Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Motions Newstart Allowance Newstart Allowance Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo: That this council— 1.	Recognises that all Australian jobseekers deserve adequate income support to maintain a decent standard of living and have access to resources to look for work, which enables and supports recipients to transition to paid work as soon as possible; 2.	Supports a root and branch review and measures which seek to increase and enhance Newstart and other related welfare payments, which adequately addresses the current level of poverty among Australian jobseekers; 3.	Acknowledges the work of the Anti-Poverty Network South Australia, for its advocacy in this policy area; 4.	Recognises that the Turnbull Liberal government, in its most recent Federal budget, failed to address this issue and calls on it to immediately undertake a root and branch review; and 5.	Recognises the last rise in Newstart occurred in 1994 under the Keating Labor government. (Continued from 19 September 2018.) The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:44): I rise today to speak on the Hon. Tung Ngo's motion regarding a root and branch review of Newstart. The motion calls on the Coalition government, now in the dying days of the Forty-Fifth Parliament, to immediately undertake a comprehensive a review of the adequacy of the Newstart Allowance. We know that there are those in the state Labor Party, many across from me today—well, not too many today—who do not want to wait for such a review. Indeed, many of them, like me, want Newstart increased immediately. In fact, the Hon. Tung Ngo made an impassioned plea for such an increase in his speech on the motion. It is disappointing that federal Labor cannot come out and say that, despite a strong campaign from within the party in the lead-up to its triennial conference in Adelaide last December to increase the Newstart Allowance. Ultimately, the federal Labor Party only committed to a review of Newstart within 18 months but no commitment to raise the payment itself. This was a disappointing result and comes despite a formal declaration by federal Labor in its revised draft national platform acknowledging that the current rate of Newstart is too low and is a barrier to people finding work and participating in society. But at least it is better than the Morrison Liberal government's position, which refuses entirely to increase Newstart. Newstart increased by a measly $2.20 last September to $275.10 per week as part of its twice-yearly adjustment to the consumer price index, but the fact remains that Newstart has not risen in real terms in 24 years. The $2.20 indexed increase works out to a whopping 30 cents a day. It does not even cover the cost of an average loaf of bread. In real terms, the purchasing power of the Newstart Allowance has decreased so that Newstart recipients today are much worse off than those unemployed 24 years ago. Rent, groceries and transport costs have all increased as Newstart, in real terms, has stagnated for over two decades. The situation is even more alarming for a single parent—overwhelmingly women—who are transferred from a sole parenting payment to the lower Newstart Allowance after their youngest child turns eight. Such a predicament only serves to increase their financial and social stress, their ability to properly cover the needs of their children and places an immense weight on children caught up in the cycle of poverty. At the time of the indexed increase to Newstart, federal social services minister Paul Fletcher said the indexed $2 boost per week to Newstart Allowance would help unemployed Australians keep up with increases in their living costs. Such commentary is a bit rich coming from a guy who gets $288 per day in travel allowances when he is in Canberra—that is per day. That is more than someone on Newstart gets for the entire week. Fletcher's statement would be laughable if the situation was not so desperate and dire. The Australian Council of Social Service has long advocated for an increase to Newstart and SA-Best and our federal colleagues Centre Alliance support ACOSS in its strong advocacy on the issue. ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie has suggested a review is not needed to increase the payment. I quote: The evidence is in. The support is across-the-board. It's been 24 years. This is years overdue. People can't afford to wait. The current Newstart rate of $275.10 per week for a single person with no children is well below the state-based poverty line of $408 per week, as defined by the South Australian Council of Social Service. So if you are on Newstart, by definition you are living in poverty. An increase in payments by $75 a week would assist 770,000 people across Australia. In South Australia, it would provide immediate and significant assistance to 65,755 Newstart recipients, with the majority receiving the single rate. A report conducted for ACOSS by Deloitte Access Economics found that the increase would benefit regional communities the most and that, as the money flowed through the economy, it would increase consumer spending, create 12,000 new jobs and boost government revenue by $1 billion. There is now widespread agreement that