- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 5 June 2001
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 32 of 40
| Next Item »
Page: 14359
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 May.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [7.30 p.m.]: In recent times the possible release of convicted murderer Allan Baker into the community has caused anger and revulsion throughout our State. Baker's application for a redetermination of his sentence focused the attention of the community on a class of prisoners whose crimes were so horrendous that they should never be allowed out of gaol but who because, to use the Premier's words, "of a quirk in the legislation" will have an opportunity to apply for release. Much of the community's sympathy has been focussed on the Morse family, and particularly Brian Morse, husband of Virginia, who was so brutally assaulted and murdered by Baker and his accomplice, Crump.
As the Premier would no doubt concur, Brian Morse is a gentle and honourable man who, along with his family, has suffered enormously since 1973. To put it simply and concisely, Mr Morse has been seeking justice for Virginia and for his family. Given all that he has gone through, this is not a large request, and one that every member of this House should support. That is why I and members of the Coalition have fought so hard to bring legislation into this House seeking that justice. My motivation all along has been to give Brian Morse, his family and the families of other victims all the support, publicly and privately, that I could offer. It is with these thoughts clear in my mind that I rise to speak today.
This bill before the House is not just about the brutal murder of Virginia Morse, but rather it is meant to be for all the victims of those criminals who have been sentenced "Never to be released". That includes the families and friends of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding. It means that those people who have been involved with these horrendous criminals over so many years can finally have some peace. My concern is that the bill will not provide that peace. Having said that, I knowledge that already Crump has had his sentence redetermined and the bill will provide some assurance that he will not be released. For that reason the Opposition will not oppose the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill. However, we will seek to improve the bill by introducing amendments. We do so with the intention of seeking bipartisan support for an issue that should be addressed in a bipartisan way.
This bill removes the ability of the Supreme Court to set a fixed period of sentence for a non-release offender, replacing it instead with possible parole. The Parole Board can then grant parole if the offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated, has demonstrated that he does not pose a risk to the community, and that parole is justified. This bill, with the proposed Opposition amendments, would have been unnecessary had the Government supported the Coalition's Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill. Last year I introduced that bill simply to confirm the life terms that these criminals were sentenced to at the time of their conviction. These criminals were sentenced "Never to be released", and that is exactly what should occur.
Yet Mr Carr and his Government refused to debate this bill on at least 10 separate occasions. They said that they had legal opinion that what we were proposing was not legal and that there were constitutional concerns involved. The legal opinion to which the Premier and others continued to refer stating that there were constitutional problems has never been released to the House. It has never been released to the public. By contrast, we have received legal opinion stating that what the Government was asserting was simply incorrect. The Opposition sought and obtained legal advice from senior counsel which stated:
Since Parliament has provided those prisoners with a process which enabled them to have their sentences determined by being shortened from that originally imposed, if appropriate, there is no reason in principle why Parliament cannot remove (or substantially amend or alter) that process either with respect to all remaining prisoners in such a position, or with respect to a particular prisoner …
In addition, the advice stated:
It is within the power of the New South Wales Parliament to pass a valid Act which would have either a direct or indirect effect on the ability of Mr Baker to continue with his application for redetermination of his life sentence.
There was clear legal advice that the bill the Opposition proposed to have the House debate could be debated at the time, could be passed and would have the effect of ensuring that Allan Baker was not going to have a redetermination of his case. However, time and again the Government ignored our calls for the matter to be debated. The Government ignored the opportunity to support the Opposition's legislation, and thereby protect the community and the dignity and rights of the families and friends of the victims. Instead, the Government has introduced this bill.
Fundamentally, this bill has one major problem: It fails to ensure that those who, due to the heinous nature of their crimes, were sentenced "Never to be released" are never given the opportunity to seek that release. If this bill is passed in its present form Baker would be able to apply every three years for a redetermination of his sentence. Every three years he can come back before the Supreme Court and ask for that sentence to be redetermined. This means that the families and friends of victims of those who were "Never to be released" may be forced to endure redetermination hearings for the rest of their lives, once the murderers have served 30 years of their sentence, which is the provision imposed by this bill. All the hurt, pain and suffering could be once again brought to the surface for the families and friends of victims. Last year Mr Morse said:
Twenty seven years ago when the trial was over I felt secure. They were convicted for life and we could go on with our lives as best we could.
Now Mr Morse and others like him may continue to be forced to endure, potentially, every three years the redetermination hearing and the associated pain—and the publicity and media attention that go along with them. And if the redetermination is successful, these people may be forced to endure parole hearings after parole hearings after parole hearings. Be under no illusion, the criminals we are talking about will apply time and time again. These men have the time and they will have the energy to keep applying for redetermination and then for parole. To pretend otherwise is to delude ourselves. Surely, the families of the victims have suffered enough.
As I foreshadowed earlier in my speech, the Coalition will seek to amend the bill in Committee. We will seek to include the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences Confirmation) Bill. Our amendments will deny those killers whose files have been marked "Never to be released" the opportunity to seek a redetermination of their sentence in the Supreme Court. As I said in a previous debate in this House:
We believe there are some crimes so horrific that penalties should not be re-evaluated at a later date. There is no need for a further consideration at a later date—a consideration tempered by a range of extraneous issues and arguments, including claims of personal reformation.
That could be no truer of the Morse murder, the Anita Cobby murder, or the other victims of those criminals. I appeal to the Premier to adopt a bipartisan approach. I appeal to him to finally do what he said would be done in 1997, following the successful redetermination of Crump's sentence. The Premier promised to introduce laws that would, according to the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 May 1997, ensure that the murderers were never granted parole. The Premier also stated that the legislation would ensure that Kevin Crump will never be released.
The legislation that was introduced by the Government in 1997 did not fulfil the Premier's promise. Those murderers were still eligible for parole, and eventual freedom. This legislation, unamended, will still not achieve the Premier's promise. With the Opposition's amendments, he will finally have the chance to fulfil his promise. I urge the Premier, the Government and the House to fulfil the promise by the Premier to the people who have been involved in these horrendous crimes for so many years.
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [7.40 p.m.]: This bill seeks to cure a mischief that could have been resolved quite some time ago. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the stated goal and purpose of the bill is exactly what she sought to achieve last year. If her bill had been accepted, much of the anguish, emotional pain and hurt to victims and their families, and the community's lack of confidence in the judicial system, could have been mitigated. But it was not accepted. A lot of technical counterattacks were launched against the Opposition's bill, particularly that the Opposition's bill could be challenged in the High Court. What is the difference with this bill?
Mr R. H. L. Smith: They were forced into it.
Mr KERR: Yes, as the Opposition Whip said, they were forced into it. The Government was forced into it by public opinion and by knowing that, if not resolved, this matter would continue to be a running sore at the next State election. That is what this is all about: There is to be a State election in two year's time and the Government is seeking to put this legislation to bed. The Government was quite happy to allow the hurt and emotional pain to continue, and if the Opposition had not raised this issue the amended legislation would never have been introduced.
Baker and Crump should have been gaoled for life, as was the intention of the trial judges. In each case the trial judge made his determination, having heard the evidence and listened to both the Crown and defence cases, when the matters were fresh in his mind. They were Supreme Court judges with a wealth of experience in criminal cases and they determined that those offenders should never be released. And why should they never be released? Because the crimes they committed forfeited their right to re-entry into society.
Ultimately the people and the State have need of the protection that will be afforded by this legislation. We are not dealing with mandatory sentences imposed quite arbitrarily according to the system at that time. We are dealing with judicial determinations that certain persons should not be released because their crimes were so heinous they deserve to remain in gaol for life. In fact, they did not simply murder their victims; they murdered them in circumstances that were so horrendous, so lacking in any spark of human decency, that they could be distinguished from other murders.
Most murders are committed within a family and often there are mitigating factors. While not condoning the murder, there is at least some explanation, some pretext, for the action. In this case, that is not so. What Crump and Baker did to Mrs Morse was not in response to some provocation or some perceived injustice, slight or insult. What was done was calculated cruelty on a grand scale that was simply a denial of the humanity of the perpetrators of that heinous crime. What was the community's response? The community's response was to collectively breathe a sigh of relief. I am sure we all remember the publicity that surrounded the murders. Public reaction was to call for a verdict of guilty and for the judge to direct that the offenders should never be released, that they die in gaol. The community felt safe that the offenders would not be out on the streets, and that their heinous crime had been visited by the most appropriate punishment available to the State.
However, there followed the possibility of a release because memories fade. The initial horror and revulsion was emotional but soundly based. I emphasise that the basis of the public reaction was not unthinking and emotional but was soundly based because of the circumstances of the crime and the actions of the perpetrators. Yet, memories fade and the system provided for the potential release of the offenders. It is important that we have a system of justice that ensures that justice is done, that in fact there is truth in sentencing. When a judge says that a person should not be released, that is exactly what the community expects to happen.
Mr Debus: The truth is that, although the community would like it, that is not what it used to mean.
Mr KERR: It is not what it used to mean at all.
Mr Debus: Exactly.
Mr KERR: But it is what the community and the judge would have liked it to be.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The Minister and the honourable member for Cronulla will cease discussion across the table and address their remarks through the Chair.
Mr KERR: I was responding to an interjection.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Yes, and I have admonished the Minister as well as the honourable member for Cronulla.
Mr KERR: The argument that that is not what happened is an argument against that system. When a judicial officer makes a direction, people expect that it will be followed. It is meaningless to say that people are to be imprisoned for life if some 15 years later they are released. If we are to have a justice system, it has to meet community expectations. If it fails to do that, eventually it will fail to have community support, because it becomes a farce in the same way that if laws are not enforced they cease to have meaning. Our system does not end at the point of arrest. The accused is either acquitted or found guilty and sentenced—and that sentence has to have meaning.
When a sentence is imposed, its conditions should be reflected in what actually happens. The Attorney General was right when he said that does not always happen because in such cases the law allows the prisoner to seek a review before the Supreme Court decades later, when the reviewing judge does not have the advantage of seeing the witnesses or the full import of the case. The Government is belatedly acting in response to what the Opposition said it should have done some time ago. Honourable members should look at the Premier's responses to the Opposition's legislation.
Can the Attorney General guarantee the House that the provisions of this bill cannot be appealed against in the High Court—because that was the argument put forward by the Government? What has changed? The legislation could be challenged in the High Court. Does the legislation address the constitutional vulnerabilities that were asserted to be present in the legislation introduced by the Leader of the Opposition? How does the Government justify the pain and hurt visited upon the family and friends of victims?
This matter is being dealt with belatedly. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. This Government was armed with all the facts, yet it allowed an injustice to occur over a long period. It cannot claim ignorance, because the victims and public were prepared to speak out on this matter. Even if the bill passes through both Houses of Parliament, justice will still have been denied because on this occasion justice has been delayed and the system has failed. The failings were obvious, yet they were not dealt with.
When it comes to our system of justice the people of New South Wales are entitled to a have a government that does not simply act on expediency. This matter transcends partisanship. We should all be committed to justice and to ensuring that when courts impose a sentence and the sentence is not interfered with on appeal, the terms of the sentence should have their full meaning and should be implemented truthfully. The people of New South Wales deserve nothing less.
Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [7.53 p.m.]: In 1989 the Coalition Government introduced truth in sentencing legislation, whereby minimum and additional terms were set for prisoners. As it turned out, those already sentenced to terms of life imprisonment had their sentences redetermined into minimum and additional terms. My recollection from working with the Director of Public Prosecutions and being involved in these matters as a solicitor in the Court of Criminal Appeal is that the average was 13 years. The flaw in the legislation was the category of prisoners who were not sentenced to life imprisonment but whose files were marked "Never to be released." Since then the sentencing legislation has been amended so that "life" means "life", as happened in the case of Ivan Milat, who murdered seven backpackers; Glover, who murdered six elderly women; and Garforth, who murdered Ebony Simpson.
