- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 21 November 2002
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 44 of 71
| Next Item »
Page: 7291
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 20 November.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.00 p.m.]: The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Bill pretends to introduce a kind of standardised or prescribed minimum sentence. The bill would have the public believe that such legislation would enshrine a situation where dangerous criminals were assured of receiving a particular gaol term as a bare minimum. However, due to what the bill describes as mitigating factors, that is simply not the case. The overview of the bill states that one of its principal objectives is "to establish a scheme of standard minimum sentencing for a number of serious offences". It is a scheme all right—in the sense of being artful and deceitful—though perhaps in the interests of making it clearer some might prefer to substitute the word "scheme" for clearer terminology such as "scam". In many respects, the mitigating factors simply entrench what the courts already take into account.
Whilst it is appropriate to have mitigating factors that explain why a criminal should not receive the maximum sentence or something higher than the minimum sentence, it is a sick joke to have mitigating factors so as to create a way of not imposing at least the minimum sentence expected by the public. This bill is supposed to be about giving the public an understood minimum sentence. However, in many respects it establishes that principle and then completely undermines it. Some of the mitigating factors are downright offensive, and would be considered especially so in the case of surviving victims or friends and family of victims. For example, paragraph (f) in the list of mitigating factors states that "the offender was a person of good character" as being a consideration for imposing a sentence below the stated minimum. People of good character do not commit gang rape; people of good character do not sell drugs; people of good character do not murder children; and people of good character are not car-jackers or home invaders. Are we to believe that these criminals were people of good character until they happen to become rapists, drug peddlers or child murderers?
The mitigating factors should refer to an explanation as to why a serious offender receives only the minimum sentence, rather than being an excuse to impose a lesser sentence than the public would be led to believe was the minimum. Such considerations should be made in the Committee stage; certainly I will be seeking to make amendments of that kind. Like all debates in this House, those of certain social persuasions raise lunacy that the average Australian would find discriminatory and abhorrent. I note in particular the nonsense of the Greens' Ms Lee Rhiannon, who was concerned that being Aboriginal was not a mitigating factor. How much Aboriginal do the Greens suggest people need to be to qualify to receive a lesser penalty than everybody else? Do they suggest that they need to be full-blooded Aborigines, or perhaps half casts or quarter casts, or do they suggest such people need to be one-eighth or one-sixteenth Aborigines?
Will the strength of the mitigating circumstances in such cases be based on a level of Aboriginality? Will the lowest sentences be handed to full-blooded Aborigines, with the time being taken off the sentence in proportion to the level of a person's Aboriginality? Would it simply be a matter of professing to be an Aborigine, so that we could then simply rely on the Aboriginal community to fight it out as to who should get a lesser sentence? I ask that last question because no doubt members are aware that there is a considerable fight within the Aboriginal community over who really is Aboriginal. There is a great deal of concern amongst the Aboriginal community that many who claim to be Aboriginal—and hence are rorting significant advantages that are not available to other Australians—are in fact not Aboriginal at all. Aboriginal communities in Tasmania claim that 9,000 out of the 15,000 residents purporting to be Aboriginal are simply liars stealing from the system.
My wife, Lisa, is one-eighth Sioux Indian. Perhaps Ms Lee Rhiannon would like to take that into account as a mitigating factor for sentencing—after all, Lisa's ancestors suffered and she sometimes gets quite upset when reading about it. My mention of Lisa's partial indigenous background merely highlights the nonsense raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon in suggesting that Aborigines should receive lesser sentences simply because they are Aboriginal. If Ms Lee Rhiannon were to look at crime statistics she would learn that Aboriginal people rob, assault, rape and murder at a significantly higher rate than any other group in the community. But, of course, such facts would not matter to Ms Lee Rhiannon as she is of the school that believes there is no such thing as right and wrong, only circumstances.
I do not believe that any system should advantage or disadvantage anyone on the basis of race. Rather, I believe that all Australians should be treated equally, and the way in which people are treated in the eyes of the law should be a shining example of equal treatment. For Ms Lee Rhiannon to want mitigating factors to reduce sentences on the basis of Aboriginality is one of the most offensive and discriminatory suggestions I have ever heard. Whilst there is much in the bill that I disagree with, I congratulate the Government on not including in its mitigating factors such bunk as has been brought before the House by the unsustainable views of the Greens' Ms Lee Rhiannon.
True minimum sentencing means a period in gaol from which there will be no deviation. True minimum sentencing must be a publicly understood period that will be as it sounds—that is, that it will be the very least time of incarceration that can be expected as the penalty for those proven to be guilty. I remind the House that I was the first to attempt to introduce minimum penalties. I did so in an amendment to the Sexual Assault in Company Bill, during the heated debate surrounding the horrific actions of Muslim gang rapists who had been on the rampage throughout the Bankstown area. At that time the Opposition and the Government voted against minimum sentencing but, as predicted by me and recorded in Hansard last year, both Liberal and Labor have since adopted forms of minimum sentencing. For the benefit of the House, Hansard records me as saying on 26 September 2001:
I foresee a time when one of the major parties will come to its senses and produce law and order policies that include the principle of a minimum prescribed sentence. Considering Labor ideology, I suspect it will be the Coalition that will ultimately adopt such policies—or maybe it will just be first.
