HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MCGEE, MR EUGENE

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:31): I move:

That this house—

(a) considers that the legal system has failed to effectively deal with the conduct of Mr Eugene McGee in relation to the death of Mr Ian Humphrey on 30 November 2003 and that public confidence in the legal system has suffered as a result; and

(b) calls on the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under the Legal Practitioners Act 1931 to refer Mr McGee to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal to consider whether his behaviour constitutes unprofessional or unsatisfactory conduct.

Mr Speaker and members, today more than 7,000 signatures to petitions will be tabled in this parliament. These are signatures from South Australians from across the state who have joined the campaign in calling for the conduct of Mr Eugene McGee to be referred to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal. The petition, created and supported by South Australian Liberal members of parliament, will be tabled, and it is important to appreciate that with this petition the voice of South Australians is strong and loud and they will not back down. They want action on this issue. The members here in this house have an opportunity to reinforce that voice and to provide support on this important issue.

So, I move this motion with pride. It is with a touch of sadness that I do. I am myself a member of the legal profession and have been for some 30 years, but even more so I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the legal profession maintains a standard which it should continue to enjoy and not be diminished by the conduct of a few, in particular, on this occasion, by one.

That community confidence in the legal profession must be restored. Indeed, with the whole exercise of many other inquiries that have taken place in this case, to those who investigate, those who prosecute these matters, the role of the courts and the police, all involved in this case have come under scrutiny at the highest level of inquires and commissions. However, in this instance we are seeking to remedy what is a stain on the legal profession unless this matter is resolved.

Members are fully aware that it is the tragic series of events in 2003 which led to the cyclist Ian Humphrey's death. He was hit and killed on Kapunda Road, and the lawyer, Mr Eugene McGee, fled from the scene. There was clearly an evasion of police before he eventually turned himself in four hours later. Much of the rest has been the subject of many inquiries, as I have said, but his widow, Ms Di Gilcrist, has been a passionate advocate for justice as a result of the circumstances surrounding this tragic incident.

This year is almost 10 years since the death of Mr Humphrey. Surely this year we must remedy what is clearly a blight and stain on this case. Mr McGee, as members would recall, was fined—having been charged for a relatively minor offence, he was fined by the courts—and there was no imprisonment term, which was a matter that caused enormous disquiet at the time, but obviously the charges which he faced had very significant limits on the penalties that the courts had available to them.

However, when the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board considered the conduct of Mr McGee on an application that he be assessed for the purpose of unprofessional conduct, they dismissed that claim, determining that he was able to continue to practise as a legal practitioner. The only avenue at that time, (which is now nearly two years ago), that was open to further review of this matter, was if the Attorney-General of the day referred this matter to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal.

So, the registration cancellation opportunity to practise as a legal practitioner could be referred and, indeed, was only able to be referred by the Attorney-General under the Legal Practitioners Act to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal. The Attorney-General refused to do so, so for almost two years now the Liberal Party, particularly through the voice of the Hon. Stephen Wade—who has done an excellent job in ensuring that this matter remains at the forefront of attention of the government—has said that this is a matter which the Attorney-General should and must act on.

He is the last resort. He should act on this and, clearly, the investigation of the opposition with the legal assessment of this was that there was a clear legal authority to lay the charges before the tribunal. The Attorney-General's position was that he considered he did not. We are not satisfied with that, and 7,000 signatories are not satisfied with that. I am sure that that represents thousands and thousands of people across South Australia who are not satisfied with that. Indeed, on 21 February this year, the former attorney-general and now Speaker of our house here, joined the Liberal Party in expressing concern about the injustice, saying that the Attorney-General's failure to act was a:

...personal decision, not a Cabinet decision or a Government decision.

And that he had:

...the undoubted authority to refer a charge against a legal practitioner to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal.

This is an important ally in this. The former attorney now Speaker, I would hope, will come into this house and contribute to the debate on this motion. I would welcome his support to the motion. I am disappointed that even after a year, the current Attorney has not acted, and has not heeded the voice of thousands of South Australians joined with the former attorney now Speaker and the Liberal Party who have continued to fight for this be dealt with. It is also important to appreciate that the Legal Practitioners Act has been under consideration by the government in particular areas of reform for some years now. The government claim that they were going to reform areas that affect the capacity for cases such as this to be referred.

