- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 18 September 2002
Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Relationships) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 48 of 55
| Next Item »
Page: 4983
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 4 September.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford-Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.11 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the bill, and that position was made clear in the Legislative Council. I do not intend to cover all the changes the bill makes to the various Acts as that was done during debate in the Legislative Council and is recorded in Hansard. It is appropriate that the Legislative Assembly act as a clear debating chamber; it is not simply for me to re-read what the bill does. This bill follows on from the property relations legislation which recognised the rights of partners in relationships to superannuation, visitation rights, legacies, and all the property rights that people have once they develop close and ongoing personal relationships. It recognises those rights for same-sex couples, as it does for de facto couples and as was always the case in our society for people who were married according to law.
We live in a society in which the nature of relationships has changed in recent years. People have their own opinions on that, and that is a matter for private judgment. However, the role of the law is to recognise the existing exigencies in society, to ensure that the law reflects the operation of society and, as much as possible, to ensure that justice is done in our society. People who have caring and ongoing relationships should not be denied the normal property rights that would be expected to flow from that relationship. As I said, the Coalition did not oppose the original bill, the Property (Relationships) Bill, and it certainly does not oppose this bill, which simply amends a large number of Acts to maintain a consistency of spirit with the property rights legislation.
In Committee my colleague the honourable member for Oxley will be moving an amendment to the definition of "spouse". I indicate that the Coalition accepts the Government's foreshadowed amendment. The argument for the Coalition's amendment was put by my colleague the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti in the Legislative Council and relates to the amendment moved in the Legislative Council by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, which was supported not only by the Coalition but by the Hon. John Tingle, the Hon. David Oldfield and the Hon. Malcolm Jones. However, that amendment was not accepted in the Legislative Council. What is the purpose of the amendment? Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile moved two amendments in the Legislative Council, but the Coalition in this House will move only one of those amendments.
The amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile related to the fact that the bill should contain a clause providing that it did not endorse same-sex marriages. The Coalition takes the view that marriages are a matter of Federal law, that the Federal Marriage Act covers the field, and that this legislation simply relates to property rights between two persons who are either of the same sex or of different sexes who have come together in a relationship and property rights have flowed out of that relationship. That matter is material to State law and that is what State law should regulate. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the Government to amend legislation to deal with policy matters that are appropriately dealt with by the Federal Parliament. If honourable members wish to take a view on the issue they may do so either by representation to the Federal Parliament or by a motion that can be debated in the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly.
The Coalition does not in any way endorse same-sex marriages. That is not a Liberal Party policy and I am sure the honourable member for Oxley will confirm that it is not National Party policy. These are matters appropriately dealt with by the Federal Parliament. The Coalition in the Legislative Council supported the other amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and that amendment is supported by the Coalition in the Legislative Assembly. The definition of "spouse" will be covered in greater detail by my colleague the honourable member for Oxley when he moves the amendment in Committee. I simply say that we have received representations from the Anglican Church, the Catholic Employment Commission and the Catholic Education Commission. We have also received individual representations from constituents across the State who have said-and we agree-that the concept of "spouse" is the concept of a relationship between a husband and a wife. "Spouse" is a traditional word sanctioned by long custom and long usage. In no way do we seek to disparage other relationships. As I said earlier, we acknowledge that other relationships exist, and that is a matter for individual judgment and individual choice in a free society.
Marriages have the right to be acknowledged and respected. However, that role and concept should not simply be transferred to all other relationships. As I said, that does not denigrate from or insult other relationships. It simply acknowledges that marriage is an important and fundamental relationship in our society. Marriage is sanctioned by law and by the religious traditions of all faiths in our multicultural society, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist. Marriage is recognised as an institution in all religions, and it is recognised as a civil institution. Accordingly, the concept of marriage should be, and rightfully is, maintained. Therefore, we support the amendment which simply states that the definition of "spouse" relates to a husband and a wife lawfully wedded, and that other relationships can be properly and respectfully dealt with under a separate heading.
I emphasise this point. It is important that we acknowledge and respect other relationships. We are not seeking to derogate from them but we are seeking to preserve the particular and traditional rights associated with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution as well as a civil institution. It is a religious institution hallowed and respected by all the great religions which are now present and practising in Australia. I understand from my colleague that the amendments, which relate to one concept, will be moved in globo so that they can be debated together. I am sure the Attorney will grant leave for the amendments to be dealt with as one rather than 47 separate amendments. Though I do not wish to verbal him, I would think that is a reasonable assumption.
Mr Debus: It is a reasonable assumption.
Mr HARTCHER: I thank the Attorney for that in advance. As I confirmed today in a media interview, the Opposition accepts the principle of this bill as we accepted the principle of the Property (Relationships) Bill and we acknowledged the manifold relationships that exist in our society. We respect them. We hope all relationships are happy and harmonious. Many of them are. Many de facto relationships are successful and very happy. Many same-sex relationships are successful and very happy. Relationships are, after all, the underpinning of our society. Human beings operate with other human beings.
Very few of us are islands entire of ourselves, as the poet John Donne said. We, all of us, have to relate to other people either in small groups or in large groups. But the closest relationships we have normally are one-to-one relationships. The overwhelming majority of them are intergender but many of them now are of the same gender, and the Coalition respects and acknowledges that. However, we do respect and acknowledge the great institution of marriage. We do believe that it should be respected and maintained. Accordingly, we will move the appropriate amendments through the good offices of the honourable member for Oxley in Committee.
Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [8.22 p.m.]: The Government appreciates the acceptance by the Coalition of the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Relationships) Bill, though it will move to amend the bill in one respect. As the shadow Attorney General said, while the institution of marriage might still be the main theme in society generally, we need to recognise that there are so many people in de facto relationships. Some have been in them; some will be in them. This bill is to, in a sense, empower what was done in the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act, which I also spoke on when it was being debated.
