Consideration of Motions to be Accorded Priority

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.27 p.m.]: This afternoon the House has before it two motions from which to choose to accord priority. In making a choice of which of the motions will be debated this afternoon, members should have regard not only to the wording of the notices of the motions but also to the acts and deeds of the people and the parties that have proposed the motions and all of their attendant behaviour in the past few weeks.

The motion for which I am seeking priority refers to the tremendous work being done by the Iemma and Rudd governments on upgrading the Pacific Highway. I will deal with that in more detail later. The motion for which the member for Epping is seeking priority is worthy of examination. Even though on its face it refers to a discussion about decency and propriety, it is nothing more than a continuation of the cowardly and hypocritical muckraking that we have seen from the Opposition in the past few weeks.

Mr Greg Smith: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129.

Mr Michael Daley: Standing Order 129 does not apply.

Mr Greg Smith: Nevertheless, the member for Maroubra must confine his remarks to establishing priority.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroubra will confine his remarks to the substance of the motion of which notice has been given and for which he seeks priority.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I am arguing why the motion I have foreshadowed deserves priority over the motion foreshadowed by the member for Epping. This afternoon we witnessed behaviour in this Chamber that created a pall over the House and cast aspersions—

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The member's remarks are clearly outside the scope of establishing priority.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient. The member for Maroubra may continue his remarks.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The motion of the member for Epping should not be accorded priority this afternoon. During question time the Speaker asked the member for Hawkesbury to remove an offending item from the Chamber.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: This debate is an opportunity for members to decide which of the two motions should be accorded priority. I accept that the member for Maroubra reflected briefly on his motion and on the Opposition motion. But he is now outlining events that occurred during question time that have nothing to do with either motion. It is clearly an abuse of procedure.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroubra will argue why his motion deserves priority.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I simply wonder why the Leader of the Opposition sat in his place laughing this afternoon while the member for Hawkesbury was being turfed out of the Chamber. In fact, all Opposition frontbenchers were laughing. My motion deserves to be accorded priority because it is important that the House notes today that the upgrading of the Pacific Highway—

[Interruption]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease injecting.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It is one of the biggest infrastructure projects being conducted in Australia today by a Government that is spending more on infrastructure that any other government in this country. It is important that the House notes the amount that the Iemma Government is spending not only on infrastructure but on the Pacific Highway.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: The Pacific Highway is a disgrace because of your Government.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It is important that this House and you, you cowardly hypocrite—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroubra will direct his comments through the Chair. Members will cease interjecting.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: In line with the earlier remarks of the member for Strathfield, I ask that the member for Maroubra withdraw that comment and apologise.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: In order to continue the discourse of the House, I am happy to withdraw and to apologise—with regret, in light of the actions of the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. It is important that this House notes not only the amount of money that this Government is committing to the Pacific Highway in this budget but also the proportion of the budget that is being committed. It is also important for the House to note the abject and total failure of Opposition members to secure any Federal funding for the Pacific Highway during the 11 long years of the Howard Government. Their conduct stands in stark contrast to the money that this Government will spend on the Pacific Highway in this year's budget.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Epping I remind the House that debate should be conducted in accordance with the standing orders. Members seeking to express their views will do so by seeking the call and contributing to the debate, not through interjections. The member for Maroubra was interjected upon continually. Both sides of the Chamber will behave fairly and reasonably. The member for Epping will be heard without interruption.


Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [3.32 p.m.]: There is an undeniable public urgency to debating in this House the future conduct of the Iguanagate affair. At present police from Gosford Local Area Command are conducting investigations into whether various statutory declarations are false or correct. Mrs Mel Batten has suggested that pressure was placed on her and other signatories. Iguanas staff members allege that the restaurant was threatened with the loss of its licence. The police investigation appears to be very narrow. The issue of whether any threats were made or implied concerning licences and approvals is relevant when considering whether a person is fit to be a Minister of the Crown or even a member of this Parliament. Therefore, it is a matter of great public interest. There are real questions as to whether an ongoing police investigation is sufficient to deal with the issues that are raised by this matter. It has been reported widely that some witnesses are refusing, on legal advice, to cooperate with the police investigation. Police cannot compel answers from the persons they are interviewing—indeed, they cannot even force a person to make a statement.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The member for Epping should be debating why priority should be accorded to a motion that refers to limits applying to police investigations and the powers of the ICAC, but he is now detailing specific allegations made about a Federal member of Parliament and others. I suggest that he is debating the motion and is therefore out of order. We are not debating the substantive motion.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will resume his seat. The member for Epping will argue why his motion should be accorded priority, not debate the substance of his motion.

Mr GREG SMITH: This matter has great priority in this House and in this State. However, the ICAC can compel a person to appear before it and answer questions. It is a far more suitable investigator of this matter. The ICAC has the power to make a witness—including public officials like Mr Della Bosca—produce a statement, answering specific questions. It can summons a person to give evidence—which is why this motion deserves priority—and to produce documents at a compulsory examination.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: When I was arguing why my motion should be accorded priority—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Michael Daley: The member for Epping is flouting your earlier ruling. He has not altered his discourse in the face of that ruling.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will make that judgement. The member for Epping has the call.

Mr GREG SMITH: Even if a person is unwilling to answer questions, the ICAC can force him or her to answer. Refusal to answer questions before the ICAC is a criminal offence. The ICAC can issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness who refuses to appear before it. Among other things, the ICAC would consider whether the conduct of a public official—in this case, Mr Della Bosca—involves a breach of public trust. That is corrupt conduct, and it is a matter of great urgency for the House and for the State. In addition, the ICAC has the power to enter Mr Della Bosca's premises and his office to search for documents. That is a matter of great priority for this House.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order No. 73, which states, first, that members in this place ought not make personal reflections or imputations—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: It's a substantive motion.

Mr Michael Daley: It is not a substantive motion.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Epping is attempting to clarify why his motion should be accorded priority.

Mr GREG SMITH: My motion should be accorded priority because a public officer can be charged with official misconduct for perverting the course of justice if he interferes with or deflects an investigation. If that is not an issue of great priority for the House, I do not know what is. If he or somebody else with whom he has dealings forces a witness to change his or her statutory declaration, that is a matter of great importance. If he threatens that person in any way—

Ms Virginia Judge: Point of order: The member for Epping is now imputing improper motives to a member of Parliament. That is totally inappropriate and out of order. One would think that someone with a legal background would have a better knowledge of the procedures in this Chamber. The member has been here long enough to know them.

Mr GREG SMITH: I urge the House to give this motion priority.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members from both sides of the Chamber will be given a fair opportunity to speak without being interrupted by continual interjections.

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

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.