Mrs CROSIO (11.35 p.m.) —I rise tonight to bring to the notice of the House what I believe is one of the cheapest political stunts ever pulled. On 2 September 1992 in the State Parliament of New South Wales the Premier of New South Wales, in answering a dorothy dix question from one of his colleagues, went on to criticise as a cruel hoax:

. . . a cynical and calculated political ploy that may create a number of short term jobs.

He went on being critical by stating:

In a number of cases, unemployment is not the criteria for those councils which get the money. . .

I would like to remind the Premier of New South Wales of something. Our local newspaper described it admirably. It stated:

This windfall has offered some hope for the city's legions of unemployed. Jobs will be created as the money is used to start much-needed community projects and improve roads and drainage.

The State Government should roll out the red carpet when dealing with Fairfield's growth plan.

It is shameful that the State's leaders are using "big brother" politics to cast doubt on such a worthwhile program. All three tiers of government—federal, state and local—should co-operate with each other to solve the nation's unemployment crisis, rather than get involved in political point-scoring.

There was more. Following that statement by the Premier of New South Wales on 2 September, the President of the Local Government Association in New South Wales, Alderman Peter Woods, stated:

We—

meaning local government—

are sick to death of state politicians playing politics when we want to get on with the job.

I raise this matter because following the very generous program introduced by the Minister for Family Support and Minister for Local Government (Mr Simmons) after the Budget allocation for local government works programs throughout Australia, my Council was one of those which received funding. Something like $105m has gone to New South Wales and out of that something like $9m will be spent in the Fairfield City Council area.

  With the cooperation of Federal members, aldermen and staff an excellent program has been put together which will bring to fruition dreams that that community has had for many years but has not had the finances to achieve. They not only put together a very constructive program, bringing in capital works programs, from the erecting of buildings to roads and drainage work—work which, as I said before, has not been able to be attempted in the past—but also they completed designs and plans and presented a submission to the Association last week; all within seven days.

  For years, local government has been saying, `Give us the opportunity and the finances and we will get on with the job'. The Federal Government has provided that opportunity here. But in the State of New South Wales local councils are now being threatened that if they cannot fund the work completely within their own means they will not have their borrowing programs extended. We have to make sure that the State Government does come to the party as far as local government is concerned. These are not mickey mouse projects; these are projects which will have long term effects for the community. They will help the unemployed and, most importantly, every one of those people who finds long term employment will then be spending those dollars. As I have said before in this House, it will create that domino effect whereby the person who is earning a dollar will then spend a dollar.

  I congratulate the Council on the speed with which it has put those programs together. I congratulate it, too, on the way in which the work has been done. It has been evenly distributed throughout the city. The Council has looked at construction jobs, road building and drainage. I say again that we do not need cheap political stunts: we need cooperation and assistance. When we look at the $12.5m program of construction works which would be created, we see that $1.2m would not even take the loan borrowing program of Fairfield City Council up to 22 per cent. It is a very small part of its overall budget. It is a very mean and, I believe, miserable act to threaten local government and say, `Well, because we weren't consulted you're not going to get it'.

  I say to all and sundry: let us get on with the job and help those people who have now become the meat in the sandwich and who have had very little cooperation from the State Government. Let us get on with the job and provide them with the opportunity to get out and work. My people need it and are crying out for it. A community as large as mine could certainly take the construction and the work which will now take place as a result of this program.

  I believe this program will be submitted to the Federal Government next week. I think it will be to the disadvantage of the State Government if it does not consent to that loan borrowing program. Most particularly, it will be using the people of my electorate and the people of many electorates in New South Wales who have had the advantage of that funding as the meat in the sandwich. I do not think we should do that as politicians. I think we should be united.

  As our local press has said: roll out the red carpet. Let us get on with the job and, in particular, let us make sure that the Premier of New South Wales does not pull any more of these cheap political stunts by criticising this program. He criticised it very badly and he did it in such a way that he could not make those remarks outside the Parliament. It was misleading; it was mischievous; and, most importantly, he did not even get his facts together. As I have stated before, let us get the job done. (Time expired)