Bills

Stolen Generations (Compensation) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2014.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:52): I rise to support this bill. In 2011 the Hon. Tammy Franks' bill on the same matter was referred to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee to conduct an inquiry into the bill. The committee handed down its report last year and it was recommended that the bill be redrafted in a more simplified manner in order to address the issue of providing compensation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who were forcibly removed from their families prior to 1975.

Whilst the Hon. Tammy Franks' bill called for the establishment of an independent tribunal to determine claims, the Hon. Terry Stephens' bill places this responsibility on the minister. While the Franks bill did not provide a time limit for applications, the Stephens bill allows only a six-month window where applications can be made. I would be interested to hear about this matter further and the reasoning behind allowing only a six-month application period.

Further to this, the Franks bill provided that decisions must be made within 12 months of an application being made, whereas the current bill outlines that claims must be determined as soon as reasonably practicable. I am glad that the Stephens bill calls for a report on the operation of the act from the minister as I will be interested to see in what time frame claims are determined. It would be a gross injustice if applications were made to wait lengthy periods of time for their claims to be determined. Such an outcome would only add to the stress of applicants and could see the act perceived as a disingenuous attempt at righting a wrong.

Both bills allow for compensation decisions to be reviewed and the limits for compensation have been increased in the current bill from the previous in line with the maximum amount allowable for payments from the Victims of Crime Fund.

I acknowledge the Hon. Tammy Franks' dedication and work on this important issue. Whilst some argue that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children were removed for their own welfare, the social, cultural and psychological issues which followed have been so unprecedented that it is only right for the parliament to pass this legislation so that acknowledgement can be given to the damage which was caused.

The passage of this bill will not change the past. It will not right all of the wrongs and, for most, it will not fix their problems, but it will go a long way in recognising the damage that has been done. I support the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:54): I rise, too, on behalf of the Greens to support the second reading of this bill. I will not deliver a long speech today because I recognise that this parliament will be prorogued and that, even if this bill passes tonight, it does not have the support of a government machinery behind it in the way that this debate should be being had. Rather than in the dying hours of a prorogued parliament, this bill should be debated and heralded in a place where the gallery is full of those who are affected by this decision and where we celebrate that we have moved beyond sorry into actually making reparations.

I commend the Hon. Terry Stephens for bringing this bill to this parliament in this form, however, and note that it does reflect the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee's recommendations that arose from their inquiry into my bill which was referred to it in 2011. Over two years, that inquiry proceeded with a multi-party group on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. Many members of that committee heard from witnesses and took submissions and investigated ways that we could approach this issue based on the model of the Tasmanian Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Act 2006 and my bill as that framework.

It is estimated through that process that there are approximately 300 Aboriginal people who could receive an ex gratia payment in accordance with the proposed eligibility criteria. Of course, that committee also identified, as is replicated here, that the Victims of Crime Fund could be used for this compensation—or, as I refer to it, reparation.

Two particular witnesses struck me and I would like to observe some of their words for the benefit not only of members here tonight but for debates into the future. A witness statement was given by Katrina Power, who is a narrative therapist and senior cultural educator and works at Relationships Australia. She was delighted to be given the opportunity to present to our committee. She noted she had a white father whom she had never seen, who had attacked her mother. In 1966, she says:

…my black mother took my white father to court to pay maintenance. Not a cent was paid. I was born under the native flora and fauna act. There are many of us who are still in that position. We were not afforded citizenship like newcomers to Australia today are offered citizenship.

She was not a member of the stolen generations but she brought with her a photo of her late husband, Simon Lampard (who had been born David Lampard), who was, indeed, a member of the stolen generations. She told us that he had been raised in a white family of privilege:

….where four Aboriginal babies were also raised. There were four of them altogether, all from different areas from the Wirangu on the West Coast to the Riverland mob, Ngarrindjeri.

Of those four siblings, Simon committed suicide in 2003, aged 41. Of those four siblings each of these babies were stolen and raised in this family. They went to private schools, raised by doctors, had all the white privileges that one would hope to afford their children, if you had aspirations to be white—

she told us. She also informed us that:

He, along with two other of his siblings, have committed suicide. They were all stolen babies.

