Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [12.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Nader Mannoun was a Liberal Party candidate for the electorate of Liverpool in 2007;

(2) notes that Mr Mannoun failed to appropriately declare his use of rent-free premises as campaign rooms;

(3) notes that these rent-free campaign rooms were provided by a local hotel; and

(4) condemns the failure of Mr Mannoun to be honest with the people of Liverpool.

There is an immense temptation when a motion such as this comes before this House for all the behaviour for which this Chamber is notorious to be on display. That would be regrettable in this debate, because this is an important issue, and it is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it goes to the trust between a candidate and the electorate of Liverpool. Mr Mannoun has let Liverpool down by not telling the truth. The issue goes to serious probity concerns. Mr Mannoun received an undeclared benefit from a local business but lost at the State election; nonetheless he was elected to Liverpool City Council at the 2008 election. And, because councillors determine development applications, there are more events that have potential probity issues for councillors than there are for State members of Parliament. Probity concerns relate not to what Mr Mannoun might do as an unsuccessful State candidate but to what he might do as a councillor. The issue also goes to a pattern of behaviour—not being frank seems characteristic of Mr Mannoun's behaviour in a broader sense.

In the 2007 State election Mr Mannoun had a campaign office located at 257 Macquarie Street, Liverpool. This is one of the best-known streets in the Liverpool central business district, and historically it has been Liverpool's main street. The office operated as Mr Mannoun's campaign office during February and March 2007. It was a prominent location, with a light box out the front proclaiming his name and party affiliation. The office was opened with some fanfare, with his media spin proudly proclaiming that this was the first time in decades his political party—or at least the party he was a member of at that time—had had a campaign office in Liverpool. That bit, at least, was honest.

The location of Mr Mannoun's campaign office is made even more significant because the very small number of issues he raised during that election campaign seem to be related to Liverpool's central business district. I might add that many issues seemed to be related to council rather than State Government. His office was not just a campaign office; it was, because of its location, a significant part of his campaign. That is, it was the centre of that small part of the electorate that he campaigned about. When his electoral funding form was finally lodged it contained no reference to the payment of rent for these premises. No reference was made to his having received rent-free premises. It strikes me as extraordinary that such a central element of his campaign was ignored. It was simply not dealt with in his disclosure. [Quorum called for.]

[The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed.]

There seems to be a pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr Mannoun. In 2005 he ran in the by-election for Werriwa. He filed a declaration in relation to that by-election: his declaration was dated 1 July 2005. That declaration exposed expenditure of $10,532.50, with income by way of donations at $3,500, leaving a shortfall of $7,000.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: This motion is specific in its wording. It relates to the campaign office and to the 2007 election campaign. The member for Liverpool is now well outside the leave of his motion. He is addressing issues that occurred prior to the date to which it refers and issues that do not relate to a campaign office. Mr Acting-Speaker, I ask you, as you are so often asked and have so often ruled, to direct the member for Liverpool to return to the terms of the motion he has moved.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: To the point of order: The member for Terrigal, regrettably, has not read the motion. He should read paragraph (4). It would help if he engaged his mind before he next takes a point of order.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Further to the point of order: Paragraph (4) of the motion relates to paragraphs (2) and (3), which precede it. It relates to an allegation of dishonesty in respect of paragraphs (2) and (3). It does not open a general debate. This is not a matter of general debate; it is a matter relating to a specific motion.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! The comments of the Minister are within the leave of the motion.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: There is a long-held convention in this House that when a member seeks to attack a non-member of this House—that is, a person who has no right to defend himself or herself—the Speaker will interpret whatever motion seeks to delineate the issue in a very narrow way. It clearly is not a matter where a member has ever sought to provide a broad-based attack on someone who has no right to come before this Chamber to defend himself or herself. I ask you to reconsider the ruling you have just made and to direct the member to define his debate in narrow terms, accepting that the motion refers to someone who is not a member and cannot defend himself.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! I will take advice from the Clerks. In the meantime, the Minister may continue.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: There is a shortfall of $7,000 in the 2005 declaration, which Mr Mannoun should explain. In addition to that, he ran in the council election. We have an issue about whether he has filed electoral returns.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The member has a history in this place of these sorts of attacks—

Mr Alan Ashton: Hardly relevant.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You remember it.

