Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson

URANIUM MINING (IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS) BILL 2007 Second Reading Resumed from 4 April 2007. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the Opposition) [10.10 am]: I do not know whether there is a problem with the acoustics in the chamber, Mr President, but I heard you put the question that the Uranium Mining (Implementation of Government Commitments) Bill 2007 be now read a second time. The PRESIDENT: I did. Hon NORMAN MOORE: This bill needs to be debated. Hon Giz Watson has already given the second reading speech. One would anticipate that the government would respond to the second reading debate. If the government does not want to respond, it is entitled to do that. I find it extraordinary that the government would have allowed this bill to be voted on without saying anything. Hon George Cash: It is the acoustics. Perhaps they can be given another opportunity. Hon NORMAN MOORE: In all the time that I have been a member, I have never noticed that the acoustics are that bad. For two weeks in a row the government has failed to speak on a bill moved by either the opposition, or, in this case, the Greens (WA). It is an amazing state of affairs. I do not propose to speak on the bill but I am getting on my feet simply to avoid a vote being taken on the second reading debate and for this house to be ridiculed by the Premier for not being able to organise itself properly. I am doing my best to help the government organise itself so that it knows what to do when a bill comes on. Clearly it has forgotten. This has occurred twice in two weeks. What is wrong with members opposite? If it is a problem with the acoustics, hopefully we can do something about it. It is strange that it has happened only twice in the history of this house. HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Employment Protection) [10.13 am]: There are no problems with the acoustics of the chamber. I am the lead speaker for the government on the Uranium Mining (Implementation of Government Commitments) Bill 2007, and I will respond on behalf of the government. I thought that other members might have liked to have responded before I did. Hon Norman Moore: In effect, when the opposition introduces a bill, you are the alternative argument. You would expect us to respond to your bills and we expect you to respond to a private member’s bill. That is what you are here for. Hon JON FORD: Okay. The government opposes the bill because there is no requirement to implement its provisions. In effect, the argument behind the bill will fail to do what I think the Greens (WA) are trying to achieve, which is stop uranium mining. On 23 March 2007 the Premier issued a media statement headed “No backflip on uranium mining policy”, which stated — “As I said only this morning, there will be no uranium mining in WA as long as I am Premier,” Mr Carpenter said. The Mining Act 1978 allows the Minister for State Development to put certain conditions on a mining lease. Since 23 June 2002, the minister has placed endorsements on each of the new mining leases at the time of the grant that exclude uranium mining from the mining lease. This removes the authority to mine uranium, pursuant to section 110 of the Mining Act. This is the government’s preferred approach to progressing the objectives that the specific amendments in the bill to the Mining Act are intended to achieve. As at 14 August 2007, 941 mining leases had been granted with such an endorsement. Incidental or unintentional mining of uranium is not affected. The Premier has stated that if a miner who had a mining lease prior to 23 June 2002 tried to pursue the mining of uranium in the true mining sense—that is, to make a profit from uranium mining by either exporting it or using it within Australia—the government would consider amending the Mining Act to prevent the mining from occurring. However, the industry has taken a pragmatic approach to this matter. It has said that it is uninterested in pursuing uranium mining while the government has this policy in place. There are a couple of other problems with the bill. It attempts to impose a $500 000 fine on a miner who pursues uranium mining. That is an inadequate penalty and would not prevent uranium mining. If we were to pass this bill, it would stop mineral exploration in WA. A lot of incidental mineralogy exploration is occurring and people are surveying and exploring for all sorts of minerals. When they do that, they might find uranium and then highlight the prospectivity of uranium mining. Under this bill, those people could potentially be prosecuted and would have no defence. That is the government’s position, which has not changed. We believe that we have an effective policy in place that sends a message to the industry that there will be no uranium mining in this state, and the industry accepts that. The legislative powers under section 110 of the Mining Act already give the Minister for State Development the ability to exclude a miner from mining any mineral that the government of the day wants to exclude. No-one has tried to pull it on. As I said, there were 941 mining leases as at 14 August