These men were sentenced to life imprisonment, and "life" now means "life" But there are those men whose files were marked "Never to be released." and it is quite clear that the sentencing judge intended that they should remain in gaol for the rest of their lives because of the crimes they committed. I refer also to the cases of Anita Cobby, Janine Balding and Virginia Morse, and I note that Mr Morse is in the gallery. When sentencing Baker and Crump, Justice Taylor said:
For sheer cruelty, for callous indifference to suffering, for a complete disregard of humanity, for the complete absence of a spark of human decency, what you have done to this woman and to her children and to her husband is without parallel in my experience, and I have sat here many times over the years.
You have outraged all accepted standards of the behaviour of men. The description of "men" ill-becomes you. You would be more aptly described as animals, and obscene animals at that.
I appreciate how painful it must be for Mr Morse to hear those words again. Baker and Crump, the killers of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding, should never be released and "life" should mean "life". Of course, there is opportunity to apply for a minimum and additional term but under this legislation these men will remain in gaol for life. The Parole Board could consider their release only if they are dying or are so incapacitated as not to pose a risk to the community.
It is important to consider the proposals of the Opposition. The Hon. John Hannaford made an important point during debate on the Opposition bill in the Legislative Council on 31 August 2000 when he said, in relation to his own 1993 legislation amending the redetermination process, that sometimes legislation does not work in the way it was intended. This has been the case because the legislation did not pick up those whose files were marked "Never to be released." No government has previously sought to impose a legislative life sentence upon prisoners whose files were so marked. Instead, they have sought to tighten the requirements for a redetermination of their sentences, and the model proposed by the Opposition takes a dramatic and somewhat flawed new direction.
This Government has learned from the failed Kable legislation and is aware of the need to make laws within boundaries. The point of distinction with the Opposition proposal is that the Government is following as closely as possible the original scheme under which "Never to be released" prisoners were sentenced. Of course, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that there could possibly be a challenge to this legislation in the High Court. The honourable member for Cronulla suggested that perhaps the Government should guarantee that this legislation is immune from dispute in the High Court. He is a qualified lawyer and he well knows that no legislation is immune from dispute in the High Court. No government could guarantee that.
However, the Government has taken legal advice from the Solicitor General and is of the view that it is likely that this legislation will be upheld in the High Court. The difficulty with the advice is that there is no High Court authority directly on the point of what a court might do if the Parliament should choose to effectively resentence a prisoner to life imprisonment without any prospect of release. Of course, the High Court makes the ultimate laws that bind every court and human being in this land.
Of course, the imposition of sentences for criminal conduct rests appropriately with the courts and it is difficult to imagine that the High Court would not entertain a challenge to a legislation that seeks for the first time to resentence the small number of life-sentence prisoners to life without any real prospect of release. The legal position is still at the level of abstract principle because no case directly on this point has been to the High Court. However, the Government has been advised by the Solicitor General that the bill is sound and will withstand challenge. This bill seeks to impose life sentences on those whose files have been marked "Never to be released." They will be real life sentences, because such prisoners will be released only if they pose no threat to the community or if they are dying. I support the bill.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [8.00 p.m.]: The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill does not do the job fully. It does not meet the expectations of the broader community, which is looking to the Government to provide a level of justice commensurate with the degree of revulsion generated by horrendous crimes. The community also looks to government to protect it and the individual from the release of our worst criminals back onto the streets although their sentences clearly state that they should be gaoled for life. When a criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment, it should mean life. When a criminal's file is marked "Never to be released." that criminal should die in jail. Governments owe that to the public and, specifically, to the many people—particularly women—who live in isolated circumstances in rural New South Wales.
The Baker-Crump atrocities committed against Virginia Morse when she was alone on a rural property shocked and reviled all Australians in 1973. The fact that Baker recently had his application for a redetermination of his sentence rejected in the Supreme Court provided some comfort to Virginia Morse's husband, Brian, and his family. The knowledge that Baker was not about to be released into society gave the public confidence that the law firmly supported society's decisions. However, the current law does not preclude Baker from seeking redetermination of his sentence at a future date—and again and again. That applies also to other lifers who are serving sentences for horrific crimes against society. The families of the victims of depraved crimes can never really feel secure that the perpetrators will stay in gaol: They live in fear of repeat crimes, afraid that the system that allows redetermination of life sentences will put society at risk.
The Opposition is seeking to tighten this legislation so that the redetermination loophole can be closed forever in the case of those who are meant to die in gaol. I want rural families to feel secure and to take some comfort in the knowledge that those who prey on lone and unprotected rural women will be removed from society and not given a second chance. Those who have not experienced such tragedy cannot know the devastation and misery visited upon Brian Morse and his family and upon others who have had to endure the after-effects of loathsome crimes perpetrated against their loved ones. Mr Morse—this gentle man—is one of the most frequent and well-known visitors to Parliament. I urge the Government to take the final step with this legislation: accept the Coalition's amendments and admit that the Coalition got it right with the proposed Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill, which the Government repeatedly refused to debate. We must close the escape hatch on those who claim remorse, and ensure that they serve out their sentences and receive the same level of clemency and mercy they showed to their victims.
Ms SALIBA (Illawarra) [8.03 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill. In doing so, I remind Opposition members that in 1989 the Coalition Government introduced legislation that provided for the redetermination of life sentences. Those opposite call this legislation inadequate but, if that Coalition legislation had never been enacted, there would be no grounds for redetermining sentences.
These criminals—as far as I am concerned, they are animals—have lost their rights. They lost their rights when they violated the rights of others. They do not have the right to demand release back into the community, and this bill goes a long way towards ensuring that that will not happen. Prison terms will be extended from 20 years to 30 years to ensure that there is no redetermination. The legislation will also allow the Supreme Court to set a non-parole period for a non-release offender's sentence but deny the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to set a fixed-sentence period. That will ensure that, unless a parole order is granted, the offender will never be released from custody. The bill will also exclude a non-release offender whose sentence has been redetermined, whether before or after the commencement of the proposed Act, from automatic consideration for parole to which other offenders are entitled.
Legislation introduced in Parliament last year would have given Baker the opportunity to go to the Court of Appeal. If we had passed that legislation, we would have granted him the opportunity to appeal his sentence. A judge recently confirmed that the Government's actions are correct. He said that that case could not be redetermined and that parole would not be considered. I do not think it should be a consideration for any of those who commit horrific crimes. This bill provides that a non-release offender may be granted parole only if that offender is dying or is permanently incapacitated and thus has absolutely no chance of reoffending. I support that provision: Such an offender should be released from gaol only to die.
Mr Fraser: Who gives the guarantee?
Ms SALIBA: This bill guarantees that such prisoners will be released only in those circumstances. This legislation is about protecting our community and making it a safer place by preventing these animals from getting back onto our streets. I remind honourable members that the 1989 Coalition Government introduced the legislation that gave these criminals the right to have their sentences redetermined. I support this bill, which will go a long way towards preventing that in the future.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [8.08 p.m.]: There are few benefits associated with getting older, except perhaps being in good health, having enjoyed a good life filled with experiences, being able to remember many past events and having talked to people from all generations. I can probably remember better than anyone who has participated in this debate some of the horrific crimes committed by those who are currently incarcerated and whose fate we are discussing. Many references have been made tonight to acts of an animal nature, but I do not agree with that description. I have bred animals all my life and I understand them very well. Human beings are animals but nothing in the animal kingdom is as cruel as human beings, because humans have intelligence. History supports that assessment.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill deals with extraordinary crimes committed by extraordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. We are born into this world with some privileges, the first of which is life and the second of which is the ability to determine one's future. Each and every one of us has the opportunity, through our conduct, intelligence and wishes, to seek education, employment, happiness and direction in life.
We can determine that for ourselves. The people we are talking about, who are currently contained within the penitentiaries of this State, made a determination. They had the opportunity, in the same way as the rest of us, to make that determination freely. Nobody forced, persuaded, bullied or cajoled them. They were free to make a determination and they made a free choice. They chose to commit crimes of a nature that is abhorrent to any reasonable-thinking human being. By taking that step, they chose a way of life of their own making. We have no right to interfere in the path they chose to take. They chose to completely isolate themselves from the broader society. They chose to put themselves in conflict with every fundamental rule of law, with basic Christian principles and with basic human commonsense.
Therefore, I have no conscience in urging and appealing to the members of this Chamber and the other place to support the Opposition's amendments, which will ensure that those people who have committed these crimes—crimes such as those committed by Baker and Crump—are allowed to do what they have determined for themselves, that is, to live contrary to society for the rest of their lives. It is nonsense to say that the parole of an offender who is dying or is permanently incapacitated may be revoked if the offender subsequently recovers. What is permanent incapacity? Would the amputation of both legs and confinement to a wheelchair be classified as permanently incapacitated? I believe that most people and every insurance company would agree that having both legs amputated would be classified as permanent incapacity. Two years ago in the north of this country I saw a prisoner who was in gaol for the third time. He was in a wheelchair, having had both his legs amputated 15 to 18 years ago. He was an habitual criminal.
Under the powers of separation, we are the people who are responsible for making laws in this State. We have an obligation not only to reflect on the future of those people who have transgressed the morals, wishes and basic principles of humankind, but also to those who are left behind. That has been forgotten in this debate. I do not pretend for one moment that I understand the lifelong hurt and effect that such crimes have on someone who has lost a loved one—a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, a cousin or a good friend. I have never had that happen to me. It would be false of me to say that I understand. I do not.
Mr Fraser: You couldn't.
Mr ARMSTRONG: I could not. As intelligent members of this place, we should have—and I hope that I have—some understanding of the lifelong hurt of members of the families of the victims who have been horribly murdered. In the past 40 years we have seen some of the members of those families in this place, on television, at forums and in church groups. They are trying to help society understand. They do not do that for any reason other than the lifelong sentence that has been imposed upon them. Government members have the audacity to claim that we should release the perpetrators in 30 years time but do nothing about the lifelong sentence that those criminals have inflicted upon entire families, relations and groupings of people who supported, loved, cared for and depended upon those who were taken from them.
Every time this issue arises, every time we debate this matter, we are constantly reminded that we have to consider whether we are doing the right thing by the criminals. Everyone is on the side of the criminal. We are told, "We have to let them out after 20 or 30 years if they are going to die of cancer." I have news for the House: sadly, people die of cancer every day; people die of heart attacks; and people have their legs cut off because of diabetes. That is no excuse to release prisoners who have decided to be judge and jury over the families of those whose lives they have taken away. They made their choice. I will not interfere in the decision that they made. I will support the amendments with one proviso: that the people who have committed these crimes remain incarcerated for the full term of their natural lives. I am on the side of those who are left behind. At my age I have some semblance of understanding of the pain and angst that they bear. I see it reflected in them every time we meet.
Mr IEMMA (Lakemba—Minister for Public Works and Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.16 p.m.]: I support the legislation. I would like to address some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Lachlan. I agree with him wholeheartedly about our obligation to act in the way he outlined. I also believe that when we discharge that obligation, we have an obligation to get it right. The Opposition does not want to accept that fundamental point because it has been trumped, and it hurts. Unfortunately, rather than support the Government's legislation, the Opposition says it will support the legislation with its amendments because the Government's legislation does not keep these people in gaol forever.
That approach was summed up by the honourable member for Lachlan. He gave an example of a prisoner in a wheelchair. He said the legislation fails to deal with people who are still a danger to the community, notwithstanding that they may suffer some incapacity. The honourable member failed to mention that the Parole Board has to take into account three conditions. The first condition is that the prisoner is dying or suffering an incapacity approaching death. Between the first and second conditions is the word "and". The first condition is that the prisoner is dying or suffering from an incapacity approaching death and the second condition is that the prisoner will not be a threat to the community if released. If, in the circumstances outlined by the honourable member for Lachlan, a prisoner is permanently incapacitated, such as the man in the wheelchair to whom he referred, that person must satisfy the Parole Board that he will not be a threat to the community.
Mr Armstrong: Point of order: With respect I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that tonight, incarcerated in a gaol in the Northern Territory, is a person who has been sentenced three times.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lachlan is debating the issue. He will resume his seat. That is an outrageous point of order.