Mr Alan Ashton: I remember it.

Mr Brad Hazzard: The attacks he made in his inaugural speech are illustrative of the way he has conducted himself for his entire time in this place. It is important that you interpret how he should carry himself in this debate. The member needs guidance, and I ask you to give him guidance.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Mr Mannoun ran in the council election. Other councillors have complained to me that he has not lodged his electoral declarations, as he was required to do by 25 February this year. Certainly if one checks the Electoral Funding Authority website one will find that Mr Mannoun has not filed those documents.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I am happy to place upon the table the search from the Electoral Funding Authority.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I withdraw the point of order.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: There may well be an innocent explanation for it. I am happy for Mr Mannoun to give us an explanation.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The document the member alleges to have tabled relates to the 2008 council elections. It does not relate to his motion, which refers to the 2007 State election in the seat of Liverpool. The member is outside the terms of his own notion. Mr Acting-Speaker, earlier you allowed the Minister to continue on the basis that his remarks related to matters prior to the 2007 State election. But the Minister is now referring to a matter that occurred subsequent to the 2007 State election. He is engaging in a wide-ranging debate. He has used a person's name, Ned Mannoun, and he now seeks to raise various matters about that person that have nothing to do with the terms of his motion.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! A degree of latitude is extended to members when they move their motions. The Minister has the call.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I find it extraordinary that such a cacophony of points of order are being taken. One would assume that there is something desperate that the Opposition wishes to stop talking about. Clearly, Opposition members are frightened of what is being discussed. They are desperate to prevent this discussion occurring. The question must be asked: What on earth are they trying to hide? One assumes it relates precisely to the honesty and probity of one of their candidates.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Perhaps the Minister could speak with a truthful tongue—as opposed to what he normally does when he makes up stories about anybody and everybody.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Matthew Morris): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [12.28 p.m.]: Let me recount the facts. The member for Liverpool has moved a motion in relation to the 2007 State election, at which his seat was contested by Ned Mannoun, who is now an elected councillor on Liverpool City Council. Mr Mannoun filed an election funding return in accordance with the Act. The election funding return failed to state that he had the rented office in Liverpool for his campaign. An amended return was subsequently filed on 9 May 2008—almost a year ago. We are now debating an amended election funding return for the electorate of Liverpool one year after the event. A Minister of the Crown with responsibility for ageing and disability is wasting the time of the House. He does not speak about any of the matters in his portfolio; he speaks about an election funding return of someone who had the temerity to stand against him in the 2007 State election. I move that the motion be amended as follows:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

this House:

(1) notes that Nader Mannoun's opponent at the 2007 State election was Paul Lynch;

(2) notes that Nader Mannoun was Liberal candidate for the South Ward of Liverpool Council in 2008;

(3) further notes that Nader Mannoun was elected by the people of Liverpool to the council, a sign of the confidence placed in him by the voters of Liverpool; and

(4) calls on the member for Liverpool to ensure that all donations to political parties are properly disclosed and that public assets are not used for political purposes.

In support of paragraph (4) of the amendment I draw the attention of the House to matters that have previously been raised in this Chamber by members who have failed to file the appropriate return, including the $160,000 that the member for Wollongong accidentally omitted from her return.

Mr Andrew Constance: How much?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Only $160,000. That was never the subject of any motion by the member for Liverpool or the subject of any discussion, yet it has been discussed in this House. Questions have been asked about it in this House—

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order—

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The member for East Hills rises on a point of order. Who is he trying to protect?

Mr Alan Ashton: As you defended the David Clarke trained faction.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order!