[1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson

2007 and no-one has tried to pull it on. We have an effective policy and legislation in place. If someone tries to pull it on, we will consider making a legislative amendment to prevent him from mining. The government opposes the bill. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan) [10.17 am]: If ever there was a hypocritical response to a particular bill in this house, that was it. Because I am a fair person, I do not blame Hon Jon Ford because he is required to mouth the government’s response in a situation in which the government has been shown up by the Greens (WA). The Greens are trying to implement what the former Minister for State Development, Clive Brown, said on 25 June 2002, in a statement to the Legislative Assembly, that he would do — I wish to announce that the Western Australian Government has prohibited the mining of uranium for nuclear purposes from any mining leases granted from Saturday, 22 June 2002, . . . He then explained various issues and said — The policy will be ratified in legislation through the early introduction to Parliament of a government Bill that will specifically amend the Mining Act 1978 to prohibit the mining of uranium for nuclear purposes. That is what Mr Brown said way back in June 2002. It is now nearly June 2008 and the government has not introduced its bill. That is the bill that the government promised it would introduce in an early and timely fashion. As a consequence of the government not doing what it promised, the Greens (WA) decided that they would introduce a bill into Parliament to do exactly that which the government had promised back in 2002. Now the Minister for Employment Protection has stood in this house and acknowledged, by way of his response, that the 2002 statement of then minister Hon Clive Brown was nothing more than a hoax. It was nothing more than government spin aimed at misleading the public. More than that, it was aimed at misleading members of the Australian Labor Party who at that time were raising the issue of uranium mining in . I say that I understand the position of the minister because I know where he comes from in the factional system of the Labor Party. To be put in a position in which he had to stand and defend the government by saying that it now opposes what then minister Clive Brown said in 2002 must have made the minister wonder what this Parliament is all about. I say that because we on this side of the house know the Minister for Employment Protection’s reputation in this place. We know that when he gets up and says something, he will do what he says. He has proved that time and again, and that is why he is one of the ministers who is respected in this house, yet today, as the minister representing the minister in the other place and having carriage of this bill, he was forced, because of the way in which Labor deals with spin and the media, to get up and make that statement. I say to the minister, Hon John Ford, that it is no wonder his speech was relatively short in length; I can understand it. I am surprised he did not get up and say, “We oppose the bill”, and sit down, because having to justify why the government is opposing the bill does not lend any support to the fact that the government has been stood up by the Greens. This bill proposes to amend section 154 of the Mining Act 1978. That section of the act deals with general penalties. The Greens’ bill proposes that there be an additional penalty of $500 000, with an additional penalty of $50 000 a day, for mining uranium in Western Australia. The bill is a response to the statement made by former Minister Clive Brown on 25 June 2002 when he said that there would be a ban on any mining of uranium on a lease granted from 22 June 2002. That has been the case in Western Australia, which was the government’s attempt to buy time. Hon Jon Ford, representing the government in this matter, did not say that on 28 April last year, at an Australian Labor Party federal conference in the eastern states, now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reversed Labor’s policy on uranium mining. Remember the big build-up to that conference when the various factions of the Labor Party were all fighting about whether the position on uranium mining should or should not change? Federally, Labor changed it. That happened at that conference in 2007, which really shot out the door former Minister Clive Brown’s statement of 2002. It is not new that Labor should use political spin and an opportunity for a political stunt to state its position in the community. If there is an emotional issue in the community, or even within the Labor Party’s own ranks, it will use the process of political spin to exploit any subject at the expense of the potential long-term economic and social benefits that would flow through to the community. We have learnt during the period that this government has been in office that Labor is all about political spin. It is fair to say that substance and scientific fact do not count for a row of beans in the parliamentary debate when Labor is presenting its case because Labor is all about a cheap political headline day in and day out. Of course we saw that cheap political headline on the front page of this morning’s newspaper about the Minister for Education and Training’s shot at an Independent Labor member of the lower house. There are internal ructions within the Labor Party; it must be a very interesting proposition to go to caucus meetings these days and see who is batting whom. Hon Sue Ellery: About as interesting as yours!

