1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Council
  4. 9 November 2005
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Desalination Plant Proposal

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 9 of 50 | Next Item »

About this Item
Subjects -  Desalination; Government Contracts; Legislative Council: New South Wales; Parliament: New South Wales; Water
Speakers - Cohen Mr Ian; Della Bosca The Hon John; President; Gay The Hon Duncan; Chesterfield-Evans The Hon Dr Arthur; Nile Reverend the Hon Fred
Business - Division, Motion


    DESALINATION PLANT PROPOSAL
Page: 19234


    Production of Documents: Order

    Mr IAN COHEN [11.15 a.m.]: I move:

    That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution, the following documents, excluding any photographs, technical drawings, maps, plans, designs or specifications, in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Premier’s Department, the Cabinet Office, the Treasurer, NSW Treasury, the Minister for Utilities, the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, the Minister for the Environment, and the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Minister for Planning or the Department of Planning and Infrastructure:

    (a) all documents relating to the environmental impact of the proposed desalination plant at Kurnell including, but not limited to, greenhouse impacts and the effects of any discharges from the plant,

    (b) all documents created since March 2003 which refer to alternative proposals for addressing Sydney’s water supply, including, but not limited to, water recycling and demand management strategies,

    (c) all documents containing the results of any market research, including surveys and focus groups, into public attitudes related to water use and reuse, and

    (d) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

    It is necessary to make public all documents related to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed desalination plant at Kurnell. The public should not have to stand for the Government telling us to take its word for it that it will all be okay. We have seen this arrogant lack of transparency with the cross-city tunnel. The environmental implications of a major infrastructure project such as a desalination plant must have be open to public scrutiny, especially since it will use very considerable taxpayer funds, as well as increase water prices.

    There is a great deal of public concern about the greenhouse impacts of a proposed desalination plant. Former Premier Bob Carr himself once called desalination "bottled electricity". Despite Government assurances that offsets such as the planting of trees will be provided, there is immense concern about the massive amount of electricity that will be needed to power the plant, and about the fact that this electricity will come from greenhouse gas emitting coal. If the Government is really so confident about the greenhouse impacts not being a major concern, it should release these papers.

    The community is apprehensive and confused about the effects of discharges from the proposed desalination plant and their impacts on the marine environment and wildlife, including whales which migrate through the waters off Kurnell. The Government should release documents related to potential impacts of the highly concentrated salty brine and other discharges which would be released from the plant, as well as documents related to any other potential environmental impacts. The public have a right to know what the alternatives to desalination are. The Government has presented the desalination plant as a fait accompli, ruling out alternative proposals such as water recycling. There is a perception that, for some reason, viable and cost-effective alternatives have been ruled out and not given the serious consideration that they warrant.

    For this reason, the Government should release papers referring to alternative proposals for addressing Sydney's water supply. That will give concerned communities a chance to assess whether the choice for a desalination plant was a reasonable one on the balance of the options available. The Government has repeatedly wheeled out the spin that the public will not accept drinking recycled water. But other sources seem to counter this argument. Various other market research undertaken has shown people's willingness to accept recycled water. Just the other week a blind tasting in Martin Place of tap water, recycled water and commercial bottled water found that most people could not tell the difference in taste, and many were prepared to accept the safety of drinking recycled water.

    Warragamba Dam already has significant amounts of recycled sewerage water from the Blue Mountains and Goulburn areas, so that issue needs to be cleared up. The Government should release details of any market research undertaken in respect to the public's attitude to recycled water—the only current survey, which was touted as expressing the views of the public, asked very loaded questions. Major infrastructure projects like a desalination plant should only be contemplated if the process is to be transparent and information accessible to the public. If these decisions are carried out behind closed doors and documents hidden from public scrutiny, public confidence will be gravely undermined. I strongly urge the Government to release the documents detailed in the motion.

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, Assistant Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.20 a.m.]: The Government will move an amendment to the motion, but before I do that I will speak briefly to the motion. We as a Government have a very well-balanced approach to securing our water supply.

    The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the first time.