Mr Alan Ashton: The member for Wollongong is not mentioned in any motion here today. It is ancient history. The member for Terrigal knows that it has nothing to do with this debate. Let us talk about Ned Mannoun, which faction he is in within the Liberal Party, what seat he is hoping to run for next time and what his real name is. Then we can talk about other matters if the member for Terrigal wants to put them on the business paper. The member's remarks are totally out of order.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Terrigal will confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am speaking to my amendment.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I have not seen the amendment.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The member for Wollongong failed to disclose $160,000 and there is a pattern of deceit of the Australian Labor Party at the 2007 State election with not a single word from the member for Liverpool. The amendment also relates to another significant issue in relation to the member for Liverpool: it asks the member for Liverpool to ensure that public assets are not used for political purposes. There is one major public asset that we are all very familiar with: the housing commission list. There are tens of thousands of people in New South Wales housed by the housing commission and to get on the housing commission list one has to go through a proper and appropriate procedure. Yet allegations that people have been allowed to improperly jump the housing commission queue have been raised in this House. In 1997 such allegations were raised in this House in respect of the member for Liverpool, allegations that the Minister was rorting the housing commission list for his own electoral purposes.

Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order: Notwithstanding the cute line of dishonesty and lies that the member of Terrigal has, if he wishes to proceed that way against me he needs to move a substantive motion, which he has not done. He will not do that because he knows there is no substance to those allegations and the person who made those allegations—who is now a close friend of members opposite—Sam Bargshoon, has withdrawn all the allegations. The only time you can believe anything said by the people making those allegations is when they are admitting they are telling lies.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Is the Minister speaking to the point of order or is he speaking in reply to the debate?

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I uphold the point of order. Members who wish to attack another member must do so by way of substantive motion.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The member of Liverpool has raised an interesting name: Sam Bargshoon. I knew you would and I thank you for it. Sam Bargshoon gave evidence in the Orange Grove inquiry that he—and there were statutory declarations and sworn evidence by Sam Bargshoon—and the member for Liverpool went around to people's homes to rort the attendance book of Australian Labor Party branches—

Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order: That is a lie. The member for Terrigal is a liar. If you want to look at the evidence—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I call the Minister for Ageing to order.

Mr Paul Lynch: If you look at the evidence that Sam Bargshoon gave to the upper House inquiry you will find that he admitted he lied about me. I would suggest that you check the evidence. I know he is now in your pocket but the problem is that when you propped him up as a witness on Orange Grove he recanted on all of the stuff that you wanted him to say. I might add—

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am sure you would like more about how you took the attendance book—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The Minister for Ageing will resume his seat. The debate will proceed in an orderly manner.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: You have to be a member for 12 months and have attended three branch meetings to vote in the preselection ballot. There are often allegations that people take the branch attendance books around to people's homes and say, "Sign here that you were at this particular branch meeting so you can vote in the preselection ballot." The allegation made by Sam Bargshoon to the Orange Grove inquiry was that the Minister rorted the books.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The amendment moved by the member for Terrigal reads:

this House:

(1) notes that Nader Mannoun's opponent at the 2007 State election was Paul Lynch;

(2) notes that Nader Mannoun was Liberal candidate for the South Ward of Liverpool Council in 2008;

(3) further notes that Nader Mannoun was elected by the people of Liverpool to the council, a sign of the confidence placed in him by the voters of Liverpool; and

(4) calls on the member for Liverpool to ensure that all donations to political parties are properly disclosed and that public assets are not used for political purposes.

What have the rules of Australian Labor Party got to do with the member for Terrigal talking to either the amendment or the motion?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I uphold the point of order. What have Labor Party rules got to do with anything when they are so blatantly rorted by the member for Liverpool? Sam Bargshoon, where are you?