She noted that two weeks after her husband suicided—

There being a disturbance in the President's gallery:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, if you would please have a bit of respect for the Hon. Ms Franks while she is on her feet.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Two weeks after her husband suicided (Simon gassed himself to death), her eight-year-old son Kiraki tried to hang himself. She had her daughter run into the kitchen and tell her, screaming, that she had to untie her son from a noose. He was eight years old at the time. She was very disturbed and she told us, 'It wasn't a copycat suicide.' His father had actually killed himself in the Blue Mountains, and his son had not been witness to that. She was incredibly traumatised by the idea that he had chosen an alternative method.

This is why she has gone into a healing profession. She has a background, and many people would be familiar with the name Katrina Power. Those of us who have been privileged to be at events where she has offered a welcome or acknowledgment; she is an impressive woman. She has also had a career at The Advertiser and been well recognised for her media background, but she has chosen to move into narrative therapy and to provide support and working with Relationships Australia to do that healing work, and I certainly commend her for that.

This is where she told us her own story of after these events: she in her own terms says that she really lost the plot. She ended up in drug rehab for five months. She was forced into a white rehab, where she was one of only two females and certainly the only Nunga Aboriginal there. The psychological support that she said that she got, along with her son, did not fit with them and their culture. It did not help them, so that has been her motivation to get into counselling and healing.

That was an important part of what people brought to the process, the counselling and the healing, not just the recognition but the entire holistic approach. She went on to note some things that we all know in statistics, but these impact on people's lives in this state. These are the things that individuals and families who have been affected or been part of the stolen generations have to deal with.

During the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, 99 deaths were investigated, 43 of those deaths being stolen babies. Good intentions, Katrina Power told us, are not necessarily best practices. She noted that we see more and more Aboriginal children in state and guardianship care than ever before. We have an incredibly high suicide rate, with Aboriginal women four to six times more likely to die as a result of domestic violence, with children not getting past year 10 in school let alone getting into universities, and she noted the high incarceration and unemployment rates. These are legacies of the stolen generations.

We also heard from Rosemary Wanganeen, who is the Director of the Australian Institute for Loss and Grief. Ms Wanganeen told us that she, as a child of about 10 years old, had her mother die. There were eight children and six out of those eight were taken into care. She was brought to Adelaide from Clare, and originally her mum and dad had left Point Pearce on Yorke Peninsula, the old mission, as she told us, and they were expected to an assimilate and move to Clare. As a result of her mother's sudden death she was then brought to Adelaide, where she told us that she experienced mental, emotional, spiritual, physical and sexual abuse.

She told us of a very vivid memory that she had in her classroom. One day sitting in her classroom her teacher told her whole class that Aboriginal people were savages, and that, she told us, so seriously impacted on her sense of identity and who she was. She had her sense of Nunga identity and pride completely disintegrate, and she told us of the shame that came from this. She said to us that she grew right into her 30s ashamed of her Aboriginality, and the impact of that teacher's statement had some effect of 20-odd years.

She also told us of the sexual abuse that occurred in the second foster home that she was taken to. In the first foster home there had been physical abuse and beatings. She was removed from that home because of that abuse, but then where the sexual abuse happened in the second home they were elderly people, they were grandparents, and she told us that the father would come in at night. She believes the wife knew about this violence and certainly knew about the alcoholism of the father, but she said that this was not something you talked about, and certainly it was a time when nobody talked about these issues.

She told us that the day she left their home, after a year and a half or so, was the day that she was sitting with 'the man', as she called him, watching television in the lounge room and she said to him, 'I can smell gas.' With that, the two of them jumped up and rushed to the kitchen. In the very next room, the lady was gassing herself while they were all in the kitchen. She was 12 years old at the time.

She knows that she attempted to air out the house and helped him pull her out of the gas oven. Somebody called the ambulance, but she cannot recall who. There was a fire brigade and police, but before anybody came the man told her to go back into her room and not come out until somebody else came in. Whether it was the social worker or welfare officer, she was not sure, but she waited for that person to come and get her. These people in this case did not treat her as their child, although they were given the privilege of her as their child by our society.

She then ended up in a hostel and spent many years full of rage, experienced domestic and family violence and certainly believes that a big chunk of her life was lost to that. She then told us a much more inspirational story of beginning her healing. She is also an incredibly impressive woman, who is well accomplished in her career and has certainly made very much of herself and is an inspiration to all of us.

