DOCSLIB.ORG

The Partial Defence of Provocation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Partial Defence of Provocation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation The partial defence of provocation Ordered to be printed 23 April 2013 according to Standing Order 231. Report – April 2013 i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The partial defence of provocation New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation. The partial defence of provocation / Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : The Committee, 2013. – xiv, 244p. ; 30 cm. Chair: Revd the Hon Fred Nile MLC. “April 2013” ISBN 9781920788568 1. Provocation (Criminal law)—New South Wales. 2. Defence (Criminal procedure)—New South Wales. 3. Criminal liability— New South Wales. I. Title II. Nile, Fred. III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation. Report ; no. 1. 345.944 (DDC22) ii Report – April 2013 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARTIAL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION How to contact the Committee Members of the Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation can be contacted through the Committee Secretariat. Written correspondence and enquiries should be directed to: The Director Select Committee on the partial defence of provocation Legislative Council Parliament House, Macquarie Street Sydney New South Wales 2000 Internet www.parliament.nsw.gov.au Email [email protected] Telephone 02 9230 3504 Facsimile 02 9230 2981 Report – April 2013 iii LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The partial defence of provocation Terms of reference 1. That the Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation inquire into and report on: (a) the retention of the partial defence of provocation including: (i) abolishing the defence, (ii) amending the elements of the defence in light of proposals in other jurisdictions, (b) the adequacy of the defence of self-defence for victims of prolonged domestic and sexual violence, and (c) any other related matters. 2. That the Committee report by 2 May 2013. These terms of reference were referred to the Committee by the Legislative Council: Minutes No. 92, 14 June 2012, Item 10. iv Report – April 2013 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARTIAL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION Committee membership Revd the Hon Fred Nile MLC Christian Democratic Party (Chair) The Hon Trevor Khan MLC The Nationals (Deputy Chair) The Hon David Clarke MLC Liberal Party Mr Scot MacDonald MLC Liberal Party The Hon Adam Searle MLC Australian Labor Party Mr David Shoebridge MLC The Greens The Hon Helen Westwood MLC Australian Labor Party Secretariat Ms Rachel Callinan, Director Ms Vanessa Viaggio, Principal Council Officer Ms Lynn Race, Council Officer Assistant Report – April 2013 v LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The partial defence of provocation Table of contents Chairman’s foreword x Summary of recommendations xii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Establishment of the Committee 1 Terms of reference 1 Conduct of the Inquiry 2 Timeframe 2 Submissions 2 Hearings 3 Options Paper 3 Overview of stakeholder views 3 Supporters of abolition 3 Supporters of retention without amendment 4 Supporters of retention with amendment 5 Other suggestions 5 Structure of report 6 Chapter 2 Defences to homicide and provocation in the NSW context 7 The distinction between murder and manslaughter 7 Defences to murder 8 Self-defence 8 Excessive self-defence 9 Provocation 10 Substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind 14 Provocation being run with other defences and partial defences 17 How frequently is the provocation defence raised, and by whom? 18 What circumstances lead to homicides in which provocation is accepted? 19 Judicial Commission study – manslaughter on the basis of provocation in the period 1 January 1990 to 21 September 2004 19 Fitz-Gibbon study – manslaughter on the basis of provocation in the period January 2005 to December 2010 21 Average sentences for murder and manslaughter in NSW 22 Chapter 3 Provocation in other jurisdictions 23 Australian jurisdictions 23 Tasmania 23 vi Report – April 2013 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARTIAL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION Australian Capital Territory 24 Victoria 24 Northern Territory 26 Western Australia 26 Queensland 27 International jurisdictions 28 New Zealand 28 United Kingdom 30 Chapter 4 Key issues raised in respect of provocation 33 Gender bias 33 Gender bias against women 34 Gender bias against homosexual men, or against men perceived to be homosexual 40 Committee comment 45 Anachronistic and archaic 46 Committee comment 48 Promotes a culture of victim blaming 49 Committee comment 52 Concerns about the legal test for provocation 53 Loss of self-control 53 The ‘ordinary person’ test – the objective test 57 The impact of the legal test and the ability of the jury to understand it 60 Committee comment 63 Chapter 5 Abolition of provocation: sentencing and the adequacy of self-defence 67 Overview 67 Risks associated with dealing with provocation as a sentencing factor only 67 Committee comment 73 Self-defence 74 