Mr Paul Lynch: On the point of order: I go back to the first point of order I took upon this utterly irrelevant contribution on which the Assistant-Speaker ruled that if the member for Terrigal wants to make an attack on me it must be done by way of substantive motion. The member for Terrigal will not do that because he knows he does not have the evidence to do it, but that does not allow him to breach the standing orders by pursuing it against me now. Accordingly, I ask that the Assistant-Speaker reinforce his ruling and direct the member for Terrigal to adhere to the standing orders or to sit down.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I remind the member for Terrigal that attacks on other members must be by way of substantive motion. The member for Terrigal has taken similar points of order in the past.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Absolutely, and I will not mention Sam Bargshoon's name again, until the next time the member for Liverpool and I debate. I will mention, however, the allegations raised about the member for Liverpool on his misuse of the housing commission list—

Mr Paul Lynch: Point of order—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I remind the member for Terrigal of my earlier ruling.

Mr Paul Lynch: May I suggest the Serjeant-at-Arms?

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! If the member for Terrigal breaches my ruling again I will take further action.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: One thing about debating the member for Liverpool is that there is always a feisty debate, and I enjoy a feisty debate with the member for Liverpool—we are old sparring partners. The issue is integrity in public office, and that is what the member for Liverpool is talking about. The member for Liverpool is talking about a candidate who had the temerity to stand against him in 2007, and did not do too badly, and will stand against him again in 2011, and will do even better. He wants to rubbish that candidate's reputation. That is what this motion is all about. That candidate issued a statement, which was published in the Sun Herald, over a year ago, as follows:

While not defending the oversight, the failure to declare the campaign office can in no way be compared with Ms Noreen Hay, Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Health and the member for Wollongong. Ms Hay altered her declaration after being contacted by the ICAC corruption investigation involving Labor councillors in Wollongong.

Did I mention the Independent Commission Against Corruption? The Independent Commission Against Corruption was going to investigate the member for Liverpool. [Time expired.]

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [12.38 p.m.]: How long will it be before I am interrupted? The Opposition should remember that the standing orders do not allow vexatious points of order. I do not know the case of Mr Nader "Ned" Mannoun well—

Mr Chris Hartcher: So why are you talking about him?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I said I do not know him well. Obviously, the member for Terrigal knows him very well. He is probably a Clarkeite, and that is why the member for Terrigal has an interest in this regard. I am aware of several pieces of information about Mr Mannoun. I first heard of him whilst watching one of those television programs of such great credibility that are shown by Channel 7 or Channel 9 at 6.30 p.m. As I recall, this character was walking up and down the streets of Liverpool talking to people about the terrible crime incidents in the area and indicating that he should be elected to the seat of Liverpool. It was later revealed by Mick Plotecki, who, I believe, was the superintendent at the time, when he produced all the facts and figures, that crime was at its lowest level ever. That did not stop Ned Mannoun running a campaign on crime, going to all his mates in the local shopping centre saying that crime was out of control and laying it at the feet of the member for Liverpool, Paul Lynch. I raise an issue about people who join political parties, which has happened in my electorate and other electorates. If people join a political party one of the best things they can do is stay in it. I understand that Mr Mannoun joined the Australian Labor Party, but when he found out there was no way—

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order—

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Why does the member for Terrigal raise a point of order? It is a fact.

Mr Chris Hartcher: I take the point of order that was raised earlier by the member for East Hills that neither the motion nor the amendment deal with the Australian Labor Party, the rules of the Australian Labor Party or political parties. If it was good enough for the member for East Hills to raise that point of order—which was upheld, as I knew it would be—it is good enough for me to raise it against the member.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I will refer to documents, which I am prepared to table. In the "Naked Eye" column of the Sun-Herald Kerry-Ann Walsh and Lisa Carty wrote:

Former watch repairer Ned Mannoun obviously has an eye for detail, but the defeated Liberal candidate in the safe Labor seat of Liverpool at last year's state election has overlooked something rather important.

He failed to declare a donation of a campaign office in his electoral return. The article continued:

Mr Mannoun forgot to report his use of a prominent office in Liverpool's George Street. After saying he couldn't recall the details of the office arrangement, he promised to refresh his memory and call us back. He didn't.