Mr IEMMA: In addition to the first provision, that the prisoner has to be in imminent danger of dying, the Parole Board must be satisfied that the prisoner will not pose a risk to the community if released. That provision would more than adequately deal with the incapacitated prisoner in a wheelchair whom the honourable member for Lachlan has seen in institutions in this State and believes could be a danger. Such a prisoner would have to pass the second test of not being a danger to the community. The prisoner spoken about by the honourable member for Lachlan would not satisfy that test and, therefore, would not be released. The third test requires the board to be satisfied that, after consideration of the first and second provisions, the making of an order directing the release of the prisoner on parole would be justified.
Mr Armstrong: Point of order: I speak under Standing Order 73, which says:
A Member, having concluded a speech, may be briefly heard again to explain a material part of their speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood but cannot:
(1) Interrupt another Member who is speaking.
(2) Introduce any new matter.
(3) Debate the matter.
(4) Be heard after determination of the question before the Chair.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lachlan has read the important part: he cannot interrupt another member who is speaking. I will give him the call at the conclusion of the Minister's contribution.
Mr IEMMA: The few people who are in the gallery are seeing a time-wasting exercise. The honourable member for Lachlan often takes points of order to waste the time of the House and to try to cut down the speaking time of the member with the call. I had intended to speak for only a few minutes, so he has not really cut down my time. The legislation will overcome the difficulties and loopholes created by legislation introduced in 1989 by the previous Coalition Government, which has resulted in the many matters we have been debating for some months. The bill will ensure that Crump, Baker and the others referred to by the honourable member for Lachlan will never be released. It will give true meaning to the intention of the sentencing judge. The legislation fulfils our obligation not only to act but to get it right. The legislation is not a stunt for the media that will be struck down by the High Court, as would have been the case had the Government accepted the proposal put forward by the Opposition some months ago.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [8.23 p.m.]: I have already referred to Standing Order 73. The Minister misunderstood me. In relation to permanent incapacity, I point out that a male person with no lower limbs who has been sentenced three times is currently incarcerated in a gaol in Darwin. He is permanently in a wheelchair. He is in the open section of gaol. It is within the realms of probability that a person incapacitated as a result of the loss of limbs could be released under the legislation, and, as history has demonstrated, commit further crime and be sentenced. Precedent has been set as to why the legislation should be disregarded as foolish.
Mr Debus: Point of order: The honourable member for Lachlan is blatantly misquoting the legislation. The words in the legislation refer to somebody in imminent danger of dying or incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person.
Mr Fraser: The Minister's speaking time has expired.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: The Minister is entitled to take a point of order, which he had done. The matter is settled for the time being.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [8.25 p.m.]: We have heard Government members claim that the problem this bill seeks to deal with is a consequence of the 1989 truth in sentencing legislation. I am prepared to admit that an unintended consequence of that legislation was that prisoners were able to apply for redeterminations of their sentences. As a result prisoners such as Baker and others were given an opportunity to have their sentences drastically reduced. We should now turn our attention to the legislation and to what the public expects of us as members of Parliament and of the New South Wales courts. One of the definitions of "life" from the Macquarie Dictionary as it pertains to sentencing is:
20. a. a prison sentence covering the rest of the convicted person's natural life.
The definition seems perfectly clear. The high-profile case we have heard about of late—and I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Brian Morse—relates to the horrific crimes committed by Mr Baker for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his papers marked "Never to be released". I lived in Moree when those crimes were committed and I know of the community angst, which continues to this day. People who live in regional and rural New South Wales are in a unique situation. Their families are left unprotected, which means that crimes such as those committed by Mr Baker are a possibility. Thank God they do not occur regularly. I know that when Baker applied to have his sentence redetermined those who saw him sentenced expected the words "Never to be released" to mean exactly what they said.
It is somewhat ironic that the Premier of this State refused to intervene, refused to accept legislation introduced by the Opposition, and is now refusing to accept amendments proposed by the Opposition to ensure that prisoners such as Baker are never released. My constituents in the Coffs Harbour electorate and the people of New South Wales generally have some faith in the judicial system. They believe that laws made in this Chamber will be acted on by the judiciary, and in Baker's case they were. Unfortunately, a loophole in the legislation enabled him to apply to have his sentence redetermined. Government members who have contributed to the debate have told us that if the prisoner is no longer a danger to the community he or she can be released.
I draw the attention of honourable members to the case of a fellow who was convicted of three murders on three separate occasions. I cannot remember his name, but I am sure other members in this Chamber will be able to do so. The second murder occurred in the electorate of the Attorney General, the Minister at the table. The fellow said he believed that, through God, it was his job to murder three people. He murdered one person and he was sentenced to life. After serving some time in gaol he was let out. He then travelled to Katoomba, and in a motel room he murdered another person. He was convicted once again, was released, killed for the third time and is now behind bars. Page 2 of the explanatory note to the bill states:
The object of this Bill is to amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 so as:
(a) to increase, from 20 years to 30 years, the length of time for which a non-release offender must serve his or her sentence before becoming eligible to apply for a redetermination of the sentence, and
In relation to a person who has been found guilty by a jury and whom a judge has deemed fit to sentence to imprisonment for life, I direct the attention of the House and of the judiciary to the dictionary definition, which states that "life" is a prison sentence covering the rest of the convicted person's natural life. It does not state that such persons may be ill, that they may have some condition that should cause them to be released, or that if the condition does not improve they should remain at liberty or be readmitted to gaol if the condition does improve. It does not state that 20 years or 30 years is the length of time a non-release offender must serve before becoming eligible for release. It states that the person has been sentenced to "life".
As the representative of the people of the Coffs Harbour electorate and of those constituents who have made representations to me on this matter, I believe that when someone is sentenced to life imprisonment, it should mean life, the dictionary definition of life. Some fairly horrific crimes have been committed in regional and rural New South Wales. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands referred to an incident where a fellow—I think he came from Queensland—came down into New South Wales. Hanging Rock was involved. He shot another person, and threw the person over the side of the rock. It was a horrific crime. The case was heard in Coffs Harbour. I believe the perpetrator took his own life in prison. One can but wonder at the agenda of a small minority of left-wing people within our community. One wonders whether such people would have had their sentences redetermined, whether the judge would have said, "Yes, 10 years is enough."
As the honourable member for Lachlan said, people throughout New South Wales are grieving and will continue to grieve because their relatives or friends have had their lives taken. Perhaps we ought to go back to the origins of law, that is, the Ten Commandments. I sometimes wonder whether members of this Chamber heed those commandments. They are found not only in the Christian religion. In almost all of the great religions one will find 10 basic commandments that commence with, "Thou shalt not". One is "Thou shalt not kill." An eye for an eye. We have a responsibility under the Christian basis of the law in this country to ensure that the basic commandments are observed.
I may be leaning towards the right wing, but in reality when someone takes another's life, a life must be taken. That life may be taken by way of capital punishment, although that does not happen in Australia as it does in other countries. If a life is taken and a person is incarcerated for the term of his natural life, as per the Macquarie Dictionary definition, I believe the public could have some faith in Parliament, in the judiciary and in the laws of this State. Far too often we have witnessed a judiciary that does not necessarily carry out the law; it extends latitude when sentencing. Legislation has been enacted that allows such people to be released from incarceration prior to the completion of the sentence fixed by the judge after the finding of a jury. The Government should not grandstand on an issue that it has ducked for months. The Government should not play games in this House by introducing legislation when in the past it has allowed other legislation to be called on, only to move that the matter be adjourned.
One can but wonder if the judge had not made the decision he made the other day with regard to the criminal Baker, whether this legislation would be before the House today. I suggest to members of this Chamber and to those in the gallery that it probably would not. We have witnessed the spectacle of the Premier riding on the tail of the decision made by the court, which I believe should never have been made. We now have an opportunity to fix it. We will not do that by saying that it is for someone else to determine that such persons will not commit further offences, that they may safely be released into society or that the length of time for which a non-release offender must serve his or her sentence before becoming eligible to apply for a redetermination of the sentence is 20 years to 30 years. That is not good enough. If a court says life, it means incarceration for life.
So far as I am concerned, the victims of the actions of any criminal who has taken another's life and in respect of whom the court has determined that that person will serve a life sentence deserve nothing better than to have this Parliament reaffirm what the judge said. They deserve that. I believe that we, as members of Parliament, have an obligation to our constituency to ensure that truth in sentencing means truth in sentencing, that it does not mean that someone sentenced to five years for armed robbery gets out of gaol in two years, and that someone sentenced to life imprisonment gets out in 30 years.
If someone commits a robbery at the age of 18 and commits murder at the same time and is released after 30 years, that person will be out of prison when he is 48 years of age. Anyone who could take the life of another human being does not, so far as I am concerned, deserve any leniency from this House, or from any court or parole board. That person has taken a life; let him give his life. Whilst we do not have capital punishment in Australia, incarceration for life is what was meant by the judge and it must be adhered to. Whilst supporting the legislation, because it is somewhat better than we have had to date, I ask the Minister to support the amendments proposed by the Coalition. The Minister should stop playing politics and give the people of New South Wales legislation that they can have faith in. Unfortunately, the bill before this House is not something they can have faith in.
Mr GREENE (Georges River) [8.36 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to prevent the release of offenders who were sentenced to life in prison prior to 1989 with a non-release recommendation comment by the sentencing judge. It is indeed time to right the wrongs of the past. It is time to make sure that prisoners who were sentenced to life in prison remain in prison for life. The bill will correct the mistakes of the Coalition when in government, and right its wrongs. It builds on this Government's sentencing laws, which were introduced in 1997 and which are the toughest in Australia.
In 1989 the Coalition Government introduced legislation that provided for the redetermination of life sentences. The deficiencies in the truth in sentencing legislation allowed prisoners to be considered for release after applying for their sentence to be determined by the Supreme Court. That applied to prisoners who had attracted never-to-be-released comments by the sentencing judge. The Coalition's legislation allowed the Supreme Court to replace a life sentence with a sentence for a fixed term. The Government, acting to right the wrongs and put some meaning into the term "truth in sentencing", amended the Coalition's 1989 legislation.
The 1997 amendment was designed to ensure that a judge who heard the redetermination application of a prisoner was required to give substantial weight to the recommendation and observations of the sentencing judge. That amendment also enabled a judge to order that a particular offender never reapply, or not reapply for three or more years, for a redetermination of sentence. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill will tighten the law even further. It gives more certainty to the families of victims.
The legislation proposes that prisoners sentenced to life with a non-release recommendation prior to 1989 will not be eligible for a redetermination until they have served 30 years. This is an increase of 10 years on the current 20-year provision. The bill also provides that if the prisoner has his sentence redetermined by a court, the court is excluded from being able to set a specific term of sentence. That is, the head sentence must remain life. Importantly, new section 154A allows the Parole Board to release a prisoner only if it is satisfied that the prisoner:
(i) is in imminent danger of dying, or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person, and
(ii) has demonstrated that he or she does not pose a risk to the community, and
(b) is further satisfied that, because of those circumstances, the making of such an order is justified.
I repeat for the benefit of the honourable member for Lachlan that the prisoner cannot be released unless he or she poses no risk to the community. All three of those conditions, not just one, must be satisfied. Unlike the position with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentence Confirmation) Bill proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Solicitor General advised that this law can be validly made—a most important point to highlight. This Government has a responsibility to ensure that legislation that it passes will stand the test of time and, most importantly, the test of the courts. I quote from the advice of the Solicitor General:
In my view there is no reason to doubt the capacity of the New South Wales Parliament to prescribe the matters on which the Parole Board must be satisfied before it directs the release of an offender on parole. It has done so, of course, since the Parole Board was established by the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1950. Accordingly, there is no legal basis in my opinion on which the validity of the proposed section 154A might be challenged.