[2] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson

Hon GEORGE CASH: I have to tell members, with great respect, that I am not meant to talk about ours, but ours are a bit boring! Several members interjected. Hon GEORGE CASH: They are. Our members are united behind their leader. They are not like Labor Party members at the moment. Several members interjected. Hon GEORGE CASH: Have a look at the Labor Party policy. Several members interjected. Hon GEORGE CASH: Mr President, as soon as I mention Labor Party caucus meetings, what happens? Labor Party members react in a defensive way because they know they are in trouble. Read this morning’s paper. Hon Graham Giffard: I didn’t react. Hon GEORGE CASH: I know Hon Graham Giffard did not react, because he is working pretty hard at the moment on his political future. I tell him what? I wish him well because he is one of the better Labor members of this place, and I hope that he is able to remain a member of this place and make the continued contribution that he makes today. Hon Sue Ellery: Kiss of death! Hon Jon Ford: It’s all over for him! Hon Simon O’Brien: If you need references, Graham! Hon Graham Giffard: Give the honourable member a break! Hon GEORGE CASH: I am just saying that Labor is all about political spin. The 2002 statement was a hoax not only on the community but also on members of the Labor Party. They were stitched up in 2007 when now Prime Minister Mr Rudd decided that he would reverse the policy on uranium mining. If members have read some of the articles, and, in fact the speech given to the Labor round table in Perth last year prior to the federal conference making its decision, they would have been interested to note that Senator Evans spent an awful lot of time softening everyone up, saying that there was a need for Labor to acknowledge that the world had moved on, so to speak, and that Labor had to review its position on uranium. He clearly knew that it was about to change at that federal conference. One reason the opposition does not support this bill in its present form is that we say it interferes with the serious potential energy solutions that are available to us in Western Australia, and indeed across Australia. We recognise that there is a significant need for this country and other countries to realise that climate change will force the hand of various governments to change their ways into the future in respect of clean fuels. Members will be aware, for instance, that Professor Ross Garnaut, who was commissioned by both state and territory governments and indeed by the federal Labor opposition as it was in those days, published an interim report just the other day. Much of his report concentrated on the urgency that the world expected from governments in respect of addressing energy problems, and, indeed, the problems associated with the current use of fuel, which is producing far too many emissions of greenhouse gases. In the published interim report, Professor Garnaut clearly outlined the significant growth in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for industrial purposes through the twentieth century, and highlighted the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the first six years of the twenty-first century when CO2 increased at 3.1 per cent a year compared with a growth of only 1.1 per cent a year in the last decade of the twentieth century. This report was commissioned by the Labor governments and the federal Labor opposition to tell them what they should be doing about the issues relating to climate change and the question of energy into the future for Australia. We would argue that there is a fundamental responsibility on a government to its people in prioritising matters. Obviously, the major priority for the federal government is the defence of the nation and for the state government it is areas of health, law and order, education and those types of things. Those are the prime responsibilities that governments are required to provide for the people of the state. The government must also provide an opportunity for input into the question of energy and recognise that there is an expanding need for energy to maintain an expanding economy and the lifestyle requirements of the people. It is clearly critical that reliable, competitively priced energy supplies should underpin any economic development and not affect living standards into the future. Having said that, we cannot rely on fossil fuels for ever and ever. Although this is not an argument for nuclear power stations, it is an argument that recognises that the Australian Labor Party has changed the position on uranium mining that it had maintained for a considerable amount of time. When it suits the Labor Party, it uses scientific evidence to try to score a political point, but it

