Debate resumed from 30 October 2008.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.32 p.m.]: I have spoken to report No. 32 of the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 entitled "The need for a mini-budget", dated October 2008. At that time I quoted the then Secretary of the New South Wales Treasury, Mr John Pierce, when he gave evidence to the committee that the need to deliver a special mini-budget was motivated by three related issues: first, a lack of parliamentary approval for the Government electricity reform package; second, emerging risk to budget operation results due to pressure on revenues and expenses; and, third, Standard and Poor's downgrading of the State's credit rating from stable to negative following the blocking of the electricity reform package. As I have said, the second reason stated by Mr John Pierce related to pressures on revenues and expenses. I assumed the State Government would look to the Federal budget to have some of that pressure relieved by generous budget allocations to assist New South Wales, particularly in its infrastructure program. Sadly, that has not occurred.

The States and Territories tendered a wish list, which totalled more that $235 billion. The Federal budget announced last night contains $4.6 billion for urban rail. One might ask how much of that amount New South Wales will receive. The answer is that $3.2 billion has been allocated from the $4.6 billion to Victoria for the 40-kilometre rail link from Werribee to the Melbourne central business district. New South Wales has been treated like a country cousin or Oliver: the bowl is empty. This is a serious matter. I am sure Premier Rees was hoping that his pet project—an $8 billion metro rail link between inner-western Sydney and the central business district—would receive a large percentage of the Federal Government allocation. But, as we know—and it was referred to earlier in question time—only $91 million has been granted to New South Wales for this project.

A comment was made in today's edition of the Australian as to whether the Federal Government intended to give nothing, or whether, to make it a greater insult, the Federal Government decided to give the small amount of $91 million. The question is: What has New South Wales done to the Rudd-Swan Government to be so far offside with them? Or, to put the question another way: What is Victoria doing that is so attractive to the Rudd-Swan Government? My only conclusion is that there must be a very deep current underneath the decision of the Federal Government—particularly Prime Minister Rudd—to give such a generous allocation to Victoria. Obviously that will increase the popularity of the Prime Minister with the Victorian Labor Party, which he may have felt was important, but he is obviously not terribly worried about what the people of New South Wales think. The Prime Minister may consider that the New South Wales Labor Government is already offside, so he is keeping it at arms-length.

Hopefully there will be a better day ahead when the Federal Government will treat New South Wales fairly. It is not so much a favouring of a Labor Government in Victoria or a Labor Government in New South Wales but what is good for the people of this State. The Federal Government should always keep at the forefront of its mind how it can provide proper legislation for the people of this State and put aside politics or any personal animosities between Prime Minister Rudd and Premier Rees, if there are any—and I hope there are not. Such attitudes, if they exist, should not affect major infrastructure projects or the people of this State.

It was interesting to hold the inquiry concerning the need for a mini-budget and to have the opportunity to speak to Mr Pierce. As it turned out that was his last appearance as Secretary of the New South Wales Treasury: following that hearing Mr Pierce announced his resignation. Mr Pierce did a very good job in spite of all the pressures of being the Secretary of the New South Wales Treasury. He was able to meet the needs of the Government and carried out his role in a very professional manner.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.38 p.m.]: This was a very important but disappointing inquiry. I say "disappointing" because there was very little time in which to hold the inquiry. Regrettably, the Treasurer, for perfectly acceptable reasons, was unable to attend the committee hearing. The ratings agencies were also invited to give evidence but, unfortunately, both Moody's and Standard and Poor's declined to do so. That is important in the context of the stated reasons for the mini-budget. At that time the new and inexperienced Rees-Roozendaal team had taken over—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Now it is old and inexperienced!

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, now they are further inexperienced or something. Looking for any credibility at all, they appointed ex-Reserve Bank Governors Bernie Fraser and Ian Macfarlane to consult for the Government. Both gentlemen were invited to attend but, unfortunately, were unable to do so. Later we discovered that Mr Macfarlane had not taken on the role that had been portrayed. As I said, this was a very important inquiry. Although it was some time ago, honourable members will recall that it grew out of the fact that the Government, under Messrs Iemma and Costa, had attempted to sell State electricity assets but they were unable to do so because they could not get the support of their own party members. As we all know, that ultimately led to their respective demise.

