HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (RIGHT TO RECORD CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (18:21): I rise to indicate that the opposition supports the Children's Protection (Right to Record Certain Conversations) Amendment Bill 2011, although we will be engaging in discussion on amendments as the bill progresses. By way of background, the Hon. Ann Bressington introduced the Children's Protection (Recording of Meetings) Amendment Bill on 26 May 2010. There were two key elements of that bill, in particular, one requiring Families SA to record meetings with clients and another element where clients were authorised to record meetings with Families SA.

As a result of discussing our concerns with the Hon. Ann Bressington, this bill has resulted. The redrafting of the bill that resulted from those discussions was substantial and a fresh bill was required. I would indicate the opposition's deep appreciation for the Hon. Ann Bressington's constructive engagement on these issues. The issues that she raises are significant and need to be addressed, and working through practical problems, I believe, has led to a better bill.

Under the Children's Protection (Right to Record Certain Conversations) Amendment Bill 2011, participants at meetings would have the right to record meetings with Families SA. Families SA would not have any responsibility to record meetings; the resource concerns with previous bills have therefore been overcome. The bill before us adds protections for the department in terms of requiring copies of the recordings to be made available to the department at the request of the chief executive.

As the records are increasingly likely to be made in digital form using mobile phones, PDAs or digital recorders, the cost of recordings is not likely to be great. The bill provides limitations on the distribution of recordings in particular to protect the child and any child protection or criminal investigations. The opposition welcomes the fact that section 57A(4)(e) narrows recipients of the recordings to exclude the media.

Again, I return to the point I made about constructive engagement. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Ann Bressington and her office, particularly Ryan Hidden, and also the constructive way that the Hon. Kelly Vincent has discussed a range of issues with us as well. I think it is becoming more and more stark in this council that crossbench and opposition members are able to constructively engage on remedies for shared concerns which is leading to better legislation.

It seems that this government, after nine years, is incapable of thinking that any idea that does not come from within its own caucus is worthy of consideration, which is testament to the fact that this government has reached its use by date. I almost feel as though we are getting to the situation where the crossbench and the opposition MLCs are beginning to craft the future and that this government is so tired and so dysfunctional that it cannot conceive how things might be.

Nonetheless, we will persevere. We will be patient with governments when they stamp their feet in the other place, in relation to government bills in particular. I certainly commend the Hon. Ann Bressington for bringing this bill before us, highlighting a very legitimate concern. I commend the bill to the council. I look forward to the committee stage.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. G.E. Gago]


The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (18:29): I rise to indicate Family First's strong support for this bill, as introduced by the Hon. Ann Bressington. In my time in this parliament, I must say that I have seen fewer bills that I support more strongly than this one. This bill will allow clients of Families SA to record certain interactions with Families SA. The honourable member has noted that there will be many legitimate reasons for conversations to be recorded. Some clients fear false allegations, some fear that commitments made during meetings will fall through, and others fear that they will not be believed if they complain about a particular employee's conduct or the conduct of the meeting.

As the honourable member has also noted, there are those who simply want to keep a record of discussions and, in my view, there is nothing wrong with that. Family First is quite willing to support this sensible proposal. Indeed, my former colleague the Hon. Andrew Evans—as was his title at the time—was an advocate for a similar proposal, and he raised the concept in this place during his time here.

One question without notice asked by the former member and my colleague is recorded in Hansard towards the end of 2006. Mr Evans indicated that he regularly heard concerns of discrepancies in recollections of conversations between Families SA staff and their clients and made the insightful point that SAPOL and Transport SA interviews are regularly recorded.

Andrew Evans quite rightly noted that Families SA interviews often occur in the context of deciding whether or not a child should remain in its parents' care, and that the impact of the removal of a child is indeed more significant than the consequences of a police prosecution in some cases, giving some weight to calls for the recording of interviews.

At that time, the former member asked what procedures were then in place and whether mandatory electronic recording of interviews would be rolled out, with copies of interviews provided to all parties. I believe that this was an important question at the time; however, unfortunately, I find no response in Hansard.