It is amazing how quickly the bidding war on law and order, and the looming State election, made my prediction come true. Whilst both Liberal and Labor have a long way to go in adopting minimum sentencing policies that are appropriate and accepted by the majority of the people of New South Wales, I am pleased that they have at least in principle adopted longstanding One Nation law and order policies. For the betterment of the people of New South Wales, I look forward to the Government and the Opposition adopting more of the One Nation platform.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.07 p.m.], in reply: As my remarks in reply are detailed and lengthy, I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard.
Leave granted.
I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate.
The scheme of sentencing being introduced by the Government in this Bill provides further guidance and structure to judicial discretion and promotes consistency and transparency in sentencing. It also promotes public understanding of the sentencing process.
The Government's Bill establishes a new sentencing scheme by setting standard non-parole periods for a number of specified serious offences set out in a Table in the Bill. Under the Bill, the court is to set the standard non-parole period as the non-parole period for the offence unless the upper part for a court determines that there are reasons for setting a non-parole period that is longer or shorter than the standard non-parole period for the offence.
By introducing a regime of standard non-parole periods for a specified number of serious offences the Government will ensure not only greater consistency in sentencing but also that proper regard is given to the expectation of the community that punishment is imposed which is commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
The requirement in the proposed section 21A for a court to take into account aggravating and mitigating factors and other matters applies in sentencing for all offences, not just to offences that are subject to a standard non-parole period under proposed Division 1A of Part 4 of the Principal Act.
In conjunction with this new scheme of sentencing the Government will continue its support of the use of guideline judgments given by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Guideline judgments are another extremely useful tool in achieving consistency in sentencing and in taking into account community expectations as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
The issuing of guideline judgments has had, with respect to a number of offences, a significant impact in achieving both increases in the penalties imposed by the courts as well as overall consistency in sentencing. In particular, guideline judgments with respect to the offences of armed robbery, dangerous driving causing death/grievous bodily harm and break enter and steal have had a very positive impact in these areas.
It is proposed that the guideline judgments already promulgated by the Court of Criminal Appeal should continue to be used by the courts when sentencing for these offences.
Guideline judgments will also continue to play an important role with respect to offences that are not part of the standard non-parole period scheme.
Two applications for additional guideline judgments have been submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal, for (i) assault Police matters dealt with in Local Courts; and (ii) high-range drink driving. Any suggestion that the Government's regard for guideline judgments has been diminished, as has been suggested by several Members, is therefore misplaced.
The Table to the Bill does not include the offence of manslaughter. This is because the kinds of criminal conduct captured by this offence vary greatly in culpability. For example, both intentional and non-intentional homicide can constitute the crime of manslaughter.
The Government has therefore decided that an independent inquiry be conducted to consider questions relating to the offence of manslaughter including whether the Crimes Act 1900 should be amended to include a structured scheme of offences and penalties for manslaughter. The inquiry is also to consider the question of whether there should be different grades of manslaughter with standard non-parole periods to reflect the different circumstances and culpability involved.
As the Attorney General recently announced, the inquiry is being conducted by retired Justice of the Supreme Court, The Hon M. D Finlay QC. Mr Finlay is an eminent and highly regarded criminal lawyer.
The Bill also inserts a new Part 8B into the Principal Act. The proposed Part constitutes New South Wales Sentencing Council.
The Sentencing Council is, in part, to have the following functions:
advising and consulting with the Attorney General in relation to offences suitable for standard non-parole periods and their proposed length; and
advising and consulting with the Attorney General in relation to offences suitable for guideline judgments and the submissions to be made by the Attorney General on an application for a guideline judgment.
The Government looks forward to establishing the Council. Such bodies have been successful in other jurisdictions in ensuring that the legislature is fully informed of the views of the community.
I trust that the views of the NSW community, together with the views of the legal and law enforcement bodies that perform a critical day-to-day role in our justice system, will be given a more significant voice in sentencing practice and reform through this new body.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.09 p.m.], by leave: I move Liberal Party amendments Nos 1 to 6 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A, line 21. Omit "mitigating".
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (1) (b), lines 27 and 28. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Pages 5 and 6, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (3), line 12 on page 5 to line 4 on page 6. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (4), lines 5 and 6. Omit "or mitigating".
No. 5 Page 6, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (5), line 8. Omit "or mitigating".
No. 6 Page 6, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (5), line 10. Omit "or reduce".
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.10 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments, for the reasons that were comprehensively outlined in the other place. Several important points, however, need to be restated. The proposed aggravating and mitigating factors set out in the bill represent factors that are already taken into account on sentencing, whether they are in the existing sentencing legislation or in the common law. We have made an effort to spell out what these factors are. It should interest those opposite to learn that not only would the proposed amendments seriously damage the justice system in this State, they are incompatible with the Oppositions own policy.
These mitigating factors will apply to all offences, not just those attracting a standard minimum sentence. It is the case that the policy is presently comprised of a small number of offences attracting mandatory sentences. The remainder of offences, which constitute about 99 per cent of all crime, will be subject to ordinary sentencing considerations. That is Coalition policy. The Coalitions policy is that a judge should be able to take mitigating factors into account in these cases. These amendments not only represent an incompetent attempt to modify the criminal law, they represent a massive shift in Coalition policy.
In effect, the Coalition is seeking to eliminate circumstances of mitigation for every crime, including manslaughter—the crime it continuously asserts will miraculously catch all crimes requiring a compassionate sentence. What is being proposed is unworkable. It will cause injustice, mistrials, uncertainty and mayhem. It needs to be clearly understood that these amendments are directed at eliminating discretion a court may exercise in considering all offences, irrespective of whether they attract a standard minimum sentence or not. Every judge in this State who has to consider an appropriate manslaughter sentence would be unable to reduce the penalty under these proposals. It is that simple.