By way of background, notwithstanding the Government was well and truly on notice about the need to put aside funds for additional generating capacity, when the State's infrastructure strategy was brought down in 2006 and updated in 2008 it failed to do so. When the Government was unable to get its own members to support the sale, Standard and Poor's required the Government to reprioritise its capital expenditure program. As the chair, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, indicated, Mr Pierce, the then Treasury Secretary, appeared before the committee, together with some of his officers. During that evidence we sought various documents from Treasury witnesses. Whilst those witnesses agreed at the hearing to provide the documents on notice, subsequently the Minister responded by referring to Crown Solicitor's advice that there is no obligation to produce documents to committees. It is a very important issue.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Was that Eric? He had a habit of doing that back at the Roads and Traffic Authority.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: He did. It is a very important issue. The House has the power to order the production of documents and, in my view, committees have the power to order the production of documents. On this occasion we did not have the opportunity to test the issue, as there was not an order to produce the papers but rather the undertaking of witnesses. I am very disappointed that senior public servants undertook under oath to a committee to produce documents, and then resiled from that undertaking. In other circumstances, one may want to take very serious action in relation to that sort of behaviour by witnesses who are under oath and supposedly officers of an independent public service, which is there for the benefit of the whole community. It does not behove those public servants that they would give an undertaking under oath and then resile from that undertaking. Those public servants may have to endure a bit more questioning about that situation. As the chair said, Mr Pierce spoke about the Government's reasons for the mini-budget. I will not go through his evidence in detail, but I will refer to one of his comments. He said:

A Moody's executive recently told me that triple-A governments normally have stable political environments, stable debt levels and stable economies. However, that is not what they see when they look at New South Wales at the moment.

What an indictment! The then Treasury Secretary said that the ratings agencies do no see a stable political environment, stable debt level or stable economies in New South Wales. That is what we have come to after 14 years of Labor in this State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: How long was that before he left?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I think it was not long before he was sacked or pushed out by the Treasurer. It is difficult to understand why the Treasurer wanted to push out such an experienced Treasury Secretary when everyone was well aware that we were approaching such difficult times. It has ended up that the very man who gave the committee an undertaking under oath to provide documents is now the Treasury Secretary.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is the Roads and Traffic Authority all over again.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It is the Roads and Traffic Authority all over again. The Treasurer did not appear as a witness on the day. He had perfectly acceptable reasons not to. However, on 12 March 2009, in answer to a question, he said:

The mini-budget was necessary to align the State's revenues and expenses and mitigate risk going forward. It is necessary to protect our triple-A rating.

We know that the triple-A rating has been on negative outlook since the Premier and the Treasurer were appointed. As to aligning revenues and expenses, again we know that expenses under this Labor Government have traditionally been out of control. The current Treasurer, notwithstanding his protestations, is showing the same propensity to allow expenses to run out of control. One only has to look at yesterday's news of the absolutely outrageous overseas trip undertaken by the other one of the dodgy brothers, the Minister for Finance, Mr Tripodi. It was a 27-day trip costing $290,000.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Over $11,000 a day or $40,000 per person.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It cost $40,000 per person.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Madison Avenue, New York—

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am pleased the Hon. Marie Ficarra mentioned Madison Avenue. I have been to Madison Avenue and Wall Street. Those investment bankers on Wall Street, if they were going to meet the Minister, would have googled him and seen his history. They would have said, "Is this the mafia coming to town?" It is unbelievable that $290,000 was wasted on destroying whatever financial record this State still has by sending a representative of the mafia to represent New South Wales.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce has referred to another member as part of the mafia. He must do so by substantive motion.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Ms Sylvia Hale): Order! Does the Hon. Greg Pearce wish to speak to the point of order?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I believe my time has almost expired on this debate. I will not take up my own time speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Ms Sylvia Hale): Order! As the member's time for speaking has expired, it is not necessary that I rule on the point of order.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [2.48 p.m.]: My colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce has exposed the underbelly of how this appalling Labor administration operates. No-one need go any further than the Hon. Joe Tripodi and his junket to New York and other parts of the world. It must have been a very tense situation when Joe was deciding who to take with him. In the end he decided to take everybody: "Does anybody want to come with me? Chief of staff, would you like to come? Would the adviser like to come?"

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did the Premier tick it off?