Overview 74 Adequacy of self-defence for victims of prolonged violence 76 ‘Strengthening’ self-defence for ‘battered women’ 78 Committee comment 82 Review by the NSW Law Reform Commission 82 Committee comment 86 Committee conclusion 87 Chapter 6 Reform options 89 ‘Positive restriction’ model 89 Inquiry participant views on the ‘positive restriction’ model 89 Report – April 2013 vii LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The partial defence of provocation Committee comment 94 ‘Exclusionary conduct’ model 96 General views on the ‘exclusionary conduct’ model 96 Responses to excluding specific conduct 97 The Clinton case experience and its impact on exclusionary conduct models 106 Committee comment 113 Reforming the legal test (the Wood model) 115 Reforming the legal test 115 Self-induced intoxication 119 Self-induced provocation 120 Inquiry participant comment on the Wood model 121 Committee comment 123 Chapter 7 Reform options continued 125 A ‘gross provocation’ model 125 The United Kingdom Law Commission’s views on provocation 125 The Law Commission’s ‘gross provocation’ model 127 The ‘gross provocation’ model in the Options Paper 136 Raising the requisite standard in the objective test 138 Additional exclusions 138 Stakeholder views on the ‘gross provocation’ model 140 Removal of the requirement of ‘loss of self-control’ 140 Raising the bar to require that provocation be ‘grossly provocative’ 141 Overlap with self-defence and excessive self-defence 143 Revised test 145 Exclusionary conduct provisions 148 The role of the judge and jury 152 Chapter 8 Procedural and evidentiary issues 155 Procedural issues 155 Pre-trial disclosure 155 Charge negotiation, and prosecutorial guidelines 157 Evidentiary issues 168 The onus and standard of proof 168 ‘Social framework’ evidence 178 Restricting evidence that denigrates the deceased 186 Chapter 9 Elements of a preferred model 191 Outline of the model 191 Overriding principle underpinning the partial defence of provocation 191 In what circumstances should provocation be available? 192 In what circumstances should provocation be unavailable or further restricted? 197 The role of the judge and jury 204 viii Report – April 2013 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARTIAL DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION Non-legislative recommendations 205 Education 205 Review of the law of homicide and homicide defences 208 Concluding comment 209 Appendix 1 Submissions 211 Appendix 2 Witnesses at hearings 213 Appendix 3 Tabled documents 216 Appendix 4 Answers to questions on notice 217 Appendix 5 Suggested direction [6-410] to jury on the defence of provocation 218 Appendix 6 Minutes 220 Report – April 2013 ix LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The partial defence of provocation Chairman’s foreword I am pleased to present the unanimous Report of the Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation. The Committee was established in June 2012 following the high profile Singh case. The motion establishing the Committee received support from across the political spectrum, demonstrating the significance and urgency with which the issue was viewed. In Singh, Mr Singh stood trial for murder after cutting his wife’s throat several times with a box-cutter. Mr Singh claimed that his wife, Manpreet Kaur, provoked him by telling him she had never loved him, was in love with someone else and threatened to have him deported and, that as a result, he lost his self-control and killed her. Mr Singh was convicted of manslaughter based on the partial defence of provocation and sentenced to a non-parole term of imprisonment of six years. The community outrage at the killing being described as ‘manslaughter’ not ‘murder’, and the sentence length is certainly understandable. It is difficult to comprehend how a man who kills his wife in such circumstances could be entitled to even a partial defence to murder. A series of arguments for abolishing the partial defence were presented. In particular, the Committee heard that the defence has tended to favour men and the archetypal male response to ‘provocative’ circumstances. It was also argued that the defence’s historical roots no longer justify retaining it, as NSW no longer has the death penalty or mandatory sentencing provisions for murder. Perhaps the most persuasive argument is that in today’s modern society, we expect that citizens will maintain their self-control, even in circumstances that might be ‘provocative’. It is unacceptable that the law offers a partial defence to people who kill in response to ‘provocative’ circumstances which are, in fact, a normal part of human experience, such as being told a relationship is going to end, discovering infidelity, or feeling jealous or betrayed. However, the Committee was unable to reach a consensus on whether the partial defence of provocation should be abolished. The Committee has been mindful that there are some defendants, particularly women who have been victims of long-term domestic abuse, for whom the partial defence of provocation may appropriately reflect their legal and moral responsibility in circumstances where self-defence would be difficult to establish. The Committee has therefore developed a reform model, which draws on extensive consultation undertaken by the Committee throughout the Inquiry.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 191-Greg-Donnelly.Pdf