The article goes on about why he did not call back. Then Mr Mannoun corrected the oversight after it was brought to the attention of the New South Wales Electoral Commission. The Daily Telegraph on 2 March 2007 stated:

Meanwhile, it was revealed yesterday an Islamic youth group under investigation by the federal police was invited to attend a Liberal Party fundraiser to be attended by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

Candidate Ned Mannoun invited members of the Global Islamic Youth Centre, whose premises were raided last month by police.

That is the same mob that chose that young bloke with the very funny beard who preaches about jihad and war. Ned Mannoun is happy to deal with those people.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: Is the member for East Hills being racist? Is the member for East Hills attacking people for their religious views? If the member for East Hills is going to be a racist—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for Terrigal knows that is not a point of order.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: The Liberals may have supported the election of this man to the Liverpool City Council, but in a letter in the Liverpool City Champion of Wednesday 14 March 2007 a man from Hinchinbrook, whose name is published—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order—

Mr ALAN ASHTON: It says, "This group is apparently under investigation—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for East Hills is out of order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: The member for East Hills started his speech by saying that he did not know anything about Mr Mannoun. He now seeks to read onto the record or table a document the substance of which he cannot verify. Further, he is indicating a clear propensity for racism, which I am surprised about. I would not have expected the member for East Hills to be so silly. I ask that the member verify any documents he seeks to table.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I am happy to do that. [Time expired.]

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.43 p.m.]: That was an extraordinary speech from the member for East Hills. He should be very careful talking about terrorism.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: At no point did I talk about terrorism or racism. I was reading from newspaper articles, which I clearly identified, and the member for Bega knows it.

Mr Chris Hartcher: You were being racist.

Mr Alan Ashton: For anyone to call me racist compared with you blokes, particularly you, Chris—

Mr Chris Hartcher: What a disgrace to attack people for their religious beliefs.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for East Hills and the member for Terrigal will cease interjecting. If they do not do so, I will have to have them removed from the Chamber.

Mr Alan Ashton: I ask that the member for Terrigal withdraw those comments. I demand a withdrawal.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! If the member for Terrigal does not come to order I will have him removed from the Chamber.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: That was an extraordinary outburst from the member for East Hills. The member for Liverpool, who is also the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, moved the motion. I note that there is not one motion on the Notice Paper in relation to his portfolio responsibilities. The Minister has moved this motion, yet under the $80 million Younger People in Residential Aged Care Program the Government has relocated only four people in two years.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: We are talking about the probity of electoral matters, not disability services. The member for Bega, who is the shadow Minister for Disability Services, cannot introduce those issues in this debate.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: What is the point of order?

Mr Alan Ashton: Of course it is a point of order.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for East Hills will resume his seat. The House is debating a motion and an amendment to the motion. A number of points of order have been taken because members have not confined their remarks to the leave of the motion and the amendment to the motion. The member for Bega will confine his remarks.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: To the point of order: I am entitled to put that the Minister has moved this motion when there are more serious issues facing the people of New South Wales to do with disability services, ageing and Aboriginal affairs. I am perfectly entitled as a member to make that point. It is not outside the leave of the motion. I am highlighting the fact that the Minister does not understand the important issues in this State. I am also disappointed, flabbergasted actually, that he would start attacking members of the Liberal Party in this way. He does so for one of two reasons: either he is concerned about the effectiveness of the individual concerned or he does not have anything better to do with his time. I would say he does have better things to do, in light of the fact that the portfolio responsibilities he is charged with are in absolute crisis around the State. It is disappointing that the Minister has not seen fit to talk about the level of services in his electorate.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: He may be a slow learner, but the ruling was very clear. The member for Bega is completely ignoring the ruling. The Government may have to move that the member be not further heard.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I have already ruled that attacks on other members must be by way of substantive motion. If the member for Bega does not adhere to the standing orders I will sit him down.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The Chair has an incredible style. I endorse the amendments that have been moved by the member for Terrigal. Paragraph (4) of the amendment is particularly pertinent to the member for Liverpool:

(4) calls on the member for Liverpool to ensure that all donations to political parties are properly disclosed and that public assets are not used for political purposes.