The object of the bill is to promote the equality of same and opposite sex de facto couples under New South Wales law. It achieves this by building on the commitment to same-sex law reform that was initiated by this Government in 1999. The reforms contained in the 1999 Act revolutionised relationship recognition in this State by acknowledging and supporting the reality that people in our society choose to live in de facto relationships. I do not have statistics off the top of my head but many people who end up married have been in long-time de facto relationships. Some people who choose never to get married remain in de facto relationships. Some people who have been in de facto relationships for many years get married and within a very short time the marriage ends. For those who claim the sanctity of marriage is the only option for a man and woman, the statistics of two women or two men living together would be quite revealing.
The definition of "de facto relationship" introduced in the 1999 Act and now contained in the Property (Relationships) Act 1994 speaks of a relationship between two adult persons who live together as a couple and who are not married to each other or related by family. Phrased in these terms, the definition puts the question of sexuality to one side and focuses instead on the day-to-day legal consequences that arise from choosing to be a partner to a committed, adult relationship. I presume-I may be incorrect-that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment may go to the heart of that, but I am not sure what the Coalition will move in this Chamber. But essentially what the Government is saying is that we are putting a matter of what sexual relationship is involved outside the purposes of the Act so that the Act recognises de facto couples-men-men, women-women, men-women. That is the key.
After passage of the Act a couple of years ago that made that the most important part, the property recognition in terms of wills and estates and how property could be divided up in the event of the death or separation, it was recognised that many areas of other Acts could be affected. Although these reforms represented a legal landmark for same-sex couples, many areas remained unaffected by the 1999 amendments. The purpose of this bill is to correct that situation by extending the sexuality-neutral definition of "de facto relationship" contained in the Property (Relationships) Act to a wide range of statutes that confer employment benefits and entitlements or other rights, powers or protections that arise as a legal consequence of being a spouse. Same-sex de facto couples should be granted parity with opposite-sex de facto couples through the operation of the statutes. That is what the bill will do.
I will not deal with the provisions of the bill in detail because the Minister has done that in his second reading speech and we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of the Opposition's basic support for the bill. The Acts amended by the bill include the Adoption Act, the Adoption Information Act, the Conveyancers Licensing Act, the Credit Act-a very important Act when a de facto couple is involved in seeking credit to buy things such as a house or car-the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defamation Act, the Police Service Act and the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. I have been advised by the Attorney General that two others Acts should be added to the list of 25 Acts that will be amended by the bill.
A couple of areas are worthy of extra comment. The Public Sector Management Act allows unpaid leave entitlements of a deceased public servant to be paid to their de facto partner. At present such benefits are payable only to the widow, widower or dependent relative. The Public Sector Management Act covers all government employees in New South Wales so it affects many people. It is obviously unfair that unpaid leave entitlements, accrued leave entitlements, holiday pay entitlements-whatever entitlements have been accrued by one person in a de facto relationship-should be just lost because the person who is deceased was a man and the partner is also a man; or if the two partners to the relationship are both women.
The Act recognises only fairly outdated terms such as "widow", "widower" and "dependent relative", the latter probably being a reasonable term. I have always thought the words "widow" and "widower" to be characteristic of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. The extension of this bill to the operation of the Public Sector Management Act to enable entitlements under that Act to be passed on is very important. The Police Service Act provides that special risk benefits will be paid to a spouse or heterosexual de facto partner when a police officer on duty is injured. Those benefits will be extended to a same-sex partner by virtue of this bill-another important change. The Sporting Injuries Act will allow sporting injuries benefits payments to be made to same-sex partners on the death of the injured person. The provision currently applies only to spouses or heterosexual de facto partners. That is another anomaly that extension of the provisions of this bill will cure.
The Government has recognised that legislation which could improve 25 Acts, but does not, is not of much use. The essence of this bill is to extend the categories of people who receive benefits and bring the existing legislative provisions into line. As a result of this bill, de facto relationships will in future be defined without regard to the sexual persuasion of the people involved. The Evidence Act also contains provisions stipulating that a spouse or heterosexual de facto partner cannot be compelled to give evidence against their partner in a criminal trial. This reflects a long-standing common law provision which probably dates back to the Magna Carta. This amending bill will extend that legal privilege to same-sex de facto partners.
The inherent equality in that provision is very important. If a husband or wife cannot be compelled to give evidence against the person they married in a court of law, why should a lawyer or judge be able to direct Miss X to give evidence-perhaps incriminating evidence-against Miss Y, or to direct Mr X to give evidence against Mr Y when they do not wish to do so? This bill addresses this obvious anomaly in the law. The Motor Vehicles Taxation Act currently provides for a motor vehicle registration tax concession for married or heterosexual de facto pensioners. The amending provisions of this bill will extend the concession to same-sex partners.
Mr Stoner: Have you costed this out?
Mr ASHTON: It is not a cost at all. These people are entitled to these benefits.
Ms Moore: It is basic human rights that we are talking about.
Mr ASHTON: As the honourable member for Bligh points out, we are dealing with basic human rights. It is not a matter of costing the extension of those rights. These entitlements are not a cost to government. The entitlements have been earned, and if they cannot be passed on, they will be given to the Consolidated Fund. Is it not fair that the benefit of those entitlements should be passed to that person's partner?
Mr Stoner: Concessional vehicle registration is revenue forgone.
Mr ASHTON: I know that people with sexual hang-ups, such as the honourable member for Oxley, would perceive that to be a great problem.