Newstart—which I remind everyone has not risen in real terms since 1994—is appallingly too low. It is not just ACOSS that is calling for an increase to Newstart. There is a growing coalition of advocates, political figures and business groups, including former Liberal prime minister John Howard, who have called the current Newstart rate inadequate. I am a member of the Select Committee on Poverty in South Australia and have been both humbled and concerned by the evidence that we have heard so far. The reasons for poverty are complex, and the committee's work examining the issue will take time as we delve into the impact of poverty on a range of particular demographic groups, as well as socio-economic issues. Because the Newstart Allowance is so indelibly linked to the very issue of poverty, it was the first focus area examined by the select committee and forms the basis of the first interim report. The recommendations of the interim report with respect to Newstart are that: The Committee agrees with the overwhelming majority of submissions to the inquiry that the Newstart Allowance is far too low and falls well short of the state-based poverty line. The Committee calls on the Federal Government to make a meaningful increase to the rate of the Newstart Allowance (and other base allowances) as a matter of urgency. We do not need a root and branch review to determine the overwhelming need to increase the rate of Newstart Allowance or the fact that it needs to happen now. Last year, former Liberal MP turned Independent, the federal member for Chisholm, Julia Banks, callously remarked that she could live on the less than $40 a day Newstart Allowance, in a pathetic and feeble attempt to defend the Coalition government's hardline position. Those comments will, no doubt, come back to haunt her as she seeks to contest the seat of Flinders at the next election. It is very easy for us as politicians to be removed from the day-to-day lived experience of those trying to get by on the Newstart Allowance. Julia Banks's comments are testament to that. They were reckless and heartless. We are in a very privileged and unique position. It comes with significant responsibility and is one I take seriously and I am sure all my colleagues do. It is imperative that those battling on Newstart inform us of the immense challenges they face daily. To that end, I want to read to you an excerpt from submission 18 to the Select Committee on Poverty from Tracey. In achingly moving words, Tracey shares her experience: My name is Tracey. I am a single woman…50 years of age and long term underemployed since 2009. My early childhood and youth were spent in and out of out of home care, my step father having left the country when I was 10 years old, leaving my sisters and I with a mother with poor coping abilities. Despite our childhood challenges, both my sisters and I strived to improve our lives through tertiary education. For me personally without family structure and support this was incredibly difficult. At the time I was living with undiagnosed depression which in turn affected my ability to complete my Associate Diploma in Community Development. I had 2 or 3 subjects left to complete to graduate but all the pressures of simply living on a limited budget, trying to find stable accommodation as well as completing assignments became too much to deal with. To get ahead financially I started working in the Sex Industry. Earning a good income helped me get some stability in life, being able to pay rent and associated costs. Working as a sex worker was not without its own challenges. Due to the intimate nature of the job, I burnt out and not having any skills to fall back on, went on…social security payments. Not being able to pay the rent on my house, I moved to my mother's Housing Trust home whilst I awaited for my name to come up on the Housing Trust waiting list for my own house. (I had put my name down when I was 18 and living in a Youth Shelter). At age 28, I finally got my own Housing Trust home and have been here ever since. I still do not feel secure enough living here though. Having been on a Centrelink payment for quite a few years now, as the years have gone on, the struggle to survive has increased, as the payment has not kept up with rising costs of living. Food and electricity would have to be the two major items of cost. My budget for groceries has always been $100 a fortnight. Imagine how empty my trolley must be these days on that amount. In recent years, I have started dumpster diving and this helps with my food bill. To try and save on electricity costs, at least twice a week, I will turn my hot water service off at the mains switch overnight, and bathe only if I am to leave the house to interact with others. This does not happen often because I have to limit my travel…due to cost saving measures… As I age, my health is now starting to slowly decline. This became very apparent to me last year when I had some health issues that required an overnight hospital stay. There were associated costs with that period that I had to go and get assistance from charity to help cover. I accept that as a 50 year old woman—despite my extensive experience within the community sector—I am highly unlikely to gain any kind of ongoing reliable employment. I feel that I have nothing to look forward to in my future and I have no hope of my situation ever improving. People object to me saying this, but dying would be a welcome relief from the everyday struggle I endure. That is what I look forward to. That is powerful, raw, honest lived experience. Tracey eloquently explains what it is like living on Newstart—a struggle every day to make ends meet, to go without meals, to not use hot water or heating or cooling, to go without, to feel lonely, isolated and depressed. Tracey's experience is by no means isolated. There are many stories like hers and I dare any politician not to be moved by her words or remain steadfast in their belief that the current rate of Newstart is appropriate. Some of you may remember Tracey as she was featured as part of a series of profiles during the 7.30 program on the ABC last year, about what it was like to be on Newstart's $40 a day. The broadcast also featured Jaieyre Lewis, a 26 year old from Adelaide who has been on and off Newstart for a couple of years now. When that story aired last July Jaieyre had applied for 160 jobs over two or three months—160 jobs. The story reported that: Jaieyre loves to cook but cannot afford meat because it is simply too expensive. Instead, he will buy a chicken carcass for about $2.50 to make soups because they are cheap and nutritious. Jaieyre would like to turn his passion for food into full-time work, but said hospitality jobs in Adelaide are in short supply. Achingly, Jaieyre said during the report that: I don't like to think of myself as a welfare or dole bludger. I like to think of myself as a person first who would like to survive and exist. On 10 May 2018, Senator Rachel Siewert, on behalf of the Australian Greens, moved a motion in the Senate, supported by our federal colleagues Centre Alliance and one other crossbench senator, urging the federal government to increase the single rate of Newstart and Youth Allowance by $75 a week. Regrettably, that motion was voted down 45 votes to 12 when the Labor Party sided with the Coalition government to defeat the motion. The rate of Newstart does not need to be reviewed: it needs to increase urgently, and the ALP and the Coalition know this. Consequently, I will be moving an amendment to the motion that reflects the recommendation of the Select Committee on Poverty in South Australia but goes one step further by nominating the specific amount of increase to Newstart as recommended by ACOSS. Even though responsibility for Newstart lies with the federal government, if there is no meaningful and significant increase to Newstart, then those payments will continue to decline well short of the state poverty line, and it will fall to those agencies who are increasingly asked to do more with less to help out the most vulnerable in our community. I move: Delete paragraph 4 and substitute: 4.	Calls on the Morrison Liberal government to increase Newstart by $75 per week as a matter of urgency. With those words, I conclude my remarks. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, I note that you have quoted expansively from a committee proceeding. As I understand it, that committee on poverty in South Australia has produced an interim report, which is why I let you go on, but if that interim report had not—and I am not sure whether it has—included those submissions, because sometimes the submissions are left until the final report, then you cannot technically quote from them. So I have been generous, in summary. In future, for good practice, and this is for the benefit of other members, if you are going to quote from an interim report and the submissions of those reports, the submissions should be tendered. That is for your benefit and for the edification of other members. The Hon. F. PANGALLO Legislative Council The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay, thank you, Mr President. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:02): I rise to speak to this motion, largely in support but not entirely in support, and foreshadow that I will seek to amend it. I commend the Hon. Tung Ngo for bringing this issue before this place. I commend all members who are turning their attention to the issue of poverty, the growing inequality in our country and, indeed, the absolute fact that the Newstart Allowance has not been raised in real terms since the 1994 federal budget. Newstart is now somewhere around 18 per cent of the average wage, 41 per cent of the minimum wage, and that low rate is profoundly affecting the wellbeing of many people in our state, making it harder for jobseekers to seek work. When 40 per cent of Newstart recipients are unable to pay their bills, when 46 per cent are only able to afford second-hand clothes most of the time, when 44 per cent have unsustainable levels of debt and owe more than they can afford, when a majority turn off their heating and cooling to save money, when 32 per cent skip meals, when 25 per cent are suffering from housing stress and a housing crisis, spending more than half of their income on that housing, when 20 per cent report not having enough money for those essentials like housing, food and electricity, and when 63 per cent report that their income has fallen well beyond the cost of their living in the past two years, those people are left in an incredibly precarious position. I note and foreshadow the fine work of the Anti-Poverty Network. When this motion was first put, there were 13 South Australian councils. There are now 15 South Australian councils that have taken on the issue of poverty in their advocacy, well beyond roads, rates and rubbish, as this state body, this Legislative Council, can also do on behalf of those in our community who are currently being failed by federal policies. I note and foreshadow that I will move the Greens amendment that echoes the first part of the Hon. Tung Ngo's motion but deletes 'Supports a root and branch review and measures which seek to increase and enhance Newstart and other welfare related payments, which adequately addresses the current level of poverty among Australian jobseekers' as unnecessary and a stalling tactic, a very unfortunate outcome of the national Labor conference recently to recommend within the first 18 months of a Shorten government a so-called root and branch review, when we all know we need to raise the rate not undertake another review. My amendment would also acknowledge the specific call of Anti Poverty Network, that its advocacy in this area calls for an increase of $100 a week to Newstart and other related welfare payments. It would not call upon the federal government to also take a root and branch review; it would delete that provision. I indicate that the Hon. Frank Pangallo's proposed amendment is not in any way in conflict with ours, and we will supporting that as an addition. Finally, I note—back in the seventies, think it was, certainly in the eighties—some of the old political posters—and I still have one on my wall—which I cannot repeat all of in this place because I am sure it would be most unparliamentary, and unfortunately is quite true, which is: 'If these people are dole bludgers, then what the…are the idle rich?' I have to say that I am sick of the demonisation of people as dole bludgers when we know that jobseekers are facing only one vacancy for every eight people looking for that position. There are not enough jobs to go around, but there is enough wealth to go round. Should we look at that increase of $100 per week to Newstart? It would cost quite a bit: $4.5 billion per year. Yet, if we scrapped negative gearing, that could gain us $15 billion. If we eliminated superannuation tax concessions for those on high incomes, that could gain us $10.5 billion. You would have more than enough to raise the rate of Newstart with no root and branch review, but simply redefine and reprioritise those we support the most in this community. With those few words, I commend the intent of the motion and look forward to further debate. I move: Leave out paragraph 2; In paragraph 3 leave out 'in this policy area' and insert 'for an increase of at least $100 per week to Newstart and other related welfare payments'; Leave out paragraph 4; In paragraph 5 after 'last' insert 'real'; The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (18:07): Social payments are an important part of Australia's social security system and are in place to protect our most vulnerable. We know that the best form of welfare is a job. At a federal level, the Morrison government has overseen the largest increase in jobs since the global financial crisis, with more than 1.2 million jobs created since the Coalition came into power. More Australians are in work that ever before, with unemployment at 5 per cent, the lowest level since 2012. The Morrison government's plan for a stronger economy is working, but we know there is much more to do at all levels of government. There are 230,000 fewer working age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2018. The proportion of working-age Australians now dependent on welfare has fallen to 14.3 per cent, the lowest level in more than 25 years. Prominent labour market economist Professor Mark Wooden, director of The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, says that growth in wages has far outstripped inflation over the last decade. Over the decade to June 2018, wages have risen by 31 per cent, whereas inflation has risen by 22 per cent in that same period. Accordingly, Australians have experienced real gains in their living standards. We also have one of the most targeted and efficient welfare transfer systems in the world. Australia applies means testing to a bigger share of its cash benefits than any other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country. Indeed, approximately 80 per cent of cash benefits are means tested. A recent Australian Bureau of Statistics study found that in 2015-16, households received, on average, $76 more per week in total benefits (cash and in kind) than they paid in taxes. The data shows how effectively our tax transfer system targets assistance to those with the lowest incomes. The bottom 20 per cent of households by income received the highest amount of social assistance benefits in cash ($517 per week, on average), with the highest 20 per cent of households by income receiving the least ($28 per week). The government remains committed to ensuring family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future. Currently, the federal government spends over one-third of the total federal budget on welfare payments and services. Newstart, just one of the social security payments available, is specifically aimed at supporting jobseekers while they look for work. Like other social security payments, it is the responsibility of the commonwealth government, not the state government. The Newstart Allowance increases in line with the Consumer Price Index on 20 March and 22 September each year to ensure that it keeps up with increases in the cost of living. The Morrison federal government is committed to ensuring family assistance and social security payments are well targeted and sustainable into the future. It is essential that we have a welfare system that supports the most vulnerable, encourages those capable of work or study to do so and reduces intergenerational welfare dependency. The Morrison government is focused on helping people from welfare into work and it is succeeding, as the statistics I have just read out acknowledge. Two decades ago, 25 per cent of working age Australians were on welfare and today, with job growth, that has dropped to just 15.1 per cent—the lowest level in 25 years. Newstart was never designed to be a long-term replacement for employment. It is primarily a payment designed to assist people transition through the labour market. For this reason, Newstart recipients can earn income from work or other sources before their payment is affected. In general, that is how it is working. Many Newstart recipients do not remain on the support payment for a long period of time, with around two-thirds of individuals exiting the payment within 12 months. It is also important to recognise that over 99 per cent of Newstart recipients also receive a number of other benefits in addition to the base rate of Newstart, including the Energy Supplement, Rent Assistance and Family Tax Benefit, which substantially increase recipients' weekly income. I commend the work of the Anti-Poverty Network of South Australia and acknowledge its active role in advocating to raise the Newstart Allowance amount. I also acknowledge the various South Australian local councils that have called for a raise in the Newstart Allowance and thank them for their advocacy. While social security payments are the responsibility of the commonwealth government, I acknowledge that the South Australian government has a conflict of interest in the matter. Public housing rental rates, which are collected by the South Australian government, are calculated based on income, including Newstart payments, and any change in Newstart would therefore affect the government's revenue. I note that, in recent years, under the previous Labor administration, South Australia has seen essential living items substantially increase in cost. This has resulted in people who are already struggling becoming even more vulnerable to financial disadvantage and experience bill shock pertaining to food, health, education, housing, utilities and transport. We have also seen the former state Labor government's failure to maintain affordable and reliable electricity add to the cost-of-living pressures for families. The most expensive electricity in the National Electricity Market has contributed to South Australians facing higher levels of household hardship, compared to other states. The Marshall Liberal government believes that individuals should be empowered to make decisions and take responsibility for their own future, while also identifying opportunities to help vulnerable South Australians make positive changes in their lives, where appropriate. It is committed to delivering more jobs, lower costs and better services to South Australians and is cleaning up Labor's mess through implementing a suite of policy and legislative initiatives to deliver on all of our election and budget commitments. This state government supports the Morrison government's ongoing consideration and monitoring of Newstart and other related welfare payments to ensure that social security payments are at adequate rates to support Australian jobseekers. We, like the commonwealth government, know that the best form of welfare is a job and commend our federal counterparts for working to improve employment opportunities for those on Newstart. Independent South Australian Senator, Tim Storer, recently moved a motion in the federal parliament calling for an immediate increase to Newstart rates. I note that Senator Storer's motion was negatived and Labor voted with the government against such a measure. Similarly, the government will not be supporting Ms Franks' similar motion in its current form—although I understand that it is perhaps now off the Notice Paper. Federal Labor's policy to undertake a root and branch review of Newstart and other allowances is a commitment to do nothing. The only difference between Labor and the Coalition on Newstart payments is that the Coalition is able to maintain the sustainability of the welfare system into the future because of its strong budgetary management and the work that the Morrison government has done in reforming and rebalancing the system. We suggest an amendment to Mr Ngo's motion to recognise the ongoing consideration and monitoring undertaken by the commonwealth government in this space. In responding on behalf of the government to the Hon. Mr Ngo's motion, as has been circulated, I move to amend the motion as follows: Delete paragraphs 2 and 4 and substitute: 2.	Supports ongoing consideration and monitoring of Newstart and other related welfare payments to ensure they adequately address the current level of poverty among Australian jobseekers. In relation to paragraph 5, the government notes that no real increase to Newstart has occurred in over 20 years under either Liberal or Labor governments. Just to be clear, I have moved that amendment so that the motion would now read: 1.	Recognises that all Australian jobseekers deserve adequate income support to maintain a decent standard of living and have access to resources to look for work, which enables and supports recipients to transition to paid work as soon as possible; 2.	Supports ongoing consideration and monitoring of Newstart and other related welfare payments to ensure they adequately address the current level of poverty among Australian jobseekers; 3.	Acknowledges the work of the Anti-Poverty Network South Australia for its advocacy in this policy area; and 4.	Recognises that the last rise in Newstart occurred in 1994 under the Keating Labor government. I also place on record that the government is unable to support the amendments of the Hon. Mr  Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Franks. The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY Legislative Council The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (18:16): I stand to speak in favour of the Hon. Mr Ngo's motion. From the very beginning, I would like to make quite clear that all Australian jobseekers deserve dignity and a decent standard of living as they look for work. In real terms, Newstart has not been increased since 1994. At $275 a week, this is a system that does not support and enable people to work; it condemns them to poverty. For many people, this means that they simply do not have enough money to top-up their Metrocard so that they can catch public transport for a job interview. $275 a week means that people cannot afford to top-up their phone credit, which is a problem when you are also searching for a job and need to be contactable by phone. $275 per week means that people must choose between refilling their prescription medication or buying basic groceries to see them through the week. Living this far below the poverty line is not only inadequate but is also an isolating barrier to finding purposeful employment. I was at the ALP National Conference and I would have preferred to see a monetary sum being committed to immediately. There are a number of amendments here today, which I would normally support, but the reality is that Labor have committed themselves to a review of the system, if they were in office. Judging by the mood of the national conference, I would hope that there are significant changes to the Newstart Allowance and also a mechanism by which we allow it to keep up with the cost of living—not just inflation but the real cost-of-living increases into the future. I support the motion but also have sympathy with the amendments of the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Franks. It is a bit rich when our basic salary is probably 15 times that of someone on Newstart. I often wonder how on earth a person can live on that, especially if they have to pay rent. It is all very well if you are living with your parents or living on the back of somebody else, but if you do not, life is very difficult. I think there should be a lot of sympathy for this. I must say that I am very disappointed with the attitude of the government over there: they seem to believe that if you want to improve your life you should get a job. However, how many times have we all heard about the plight of people looking for jobs, where they have put in dozens and dozens of applications and have gone to dozens of interviews but have heard nothing back? It is demoralising and demeaning, and it is really up to the political leaders to ensure that they at least have a decent, basic standard of living while looking for a job. So I support the Hon. Tung Ngo's motion and I hope it is supported. The Hon. T.T. NGO Legislative Council The Hon. T.T. NGO (18:19): I thank all honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Mr Wortley, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Hood. Firstly, I would like to concur with the contribution in terms of personal stories from people like Tracey and Jaieyre, whom the Hon. Mr Pangallo mentioned, and the struggle they have to endure every day, living on $40, considering the cost of living and the bills that have to be paid. Unfortunately, because the federal government election is just around the corner, it is very hard for the opposition to consider a figure in terms of an immediate increase. At this stage, I am hoping that both major political parties, if they happen to win the federal election, will make some kind of commitment to increase Newstart and related welfare payments to those people on Centrelink. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot support the amendments, but I concur with what has been said by the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Franks about the immediate increase. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot support the amendments. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: I have a series of questions to put to the council. The first question is phrased as follows: that paragraph 2 as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. T.A. Franks and the Hon. D.G.E. Hood stand part of the motion. If you support the motion being unamended you would vote in the affirmative. If you support the propositions debated by the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Hood you would vote in the negative. Question resolved in the negative. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I seek clarification of your advice to the council. You have indicated that it stand part of the motion, so the ayes are supporting the current drafting staying part of the motion and therefore if you are opposing the Hon. Mr Pangallo's and the Hon. Ms Franks' amendments— The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: No. The question is paragraph 2 as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Hood stand as part of the motion. So the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Hood are seeking to take words out. The question is being put that the words remain in, they stand. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So if you are opposing the Hon. Mr Pangallo— The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: No, I have not got to the Hon. Mr Pangallo yet. The Hon. Mr Pangallo's amendments are coming and they are going to be put later. As I have called it, I called it that the noes were successful. Does anyone wish to call for a division? I am being very fair. So I now put the question that the new paragraph proposed to be inserted by the Hon. D.G.E. Hood be so inserted. If you agree with the Hon. Mr Hood's sentiments, you would vote in the affirmative; if you do not agree with the Hon. Mr Hood—I understand, the Hon. Mr Ngo, that you do not—you would vote in the negative. Does anyone require any further clarification? I am going to put the question as I have now expressed. Question resolved in the negative. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The next question is that the amendment moved by the Hon. T.A. Franks to paragraph 3 be agreed to. The question is in the positive. If you agree with the Hon. Ms Franks' sentiments, you vote in the affirmative; if you do not, you vote in the negative. I am going to put the question as expressed. Question resolved in the negative. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: I now put a further question: that paragraph 4 as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. T.A. Franks, the Hon. F. Pangallo and the Hon. D.G.E. Hood stand as part of the motion. The question has been put in the positive. This question is saying that the wording remain as is. If you want the wording to remain as is, you vote in the affirmative. But by the nature of the question, I would imagine that the Hon. T.A. Franks, the Hon. F. Pangallo and the Hon. D.G.E. Hood will be voting in the negative. The Hon. Mr Ngo, I suspect you will be in voting in the affirmative. I do not want to prejudge members' views but on what the President heard. I put the question as expressed. Question resolved in the negative. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: That means that paragraph 4 has been struck out. The next question is that the new paragraph 4 as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. F. Pangallo be so inserted. This is a positive. If you want the Hon. F. Pangallo's amendment to be inserted, you vote in the affirmative; if you do not, you vote in the negative. I will put the question. Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas. The council divided on the amendment: Ayes	4 Noes	16 Majority	12 AYES Bonaros, C. Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. (teller) Parnell, M.C. NOES Bourke, E.S. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. (teller) Ridgway, D.W. Scriven, C.M. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Amendment thus negatived. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! There is series of other questions that need to be put. The next question is that the amendment moved by the Hon. T.A. Franks to paragraph 5 be agreed to. Again, if you agree with the Hon. Ms Franks, you will vote in the affirmative; if you do not, you will vote in the negative. Question agreed to. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: I have only called on the voices. Does someone wish to call a division? Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Honourable members, order! This is the last amendment from the Hon. T.A. Franks. This is the insertion of the word 'real'. Does any member wish to call a division? Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: It is not a debate; I am putting the questions. If members wish to find a copy of the motions, they are more than welcome at the moment. I will pause in proceedings if honourable members wish to revisit the written motions. The next question is that the motion moved by the Hon. T.T. Ngo and as amended by the Hon. T.A. Franks and the Hon. D.G.E. Hood be agreed to. Motion as amended carried.