That would explain the Sydney Morning Herald article about the public housing list and the way in which the member for Liverpool used it. I also point out that it goes to the heart of the Labor Party in this State in the way in which its members, such as the member for Wollongong, conduct their affairs. It is all very well to have a motion about a campaign office, but what about the $160,000 for which the Minister failed to move a motion? If he is so concerned about electoral returns— [Time expired.]

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.48 p.m.]: I have only met Ned Mannoun once, but, I must admit, he seems to be a nice enough chap. Even though he is on Liverpool council he must go to community meetings and functions different to the ones I attend, although I see many of the other councillors, especially the Independents—whom I admire and respect—around the traps. I cannot understand why anyone who has lived in Liverpool would ever leave the Australian Labor Party to join the Libs. They have never done our people in south-western Sydney any favours and never will. Look at Liverpool Hospital, built and extended by Labor governments, as an example of what can happen. My great grandfather, my grandfather and his brothers, who grew up in Liverpool in the early 1900s, and who are buried there, were all diehard Labor men.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: Mr Assistant-Speaker, given the way in which you have just ruled on the points of order against me, what is your response to the member for Macquarie Fields—?

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! Is the member for Bega challenging my ruling?

Mrs Shelley Hancock: He is quoting you.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! He is not quoting me.

Mr Andrew Constance: He is talking about his grandfather. He should keep his contribution in context.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! Is the member making a passing reference?

Mr Andrew Constance: I am raising a point of order.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. The member for Bega will resume his seat.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: Being a politician is very difficult because there is so much to learn. I am only relatively new to the game, so I am not in a position to give Ned any detailed advice, but I can tell him one thing that he probably knew before the election: If it seems to good to be true, it probably is. The expense saved by the use of a so-called "free" office is considerable and would have been discussed at length in Liberal campaign meetings. I was unable to have an office in my campaign for the 2007 election because we did not have the money. The lack of a campaign office was discussed at length in my campaign meetings, as a campaign office was and is seen as a considerable electoral advantage. The failure to declare this considerable expense cannot be justified as simply an "oversight", especially since Ned failed to return the media calls when he was outed.

When a person enters politics he or she comes under great scrutiny. That scrutiny is closest in local government. Decisions are made in every meeting that directly affect people's homes and finances. As a councillor the one thing that has to be above question at all times is financial and personal integrity. As the member for Terrigal said, there must be integrity in public office. If that integrity is questioned every decision that is made will be second-guessed forever: Was there a hidden influence in that decision that has not been declared?

The refusal to disclose the rent-free use of an office in Liverpool's main street for two months is an issue that will haunt Ned for the rest of his political career. It is no secret that he is using his time on the council as a springboard for higher office. There has been no apology, no remorse and no statement that he will comply with the rules in future campaigns. Instead, there has been a campaign of defence by those opposite for this behaviour, which they must privately admit is completely unacceptable and not something that they would countenance. Ned will find it very difficult to shake off the moniker of "Dodgy" in his future political career because people do not change, and integrity is everything. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.53 p.m.]: I speak against the motion moved by the member for Liverpool, the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Of all the people in this place I find it very hard to refer to him as "the honourable Minister" because his history in this place is such that this sort of motion is all a little bit too expected, a little bit too trite. I am disappointed that the member for East Hills, for whom I have quite a bit of regard, and the member for Macquarie Fields—a medical practitioner—in any way support this motion. It is a motion that demeans all of us in the sense that it is an attack on somebody who was prepared simply to stand up in the democratic process and oppose the Minister in his electorate.