Let us have a look at some of the factors needing to be eliminated from consideration in sentencing an offender for any crime: assistance by the offender to law enforcement authorities; provocation; the offender was acting under duress; guilty pleas—which resolve about 70 percent of all criminal trials; the offender has made reparation for any injury, loss or damage arising from the offence; and disclosure of information before a trial. Under these proposals no offender would disclose any information of any weight to the police or other authorities. No-one would plead guilty. Victims of crime would be forced to endure days in the witness box, and in the court more generally, reliving their pain. These are unfortunate amendments and, indeed, they are definitely not supported.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.12 p.m.]: In moving the deletion of proposed section 21A (3) and the ancillary amendments covered in amendments Nos 1 to 6, the Opposition would state that the purpose of this amendment is to delete Labors 13 excuses. These vary from saying sorry to special pleading about character. They are simply a device whereby the judge can ignore the standard minimum sentence and give a lesser sentence. The existence of the 13 excuses makes a mockery of the concept of minimum sentences. The Coalition is determined to show up the Labor Party for its hypocrisy. We will vote on this and we will vote whether it has genuine minimum sentences or 13 excuses.
The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.13 p.m.]: Despite the temptation to support the Opposition to show up Labors hypocrisy, I must say the Greens strongly oppose Coalition amendments Nos 1 to 6. The amendments take out all references to "mitigating" and remove all the mitigating factors set out in the legislation that the Court can take into account. The Coalition leaves in all the aggravating factors that the court can take into account. The effect of the amendments would be to turn the legislation into mandatory sentencing legislation, as there would be no mitigating factors that the court could utilise. The Greens have spoken in the House previously about the impact of mandatory sentencing. We have seen the disgusting situations that were uncovered in recent times in the Northern Territory when mandatory sentencing had hold.
To use an example, if a woman killed her husband after years of domestic violence and torture inflicted by her husband on her and her children she could be charged with murder—which, in the table in the bill, carries a standard non-parole period of 20 years without the benefit of the mitigating factors that the court could take into account. Those mitigating factors could include that the woman was provoked by the victim, that she was acting under duress, that she had no prior convictions, and that she was of good character and was unlikely to reoffend. Under the Coalition's amendments the woman could be gaoled for 20 years. This is a totally inappropriate situation, and there are many cases in which it would be equally inappropriate. The Greens have always argued for discretion on the part of the judiciary and we believe that any movement away from that discretion—whether it be minimum or, in particular, mandatory sentences as proposed by the Opposition—is completely inappropriate.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.15 p.m.]: These shocking amendments make a silly and unjust bill even sillier and more unjust. The idea that circumstances cannot be taken into account in crimes is simply outrageous and the Opposition should be ashamed of itself. I do not know what more can be said about this. If one thinks this Government is arrogant and stupid one should take a look at the Opposition. It has come to a pretty pass in this State when that is the choice we are offered.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [5.16 p.m.]: I have to defend the reputation of the Hon. James Samios. I am quite sure it was not his idea that these amendments be moved, because he is an honourable gentleman and would not dream of moving them on his own account.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [5.16 p.m.]: I also wish to defend the Hon. James Samios. He is a wonderful person with a very good heart and an impeccable record. It could not come from him.
Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.Ayes, 14
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin | Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce | Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Jobling |
Noes, 22
Mr Breen
Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan | Mr Hatzistergos
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin | Mrs Sham-Ho
Ms Tebbutt
Mr West
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Ms Fazio
Mr Primrose |
Pairs
| Dr Pezzutti | Mr Costa |
| Mr Ryan | Mr Tsang |
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [5.24 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 5, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (3) (j), lines 30-32. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(j) the young or old age or any disability of the offender,
The amendment provides that the court will be required to take into account the offenders age and disability when determining an appropriate sentence. The bill allows an offenders age or disability to be taken into account only in relation to whether or not the person was aware of the consequences. It is possible that an offender of a young age or an offender with a mental illness may have some awareness of the consequences of their actions but not realise, for example, that the action is wrong.
It is a major problem that men and women with intellectual disability or with a mental illness are significantly overrepresented in New South Wales prisons. Although the prevalence of intellectual disability in the general population is somewhere between 1 per cent and 3 per cent, the percentage of those in prison is much higher. In a submission to the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population, the Department of Corrective Services advised that 13 per cent of the inmate population has an intellectual disability—a very high incidence indeed. Academics from the University of Sydney have advised that amongst adult prisoners the prevalence is sometimes as high as 19 per cent. That is why this amendment is so important.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.25 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. I seek leave to incorporate my reasons in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The fact that a person is young or old or suffers from a disability does not of itself require that a sentence be reduced by way of mitigation. The common law makes it clear that the mitigation which may result from the presence of such factors relates to the fact that because of such a factor the offender may not have been "fully aware of the consequences of his or her actions". The proposed amendment seeks to remove these important qualifying words from the provision.
The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.26 p.m.]: The Greens strongly support the amendment, which adds a very important mitigating factor, that is, the youth, old age or disability of an offender, in particular, mental disability. As the Greens have always said in similar debates, mitigating factors should be judged by the judiciary and set sentences are very dangerous. This amendment is worthy of support.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [5.26 p.m.]: I strongly support the amendment. I am amazed at the Labor Party, which is supposed to support the underprivileged. What happened to its policies?