As the Premier said in his speech, the Solicitor General's advice makes it clear that this bill is within Parliament's powers. If there were a simple way of achieving its objective the Government would take it, but it is no use arguing in the public domain purely on emotion. As a Government, we have to act responsibly. We have to ensure that the legislation gets it right. It is time to fix the system and tilt the balance in favour of the victims and away from the criminals. It is time to put things right and ensure that violent and dangerous criminals remain in gaol never to be released. That is what the bill will do. It is time that commonsense prevailed so that prisoners sentenced to life for heinous crimes actually serve life. I not only commend the bill; I commend the Premier and the Attorney General.
Mr MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [8.44 p.m.]: The atmosphere in the Chamber tonight has been charged with emotion, and rightly so. The bill and the amendments we are debating are of vital importance to our communities, certainly to my community and the electorate of Wagga Wagga. I will support the amendments to be put forward by the Leader of the Opposition for reasons I will explain. On 4 May I stood at this very lectern and moved a motion with regard to a repeat killer by the name of Matthew James Harris. Harris was sentenced to 40 years gaol with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years for the murders of Ronald Galvin, Yvonne Ford and Peter Wennerbom. I urged the Government to implement tougher and consistent sentencing guidelines for repeat killers such as Matthew Harris.
There was outrage in our community that such a short sentence had been handed down. To the relief of the community the sentence was changed to life on Crown appeal in the Supreme Court, at the instigation of the families of the victims and me. The life sentence reflected the expectation of the community and the people in my electorate. I make that point because of another event that affected my electorate. Janine Balding was abducted in Sydney by people who defy description but Janine's mother, Beverly, lives in my electorate. Janine's godparent is a very good friend of mine. The crime that was committed against this young lady has absolutely horrified our community and, more importantly, had a profound effect on the friends, families and parents. I hope that I will never know what they have felt. I can only begin to try to understand the pain and suffering that these people go through when such a tragedy occurs.
As the honourable member for Lachlan clearly said, the people that perpetrated this terrible murder knew what they were doing. They were in control of their decision making. They decided to act in a particular way. They were not influenced. They have a conscience. At the time of the offence they disregarded any kind of emotional feeling for their victim. This applies to Matthew Harris and the many other people we have talked about tonight. They made a decision that resulted in their incarceration.
I think that many speakers have missed the point in this debate. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said that he understands that the problems with legislation that was brought in when the Coalition was in government may have contributed to the legislation having to be amended by this bill. I also recognise that there were unintended consequences. But now we have the opportunity to make things right. We have the opportunity to work together, to put forward legislation that will ensure that these people never see the light of day again.
Before I walked into this Chamber tonight I telephoned Beverly Balding because of a newspaper article that appeared in the Daily Advertiser. Beverly was of the opinion that the legislation was finished and that these people would never see the light of day. But she did not understand that they have the right to apply every three years to the Parole Board. I think that is something that they should be denied. I think we are missing the point. Prisoners who contract cancer or another disease or suffer an amputation still have a responsibility to the wider community. Their deeds should not be forgotten and they should not be released.
Offenders seeking to be released have to prove three points, as has been referred to by other honourable members. But the fact is that they committed the crime; they made a conscious decision when they perpetrated the crime. The fact that the offender is ill, or is on his deathbed, does not change the circumstances. The circumstances of them being incarcerated do not change whether they are ill or whether they live to be 110. They were to remain behind bars for life, and to let them out whether for one day, one week or one month before their passing is not right.
The judge said to Matthew Harris that he would be gaoled for life. To the community the word "life" means a life sentence. If people in the gallery or people in the street were asked what they understood by a judge handing down a sentence that stated that the offender shall stay behind bars for life, the answer would be that the offenders should not be released because they are ill, have contracted lung cancer, have had an amputation or have suffered from a stroke. The offender was deemed to have committed a crime against humanity. For the life of me I cannot understand how some crimes could have been perpetrated.
Present in the gallery tonight have been people with an interest in this legislation. I cannot begin to understand what they must feel about members of this House bickering about changes to the legislation. I am trying to debate this issue in a bipartisan and constructive way. Often during debate we tend to take sides, but on this important issue I appeal to members on the other side of the House to vote with their conscience and support the amendments that the Opposition will introduce in this place or in another place. The real point I want to drive home is that the offenders committed the crime, they made the decision, and nothing changes if they get ill. Nothing! They still committed the crime.
Why should we let them out? Why should we let them see daylight? Why should we let them have the privilege of visiting a park or open space to enjoy nature's gifts? From the people they murdered they robbed the very joys that they would experience in the last days of their life if they were released. They robbed from Janine Balding the opportunity to have children. They robbed from Beverly Balding the opportunity to go to her daughter's wedding or to hold her grandchildren. They robbed from Beverly Balding the opportunity to do all the things that most of us will get to do. I have not met Mr Morse, but I intend to do so after I speak in this House. They robbed from him and his family years of happiness and joy.
As I said at the outset, this is an emotional issue and I understand that the Government and the Opposition have to put forward legislation that is acceptable to the community. In this case the Government has got it wrong and really has missed the point. I appeal to members on the other side of the House to reconsider their position after listening to tonight's debate, to reconsider the points made by members regarding the legislation put forward by the Premier. I ask honourable members to think about the offenders, such as Matthew Harris, who have been guilty of the most dreadful crimes, to think about whether they should be allowed to smell the roses. Are they to be given that opportunity in the last days of their life if they meet the three conditions? No doubt one of them will.
Quite clearly the community does not want that to happen. The Government has read the community's message very wrongly. I could say a lot more, but I hope I have brought to the attention of all honourable members the point they have missed. I appeal to their conscience and ask them to reconsider, and to give serious consideration to the proposed amendments, because that is what the community expects from them, and that is what the community deserves.
Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.55 p.m.]: I would like to highlight the essential hypocrisy of the Government in introducing the bill and claiming that it is the saviour of society, that it alone has the answer to keeping some of the most heinous criminals in Australian history behind bars. It was, of course, the Leader of the Opposition who originally introduced legislation designed to achieve what this bill purports to achieve. Indeed, it was the Government that refused, time and time again, to allow that bill to be debated. I have twice attempted to have dangerous offenders legislation passed through this place and twice the Government has used its numbers to defeat that legislation.
I put an enormous amount of work into researching my bill, which was very comprehensive. The second time I attempted to introduce dangerous offenders legislation the Government was so cavalier in its attitude towards it that it brought a junior minister, the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism, into the House and had her speak for all of three minutes against my bill. In that time the Minister addressed none of the substantive issues addressed by my legislation. When I hear the honourable member for Georges River, for example, extol the virtues of the Government, and the toughness of the Government towards serious violent offenders in our gaol system, I laugh. The essential hypocrisy of the Government is exposed for all to see.
The legislation shares many of the elements of the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to note that certain conditions relate to the release of non-release offenders. I will correct something the Minister for Public Works and Services said. In this bill there is provision for the release of a non-release offender on parole. Certain elements of the legislation echo the provisions of the legislation I introduced in 1999 and which the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Tourism so flippantly dismissed in her short contribution at that time.
The essential elements of the bill are that a non-release offender may only apply for redetermination of a sentence after serving 30 years of the sentence—previously an offender had to serve 20 years—and that the Parole Board may release a non-release offender on parole if, and only if, three conditions are met. Those conditions are, first, that the Parole Board must be satisfied, on the basis of a report prepared by the chief executive officer of the Corrections Health Service, that the non-release offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person.
The second condition is that the Parole Board must be satisfied, on the basis of a report prepared by the chief executive officer of the Corrections Health Service, that the non-release offender has demonstrated that he or she does not pose a risk to the community. Third, the Parole Board must be satisfied that, because the first two conditions are met, the making of a parole order is justified. My Community Protection (Dangerous Offenders) Bill 1999 sought to amend section 17 of the Sentencing Act so that the Parole Board could release a person classified as a dangerous offender only if it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the prisoner, if released into custody, would be able to remain law abiding and would not pose a threat to public safety, either individually or collectively. Honourable members would have picked up the similarity in the wording and intent of the provisions of my bill to the wording of this bill.
My bill required the Parole Board to provide a full and public statement of its reasons for deciding to release or not to release a dangerous offender. That was to provide openness and transparency in the decision-making process. More importantly, the bill sought to give the Crown, on its merits, the right to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal a decision to parole a dangerous offender. Currently, the Crown has only very limited grounds for making such an appeal, that is, that the board relied on information that was false, misleading or irrelevant. Despite some nonsense that the Government promoted at the time, that is why the Crown did not appeal the decision to release John Lewthwaite, the murderer of Nicole Hanns. The reason was that the board did not rely on information that was false, misleading or irrelevant.
There has been a significant, ongoing debate for many years over dangerous offenders legislation. My great concern—apart from the fact that there is still a possibility that the Murphy brothers, Kevin Crump, Allan Baker and Shorty Jameson may well be released one day, contrary to the express wishes of the sentencing judge—is that a substantial number of other people in the system will not be covered by this legislation. They will be released some time in the future and they may potentially pose a danger to the community. That was the reason I twice attempted to introduce dangerous offenders legislation. As the name of the bill suggested—Community Protection (Dangerous Offenders) Bill—the sole intention of introducing the bill was to attempt to protect the community from serious violent offenders.
Back in 1999 I sought information from the Parole Board. I do not have the most recent figures but at that time 436 serious violent offenders in the New South Wales prison system were eligible for parole one day. In three years from April 2000 there will be 105 serious offenders, including 74 murderers, due for possible release. This bill does not cover those people and people like Kenneth Johnson, who murdered 10-year-old Michelle Allport at Mittagong in 1974, and who then sent a bloodstained letter to Michelle's mother Shirley in 1986 threatening to kill her husband and her son. Patrick Horan, who killed Constable Paul Quinn in Bathurst in 1986 and left Sergeant Ian Borland permanently disabled, could be released as early as next year. The legislation does not deal with Earl Heatley, who killed a young man aged 19 at Granville in 1966, was released in 1981 and then murdered two other men, including his own brother, during an armed robbery in 1994. That is graphic evidence of the danger that certain individuals currently incarcerated in New South Wales gaols pose to the community.
Obviously I will not oppose the legislation, but I believe it should be amended. The Government has not addressed the dangerous offenders currently within the gaol system who will be released one day and who pose a threat to the community. I call on the Government to take heed of what I have said tonight and perhaps reconsider the legislation I introduced into this place, much of which was based on the report of the Law Reform Commission on sentencing. The legislation was not dreamed up out of thin air but has a substantial legal basis. The original bill I introduced was praised in a Sydney Morning Herald editorial about Gregory Wayne Kable, a case which honourable members would recall. Once again, I can see nothing in this legislation that will deal with those other serious violent offenders. Indeed, I am a little horrified to realise that the bill does not achieve what the Premier said it would achieve. It certainly does not cement Allan Baker, Kevin Crump and others in their cells. In fact, the cracks are already visible in the concrete.
Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [9.07 p.m.]: I have listened to the comments of Opposition members and basically the Opposition agrees with the bill but would like to amend it. However, the honourable member for The Hills listed other people who are in gaol for very serious crimes and proposed that the Parliament revisit everybody who is in gaol for anything of a serious nature, re-examine all their sentences and apply stronger sentences to them in every case. The honourable member for The Hills stood up and rattled off the names of many people who are already serving very lengthy sentences. If such a bill were passed, it would be struck down by the High Court.
Mr Richardson: You don't know what you are talking about.
Mr ASHTON: Yes, I do.
Mr Richardson: Do you know what my legislation was all about? You don't know what you're talking about.
Mr ASHTON: I am not interested in what your legislation was.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! The honourable member for The Hills will resume his seat. I remind him that he is not allowed to interject while standing. His contribution was heard in silence. He has alluded to the fact that this debate is heated, and I therefore ask him to refrain from interjecting.