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That includes plans to recycle water. We already have Australia's largest residential water recycling scheme at Rouse Hill, and we are about to open Australia's largest industrial water recycling scheme in the Illawarra. We are currently recycling 15 billion litres of water a year, which is estimated to increase to 70 billion litres by 2011. We are also fitting 500,000 homes with water-saving devices, giving help to people who want to install rainwater tanks, and investing more than $300 million to stop leaks—making Sydney Water cut water lost from leaks by 25 per cent. We are also increasing the capacity of our dams. Work is on target to finish by August 2006. We are accessing deep water at Warragamba, accelerating excavations for new sources of groundwater, and building a new pipe from the Shoalhaven to Warragamba to transfer excess flows, which is due to be completed by 2008. These works are expected to boost our water supply by 110 billion litres of water a year.

    An important part of our plans is to build a desalination plant on industrially zoned land at Kurnell. Last June Sydney Water released an expression of interest document into the desalination project, which allowed companies with experience in building major infrastructure to come forward. It also allowed companies around the world with experience in operating desalination plants to lodge their interest and join with construction companies in building and operating a desalination plant. We have since short-listed three consortia to proceed to the next stage of tendering: submitting pre-designs and pilot testing proposals for the desalination plant. Importantly, the consortia will also submit details of costs and desalination methodology. There is no doubt that people in New South Wales now have greater expectations about disclosure of documents for major projects. We have heard what the public is saying, and we agree that people should be kept informed on important infrastructure projects. That is why we have tabled tens of thousands of pages of documents in relation to the Lane Cove Tunnel and the M7 road projects.

    The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Was that on Melbourne Cup Day?

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: You cannot make the Hon. Melinda Pavey and her ilk happy.

    The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Why would you want to bother?

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Amanda Fazio is right, why would you want to bother?

    [Interruption)

    The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to order for the first time.

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: You cannot make them happy. They say we are not tabling documents, but when we table them at the first available opportunity—today—they say that we are tabling them because it is a favourable news day. The Opposition is very difficult to please, unlike the reasonable people on the crossbench. These documents have passed probity checks and passed through competitive tendering processes. The desalination project has not passed this stage. We are in the midst of a competitive bidding process between separate consortia. It would be highly inappropriate for documents that would undermine that competitive process to be released. Indeed, it would be contrary to the public interest. Sydney Water has appointed an independent probity auditor from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to oversee the tendering process.

    The probity auditor has made sure that measures are in place to guarantee competitiveness, integrity and probity during all phases of the project. The motion before the House moved by Mr Ian Cohen undermines that process. This independent probity auditor should be allowed to provide advice on which documents are withheld to safeguard this competitive process. The release of any commercially sensitive documents should be considered once we proceed past this competitive stage—when contracts have been signed. This is the appropriate course of action, and it is one supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said on morning radio, "We said a month ago—

    The Hon. Michael Costa: What's his name?

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I think it is the honourable member for Vaucluse. He said on morning radio, "We said a month ago, look any contracts under a Coalition Government will be fully disclosed as soon as they're signed." He said that on Radio Station 2GB, which the Deputy Leader of the Government knows all about. He is a regular listener, like myself.

    The Hon. Rick Colless: Who's the Deputy Leader?

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Michael Costa. I will repeat what the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, the honourable member for Vaucluse, said: "We said a month ago, look any contracts under a Coalition Government will be fully disclosed as soon as they're signed."

    The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the speaker.

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They do not want you to hear it because they really do not want to know the truth. However, I will keep repeating it until they hear it.

    The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the first time.

    The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse, said on morning radio, "We said a month ago [we being the Coalition, the Opposition], look any contracts under a Coalition Government will be fully disclosed as soon as they're signed." It is a sensible proposition, and one I agree with. Apparently, it is not one that the Opposition in this place intends to uphold today. Their resolve will be tested if they support our amendment. I call on the House not to interfere with the competitive process because it would undermine the public interest. The competitive process must get under way if we are to build a desalination plant. This is in line with the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. Like all good followers, those opposite should always follow their leader.