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.27 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.27 p.m.]: I move the Democrats amendment as circulated:
Page 6, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 21A (3). Insert after line 4:
(n) the offender has completed a program in the nature of a restorative justice program (such as a program that gives a victim an opportunity to present the victim's perspective on the offence to the offender, or a program that gives a victim or member of the community an opportunity to influence the penalty imposed on the offender for the offence).
This amendment adds the fact that an offender has completed a restorative justice program as a further mitigating circumstance. The object of restorative justice is to seek to restore a more harmonious situation that existed immediately following the crime. It allows the victim to come to terms with what has happened and gain some understanding of why the crime was perpetrated. The first reaction of a victim might be revenge, but this process will provide some closure. It will help victims to get on with their lives. Victims may wonder why they were attacked for no apparent reason, or perhaps why a loved one may have been killed.
The restorative justice program may give victims who otherwise may not have been aware of the alienation of the perpetrator some insight into the reason for the disturbed or nasty nature of the perpetrator. They may then gain some understanding of why the crime was committed. If a perpetrator shows remorse, this may be some consolation to victims that something good has come out of the unfortunate event. It is often the case that young offenders are headstrong and silly when they commit crimes. However, perpetrators can see the adverse effect their actions have had on the lives of other people and they may change their ways. This measure has been particularly effective with young offenders. It is also effective with people with a personality disorder, who tend to depersonalise.
Personality disordered people are exquisitely sensitive to their own pain but exquisitely insensitive to other peoples pain. They depersonalise the people they are hurting, calling them old fogies or fossil farming, if they are taking things from old people in a very dehumanising way. When they realise that they are dealing with a human being, when they are confronted with the human face, hopefully they change their behaviour and do not reoffend. That is what this is about. People are not put in gaol forever, and it will not happen under this regressive legislation. We must encourage the Government to look at restorative justice as a component of our justice system. If we can reduce sentences as a means of encouraging it, so be it. We will end up with a better and more just society. Victims are generally seen only in terms of their rights, and victims rights are generally seen in terms of what they want, which is the maximum punishment possible. We must get beyond that sort of thinking if we want a better quality of justice, a more harmonious society and less money spent on gaols. I commend this amendment to the Committee as a reasonable step towards the progress I have defined.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.30 p.m.]: The amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans proposes that the courts, in sentencing, also take into account as a mitigating factor the fact that an offender has completed a program in the nature of a restorative justice program. The amendment is opposed; it is unnecessary. Proposed section 21A (1) provides that in addition to the aggravating and mitigating factors referred to in subsections (2) and (3), the court make take into account other matters that are required or permitted to be taken into account under any Act or rule of law. Should an offender successfully complete a restorative justice program, then that fact could, by the operation of section 21A (1), be taken into account by the court when imposing a final sentence.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.31 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.
The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.31 p.m.]: The Greens support this amendment as it simply adds a valuable mitigating factor that the court can take into account, for instance, the offender has participated in a roundtable conference or restorative justice program such as that allowed in the young offenders legislation, such as a youth conference. As I understand it, the Hon. Ian Macdonald is saying that this facility is already available. Did he say, effectively, that completion of a restorative justice program will be acknowledged as a mitigating factor?
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Yes.
The Hon. IAN COHEN: The Greens are pleased if that is the case. However, we still support the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.32 p.m.]: I dispute that this matter is covered in proposed section 21A. Although section 21A (c) provides that any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence may be considered by the court, a restorative justice program does not affect the seriousness of the offence. It is a mitigation after the offence is committed. If these are the only mitigating factors restorative justice programs should be added to the list.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.33 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 2 to 20 in globo:
No. 2 Page 7, schedule 1 [4], proposed Division 1A, line 3. Omit "Standard ". Insert instead "Minimum ".
No. 3 Pages 7 and 8, schedule 1 [4], proposed sections 54A-54C, line 4 on page 7 to line 10 on page 8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
54A Minimum non-parole periods
For the purposes of this Division, the minimum non-parole period for an offence is the non-parole period set out opposite the offence in the Table to this Division.
54B Minimum sentencing procedure
(1) This section applies when a court imposes a sentence for an offence set out in the Table to this Division.
(2) The court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment.
(3) When determining the sentence of imprisonment, the court must not set a non-parole period for the offence that is shorter than the minimum non-parole period for the offence.
(4) The court must make a record of its reasons for imposing a non-parole period that is shorter than the maximum penalty for the offence. The court must identify in the record of its reasons each factor that it took into account.
(5) If this section requires a court to impose a minimum non-parole period, nothing in section 21 (or any other provision) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or in any other Act or law authorises a court to impose a lesser or alternative sentence.
(6) Nothing in this section affects the prerogative of mercy.
No. 4 Page 8, schedule 1 [4], proposed Table, line 19. Omit "Standard". Insert instead "Minimum".
No. 5 Page 8, schedule 1 [4], column heading in proposed Table, line 21. Omit "Standard". Insert instead "Minimum".
No. 6 Page 11, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 100J (1) (a), line 26. Omit "standard". Insert instead "minimum".
No. 7 Page 12, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 100J (1) (c), line 3. Omit "standard". Insert instead "minimum".
No. 8 Page 13, schedule 1 [6], proposed section 106, line 4. Omit "Standard".
No. 9 Page 13, schedule 1 [6], proposed section 106, line 6. Omit "standard". Insert instead "minimum".
No. 10 Page 13, schedule 1 [6], proposed section 106, line 8. Omit "Standard".
No. 11 Page 13, schedule 1 [6], proposed section 106, line 10. Omit "standard". Insert instead "minimum".