This bill goes some way to addressing some of the former member's concerns and provides, in its one operative clause, that a person may make an audio or audiovisual recording of a conversation between themselves and a person employed or engaged by the department. There is also a right to record interviews between the person and a child over the age of 10. In both cases, the person must inform the other party that they intend to record the conversation.

I commend the honourable member for certain safeguards she has placed in the legislation, namely, that the department cannot treat a person unfavourably on the grounds that the person has made a recording. However, if a person makes a recording they must, if requested to do so in writing by the Chief Executive, provide a copy of the recording at no cost to the department within seven days. Further, there is a confidentiality provision that precludes a person from making the recording available to the public.

The honourable member recently withdrew a similar bill to this one, which instead put the onus on the department to make the recording. To make it clear, this bill instead gives the option to persons being interviewed by the department to make the recordings. So, it puts the ball in the court of the interviewee rather than the department itself.

My plain view is that recording of interviews already occurs in many cases. I understand that many persons who have dealings with Families SA record those conversations secretly because they are concerned about the consequences should their statements be misconstrued, or simply to keep an accurate record of commitments made during the meeting. In some cases, the individual caseworkers may be quite happy for the person to record the conversation, but this bill formalises that option as a right for all interviewees.

I indicate strong support for this proposal which, as I mentioned before, has been raised previously by Family First in this place. I think that, if this is actually implemented, it will go some way to alleviating tensions that unfortunately sometimes arise between caseworkers and parents. As I say, we indicate our strong support. I am aware that there are amendments, and we are favourable to those as well.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (18:33): I respond to the honourable member's proposed legislation on behalf of the government. On Wednesday 26 May 2010, the Hon. Ann Bressington introduced the Children's Protection (Recordings of Meetings) Amendment Bill and, on 23 March 2011, she withdrew the bill. As we know, the Hon. Ann Bressington has now introduced the Children's Protection (Right to Record Certain Conversations) Amendment Bill for an act to amend the Children's Protection Act 1993 in the Legislative Council on Wednesday 4 May this year.

A number of aspects of the previous bill have been removed; however, the key intent of providing the right for parents to have recorded conversations relating to child-protection matters remain. This bill seeks to insert a new section in the act—section 57A. Proposed section 57A will enable a parent or guardian to make an audio or video recording of any conversation in relation to a child-protection matter between: themselves and an employee of the department; a child of whom the person is a guardian and an employee of the department; and themselves and a child of whom they are a parent or guardian.

As the government understands it, consent by DFC staff will not be required, only that the parent/guardian informs the employee or the child of the intent to make a video or audio recording of any meeting. If the child is under 10 years they do not need to be notified of the intent to record. It would be unlawful for a departmental employee to treat a person unfavourably on the grounds that a recording has been made, and, if the chief executive requests in writing a copy of the recording, the person who made the recording will be required to provide a copy at no cost to the department within seven days.

This bill proposes that a copy of the recording could be made available to a member of parliament, to an employee of the department or to a person acting as an advocate in relation to a child the subject of the recording, other than a person acting in their capacity as a journalist. The potential for breaches of confidentiality are obvious.

The Hon. Ann Bressington suggests in her speech that recordings could be used as evidence in court, in complaints against the departmental employees and to support parents to obtain further independent psychological opinion. Since coming to power in 2002, the Rann government has reformed the state's child protection system. The government has been committed to keeping our most vulnerable children safe and building a system underpinned by respect and collaboration where all those involved have natural justice, a right of reply and processes are transparent. I am advised that these elements are embedded in the child protection system and this proposal not only goes against those principles but undermines them.

I am advised that the proposed legislation exposes children to the risk of publication of detailed information about their life, their family and involvement with a child protection agency by parents seeking to obtain support to keep a child in their care or to deny allegations that have been made. This type of action could result in disastrous consequences for the child immediately and in the long term. It would not protect children but would expose them.

There is a clear concern by the government that, when a recording occurs between a child and a parent or guardian where abuse or neglect has been alleged, there is real risk of coercion of that child when a parent or guardian is making the recording. Any such recording can discourage the candour of participants, and there is the concern that children could be led, manipulated or effectively silenced by the recording process.