    The House can make the choice today to take responsible action. The Coalition has a challenge before them today when they vote no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse. If they vote against our amendment they would be voting against what the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse, thinks is the right way to proceed in these matters. In line with this the House can make the choice today to take responsible action supported by the Leader of The Opposition, the honourable member for Vaucluse. If honourable members reject our amendment they would be sending a message to business that they have no confidence in the judgment of the leader. They can pack their bags and go elsewhere. I move that the motion be amended as follows:

    That the question be amended by inserting at the end:

    2. That this House notes that a tender process for a desalination plant is under way and that the production of some of the abovementioned documents may prejudice that process.

    3. That this House also notes that an independent probity auditor has been appointed to oversee the tendering process.

    4. That this House agrees to accept the advice of the independent probity auditor and exclude from production those documents which the probity auditor advises is likely to prejudice the tender process.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.27 a.m.]: The Opposition will support the motion moved by Mr Ian Cohen. However, we will move an amendment to the motion and we will oppose the Government's amendment. The Government is asking us to trust them to decide what should be released. Through cover-ups and the way it operates, the Government categorically has shown the people of New South Wales that it cannot be trusted. Documents that come in should be sent to the independent arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, whom we have trusted to make the appropriate decision. I remind members of the House and the public that, despite the sensational documents that have come into this House, there has never been a leak.

    We have confidential documents dealing with the cost of legal expenses on the cross-city tunnel, and we have projections that, at this moment, are sitting in confidential files and have not been released to the public because the members of this House have honoured the trust placed in them, as they should. This is a real test of the Government of New South Wales, which says it wants to be transparent. But with its first chance to show transparency about its new-found whimsy, the Government breached its promise of transparency and tried to apply its own rules to the documents produced. The Opposition, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, will not fall for that trick. We will not breach the confidentiality of companies involved in the tender process. We want to ensure that the Government has not made these decisions on behalf of the people of New South Wales, because it cannot be trusted. I move:

    That the motion be amended as follows:

    No. 1 Insert at the end of the opening paragraph ",the Minister for Local Government, the Department of Local Government, Sydney Water and the Sydney Catchment Authority".

    No. 2 Insert after paragraph (c):

    (d) all documents relating to the tender for the construction of a desalination plant at Kurnell,

    (e) all documents which record or refer to recommendations by Sydney Water in favour of desalination and its opposition to alternative solutions for addressing Sydney's water supply,


    (f) all documents, including minutes and submissions to and from the Government-appointed expert water panel regarding the desalination plant,

    (g) all documents which record or refer to the involvement of the former Premier, Bob Carr, before and after his retirement from Parliament in a proposal for a desalination plant, and

    The Hon. John Della Bosca: Oh, that is a bit of gratuitous violence.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Leader of the Government trivialises the last point of the amendment.

    The Hon. John Della Bosca: That is rough.

    The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He says it is a bit rough. How rough is it to have a former Premier of this State leave that position and, while his seat is still warm, begin working for the project's principal consortium? As one of my colleagues said today, the Macquarie Bank is not paying him $500,000 for his good looks. The people of New South Wales need to know the extent of the former Premier's involvement. As much as anything, the amendment will protect him because if he had no involvement in the decision, there will be no documents to suggest to the contrary. However, if he had an involvement, he should not have come within a bull's roar of the project. He should not have been anywhere near it.

    The amendment is all about transparency. The Government says it will test the Opposition, but it is the Opposition that will be testing the Government. The Government is intent on forcing a desalination plant on the people of New South Wales—another one of its follies in the same category as the cross-city tunnel. The Government is intent on a costly solution for a problem that can be fixed by a less technological but more thoroughly analytical approach.

    The Government should be paying close attention to the supply of power during peak load periods in New South Wales because throughout the summer of 2005-06 there will be blackouts across the State. The Government cannot plan this city or this State properly. There are huge housing developments in Western Sydney where the houses are too big for the blocks, they have no eaves, and their orientation to the block is not to the north and therefore does not achieve optimal environmental benefit. The people who live in those houses will be relying on airconditioning during the next summer, with the result that there will be widespread blackouts across this State, even without the additional load from a desalination plant. If a desalination plant is added to the load, the Government will achieve nothing but chaos.