No. 12 Page 13, schedule 1 [6], proposed section 106, line 14. Omit "standard". Insert instead "minimum".
No. 13 Page 18, schedule 3.1 [3], proposed heading to Part 9, line 15. Omit "Standard".
No. 14 Page 18, schedule 3.1 [3], proposed clause 12 (1), line 18. Omit "Standard".
No. 15 Page 18, schedule 3.1 [3], proposed clause 12 (2), line 23. Omit "Standard".
No. 16 Page 20, schedule 3.2 [8], line 10. Omit "Standard".
No. 17 Page 20, schedule 3.2 [9], proposed heading to Part 7, line 16. Omit "Standard".
No. 18 Page 20, schedule 3.2 [9], proposed clause 45, line 19. Omit "Standard".
No. 19 Page 21, schedule 3.2 [9], proposed clause 46, line 4. Omit "Standard".
No. 20 Long title. Omit "standard".
As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, this bill is almost a smoke and mirrors approach to a pretence of minimum sentencing. These are not minimum sentences; they are a list of periods of time that a person might have as a minimum, except for a series of mitigating circumstances. As I said, those mitigating circumstances are offensive in many respects. Victims of assaults, victims of burglaries, people involved in crime generally who survive as victims, and the friends and family of victims would be incensed at many of the mitigating factors described in the Governments bill. This series of amendments seeks to remove the prospect of mitigating factors being able to be used by the courts to impose a period less than the expressed minimum in the bill. For example, in the case of attempted murder, the bill expresses a standard non-parole period of 10 years. However, mitigating factors may reduce that.
My series of amendments will change the bill so that that 10 years is 10 years and cannot be less than 10 years, and the only thing the mitigating factors will be used for is to explain why the minimum 10 years has been used rather than a higher figure. For example, if the maximum sentence was 25 years and only a 10-year minimum was imposed, the mitigating factors would only be used to explain why the criminal, the perpetrator, the low-life creature who caused great difficulty for victims in society, had only the minimum period imposed. So mitigating factors would have that specific impact under the circumstances of my amendments. Mitigating circumstances would only be used to explain why a person received the minimum sentence as opposed to reducing the minimum sentence, as the bill currently proposes.
Anyone who believes in minimum sentencing in a prescribed—that is, mandatory—manner, in every which way one may wish to describe it or have it described, and anyone who believes that society should have in law a true minimum sentence, a true standard non-parole period that people understand will be the very least that a criminal will be incarcerated for, should support these amendments because they will enshrine in law that a person will go to gaol for a specific period. There will be no parole. There will be no mitigating factors that make any difference. The only difference a mitigating factor will make will be in the court using it to explain why a person received only the minimum sentence. Those who support this bill support true prescribed minimum sentencing.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.36 p.m.]: The Hon. David Oldfield has moved 19 amendments after the Committee proceedings commenced. That means that the Government cannot fully assess the proposals. It seems, upon brief examination of the amendments, that the Hon. David Oldfield is seeking to impose a mandatory sentencing scheme that would even make the New South Wales Coalition blush. That being the case, the amendments are opposed.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.37 p.m.]: This is even sillier than anything else. This is just an extremely bad joke that is even worse than the Opposition.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.37 p.m.]: The Opposition has just received these One Nation amendments. Because of the shortage of time, the Opposition is unable to properly consider the amendments and consequently is unable to support them.
The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.37 p.m.]: Although time is short, I have confidence that the Greens comfortably oppose what is a draconian mandatory sentencing regime by One Nation.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN [5.38 p.m.]: The Hon. David Oldfield has created something of a difficulty in that he has placed before the Committee a series of amendments at fairly short notice. The impact of the series of amendments appears to be to change the Government's legislation from a position whereby the courts will have the opportunity to consider a number of mitigating factors—they have been largely described in other places as "13 excuses"—for which they may decide not to impose the sentences set out by the Government. For example, in the instance of a person being proven to have assaulted a police officer occasioning bodily harm, the bill provides for a sentence of three years, of which the judge can exercise his or her mind to a number of mitigating circumstances. They may well decide to set a lesser non-parole period.
The impact of the Hon. David Oldfield's amendments would be to take away that discretion. That would mean that once the offence had been proven it would be virtually impossible for the judge to exercise any discretion at all and this would then become the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) (Minimum Sentencing) Bill. It would implement in New South Wales a minimum sentencing procedure such as exists in places like the United States of America. It would be somewhat expansive in its operation in that it would apply to everything from attempted murder through to offences such as car-jacking and offences involving the Firearms Act, including imposing a minimum sentence of three years for the unauthorised possession and use of firearms.
When the Opposition was considering our minimum sentencing proposals we were not necessarily considering making it that wide. However, the Hon. David Oldfield has given the Committee some interesting points to consider, and the Opposition is turning its mind to them right now. The biggest difficulty we have is that these amendments have been tabled only recently and it is important for us to fully assess their impact.
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [5.41 p.m.]: The Opposition has, in the short time available to it, attempted to consider and examine in detail the 19 amendments that have been moved. A number of the amendments are attractive to the Opposition. However, I seek clarification from you, Mr Chairman, as to the status of the amendments. I would like an assurance from you that the amendments are within the leave of the bill. If they are not, we will have a different approach. I seek your guidance.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.42 p.m.]: Obviously the Opposition is getting stirred up with potentially having to vote against these amendments moved by the Hon. David Oldfield. It would have been good if the Committee saw the Opposition vote on these issues. We rely on your good guidance, Mr Chairman, in relation to the question that has been raised, but it is a pity that the Opposition is not putting its hand up for the policy it is taking around the State.