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I do not know. Joe probably asked the Premier, but the Premier had to stay because if he went Kevin Rudd might walk right in and take over New South Wales. It is a shambles. In relation to this mini-budget inquiry I think the word "disappointing" is a euphemism; it was really a slapdash inquiry. The Opposition pushed hard for this inquiry to ensure that we could understand the reasons for having a mini-budget in New South Wales, given that the Government was not providing any information. In the usual way this Government operates, the cloak of secrecy came down and we were not given any information as to why suddenly the State's finances were in such dire straits. We had a change of Premier and of course the change of Premier meant a new agenda: a new plan had to be developed by New South Wales to replace the other plan which was in the bin—and which they never took any notice of anyway. With a new Premier and a new plan the Government said, "Let's have a mini-budget".

Therefore, we thought we would examine the reasons for this mini-budget. Sadly, as the Hon. Greg Pearce pointed out, a number of the key witnesses we wanted to examine—the rating agencies, the ex-governors of the Reserve Bank, and others—were not available. I note that the Treasurer also was not available, but I acknowledge that that was for a very good reason. But it is in dire contrast to his usual behaviour, particularly in relation to the motion put today about the expenses and revenue climate of the current budget—we have not seen the Treasurer at all. It would be great to see the Treasurer come into this House and debate economic policy instead of sending in a long conga line of colleagues like lambs to the slaughterhouse, and make us on this side of the House endure his complete contempt for this place.

Nonetheless, we pursued Treasury officials in the one-day hearing of this inquiry, and it became very clear that there were three main reasons, as canvassed by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, why this mini-budget was necessary. I will comment on each of those reasons. The first one was the lack of parliamentary approval for the Government's electricity reform package. We all know the long story about that—the union involvement and its veto of electricity reform. I note the Hon. Michael Veitch is looking very, very pleased about his ensuring that the union movement put its stamp on that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Didn't the Treasurer say that his budget wasn't dependent on the sale?

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: He did say that, but we see now the great irony every time the Hon. John Robertson enters this place: The former Treasurer was pushing this reform, and the Hon. John Robertson's reward for opposing it as the head of Unions NSW was to get his seat. That could happen only in the Labor Party. The underbelly of the Labor Party is exposed once more.

The second reason for the mini-budget that the Treasury Secretary put forward was the emerging risk to the budget operation due to the pressure on revenues and expenses. We had a debate this morning about the pressure on revenues and the lack of alignment between revenues and expenses, which has existed under this Government for some years. We went back and traversed the well worn ground around the Stokes and Vertigan report on an audit of this State Government's finances, and right through this mini-budget we see the same sorts of references. But, again, the reality is somewhat different. We have seen that manifest itself in the form of the larger than life, the one and only, the Hon. Joe Tripodi jetsetting around the world on his $290,000 enormous indulgence. We would love to see the result of that. No doubt, if there is one bid for these assets in these difficult economic times, Joe Tripodi will claim credit for it, wherever it comes from.

We all understand that this Government will not be doing anything substantive in relation to its expense orgy. It is simply unable to control itself when it comes to expenses. The Government hopes that the Commonwealth Government will throw it a lifeline. In the budget released last night we saw that that lifeline is tenuous indeed. I think the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he has no confidence in this Government; he has no confidence that this Government can deliver key infrastructure from funding provided by the Federal Government.

That brings me to the third point as to why this mini-budget was deemed necessary: the Standard and Poor's downgrading of the State's credit rating from stable to negative following the blocking of the electricity reform package by the union movement. Standard and Poor's said that it is a question of sovereign risk. Sovereign risk is the sort of comment that people make in relation to an analysis of Third World countries and it refers to the risk of the government. Many oil and gas projects and other significant projects in Third World countries target the sovereign risk of investing in that country, and here we have that type of analysis being applied to this Government by Standard and Poor's and Moody's. They were concerned about the sovereign risk of this Government getting things done: The Government could not deliver on electricity, so could it deliver on anything else?