    LE G I S LA TI V E A S S EM B LY FO R TH E AU S TR A LI A N CA PI TA L TER RI TO R Y SELECT COMMITTEE ON END OF LIFE CHOICES IN THE ACT Ms Bec Cody MLA (Chair), Mrs Vicki Dunne MLA (Deputy Chair) , Ms Tara Cheyne MLA, Mrs Elizabeth Kikkert MLA, Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA. Submission Cover Sheet End of Life Choices in the ACT Submission Number : 191 Date Authorised for Publication : 29/3/18 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The Honourable Greg Donnelly MLC 9th March 2018 Committee Secretary Select Committee on End of Life Choices in the ACT Legislative Assembly for the ACT GPO Box 1020 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Dear Committee Secretary, RE: Inquiry into End of Life Choices in the ACT My name is Greg Donnelly and I am a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council. As the Committee may be aware, late last year the New South Wales Legislative Council debated a bill that provided for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The bill was entitled the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017. The following link will take you to the webpage relating to the bill https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-detai1s.aspx?pk=3422. The bill was debated, voted on and defeated. As you would expect both MLCs and MLAs received a significant number of submissions and letters from organisations and constituents expressing serious concerns regarding the proposed legislation and calling on both Houses to unanimously oppose the bill. With respect to the submissions and letters, they dealt with both the broader concerns relating to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia legislation as well as particular deficiencies and shortcomings regarding the bill that was before the Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Council- PROOF Page 1
    Tuesday, 15 October 2019 Legislative Council- PROOF Page 1 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Tuesday, 15 October 2019 The PRESIDENT (The Hon. John George Ajaka) took the chair at 14:30. The PRESIDENT read the prayers and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thanked them for their custodianship of this land. Governor ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of a message regarding the administration of the Government. Bills ABORTION LAW REFORM BILL 2019 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of message from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bill. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL 2019 Protest The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of the following communication from the Official Secretary to the Governor of New South Wales: GOVERNMENT HOUSE SYDNEY Wednesday, 2 October, 2019 The Clerk of the Parliaments Dear Mr Blunt, I write at Her Excellency's command, to acknowledge receipt of the Protest made on 26 September 2019, under Standing Order 161 of the Legislative Council, against the Bill introduced as the "Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019" that was amended so as to change the title to the "Abortion Law Reform Bill 2019'" by the following honourable members of the Legislative Council, namely: The Hon. Rodney Roberts, MLC The Hon. Mark Banasiak, MLC The Hon. Louis Amato, MLC The Hon. Courtney Houssos, MLC The Hon. Gregory Donnelly, MLC The Hon. Reverend Frederick Nile, MLC The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, MLC The Hon. Robert Borsak, MLC The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, MLC The Hon. Mark Latham, MLC I advise that Her Excellency the Governor notes the protest by the honourable members.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aboriginal Languages Bill 2017
    INTRODUCTION OF THE ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES BILL 2017 Paper presented by The Hon. John Ajaka MLC President of the Legislative Council Parliament of New South Wales 49th Presiding Officers and Clerks Conference Wellington, New Zealand Tuesday 10 July 2018 Introduction of the Aboriginal Languages Bill 2018 The Aboriginal Languages Bill 2017 On 11 October 2017 the New South Wales (NSW) Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon Sarah Mitchell MLC, introduced the Aboriginal Languages Bill into the Legislative Council. Debate on the Bill commenced that day and continued the following week. The Bill received unanimous support in both Houses and, following the making of five amendments, the Bill was agreed to and received assent on 24 October. The Act will commence on proclamation, expected later this year. The objects of the bill were: to acknowledge the significance of Aboriginal Languages to the culture and identity of Aboriginal people to establish an Aboriginal Languages Trust governed solely by Aboriginal people to facilitate and support Aboriginal language activities to reawaken, nurture and grow Aboriginal Languages, and to require the development of a strategic plan for the growth and development of Aboriginal Languages. Unusually, the bill included a preamble, a particularly powerful preamble, which has both symbolic and practical meaning: “WHEREAS (a) The languages of the first peoples of the land comprising New South Wales are an integral part of the world's oldest living culture and connect Aboriginal people to each other and to their