Mr ASHTON: I have never seen a performance like it. Honourable members can all stand up in this Parliament and name people such as Crump, Baker, and the killers of Janine Balding. We are all aware of those heinous crimes but the honourable member for The Hills has rattled off many names and not everyone is familiar with those cases. Their sentences cannot be revisited by the Parliament. I refer the honourable member to what happened under Joh Bjelke-Petersen. There is a separation of powers between the Executive Government, Parliament and the judiciary. The honourable member for The Hills should try to remember that principle when he seeks to make a serious contribution to this debate. All honourable members can speak emotionally about crimes that have happened and will continue to happen in society. Parliament and government are about enacting legislation that will stand up to any challenge in a court.
Opposition members will say anything to make headlines. Last year the Leader of the Opposition, taking a tough, anti-crime stance, referred to some of the worst crimes committed in New South Wales in the past 30 or 40 years. All honourable members will be aware that there has been a serious deficiency in the determination of life sentences. It is common knowledge that, under both Labor and Liberal governments, life sentence terms became 11 years or 12 years. The Coalition Government failed in its 1989 attempt to make the system tougher.
As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga said about 20 minutes ago, an unfortunate unintended consequence of the Coalition Government's legislation was that people such as Baker, Crump and others were allowed to go before the Parole Board and seek to have their sentences overturned by a judge. When Justice James considered the Baker case last year the newspapers ran stories saying, "Labor wants to let this bloke out. Only the Opposition can keep him in." But, as Opposition members know, that determination was always in the hands of the judge. When he made a decision a week or two ago—that is why this legislation is before Parliament now—the Premier quickly said, "Now Parliament is free to take a decision that will be binding." Twenty years has been increased to 30 years.
Mr R. H. L. Smith: Sit down while you are in front.
Mr ASHTON: Those opposite are rattled. They have a political agenda; they have one case in mind but they do not really care about individual cases. Opposition members have not even argued that those convicted of the Morse killing were sentenced for conspiracy to murder, not murder. Even if they had been allowed to walk free, they would have been arrested as soon as they left the dock. This argument is a sham orchestrated by the Opposition as part of last October's "Get Kerry up there and make her strong" campaign.
Mr Martin: Mission impossible.
Mr ASHTON: I know. Opposition members have been humbled by the actions of the Premier, who has introduced strong legislation to keep prisoners in gaol. Yet they still pretend to be tougher. Those opposite say, "We'll add some extra years and make it even harder; we'll make sure they go out in a box." They do not want prisoners to be technically free, even though they are lying in a hospital bed connected to a life support system; they want them to be taken out in a box. It is part of the Liberal-National tradition: they must be seen to be harder than us. What can be harder than making prisoners serve 30 years before they can even apply for parole? They must then satisfy three criteria. First, that they are virtually incapable of walking, thinking and breathing; second, that they pose no danger to anyone; and, third, that they are fit and proper people to be granted some kind of limited parole.
Mr Windsor: What about Ronnie Biggs?
Mr ASHTON: He has returned to England. I remind the honourable member for Tamworth that he was not in gaol when he decided to leave Brazil and return to England to enjoy some pudding in his last few weeks; he was a free man. I must continue with my speech. The honourable member for The Hills has been interjecting rudely; I thought people were better behaved up there. Opposition members talk about amendments to the bill, but we have not seen them. They say they support the bill in spirit but they will seek to amend it in another place. So we will not see those amendments in this House—I have not seen them yet. We might reject a few of them. These prisoners will be locked away for a determined period. This legislation is correcting the Coalition's mistake. Some Opposition members might not have been here then, but the 1989 Coalition Government got it wrong and now we are correcting its mistake.
I urge honourable members to read in Hansard tomorrow the speech by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. The legislation says only that prisoners may be released; it does not say that they have to be released, or that they will be released. Opposition members claim that this Government will be fooled somehow and that someone such as Ivan Milat will suck down some razor blades and be released on the grounds of ill health. That guy will never get out of gaol; everyone knows that. Some prisoners will never be released from gaol. Milat will not get out, even when his eyes are barely flickering.
The Opposition tried to be smart and gazump the judge last October. It cannot do that. Governments must be responsible, whereas Opposition members can say anything because they are irrelevant. At least they are passionate—I will give them that. Emotion is very important to this argument. We have picked the worst cases. I was only a school kid when Virginia Morse was murdered and I remember the outrage I felt when I read about that crime.
If life sentences do not mean incarceration for life, we will have to send prisoners to the gas chamber, as they do in America. However, recent surveys in the United States have revealed that about 30 per cent or 40 per cent of those executed—especially in States such as Texas—were innocent of their crime. DNA has been used to prove their innocence. Someone serving a life sentence could be proved innocent. This legislation is a credit to the Government because it was introduced after Justice James made his determination. The bill will stand up to challenge in the courts and Parliament will not have to revisit this issue in 10 or 11 years to correct any mistake. We will not get it wrong like the Coalition Government did in 1989.
Opposition members are trying to do something really tough. The passion that I have aroused in those opposite tonight is proof that they want to up the ante. They want to be seen to have won this debate. The Premier was correct to say that we should listen to the Solicitor General's advice, and the Attorney General was right to seek advice and to act upon it. Cabinet carried a motion regarding this legislation last October and, unlike other Cabinets in this country, stuck by that decision. It would have been easy for the Premier to bow to pressure and say, "We've got the answer; we've already carried something in Cabinet and I'll tell that judge what to do."
The Government has a responsibility both to enforce the laws of this State and this country and to see that justice is done. It cannot simply react to the daily screamers or the radio shock jocks, on whose comments the Opposition bases most of its public policy. I commend the legislation to the Parliament. Others will consider the Opposition amendments. I can tell without looking at them that they will seek to impose harsher, more brutal penalties to ensure that prisoners are carried out in body bags. I am sure that that sums up the Opposition's amendments. Judging from the Coalition's actions in 1989, the amendments will prove worthless and will end up in the bin.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [8.18 p.m.]: I acknowledge that Brian Morse is in the public gallery listening to what I imagine must still be for him a difficult debate. I do not claim to be an expert on the law. Many lawyers had been involved in the debate and I defer to their greater knowledge of the many technical legal points. I simply hope that the legislation will observe two general principles: first, that sentences should reflect prevailing community standards; and, second, that sentences should reflect the original judgment. In looking at the detail of such issues, we are concerned that those principles are not being met. Although the Coalition does not oppose this legislation, our amendments would strengthen the two general principles, that is, reflecting community standard and reflecting the original judgment.
Without doubt, discretion is an important part of the law. However, when a judge sentences a prisoner to life—as the sentencing judge did in the case of Baker and Crump—I would hope, even today, that this Parliament would uphold that sentence. I would regard it as a sad reflection on the direction of society if we were to have retrospective discretion and start to second-guess judicial decisions of years gone by. I want to quote something that will add value to this debate. In a book entitled Punishment and Modern Society, David Garland wrote:
Punishment is, on the face of things, an apparatus for dealing with criminals—a circumscribed, discrete, legal-administrative entity. But it is also an expression of state power, a statement of collective morality, a vehicle for emotional expression, an economically conditioned social policy, an embodiment of current sensibilities, and a set of symbols which display a cultural ethos and help create a social identity. At once an element of social organisation, an aspect of social relations, and an ingredient of individual psychology, penalty runs like a connecting thread through all the layers of social structure, connecting the general with the particular, the centre with its boundaries. What appears on the surface to be merely a means of dealing with offenders so that the rest of us can lead our lives untroubled by them, is in fact a social institution which helps define the nature of our society, the kinds of relationships which compose it, and the kinds of lives that it is possible and desirable to lead there.
I believe that is an important contribution in this debate, because legislation such as this is not only about the individuals involved. It is also a reflection of the society we live in and the society we want to live in. I would hope that we will uphold those general principles and do everything we can in this place to reflect community standards. Reference was made previously to the separation of powers, but it should not be left unsaid that many magistrates today do not reflect community standards. There is a desperate need for judicial officers to reflect the needs and wishes of the community that we live in.
The original sentencing judge in this case—I believe it was Justice Taylor—made a very clear statement in his sentence. I hope we do all in our power to uphold that original sentence and not try to second-guess or distort in any way the judge's original intention. I can see worth in the bill, and I can also see worth in the amendments. I hope the Government accepts our amendments, that we deal with this legislation in a bipartisan way, and that we do what we are supposed to do in this place, that is, build a better society to live in.
Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [9.23 p.m.]: Much has been said in the debate and it is pointless for me to reiterate what has already been said. Sentencing has often been referred to in this Parliament. For the 10 years that I have been a member, the issue has constantly plagued the Parliament. Various attempts have been made to amend legislation to express the community's expectations in relation to the more heinous crimes. I was involved in one such attempt some years ago when I introduced legislation in this Parliament for a referendum on capital punishment. Approximately 400,000 to 500,000 petitioners expressed a desire to put that issue to the people, but this Parliament did not accept the proposal. Mistakes have been made in the past in truth in sentencing legislation and the Parliament has made half-baked attempts to express not the view of the community but what the Parliament could get away with—hopefully without making an impact of any political note within the community.
I watched with some degree of interest when the Leader of the Opposition introduced what became known as the Baker bill last year and the delaying tactics that took place. At the time the Government handled the matter in an appropriate manner because determinations were to be made in the courts. When those determinations were finally made, I was pleased to hear that the Government was going to introduce legislation to express the community's wishes in relation to that individual. I listened attentively. I was at home when the Premier made a statement that this legislation was to be introduced and that it had been held back whilst the court made determinations. He said that the Cabinet had looked at the matter some months ago, and I considered that to be a positive approach that one could logically understand.
I heard a number of people on the radio—and I believe Brian Morse was one of them—express some degree of satisfaction that at last something was going to be done. They expressed some gratitude to the Premier and the Opposition for the way this legislation had been achieved. That was my first glimpse of what was happening. I was glad that the Premier had grabbed the nettle, that he was going to do something about this individual and introduce legislation that had meaning. However, I am disappointed. I believed the Premier when he said that legislation would be introduced, that there was no need for the previous Baker bill, that the Government had the matter in hand, that the legislation would reflect the original judge's sentence, and that a life sentence meant "life". This legislation does not do that. I am disappointed, and the individuals who believed that this legislation would reflect a life determination must also be disappointed.
Having said that, I will support the amendments to the legislation. I ask the Premier to reconsider what he is doing, because he is doing exactly what the honourable member for East Hills criticised the Opposition of doing. He is leaving the door open once again. There is no need to leave the door open for this individual. I understand that the Attorney General may say, as I believe the honourable member for Georges River said, that whatever we do in this place has to stand the test of time and the test of the courts. That is what the Attorney General would say. He would say that this legislation is appropriate to test in the courts.
However, I suggest that this Parliament should express the view of the people, not try to second-guess the courts. That is where we have gone severely wrong over many years. I do not mean this in any offensive sense, but I believe that we have too many lawyers in this Chamber who try to second-guess the courts and produce legislation that they know their mates in the courts will find acceptable. We do that too often. It is about time the Parliament started to express the views of the community. If there are problems in the courts it is the job of the Parliament to revisit the law, and that is exactly what we are doing tonight. The courts have found flaws in the 1989 and 1997 amendments.
Mr Debus: No, they haven't.
Mr WINDSOR: The Government is revisiting the legislation to plug those holes. I suggest that we look a little further than what the Attorney General thinks will be acceptable to his mates in the courts and, instead, reflect the views of the community. The community wants Baker never to be released, regardless of whether he is sick, whether he has been in gaol for 30 years, or whatever the legislation prescribes. "Never to be released" is what the people expected when the Premier first made statements about Baker, and that is what the legislation should provide. When the bill reaches the upper House I hope the Opposition amendments will be fully considered. It is important that members of the Labor Party revisit their decision to oppose the amendments, because they express the views of the community.
We are not here to express in legislation what the courts want to deal with; we are here to reflect the views of the community. As I said earlier, I introduced legislation calling for a referendum on capital punishment. An example of one of the horrendous crimes that a number of honourable members have spoken about tonight is the crime committed on Virginia Morse. One night in my office—honourable members know how small our offices are—I had a very emotional meeting with 15 people, 14 of whom had had a relative who had been murdered. Gwen Hanns, whose daughter, Nicole, was murdered many years previously by Lewthwaite, lived in absolute fear of his being released. Her daughter was dead and her life was gone, but the family continued to suffer not only from the loss of the daughter but from the fear of this maniac getting out of prison.