Our clear position is that the Attorney-General right now has the power to refer this, pursuant to section 82 of the current Legal Practitioners Act. It is his decision, and he has failed to exercise it and he has refused to do it. As I say, we are keen for him to do so, but the government said that they would introduce a bill that would expand the definition of professional misconduct and create a legal profession conduct commissioner, that is, a particular appointed person to replace the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board, essentially promoting the argument that this would give a better opportunity for the matter to be dealt with, and that there would be a new entity that would have more teeth, and more effective handling capacity than the Legal Practitioners Board.

The reforms they touted would also take referral decisions out of the hands of the Attorney-General and the legal profession and place it before the commissioner. The situation is that the draft Legal Practitioners (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2013, which follows a number of its predecessors, again this year, has been out for consultation. Final submissions were to be in by 4 February 2013, and as a member of the profession, I was invited by the Law Society of South Australia to present a submission. I, unlike many other lawyers, will have an opportunity to make a submission in this parliament. However, that time has passed and here we are, in the third week of February, and we still do not have this bill tabled in the parliament.

It is no excuse for the government to say, 'Well look, we are going to introduce a better system which is going to create a different avenue for the path to be taken to deal with either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The expansion of the definition will give a better system; the appointment of the commissioner will provide a better process.' All of that is without merit when, firstly, the Attorney-General has the power right now to do it and, secondly, has had years to bring in this alternate reform.

So on both counts the Attorney-General has failed Ms Gilcrist, the family generally of Mr Humphrey, the 7,000 signatories to this parliament today and the strong, loud voice of South Australians who have repeatedly said, 'This process is not acceptable; the Attorney-General's dealing of this matter is unsatisfactory.' They want action and they want action to be followed right now and not even wait for this bill. If the government wants this bill, then it should get on with it and make sure that we have some remedy.

The failure of the government to act and to provide appropriate remedies for the people of South Australia to ensure this situation is not repeated, that there is a standard of conduct and behaviour that is expected of members of the legal profession and that the reputation of the profession is properly restored is a disgrace. It must happen and it must happen now. The delay is a disgrace to the government, and the Attorney-General, in particular, should hang his head in shame.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:42): I feel quite humbled following on from the member for Bragg in supporting the motion. I do wish to express some concerns that I have. I come from a regional community of quite accepting people, but in this matter they are absolutely frustrated by the process that has been allowed to occur and they do not accept it. I know there are two people from the town in which I live in the gallery today. They have come down because they want to show support for, in this case, a family that was devastated by a tragedy that occurred in late 2003.

I met with Mr Humphrey's wife, Mrs Di Gilcrist, and four other ladies about four years ago in the old chamber of this building. I sat with them for about 30 minutes. I was part of a group of MPs who were talking to different people about different victims of crime matters. It was hard not to be moved by that meeting as they related to me what had occurred to them and the ways in which they felt the legal system in South Australia had let them down. It really did galvanise in my mind that a change needed to occur.

The fact that 7,000 people signed a petition from all over South Australia—a small number of them being in the gallery today—shows the emotion that exists within the wider community. It is an emotion that the parliament needs to recognise and do something about by directing the minister responsible to take some action.

I also watched the two episodes of Australian Story on the ABC about Mr Ian Humphrey, Eugene McGee, and Mrs Gilcrist and her daughters, and it was impossible not to be moved by that. I am sure that many people here today watched those two TV episodes to give them a greater understanding of what occurred immediately afterwards, where it appears that Mr McGee did everything possible to prevent providing evidence of having done something wrong. However, in all that time, a man was left on the side of the road. For a common bloke who came into parliament because he wanted to try to make a difference, it is impossible to hear that sort of story and show any support for a person who would do that sort of thing, but it is even more frustrating when the laws have allowed it to get by.

I hope that other members in this chamber stand up and express their concerns, because they will do so not only on behalf of themselves—what they have read, what they have heard and what they might have spoken to people about—but on behalf of all South Australians. There are 1.6  million people who do not want the situation to occur again, and the people in the gallery today and the 7,000 people who signed the petition reflect that. The parliament needs to recognise this. The parliament needs to give a direction to the minister, and we need to make sure that South Australia is left a better place because of this tragedy. We need to learn from it and use it as the impetus for change to occur to ensure that, in future, when a crime is committed, those responsible are held liable and action is taken.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:46): I would also like to rise in support of the member for Bragg's motion. In my time in this place, there are two things in particular that have had my office inundated with correspondence, telephone calls, emails, etc: one is euthanasia and the second one is the McGee case. Constituents in my electorate are absolutely disgusted that this matter has not ended in an appropriate manner. They are appalled, and so am I, that the law in which we put our faith in this state and country has let down not just the Humphrey family in particular, but all of us. It is an absolute disgrace.