Mr Stoner: I did not raise sexuality. You just get down in the gutter, you boofhead. I just asked about costs.
Mr ASHTON: And I said that the extension of these provisions will not be a cost to government.
Ms Moore: We are talking about social justice.
Mr ASHTON: Exactly. If the honourable member for Oxley interrupts me with a question relating to costs, then he is running a different argument.
Mr Stoner: All I am asking is whether it has been costed.
Mr ASHTON: These are entitlements that have been earned during the period of a de facto relationship. They are not costs if the relationship is constituted by a man and a woman, but the honourable member for Oxley regards them as a cost if the relationship is between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.
Mr Stoner: It is forgone revenue.
Mr ASHTON: They are not costs; they are entitlements. I do not expect the honourable member for Oxley to understand because where he comes from there are probably quite a few people who are involved in relationships and they are not quite sure who are their relatives and who are not.
Mr Stoner: We can always count on you, you boofhead, to lower the debate to the most base level.
Mr ASHTON: The honourable member for Oxley can only call me a boofhead, but I have used much better language to offend him, and I have put him in his place.
Mr Stoner: Yes, you are offensive.
Mr ASHTON: Keep calling me a boofhead. I know better names than that. Is that the best you can do?
Mr Stoner: I do not want to stoop to your level, you clown.
Mr ASHTON: The honourable member for Oxley called me a boofhead and a clown, but I have answered his comment on costs. It is not a cost; it is an entitlement.
Mr Stoner: You have answered my question-"No, it has not been costed".
Mr ASHTON: It is an entitlement.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! I am sure the honourable member for Oxley will want to speak on this bill. I suggest that he stop interjecting.
Mr ASHTON: I think I will stick around. I have thoroughly dealt with him and I do not think he will raise his head again. The only thing I can say about the honourable member-and I cannot always remember his electorate-is that, as I think most honourable members would know, he will never get meningitis because it is a brain disease. That is better than calling someone a boofhead. The point I make is that this amending bill will clarify the entitlements of de facto partners for many couples, who may not have been heard of in the Oxley electorate where there is probably a big sign stating "Gay couples not welcome here".
Mr Stoner: You have just insulted all the people who live in Oxley. Obviously they would love to be insulted by the likes of you.
Mr ASHTON: In the Labor Party, being called a clown rates very low-approximately minus seven out of about 37. Ours is a harder school than the Coalition.
Mr Stoner: The people of Oxley would really like being insulted by the likes of you.
Mr ASHTON: The honourable member for Oxley was the one talking about costs. He obviously does not understand the nature of the bill. The bill does not relate to costs; it relates to entitlements that have been earned by people who are in a relationship. Why should not the benefit of those entitlements go to the partner? What does the honourable member want to do with the monetary equivalent-send it to the Consolidated Fund so that it can be spent on building a bridge in the Oxley electorate?
Mr Stoner: I am talking about forgone revenue as a result of the bill. You are the one who is talking about licences.
Mr ASHTON: It is not a cost; it is an entitlement that has been earned. The Government is proud of this bill. I am sure that what I am saying will be supported by the honourable member for Bligh and I hope that she will support the bill. The property rights of people in de facto relationships was recognised in this House a couple of years ago at least. This legislation ensures that that recognition will be extended to many more areas. I spent 22 years as a schoolteacher and I am sure that by extending the provisions of this bill to the Teaching Services Act, gay couples in a relationship who have accrued long service leave and other leave entitlements will benefit. I am in a similar position. If I were to die, my wife would receive the benefits, but if I were in a same-sex relationship my entitlements would have been lost.
The cost referred to by the honourable member for Oxley is not a cost. It is an entitlement that has arisen as the relationship has built up, and it is entitled to be passed on to the other party. I thank the honourable member for Oxley for his interjections because they make clear why the Opposition's amendment will most likely not be accepted. This legislation draws the line between this caring Government, which recognises changes, and the National Party, which is completely obsessed.
Mr Stoner: We have already said that we are not opposing this, you clown.
Mr ASHTON: The honourable member for Oxley is content to use terms such as "clown" and "boofhead" because where he comes from that is really offensive. If the honourable member were to come over to the Labor side of the Chamber he would learn a little more.
Mr STONER (Oxley) [8.37 p.m.]: The National Party believes in the family unit as the basis of a strong and stable society. We believe in the value of traditional marriages as an affirmation of the commitment between a husband and wife. This is critical from the perspective of raising well-adjusted children in a stable family environment. While the Miscellaneous Acts Amendments (Relationships) Bill is apparently intended to standardise the definition of "spouse" across a number of Acts consistent with the Property (Relationships) Act, it represents a further dilution of the definition of "spouse" as either a married man or married woman. With the need for consistency and the removal of discrimination in mind-contrary to the loud protestations made by the honourable member for East Hills-the Opposition does not oppose this legislation and does have the need for consistency and removal of discrimination in mind. But we also seek to uphold the status of traditional marriages.
In the other place the Opposition supported an amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to insert the words "de facto partner" along with the word "spouse" wherever that term appears in the bill. That is a very sensible amendment. It reinforces the fact that the word "spouse" means a husband or wife and that a different term is used for a person in a de facto relationship. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who has discussed this matter with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, is very much of the same view. This amendment is sought by the Council of Churches in New South Wales, which represents a large number of churches in this State. The council, in correspondence to me dated 12 September 2002, stated:
The Council endorses the concerns expressed by the General Secretary of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney concerning the redefining of the term "spouse" in the relevant Acts to include partners to all de facto relationships and same-sex relationships, as well as the traditional meaning of male and female married persons.