[3] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson also dismisses scientific evidence it conflicts with its political position. In this case the political position of the Labor Party is being argued today. It says one thing on one hand and does something on the other hand. In 2002 the Labor Party was all about banning the mining of uranium in Western Australia. In 2007 the federal government reversed its position on uranium mining across Australia. The federal government is no doubt talking to the state government and telling it that it will have to fall into line whether it likes it or not. This bill is a political stunt; not a political stunt from the Greens, but a political stunt based on a Labor Party hoax, because the Greens themselves were conned by the Labor Party into believing that the 2002 statement was going to be brought into practice. It was never going to happen. We say on our side that this particular bill has the potential to jeopardise Western Australia’s future energy needs and, indeed, jeopardise the potential energy needs of customers around the world. In my view, it defies the issue of climate change and demonstrates the gross hypocrisy of the Labor Party, which on one hand claims that it wants to address climate change but on the other hand wants to institute arrangements that propose to burn black coal and brown coal in an attempt to satisfy Western Australia’s rapidly growing electricity needs. There is no doubt that the Labor Party statement in 2002 and the motives behind it were politically opportunistic and, indeed, potentially disastrous for this state. I do not believe that there is any need for me to say any more. I have read a number of reports that were published by the Australian government. One titled “Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy— opportunities for Australia?” was published in December 2006, and is a voluminous report. There is no need today to go into that matter. I will be very interested, when we get on to the Labor Party’s Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill, if we ever do. Another document is titled “Australia’s uranium—Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world: A case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources for the Inquiry into developing Australia’s non-fossil fuel energy industry”. It is a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources published in November 2006 and is very interesting. Many other reports are available on the question of whether Australia should mine uranium and, in particular, whether Western Australia should mine uranium. We say that that opportunity should not be legislated against, as would be the case if this particular bill were passed. We also say that the minister was somewhat obscure when he suggested that the mining industry at the moment was not pushing the question of uranium mining in Western Australia. Hon Jon Ford: Uranium production. Hon GEORGE CASH: Right. In fact, the 2002 ban on the mining of uranium did not take away the opportunity for persons and companies with previously issued mining leases to mine uranium. That opportunity obviously still exists, as the minister would be aware. Hon Norman Moore: They are also making available exploration licences for uranium. Hon GEORGE CASH: Indeed, and that just shows the hypocrisy of the current policy. I am pleased that the government is doing that. Hon Jon Ford: I think I said that one of the problems with the bill was that, in my view, it would prohibit exploration. Hon GEORGE CASH: What was Hon Clive Brown talking about in 2002? Hon Jon Ford: He had the view that it needed a requirement to do that. Hon GEORGE CASH: Is the minister saying that has changed? Hon Jon Ford: The current legislation—that is, section 110 of the Mining Act—provides for putting an endorsement on a lease to mine or not mine for certain elements. We have banned uranium mining for the purpose of production. Hon GEORGE CASH: That opportunity has always been there. It was exercised in 2002 for uranium. Hon Jon Ford: However, if a miner who does not have those endorsements on his lease because it was issued prior to that policy coming into place was to pursue a production licence, depending on how that goes we would consider bringing in legislation to block it. Hon GEORGE CASH: The issue that arises there is the question of compensation. That question was asked in 2002 when this statement was made and it is a question that the Labor Party has never properly addressed because I do not think the Labor Party knows the answer to the question of compensation. I might say that I do not think anyone knows the answer to the question of the quantum of compensation until it is addressed in a court. I think that is really a throwaway line from the minister, because it has always existed. The fact is that holders of leases prior to 2002 that were not specifically endorsed against uranium have a right to mine uranium.