The state of this Government then was a complete mess, as it is now. We have the underbelly, if you like, of this Government being exposed. We have rampant factionalism coming out into the open that normally is undercover in a smoky backroom of this Government. We have another Premier, in the form of Nathan Rees, under threat from his own Government, all because of that sovereign risk. The unity of the Labor Party and its ability to get things done has been undermined completely. Will anything change? We cannot see anything positive on that front. The culture is still the same, and things like that very rarely change in the Labor Party. As my honourable colleague pointed out, it is the mafia culture in New South Wales Labor—the fact that its roots are deeply enmeshed in that tradition. One only needs to look at the way it does business to see that culture permeating and bubbling to the surface. One only has to look at the back bench to see how Labor appoints its parliamentarians. One only has to look at the secrecy and political executions that occur when anybody steps out of line.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Ruthless.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: The ruthlessness of this Government with its own members— "Don't you dare step out of line"—and how that knife is brought down in brutal political executions. That culture is there for all of them to see, and I know they do not like it—they do not like us shining a light on it. But the reality is that the people of New South Wales are the victims of this poor culture of the New South Wales Labor Government. It is the people of New South Wales who keep missing out. The Federal Labor Government says it cannot trust the New South Wales Government any more and it will only give Sydney $91 million out of the $8.45 billion available for infrastructure for rail, road and ports.

It is an absolute disgrace when one sees so much more money going elsewhere on projects that should be funded in New South Wales, bringing job investment and keeping people in work in New South Wales. The need for a mini-budget was exposed as being the continual problems faced by this Labor Government. Frankly, nothing has changed.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.57 p.m.]: I speak briefly on the report on the need for a mini-budget by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. It is a misnomer to call it a report on the need for a mini-budget because at no point did the Government establish why it needed a mini-budget. What was really going on was justifying a sense of financial crisis that was precipitated by one or two letters from the rating agency cartel that has, as I said earlier today, complete control over economic policy in New South Wales.

In a very long-winded treatise, in what I think was his second-last performance—I think I have to correct the chair of the committee on that point—the then Treasury Secretary John Pierce tried to justify the need to continue down the path that he and his colleagues had set for New South Wales for decades, which was to contract government as much as possible to slash both revenue and spending and to hand over government to the private sector wherever possible. The insight I personally gained from listening to Mr Pierce and Mr Ronsisvalle, the senior executives of Treasury, being interviewed was to reinstate in my mind the absolute image that there was no serious independent economic thinking happening within Treasury in New South Wales.

What we saw was a repetition of the same cant that has come out of conservative economics departments at universities around Australia for decades about the need for governments to contract their expenditure and the scope of their activities. The tool of choice being used by these neo-Liberal economic warriors is the advice provided by the ratings agency cartels. With the mere hint of a suggestion that we might be put on some kind of credit watch or be subject to a long-term threat of downgrading, all hell breaks loose in Treasury and we must completely rewrite the budgetary parameters. There is no question that the global financial crisis and, in particular, its impact on the volume of property being traded in New South Wales, and hence on the receipts that the Government collects from transfer taxes, is having an impact on the budget bottom line. If the Treasury officials had been more candid with us, I might have come away more convinced. However, I would not have believed, and no reasonable thinking person would have, that there was any justification for the sale of the electricity industry.

What was interesting about the inquiry was the way in which the so-called gentrader model was brushed over. It was not until the next hearing, about two weeks later—the budget estimates hearing of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 on Tuesday 18 November—that we found out the truth about what the gentrader model meant. I asked Treasury Deputy Secretary Kevin Cossgriff what impact the gentrader model would have on industrial relations in power stations, and he replied:

... industrial relations is one of the potential issues that the risk of industrial relations issue would have to be addressed contractually, yes—in the same way that the risks from an unforced outage from one of the units would have to be addressed.

I will translate that. Mr Cossgriff said that under the gentrader model industrial relations issues in power stations would have to be handed over to the gentrader. That effectively means that power station workers would no longer be covered by the arrangements that prevail in a public sector organisation; that is, they would be subject to private sector arrangements that would be determined by the private owners. Treasury Secretary John Pierce said a few moments later:

You need to involve the private sector in, as you say, very detailed decisions about how the plant is being operated because the public sector in this relationship is essentially the agent of the private sector.

What Mr Pierce and Mr Cossgriff gave away is that the gentrader model is effectively handing over the generators to the private sector. Michael Costa wanted to lease out the generators for 50 years and Joe Tripodi wants to lease out the trading rights to the generators for 25 years. If Mr Tripodi gets away with leasing out the trading rights, he will effectively be leasing out the entire generator, because the industrial relations arrangements for that 25-year period will be determined by the owner of those rights and, just as importantly, the operational decisions about the generator will be determined by the private owner.