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [5.43 p.m.]: In response to the inflammatory comments by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Opposition would be happy to deal with these amendments and vote on them. However, before we do that we have to ascertain whether they are within the leave of the bill.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.43 p.m.]: Leave was granted. Surely they are within the leave of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! These amendments have only just become available, although they were with Parliamentary Counsel at 1.17 p.m. today. That makes it difficult to completely assess them and get instructions from the Committee of the Whole. Some of them are questionable. I therefore rule them out of order.
Amendments of the Hon. David Oldfield ruled out of order.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.44 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 7:
No. 7 Page 8, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 54C, lines 1-10. Omit all words on those lines.
This amendment relates to proposed section 54C, which is an extraordinary measure. It allows a judge not to impose a prison sentence at all so long as the judge states reasons. In other words, even for murder a judge can let a criminal go free. So much for minimum sentences. All that is required is that the judge gives reasons but—and this is the height of hypocrisy—if the judge does not give reasons the sentence still stands. So under Labor's much flaunted standard minimum sentences a criminal can be convicted of crime and walk out of court with no reason given and no redress.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.45 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. The Coalition continues to massively distort this provision, as it has done all the way through this debate and with its deceptive behaviour towards the Hon. David Oldfield this afternoon. Subsection (1) of proposed section 54C provides that if a court does not impose a custodial sentence for an offence set out in the table in the bill, the court must provide written reasons for not doing so and identify each mitigating factor that was taken into account. Judges already have an obligation to provide reasons for sentencing. This provides a further statutory obligation to provide reasons why a custodial sentence was not imposed.
Subsection (2) of proposed section 54C provides that the failure of a court to comply with the section does not invalidate the sentence. The purpose of this provision is not to allow judges not to comply with the obligation to give reasons; it is to preserve the legality of a sentence pending an appeal court hearing. Otherwise, an offender may argue to the Supreme Court in its supervisory jurisdiction that the failure of the judge to provide reasons makes the sentence wholly invalid and that he, therefore, should be released from the obligations of the sentence imposed upon him. In short, this provision is about keeping crooks in prison who might otherwise be released on a technicality. Subsection (2) should be read with proposed section 101A; it should not be read in isolation. When read in conjunction with section 101A it is abundantly clear that an appeal court can consider failure to comply with the Act without the sentence that has been imposed being rendered invalid.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [5.46 p.m.]: I oppose this amendment. It is cruel and unusual punishment for the Hon. James Samios to have to move this amendment on behalf of that hardliner, Chris Hartcher.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.47 p.m.]: I strongly support the Government's stance and denounce what the Hon. James Samios has said. It is ludicrous to suggest that judges cannot give a reason for their sentences. When a sentence is imposed on a criminal the community expects to be told the reasons. It is logical that the Government opposes the amendment, and I oppose it strongly.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! I apologise to the Committee. I neglected to call the Hon. Peter Breen to move his amendment. I do not intend to put the question on the Hon. James Samios' amendment until the Hon. Peter Breen has had a chance to move his amendment.
The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.47 p.m.]: I move Reform the Legal System amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 7, schedule 1 [4] (proposed section 54B (3)), lines 22 and 23. Omit "are only". Insert instead "include".
The purpose of this amendment is to explain what I believe is an ambiguity in the bill. Proposed section 54B provides that the list of so-called excuses, the mitigating factors, are only those referred to in proposed section 21A. Other mitigating factors are part of common law that judges presently have the right to take into account when considering a prison sentence. Some of these include particular harm or danger that the prisoner may be in as a result of going to prison, or the prisoner's family and dependent commitments, and so forth. If the Committee passes the current provision, section 54B, without this amendment, it is my view that the legislation will be more vulnerable to a challenge because it seeks to exclude the opportunity that judges have to take into account certain factors that are not listed in section 21A. So, I ask the Committee to support this amendment on the basis that it gives the bill more strength and greater protection in the event that it is subject to a challenge.
All the Government's sentencing legislation is vulnerable to a challenge, not just this bill but other legislation that it has passed. The Government is trying to take over from the courts the role that they have under the Commonwealth Constitution to make decisions about prisoners and about the mitigating factors that might be taken into account in determining sentences. The Government has taken a bold stand on these issues. This amendment would be one way in which the bill would be given some protection in the event of a challenge. I ask honourable members to support it.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.50 p.m.]: I strongly support the amendment. The mitigating factors should be made much broader. Although I do not support the bill, the amendment would provide a small safeguard.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.50 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. It is understood that the amendment has been proposed to allow a court to take into account on sentence any other relevant mitigating factor under the law that is not specifically referred to in proposed section 21A (3). Section 21A (1) provides that in determining the appropriate sentence for an offence the court is to take into account the aggravating factors referred to in section 21A (2), the mitigating factors referred to in section 21A (3) that are relevant and are known to the court, and any other objective or subjective factor that affects the relative seriousness of the offence. Section 21A (1) concludes with the following words, "The matters referred to in this subsection are in addition to any other matters that are required to be taken into account." The Government is of the clear view that section 21A captures the issues that are of concern to the Hon. Peter Breen. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.52 p.m.]: If the Government considers that under proposed section 21A (1) all wisdom is revealed and all common law is then included, why would it restrict to the list of things in section 21A (3) the only things to be considered as mitigating factors, in that it knocked back my amendment on that section? The amendment would allow other mitigating factors not in the mitigating factors list to be included. Parliament may not be able to think of them at the moment but they could be valid mitigating factors. While the list may appear quite good, it may not be comprehensive. We want to allow the courts to have flexibility if such a situation arises. The amendment clarifies the situation and should be supported.