[4] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson

Whether they get the production licence is another question, but that is a matter that then raises the issue of compensation. Obviously, the Labor Party in Western Australia is confused on its position on uranium mining; there is no question about that at all. Perhaps the Labor Party in Western Australia should ring Mr Rudd to check what he thinks today on the question. He made a decision last year at the federal Labor conference. Not knowing too much about federal Labor conferences, I would expect that members from Western Australia were present; in fact, Senator Chris Evans from Western Australia was pushing the barrow on behalf of the Prime Minister by supporting the Prime Minister in the run-up to that decision. Again, I say that the 2002 statement was a hoax. This bill is founded on the hoax that was perpetrated by Labor, and we clearly cannot support it. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [10.39 am] — in reply: I would like to respond to the contribution that we have heard this morning. Quite rightly, Hon George Cash has pointed out that the issue here is that the Labor Party has a contradictory position on uranium mining and is hopelessly compromised by having a bet each way when it comes to uranium mining. Clearly, the intention of this bill was to put squarely before the government that it has, in dismissing this bill, reneged on the commitment that was given in 2002. I have a lot of sympathy with the view put by Hon George Cash that what the government did at the time was all about making the right impression; it never intended to honour its commitment and formally follow through with legislation. It is interesting to go back to the debate that took place several years ago about the potential for a nuclear waste dump to be established in Western Australia. That debate was taken up by all sides of politics. Much of that debate was about whether legislation should be enacted to deal with that matter. In fact, when the former Premier, , was Leader of the Opposition during the time of the Court Liberal government, he championed adamantly that it was not enough just to accept the policy position of the Court government to oppose the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in Western Australia; we needed to enact legislation to put that policy into effect. Hon Norman Moore: We actually brought in legislation. Hon GIZ WATSON: I realise that, and I am not making a criticism of the member’s side of politics — Hon Norman Moore: No, but the Labor Party amended that legislation. Hon GIZ WATSON: That is right. The point I am making is that the then Leader of the Opposition was passionate in his view that it was not good enough just to take a policy position. I agree. Premiers change, and positions change. When the community feels strongly about an issue and we take a policy position on that issue, we need to enshrine that policy position in law. Therefore, while I thank the Premier for his firm position on and personal commitment to oppose uranium mining in Western Australia, I believe he is engaging in a very dangerous game of political brinkmanship. It is not wise leadership to simply say that uranium mining will not take place in this state as long as he is Premier. No Premier lasts forever. We often hear about the volatility of politics and political parties. As we all know, in politics people come and go very quickly. I am not suggesting for one moment that I think the Premier should come or go, or anything else. However, it verges on arrogance to suggest that an issue as significant as whether Western Australia should provide the capacity for uranium mining should rest merely on whether the Premier of the day supports it. We know that accidents happen. We know that Premiers change. We know that governments are voted out. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before this policy position will be changed. It is for that reason that we should take action to enshrine in legislation that any change to the state’s policy on uranium mining will require the concurrence of both houses of Parliament. It is a nonsense to suggest that this matter can be dealt with under the current provisions of the Mining Act. I acknowledge that to date no company has attempted to challenge the government’s position. However, there is also no reason that the commitment that was given by the then Minister for State Development should not be carried through and put into effect. Hon George Cash raised the issue of compensation. This bill is very limited. It was drafted simply to implement a prohibition on the granting of uranium mining leases after June 2002. That means that no company can make a claim for compensation on the basis that it was unaware that the government would not give it a lease for uranium mining after June 2002, because that is clearly the policy position of the government, Hon Jon Ford: I think the compensation argument that was raised by Hon George Cash related to the period prior to when we brought in this legislation. Hon GIZ WATSON: Absolutely. However, the issue of compensation would need to be dealt with at a later date. Hon George Cash: In the final paragraph of your second reading speech, you make it clear that once this bill has been passed, you will approach the government to discuss how the issue of pre-22 June 2002 mining leases can be best dealt with. That is obviously a live question for the Greens. It is also a live question for the government. We have always recognised that those people have a right to mine.