    The Opposition opposes the desalination plant. We believe there should be a properly structured and analytical approach to the provision of adequate water resources for Sydney. The Opposition is opposed to the Government once again attempting a cover-up. We believe that the person appointed by the Parliament, Sir Laurence Street, should decide whether documents relating to the desalination plant should be produced. He has made decisions properly in the past, and I believe he will do so in this instance while protecting true commercial confidentiality. No-one from the Opposition decries that commercial confidentiality in relation to this project should be protected. We trust Sir Laurence Street more than we trust the Government—and no-one in New South Wales blames us for that.

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.33 a.m.]: The manner in which the Government has claimed that the desalination plant is a fait accompli and avoided adequate public scrutiny is simply outrageous. The Government's own documentation states that it is 2.2 times more expensive to desalinate water than it is to reuse sewage. The Malabar sewerage treatment plant has a large vacant area of land near Anzac Parade that is owned by the Government and could be used as a site for recycling sewage.

    The Hon. John Della Bosca: That used to be a rifle range.

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: No, the land is between the Malabar sewerage treatment plant and the rifle range, and provides sufficient space for a sewage recycling plant. I understand that more than 50 per cent of Sydney's sewage water is discarded by the treatment works. The Prospect Reservoir could be bypassed and water could be brought directly from Warragamba Dam along the upper canal from Pipe Head. The Prospect Reservoir, which holds approximately three days supply of water for Sydney, could be used for emergencies or as a supplementary water supply. All that would be needed for a water recycling plant is a pipe from Malabar, or wherever the water is being recycled from, so there is no need for a desalination plant. Most of the required infrastructure and resources for a recycling plant, including vacant land, is already there, and it is outrageous for the Government to propose a desalination plant.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that people will not accept recycled sewage water. Everybody knows that water is continuously recycled and reused on spacecrafts and that water is treated and reused for every downstream town. The idea that desalinated water is the only solution is simply a furphy of the Government's propaganda machine. Trade waste water levels are still very high in New South Wales, particularly in the Sydney catchment area, and there is a great deal of scope for cutting back trade waste water usage and for making industries more efficient in their use of water, quite apart from the fact that there has been minimal use of grey water and rainwater tanks in suburbia. The Water Board workers who had been saving water by preventing leaks in water pipes and conserving rainwater were sacked and infrastructure became run down. The Government pocketed the savings from their salaries and called them dividends of its trading enterprise after corporatisation.

    The Government has created water shortages very much as a result of its own greed and ineptitude. The Government has adopted a foolish and dogmatic approach to State budgets by refusing to borrow to maintain infrastructure, despite the widely accepted model of borrowing to maintain infrastructure in the interests of stability that led New South Wales in the past to become the premier State in Australia. This Government has run down this State in a most irresponsible fashion. Not content with having done that, the Government built the Northside Storage Tunnel at Manly to deal with sewage overflows. The tunnel would not have been necessary if the Government had maintained the stormwater and sewerage systems adequately by retaining Water Board workers, but instead the Government adopted a policy of sacking Water Board staff to produce funds that could be redirected to a massive project.

    The Government built the ocean outfall tunnel and immediately prior to the Olympics gave ridiculous concessions to the construction company. The tunnel was not lined because if rain had fallen two days before the triathlon swim event, there may have been some turbidity of the harbour's water. For the sake of preventing turbidity, the Manly ocean outfall tunnel was not lined, which is quite outrageous. Water in the tunnel could be reused, but the Government refuses to do so, and water recycling proposals are not being discussed. Instead, the Government plans to spend $2 billion on a desalination plant without having seriously discussed alternatives that I or anybody who takes an even desultory interest in Sydney's water supply could list off the tops of our heads.

