- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 22 May 2003
Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 4 of 43
| Next Item »
Page: 1022
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 8 May.
Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.13 a.m.]: I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill, which is designed to bring a degree of commonsense to the bail issue in New South Wales. A high level of concern has been expressed in the community for some time that the courts often allow repeat offenders—particularly those who are alleged to have committed violent crimes—to go free rather than keep them in custody. This practice has had some horrid consequences. The honourable member for Epping enumerated the various issues when he introduced the bill in his capacity as shadow Attorney General. I am sure we all recollect particular instances that have captured the hearts and minds of the people of New South Wales and highlighted the great concern that the community should, and I believe does, have about the provisions of the current Bail Act.
Honourable members may remember the 1997 case of two young Bega school girls, Lauren Barry and Nichole Collins, who lost their lives to a repeat violent offender who had been released on bail in accordance with bail laws that were no better than those in force today. I recollect the media frenzy that occurred after the girls' disappearance. They were with a family group on a camping holiday on the South Coast when they left the campsite and vanished. There was great concern in the media as the hunt for the two young girls ensued. Their bodies were later found in a creek bed in bushland. It subsequently became apparent that the perpetrator of the crime was an alleged violent offender who had been released on bail.
The Carr Labor Government has been in power since 1995 so we are approaching a decade of Labor government in New South Wales. One would perhaps expect the Premier to have taken steps to address the sorts of issues that must be resolved in order to safeguard our community from repeat violent offenders who have been charged and brought before the courts. That is a basic expectation. The situation is particularly concerning as the Premier has duped the community into believing that he has addressed these fundamental issues. The recent election is fresh in our memories. I recollect seeing brochures and television advertisements in which the Premier basically said that it was a case of gaol not bail. That was the Government's theme. The Premier pretended to the community that he had done the right thing and that serious offenders would get gaol not bail. He lied to the community, which is now realising—because of other recent events—that the current law in New South Wales is not as the Premier presented it in his pre-election material.
Post election it is beginning to become apparent—as are many other things—that the situation is not quite as the Premier claimed. That is a recurring theme in New South Wales across a range of areas but in this case it has grave consequences. After almost a decade of Labor Government the Bail Act remains silent about any presumption against bail—it is neutral, if you like. It is for the courts to decide in all circumstances whether bail should be granted. That is a serious issue because that is not how the Premier has presented the situation to the public of New South Wales. He has claimed that there is a presumption against bail at least in the sorts of cases involving violent crimes about which the community is particularly concerned.
As a lawyer, I represented many people in bail application hearings before I came to this place. Over the years there have been various amendments to the bail provisions. The Bail Act sets out the criteria that the court must take into account in determining whether to grant bail. However, this tends to engender a highly technical and legalistic approach to this process to the extent that violent criminals are treated in exactly the same manner as non-violent offenders. The courts base their decision-making not on the presumption that the community believes violent criminals should not be granted bail but on the concept of neutrality.
Very sound arguments may be raised for and against presumption in the granting of bail—particularly in relation to civil libertarian issues. But in this place we have to make difficult decisions—often daily. A difficult bill passed through this House last night. People from both sides of the Chamber came to conclusions and had a conscience vote. On some issues we have to balance civil libertarian views, the presumption of innocence concept, and how it permeates the rest of our law. There is also a presumption that we are entitled as a community to be protected against violent offenders.
This bill introduced by the Liberal-National Coalition in New South Wales purports to find that balance, and I believe it does find that balance. It reflects the community's concerns about violent criminals. If an offender has apparently been involved in violent offences before, in those limited circumstances we should shift the balance such that the court starts with the presumption that the community does not want violent offenders released. They will have to bide their time behind the bars of one of the New South Wales correctional facilities until they can be tried. There is a possibility that an individual somewhere along the way may find that somewhat disadvantageous. But, on balance, the community would say that it wants to be protected. We would obviously want the court system to deal quickly with that individual so that his legal rights are protected as far as is humanly possible. We would not want the massive court delays that sometimes occur.
As a lawyer and as someone who, particularly in my capacity as shadow Minister for Community Services, has had something to do with people who have been on the receiving end of violent crime, I have no doubt that the bill does what the community of New South Wales wants to be done. The bill is also truthful, honest and transparent. It is telling the people of New South Wales exactly what will happen. It is not a dupe or a con job in the way that, sadly, the Premier has operated in too many areas. We acknowledge that there are possibly some downsides for particular individuals but, overall, the community needs to be made safer. So the courts should be directed to a presumption against bail for repeat violent serious offenders. That presumption then has to be rebutted by sound and logical argument from the judicial officer who is determining the bail application. I cannot see any reasonable argument against that.
The shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Epping, said that former police commissioner Ryan repeatedly pointed out flaws in the bail process that left victims without adequate protection from offenders. In the second reading debate, and publicly, the shadow Minister also pointed out that police are frustrated by the constant release on bail of people who can then commit further offences. That is another aspect: we as a Parliament and a community should support police in their endeavours to protect our community. Again, they have to have sensible and appropriately defined powers, and there must be support from this place.If the police do not feel that what they are doing will receive the backing of the mighty institutions that make up this State and provide the cornerstone of our democracy they will not do the work that we as a community expect them to do.
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research stated in its 2002 report on repeat offenders that "absconding on bail by Local Court defendants was a serious problem, particularly amongst repeat offenders". The judiciary is often criticised by the public and the Parliament for being too soft on criminals. I would like to think that in most instances that criticism is not justified. I have great faith and belief in our judicial system and in our judicial officers. But if we, as elected representatives for the people of New South Wales, fail to give some direction, some insight into what the community is thinking then of course the judicial officers will always give the individual the benefit of the doubt. That is the way the legal system works in New South Wales, and in most instances that is something we would all be happy with—but not when we know that individuals who are released have previously committed violent crime and may repeat the sorts of horrible things that can happen when violent criminals are allowed out on bail. I refer to the sorts of things that happened to teenagers, Lauren Barry and Nichole Collins. They were starting out their lives and being a bit adventurous but a violent offender who was out on bail cut short their lives.
The tragedy of the recent murder of Patricia Van Koeverden is that she should have been protected from her murderer by tough bail laws, but she was not. Government has a role in keeping its citizens safe. Government should be truthful with its citizens. Sadly, the State Labor Government, after a decade, has failed on both accounts. It has failed the citizens of New South Wales and, worse still, it has lied to them. This bill is an opportunity to move away from the Carr five-second-grab approach to substantive policy making. It is an opportunity for members opposite to strike a balance. It does not matter what faction they are in; this is about striking a balance to protect their communities. If they go back to their communities and ask whether they should back this bill they will be told that they should. I ask members opposite to take the bill seriously and to support it.
Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [10.28 a.m.]: This is an important bill. It concerns every person who lives in New South Wales. It concerns people in probably the most serious situations in which they could ever find themselves. The shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Epping, introduced the bill to rectify the inadequacies, the shortfalls, the lies and deceit of the Carr Government. The Carr government went to the people of New South Wales just a few weeks ago with a solid commitment: gaol not bail. Households throughout New South Wales were given glossy, printed brochures showing that message. There were depictions of phoney arrests and people being taken away in a patrol car. The public believes that those people were going to gaol and that they would remain there until the case was determined. Quite the contrary is occurring—many offenders at this very moment are being released on bail in circumstances in which reasonable thinking members of the community would deplore. Having practised law for some years, I am well aware of the delicacies of bail situations. I am aware that for many years a fundamental concept of British justice, which we inherited here in New South Wales, was that offenders were entitled to bail in most circumstances.
Of course that was many years ago and since then circumstances and conditions have dramatically changed. It is true to say that there is more violence on the streets in the community now than there was in previous generations. How many people are frightened to go out at night because they might get mugged or assaulted? How many people wake up in the early hours of the morning concerned that a noise outside their house might be an intruder, rather than just their dog or cat? We are living in a climate of people being frightened and apprehensive about maintaining their personal security. This bill simply says to repeat offenders that there is no presumption that they will get bail, indeed that they will find it very difficult to get bail. The object of the bill clearly states:
… the presumption against bail for certain offences where the offender committed the offence concerned while on bail for another offence, while on parole for another offence, while subject to a sentence (but not in custody) or to a good behaviour bond or an intervention program order relating to another offence or while in custody.
The bill also states:
… to provide for a presumption against bail where the offender has previously been convicted of the offence of failing to appear before a court in accordance with a bail undertaking.
In other words, an offender who did not appear in court and forfeited bail and is reapplying for bail. No doubt, they could repeat those circumstances. The bill further states:
… to provide for a presumption against bail in respect of indictable offences where the offender has previously been convicted of one or more indictable offences.
Indictable offences are serious offences for which offenders have to appear before a judge, and often a jury, in the District Court or the Supreme Court. They are not illegal parking or speeding offences for which offenders appear before a magistrate in the Local Court. The bill also states:
… to require a court or authorised officer, when determining whether to grant bail to offender … and when considering the interests of the person, to take into account the nature of the criminal history of the person …
Criminals are said to have "form", a term used in a similar manner to how one might refer to the form of a racehorse. I do not know a lot about racehorses but I know that race form is referred to. Criminals have form, and some have a record like Phar Lap that goes back for years. The Opposition says that if a criminal has form—not good form but bad form—and has a chequered career and has been in and out of gaol all their life, they should not be automatically entitled to bail. We say there should be a very strong presumption that they do not get bail in such circumstances because at the end of the day all members of the public are at risk. We have heard of many cases, including Lauren Barry and Nichole Collins, two young innocent girls from Bega who were brutally murdered and cut down in the prime of their life by a repeat violent offender. Patricia van Koeverden was also brutally murdered by a repeat violent offender. Those tragedies arose because an offender was granted bail.
The Opposition does not say that offenders should be denied bail in every circumstance, because obviously there are cases where people are entitled to bail. Rightly or wrongly, our courts operate under a system of a presumption of innocence. I think it is the best system in the world. People are innocent until proven guilty, but any application for bail should be considered very carefully before they are given the licence, privilege and liberty to go back into the community until their case is determined. At the end of the day many parties are acquitted in court, but the Opposition says that repeat offenders—those who have prior form, a history of violence and serious crimes, or have previously failed to appear in court after having been granted bail—should not be given bail. The Opposition says that the presumption for bail for repeat offenders should be withdrawn; they should find it very difficult to obtain bail.
The history of bail in New South Wales goes right back to the beginning of criminal law, and many generations have seen changes to the system. In a very practical, workmanlike and realistic way the shadow Attorney General seeks to amend the Bail Act 1978. That Act provided a right to release on bail for persons accused of certain minor offences, including offences not punishable by imprisonment and other minor summary offences. In relation to other more serious offences, with some exceptions relating to drug-related offences, domestic violence offences and other specified offences, the principal Act provides for an entitlement to bail subject to consideration of the matters set out in section 32. Those matters should be taken into account when determining whether to grant bail. In the beginning of the new millennium, in an age of violence, when people are apprehensive and frightened for their own personal security, that legislation needs revision. The Government should accept the reasonable requests of the community—we say it should be the demands—and alter the law to make it up to date and relevant to what is happening in 2003, not to what happened in 1958, 1968 or 1978 when there might have been different principles.
The Opposition believes that the present provision in relation to the presumption against bail should be amended to make it difficult for people who have committed an offence whilst they are on bail for another offence, while on parole for another offence, while subject to a sentence but not in custody, or to a good behaviour bond or an intervention program order relating to another offence or while in custody; or where the offender has previously been convicted of failing to appear before a court; or where the person has previously been convicted of failing to appear before a court; or where the person is accused of an indictable offence and has previously been convicted of one or more indictable offences.
It is true that police officers get very frustrated when they arrest a person for a criminal offence and take him or her to court, only to see that person get bail and subsequently do a bolter—to use a great Australian expression—and fail to appear before the court in accordance with the bail undertaking. The police are then back to square one and have to spend considerable time to find and reapprehend the offender. The offender could be in the Northern Territory, Darwin or Cairns and has to be brought back to this State. Not only does this cost an enormous amount of money but the police are diverted from attending to their other duties. The police have to try to recover the ground they have lost by rearresting the offender. The Opposition and most members of the community would say that that offender should never have been released.
Of course, it is very easy in some respects to blame the courts. It is as simple as that. The courts interpret the law that Parliament formulates. Parliament makes the law; the courts interpret it and adjudicate on it. In other words, if the law does not exist, the courts cannot do anything. The Opposition should support this legislation so that the courts will clearly understand what the elected parliamentary representatives say the community wants. The Government has a responsibility to do that. Tragically, the Carr Government, which went to the people of New South Wales but a few weeks ago on the platform of "gaol not bail", was simply wrong. It was misleading and deceptive. People may well have changed their vote believing that to be the situation. As the Opposition, we are always here to help. That is the shadow Attorney General's attitude. The Opposition is reflecting what the community really wants.
This is an opportunity to amend the law and to make life very difficult for repeat offenders who do not turn up to court. At the end of the day, they are less likely to turn up if they are given bail. The statistics indicate that nearly 15 per cent of people charged by police and granted bail in the Local Court abscond. They also indicate that 17 per cent of offenders with prior convictions granted bail in 2000 absconded while on bail, compared with just 4 per cent of people with no prior convictions. Honourable members know the facts; they have read them in the newspapers and witnessed the tragedies, distress, grief and anger that result when people who are released on bail commit atrocious murders. That must stop, and the only way it will is if we tighten the law relating to bail for repeat offenders.
Mr TINK (Epping) [10.43 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. However, I am disappointed in the Attorney General's reply on behalf of the Government, for two reasons. First, there has been no endeavour by the Government to pursue the bona fide attempt by the Opposition to do something constructive about reforming the law relating to bail for repeat offenders. Two appalling tragedies have occurred some years apart as a result of repeat offenders being granted bail. The tragedy of the Bega school girls in 1997 and the recent appalling case in the Newcastle area involved murders committed by repeat violent offenders. It is frustrating and disappointing beyond belief that in those circumstances the Government has not pursued the Opposition's strong starting point to reform and tighten the law.
This bill is not out of left field; it does not involve legal concepts which are unknown or dangerous or which may lead to absurd results. It does a very simple thing: it marries the concept of a presumption against bail for serious drug offenders with a definition of repeat offenders that provides for a test that everyone—even the Government—now recognises is appallingly weak in that it provides no presumption either way. This bill is a meaningful, workman-like, reasonable proposal to plug a massive gap in the criminal law, which on at least two occasions has appallingly resulted in the loss of innocent lives. It is a matter of infinite frustration and disappointment to me that the Government will not support it. Second, I am disappointed because the Attorney General continues to deliberately misrepresent and deceive the Parliament about the Government's position on bail law reform. That is strong language, but I will justify it by quoting what he said in this place on 8 May in this debate:
The tragic death of Patricia van Koeverden has certainly prompted the Government to accelerate its program of bail reform...
The Government had no program to reform bail law before that murder, and it is a lie for the Attorney General to say otherwise. That is strong language, but the record is very clear. I have a letter from John Feneley, the Assistant Director General of Policy and Crime Prevention in the Attorney General's Department, addressed to Inspector Kel Clowry, Manager Operational Compliance Unit, Court and Legal Services, NSW Police, and dated 17 January 2003. I will read the letter onto the record because it demonstrates the Attorney General's deceit in saying that the Government had a bail law reform agenda. The letter states:
A Working Party chaired by the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department was established in January 2002 to examine issues relating to bail and repeat offenders. The deliberations of the Working Party resulted in the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Act 2002 which commenced on 1 July 2002.
Nevertheless, there has been recent controversy about the operation of the Bail Act 1978 despite the legislative changes tightening the criteria for those eligible for bail.
Accordingly, it is proposed to reconvene the Working Party to re-examine the operation of the Bail Act, particularly the existing review procedures, and ascertain whether any improvements can be made to simplify the operation of the legislation or improve police procedures.
I would like to invite you or your representative to attend a meeting to be held in early February to discuss these matters.
This letter is from an assistant director general in the Attorney General's Department, who one assumes speaks regularly to the Attorney General. Generally speaking, the Attorney General is competent, so he would be across this correspondence. There is no reference to changes to the Bail Act. On the contrary, the assumption in this letter is that the Bail Act and the amendment bill passed in 2002, which has been found wanting as a result of the dreadful Newcastle murder, are fine and that the problems stem from police procedures and the implementation of the legislation by police.
Nothing in that letter suggests any proposal or plan. Indeed, there is not even a concession that anything was wrong with the Bail Act. Those being the central written words of the Attorney General's Department, I am very disappointed that the Attorney General had the hide to tell the House that before van Koeverden's death the Government had a program of bail reform. It absolutely did not. Not only that but, as the Attorney General would well know, his department believed that the Bail Act provisions regarding repeat offenders were working well enough and the problem lay with the police department. That is a fair and reasonable reading of that letter.
The police department possibly had a slightly different view. At least it countenanced the possibility of a need for some changes to the Bail Act. Mr Moroney signed off on that on 14 January 2003. To be fair to the then police Minister, Mr Costa, I think he probably shared that view and was actually attempting to advocate some change to this aspect of the bail law. I think the Daily Telegraph got it right on 7 April this year when it said that, whilst police were trying to make some changes, the working party of the Attorney General's Department was actively attempting to block police proposals for changes to the existing legislation. On that day the Daily Telegraph, quoting internal police working party sources, said:
Bail laws in NSW should be rewritten to make hardened criminals prove they are no threat to public safety.
But in the Attorney General's Department a separate working party is concerned that the changes may affect basic rights of justice and is attempting to block the plan. In the eyes of the two departments that may or may not have been a legitimate subject for debate, but in no way could the Attorney General tell this House with a straight face that the Government had a program for bail reform prior to the murder of this woman in Newcastle. In fact, the Government had two departments at loggerheads with each other on whether there was need to reform the bail laws.
I strongly suspect it also had two Ministers who were at loggerheads with each other, namely the Attorney General, who was disposed to not making changes in this area, and the then police Minister, who I think was pushing towards reform. The notion that that amounted to a Government plan is nonsense. It was a fight amongst two senior Cabinet Ministers who had no direction whatever on what the Government's position would be, and as a consequence the Government had no plan whatsoever. Of course, that did not stop the Premier from talking publicly about "no bail for repeat offenders", representing "no bail for repeat offenders" in literature, and saying that the Government had a plan for "no bail for repeat offenders". It did not. Two Ministers were at each other's throats, and two departments were at each other's throats.
I have a strong suspicion, I hope I am wrong, that two departments may still be at each other's throats and two Ministers—although I am not sure about the new Minister for Police—continue to be at each other's throats on this same issue. One thing is for sure: this Parliament does not have before it any Government legislation that seeks to tighten up bail laws for repeat serious offenders. To demonstrate the appalling misrepresentation of this matter—and it sticks in my craw a bit that it got to this point in the election campaign—a brochure from the new member for Drummoyne, under the heading "Standing Up For Our Community: making our streets safer", stated:
The Carr Government has also—
past tense—
made sure repeat offenders get jail not bail.
That is a lie. The member for Penrith, as a candidate for re-election, made the same statement in what appears to be the same brochure, but with different pictures:
The Carr Government has also made sure repeat offenders get jail not bail.
That was a lie to the electorates of those two members. How could it be otherwise than a lie if the Newcastle woman was murdered after the election by a repeat violent offender? That is very strong language, but how can it be otherwise than a lie? How can it be said that the Government has made sure that repeat offenders get gaol not bail, yet within weeks of the election a woman is murdered by a repeat violent offender? No wonder the public becomes cynical about what politicians say and promise! They are two of the worst examples I have ever seen, with the worst possible consequence. The main duties of members of this House, above all other duties, are to ensure that we have a legal system that protects innocent members of the public, and to always do our best to try to have a legal system, a police force, and other government instrumentalities for which we are all responsible, but for which the Government is particularly responsible for through the Ministry, to protect the public. It is appalling that members should misrepresent the facts in an attempt to gain votes to get a job in this place when what is at stake is ultimately the life of an innocent woman. I hope that they will do a little bit better than that in future.
I continue to be frustrated because, despite that murder, despite the Government having been put on notice after the Bega schoolgirl tragedy, despite the extreme problems with repeat violent offenders, nothing was done. As we debate this bill today, still nothing has been done by the Government. If the Attorney General was right in his second reading speech when he said that the Government had a program that it was accelerating, where is the bill? We are nearing the end of our third sitting week. We have had a week off between the first two sitting weeks and this week, so we are a month into the session. I think I am right in saying that the Newcastle tragedy took place at the beginning of the first sitting week of this Parliament. If the Government had something in train, why does it not have a bill before the Chamber now? How can the Government vote against my bill, knocking out the only piece of legislation before this Parliament trying to deal with repeat violent offenders, when it has no substitute proposal?
How can the member for Drummoyne and the member for Penrith, who made false statements to their electorates during the election campaign in order to get voted into this place vote against a bill that would tighten our bail laws with a measure that they said was already in place? Though Caucus has been meeting for a month now, it and the Government have nothing to offer this Parliament at this point in time. How can they do that? I would be more than happy to postpone debate on my bill to allow the Government to introduce and proceed with an appropriate and alternative bill. The Attorney General ought to be bipartisan on this issue, recognise that the Government has some culpability for what has been going on—I would say it is worse in some respects, but I will leave it at that—and work out something that it can present to this Parliament by next week.
It may be—I hope it is—that when notices are called on this afternoon, the Attorney General will give notice of some legislative amendment of the Bail Act. If he does not do so this afternoon—unless, after stuffing about for years, the Government proposes to ram a bail bill through next week without giving Opposition members the normal five days to look at it—this Chamber will not have a bill on which it can vote, pursuant to the normal procedures of this House, until the middle of next month. According to the program, the House will rise at the end of next week and not sit again until 17 June. The working party of the Attorney General's Department was going round and round in circles in January but doing nothing, not even acknowledging the need to amend the Bail Act, yet the Attorney General has misrepresented that as a plan. Unless this afternoon the Attorney General gives notice of a motion to bring on such a bill, it will be more than six months before something happens—despite a whole lot of misrepresentation in the election campaign that this was already a done deal.
There is one final issue that I believe this terrible mess highlights: the ongoing failure of the Attorney General and the Minister for Police to work more constructively together to introduce necessary reforms in this Parliament to protect the public. It seems that the Attorney General and the police Minister are essentially at loggerheads when it comes to what needs to be done to protect the public. The situation may be different under the new police Minister, but if that is the case I suspect it is only because he is more sympathetic to the Attorney General's views. I had much more respect for the views of the former Minister for Police, Michael Costa, and the action he took to protect the public, especially with regard to this issue, than I ever had for what seemed to come from the Attorney General's Department. It is a fight that goes on to this day and, I suspect, is still going on behind the scenes.
For some time now the police have not been effectively represented in Cabinet to the point where their views on vital legislation to protect them and the public have been heard and acted upon. Minister Costa made some progress in some areas, but in other areas it has simply been a head butting operation. The police must be better heard. I do not know how this works in the present Government, but something must be done, in whatever Cabinet subcommittee is responsible for dealing with this type of legislation. While ever this ridiculous head butting and nonsense goes on, the current arrangements are literally costing innocent people their lives. The police need a better forum, they need to be better heard and they need to have more say at Cabinet meetings on all these issues.
The allocation of Acts shown in the Government Gazette includes a listing of about five pages of Acts that come under the Attorney General's control and about a dozen Acts that come under the direct control of the Minister for Police. I do not suggest that that should change, but when one looks at the allocation of Acts to the Attorney General it is clear that at least one-third directly relate to the daily workings of the police department. There must be a separation between legislation that relates to the Attorney General's Department and legislation that relates to the police department. However, it concerns me that there seems to be behind-the-scenes head butting going on, and the real concerns of police are not heard and are not translated into legislation.
The Government has been going on forever about bail and repeat offenders, but no plan has been put in place to deal with the issue. Indeed, it would appear that if a plan has been put in place in the Attorney General's Department it has been to scuttle the proposal by the police for further reforms to the bail law, not to facilitate them in any way. If this bill is to be opposed, I trust that particularly the honourable member for Penrith and the honourable member for Drummoyne will in some way explain themselves to their electorates—having already misrepresented the position—that they still intend to block the only proposal to come before the House for reforms to the law relating to repeat bail offenders. I trust also that the Attorney General will this afternoon, before question time, speak about the introduction of a bail repeat offenders bill.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.Ayes, 35
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Brogden
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard | Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr McGrane
Mr Merton
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson | Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Noes, 50
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Ms Gadiel
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Knowles
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori | Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Pairs
Mr Fraser
Mr J. H. Turner | Mr Bartlett
Mr Iemma |
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:25:19 : Update this page