Some years ago I was at a little restaurant in Halifax Street with some of my family, and what highly annoyed me was that Mr McGee and his brother walked down from the courts (this was during the court case), sat down at a table alongside us and proceeded to laugh and carry on and enjoy a bottle of particularly good South Australian wine. That just showed me the contempt in which they held the system and the Humphrey family, particularly Di Gilcrist. I just thought it was appalling.

The very fact that we have 7,000 signatures on a petition that has come into this place is testament to how the people of South Australia feel about this matter. I do not know how members on the other side feel about this. I sincerely hope that the government supports the member for Bragg's motion; otherwise, I think we should hang our heads in shame.

It is a disgrace that 10 years after the event, Mr McGee is still walking around doing what he wants to do while poor Mr Humphrey is dead and gone and his family have to continue to battle. I think it is outrageous. I sincerely hope that other members in this place will speak to the motion and that action is taken by the government, the Attorney-General, and that this whole matter is sorted out so it can never, ever happen again. It is bad enough that this has happened once, but it is even worse that, 10 years later, it has not been fixed.

I am not a lawyer. I do not want to be a lawyer, quite frankly; I am quite happy being a humble farmer and a member of parliament. However, I am sure that those in the legal fraternity who have any sense of decency are as appalled as the rest of us in this place about what has happened. I have great pleasure in supporting this motion.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:48): I rise to support the member for Bragg's motion. I am a veterinarian. I am not a lawyer, and by that I am boasting, not apologising. I see legislation come into this place that I do not understand the technicalities of. We have an Acts Interpretation Act, which tells me that there is something wrong with the legislation we are putting together.

Time after time we see very expensive lawyers and high profile QCs who do their job to the best of their ability, using the technicalities that we in this parliament have allowed to come into legislation to get their clients off. We have a legal system but there seems to be no system of justice. What we are after in the McGee case and in other cases but particularly in this case is justice, not a legal outcome, and that is what we have. Lawyers have used the technicalities, the time frames and obscure methods to allow a person who has taken another life and then, from what I know of it, done everything possible to try to avoid the consequences of that action, to walk free without any sort of overt or even underlying contrition. To allow this to happen in South Australia is something that as a member of parliament I am very ashamed of.

You need to have deep pockets to take on the legal system and the justice system in South Australia. I can see that there are 7,000 people who have signed this petition who are very concerned about the fact that if you have deep enough pockets, if you can hire a clever enough legal expert, you can use the legislation that we members of parliament have put in place to get your clients off, to make sure that your client is seen to be not guilty. That does not mean 'not innocent' but they are 'not guilty' and, to me, we need to look at that. We need to make sure that if you commit a crime, you take the consequences. You are not allowed to avoid those consequences.

In my electorate of Morphett in the Glenelg area every Saturday and Sunday you will see hundreds and hundreds of cyclists down there on their wonderful brand-new and very expensive bikes in their lycra—all ages, both men and women—out for a day's ride. They want to return to their families safe and sound, and so did Mr Humphrey. He wanted that. But what happened? His life was taken by a person who apparently has no contrition, no remorse, about having done what he has done. The legal system has allowed him to get away with that.

This is not trial by parliament; the facts are there for everybody. The facts are that the parliament has allowed legislation to come into place that has allowed this man to escape the consequences of his actions. If this government does not take notice of what is being said in this chamber today and the concerns of South Australians, not only the 7,000 people who signed the petition, but the thousands of others out there who are concerned about what is happening with the legal system, then this government is not doing its job. I hope for once they actually take a hard look at what is going on and do what they should be doing, and that is representing the will of South Australians.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:53): I rise to support the motion by the member for Bragg that this house considers that the legal system has failed to effectively deal with the conduct of Mr Eugene McGee in relation to the death of Mr Ian Humphrey on 30 November 2003 and that public confidence in the legal system has suffered as a result; and that this house calls on the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under the Legal Practitioners Act 1931 to refer Mr McGee to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal to consider whether his behaviour constitutes unprofessional or unsatisfactory conduct.