Once the gentrader is in place, its ability to write forward contracts will be determined by its capacity to control the plant. If the gentrader has written a forward contract on a plant over which it does not have control, it will be exposed to the risk that the plant will not deliver when the forward contract becomes due. If it comes due when prices are high and it does not deliver, it will be required to pay a massive amount of money. That level of risk would be unacceptable to the private owner.

While travelling around the world on his $290,000 trip paid for by the people of New South Wales, Joe Tripodi has effectively been selling leases on the power stations. Let us strip away language about gentraders and the obfuscation coming from Treasury officials and Joe Tripodi, Eric Roozendaal and Nathan Rees, and get to the guts of this. What this Government wants to do is exactly what Michael Costa and Morris Iemma wanted to do a year ago. If it was no good then, it is even worse now because the economic circumstances in which the sale will take place are even worse than they were then. If there was an argument to oppose electricity privatisation à la Michael Costa, there is an even stronger argument to oppose it à la Joe Tripodi. If members did not trust Michael Costa, why the heck would they trust Joe Tripodi? If they thought Michael Costa was hell-bent on an ideological ego trip, why would they not believe that Joe Tripodi is similarly driven? If they thought the people of New South Wales would be the victims of that ego trip in 2008, they should not forget that those same people of New South Wales, the power station workforce and the environment would be the victims of Joe Tripodi's so-called gentrader model.

As previous speakers have pointed out, the General Purpose Standing Committee inquiry was highly unsatisfactory in large measure because there was no spirit of cooperation. I refer to the same document to which Mr Pearce referred. We had an undertaking that we would be provided with a copy of that document, but we have never received it. That document was important in terms of the evolution of the economic debate in New South Wales. There is no question that there has been a widespread loss of confidence in the capacity of the current economic management team in New South Wales. Joe Tripodi, Eric Roozendaal and Nathan Rees are not highly regarded by the people of New South Wales. Part of the reason for that is that they are refusing to take us into their confidence. There is a climate of secrecy in Treasury. We hope that when Nathan Rees talks about open government he extends that to Treasury. We want the documents we asked for through this process to be put into the public domain so that the people of New South Wales can have a better understanding of the evolution of the economic debate. Without that, the climate of distrust will get only worse.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.07 p.m.]: When this incompetent Rees Government introduced its mini-budget it made numerous promises. Unfortunately, based on Labor's track record, the public knows they will never come to fruition on time or on budget, if they ever see the light of day. This morning in debate the Hon. Linda Voltz protested vigorously in response to the Opposition's concerns about the inexperience of Premier Rees and the incompetence of this Government. Obviously she failed to read the article "Bernie Riordan launches broadside on Labor leaders of last 35 years", published in yesterday's edition of the Australian. The article states:

The senior Labor figure accused of destabilising NSW Premier Nathan Rees has dismissed his party's federal leaders over the past 35 years as fools and called for a return to the economic policies of the Menzies era.

They are fine words indeed from New South Wales Labor Party President Bernie Riordan, published in the latest edition of the New South Wales Electrical Trades Union newsletter. It is not only the Coalition that has concerns about this Government's inability to lead. It will be interesting to see whether Mr Riordan is successful in his ambition to remove Premier Rees and replace him with the Hon. Frank Sartor, who is currently thinking about refurnishing the Premier's office.

The State mini-budget promised $330 million for new outer suburban rail carriages, $170 million for an extra 300 new buses, $56.8 billion for an infrastructure program over the next four years and a capital works program to support economic growth and to provide jobs, jobs, jobs. It is most appropriate to debate whether this Government has achieved anything since the mini-budget. Employment dictates this State's future. Has the Rees mini-budget stopped the loss of jobs, I ask? Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that since Nathan Rees became Premier, more than 37,000 people have lost their jobs; yes, 37,000 members of the New South Wales community have lost their jobs, which amounts to 200 per day. Those figures were published in the first quarter of the year so, sadly, more people are losing their jobs today and at a faster rate. A study by the Centre for Employment and Equity released in March revealed that 76 Sydney suburbs—the vast majority in western Sydney—are on red alert because they are at high risk of job losses during the current economic downturn. This downturn can be blamed in part on this Government, which has failed to introduce any substantive measures to help the people of western Sydney during the economic process.