That these stories in this place are not being reflected with the respect of a government which has had three years, which has heard from many witnesses, which has received submissions, which has heard from various groups in support of these measures, which has been informed that this is in fact a cheaper way to address issues of compensation for the stolen generations, I think is a shame that will hang over this government unless it steps up and makes good talk of reconciliation with real action.

I look forward to delivering a more positive speech. Of course these stories of stolen generations members are not pleasant. They should be consigned to our past, but the only way they will be is if we make a difference in the way we act in the future. We have had apologies in this place. We have had recognition in the constitution in this place. These were positive moves. We should be proud we were one of the first states to make an apology to the stolen generations. We should be being proud right now to be working across all parties and Independents in this place to make this right.

We need to move on; we can move on. This bill that the Hon. Terry Stephens has brought before us shows us a way forward. We can all work together in these coming months to make this right. The opportunity is here. The opportunity will soon be lost because members of the stolen generations are actually spending their dying days either fighting in courts against a government that should be a model litigant, but apparently is not, or spending time, as we heard from other witnesses, in the disjointed cultures.

One of the things that really touched me in the witness statements that we heard was those members of the stolen generation who were raised in what we would call white Caucasian families, in nice families of our past, the nuclear families that were held up to be ideal. Those people were often, when they turned 18, put back into their original communities, and there they suffered yet another impact, another level of dysfunctionality. They were often rejected. They could not speak the language of their people. They were ostracised. They were seen as having rejected their communities, and there was a whole new level of adult damage being done to those members.

I will not labour the point. I think there is an opportunity here for the government to show true leadership. Other members of this place will be willing to work with the Weatherill government, to come back with this parliament after it has been prorogued and what we are told is reset or restarted next year. We are told there are going to be big visions. We are told there is going to be great leadership. Here is just one thing you can do to exemplify that great leadership. With that I commend the bill.

I will not be seeking to make amendments. I believe there are possibly areas that could be improved or finetuned, but that will take a government that also comes to the table and talks the talk, as I said. They are happy to talk the talk. To walk the walk is what we need them to do, not just talk the talk. Time for more than sorry has come. Sorry is not good enough anymore; we need reparation.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (22:10): I rise to support this bill. The forcible removal of Aboriginal children is a terrible chapter in our history and one which we should not let be forgotten. This bill goes some small way to healing the wounds that the state's institutions inflicted upon the innocent.

The Aboriginal people have a close bond with the natural world, their family groups and their broader communities. Relationships between Aboriginal peoples and their communities are generally more complex than European communities. This was necessary to ensure their survival on land with a harsh and unforgiving climate. As a consequence, Aboriginal family members have a greater number of parental obligations and responsibilities. The removal of children struck very deeply at the heart of these time-honoured traditions.

The children who were removed often lost their heritage, culture and language. Many of them suffered and continue to suffer, as did their families who remained on the lands. It is therefore appropriate that compensation be offered, although I acknowledge that compensation of itself cannot take away the pain of those impacted. I would like to think that South Australia aspires to be a leader in this nation in seeking to heal these wounds. I note that Tasmania, to its credit, introduced legislation of this nature some time ago. This parliament has an opportunity to lead the mainland states.

I commend the Hon. Terry Stephens for introducing the bill into this chamber. The Hon. Terry Stephens' leadership on this issue is part of a long tradition of the Liberal Party to promote the interests of Aboriginal communities. There are many examples, but one that comes immediately to mind is that under the Hon. Dean Brown an apology was given for the forced separation of children.

I also wish to acknowledge and commend the passion and commitment of the Hon. Tammy Franks in her pursuit of justice for the Aboriginal peoples. I note last year the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee handed down its report on the Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal Bill, which was originally moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks in 2010. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (22:12): I am going to speak very briefly to this bill this evening, and I hope that that brevity does not suggest a lack of interest or a lack of passion for the issues to which it pertains. I am going to speak briefly for a few reasons: firstly, the hour; secondly, this parliament, as has been mentioned, is about to prorogue and therefore we will need to have this debate again; and, thirdly, the stories that I could tell, that I could relay, which illustrate the need for a bill such as this, are harrowing, touching—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: If you want a conversation there is a little passageway out there.