The Anglican Diocese of Sydney, in a media release dated 11 September 2002, stated:
Our concern is that this legislation is the first step to change by stealth the community understanding of the marriage relationship, and ultimately to erode marriage, so that it is generally seen as equal to de facto relationships and same-sex unions.
In conjunction with our Roman Catholic colleagues, the Anglican Church suggested to the Attorney General and the Shadow Attorney General that the term "spouse" be given the traditional meaning in the legislation and that another term be used to describe parties in a de facto relationship.
Of course, those suggestions fell on deaf ears in the case of the left-wing Labor Attorney General. Surely we should listen to the unified voice of the spiritual leaders of our communities, who are of the view that we should preserve the term "spouse" as meaning a married man or woman. Surely, even the Labor Party would acknowledge the concerns about the consequences of watering down an institution that has served the civilised world so well for thousands of years. By saying that the term "spouse" includes de facto and same-sex relationships, the Government is saying "We don't care whether you get married or not."
What message does that send to young people contemplating the commitment of marriage? What might the consequences be of disposable relationships? Many in the community would say that the problems currently faced by society in this State with juvenile crime, drug abuse by young people and youth suicide are linked to family breakdowns. Those problems might be the result of social engineering, which has removed the incentive for couples to commit to each other and their children for the long haul. Changing the legal meaning of the term "spouse" is just that: social engineering. Therefore, I will seek to amend the bill in Committee to ensure a different terminology to that of "spouse" in respect of de facto partnerships. This will not prevent persons not in the traditional marriage from accessing employment and other entitlements under the range of Acts stipulated in the explanatory note to the bill. Hence, I see no reason why the Labor Party would oppose my amendments.
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.43 p.m.]: I welcome this bill, which represents a step in the slow process of legislative reform to provide lesbians and gay men with the same basic human rights that the rest of us take for granted. During debate on the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Bill in 1999 I raised concerns that that bill did not give same-sex couples full equality and that numerous other New South Wales statutes required amendment in that regard. In several instances, that bill specifically ensured that same-sex partners would not have the same rights and obligations as heterosexual de facto partners. These amendments should no longer be contentious, following bipartisan support for the Property (Relationships) Act, and I had hoped that this House would quickly pass this bill without the shameful homophobic rhetoric that has accompanied past debates on gay and lesbian law reform, certainly in my experience over the past 14½ years. And I regret the performance I just witnessed.
This bill will update 25 pieces of legislation by inserting the non-discriminatory definition of "spouse" and "de facto relationship" used in the Property (Relationships) Act. The changes will reduce discrimination against gay and lesbian de facto couples, who are not legally able to marry. On 28 March 2002 the Sydney Star Observer reported that this legislation would be introduced to honour commitments that the Government made to the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in August last year. In April I wrote to the Attorney about remaining areas of discrimination in New South Wales laws, particularly in relation to same-sex relationships and the age of consent. I welcome the action this bill takes to reduce the discrimination that I detailed in my letter, as well as some additional legislation, and I again call for further action to remove all discrimination.
This bill deals with workplace entitlements. As requested in my letter to the Attorney, the Electricity (Pacific Power) Act 1950, the Public Sector Management Act 1988, the Teaching Services Act 1980 and the Transport Administration Act 1988 will be updated to enable same-sex partners to inherit the unpaid balance of a deceased de facto partner's unpaid long service leave on the same basis as heterosexual partners inherit such entitlements. For the information of the honourable member for Oxley, we are dealing with basic human rights. The Police Service Act 1990 and the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978 will be brought in line with the Property (Relationships) Act to ensure that death or injury benefits are paid to the employee's or insured's partner. Again, I say to the honourable member for Oxley: basic human rights. The Industrial Relations Act 1996 will be amended to extend unpaid leave to the non-biological parent, the co-parent, of a child born to or adopted by a lesbian or gay couple.
Co-parents will be able to take carer's leave when their child falls ill-a basic human right-providing lesbian and gay parents rights to meet their responsibilities equal to those of heterosexual married or de facto couples. The bill also deals with tenancy legislation. Parliament amended the Retirement Villages Act in 1999 to guarantee continued residency to surviving partners of same-sex relationships in retirement villages. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1899 and the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 will now be made consistent and provide same-sex partners, including elderly same-sex partners, with the same protection where they are living in private accommodation. Again, basic human rights. I also welcome the response on other legislation discriminating against same-sex couples. The Evidence Act 1995 will be amended to ensure that same-sex partners may be excused from giving evidence against his or her partner. The Health Insurance Levies Act 1982 will be updated to give partners with children access to the family rate of contribution. Again basic human rights.
The Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 will extend to same-sex partners the right to appear before a Local Court, and the Adoption Act 2000 and Adoption Information Act 1990 will be amended to enable same-sex partners to access adoption records after the death of an adopted person or birth parent. How logical; how sensible; how just! Similar changes will be made to other Acts to remove gender-specific language and to ensure that the words "spouse" and "de facto" cover same-sex relationships. Again, fair, sensible and just. However, there is still more to be done. While my constituents welcome these improvements, many are concerned that this is a slow process of reform and that could lead to continuing discrimination. My constituents are calling for further urgent action by the New South Wales Government and Parliament to address those areas of discrimination. Additional areas for reform include anti-discrimination, adoption and equal age of consent. While this bill aims to provide recognition for same-sex relationships, I understand that these additional areas of discrimination prevent full recognition of same-sex relationships.
