Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [8.42 p.m.]: I raise a point about the introductory process of Food Amendment Bill 2010, not so much about its content. Many members have noted that we have not had much time to read this bill. I cannot see why this bill was tabled today in order to ram it through the Parliament. Surely, much time and effort was taken to put the bill together, yet as parliamentarians who need to consider its detail to determine whether it is in the best interests of the community and our local electorates, we have a matter of only five hours in which to examine it. Under the Standing Orders, Chapter 16 for Bills, Standing Order 188 (9) and (10) state:

(9) Immediately following the mover's speech the debate shall be adjourned.

(10) The mover shall ask the Speaker to fix the resumption of the debate as an Order of the Day for a future day which shall be at least five clear days ahead.

Recently that requirement seems to have been replaced with the bill standing as an Order of the Day for five hours. The same thing happened last week with the Electricity Supply Amendment (Solar Bonus Scheme) Bill. However, for weeks prior we debated the budget estimates and related papers, which is the default setting for the Parliament where no bills are in place for consideration. This is a disgraceful way to conduct business in this State. It is a disgraceful way to introduce legislation. If we are to be serious about achieving good laws and not just imposing extra laws on existing laws, all bills need to be considered thoroughly not only by the community but also certainly by the members of Parliament who will vote on it.

[Full Transcript]