An honourable member: Thank you, Mr President.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Hear, hear! They are harrowing stories and they are touching stories, but I am also mindful that they are not my stories to tell, and it is difficult for me as a white, Australian, childless woman to sit here in this chamber and try to relay the pain, suffering and anguish that have so obviously been inflicted upon those members of the stolen generations and their families. I do not want to taint those stories, some of which have already been relayed, with any tokenism. They are not mine to tell, but I sincerely and humbly thank those who do own them who have come forward to tell them to us through the committee that has led to this bill.

I want to acknowledge the work and passion of the Hon. Tammy Franks in this area and the Hon. Terry Stephens for bringing to us the bill we now have. This is an excellent example of the kind of collaboration that we need in this chamber and in this parliament more broadly, particularly on issues like this, because we cannot truly talk about reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians if we in this chamber are still fighting over whose name goes on a bill, whose version of which amendment is better for egotistical reasons.

On issues like this, in particular, we need to collaborate and lead by example. We need to reconcile our differences and work for the greater good, I suppose you could say. From my reading of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee's report into these issues, I acknowledge that very careful consideration has been given to the model suggested in that report, and I think that model is very workable. In fact, I understand that it is based on a model already working quite well in Tasmania, so again we have the evidence there that there is a possible way forward with this.

I also acknowledge that the report makes mention of the fact that for some Aboriginal people compensation is not necessarily something that interests them directly, but knowing that the option is there for them to pursue should they wish goes some way to providing some healing for the wrongs that have been done. Having said that, it is vital that we allow people to access this reparation, should they wish. I also note that accessing this compensation would not extinguish the rights of Aboriginal to seek further litigation but simply seeks to offer a simpler, more streamlined process to accessing those funds.

After everything that we have heard in this chamber tonight, and throughout Australian history, I think we at least owe it to the first people of this nation to make seeking some form of compensation as easy as we can. I note that the bill also suggests that the minister responsible may determine eligibility for ex gratia payments, and I understand from my conversations with the Hon. Terry Stephens that he envisages that this is to be done alongside an Aboriginal elder, this conversation as to who is eligible for these payments.

I think that is absolutely vital, because we cannot be truly reconciliatory if we have a minister who is usually a non-Aboriginal minister sitting in their ivory tower, so to speak, making these decisions. We need to involve Aboriginal Australians as much as we can in this process. Particularly given the high turnover of Aboriginal affairs ministers in this parliament, it is important that we begin to work in a more collaborative way and put pressure on the minister to show more collaborative methods in working with Aboriginal peoples.

With those few words, I do agree that there is perhaps some tweaking of this bill—some minor amendments—that may make it a little clearer in terms of its intent. I am very much looking forward to considering those in the new session of parliament. I very much look forward to being able to look back on this debate in the future and saying that we as a parliament had the sensitivity, the economic sense and the heart to move a bill such as this. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (22:20): Today I rise to speak on this bill. We need to recognise the harm that the stolen generation has suffered. We have already partially done this by recognising Aboriginal people in our state's constitution. Although the terrible acts of previous governments, government agencies and our courts can never be undone, compensation may go some way towards reparation.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, who at the end of 2013 reported on the bill introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Stolen Generations Reparations Tribunal Bill 2010. In its report, the committee recommended that a simplified version based on the Tasmanian model be introduced in parliament. I will now turn to the Tasmanian model and talk a little about their experience.

To date, Tasmania is the only state in Australia that has implemented legislation to compensate its stolen generation. The Tasmanian government set up a stolen generation compensation fund of $5 million. Members of the stolen generation (and, if deceased, their biological children) were given six months to make an application. The Tasmanian model set a 12-month deadline from the act's commencement for the assessment of applications.

Following the application deadline, the Office of the Stolen Generations Assessor assessed the payment to biological children, which was set at $5,000 each but limited to $20,000 for a family group of children, equally divided amongst the family. The Tasmanian scheme did not preclude recipients from pursuing civil action. Many were happy with the process and have not subsequently pursued civil action.

This bill does not preclude civil action being undertaken, but given the time, expense and lack of guarantee of any civil action being successful, such compensation may reduce the number of civil actions. It should be noted, however, that there has only been one successful case: the Trevorrow case. Mr Trevorrow received around $500,000 and it is estimated that the state's legal costs were around $2 million. Other cases have settled out of court for much lower figures.