[5] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson

Hon GIZ WATSON: That is an issue that would need to be resolved outside of this legislation. We are not suggesting that compensation with regard to pre-existing leases is dealt with in this bill. Hon George Cash: We do not need legislation to lift the current prohibition. The minister for mines can by the stroke of a pen lift that prohibition tomorrow. Hon GIZ WATSON: Correct. Hon George Cash: That is the danger that you face, because you now cannot trust the Labor Party in what it says and what it does. Hon GIZ WATSON: I will respond to that, because in my nearly 11 years in this place, unfortunately that has been the case. I say that with respect, because I work well with the Labor Party on many issues. However, when it comes to being promised things that do not occur, those promises have all come from this side of the house. I say that with all sincerity. I may not like what the Liberal opposition says, or what the Liberal Party did when it was in government, but what it said it would do, it actually did do. Hon George Cash: Hear, hear! Hon Jon Ford: A ringing endorsement from the Greens! Hon GIZ WATSON: I have talked about the changing political climate. It is very important that we acknowledge that since the introduction of this bill, there has been a change of policy within the Labor Party at the federal level. I understand that this issue was closely fought at the national level. Nevertheless, this adds to the increasing uncertainty about what the position of the state Labor Party will be when it comes to resisting pressure from its federal colleagues to open up Western Australia to uranium mining. For that reason in particular, it causes me even greater concern that the government is not willing to support this bill. It also causes concern to the numerous Western Australians who want the government to take a clear and unambiguous position on uranium mining. The government is leaving the door open. All those people who are passionate about the need to take firm measures to prohibit uranium mining in Western Australia have enormous concern that this government is not willing to hold true to its commitment and is trying to have a bet each way on this issue. Hon George Cash: Tony Blair changed his position on nuclear power stations. I guess the current Labor government is reviewing its position right now on nuclear power stations. This government says one thing and does another. Hon GIZ WATSON: Absolutely! However, I acknowledge that within the state Labor Party rank and file there is a strong commitment to maintain opposition to uranium mining in this state. I just wish that the Labor Party’s parliamentary representatives would consider this bill more thoroughly and realise that this bill is not in conflict with their policy or with what they have already promised they will do. I actually think this is just a tactic by the Premier to put his personal stamp on this matter by saying that so long as he is the Premier of this state, there will be no uranium mining in this state. Although that is an admirable personal statement, and we appreciate the Premier’s commitment, it is not wise politics. It is also not a position that will ensure that in the long-term future, and even in the medium-term future, there will be no uranium mining in Western Australia. It is a very high risk and dangerous tactic, because, as I have said, Premiers do not last forever. We need a commitment from the Premier that he will deal with this matter by enacting legislation. If the government does not believe that this legislation is the right legislation to deal with this matter, I challenge it to come up with legislation that does reflect its policy position. This significant matter should not be left to languish so that it can be altered, as Hon George Cash has said, by the mining minister at the stroke of a pen. Other significant policy matters are not left to languish at that low level; they are dealt with in legislation. I remind members again that this is the approach that was taken when legislation was enacted to deal with prohibiting the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in Western Australia. Uranium mining is the other end of that process. However, it is just as dangerous, because it also has a significant impact on the environment and on public health. I want to give members some indication of what we will be looking at if uranium mining does take place in Western Australia. I have been reviewing some figures for Olympic Dam, which is the large uranium mine in South Australia. Olympic Dam is producing 10 million tonnes of radioactive waste annually. That equates to one tonne every four seconds. That mining process produces a phenomenal amount of waste material that remains radioactive and a risk to human health, animal health and environmental health for an unbelievable length of time—in fact, beyond a time that we can ever conceive of. That is the reason many people in Western Australia want this government to take the strongest possible measures to prevent uranium mining in this state. I think a lot of people would want the measures to go beyond legislation. They would like them to be enshrined in the state Constitution—whenever we get around to reviewing that rather messy piece of legislation that is the state Constitution. With those words, I seek the support of the house for this bill. Question put and a division taken with the following result —

[6] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 10 April 2008] p2129b-2135a Hon Norman Moore; President; Hon Jon Ford; Hon George Cash; Hon Giz Watson

Ayes (2)

Hon Giz Watson Hon Paul Llewellyn (Teller)

Noes (26)

Hon Ken Baston Hon Sue Ellery Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Batong Pham Hon George Cash Hon Brian Ellis Hon Ray Halligan Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Vincent Catania Hon Donna Faragher Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott Hon Peter Collier Hon Adele Farina Hon Sheila Mills Hon Sally Talbot Hon Ed Dermer Hon Anthony Fels Hon Norman Moore Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm (Teller) Hon Kate Doust Hon Jon Ford Hon Helen Morton Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Graham Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien

Question thus negatived. Bill defeated.

[7]