I implore members of the Labor Party not to leave open such an option. Fear will remain through the system, the interpretation of the judge of the day or possible amendments to the legislation. This Parliament must express the view that "life" means "life", not life with a bracket, question mark, and another bracket—with the question mark to be determined by a judge, a magistrate or whoever, or even another government. "Life" must mean "life". I implore members of the Labor Party to seriously consider the amendments. I know it is very easy to say that the Opposition is trying to upstage the Government, but I do not think that is the case here. Plenty of that certainly goes on in this place, but in this instance I believe that the Opposition is genuinely trying to reflect what the community wants. The Premier and the Government have the opportunity to get on the front foot, accept these amendments and produce legislation that the community wants. We do not want the door left open once again.
Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.34 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Bill, but with the concern that perhaps the Government could have done it a little better. It has already been noted that Virginia Morse's husband, Brian Morse, is sitting in the gallery. I have met Brian and I have had the opportunity, albeit briefly, to talk to him. If someone like Brian Morse can still feel the pain nearly three decades after the horrific death of his wife, that is a clear message to this House that we, as members of Parliament, must ensure that legislation, which for technical reasons, would not guarantee that criminals who commit the most heinous of crimes will stay in gaol for life, is changed so that it does give that guarantee. Normally, I would be the first to say that criminals should be given a reasonable sentence and if, in the appropriate circumstances, there is any chance for rehabilitation, we, as a community, must ensure that they are rehabilitated.
But, sadly, some people commit such heinous crimes that they give up their right to be a part of the community. It is clear, and I am sure that members of the Government would agree, that criminals who have committed some of the more horrific murders have given up their right to be let back into the community. It is common to all of us. It is a pity that the bill has attracted a sense of argument about one-upmanship. The Opposition has been genuinely committed to trying to ensure that criminals who commit heinous crimes are locked away for the whole of their lives. When judges indicate during the course of their decision making that criminals should be kept behind bars for life, that is what should happen.
I could analyse the legislation and do what lawyers do, but I am not particularly interested in doing that. I am more interested in asking the Minister a couple of questions. I understand that we are going through this rather tortuous process of requiring applications for parole every three years because the Minister has legal advice that the Opposition's proposal of a nice, simple requirement that those who commit heinous crimes remain behind bars is not workable. If that is the case it is only fair to the community and this House that the Minister produce that advice.
My understanding is that that advice has not been produced, although it has been talked about. The Premier said that advice had been received about the Opposition's proposal and that it could not be implemented. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House. The Government is obligated to make it simple. If I or the Minister were in Brian Morse's position, or if we had a relative who had been murdered by one of the small number of murderers who are in gaol under the pre-1989 legislation, we would want to know—
Mr Debus: That is not worthy of you, Brad.
Mr HAZZARD: What?
Mr Debus: To suggest that I don't understand that feeling any better than you do.
Mr HAZZARD: I am not suggesting the Minister does not understand that feeling. I would suggest that to him. I am suggesting that as the responsible Minister he has an obligation to produce the advice that he says indicates that the Coalition's position is not correct. I believe that if the Opposition were in a position to do so, it would not want to have to sustain the possibility, as remote as it may be, of these criminals seeking redetermination of their sentences every three years. The Minister and I might believe that the end result of this legislation is that they will not have their sentences redetermined but, if I were a relative of one of the victims, I would want to know that I did not have to go through that procedure.
I accept that it may not be solely the Minister's decision and I am not for one moment reflecting on the Minister personally in that regard because I am sure he would share my concern. However, I would like to know, and I am sure the House would like to know, precisely why it is that the Minister says we cannot use the simplest method, that is, ensure that any inmate whose file was marked "Not to be released" prior to the 1989 truth in sentencing legislation is not released. That should be the end of it. I merely asked a question. It is not intended to be a reflection on the Minister personally, who would undoubtedly share my view about the end result.
Without going into detail, it has already been said that the debate has involved one-upmanship in regard to the 1989 legislation—who got it right and who got it wrong. That was good legislation. It was legislation that at the time made a vast difference, a sea change of difference, in that prisoners who had been given life sentences were dealt with. It produced the result that any person after that time who was given a life sentence in fact had a life sentence.
Mr Debus: That is true, but it did not introduce the changes that give rise to the problem we now have.
Mr HAZZARD: I agree with what the Minister has said, but without the Opposition and the Government fighting about it, the reality is it did that. However, it did it because at that time it was a sea change. We were not prepared to make things retrospective. I recall the debate at the time, although I was not a member of Parliament. It was essentially a civil libertarian argument which I would usually have some sympathy with, as I am sure the Minister would, that we should not make the law retrospective. There is a small group of people that the community thinks are no longer worthy of the term "human", who should be kept in a cage all their lives.
Mr Debus: That is what we have done.
Mr HAZZARD: The Minister interjected to say that is what the Government has done. If, as a Parliament reflecting the wishes of the community, we can find a simple way to achieve it, that would be better. If we have to accept this rather tortuous way of doing it, I suggest that, as the Premier has made the point on a number of occasions that he received legal advice, that legal advice should be released.
Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [9.43 p.m.]: Debate on this matter has undoubtedly been emotionally charged. I believe some of the exchanges have been unfortunate, while others have been quite productive. I was pleased that this bill was introduced into the House and I believe the intent of members on both sides of the Chamber is very positive. The Attorney General, the Minister at the table, is keen to correct the anomaly that occurred as a result of the previous legislation. I took the opportunity to read some of the Hansard reports of the earlier debate and there is no doubt that retrospectivity was well and truly debated at length in this Chamber, long before I was fortunate enough to be elected as a member.
The decision not to proceed down that path was deliberate. Parliament debated the matter at length and the government of the day—I do not draw a distinction, because I think the motives were pure—decided not to pursue that course of action. That brings us to today and to the particular problems that have arisen. I believe the Government's motives in this regard are positive but I believe the Opposition has also had a strong hand in bringing this matter before the House. I acknowledge the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been tenacious in pursuing her legislation. I believe that together the parties have brought about this debate.
There were some unfortunate aspects to the debate about who was right and who was wrong, and about what might improve the legislation, but the message I have heard is that members on both sides of the House wish to pursue the issue of a sentence of life meaning life. That is certainly what the community expects and what the Attorney General wants. I know he is very aware of the community's view in this regard. I am equally aware of the advice and the other issues that arise that cause governments to steer a particular path to produce an outcome. But it is clear that the community expects a life sentence to be a life sentence. It is unfortunate that there are some in society to whom we can show little, if any, flexibility at all.
With regard to some of the crimes we have heard about during the course of the debate, it is a sad fact that the perpetrators need to be locked away for life, which is what the sentencing judge has written down on many occasions. It is an indictment of society in some respects, but it is a fact that these cases have to be dealt with in that way. I am all for being compassionate when compassion is necessary. We should always try to be as compassionate as we can, but in the particular circumstances of many of the cases we have heard about, there is no room for compassion. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on having brought this legislation forward and I also congratulate the Opposition because I do not believe we would be debating this matter today without pressure having been brought to bear by the Opposition. I indicate that I will support the proposed amendments.
Mr BARR (Manly) [9.47 p.m.]: An important debate has occurred tonight on an issue that affects us all, and in respect of which society has expectations of the judicial system. I believe the debate has been of a high standard and I believe that, even though there has been an element of politicking in it, all honourable members recognise the seriousness of it. Therefore, honourable members have debated the matter accordingly. In essence there is not a great deal of difference between what the Government has put forward and the proposed amendments, but I will support the Opposition's amendments. We are dealing with offenders who have gone so far beyond the bounds of regard for their fellow human beings as to have forfeited any consideration of a second chance. Their crimes have been so horrific that society, the public generally and the relatives of victims in particular, have the right to expect that they will not be put through another round of emotional turmoil years down the track.
A sense of closure is needed in these sorts of circumstances, which we all recognise are of a different nature to run-of-the-mill things, if I could put it that way. We are talking about particularly horrific crimes in respect of which the court has recommended that the offenders never be released. The courts have done that because of the horrific nature of the acts committed by those killers. I believe we have a right to a sense of finality in regard to these sorts of matters. The relatives of the victims have the right to the expectation that the matters will not be revisited. It simply comes down to that. The Government's bill contemplates exceptional and rare circumstances in which these killers could possibly or potentially be released. A simpler way would be to say that they should not be released, that they have forfeited that opportunity because of their acts.
I am slightly puzzled by what the Government is proposing but I think it is based on compassion; it may be based on legal grounds as well. But it seems to me to be a little cluttered. It would be simpler to say: These people have committed such crimes that the public generally do not expect them ever to be released. The consensus would be that we should lock them up and throw away the keys. We have to reflect that public sentiment, which is very strong. For that reason I will support the amendments. The bill is welcome and I am glad the Government has brought it on.
Mr WEBB (Monaro) [9.50 p.m.]: I support the bill and will support the amendments by the Leader of the Opposition to reinforce the bill. I cannot believe that it took the Government so long to deal with the legislation. I cannot believe that the Government did not some time ago adopt the push that was coming and get on with introducing its own legislation or support the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The amendments will clarify some of the provisions of the bill. We need to get this right. We need principles to guide us in our daily lives. We need to set an example for our children and our communities. We need to live by certain commandments that can guide us all. The teachings to love our neighbour and to love our fellow man point us in the right direction. When somebody is guilty of committing a heinous crime, has been through the courts and his file has been marked "not to be released" that surely should be the end of the matter. We should set an example in the way we manage such cases. For those reasons I have no trouble in supporting the bill and the foreshadowed amendments.
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.52 p.m.], in reply: The Sentencing Act 1989 was accompanied by the Crimes (Life Sentencing) Amendment Act 1989, introduced by the Minister for Corrective Services in the Coalition Government. These Acts put in place a series of reforms which gave legislative effect to a policy that is described as truth in sentencing. In case I should later forget, I point out to the honourable member for Tamworth that life now means life.
Mr Windsor: Unless—
Mr DEBUS: Life means life for everybody who has been sentenced since that time. A Court of Criminal Appeal decision last year emphasised that a life term given since 1989 means just that. There can be no parole. The sentencing court cannot set a non-parole period. Life does mean life now. It may be claimed that it should always have been like that, but it is not as simple as that. When the Minister for Corrective Services in the Coalition Government in 1989, Michael Yabsley, introduced the bill he said these words:
The aim of these provisions is to ensure that existing life sentence prisoners —
such as the ones we are talking about today —
are not disadvantaged. Among other matters, efforts made by these prisoners to rehabilitate themselves must be considered by the court.
A number of Opposition members during this debate have talked about an unintended consequence of the 1989 legislation. It was not unintended; Michael Yabsley's intention was absolutely clear. The Supreme Court should have that right. The legislation that Yabsley introduced provided a mechanism for prisoners then serving indeterminate life sentences to apply to the Supreme Court to have their sentences determined: that is, to have their existing life sentence converted into an ordinary determinate sentence under the Sentencing Act 1989. This included the so-called never-to-be-released prisoners. It included people about whom the sentencing judge used the words at the time of sentencing, "This person should never be released." But before 1989 everybody knew that those words—
Mrs Chikarovski: You must be looking at your own legislation now.
Mr DEBUS: For heaven's sake! The sentencing judge could use those words, "This person should never be released." There are 10 people now in this category: the people who committed the heinous, horrifying crimes against Mrs Morse, Anita Cobby, Janine Balding —
Mr Hazzard: Ebony Simpson.
Mr DEBUS: Not against Ebony Simpson. Since the 1989 Act people who have committed horrible and comparable crimes—Milat and the man who murdered Ebony Simpson—have been given life sentences; it has been clear cut. However, it is necessary, given the confusion of most of the members opposite, to remind them that when judges said before 1989, "This person should never be released", those words did not have the force of law. The mechanism by which the process of conversion of life sentences could occur was set out back then in section 13A of the Sentencing Act introduced by Michael Yabsley.