I concur with all the words that have come from this side of the house. This has been a disgraceful turn of events where someone who has a good knowledge of the law has besmirched everyone else who works in the law with their actions. To leave a man dying on the side of the road—or to leave anyone dying on the side of the road, but in this case Mr Ian Humphrey—and drive off because he is worried about the consequences is an absolute disgrace.

I think of Mrs Di Gilcrist and the suffering that she and her family have had to put up with for nearly 10 years because of this action, because of someone who was irresponsible in getting behind the wheel of a car and did not stop to render assistance. That is why more than 7,000 people have signed a petition that will be tabled today. Those people are disgusted with what has happened in the system. They are not confident that the system works and are concerned that just because someone has a vast legal knowledge they seem to be able to work their way through the system.

Many of my constituents have come to me. If they had to try to get out of any difficulties with this situation or take legal proceedings to protect themselves in this situation, if they were silly enough to do the same action as Mr McGee, they would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the same level of defence and they are just not capable of doing it, and they still possibly would not be able to get the same advice.

I concur with all the words on this side of the chamber and it is time the government and the Attorney-General got on board and did something about this matter so that the people of this state can see that justice is done. I note quoted on FIVEaa only this morning the statistic from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that 40 per cent of Australians are concerned with sentencing outcomes. Well, you wonder why when you see people who get very lenient sentencing or do not get any effective outcomes at all as far as what should happen to them because of a criminal offence. I support this motion and I call on other members of this house to give it the support it deserves. It is a disgrace that it has gone on this long and the government should take every effort to make sure that justice is done.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:56): I fully support this motion put forward by the member for Bragg and I commend her for doing so. Like other members, I have been contacted by many people who were concerned at what happened in this case. People in here, I think, realise that we do not have a system of justice: we have a set of rules, and some people are able to manipulate them and escape from what should be justice.

What we saw in this particular instance was not only unethical behaviour and unprofessional behaviour but, I believe, criminal behaviour that eluded the court system because of devious actions by the offender, in this case, Mr McGee. He knew how the system worked and he was aided and abetted to make sure that he was never brought fully to account.

The tragedy remains for the family of Mr Ian Humphrey; they will continue to suffer. I do not know whether Mr McGee has a conscience. I hope he has, but I hope that for as long as he lives he reflects on what he did. I am sure that he would know that he did not do the right thing and he escaped from being punished appropriately because of skilful manoeuvring in which he was aided and abetted by others.

This is a sad indictment on our system. Sadly it is not the only case of injustice; there are others. The system is not perfect but it is not helped when you have people who know the system well and can manipulate and manoeuvre their way out of being held accountable for their actions which, as I said, I believe were not only unethical and unprofessional but criminal. I commend this motion and I trust that the Attorney will act in accordance with this motion.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:58): Firstly, can I say again how much this issue has moved us all. This accident happened in my electorate and the community has never really got over it. Given what has happened and particularly the TV program, which certainly opened a lot of people's eyes, the feeling is very much out there. I am one of the 7,000 people who signed that petition.

I believe that lawyers, like MPs, have to be beyond reproach, have to be subject to the closest scrutiny. They have to be an example to the community. People have to respect our lawmakers and our law upholders, that is, the umpires who make decisions on what we do in this place. I am pleased that this issue has come before this house and I commend the member for Bragg for doing it because I think the people of South Australia can, in a very few rare examples, have some comfort that, if the legal system fails them in an issue like this, they can have the highest court—the parliament—to sit in judgement.

It does not happen very often. We have the bars of the house, which are not very often used, where people have the right to come on to the floor of the house. Here we have a similar example where an issue comes before the parliament on which we must sit in judgement. It can certainly make a big difference to the issue.

I deeply hope that the government will support this. I have not heard what its inclination is in this matter. I will be very disappointed if they do anything but support it. There are no politics at all in this issue. It is all about a wrong that we all know ought to be righted. I express our condolences to Di Gilcrist and the Humphrey family and the whole community, particularly the community of Kapunda, which was in my electorate at the time: we are absolutely with you. We salute you and hope we can give you closure on this tragedy. I join my colleagues in supporting the motion.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:01): I rise to support the motion and I endorse the comments of all members who have spoken on this issue previously. The motion seeks to do two things: first, in relation to the case of Mr Eugene McGee and the death of Mr Ian Humphrey, expresses that we consider that the legal system has lost an element of confidence of the public as a result of this case; and, secondly, calls on the Attorney-General to refer the case to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal.