That is what democracy is all about—having somebody who has the courage, the gumption, the preparedness to stand up and offer a democratic choice. Any member in this House could bring the complaint that the Minister has brought to the House if he or she wanted to. A series of Labor members who have been against me from time to time have done things that were not exactly attractive in a political or a perfect sense, but I did not seek to diminish them in the House—I still would not—and I would not name them in the context of this debate because I do not see that it adds anything. To make this sort of attack diminishes us all.

Ed Mannoun is a very decent guy. I campaigned with Ed Mannoun in Liverpool and we went out in the plaza to meet with local residents and talk to the police. He understands the local community in Liverpool and relates well to the people there. He had to hear messages that I am sure he probably did not want to hear: that the local member of Parliament, the member for Liverpool, had not even met with some of these community groups. I well recollect going into the Aboriginal land council—which is only about 150 metres up the road from the office of the member for Liverpool—where we had a most worthwhile meeting with the local land council representatives, but we were stunned to be told that the Minister, despite the fact that he had been the local member for some years at that point, had never crossed the threshold.

Mr Paul Lynch: That's untrue.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister is saying that is untrue. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister any more than I want to see him misrepresent Ned Mannoun. All I am saying is that that was what was said to me. Certainly the Minister has the opportunity to rebut that, and I will accept whatever he has to say on that front, because he is a member of Parliament and hopefully what he tells the House will not be misleading. But in this motion the Minister has diminished all of us by attacking Ned Mannoun. Ned Mannoun made a mistake. Many people do, and we often hear about the consequence of mistakes that occur on the Labor Party benches. We heard about the mistake of the member for Wollongong. We have heard also in the case of Ned Mannoun that the issue was formally corrected within months, and more than a year ago now.

Now we have this motion before the House by which the member for Liverpool seeks to diminish Ned Mannoun. Nothing the member for Liverpool does will diminish Ned Mannoun. From when the member came into this place I was disappointed on day one because he sought to use his inaugural speech as an attack. If anybody wants to see whether the credibility of this member stands up in his criticism of other people in this place then they should go back and have a look at the speech he made that day. It was a disappointment to me because at that point I had a belief that we would all show courtesy to each other in our first speeches, that we would have some sense of the culture of this place and an understanding that a new member would not step beyond the boundaries.

The member for Liverpool—who is not so new now—showed from day one that he was quite prepared to attack the then member for Camden on the most spurious grounds. He made a personal and odious attack. I think more than 30 interjections were made during his speech that day. He is probably the only member to achieve that in the history of the New South Wales Parliament. His inaugural speech was a farce. On his first day in this place he attacked Liz Kernohan—who was a very fine member of Parliament—and he has continued such attacks over a decade in the House. He is now attacking somebody who cannot stand up and defend himself in this place, a member of the community. It is extremely disappointing, and the member for East Hills would agree with me privately.

Mr Alan Ashton: Liz was all right.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Liz was all right, and the member for East Hills probably would agree with everything I am saying now about the member for Liverpool. I ask the Minister to show a little more responsibility in the way he behaves in this place. He has something to contribute but he diminishes himself and he diminishes all of us by these silly attacks on people.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [12.58 p.m.], in reply: I note the eloquent plea of guilty entered by the Opposition in relation to the allegations against Mr Mannoun. The best Opposition members could do was to move an amendment that was substantially unrelated to the motion and to throw up a plethora of smokescreens that were for the most part without substance. Members opposite claimed that this motion was a waste of time. Their hypocrisy is interesting: If they thought it was a waste of time why did they spend so much time taking points of order and contributing to the debate? That is an example of the usual hypocrisy displayed by Opposition members in this place.

It was also said that because I am a Minister I should not be talking about Liverpool. I am certainly a Minister; I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I am also the member for Liverpool. It is a weakness that Ministers sometimes forget that they are still local members. That is not something I am ever likely to forget and I am delighted to be able to move motions in this place in my capacity as the member for Liverpool. Indeed, if some of the members who complained so much had moved motions of their own dealing with ministerial issues they would have slightly more credibility in voicing their complaints about this motion.