In debate on the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Bill I raised concern about amendments that specifically embedded discrimination in the Local Government Act. This still remains, and I understand that the problem relates to pecuniary obligations that would require disclosure of a same-sex spouse. Action on equality in this regard is dependent upon reform of the Anti-Discrimination Act to provide protection against discrimination on the grounds of a same-sex relationship. In my letter to the Attorney, I also raised concern about the Liquor Act 1982, which uses the term "spouse" without a reference to the Property (Relationships) Act. I understand that this reform, to enable a same-sex partner to carry on business when the licensee dies or is disqualified, is reliant on equalisation of the discriminatory age of consent. These are only two examples that highlight how deeply discrimination is embedded in New South Wales legislation and the consequences of piecemeal reform.
In addition to protection from discrimination on the basis of a same-sex relationship, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 requires amendment to ensure that gay men and lesbians have equal protection from discrimination. Some of my lesbian and gay constituents are directly affected by exemptions that allow discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality. They include lesbian and gay teachers and other employees in the private education system, gay men and lesbians working in businesses with five employees or less, lesbians and gay men working in private households, and gay and lesbian employees of religious bodies. I ask for action to remove these exemptions to ensure that they can enjoy the same security in employment as heterosexual employees.
My lesbian and gay constituents also include those who have taken on the responsibility of caring for children. They are concerned that their relationships with these children are protected. I am informed that the only means of achieving this is through parenting orders from the Family Court. Such orders are limited in effect and do not continue once the child is of age, nor do they cover inheritance. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has suggested that the Adoption Act be amended to include same-sex de facto couples providing for the best interests of children and give legal protection that reflects reality. My gay and lesbian constituents remain gravely concerned that the age of consent for consensual male homosexual sexual activity is 18 years, while the age of consent for consensual heterosexual sexual activity is 16 years. A study by Richard J. Roberts and Peter Maplestone of the University of New South Wales School of Social Work examined the adverse impact of this discriminatory age of consent on young gay males. Their report concluded:
No substantial evidence was found to support a higher age of consent for young homosexual men. The evidence supports the position that the age of consent should be equalised on the grounds that the current position is not only discriminatory against young gay men but is harmful in inhibiting their access to educational, health and welfare services at a time when they need them most.
This conclusion is in keeping with the Wood royal commission's recommendation relating to an equal age of consent, the recommendation of the Anti-Discrimination Board as far back as 1984, and many inquiries and research reports. New South Wales was once in the forefront of gay and lesbian law reform but is now the only Australian State that has a discriminatory age of consent. It is therefore particularly disappointing that a private member's bill introduced in the Legislative Council has been referred to a committee for inquiry into "the social and legal impact of the lowering of the age of consent for homosexual males to the same age which applies to heterosexual males and females and lesbians".
This seems to me to be no more than a stalling tactic similar to that used in 1998, when the Government referred the recognition of same-sex relationships to a committee less than six months before the last election-despite commitments made prior to 1995 to ensure that same-sex partners had the very same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual de facto couples. In this House in April, in response to my question, the Premier stated that he could "think of no substantial argument against introducing a uniform age of consent", provided any legislation included "guarantees regarding the protection of people aged under 16 years". The Premier previously suggested that any moves to change the age of consent would be a matter for private members, consistent with the policy of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party to deal with homosexual law reform by conscience votes.
Partial homosexual law reform was achieved in 1984 by a private member's bill introduced by the then Premier, Neville Wran, and supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, Nick Greiner. During his speech introducing the bill, Premier Wran acknowledged its limitations, including the discriminatory age of consent, and expressed the hope that a future Parliament would remove the discrimination. Nearly 20 years on, gay men and lesbians are still waiting. Similar leadership to that demonstrated by Premier Wran is now required to complete the reform process. I have previously called upon the Premier to show such leadership. Now is the ideal time for him to do so, as the Leader of the Opposition is on the public record supporting an equal age of consent. A private member's bill providing for an equal age of consent could and should now enjoy the same bipartisan leadership support that the Crimes (Amendment) Bill enjoyed in 1984. That bipartisan support was undoubtedly instrumental in gaining the support of those government and Opposition members of Parliament who otherwise would have hesitated in supporting such legislation. I urge the Attorney General, in the remaining eight weeks of this Parliament, to introduce and support such a bill.
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [8.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members at least for their general support of this significant legislation. The bill builds upon the commitment to same-sex law reform that was initiated by the Government with the passage of the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999-reforms that achieved in 1999 something of a revolution in relationship recognition in this State and enabled New South Wales law to better accommodate the range of domestic relationships that exist in our society.
By way of response to the remarks of the honourable member for Bligh I should mention that the question of referring the private member's bill concerning the age of consent to the Standing Committee on Social Issues of the upper House is one of seriousness. This is not a matter that has been dealt with lightly, at least from my perspective. It is very important to understand that the upper House has begun a process, and it is clear that unless the upper House is able to sort out, amongst its various members in particular, some questions concerning penalties and offences surrounding the whole question of the setting of an equal age of consent, then the bill will not pass the upper House. It is necessary that some of those matters be resolved in the process before the issue is again brought before the upper House and then, presumably, before this place.
Ms Moore: Every other Parliament has dealt with it.
Mr DEBUS: Every other Parliament may have done those things, but we have to deal with our reality. The honourable members saw that reality demonstrated, for instance, in the words of the honourable member for Oxley-horrible as that may be. On the question of the Anti-Discrimination Act issues raised by the honourable member for Bligh, I simply point out that the Government is conducting a wider review aimed at addressing the effect of exemptions and possible new grounds of anti-discrimination. That inquiry is under way. The definition of "de facto relationship" introduced in 1999, now contained in what is called the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, speaks of a relationship between two adult persons who live together as a couple and who are not married to each other or related by family. Phrased in these terms, the definition puts the question of sexuality to one side and focuses instead on the day-to-day legal consequences that arise from choosing to be a partner to a committed, adult relationship.