The government believes that the quality of recordings and the reliability of the custody of recordings cannot be assured under this proposed legislation, nor can the recording be protected from editing by the parent or others. The integrity of such recordings is clearly at risk. The intention to provide such recordings as evidence is obviously flawed. Subsequently to suggest that such recordings be used as evidence in court, in complaints processes against staff and as a basis for further psychological assessment is inappropriate and could contribute to delays in making timely decisions.

I am advised that, as well as being unsafe for children, these amendments are simply not necessary, given no law is needed to facilitate this. Existing law already enables parents to ask for permission to record a meeting and/or to communicate information from the recording with permission. The Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 establishes the rights and liability of parents to record a conversation with an employee of the department and/or to communicate or publish information from the recording. The parent can already record any meeting or conversation with an employee of the department with the knowledge and consent of all participants. It would be an offence to covertly record a meeting or to publish or communicate the material without the consent of all parties.

In her speech to the chamber the honourable member infers that the termination of any recording under this bill by a departmental employee could be viewed as unfavourable treatment of the parent or guardian, the obvious concern being that, if a child is becoming distressed by the interview process and a departmental employee determines that it is appropriate to end the interview, there is an inference that this could be deemed unjust treatment of the parent. In these instances the employee must always act in the best interest of the child.

Fundamentally, sections 3 and 4 of the Children's Protection Act 1993 establish the safety, wellbeing and best interests of a child or young person as paramount considerations. It can never be the aim of the Children's Protection Act 1993 to protect those suspected of child abuse or neglect. This would introduce a basic compromise to the central purpose of this act.

The assertions of the honourable member regarding the unbalanced nature of the act and of Families SA as focusing solely on the child without regard for the parents and family are incorrect. Fundamental principles underpinning the act establish that where safe and possible, it is best to keep a child with his or her birth family and that if the child cannot stay with their birth family they at least stay connected to them.

Although the department must always consider the child's needs as paramount, clearly there is also consideration of the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the parents. For example, through the Stronger Families, Safer Children program, the government has supported more than 1,363 children, many to keep living safely with their parents and some to reunite with their parents.

Through this initiative, non-government organisations (NGOs) work in partnership with Families SA to offer families a wide range of supports to achieve the outcomes of stabilising and supporting families so that they are in the best position to care for children in a safe environment. Interventions provided include parenting skills development; counselling; children's services, schools and education related assistance; links to community networks and services; and practical structured in-home support.

On behalf of the government, I make the following comments. I would encourage all those present not to support the proposed bill on the grounds that this legislation is not necessary, because parents can already record conversations with consent. The bill is not well conceived because it will not achieve one of the key intentions the honourable member outlined in the Legislative Council, namely providing sound evidence.

The Minister for Families and Communities, whom I have spoken to about the case raised by the honourable member in her contribution, does not, obviously, wish to say anything that would potentially embarrass the family referred to by the honourable member in her speech of 4 May. The minister cautions members from going down this path. The government believes that honourable members tread a very fine line by coming into this chamber and giving details of specific Families SA cases, particularly when talking about a relatively small community like Whyalla. I am sure the member would agree that it is very easy to give details that would identify, embarrass and potentially prejudice someone in a small community.

The government asks honourable members to remember that a safety agreement put in place around a child is primarily about making sure that child can stay with their family. Although the involvement of Families SA is kept to a minimum, the department does have a responsibility when people are in circumstances of distress to first and foremost protect and ensure the safety of that child.

The government believes that the bill also runs counter to our intentions to protect and care for children and their families as expressed in the current Children's Protection Act 1993. This bill could expose children the act is designed to protect to unacceptable risks due to possible breaches of confidentiality, and to potential trauma and coercion from the recording process. Indeed this process could intimidate children and inhibit them from telling their stories about neglect or abuse that may be happening to them.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:43): I rise on behalf the Greens to support this bill put before us by the Hon. Ann Bressington, and to commend her for having put up a previous bill, realising that there was further work to do and bringing back a much improved version before us today. I also commend the input that she has had from the opposition—I think the Hon. Stephen Wade in particular—and the Hon. Kelly Vincent from the crossbenches in improving this bill. I indicate that we will look supportively on the amendments being moved by those two members.