    [Show full text]
  • Public Accountability Committee
    REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE BUDGET PROCESS FOR INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT BODIES AND THE PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORRECTED At Jubilee Room, Parliament House, Sydney, on Friday 23 October 2020 The Committee met at 1:00 p.m. PRESENT Mr David Shoebridge (Chair) The Hon. John Graham The Hon. Trevor Khan The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox The Hon. Natalie Ward Friday, 23 October 2020 Legislative Council Page 1 The CHAIR: Welcome to the third hearing of the Public Accountability Committee's inquiry into the budget process for independent oversight bodies and the Parliament of New South Wales. The inquiry is examining the budget process for how the quantum of funding for the key independent oversight bodies is determined and the transparency of that process. Before I commence, I acknowledge the Gadigal people, who are the traditional custodians of this land, and I pay my respects and the respects of the Committee and those in attendance to elders past, present and emerging and extend that respect to other First Nations people present. This is the third hearing for this inquiry and follows the tabling of our first report in March this year. That report examined the budget processes for four oversight bodies: the ICAC, the Electoral Commission, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the Ombudsman. We will today hear from the Auditor-General and the Deputy Auditor-General for New South Wales. The Committee resolved to delay hearing from the Auditor- General at her office's request to avoid any perceived conflict of interest by allowing the Auditor-General to complete the audit requested by the Special Minister of State into the financial and management arrangements of the oversight bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • EMAIL ADDRESS Postal Address for All Upper House Members
    TITLE NAME EMAIL ADDRESS Phone Postal Address for all Upper House Members: Parliament House, 6 Macquarie St, Sydney NSW, 2000 Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party The Hon. Robert Borsak [email protected] (02) 9230 2850 The Hon. Robert Brown [email protected] (02) 9230 3059 Liberal Party The Hon. John Ajaka [email protected] (02) 9230 2300 The Hon. Lou Amato [email protected] (02) 9230 2764 The Hon. David Clarke [email protected] (02) 9230 2260 The Hon. Catherine Cusack [email protected] (02) 9230 2915 The Hon. Scott Farlow [email protected] (02) 9230 3786 The Hon. Don Harwin [email protected] (02) 9230 2080 Mr Scot MacDonald [email protected] (02) 9230 2393 The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones [email protected] (02) 9230 3727 The Hon. Shayne Mallard [email protected] (02) 9230 2434 The Hon. Taylor Martin [email protected] 02 9230 2985 The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox [email protected] (02) 9230 3557 The Hon. Greg Pearce [email protected] (02) 9230 2328 The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps [email protected] (02) 9230 3462 National Party: The Hon. Niall Blair [email protected] (02) 9230 2467 The Hon. Richard Colless [email protected] (02) 9230 2397 The Hon. Wes Fang [email protected] (02) 9230 2888 The Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Hansard VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING BILL 2017 NSW 16 November 2017
    VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING BILL 2017 Second Reading Debate The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. Walt Secord, on behalf of all members I welcome all visitors in the public gallery to the New South Wales Legislative Council. I know they are here to watch the proceedings. A number of rules apply not only to members but also to people in the public gallery who will be listening to the debate. No matter what they think about what is said, they need to listen to the debate quietly. Applause, jeering or any other gestures are not permitted. Visitors are also not to attempt to talk to members in the Chamber. If they have something to say to those who are seated next to them I ask them to do so quietly. There should be no audible conversation. Photographs and filming are not permitted apart from the media photographers who have been authorised to do so. Please follow any instructions by officers of Parliament. No signs or other props are to be utilised during the debate. The Hon. WALT SECORD ( 10:41 ): I contribute to debate on the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 which was introduced by the Hon. Trevor Khan, Deputy President and Chairman of Committees and a Nationals member of Parliament. I acknowledge that this bill was developed in conjunction with an informal parliamentary working group comprising a number of members from various parties. This bill, while simple, is historic. It has significant and far-reaching implications and it encapsulates more than the simple slogan of the right to die.
    [Show full text]
  • Portfolio Committee No. 4 – Legal Affairs
    REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 – LEGAL AFFAIRS EMERGENCY SERVICES AGENCIES UNCORRECTED PROOF At Macquarie Room, Parliament House, Sydney on Monday, 18 September 2017 The Committee met at 12:00 PRESENT The Hon. R. Borsak (Chair) The Hon. D. Clarke The Hon. C. Cusack The Hon. G. Donnelly The Hon. T. Khan The Hon. P. Primrose Mr D. Shoebridge The Hon. L. Voltz Monday, 18 September 2017 Legislative Council Page 1 The CHAIR: Welcome to the first hearing of Portfolio Committee No. 4 inquiring into emergency services agencies. Before I commence I would like to acknowledge the Gadigal people who are the traditional custodians of this land. I would also like to pay respect to elders past and present of the Eora nation and extend that respect to other Aboriginals present. The Committee is here today because our inquiry is considering the policy response to bullying, harassment and discrimination in emergency services agencies, including the NSW Rural Fire Service, Fire and Rescue NSW, the NSW Police Force, the Ambulance Service of NSW and the NSW State Emergency Service. This includes examining the prevalence of the issue, the effectiveness of what is in place to manage and resolve such complaints, along with what support is available for victims, workers and volunteers of emergency services agencies. Today is the first of several hearings we plan to hold for this inquiry. We will hear today from representatives of the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association, representatives from the NSW Rural Fire Service Association and senior officers from the NSW Rural Fire Service. I would like also to make some brief comments about the procedures for today's hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Back at the Years of Campaigning to Achieve Legal Voluntary Assisted Dying in NSW
    Looking back at the years of campaigning to achieve Legal Voluntary Assisted Dying in NSW A talk to Dying with Dignity NSW Central Coast Group on 17 August 2018 Richard Mills, Former President, DWDnsw What I am going to look at today: The 2013 campaign: what DWDnsw did and what we learned; The 2017 campaign: some major points; and The institutional influence of the Churches, the doctors and the politicians, and what we can do. The 2013 Campaign In September 2010, a Greens Member of the Legislative Council, Cate Faehrmann, moved to introduce a Private Member's Bill called “The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill”. It remained at the bottom of the list until May 2013, when, surprisingly, the Government allowed the Bill to be debated. Here was a real test for DWDnsw. A number of things were encouraging. DWDnsw already had close relations with Cate. She had facilitated our annual Parliamentary Forum, and we had been active in advising her on all aspects of her Bill. The latest opinion poll reaffirmed what we already knew. Over 80 per cent of Australians supported voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients. The independent think-tank Australia21 had just released a thorough report calling on Australia’s parliaments to embrace assisted dying. There was pressure for law reform in other States, especially South Australia and Tasmania. Overseas, the Canadian province Quebec had announced it would introduce a law to recognise aid in dying as a legal and protected medical practice. A number of legislatures in the United States had assisted dying Bills up for debate, and in Massachusetts, a citizens’ initiative had just failed by the barest of margins - 51% to 49% - to approve an assisted dying law.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript Will Be Placed on the Committee's Website When It Becomes Available
    REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES REVIEW OF THE HERITAGE ACT 1977 UNCORRECTED Fully Virtual Hearing via Videoconference on Monday 2 August 2021 The Committee met at 9:30 PRESENT The Hon. Peter Poulos (Chair) The Hon. Mark Buttigieg (Deputy Chair) The Hon. Trevor Khan The Hon. Shayne Mallard The Hon Taylor Martin Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile The Hon. Peter Primrose The Hon. Walt Secord Mr David Shoebridge Monday, 2 August 2021 Legislative Council Page 1 UNCORRECTED The CHAIR: Welcome to the virtual hearing for the review of the Heritage Act 1977. Before I commence, I acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, who are the traditional custodians of this land. I pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging, and extend that respect to other Aboriginal people present. Today's hearing will be the first ever fully virtual hearing by a Legislative Council committee. This enables the work of the Committee to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic, without compromising the health and safety of members, witnesses and staff. As we break new ground with technology, I ask for everyone's patience through any technical difficulties we may encounter today. If participants lose their internet connection and are disconnected from the virtual hearing, they are asked to rejoin the hearing by using the same link as provided by the Committee secretariat. Today we will hear from Government witnesses, including the Hon. Don Harwin, MLC, Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and the Arts, and Special Minister of State, together with Ms Kate Foy, Deputy Secretary, Community Engagement, Department of Premier and Cabinet, and Mr Matthew Clark, Director, Heritage Strategy and Policy, Heritage NSW, Community Engagement, Department of Premier and Cabinet.