The 1999 Act established a property division regime that applies equally to same and opposite sex de facto couples, and put same-sex partners on the same footing as heterosexual couples with regard to wills and estates and in the event of the hospitalisation or incapacitation of their partner. Although these reforms represented a legal landmark for same-sex couples in New South Wales, many areas remain unaffected by those 1999 amendments. The purpose of this bill is to correct that situation by extending the sexuality-neutral definition of de facto relationship to a wide range of statutes that confer employment benefits and entitlements, or other rights, powers or protections that arise as a legal consequence of being a spouse. Equality requires that same and opposite sex couples receive the same treatment in the operation of those statutes. The passage of this bill will enable that equality to be achieved.
Recent developments in other Australian States make it particularly timely to build upon the Government's commitment to same-sex law reform. Since our 1999 Act was introduced, Queensland has enacted similar reforms and last year Victoria went even further, with amendments to 43 Acts to extend equal rights to same-sex relationships under its Statute Law Amendment (Relationships) Act. Most recently, in March Western Australia began stage one of a comprehensive same-sex law reform agenda, and the second stage of reforms to amend any remaining West Australian Acts will be pursued later this year.
The passage of this bill will also help to further the desirable goal of achieving a consistent definition of "de facto relationship" across all New South Wales legislation. In doing so, however, the bill does not in any way seek to equate de facto relationships with marriage. The bill does not make de facto relationships the same as marriage; rather it simply extends certain legislative provisions referring to "spouses" to include partners to a de facto relationship. "Marriage" and "de facto relationship", therefore, remain as distinct concepts.
In any event, as even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged, this Parliament has no power to make laws that affect the status of marriage because that falls within the legislative competence exercised exclusively by the Commonwealth. Nor, as has been suggested in some circles, does the bill seek to undermine the status of the family. Quite the opposite: by extending the Property (Relationships) Act definition of "de facto relationship" to a wide range of contacts that relate to the day-to-day consequences of being a party to a committed relationship, the bill helps to promote the greater inclusion of people who live in non-traditional families into the general community.
There could be no more appropriate time than now to build upon the reforms commenced in 1999. The prevalence of same-sex couples is increasingly recognised. The recently released 2001 census results reveal that 8,447 cohabiting couples in New South Wales identified as living in same-sex relationship. That is twice the number in the 1996 census and twice the number recorded for any other State. Everybody understands that there are many who would not so reveal themselves in a census. To continue to deny this significant number of people access to the same legal rights, powers, protections and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples would be both discriminatory and unjust. That is not an outcome the Government wishes to facilitate or endorse.
I should take the opportunity to foreshadow the amendments the Government will move in Committee, which will insert a new definition of "de facto relationship" into the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Act 1995 and the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998. The Minister for Transport recently advised me that this Act and regulation have been identified as containing discriminate provisions, which, I believe, even the eagle eye of the honourable member for Bligh had not discerned. It follows from what I have said that the Government will not support the amendments foreshadowed by members of the Opposition. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3
Amendment by Mr Debus agreed to:
Page 2, clause 3, line 9. Omit "Regulation". Insert instead "Regulations".
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.06 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Page 18, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:
1.22 Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Act 1995 No 72
[1] Section 25 Exemption for eligible pensioners
Insert "or in a de facto relationship with each other," after "married to each other" in section 25 (3).
[2] Section 25 (4)
Insert after section 25 (3):
(4) In this section:
de facto relationship has the same meaning as in the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.
1.23 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998
[1] Clause 82 Exemption for eligible pensioners
Insert "or in a de facto relationship with each other," after "married to each other" in clause 82 (3).
[2] Clause 82 (4)
Insert in appropriate order:
de facto relationship has the same meaning as in the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.
This amendment amends the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Act 1995 and the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998. The amendment is non-controversial in that it is identical in terms and effect to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1988 that are already included in the amendments contained in the bill. The reason it is proposed at this late stage is that the Act and regulation were inadvertently overlooked during the process of identifying legislation that required amendment in accordance with the policy of the bill.
Like the changes to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act already contained in the bill, the effect of the amendment will be to extend to de facto couples a tax exemption in respect of registration fees paid by pensioners for motor vehicles used for social or domestic purposes. By adopting the definition of "de facto relationship" contained in the Property (Relationships) Act, the amendment will ensure that this benefit is enjoyed equally by the same-sex and opposite-sex spouses.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr STONER (Oxley) [9.07 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 48 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. 1 [1]. Insert after line 5:
Omit "or spouse" from section 137 (1) (a) and (b) wherever occurring. Insert instead ", spouse or de facto partner".
[2] Section 137 (1)
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1.1 [3], line 12. Omit "spouse of a deceased person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a deceased person means".
No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1.1 [3]. Insert after line 15: spouse of a deceased person means the husband or the wife of the deceased.
No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1.2 [1]. Insert after line 3: Omit "or spouse" from section 9 (1) (a) and (al), (2) and (2A) wherever occurring. Insert instead ", spouse or de facto partner".
[2] Section 9 (2)
No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1.2 [2], line 8. Omit "spouse of a deceased person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a deceased person means".
No. 6 Page 5, schedule 1.4. Insert after line 20:
[1] The whole Act (except section 5 (1))
Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse" wherever occurring.
No. 7 Page 5, schedule 1.4, line 23. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person is".
No. 8 Page 6, schedule 1.6 [1], line 25. Omit "the spouse of an accused person includes". Insert instead "the de facto partner of an accused person means".
No. 9 Page 7, schedule 1.6 [2], line 2. Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 10 Page 7, schedule 1. 7, lines 11-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead: Insert "or de facto partner" after " the person's spouse" in section 56 (1) and (2) wherever occurring.