This Children's Protection (Right to Record Certain Conversations) Amendment Bill, an improvement on the Children's Protection (Recording of Meetings) Amendment Bill, enables meetings to be recorded, not by Families SA staff, but by either parents or guardians, those being in some sort of interaction with Families SA. That means that the department bears no cost for this. In this day of technology, where people can film such things or record such things, either with or without pictures, on their mobile phones, it seems a relatively cost neutral advance in terms of improving the functions of Families SA, and certainly the outcomes for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of dealing with Families SA.

I note that in the inquiry into Families SA both advocates such as Freda Briggs, an advocate for child protection, and staff of Families SA said that, when records of Families SA can go missing and files may be altered, a measure such as this would go some way to ensuring that not only are children's rights protected but also staff rights are protected.

I certainly disagree with the representations by the government that this would do harm to children and lead to children being coerced to give evidence in a particular way. That potentially happens at the moment. If we had a physical audiovisual or audio recording of it, it might actually be even easier to spot if, in fact, that was the case.

Then again, this government assures us it has it all in hand in terms of child protection in this state, yet it voted firmly against the Hon. Ann Bressington's bill that Families SA staff who suspected a crime was being committed against a child be required to report that crime and that instance to the police.

Given that the government has so strongly opposed that very simple measure, I take their assurances that they have an absolute commitment to child protection in this state with a very large grain of salt. With that, the Greens again commend those members who have brought this bill before us and indicate that we will be supporting both the bill and the amendments.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (18:47): I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this bill and for their indicated support. I would also like to thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Stephen Wade for being prepared to consult with me on the amendments they were proposing, and I will indicate now that I am supportive of both those amendments.

In response to the government's response, I honestly do not know what planet this government is living on. They come into this chamber and say, 'Child protection—we've got it all right. We don't need to be amending the legislation to ensure that parents have a right to defend themselves against allegations of abuse or neglect.' I have 600 examples where parents have claimed that they have been falsely accused, and I would say that probably 20 per cent of those I take with a grain of salt: but, out of the others, there is certainly a case to answer.

What people do not understand, I think, is that there is no recourse for parents who have been falsely accused. There is no recourse for parents who get on the wrong side of their counsellor and who are then treated with absolute disrespect and disdain and set upon. They are literally set upon by these people who claim to be professionals. They cannot take them to a court of law. They cannot have any hearing about the way that they are treated and have any sort of legal mechanism in place for them to be able to get their children back.

In the cases I have dealt with, these parents who have been set upon are the ones who the social workers rush to get an 18-year order on these kids. That means that once that 18-year order is in place no magistrate in this land and no minister is ever going to revoke that 18-year order, so those kids are lost to their parents for life.

Government members have stood up and said that amendments were made in 2002 which led to respectful, collaborative, open and transparent procedures to be in place to protect these vulnerable children, but let me tell you that there are hundreds of people out there who would absolutely laugh at that.

I do not know whether or not this government is aware, but the number of Facebook pages and websites that have been set up to expose the unprofessional and, I believe, criminal conduct of some of these social workers, is enormous. People are being heard one way or another. Tension is rising. I warned this government last year about people believing that this government has declared war on its constituents, and I tell you that child protection is the main issue. We could take steps to improve it. If this government has got it so right, why does every member in this chamber have so many people complain to them about the conduct of Families SA?

If everything was rosy in Adelaide those complaints would be at a minimum, but I know that members of government, members of the opposition and crossbenchers are all approached by parents who believe that they have been wronged and who have lost their children for life—for life. We come up with a simple way to show that some of these parents are actually telling the truth; that is, they have been treated with disdain and they have been treated in an unprofessional manner. The cases are being built against them and fabricated, but what does the government do? It says, 'No, no, it doesn't happen.' Well, it does; it does happen and it is time that we woke up and got this right.