Amendment of the Hon. Peter Breen negatived.
Question—That Opposition amendment No. 7 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 14
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin | Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Mrs Pavey
Mr Ryan | Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Jobling |
Noes, 22
Mr Breen
Dr Burgmann
Ms Burnswoods
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan | Mr Hatzistergos
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Saffin | Mrs Sham-Ho
Ms Tebbutt
Mr West
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Ms Fazio
Mr Primrose |
Pairs
| Mr Pearce | Mr Costa |
| Dr Pezzutti | Mr Tsang |
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.00 p.m.]: I move my amendment No 2:
No. 2 Page 8, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 54D. Insert after line 18:
(3) This Division does not apply to the sentencing of an offender if the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time the offence was committed.
This amendment is directly in line with Coalition policy. It provides that the bill does not apply to persons under 18 years of age. It is clearly inappropriate that minimum sentencing applies to juveniles. Some members have raised with me the concern that my amendment is not necessary because the Government bill will not apply to children because they are tried by the Children's Court. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Although the Children's Court deals with the majority of matters regarding children, children who commit a serious children's indictable offence are tried by the District Court or the Supreme Court. A serious children's indictable offence includes offences punishable by imprisonment for 25 years and offences arising under section 61J of the Crimes Act 1900. These offences are subject to standard minimum sentence provisions. In the District Court or the Supreme Court children will therefore be subject to standard minimum sentences. Until yesterday, this amendment had the Coalition's support because it is in line with its policy that standard minimum sentences or compulsory minimum sentences should not apply to juveniles. In a media release of 9 June 2002, John Brogden said that the Coalition would not apply compulsory minimum sentences to people under the age of 18. He stated:
We must also give young people the chance to get back on track, before facing compulsory jail, through our second chance programs and getting parents more involved through our parental responsibility orders.
On 12 November 2002 the Liberal Party's web site carried a media statement entitled "Brogden Proposes Compulsory Sentencing" detailing that policy. Until yesterday the Coalition intended to vote according to its policy. It appears that Chris Hartcher has rolled John Brogden on this without consulting him.
The Hon. John Jobling: Point of order: With a great deal of respect, the standing orders are very specific about the Committee stage. I can find no reference to either member of the lower House in the matter before the Committee. Mr Chairman, I ask you to draw the member back to the amendment before the Committee.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: It is clear there is a degree of sensitivity on the part of the Hon. John Jobling and the Coalition generally. I noticed Chris Hartcher wandering the Chamber earlier today.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: As I said, it was Coalition policy until yesterday. Today that has changed. The shadow Attorney General told my office yesterday that the Coalition would not support this amendment, which is in line with its policy, but would not give any reasons despite repeated requests. Is this Coalition policy or not?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.03 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. The scheme of standard non-parole periods in the bill relates to a number of serious criminal offences. The Government does not support excluding juveniles from that scheme. It is appropriate that our court system can impose standard minimum penalties on juvenile offenders in appropriately severe cases, for example, gang rape cases. There is no choice presently but to refer serious children's indictable offences, such as murder and aggravated sexual assault, to be dealt in the adult court system.
The Government's proposal reflects community opinion. It is a consistent policy and is at odds with the Coalition's policy. The Opposition's mandatory sentencing proposals do not apply to those under 18 years of age. However, the member for Gosford is on record as making statements such as, "The time has come for juvenile criminals who are murderers to be treated as murderers; any suggestion they should get some form of review when they turn 18 is appalling." He made that statement on 1 September 2002. More recently he was reported in the Central Coast Express on 20 November 2002 as saying that the Coalition was proposing draft legislation to reduce the criminal age. He said that his proposal was aimed at ensuring that all violent offenders are gaoled. The Coalition is deeply confused about this matter. It should be noted that the Children's Court will retain the discretion to deal with indictable offences under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. Because the Children's Court exercises summary jurisdiction, the standard non-parole scheme in this bill will not apply to a sentence imposed in that jurisdiction.
Although the Government understands the concerns raised by the Hon. Richard Jones and others on this matter, it should be pointed that proposed section 21A (3) of the bill permits a court to take into account the fact that the offender was not fully aware of consequences of his or her actions because of the offender's age or any disability. Courts will also retain the ability to consider prospects of rehabilitation "whether by reason of the offender's age or otherwise". These are appropriate considerations. As I indicated, the Government does not support the amendment.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [6.05 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.05 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 in globo:
No. 1 Page 9, schedule 1 [4], proposed Table. Insert after line 13:
9A Section 61M (1) of the Crimes Act 1900 5 years
(aggravated indecent assault)
9B Section 61M (2) of the Crimes Act 1900
(aggravated indecent assault - child under 10) 5 years
No. 2 Page 9, schedule 1 [4], proposed Table. Insert after line 26:
15A Section 203E of the Crimes Act 1900 (bushfires) 5 years
No. 3 Page 18, schedule 3.1 [3], proposed clause 12, lines 21-25. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(2) Part 7 of schedule 2 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 also has effect for the purposes of the application of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to offences dealt with under Division 4 of Part 3 of this Act.
No. 4 Page 20, schedule 3.2 [9], proposed clause 45, line 18. Omit "The amendments". Insert instead "Except as provided by subclause (2), the amendments".