I stand here to support the 7,000 petitioners to this house. Many pages of those petitions came from my electorate and, like other members, I also have received dozens of letters from constituents very concerned about this case. I can inform the house that, to my recollection, not one of those letters expressed confidence in the legal system as a result of how this case has progressed. Everyone was distressed, disturbed, disappointed and very upset with the way our legal system had handled this.

This is a very important point that goes to the heart of what we should be doing here in this parliament. It is critical for the institution of our justice and legal systems that the public have confidence in them. It is critical as a parliament that we do everything we can to ensure our justice system, our courts and our legal system have the confidence of the public, because a government can only govern with the consent of the community. For the community to have that consent, it must have support and confidence in the systems we put in place, otherwise we are not the sort of community that South Australia, at its foundation in 1836, set out to be, and none of us came into this place to be part of a system that did not have the consent, support and trust of its community.

It is critical that with this totemic issue, which goes to the heart of the community's confidence in our legal system, we as a parliament say, 'No, no, no: this wasn't good enough. This wasn't handled well enough. This needs to be dealt with more appropriately.' If the government has a bill that it thinks will be able to handle better situations like this, then put up or shut up. Introduce the bill, show us exactly what you are arguing needs to happen better. In the absence of that we can only question whether the government is serious in addressing this issue.

In the absence of that, we have a system in place, and it has been established by the member for Bragg in quoting the former Attorney-General, now Speaker of this house, that of course the Attorney-General has the power to refer this case to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal. We urge him to do so. This motion calls on him to do so. I urge all members to support this motion calling on the Attorney-General to do so so that we can have some action on this issue and so that the community, and most particularly those affected by this tragic death, can have certainty that we as a parliament are moving forward and that at least some good can come from this absolutely dreadful situation, and that in the future situations like this will not happen again. I urge all members to support the motion.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:04): I also rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Bragg, and I congratulate her on bringing the matter to the notice of the house. Like other speakers on this side of the house, I have received many calls and letters and have had many people stopping me in the main streets of not only Port Pirie but also Clare and around the Port Broughton area and in shopping centres. These are just an indication of the concerns the general community have had with the final outcome of this tragic incident.

As other members have indicated, we have laws in this state; they are here to protect everybody, and we should abide by these laws. If we do something wrong, we should take responsibility for our actions. In my opinion, Mr McGee acted in an irresponsible manner; firstly, he got into his vehicle in his condition. He also did not stop to render assistance after the incident, but moved on. I just think that it was irresponsible and inhumane to do that sort of thing.

Mr McGee has a great knowledge of the law. An average citizen would not have the ability to manoeuvre around the whole system as Mr McGee has done. I am appalled and very upset that this has happened in our system; this is a democratic system. I proudly promote our system to ensure that if we are guilty, we take the consequences; if we are not guilty, then we are absolved of the consequences.

I have received speeding fines on a couple of occasions. The police officers have a job to do—and if I have done the crime, then I do the time. So I paid the fines and moved on. I am the first to admit that I have had two speeding offences over the many, many years that I have been driving. I do not say this lightly, because we do need to adhere to the regulations.

I speak from personal experience. The Humphrey family will certainly need to have some closure. They will have this in their minds and lives forever—to be able to understand that the person who actually committed the crime is not being held accountable for the incident or its consequences. Most people know that my wife was killed in a car crash. It was an accident. There was no-one to blame for that. The incident happened; the people who were involved with that took the consequences, and we had settlement and closure.

In this instance, I do not think there is a closure, because no-one has been held accountable. I am finding that people out there are confused, and are frequently saying that they have no confidence in the legal system. The legal system is there to protect people, but people who are in positions as lawyers have plenty of money and can fight the system and get away with it; they can manipulate it. Normal citizens would not be able to do that. A normal citizen would have been put in gaol, and held accountable for their actions. I certainly cannot justify what happened.