This section entrusted the Supreme Court of New South Wales with the task of redetermination. It said that the court must do it. In 1993 the then Coalition Government introduced a bill which altered the procedure for redetermining life sentences for so-called never-to-be-released prisoners. The then Attorney General, the Hon. John Hannaford, referred to that bill as conferring power on the court in effect to confirm the life sentence by barring future applications for the protection of the community. When he introduced his amendments—this completely contradicts assertions made with altogether too much confidence by the honourable member for Cronulla and others—he said:
Hannaford's bill —
reflects the Government's commitment to ensure that any decision to never release an old life prisoner will remain with the judiciary, where it properly resides, free of Executive interference.
Mrs Chikarovski: Do you agree with that?
Mr DEBUS: I am giving you the history. If you cannot understand the history you cannot understand the bill that is before you. You simply do not understand what you are talking about. In 1997, as the honourable member for Georges River has indicated, the Carr Government introduced reforms to the legislation dealing with the sentencing of offenders who had previously received life sentences. Those reforms allow a judge, in hearing a redetermination, to have regard to and to give substantial weight to the recommendations, observations and comments of the original sentencing judge. So for the first time the Carr Government introduced a bill which actually drew the attention of the redetermining judge to the remarks made in the original sentence: "This person should never be released". In addition, a judge could order that the applicant never again apply for a redetermination or could reapply after a period of not less than three years.
So back in 1997 the Carr Government made it possible for the first time for the redetermining judge to pay attention to the words of the original judge. For the first time it was possible to give legal force to those words: "This person should never be released." The redetermining judge was also given dispensation to tell an applicant that he could not again apply for redetermination. That provision still exists. The 1997 legislation allowed judicial decisions according to evidence properly admitted at law. It did not interfere with the independence of the judiciary; it built upon and continued the direction of the legislation that had been introduced by the Coalition in 1989 and amended in 1993. Of course I understand the terrible hurt that is involved in the matters we are discussing. I would prefer to not take a partisan position, but it is a little difficult to do so when the Leader of the Opposition constantly interjects and refers to me as a hypocrite.
Until recently, and for six years, I was the Minister for Corrective Services. I can say with confidence that I have met more of the victims of heinous crimes, and I know more about their feelings and I know more about some of the criminals that we are talking about, than do most members of this House. The emotion that is involved in this debate is not sufficient to determine the outcome of it. I am here precisely because of the feeling that I have for the victims and to ensure that we have a bill that works legally. Some members opposite have suggested that we forget about the lawyers, forget about the judges, and say whatever we want, whatever we think.
Every member of this House is horrified by the actions of the individuals that we are talking about, and everyone agrees that we should do everything we can to make sure that they do not get out of gaol. But I want to be sure that what we do is legally effective. For heaven's sake, what is the point of passing a bill that is struck down next year or the year after by the High Court and the very victims that we want to protect today are thrown back into the uncertainty that they experienced before 1989. What is the point of that?
Sooner or later, the bill will inevitably be scrutinised by the High Court, because this area of law is complicated. The Opposition's amendments, which I have seen again today, are obviously technically flawed; they are a mess. Even if the Government were to agree to them they contradict their apparent purpose. I will say more about that later. The Government wants to close as many as possible of the potential loopholes that may exist in legislation of this type. We want to get it right. We want to ensure that the legislation embraces never-to-be-released offenders such as Crump, whose sentence has already been redetermined. Nothing in the Opposition's amendments as moved will assist in catching Crump.
The effect of the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition is to replace the Government's model concerning redetermination of sentences with a facsimile of the bill that the Opposition previously introduced. To some extent we are repeating an argument we have had before. In essence the Government is taking what it believes to be the best approach, first, because it is the approach that best resembles the sentencing court's approach in the context of what that court could do in 1989, and, second, because it is the genuine belief of the Government and myself, based upon careful analysis, that this approach would be more likely to withstand a challenge than an approach that cuts out redetermination altogether.
That is the essence of it; the Opposition can go for redetermination if it wants to do so. However, I do not want that, because the chances of a bill which goes for redetermination has a much stronger chance of being struck down by the High Court. There is no use railing against lawyers: if they do it, they do it. If the alternative is to cut off redetermination altogether, that is a flawed approach. The alternative may have the unfortunate effect of diluting the capacity of the States to legislate if the bill were struck down as offending the Constitution. That result could hamper the capacity of States to make laws in the best interests of people of the States generally.
The Leader of the Opposition has referred in the media, and perhaps in previous debates, to the Bachrach case, which was decided in the High Court a couple of years ago. That case showed that a State can legislate to make planning litigation obsolete. However, it certainly did not extend that principle to the criminal law. Indeed, it was pointed out in that case that the determination of criminal guilt remains the exclusive domain of judicial power. The Opposition can say that it does not want that to be so, but it would be unwise to test the extension of that principle unnecessarily.
The legislation is based on an assessment of the course of action which presents the least risk with the best outcome. A priority for the Government is to achieve an outcome: that a particular category of offender should serve a term of life in prison in accordance with the recommendation of the original sentencing judge. The means to that end should not contain identifiable witnesses who might jeopardise the achievement of that outcome. Thus the Government's model is the preferred model, because it has the effect of keeping this category of prisoners in gaol for life—which means life!
The Government believes that it has been vindicated in the stand of principle which it took in declining to seek to intervene in a criminal law proceeding which was under way. I refer to the recent application by Baker for a redetermination. Justice James, in his recent decision, has given most careful and detailed consideration to the intricacies of the legislation as it stood at the time of the inmate Baker's application. The judgment provided valuable insights into the likely judicial interpretation of various clauses of the legislation. All along the Government maintained that the legislation was too important and too intricate to amend hastily without due thought and in the heat of political controversy.
The Opposition model is a vacuum that offends against sentencing principles and would leave an anomaly in the category of prisoners it attaches to. That is, the administrative process by which a person's sentence could be determined prior to 1989, the old remission scheme, has been removed. If the process of redetermination which was set in place to replace it in 1989 were to be set aside, it follows logically that what is left is an indeterminate sentence. The 1989 legislation was designed to end indeterminate sentences. The aim of the legislation was to create certainty.
It is highly arguable whether a natural life sentence can be created, as the Opposition seeks to do, by the simple expedient of failing to redetermine the original sentence. That uncertainty may possibly ground a High Court challenge founding a claim that the appellant is an indeterminate sentence prisoner in legal limbo. The model proposed by the Opposition relies upon a single point of intervention, that is, the point of redetermination. If the High Court decided to strike down that clause the entire amendment and its purpose would fail.
On the other hand, the Government model has several limbs, and those limbs are, as it were, severable. In other words, if a High Court challenge succeeded on those parts of the Government scheme which relate to the Parole Board—and on the basis of the Solicitor General's opinion I do not believe that it will—those measures which relate to the redetermination would remain, allowing time to consider further amendments. The Hon. John Hannaford made a pertinent point in the debate on the Opposition's bill in the Legislative Council on 31 August last year. In relation to his 1993 legislation, amending the redetermination process, he said:
Legislation that is passed sometimes does not work the way in which it was intended.
No government has previously sought to impose a legislated life sentence upon these never-to-be-released prisoners. Instead, governments have sought to tighten the requirements for a redetermination of the sentences. The model proposed by the Opposition takes a dramatically, and I would say potentially flawed, new direction. The Government has learnt from the failed Kable legislation and is aware of the capacity of this place to make good laws within boundaries.
Based on the example given by former Attorney General Mr Hannaford, I venture to suggest that if the Opposition were now in government, even it might respect those principles, instead of continuing on what I can only regard as a reckless course. The point of distinction with the Opposition proposal is that the Government is basically following as closely as possible the form of the original sentence under which these 10 never-to-be-released prisoners were sentenced. That is a key point. We must acknowledge that legal challenge is a real possibility for the legislation that is being debated. However, the Government is of the strong view that its model will achieve the intention of keeping Baker and his ilk in gaol and that it is the less risky path to travel in ensuring that that remains the case.
The advice we have is that the Government model will work and I do not intend to get further into an auction over advice on the Opposition's model. I have expressed the Government's committed view that it is flawed. The decision by Justice Greg James in the Baker application shows that the present model for redeterminations is actually working. The Government is tightening that model. Justice James said that rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending were not, on their own, special reasons. Under the existing legislation special reasons did not, on their own, require a consideration of the application to redetermine. The Government endorses the approach and adds to that the words "inability for a head sentence of anything other than life in this category of offenders and the Parole Board restrictions on release". The existing system is working and we are making it tighter.
As Attorney General I have examined the issue in some considerable detail. I have also had the benefit of briefings from the Solicitor General, the Director of the Criminal Law Division of the Attorney General's Department, and the Director of the Legal Branch of the Cabinet Office, and I have formed a view, in consultation with other members of the Government, that the model I am putting forward is the best possible model to put forward. The Government option is not weaker; it is stronger and better. It captures Crump, which the Opposition's bill did not do, it retains judicial discretion and serves the people of this State by ensuring that the 10 heinous criminals of whom we are talking will not see the light of day.
There has been criticism that the bill permits reapplications for redetermination on an at-worst basis of every three years. However, in reality such an application will only be granted in special circumstances. In Baker's application the judge saw no special circumstances and even then consideration of all the issues, such as the circumstances surrounding the offence itself and all the offences for which an offender was ever convicted, must follow and then if redetermination is permitted—it may be denied for a limited period or forever—the head sentence must still be life.
The prospect of parole following from any redetermination is so remote as to be negligible because of the parole requirements in this package. Some completely misleading comments were made by a number of speakers opposite about parole requirements. It is perfectly clear from new section 154A (3) that the Parole Board may make an order directing the release of an offender on parole if and only if it is satisfied that the offender is in imminent danger of dying or is incapacitated to the extent that he or she no longer has the physical ability to do harm to any person. That is about as tight a definition as one can get while still reflecting the structure of the original sentence. In debate on the Opposition bill on 31 August last year the Hon. Charlie Lynn said:
Both the Government and the Opposition could continue to get legal advice and there would be ongoing conflicting views.
That was an accurate observation he made during that debate. It will end up being a matter for the Parliament as to which view prevails. The Government has put forward its advice and relies upon the good sense of honourable members to support this best option. It would be a great shame for the bill to fall apart on the basis that the debate was split between those who support the Government bill, which gets both Baker and Crump, those who support the Opposition, which seeks to cut off redetermination altogether, and those who oppose the concept of legislation in this area entirely, although I do not think there are many in the last category.
The advantage of the Government solution over the Opposition approach to dealing with this difficult and unique group of prisoners caught by history, with judges saying that they should never be released under the laws for sentencing that existed before 1989, is that it does not interfere with the judicial process, it does not impose its own mandatory life sentence and promise a potential release on parole under highly restrictive conditions. I am concerned that if the Opposition approach is adopted and there is a successful High Court challenge, the legislative power of the State, as happened in the Kable case, will be further eroded, thereby diminishing the power of this Parliament to pass laws for the welfare of the citizens of this State generally.
The Government has examined this issue for nearly a year. It considered the model put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and decided that it should not be debated as a matter of policy while proceedings concerning the law were on foot. It was of the view that the model has inherent flaws that may increase the prospects of a challenge. The Government has given thorough consideration to the possible options. There remain the problems with the Opposition option which I have addressed. They include the Parliament effectively sentencing people to a longer term, and that may be held to be usurping exclusive judicial power. We know that before 1989 the average term of a life sentence was 12 years. The Opposition model legislatively removes any possibility of release. It is likely that an argument could be mounted that the Opposition model involves the Parliament exercising an exclusive function of the judiciary by lengthening the real term of imprisonment for a category of offenders.
The Government option, one settled upon after much discussion with the legal advisers to the Government, is aimed largely at re-creating the form of the original regime under which Baker and his ilk were sentenced. The maximum term is still life imprisonment. However, the court can set a non-parole period, after which the offender could be released under the stricter regime put in place at the executive Parole Board end of the equation. While the tightening of the parole provisions makes release in practice more than unlikely, the fact that the Parliament is not extending the sentence by denying the possibility that the offender will ever be released means that the Government approach is less likely to be challenged. I commend the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove—Leader of the Opposition) [10.20 p.m.] by leave, I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, lines 12-24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
[2] Schedule 1, clause 2
Insert after clause 2 (3):
(4) The provisions of subclauses (2) (b) and (3) cease to have effect on the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001.
[3] Schedule 1, clause 9
Insert after clause 8:
9 Barring of applications for offenders subject to non-release recommendations
(1) On and from the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001:
(a) a disqualified person is no longer eligible to apply to the Supreme Court for a determination under clause 4 (1), and
(b) the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to make a determination under clause 4 (1) in respect of a disqualified person.
(2) Subclause (1) (b) applies to and in respect of a disqualified person even if an application for a determination under clause 4 (1) was made, but not determined, in respect of the person before the commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Existing Life Sentences) Act 2001.
(3) In this clause, disqualified person means an offender who is serving an existing life sentence and in respect of whom a non-release recommendation is in force.
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1, lines 1-18. Omit all words on those lines.
I am absolutely gobsmacked by the hypocrisy of the Attorney General. He has just explained why his bill is not taking away judicial discretion and why the bill the Opposition proposed does. I remind the House that we are saying to the Supreme Court of New South Wales that it can say and do whatever it likes but the Parole Board, an administrative tribunal, will not implement the decision it makes. The Supreme Court of New South Wales can determine and allow people a period of parole but the Parole Board, according to the Premier's own words, will cement those people in their cells. The Attorney General is a hypocrite, because he is playing politics. He should be saying that the discretion of the Supreme Court—one aspect of which his legislation is taking away, that is, to allow this matter to come back before it—can be taken away by Parliament because Parliament does have that right. No, rather than taking the hard decisions, the Government is taking away the discretion of the Supreme Court ex post facto by taking away the discretion of the Parole Board.
Let me remind the Committee of something the Premier said in 1994. The Minister for Transport will remember the matter was before the Serious Offenders Review Board, a matter in which he had a personal interest. The Minister for Transport was standing with the Premier and Gwen Hanns when the Premier was saying he was going to make sure that people like Lewthwaite did not get out. He is out—honourable members should remember that. Honourable members should remember what the current Premier said in 1994 when he was criticising bodies such as the Serious Offenders Review Board. He said it was not a substitute for making policy decisions to refer these sorts of decisions to those bodies. He said:
All this is a substitute for government just making hard decisions. The governments are there to make hard decisions.
The Government has to make a hard decision about these. Do we want people like the Bakers of the world, the Cobby murderers and the Janine Balding murderers going back to the Supreme Court every three years and wasting the time of the court and the time of the families of the victims of those crimes? No! When the Supreme Court gives those people a determination, do we want them going before the Parole Board, however hopeless the situation may be? The answer is no. The Attorney General is a hypocrite. He said he is prepared to have his legislation challenged by the High Court. Why is he prepared to have his legislation challenged by the High Court but not put up the other option, which may also be challenged in the High Court? That will at least give the people of the State an opportunity to have this situation sorted out, to make sure these people do not come back before the courts. If the Attorney General is that confident about having his legislation challenged in the High Court, he should allow both pieces of legislation to be challenged.
Time and again we have heard about the legal advice that says this is unconstitutional. The Attorney General should table it and show us. He has not been prepared to show us the legal advice. The only legal advice honourable members on this side have seen—five minutes before we brought the legislation into the Chamber—was advice from the department of the Attorney General that we may in some way be influencing the case or could compromise the case. If there were legislation in Parliament that stopped the case going before the court in the first instance, there would have been nothing to compromise. It is as simple as that.
I am absolutely amazed that members of the Government can piously put their hands over their hearts and say that they have done everything they possibly can. Tell that to the families who will have to go through this process every three years. They should tell them they have done everything possible. The reality is, they have not. This legislation is before the Parliament today, not because of any high moral principle, not because the Government is committed to doing anything, but because Brian Morse and people on this side of the Chamber badgered and badgered the Government to do something about it. Brian Morse and people like him do not want to have to face the trial of having—
Mr Black: Kerry, are you all right?
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Have you been drinking again? I would be quiet if I were you. We know we cannot get into a lift with you because the smell knocks everybody out. Please leave it alone and let us have a serious debate tonight. The Government says that he has been trying to do something about this since October. I remind honourable members that this determination started in June. If the Government were that concerned about it, it should have done something about it then.
Mr Brown: October?
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: It started in June.
Mr Brown: You said November.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I did not. I said it started in June. The Government has finally done something about it because people like Brian Morse have been publicly campaigning to get something done. They have been saying, "Please, God, do something so we have some peace of mind." I have already acknowledged that we accept the legislation in relation to the Parole Board because Crump has already been determined and he becomes eligible for parole in 2003. I believe we should do everything we can to keep him in gaol. One of the ways we can do that is to accept this part of the legislation. If honourable members had listened to my speech earlier, they would know I made it clear that we would support that part of the legislation because of that.
Like the Attorney General, I know a bit about these absolutely horrific criminals, because I, as shadow Minister for Corrective Services, got to know a lot of these people. I acknowledge Martha Jabour, who is in the gallery tonight. Through Martha and the good work she has done I have got to know a lot of the families of the victims of these people. I have sat in on meetings of the Homicide Victims Support Group and from listening to people I understand the trauma they have gone through. We are trying to make sure that that trauma is reduced to the absolute minimum and is not revisited upon them every three years and that, as the Premier has said, these offenders will be cemented in their cells. That means they should not have an opportunity to come back before the Supreme Court every three years and say they have reformed so please do something about it. We should take away from the Supreme Court the right to let them have that hearing.
Why should those people be given any chance? Why should they have an opportunity to stand in open court and appeal to the masses and say, "I have been a terrible person but now I have reformed"? They should not have that opportunity. They should have their life sentences that the courts set in the first instance—never to be released—and they should not have an opportunity to go back to the courts and ask the courts to consider giving them another opportunity. Time and again we have sought to have this legislation debated because we believe very strongly at the end of the day that the power lies with Parliament to take away these people's pain; we believe the power lies with Parliament to give them finality. The Government's measure does not ensure either finality or that these people will not have a regular opportunity to revisit pain on their victims. We can say that it is hopeless and that prisoners will not have that chance, but they will keep trying. What else do they have to do in gaol but prepare appeal after appeal? We should not give them even that opportunity. I remind Parliament that it has the power, responsibility and the opportunity to do something about this.
We have sought legal advice—which we are prepared to give to the Government although it has not extended us the same courtesy—and I refer to the judgment by Mr Justice Mahoney in The Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation of New South Wales v The Minister for Industrial Relations before the Court of Appeal. He referred in some detail to the role of Parliament, and concluded:
But in the end the power and so the responsibility lies with the Parliament and in my opinion it is proper that it be so. For the consequences of such legislation may be serious and it is the Parliament and those who comprise it who must be accountable for it.
Tonight we are asking Parliament to be accountable for the proposed legislation that it has the opportunity to pass. We are asking Parliament to stand up for the people who want us to be their voice. We are asking Parliament to pass our amendments to ensure that heinous criminals do not have the opportunity to appeal to the courts. I accept fully that we must pass the amendment regarding the Parole Board. However, we must also ensure that criminals do not have the opportunity to go, time and time again, before the courts and then to the Parole Board. Let us minimise those opportunities. Let us ensure that Crump is the only person who could do that; let us deny that opportunity to Baker, the Cobby murderers, the Balding murderers and others of that ilk. They have forfeited every single right to return to the community and they should forfeit every single right even to apply for that opportunity. It is not a big ask.
The Premier and the Attorney General have said that they expect the legislation to be challenged. We have also received legal advice. The Government claims to have legal advice about the Parole Board and the fact that the measure will withstand a High Court challenge, and we have legal advice to the same effect. The Premier, Attorney General, Minister for Police and the Minister for Corrective Services—wherever he is—have an opportunity tonight to ensure that every single thing that can be done to prevent the release of these prisoners is done. Parliament has an opportunity to ensure that they do not even have the chance to cause pain, grief, anxiety and concern to victims' families—all of which Brian Morse has been suffering for the past 27 years. We have an opportunity to give those families finality. That is what we are asking: Close the books for these people. Close the book for Brian Morse and for his children. Close the book for the families of Janine Balding and Anita Cobby. Do not continue the pain; do not continue to allow prisoners to go before the courts time and again and reopen old wounds.
This is an opportunity for Parliament to show leadership. This is an opportunity for the Premier to stand by his comments in 1994 that governments are there to make hard decisions. Have the courage to make that decision now. I urge honourable members to pass the amendments and the bill in a spirit of bipartisanship to protect the people of New South Wales but, more importantly, to stop the suffering of victims' families. Close the books; close them tonight.
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [10.35 p.m.]: There is little point my reiterating at great length my argument in respect of the bill. It is true that Parliament is sovereign, but the courts are a separate power and they continue to have sentencing powers. I began my summation of this debate by saying that we can speak with much emotion—we are all deeply emotional about this matter—but if honourable members think it is in any way beneficial to the victims of these heinous criminals to pass a law that will be struck down by the High Court—
Mrs Chikarovski: Show us the advice that says that.
Mr DEBUS: We listened to the Leader of the Opposition in silence.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bega will cease interjecting. Both will have a further opportunity to address the Committee.
Mr DEBUS: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks there is a lasting benefit in introducing legislation that is susceptible to challenge in the High Court, she continues to demonstrate her lamentable confusion. I draw attention to the amendment to schedule 1, clause 9 (3), which states:
In this clause, disqualified person means an offender who is serving an existing life sentence and in respect of whom a non-release recommendation is in force.
They are the people who would be disqualified from any redetermination application by the Opposition's amendment. I simply point out that no recommendation can be in force in those circumstances. This amendment would fail ab initio because the wording is flawed. I understand the Opposition's intention, but the drafting is flawed. This amendment will not work in its present form. If there were ever a demonstration of the technical difficulties with which we are dealing, this is it. The Government does not support the amendment and, even if it did, the amendment would not achieve the Opposition's intended aim.
Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.37 p.m.]: I said in my contribution to the second reading debate earlier this evening that, if the Government seriously believes it is providing the best outcome for the community and if the Minister wishes the community to accept his sincerity, he should explain why he is not making the legal advice available. He need not provide the details if there is some reason why that legal advice should not be made available. However, at the very least he should explain to the Committee why he will not do so. Withholding that advice poses a serious question about the credibility of everything the Minister has said tonight. It is a serious issue.
As to the Minister's latter comments, the amendments moved in globo by the Leader of the Opposition were drafted using not only our expertise but that of Parliamentary Counsel. Proposed clause 9 (3) of schedule 1 was drafted with the benefit of that expertise and advice. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, but I am uncertain at this stage why he claims that that provision will not achieve the Opposition's desired aim. The Minister said that he understands what we are trying to achieve. In that case I would be grateful if he will explain to the Committee precisely why this amendment will not achieve our objective.
Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [10.39 p.m.]: I move:
That the Chairman of Committees leave the Chair and report progress.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 49
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Mr Ashton
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Miss Burton
Mr Collier
Mr Crittenden
Mr Debus
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Mrs Grusovin | Ms Harrison
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Mr McManus
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Ms Moore
Mr Moss
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos | Mr E. T. Page
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Scully
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Woods
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Anderson
Mr Thompson |
Noes, 36
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Mr Brogden
Mrs Chikarovski
Mr Collins
Mr Debnam
Mr George
Mr Glachan
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Humpherson
Dr Kernohan | Mr Kerr
Mr Maguire
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Mr O'Doherty
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Oakeshott
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Mr Rozzoli
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith | Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Webb
Mr Windsor
Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr R. H. L. Smith |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:04 : Update this page