It must be said that, by not precluding the ability to pursue civil action, there is still a risk of civil actions being undertaken against the government. A potential alternative could be to require members of the stolen generation to elect whether they take ex gratia payments or pursue civil action. The Hon. Tammy Franks' original bill precluded the recipient of such a payment from pursuing civil action.

I do support the view that providing compensation through an ex gratia payment may be more appropriate than relying on the courts. In its submission to the committee, the Law Society made it clear that the courts are not the most appropriate avenue for compensation. This is particularly due to strict rules of evidence which are not practical in this instance because of the time that has passed and the lack of records. An ex gratia payment scheme may also be more appropriate to save applicants from prolonged pain due to lengthy civil action. For these reasons an ex gratia scheme is more appropriate to compensate the stolen generation than our courts.

However, there are a number of issues that have not been covered by this bill, the first of which is the six-month time limit for applications. I acknowledge that this is a time sensitive issue, given the age of many of the stolen generation; however, this time limit may be too short a period for anyone who may be eligible to become aware of that and proceed with an application. As I mentioned earlier, Tasmania also had a six-month time limit for applications but it had 151 applications with 106 found to be eligible, compared to the 300 estimated eligible applicants in South Australia.

Further in its report, the committee also discussed how members of the stolen generation would find out about the scheme. The committee discussed how once applicants began to receive compensation the message would spread. Mr President, I am concerned that a six-month time frame does not allow much time for this. Further discussion is required on how this bill can be appropriately implemented. If we want a system where, after the time lapses, no further applications can be made, then a longer time frame may be more appropriate. Alternatively, the Law Society's suggestion that an extension be available in certain circumstances may be a suitable compromise if the current time limit applies.

There has been no discussion or estimate provided as to how this proposal will impact general revenue. There has been no discussion or an estimate made of how much it will cost to administer the scheme. Very rough calculations dictate that if you have 300 applications and they are multiplied by the highest possible payment of $50,000, this equates to $15 million. Unlike the Tasmanian legislation, though, this bill does not provide for a monetary cap to the scheme, and thus the financial consequences are relatively unknown. In considering this bill I would have preferred it if more clarity was given on this issue.

There were previous drafts of this bill which included the victims of crime levy as the funding source. I can only guess that the drafters of this bill have since recognised the practical difficulties in applying that levy for the particular purpose this sought in this bill.

I am told that an appropriation bill needs to be introduced in the House of Assembly. Since there are budgetary aspects to this bill, it also needs to be introduced in the other place first. I am also concerned about whether members of the stolen generation who were taken by court order will be eligible for compensation. Various community groups, such as the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, mention this in their commentary on the bill.

I do support the principle of this bill that is giving compensation to the stolen generation and, therefore, recognising the pain and suffering in a meaningful way. I take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Terry Stephens for bringing this bill to this house. I know the Hon. Terry Stephens is very compassionate and very genuine in his campaign for improvement in the lives of many Aboriginal people. What the honourable member is doing is bringing attention to this matter, particularly bringing it out into the public domain, so I would like to congratulate the Hon. Terry Stephens for doing that.

I can also concur with the Hon. Tammy Franks that we can all work together to give compensation to the stolen generation. I hope that, with the Hon. Terry Stephens bringing this matter to this house, something positive will come out of it. However, this bill has not been through an appropriate form of consultation. I also note that the previous bill from the Hon. Tammy Franks underwent an extensive consultation process.

The Stolen Generations (Compensation) Bill before us is quite different and has not undergone enough consultation. There has not been enough discussion about how it will be funded. As I have said previously, given that it is an appropriation bill, it needs to be introduced in the other house first. Hopefully, members from the other house would read what we have discussed tonight in Hansard—I am sure most of them are in bed right now. They could then move something in the house, once parliament resumes next year. On this basis, whilst being entirely supportive of the sentiment expressed by proponents of this bill, at this stage, I am unable to support this bill for the reasons I outlined previously.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (22:33): I thank all honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. John Darley; the Hon. Tammy Franks, who of course has been a driver of this particular issue, as has been widely acknowledged and acclaimed; the Hon. Andrew McLachlan for his thoughtful contribution; and also the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her heartfelt contribution. I listened to the Hon. Tung Ngo, my friend, with a keen interest in what the government was going to present to us today.