[2] Section 56 (3)
Omit section 56 (3). Insert instead:
(3) in this section, in relation to an answer, discovery or production by any person.. de facto partner means a person with whom the person has a de facto relationship within the meaning of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 at the time of the answer, discovery or production. spouse means the person's spouse at the time of the answer, discovery or production.
No. 11 Page 8, schedule 1.9 [1], line 13. Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 12 Page 8, schedule 1.9 [2], line 17. Omit "a spouse". Insert instead "spouse or de facto partner".
No. 13 Page 8, schedule 1.9 [3], line 23. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead, "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 14 Page 9, schedule 1.11. Insert after line 13: Insert "or de facto partner" after "to the spouse" in section 16B (3).
[2] Section 16B (4)
No. 15 Page 9, schedule 1.11, line 16. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 16 Page 10, schedule 1.12, lines 5-11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
member of the family of a person, means (in section 265 and Chapter 6) the person's spouse, de facto partner, parent, grandparent, child or sibling, any such relative by marriage o de facto partnership and any step-parent or step-child (with a person's de facto partner being a person with whom the person has a de facto relationship within the meaning of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984).
No. 17 Page 10, schedule 1.13 [1], line 27. Insert "or de facto partner" after "his or her spouse".
No. 18 Page 10, schedule 1.13 [2], line 30. Insert "or de facto partner" after "the spouse".
No. 19 Page 11, schedule 1.13 [3], line 4. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 20 Page 11, schedule 1.13 [3], lines 7-13. Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse" wherever occurring.
No. 21 Page 11, schedule 1.13 [4], line 15. Insert " or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 22 Page 11, schedule 1.13 [5], line 19. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 23 Page 12, schedule 1.14 [1], line 4. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 24 Page 12, schedule 1.14 [2], line 9. Insert " or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 25 Page 12, schedule 1.14 [3], line 12. Omit "did not have a spouse". Insert instead "did not have a spouse or a de facto partner".
No. 26 Page 12, schedule 1.14 [4], line 15. Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 27 Page 12, schedule 1.14 [5], line 18. Omit "did not have a spouse". Insert instead "did not have a spouse or a de facto partner'.
No. 28 Page 13, schedule 1.15 [1], line 4. Insert ", de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 29 Page 13, schedule 1.15 [2], line 8. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 30 Page 15, schedule 1.17. Insert after line 2: Insert ", de facto partner" after "party's spouse" in section 11 (1) (b).
[2] Section 11 (1 C)
No. 31 Page 15, schedule 1.17, line 4. Omit "spouse of a party includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a party means".
No. 32 Page 16, schedule 1.19 [1], lines 4 and 5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
Omit "the Commissioner may pay an amount calculated in accordance with this section to the spouse of the police officer or (if the police officer is not survived by a spouse)" from section 216(2).
Insert instead:
"the Commissioner may pay an amount calculated in accordance with this section to the spouse or de facto partner of the police officer or (if the police officer is not survived by a spouse or de facto partner or is survived by more than one spouse or de facto partner)".
No. 33 Page 16, schedule 1.19 [2], line 8. Omit "spouse of a police officer includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a police officer means".
No. 34 Page 16, schedule 1.20 [1], line 27. Insert "or de facto partner" after " spouse".
No. 35 Page 17, schedule 1.20 [2], line 4. Omit "as a spouse". Insert instead "as spouse or de facto partner".
No. 36 Page 17, schedule 1.20 [3], line 9. Omit "spouse of an officer includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of an officer means".
No. 37 Page 17, schedule 1.21 [1], line 28. Insert at the end of the line: Insert instead ", de facto partner'.
No. 38 Page 18, schedule 1.21 [2], line 1. Omit "spouse of a person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a person means".
No. 39 Page 18, schedule 1.22 [1], lines 19 and 20. Omit "child or spouse". Insert instead "child, spouse or de facto partner'.
No. 40 Page 18, schedule 1.22 [2], line 23. Omit "spouse of a deceased person includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of a deceased person means".
No. 41 Page 19, schedule 1.23 [1], line 24. Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 42 Page 19, schedule 1.23 [2], line 28. Omit " as a spouse". Insert instead "as spouse or de facto partner".
No. 43 Page 20, schedule 1.23 [3], line 3. Omit "spouse of an officer includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of an officer means".
No. 44 Page 20, schedule 1.24 [1], line 23. Insert "or de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 45 Page 20, schedule 1.24 [2], line 27. Omit "as a spouse". Insert instead "as spouse or de facto partner'.
No. 46 Page 21, schedule 1.24 [3], line 3. Omit "spouse of an officer includes". Insert instead "de facto partner of an officer means".
No. 47 Page 21, schedule 1.25 [1], line 21. Insert ", de facto partner" after "spouse".
No. 48 Page 21, schedule 1.25 [2], line 25. Omit "spouse includes a party". Insert instead "de facto partner means a party".
These are commonsense amendments that give effect to the widely accepted notion that marriage is different to other relationships. In 1999 the Labor Party supported these amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act. Church leaders, including the Anglican and Catholic churches and the New South Wales Council of Churches, keenly seek these amendments. It is certainly worth preserving the institution of marriage while not opposing the principle of the bill, which is to allow access to entitlements to those not only in marriage relationships but in other relationships.
I reiterate that these amendments would not prevent those not in a traditional marriage from accessing entitlements under the range of legislation covered by the bill. They merely reinforce the existing definition of "spouse" as "husband and wife", while allowing those in a de facto and same-sex relationship to also access entitlements of their partner. I reject totally the accusations of homophobia and lack of appreciation of human rights raised by the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for East Hills under privilege. At no stage did I suggest that a de facto or same-sex partner should not have the same rights as legally married people.
Why did they protest so much? What have they got against the great institution of marriage? When I asked earlier whether the bill had been costed, the honourable member for East Hills resorted to personal insult. Surely the taxpayers of New South Wales would be interested in additional costs associated with any piece of legislation passing through this place. I again state that these are commonsense amendments which would be supported by the majority of the citizens of this State, including our spiritual leaders, because they preserve the definition of traditional marriage whilst allowing access to entitlements by people who are not in that type of relationship. Overall, the Coalition does not oppose in any way the principles of this bill. I urge the Labor Government and members on the crossbenches to support these sensible amendments.
Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains-Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [9.11 p.m.]: I have said that the Government will not support these amendments. I said that this bill takes exactly the same approach as when the parent bill passed in 1999, which extended non-discriminatory approaches to more than 20 other Acts. Quite contrary to the claim just made by the honourable member for Oxley, the definitions of "spouse" and "de facto relationship" in this bill are the same as in the 1999 bill.
Back in 1999 the Opposition supported that approach, but, of course, the Opposition is now under a new and much more reactionary leadership, influenced by the honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Oxley, amongst others. They now seem to be in full support of what can only be described as a position discriminatory to contemporary relationships. Traditional marriage is in no way threatened by this bill. It is absolutely untrue for Opposition members to suggest that this bill will in any way diminish the power of traditional marriage. The Government cannot support what, in effect, are discriminatory amendments.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.12 p.m.]: The Coalition accepted the purpose of this bill and it has moved amendments that in no way derogate from relationships or partnerships, nor do they change in any way the rights that this bill will give people in partnerships, be they de facto partnerships or same-sex relationships. These amendments will not change, in the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Relationships) Act or the Property (Relationships) Act, any of the rights that flow from the bill. The amendments seek to preserve traditional respect for the institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship in our society which is regulated and sanctioned by law. Other relationships are not. They are not illegal, but they are not relationships that are founded upon a legal framework.
Marriage is a relationship that is blessed and hallowed by every major religion in our society, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or Sikh. Each religion has marriage ceremonies and a system of regulating marriage. Marriage, accordingly, is a religious and civil institution. While we respect and acknowledge the property rights of other relationships, they do not fall into the same category. It is, therefore, not appropriate for other relationships to be subsumed into the marriage relationship. These amendments simply seek to identify and separate the institution of marriage from other relationships. They in no way insult or derogate from other relationships.
These amendments were moved by the Opposition, conscious that it has the support of the diocese of the Anglican Church-the archdiocese of Sydney and the diocese of Wollongong have both made representations-and the support of the Catholic Education Office and the Catholic Employment Commission speaking on behalf of other agencies that comprise the Catholic Church. Opposition members, consistent with the position they took in the Legislative Council, are determined to ensure that proper respect is given to the institution of marriage. We therefore invite the Government to accept these amendments. The Government indicated in 1999 that it agreed with the amendments, and they were then pushed in 1999. However, the Government did not proceed with the agreement.
The Government's argument is that this bill is not anti marriage. We are not saying that the bill is anti marriage; we are saying that words reflect ideas. To give an example, members of the gay community have complained-and quite rightly so-about many of the words that are used about them. I will not repeat those words in Parliament because words reflect ideas. In that case, the words that were used reflected the idea that gay relationships were somehow lesser and wrong, and that people who entered into them were outside the normal bounds of society. They were persecuted because the words we use reflected ideas.
The concept of marriage is personal commitment; not the personal commitment in same-sex or de facto relationships but the personal commitment that is based upon religious or civil recognition. Accordingly, marriage is different for those two reasons, both in a secular society and in a society that respects religious belief. Members of this Parliament are conscious of, and are sensitive to, the recognition of the rights of different minorities in our society. That is important, and Coalition members uphold that view. However, members of Parliament should also recognise and respect the rights of those who believe in marriage as a religious institution, which, as I said, is the view of every major faith.
The Coalition is disappointed that the Government will not accept these amendments and will divide on them as an important matter of principle. It is a clear delineation of where we stand and where the Labor Party stands. We invite members on the crossbenches to join us because we believe that this issue will be publicised throughout the community. We would expect the community to be able to form a view of their members of Parliament based on how they vote tonight. I urge Government members to be conscious that they should have respect for religious belief, just as they have a respect for other beliefs in our society.
To insult religious belief by opposing these amendments would simply demonstrate that, while Government members are prepared to adopt a sensitive approach to the rights of certain groups in our society, they are not prepared to extend that approach to other groups in our society with whom they do not agree. It would be disappointing if some members on the crossbenches were prepared to take a stand against these amendments. I hope they do not. I hope that they accept the spirit in which these amendments were moved, and that they, too, acknowledge the rights of religious groups in our society to have the hallowed institution of marriage duly acknowledged through their customs and observances. Accordingly, I support the amendments and I hope they will have the enthusiastic support of all honourable members.
Question-That the amendments be agreed to-put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 32
Mr Armstrong
Mrs Chikarovski
Mr Collins
Mr Cull
Mr Debnam
Mr George
Mr Glachan
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood | Mr Humpherson
Dr Kernohan
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Mr O'Farrell
Mr D. L. Page
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
Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr R. H. L. Smith |
Noes, 45
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Mr Ashton
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Crittenden
Mr Debus
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Ms Moore
Mr Moss
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Oakeshott
Mr Orkopoulos
Mr E. T. Page | Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Woods
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Anderson
Mr Thompson |
Pair
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.
Message sent to the Legislative Council seeking its concurrence with the Legislative Assembly's amendments.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:40:10 : Update this page