subject of Independent Commission Against Corruption and police investigations. He should ask that bloke there—the member for Terrigal—what his staff involvement was in fabricating—

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal and the member for Bathurst are on three calls to order. I will hear further from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My motion should be accorded priority because we need a serious investigation of this affair and the Premier refuses to ensure that it is undertaken. My motion should be accorded priority because the Opposition is prepared to have a judicial inquiry or an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry. Members opposite are not, because they are covering up. Yesterday was the thirty-sixth anniversary of the Watergate break-in. Every day this affair goes on the cover-up goes on. It is like Watergate and it will bring down the Premier. This Premier sits in his office dithering, dopey and deceptive. He sits in his office refusing to do the right thing; that is, to establish an inquiry to get to the truth of this matter. He unbelievably seeks to put John Della Bosca and his private staff ahead of the public interest.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for East Hills will cease interjecting.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 73. Mr Speaker, during an answer given by the Minister for Police in question time today several members opposite were squealing like stuck pigs that you were failing to uphold Standing Order 73. The Leader of the Opposition is now clearly transgressing Standing Order 73. He cannot have it both ways. I ask you to bring him back to the matter.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to keep his remarks within the leave of his motion.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The member for Ballina has reminded me that John Della Bosca's dog is called Checkers, which was the name of Richard Nixon's dog. The member for East Hills says that this is simply a dispute about a table.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The House will come to order. The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition was unparliamentary and inappropriate. He will not continue to stand at the microphone defying the Chair.

Question—That the motion of the member for Monaro be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.


Question resolved in the affirmative.