I was extremely heartened by the fact that the Hon. Tung Ngo acknowledged that we do need to move forward with this issue. I know that this bill may not be a perfect bill, but I am quite proud of the fact that all members of this place recognise that we need to move forward with this issue.

I got a sense from the Hon. Tung Ngo that the government realised that this issue must be moved forward. I would have preferred the Hon. Tung Ngo to come to me with some amendments and some improvements to this bill because I am happy to acknowledge the fact that as a parliament, in both places, this is an issue that we can all work together to come to a resolution that is going to benefit those Aboriginal people who have been affected, and we have spoken at length as to how disappointing it has been for outcomes for those particular people.

There are two people I would really like to acknowledge, and in no particular order: the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has driven this issue and actually made me aware of it, as a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. I had very little knowledge and understanding of this issue. The Hon. Tammy Franks has been like a dog with a bone with this issue and has almost bullied me into submission and understanding and support. Everyone in this place has been quite generous with their acknowledgement of the Hon. Tammy Franks's involvement.

From a Liberal member of parliament who has a keen interest in this issue, it is very easy if your leader, Steven Marshall, the member for Norwood in the other place—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Dunstan.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Dunstan, Norwood, you know, we all know. The member for Dunstan, Stephen Marshall, my leader from the other place, who has had a long-term interest in Aboriginal affairs and was well involved before he became a member of parliament. It is quite easy to take up these particular issues when your leader expects you to drive these particular issues. He has been a very strong advocate for resolution in this particular area.

We are going to have a committee stage in a short period of time. I would welcome contributions to make this particular bill more workable. What I think we are going to do is present to the government a bill that passes this place, because I have had indications of support from almost everybody. I know the Hon. Tung Ngo wants to support this bill but he knows it needs some improvement. We are happy to accept that. We are happy to accept that there could need to be some improvement and we are happy to work with the government.

This is a wonderful opportunity now for the government to know that it has the Legislative Council—sadly, the Legislative Council which the Hon. Jay Weatherill, the Premier, says is an unworkable place. This is a great example of how a group of people from different political persuasions have the best interests of a particular group of people at heart and we want the best possible outcome. So, we are opening ourselves up to the government to say, 'Let's do this.' We are going to work with the government. We are going to support the government in getting an outcome for this particular issue.

It has been driven by the Greens and it has been championed by my leader, Stephen Marshall, the member for Dunstan, who has been vigorous within our party room to make sure that we drive this forward. We have had the Hon. John Darley offer his support. The Hon. Kelly Vincent made a very solid and genuine contribution. In fact, from conversations I have had with the members of Family First, I know that they are very keen for us to move forward with this particular issue.

I am genuinely excited by the prospect that we are going to move forward with this bill tonight. We are going to pass the committee stages. I do not want to pre-empt things, but we are going to give to the House of Assembly a bill that they can work with, they can modify, they can improve. Normally it is us in the Legislative Council that improve on their sometimes tardy work. I should not be disparaging of the other place, but do you know what, this is a great opportunity for this parliament, both chambers, to work in a collaborative manner to hopefully bring some comfort and closure to an issue that is incredibly real to many people. I am proud to close the debate on this issue. I am extremely proud of the contributions that members have made and I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The CHAIR: I point out to the committee that this clause, being a money clause, is in erased type. Standing order 298 provides that no questions shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.

Remaining clauses (11 to 16) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed:

Third Reading

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (22:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

To all members, not just on behalf of the Liberal Party but, I think, on behalf of the Legislative Council, I really appreciate the genuine support for something that is really well intended. There is an expectation now, I suspect, from the Legislative Council that we are delivering a bill to the government to show them that we have genuine support and that we will work with the government to fix this issue.

My leader (member for Dunstan) has instructed me to make sure that we do whatever we can to work with the government and all members of parliament to ensure that this issue is resolved in a satisfactory manner for those people who have been hurt over many years. So I really appreciate the support from all members.

I really appreciate the kind words from the Hon. Tung Ngo, even though at this point he knows that this bill needs to be improved in some way, but we want to work with the government. We want to get this done. We want it to pass the other place and bring something back to us that is going to change the lives of people for the better.

Bill read a third time and passed.