    [Show full text]
  • Robbie & Wendy Show Dominate Nsw Parliament
    ROBBIE & WENDY SHOW DOMINATE NSW PARLIAMENT - POWERHOUSE AND HARWIN INTERVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – FEBRUARY 25, 2020 – NSW PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WILLOW GROVE HERITAGE BUILDING The Hon. ADAM SEARLE – Leader of the Opposition (16:02:03): My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as arts Minister. Given the Minister's 10 April 2019 comments on ABC Radio where he told broadcasters Robbie Buck and Wendy Harmer when asked if heritage property Willow Grove would be demolished to make way for the new Powerhouse Museum that "No, we have not said that at all", will he now admit that he misled the local community, the media and the people of this State? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:02:30): No, I have not misled the local community at all. The Hon. Walt Secord – Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Minister for the Arts: Fibber! The ACTING PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! The Hon. Walt Secord's comment is entirely inappropriate. The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Government conducted a thorough investigation into the relocation of the Powerhouse Museum to achieve the best outcomes for the community. The selected site on the banks of the Parramatta River is the ideal location for the new museum. The project's business case is underpinned by extensive architectural, heritage, museological, geotechnical engineering and flood-risk studies. The Government understands its importance to the community and the international design competition for the new Powerhouse Parramatta focused on developing concept designs to get the best outcome for the people of New South Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • Select Committee on Home Schooling Inquiry Into Home
    REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOME SCHOOLING INQUIRY INTO HOME SCHOOLING ——— CORRECTED PROOF At Sydney on 5 September 2014** ——— The Committee met at 9.15 a.m. ——— PRESENT The Hon. P. Green (Chair) Dr J. Kaye (Deputy Chair) The Hon. D Clarke The Hon. C. Cusack The Hon. T Khan The Hon. A. Searle The Hon. H. Westwood CORRECTED PROOF Home schooling 1 FRIDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRECTED PROOF CHAIR: Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the Select Committee into Home Schooling. The inquiry is reviewing the home schooling practices and comparing the practice with other jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand. Before I commence, I would like to acknowledge the Gadigal people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. I would also pay my respects to the elders past and present of the Eora nation and extend that respect to all other Aboriginals. The hearing today is the first of two hearings we plan to hold for this inquiry. Today we will hear from the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW, the Department of Education and Communities, the Australian Home Education Service, home schooling parents, the Home Education Support and Action Network, the Sydney Home Education Network and the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Before we commence I would like to make some brief comments about the procedures today. In terms of broadcasting, in accordance with the broadcasting guidelines, while members of the media may film or record committee members and witnesses, people in the gallery should not be the primary focus of any filming or photography.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue Lawyer Photo Employee Newsletter
    O C T O B E R 2 0 1 9 The Civil Source Newsletter of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties Historic Abortion Reform Bill passed by NSW Parliament B Y N S W C C L V I C E P R E S I D E N T , D R L E S L E Y L Y N C H This issue: Decriminalisation of Abortion in NSW On Thursday 26th September the NSW Parliament at long last acted to 2019 Annual Dinner remove abortion from the criminal law and regulate it as a women’s health Inaugural Awards for issue with the passage of the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019 - Excellence in Civil Liberties Journalism (now called the Abortion Reform Law 2019). This is a big and very overdue Action on Climate historical moment for women. NSWCCL Annual General Meeting Women in NSW can now legally access terminations up to 22 weeks into In the media their pregnancy in consultation with their doctor. After 22 weeks they can access a termination in consultation with two medical practitioners. Achieving this in NSW has required a very, very long campaign by numerous organisations and individuals with ups and many downs since the 1960s. This most recent and successful campaign push over several years was sustained by a broad and powerful alliance of organisations encompassing women’s, legal, health, civil liberties and human rights issues. Some of these - such as WEL and NSWCCL - were long term players for abortion reform of 50 years plus. Cont'd - Historic Abortion Reform Bill for NSW This campaign knew it had strong, majority support in the community.
    [Show full text]