The member for Wakehurst does not like me. I am sorry about that. However, I find it extraordinary that he is minimising someone's failure to get his electoral disclosure right. That is the substance of what he said: making sure someone gets his disclosure right diminishes this House. That is an extraordinary proposition. It suggests that he has absolute contempt for political and donation disclosures. It may well be appropriate for him to rethink the position he just put. For the record, I have been to the land council office a number of times. The member for Wakehurst should be very careful about whom he quotes because things have happened that I will not go into here. In fairness to the member for Wakehurst, he does now know about that, but he should be careful.

Mr Chris Hartcher: That is a threat.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: No, it is not a threat; it is a serious suggestion about whom he should rely upon. I thank the members for East Hills and for Macquarie Fields for their contributions. The member for East Hills correctly made the point about the amount of time that Ned Mannoun spent talking about law and order issues. In a sense, that is the greatest hypocrisy of all. Mr Mannoun spent an enormous amount of time telling people that we must adhere to the law and that there was not enough adherence to the law in Liverpool. However, when it came to his own legal responsibility to get the declaration completely right, he got it completely wrong. He put a significant emphasis on law and order throughout the Liverpool campaign. Peter Debnam attended a public forum held in a restaurant at Liverpool—curiously enough, the restaurateur subsequently faced serious criminal charges.

Mr Mannoun also arranged a public meeting in early 2008, again about law and order. Yet again, his fellow organisers also went on to face serious criminal charges. Those points highlight how much emphasis he put on law and order. However, at the end of the day, Mr Mannoun could not manage to adhere to the law himself. There is an essential hypocrisy and dishonesty in that. The member for East Hills also talked about political affiliation. His point was that within three short months in 2005 Mr Mannoun was a member of the Labor Party, ran as an Independent and was a member of the Liberal Party. That is central to the point of this motion and to honesty regarding how candidates present themselves, whether they believe in anything or whether they are putting their name forward simply to get elected.

It demonstrates arrogance and contempt for the electorate not to get electoral funding disclosures correct. It is perhaps appropriate to reiterate two of the points I made when moving this motion relating to the 2005 declaration and the declaration that should have been lodged by 25 February. As I said, there may well be perfectly innocent explanations for the points that I raised. However, in light of the history I think we are entitled to an explanation. I return to the good friend of the member for Terrigal Mr Bargshoon. If he is such a terrible man, the member should explain why Mr Bargshoon was Mr Mannoun's campaign director.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: I have never met Sam Bargshoon. However, the Minister has met him on many occasions. He knows him only too well.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: Not as well as Nader Mannoun does.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! That is not a point of order.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Mr Aplin Mr Baird Mr Baumann Ms Berejiklian Mr Besseling Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Dominello Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Ms Goward Mrs Hancock

Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humphries Mr Kerr Mr Merton Ms Moore Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Piper

Mr Provest Mrs Skinner Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr J. D. Williams Mr R. C. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Ms Beamer Mr Borger Ms Burton Mr Campbell Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Mr Furolo Ms Gadiel Mr Gibson

Mr Greene Mr Harris Ms Hay Mr Hickey Ms Hornery Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lalich Mr Lynch Mr McBride Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Megarrity

Mr Morris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Mr Aplin Mr Baird Mr Baumann Ms Berejiklian Mr Besseling Mr Cansdell Mr Constance Mr Debnam Mr Dominello Mr Draper Mrs Fardell Mr Fraser Ms Goward

Mrs Hancock Mr Hartcher Mr Hazzard Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Hopwood Mr Humphries Mr Kerr Mr Merton Mr O'Dea Mr O'Farrell Mr Page Mr Piccoli Mr Piper

Mr Provest Mrs Skinner Mr Smith Mr Souris Mr Stokes Mr Stoner Mr J. H. Turner Mr R. W. Turner Mr J. D. Williams Mr R. C. Williams Tellers, Mr George Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.