    It is the irresponsibility and absolute arrogance of the Government that have led it to the point of proposing a desalination plant. Worse than that, the Government has now said that members of Parliament are not permitted to examine documents relating to the desalination plant because of the need to protect commercial-in-confidence transactions. The Government has adopted the position that it is doing a deal and that members of this Parliament will be able to see the documentation after it has stuffed it up. Members of this Parliament have been trying to find sufficient time to examine the 50,000 pages of documentation relating to all the other contracts that this Government has made a hash of, and now this Government has said we can wait for the documentation related to the desalination plant to be released before we will be able to find out what a hash it has made of the desalination project. This Government is doomed because it is so damned hopeless.

    We do not want another $2 billion deficit when the next election is held simply because the Government proceeded without hindrance with a desalination project. Members of Parliament want to know what is going on with this project and why it is needed. That is what this motion is all about, and that is why it should be supported. The Government has put forward the pathetic smokescreen of saying that it has appointed probity auditors—no doubt at vast cost to the public. This is yet another example of consultants with their snouts in the trough providing this Government with a way of proceeding with the project, unfettered by accountability.

    The former head of Cabinet, the former Premier, Bob Carr, had access to every State Government memorandum, and has now flipped over to the Macquarie Bank, yet it is regarded as some form of discourtesy to suggest that he might have a conflict of interest. Well, hello! What sort of a community are we living in? The idea that someone can go straight from government to the private sector to lobby for the people that effectively they were negotiating with five minutes before is an absolute disgrace and shows a total lack of probity by the Government.

    The Minister is peddling the nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition is more than happy to sit there calmly and wait to release statements only after the Government has done its work of governing New South Wales. In fact, the Government has snuck up on this and called it a fait accompli when there has been no proper discussion. It is an absolute disgrace. It is to the credit of the members of this House that, when all these outrageous documents are produced and they spend the night going through them and finding all these scandals, they do not leak them to the media. That is pretty amazing, given the scandalous nature of the documents and the total and utter incompetence of the Government, and the deals that it makes with its mates and so on.

    The ICAC says that if the Government did not get money in its back pocket at the time it is not corruption. The Government can have conflicts of interest, total ineptitude, give things to its mates and receive donations from them to win elections, but that is not corruption. Apparently it is corruption only if the Government gets money in its back pocket. That is a pretty snappy definition, a pretty limited definition that suits this Government, funnily enough. This is a perfectly reasonable motion for papers to be produced so members can find out what is going on in this outrageous proposition, in this outrageous contract. Yet, the Government is being all precious about it. I urge honourable members to support the motion and to shelve the Government's outrageous amendment. I support the Opposition's sensible amendment to the sensible motion of the Hon. Ian Cohen.

    Mr IAN COHEN [11.41 a.m.], in reply: On behalf of the Greens I support the Opposition amendment and oppose the position put by the Government. I support the passionate contribution of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. It is important that we look at the level of probity that is undertaken by the Government at this time. I was a member of the committee of inquiry into the northside storage tunnel. That massive tunnel received a massive input of public finance. Basically, it is a Sydney Water out-to-sea, end-of-pipe option that is part of the culture of the days when Bob Carr, as the planning and environment Minister, instituted three-kilometre ocean outfall tunnels against the advice and lobbying of many people. We have to change the culture of Sydney Water and turn it around to recycling.

    This end-of-pipe solution of engineers at Sydney Water is wasting our resources and our money, and is sending us down the wrong track in a nineteenth century mentality. We have to turn that around. I suggest that we need to get all the appropriate facts in this debate and keep this issue going. A desalination plant is an extension of those tunnels, and it will be a waste of taxpayer's money.

    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.43 a.m.], by leave: I agree with the motion moved by the Hon. Ian Cohen. The wording of the Government amendment is confusing. The amendment refers to "abovementioned documents", but if it is agreed to there would be no abovementioned documents. I understand that that is an error. Under Standing Order 52 there is a system in place, which the Government is aware of and uses whenever a motion is moved for the tabling of papers. The Government has a right to withhold documents which, for commercial purposes and other reasons, it believes should not be made public and should be made available only to members of this House.