No. 5 Page 20, schedule 3.2 [9], proposed clause 45. Insert after line 21:
(2) Sections 3A and 21A of this Act, as inserted by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002, apply to the determination of a sentence for an offence whenever committed, unless:
(a) a court has convicted the person being sentenced of the offence, or
(b) a court has accepted a plea of guilty to the offence and the plea has not been withdrawn, before the commencement of the section concerned.
(3) Section 21A of this Act, as in force immediately before its repeal by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002, continues to apply as if it had not been repealed to the determination of a sentence for an offence in respect of which:
(a) a court has convicted the person being sentenced of the offence, or
(b) a court has accepted a plea of guilty to the offence and the plea has not been withdrawn, before that repeal.
(4) In this clause:
convict includes make a finding of guilt.
I seek leave to incorporate my comments in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The effect of amendments numbered 1 and 2 is to include in the Table of standard non-parole periods in Schedule 1 to the Bill three additional offences, namely, the offence of intentionally causing a bushfire under section 203E of the Crimes Act 1900 and the offences of aggravated indecent assault under sections 61M(1) and 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.
These are further serious criminal offences which the Government considers should be included in the Table to the Bill which will require that they be dealt with by the courts under the standard non-parole sentencing scheme under proposed Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The offence of intentionally casing a bushfire under section 203E of the Crimes Act was recently introduced by the Government in response to the devastating bushfires that ravaged the State last summer. This new offence is modelled upon the Model Criminal Code developed by the Model Criminal Code Officers' Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.
It is of the greatest concern that a number of the fires, which raged across the State last summer, were deliberately lit. It would also be known to Honourable Members that police hold suspicions that a number of the recent very serious bushfires in the State were also deliberately lit.
The offence of intentionally causing a bushfire carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Under the Government amendment it is proposed that the offence, when dealt with on indictment, will carry a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
The amendment does not, however, remove the discretion from the Children's Court to deal with juveniles charged with this offence under that Court's summary jurisdiction. As is provided in clause 54D(2) of the bill, the standard non-parole sentencing scheme in the Bill does not apply to offences dealt with summarily.
The offences of aggravated indecent assault under section 61M of the Crimes Act are particularly serious and abhorrent. The Government considers that these offences should also be included in the Table to the Bill. These offences will complement a number of offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault already included in the Table. The offence of aggravated indecent assault under section 61M(1) (which includes as an aggravating factor that the victim was under the age of 16 years) carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. Under the Government amendment it is proposed that an offence under section 61M(1) will carry a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
The offence of aggravated indecent assault under section 61M(2) of the Crimes Act relates to indecent assault upon a child less than 10 years of age. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Under the Government amendment it is proposed that an offence under section 61M(2) will carry a standard non-parole period of 5 years imprisonment.
Amendments numbered 3, 4 and 5 relate to consequential and transitional provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 3 relates to transitional provisions in the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and amendments 4 and 5 relate to transitional provisions in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The Bill as presently drafted in clause 45 provides that the amendments made by the Bill to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 do not apply to offences committed before the commencement of the amendments. However, the Government considers that it is appropriate to amend this transitional provision to provide that proposed new sections 3A and 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 will apply to sentencing for offences committed both before and after commencement of the amendments. This is because proposed new sections 21A and 3A are purely procedural in nature and they are to apply to all sentencing exercises both by way of summary jurisdiction (in the Local Court and the Children's Court) and on indictment. It is therefore appropriate that proposed new sections 21A and 3A should apply to all offences whenever committed whether they are dealt with in the Local Court, in the Children's Court or on indictment.
However, the amendments ensure that proposed new sections 21A and 3A will not apply when sentencing proceedings are before the court at the time of commencement of those new provisions.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [6.07 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.07 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 3:
No. 3 Page 12, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 100J. Insert after line 11:
(4) In the exercise of its functions, the Sentencing Council may consult with, and may receive and consider information and advice from, the Judicial Commission of New South Wales and the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research of the Attorney General's Department (or any like agency that may replace either of those agencies).
This amendment provides that the Sentencing Council may consult with and consider information from the Judicial Commission and the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR]. The Judicial Commission's principal function is to assist the courts to achieve consistency in sentencing, and BOCSAR's aim is to identify factors that affect the effectiveness, efficiency or equity of the New South Wales justice system. It is therefore essential that it is stated plainly in the legislation that the Sentencing Council has the opportunity to consider their expert advice and information.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.08 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment with one important caveat. Although the Government foresees a constructive relationship being developed between the Sentencing Council, BOCSAR and the Judicial Commission, it does not believe that the ordinary priorities of those organisations should be unduly influenced by the demands of the new council. Both are organisations that enjoy a somewhat detached status from government. That is a principle that should continue to be observed.
The Hon. IAN COHEN [6.08 p.m.]: The Greens support this amendment. It simply allows the Sentencing Council to receive and consider information from a range of sources with expertise and statistical information on various sentencing matters. We believe that this amendment and the Hon. Richard Jones's other amendments are reasonable and supportable.
The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [6.09 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and report adopted.
Third Reading
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.09 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided.
Ayes, 25
Mr Colless
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Dyer
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay | Mr Harwin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr M. I. Jones
Mr Kelly
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield | Mrs Pavey
Mr Ryan
Mr Samios
Mr Tingle
Mr West
Tellers,
Mr Jobling
Mr Primrose |
Noes, 6
 | Mr Cohen
Mr R. S. L. Jones
Ms Rhiannon
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans | |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:02 : Update this page