The Coalition has articulated policy that will help New South Wales get back on track. We have proposed as a first step that Premier Rees and this Government should adopt a policy of a 15 per cent payroll tax cut for 2009 to help protect jobs in the high-risk suburbs, such as suburbs in western Sydney. New South Wales is the second-highest taxing State in Australia, and this Government is forcing small businesses into bankruptcy, thus causing the loss of many more thousands of jobs. This Government has increased 16 taxes, charges and levies in the mini-budget alone. Since Premier Rees' election, the Government has increased a further 239 taxes. It is phenomenal. These impositions on the people of New South Wales just add further pressure on small business and those trying to make a living.

So, Labor has finally committed to do something about the poor state of our hospitals, we hear. But, at the same time the mini-budget required area health services to cut $64 million from their budgets by June. These cuts have closed operating theatres across the State for extended periods. What has happened in our hospitals since the mini-budget? The Royal North Shore Hospital has undergone rebuilding, with substandard operating theatres and a wrongly placed helipad. The problems in the children's ward at the same hospital have gone unfixed. The $132 million in overdue bills to businesses across New South Wales remain. Cancer patients have had vital radiotherapy delayed or are simply not getting the treatment they need because this Labor Government has used the issue of radiotherapy facilities as a political football.

The New South Wales Ambulance Rescue Service has been axed. Hospital waiting lists have increased and, because of last night's Federal budget and the abolition of the private health rebate, the waiting list for public hospitals in New South Wales will be uncontrollable. I would hate to be on the waiting list after last night's announcement, because a lot of people will be flying away from private health insurance and back into the public health system. At Westmead Hospital 100 beds are being closed and elective surgery has been cancelled. Elective surgery has been abandoned at Bulli hospital, 111 jobs have been axed from the South Eastern Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service, the redevelopment of Auburn hospital has been delayed, and the list goes on. I would need far more time than the 3½ minutes remaining to me in this debate. This Government has no credibility when it comes to delivering on infrastructure and services.

The Government has delivered only one new rail line in 14 years—Chatswood to Epping—half the distance, double the cost. Commuters were told that the north-west and south-west rail links were fully funded. At a time when other Governments were investing, this Government axed those rail lines. For upgrades to the Pacific Highway we had to wait until the Federal Government allocated the money, because this Government is incapable. In the 14 years it has been in office, infrastructure projects have been minuscule. Last May we learnt that due to the fractured relationship between Premier Rees and Prime Minister Rudd, and the incompetent submission made by this Government to Infrastructure Australia, out of the $8.45 billion for road, rail and port projects, Sydney received only $91 million, and that for a feasibility study into the western metro—just 1 per cent of the total pool of national funding. That is because the Federal Government does not trust this Government to be able to deliver something that would be significant.

The Federal Government is going to make this Government prove to it that the people of New South Wales will get value out of that huge expenditure. This Government's Infrastructure Australia submission is widely recognised as being substandard and lacking in detail, and this has resulted in us getting such a poor deal from the Federal Government. There is not one piece of bitumen or one piece of railway track for Sydney out of the Federal budget. Thankfully there was some bitumen for regional New South Wales and the Pacific Highway, and that is much needed. Obviously the Prime Minister has no confidence in this Government to deliver infrastructure, and the incompetence of the Government over 14 years has cost Sydney and regional New South Wales its fair share of infrastructure funding. During 14 years, more and more infrastructure projects have been delayed, have not been effective or have not been planned well. The Government has had to go back to the drawing board, have more studies and put more money in—just wastage and absolute mismanagement. New South Wales is in a poor state of affairs due to the incompetence of the Premier, previous Premiers and the Treasurer. Prior to and since, the mini-budget has just contributed more to our poor economic outlook.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.16 p.m.], in reply: I thank all those who have participated in debate on this report. There has been some implied criticism that the committee did not sit for many days and did not have many inquiries. The committee only had a self-reference to hold the inquiry on 24 September and had to complete the inquiry and produce a report before the mini-budget was handed down in October. Those restrictions were as a result of the Opposition pressing for the inquiry. It may be said that the answers to the inquiry were obvious because of the rejection of the Government's electricity reform package by the Opposition that caused the drama and led to the need for a mini-budget. I still believe that the biggest mistake the Opposition has ever made was to oppose the electricity reform package. There was also some implied criticism of the Treasurer not attending. We did not realise when we selected the date for the inquiry, 9 October, that it was the important Jewish holiday Yom Kippur. I think that knocked out the deputy secretary, Mr Schur, as well as the Treasurer because of their Jewish heritage. I thank all members of the committee for their participation and I ask the House to adopt the report.

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.