The government also stated that it would not be appropriate to use these recordings in court. Do you know what? The Hon. Kelly Vincent has moved an amendment that if these recordings are tampered with in any way that it would be an offence, and I certainly agree with that. What other defence does a parent have when social workers go into the Youth Court, make allegations, have reports done—some people have up to five or six psychological reports ordered on them because the first four or five do not give the social worker the evidence or the outcome that they want, so they just get another one. They keep going and going until they get the report from the psychologist who is prepared to be intimidated by the social workers and told how to write the report. They find one who will do it and that is used in court.

Those social workers cannot be cross-examined on the reports or the evidence they have put forward to the court for the removal of a child. How does that work? How is that justice? The initial intention of these recordings was not that it could be used as evidence in court, although it could be.

The initial intention was to bring to the attention of the minister and the chief executive that recordings are showing that false allegations are being made against parents about their conduct, their threatening conduct towards social workers, and that parents actually have a point of negotiation, something that they can take to a member of the minister's staff and say, 'That social worker has treated me unfairly. An accusation was made that I threatened him or her in this particular meeting. Here is the recording. Can you see it? I didn't do it.'

The other thing is that I have been in meetings, as I said before, where parents have requested that they have the right to record and the meeting has been terminated. Why would that be? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, I say. The government also says that its ultimate goal is to keep children safe.

I remind members about the three children, runaways from the department, who I had in my office the week before last. They ran away from their residential care because they were being abused, because their rights were being abused, because they were being physically abused and because they were being sexually harassed. One of these kids was 10 years old—a little girl—and guess what her aspiration was? To run away and be put into Magill because in Magill she had a cousin who would look after her.

What a great job you guys are doing in keeping these children safe. A 10 year old dressed like a 19 year old, in the care of the minister, smoking and wanting to go to Magill. That is her life aspiration because she is not safe under the guardianship of the minister. She is not the one and only. I have brought cases in front of this council, on many occasions, of children being abused and neglected in care. We talk about the parents being accused of abusing and neglecting their children—God forbid that they should have a right to defend themselves. They cannot do it in court, and these recordings would be the only mechanism open to them to be able to defend them, to keep their children.

The greatest harm we can do to a child is remove them from their family. One of those three children who came to me two weeks ago was one boy of 13. He had no idea of extended family. He has been completely cut off and isolated. He did not know his sister's last name because she had married since he had been taken into care. She lived up there somewhere. An aunty and an uncle expressed a desire that they would look after him rather than him go into care. He did not know their last name; he did not know their address—completely isolated from their family.

There may be good reason for that, but the fact that these children are so disconnected from their family, from their loved ones, is a crime in itself. If this government believes that it has got it all together with respect to child protection, why are these children being isolated? Why are they being shuffled from one place to another? Why is there not an assessment and evaluation process in place for these residential services—not to interview the workers, to interview the children. Get their side of the story.

Was it not us in here who said, 'We're sorry we didn't believe you; we're sorry we didn't listen to you.' We are doing it again. I will repeat that in this place until either I am not here anymore or I drop dead doing it. We are not listening. We are not taking the steps necessary to improve this system. We are complicit in protecting a sick, sick agenda in a dysfunctional and toxic organisation that needs to be flushed out.

The minister cannot think of anything to do to fix it. She is at a loss. She is held to ransom by her own workers, but will she take suggestions? No. Any minister who is afraid that her workers are going to do her in because she makes amendments to the child protection act that they do not like should not be minister. This minister and the minister before her both said, 'This department needs to be levelled.'

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Bressington should be summing up, not making another second reading speech.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am nearly finished. I am responding to the comments of the government, Mr President, that are misleading and misrepresentative of how this system is actually working.

The PRESIDENT: I am concerned about the staff. We have gone an hour over time.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am finished. With all of that, it is all on the record before. I will shut up, I will sit down, but—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Come back after dinner. I am happy to come back after dinner.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: You are happy to come back after dinner?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Yes.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: All right, then I will continue.