The 7,000 people who signed this petition are a great indication of the confusion and lack of confidence in the current system which is out there. I would certainly encourage the Attorney-General to at least exercise his powers under the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 and refer Mr McGee to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal to consider whether his behaviour constitutes unprofessional or unsatisfactory conduct. I certainly hope that members on the other side take heed of the non-government members on this side of the house, and I commend this motion to the house in the hope that the government does take some action.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:08): I rise to support this motion. I have always felt that, for a society to operate properly, it must have faith in its political and legal system and that the legal system must be fair and just and operate in a manner that brings to bear those who have done the wrong thing. I believe, in this case, that our community considers that the legal system has failed to effectively deal with the conduct of Mr Eugene McGee in relation to the death of Mr Ian Humphrey. I do not think there will ever be closure for the community and for the Humphrey family until they see justice done in a proper manner, so I certainly support this motion.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:09): Any loss of life is very sad. Any accidental loss of life is particularly tragic, and any accidental loss of life where the reasons for that are not dealt with and responsibilities are not fully taken is absolutely disgraceful. That is the situation we find ourselves discussing at the moment. My heart goes out to the Humphrey and Gilcrist families and their friends for not only the tragic loss of life but obviously the situation that has continued on for another 10 years since then.

This accident happened very close to the border of Stuart, the electorate that I represent, but I can tell you that over 1,000 kilometres away, still inside the electorate of Stuart, people are furious and angry about this. All over South Australia people know that the wrong thing was deliberately done. People all over South Australia know that our legal system has not addressed the fact that the wrong thing was deliberately done. When we find ourselves in that situation, it is parliament's responsibility to step in, take charge and try to correct that wrong.

I fully support the member for Bragg—and the whole opposition—in her bid to refer Mr McGee to the Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal to consider whether his behaviour constitutes unprofessional or unsatisfactory conduct. It seems pretty straightforward, does it not, that you would front up to have them look at what you have done, consider the facts, consider all the evidence and make a decision about whether you did the wrong thing or not.

I think it is absolutely disgraceful that a person would not take responsibility for their own actions to front up to that tribunal. I think it is disgraceful that the legal system has not been more active and I think it would be absolutely disgraceful if this parliament did not join together, Liberal, Labor, Independent, everybody, to make that happen.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (12:12): I would just like to say that it is unfortunate that the Attorney is not able to be here. I know he was coming down to speak on the motion, but unfortunately he is tied up and he is just unable to come down.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: What is more important?

Mrs GERAGHTY: I think that is a really—

Members interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: No, I am speaking and I have a right to speak.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order. If the member is about to contribute to the debate, that is welcomed. If it is some explanation for another member's absence, then that is reflecting on the member's presence in the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is reflecting on the member's presence in the house, which is outlawed under our standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Well, I am going to make the point and I feel it is regrettable that I have to do that, but the member for Bragg said we should not reflect on other members' absence or what have you. It is also inappropriate to reflect on visitors who are here in the gallery and I did not raise that; I do not wish to.

What I just want to put on the record as well is that I do understand the pain that Di Gilcrist will be going through, and I do not think that time takes the pain away from losing someone you love. I lost my husband a few years ago, so I do understand the emotion about it, and I do particularly understand the feelings that one has where you want an answer or an outcome for the reason that you lose a loved one.

The member for Frome, I am sure, has the same feelings. I too would like some answers to why my husband died and I hopefully will find the strength at some stage to deal with that. I am terribly sorry that this has occurred for the Gilcrist family and the Humphrey family. It is something that you just do not get over and I think everyone in this chamber feels that way.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any other speakers? I will put the motion.

The Hon. L.R. BREUER (Giles) (12:14): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

An honourable member: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All those in favour say aye; those against say no. It is carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: Divide!

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order. The member for Torrens spoke for the debate, and normally you would look over this side for another speaker. The member for Bragg was rising to her feet as the mover of the motion; however, you referred back to the member for Giles. I just seek clarification on whether that was appropriate?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was, but I was actually in the process of acknowledging the member for Bragg when you took the point of order, so I am certainly happy for her to speak as the mover, and if she speaks, she closes the debate.

The house divided on the motion:

While the division bells were ringing:

Mr PEGLER: Mr Speaker, can I just seek some clarification on what the division is for?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The division is for the motion to be adjourned.

AYES (24)
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Breuer, L.R. (teller) Caica, P. Close, S.E.
Conlon, P.F. Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D.
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A.
O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K. Pegler, D.W.
Piccolo, A. Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M.
Sibbons, A.J. Snelling, J.J. Such, R.B.
Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A. Wright, M.J.
NOES (18)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. (teller) Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
PAIRS (2)
Weatherill, J.W. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Can I say that it is not in order for members, such as the member for Finniss, to shout 'Shame' upon the result of a vote because that, of course, is reflecting on a decision of the house, and so I call him to order.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT