Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [12.38 p.m.]: It was interesting to listen to the contribution by the member for Newcastle, who is obviously well accustomed to reading things that other people write. If the member wants to walk into the Chamber and talk on an issue that touches a raw nerve in the community, such as policing and crime, I will give her one piece of advice: Do not read what the Government gives you!

For years there has been a real problem in her area with crime, youth crime and antisocial behaviour. If she keeps reading in the House the rubbish that her so-called friends give her she will be out of here after one term.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Vaucluse has the call.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The last people who stood up in the House and read the rubbish-type speech that she just gave were Neville Newell, the then member for Tweed, and John Bartlett, the then member for Port Stephens. They were the last ones who stood in this place as apologists.

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order—

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! If the member for Maitland has a substantive point of order it will be welcomed and dealt with fairly.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: We had the decency to listen in silence to the rubbish that the member for Newcastle put on the record. Somebody in the Government wrote this rubbish and gave it to the member for Newcastle, a former newsreader, to read. I suggest to the member for Newcastle—

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: The member for Port Stephens moved this motion and the member for Newcastle contributed to debate on the motion. We are still waiting for the member for Vaucluse to make a contribution to this debate.

Mr Chris Hartcher: What standing order are you referring to?

Mr Frank Terenzini: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 76.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Maitland has the call. If he intends to take a point of order he should proceed with it, and I invite him to do so.

Mr Frank Terenzini: My point of order relates to relevance.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! In the circumstances I do not believe the remarks of the member for Vaucluse could be objectionable on the ground of relevance. However, I ask him to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: This motion refers to all the things that this Government has not done for 12 years. The member for Newcastle played right into the trap: she read onto the record rubbish that was written by her colleagues and by bureaucrats who should no longer serve the people of New South Wales. The member for Newcastle should get out and talk to people, which is exactly what the member for Port Stephens has done. That is why so-called Labor member Jim Arneman—who once again is trying to represent the people of New South Wales—said that anyone wanting anything done in that region should talk to the member for Port Stephens. That is what this motion is all about.

On 18 October an article in the Port Stephens Examiner reported Jim Arneman as stating that the Labor Party had failed and that anyone who wanted anything done about policing and police stations in that region should talk to the member for Port Stephens, which is why he is the local member. That is why John Bartlett is not the member for Port Stephens and it is also why Neville Newell is not the member for Tweed.

Mr Barry Collier: Point of order: The member for Vaucluse is misleading the House. He well knows that John Bartlett retired.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! There is no point of order. I ask the member for Vaucluse to address his comments through the Chair.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: Over the past four or five years I do not know how many times I have visited the Port Stephens electorate and surrounding electorates to talk about crime and antisocial behaviour. I visited Port Stephens on many occasions throughout 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and three or four times earlier this year during the election campaign. In August this year, when I again visited Port Stephens, the same issue came up—the fact that the Labor Party has failed the Hunter region in law and order, and policing. Labor members of Parliament, for example, the member for Monaro—the joker seated to the left of the member for Newcastle—are apologists for the worst government in Australia.

If the new member for Newcastle wants to research this issue she should go through the Hansard to establish the number of occasions on which members of the Coalition, including me, have spoken in debate about crime in Newcastle and about the fact that people in Newcastle do not have a voice through their Labor representatives. That is why Jim Arneman, a Labor candidate in the current Federal election, said, "Anyone wanting anything done should go to the member for Port Stephens." I congratulate the member for Port Stephens. His reputation as a fighter and as a local representative led to his election in March. Today he is taking up another issue of concern to people in the community and he will deliver for them. He will deliver despite the best attempts of apologists such as the member for Newcastle, who tries to pretend that the Labor Party has any interest in this issue whatsoever.