The PRESIDENT: What are you going to do?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am going to continue. Members are quite happy to come back after dinner and move this into committee. I am sick of this. I am sick of the fact that this child protection system is touted as being successful. We are pouring in millions of dollars—bad money after bad money and nothing changes. I was assured by the minister when the current chief executive took over that the world would spin in a different direction. Well, guess what? It is not, and kids are still falling through the cracks and kids are still being removed from families when they should not be.

Children are still being left in families where they should not be, and that tells me that there is no political will to fix this, and one of these days I am going to find out why. I am going to find out why there is that lack of will. Who is behind this dysfunction and what power do they have to drive this agenda of breaking down families? Children are a meat market out there. They are on the street—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Excuse me, but if members are suffering from hearing the truth, then we have got a sad situation in this place. These kids are a meat market out there; they are open to predators. They are being picked up, they are being abused. We are seeing the content of the Mullighan inquiry repeating itself—history repeating itself—because we have this minister and the past minister who were too gutless to take on a department that wants the status quo to remain.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 3, after line 17 [clause 4, inserted section 57A(4)]—After paragraph (d) insert:

(da) to a parent or guardian of the child the subject of the recording; or

This is a simple insertion for the list of persons who are able to receive a recording under subsection (1) to include parents and guardians. As I said in my second reading contribution, I think the Hon. Ann Bressington has done an excellent job in presenting this bill.

The opposition is still of the view that it would benefit from enhancement. We thought it was important to ensure that even if a parent or guardian was not a participant in a meeting they would be entitled to receive a copy of the recording. I understand that the mover finds this amendment agreeable and I commend it to the committee.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

Page 3, after line 21 [clause 4, inserted section 57A]—After subsection (4) insert:

(4a) A person must not tamper with a recording made under subsection (1).

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

(4b) In proceedings for an offence against subsection (4a), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he or she did not intend to mislead any person.

I think I need to explain myself a little bit. There has obviously been a bit of confusion as to exactly what it is that I am moving today, and I apologise for that and thank the committee for its patience.

My amendment centres around the idea of the possibility of recordings made under the bill being tampered with, which became of great concern to me in conversation with both the Hon. Ms Bressington and her office, and my own office. Originally, I had intended to move two or three other amendments which members would have seen today, which not only made it an offence to tamper with recordings made under this bill but also provided such that if one party were making a recording under the bill the other party would also be obligated to make its own.

I would have thought this would be relatively simple—with the advent of modern technology we can record things on our mobile phones, iPods, MP3 players and so on—but I am advised by the Hon. Ms Bressington that there was some discussion around this when the original draft of the bill was introduced and it was decided that, unfortunately, that provision was physically impractical. So, I have withdrawn that but have, obviously, stuck with the idea of addressing the issue of tampering with evidence.

I have been in conversation with the Liberal Party and the Hon. Mr Wade today, and I thank them for that. They have drawn to my attention their concern about the fact that my previous amendment may have, in fact, made it tempting for parties to tamper with evidence made given that, if one recording were tampered with, it would make both recordings inadmissible as evidence in a court. Obviously, that is not something we want. We do not want people to be tempted to do something as wrong as that. Mr Wade has assisted me in amending my amendment, for which I thank him very much.

It now stands simply so that tampering with evidence made under this bill will be an offence. There is obviously a penalty for that—a maximum of $10,000. There is provision so that, if a defendant can prove that they did not wish to mislead any person, I think that would mean that they did not intentionally tamper with the evidence, so then their rights are covered too. I see this as a very simple and sensible amendment and I would encourage honourable members to join me in supporting it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment. Rather than have the Hon. Kelly Vincent apologise that a range of amendments leads to a situation where things are not neat, I think that is just part of the craft of legislating. It actually means that we have to sit and grapple with potential amendments. On behalf of the opposition, I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for taking our concerns seriously and coming up with an amendment that we think addresses the mischief that she identified but does not leave open the risk that we saw.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am also supportive of the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens are also supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (19:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 19:09 the council adjourned until Thursday 7 July 2011 at 14:15.

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