    When that happens, usually the papers are referred to Sir Laurence Street. If he is not available the papers are referred to an independent person of similar calibre. That procedure set up by the House is sufficient and adequate. It should not be replaced by the Government's proposal of an independent probity arbiter to make that decision before the documents are tabled with the Clerk. That would change the whole process. If the Government wants to change the process, that is another issue that the House should consider as a matter of principle. I do not believe that the procedures should be changed off the cuff at this time. We should use our normal procedure under Standing Order 52.

    Question—That the amendment of the Hon. John Della Bosca be agreed to—put.

    The House divided.
    Ayes, 16
    Ms Burnswoods
    Mr Catanzariti
    Mr Costa
    Mr Della Bosca
    Mr Donnelly
    Ms Fazio    		Ms Griffin
    Mr Hatzistergos
    Mr Kelly
    Mr Macdonald
    Mr Obeid
    Ms Robertson    		Mr Roozendaal
    Ms Sharpe
      Tellers,
      Mr Primrose
      Mr West
      Noes, 21
      Mr Breen
      Dr Chesterfield-Evans
      Mr Clarke
      Mr Cohen
      Ms Cusack
      Mrs Forsythe
      Miss Gardiner
      Mr Gay      		Ms Hale
      Mr Jenkins
      Mr Lynn
      Reverend Nile
      Mr Oldfield
      Ms Parker
      Mrs Pavey
      Mr Pearce      		Ms Rhiannon
      Mr Ryan
      Dr Wong

      Tellers,
      Mr Colless
      Mr Harwin
      Pair
      Mr Tsang
      		Mr Gallacher

      Question resolved in the negative.

      Amendment negatived.

      Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay be agreed to—put.

      The House divided.

      Ayes, 21
      Mr Breen
      Dr Chesterfield-Evans
      Mr Clarke
      Mr Cohen
      Ms Cusack
      Mrs Forsythe
      Miss Gardiner
      Mr Gay      		Ms Hale
      Mr Jenkins
      Mr Lynn
      Reverend Nile
      Mr Oldfield
      Ms Parker
      Mrs Pavey
      Mr Pearce      		Ms Rhiannon
      Mr Ryan
      Dr Wong

      Tellers,
      Mr Colless
      Mr Harwin
      Noes, 16
      Ms Burnswoods
      Mr Catanzariti
      Mr Costa
      Mr Della Bosca
      Mr Donnelly
      Ms Fazio      		Ms Griffin
      Mr Hatzistergos
      Mr Kelly
      Mr Macdonald
      Mr Obeid
      Ms Robertson      		Mr Roozendaal
      Ms Sharpe
        Tellers,
        Mr Primrose
        Mr West
        Pair
        Mr Gallacher
        		Mr Tsang

        Question resolved in the affirmative.

        Amendment agreed to.

        Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.

        The House divided.

        Ayes, 21
        Mr Breen
        Dr Chesterfield-Evans
        Mr Clarke
        Mr Cohen
        Ms Cusack
        Mrs Forsythe
        Miss Gardiner
        Mr Gay        		Ms Hale
        Mr Jenkins
        Mr Lynn
        Reverend Nile
        Mr Oldfield
        Ms Parker
        Mrs Pavey
        Mr Pearce        		Ms Rhiannon
        Mr Ryan
        Dr Wong

        Tellers,
        Mr Colless
        Mr Harwin
        Noes, 16
        Ms Burnswoods
        Mr Catanzariti
        Mr Costa
        Mr Della Bosca
        Mr Donnelly
        Ms Fazio        		Ms Griffin
        Mr Hatzistergos
        Mr Kelly
        Mr Macdonald
        Mr Obeid
        Ms Robertson        		Mr Roozendaal
        Ms Sharpe
          Tellers,
          Mr Primrose
          Mr West

          Pair
          Mr GallacherMr Tsang

          Question resolved in the affirmative.

          Motion as amended agreed to.

          Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.




        Last modified 05/12/2007 16:43:46   :   Update this page