Hansard debates

         SUSTAINABLE FORESTS (TIMBER) AND WILDLIFE AMENDMENT BILL 2013
                                 Second reading
Debate  resumed from 4 February;  motion of Hon. G.  K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant
Treasurer).

  Ms PENNICUIK (Southern  Metropolitan)  -- Despite  being  warned that a  large
number of duck shooters were gathering at a wetland where it had been reported a
massacre  had  occurred the  previous  year, no officers  of  the Department  of
Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) were present on the opening morning --
they turned up only  after  hundreds  of birds, including more than 100 precious
freckled  ducks,  had  been massacred.  Had  DEPI been  fulfilling  its wildlife
protection function it would have been  aware of  the presence of a large number
of freckled ducks at Box Flat swamp and would have closed it to shooting.

Instead the game unit of the DEPI acts as a cheer squad for duck shooting.
Finally, Field and Game  Australia is always talking about responsible shooters;
however, as the deputy secretary said, 100 to 150 shooters were present. A large
number were interviewed and admitted  to  being there and to hunting, but nobody
saw any offences committed. No-one showed any responsibility. One hundred to 150
shooters blasted hundreds of birds out of the sky and illegally left them to die
on the water. That is  not responsible. This bill is a disgrace, and the  Greens
will oppose it.

  Mr DRUM (Northern Victoria) -- The  Sustainable Forests (Timber)  and Wildlife
Amendment Bill 2013 is a good piece of legislation that is designed to  keep our
forests and  our waterways clear and prevent them from  becoming quite dangerous
environments.

  Ms Pennicuik -- Dangerous for birds, that's for sure.

  Mr DRUM -- I will take up Ms Pennicuik's interjection that it is dangerous for
birds. Duck hunting has always been dangerous for birds. It has only been in the
last 5 to  10 years that it has  also become dangerous for protesters  who flout
the  regulations  and  protest  under  the  guise  of  animal  welfare  support.
Ultimately those protesters are  putting themselves at genuine risk to highlight
the plight of  wildlife, particularly during the opening of duck hunting season.
They place themselves in the  line of  fire, between  the shooters and the ducks
that are there to be shot. A  couple of years ago we  needed to enhance the laws
that were  put in  place by  the Wildlife  Act 1975  to prevent  protesters from
moving within a  25-metre  exclusion  zone.  These laws have been flouted by the
protesters, so the penalties will now be increased from $1400 up to $8500. There
will be fines associated with this legislation that will see protesters who wish
to harass duck hunters fined to the tune of $3000.

New  offences  of breaching an  exclusion  order in logging  zones  will attract
similar penalties.
These are the two main aspects  of this legislation. The legislation will put in
place a  framework  for  people  who  wish  to  protest against logging and duck
hunting and make sure that authorised officers have the  capacity to enforce the
law  so  that these  types of  activities can  occur in  a  safe  manner.  These
amendments are probably driven by a need  to  protect public safety. However, in
relation to timber  harvesting a considerable  part of the legislation  is based
around enabling people to go about their  work in a dignified manner.  If we are
going to have people  continually protesting, chaining  themselves to trees  and
chaining  up  gates that give  logging companies access  to  selected harvesting
areas, these types of behaviours simply have to be addressed.
There seems to be a lawlessness to the behaviour of many of these protesters.

They do not care what the  law states. They simply want  to carry on in a manner
that suits them, and they do not care about the consequences of their behaviour.
It is not anyone else's concern -- that  is their thinking. It is very important
to  understand  that these  amendments  are  not going  to  prevent  anyone from
protesting against timber  harvesting. People can protest outside the harvesting
zones for  as long and as often as they like and have all the safety afforded to
them that would normally come with such an activity.
When  the  legislation is  in  operation  the Secretary  of  the  Department  of
Environment and Primary Industries will designate the area of the state forest a
public safety zone. Not only will protesters need to stay clear of that zone but
they  will also have to move  on when they are instructed to. If protesters have
dogs that are running 

 Page 330


free, an authorised officer can direct them to bring their  dogs  under  control
and take them away from the respective areas. It will be an offence to pull down
a fence that has been erected to outline the dimensions and area of a particular
timber  harvesting coupe. There are a lot of common-sense provisions within this
bill that fit with the day-to-day operations of a timber harvesting company, and
they will  enable authorised officers  to  ensure that timber  harvesters can go
about their everyday business. The provisions will enable them to deal with many
of the behaviours that have been causing so much trouble in recent times.
An invaluable  aspect of  this legislation  is that it inserts into section 3 of
the  Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 a definition  of 'authorised person'.
Clause 6 expands the purposes of the act to provide for timber harvesting safety
zones. Currently the purposes are too broad in relation  to what a public safety
zone is, so the bill narrows them down and adequately addresses specific  issues
to counter forestry protests.

The bill also provides for  a stronger enforcement regime.  The current offences
and  penalties in the framework have been seen  to be  too limited  in deterring
forestry  protesters  and  far too  lenient  in relation  to  stopping  forestry
protesters from disrupting lawful  forestry operations. Stronger  enforcement is
required  to  effectively  deter unlawful,  dangerous  and  disruptive  forestry
protest activities.
I turn to the new offences and penalties introduced by the bill. It will now  be
an  offence to  refuse or  fail to  comply with  the direction of  an authorised
person to leave and not re-enter a timber  harvesting safety  zone. It will also
be an  offence to  direct a  person operating a vehicle in  a timber  harvesting
safety  zone to  stop or  manoeuvre the  vehicle as  directed. This will incur a
penalty of 20 penalty units, which is effectively $2887.

Authorised  officers  will also be  empowered  to direct  a  person  in apparent
control of  a dog in a timber harvesting safety zone to remove that dog from the
zone. Protesters have  been using dogs as a way of intimidating forestry workers
from going about  their lawful  activities. It  will be an offence for people in
apparent  control of a dog  not to remove that dog  from a harvesting zone.  The
bill also makes it  an offence to enter or  remain in a timber harvesting safety
zone and to be in possession of a prohibited thing in a timber harvesting safety
zone. A 'prohibited thing' is defined in clause 4 of the bill.
More significant fines  will be associated  with some other  offences, including
hindering, obstructing or interfering with timber harvesting operations by using
a prohibited thing, which will incur a penalty of 60 penalty units or $8661.
Hindering,  obstructing or  interfering  with timber  harvesting operations will
incur a penalty of 20 penalty units.

Contravening an exclusion order will incur a penalty  of  60  penalty units, and
refusing or failing to  comply  with a directive to  leave an area will incur  a
penalty of 60 penalty units.
Some  offences have been  replicated  and strengthened and  a range of penalties
will be  associated with them. Simply contravening a direction  of an authorised
officer will incur a penalty of 20 penalty units, and the offence of entering or
remaining within a timber harvesting safety zone if you  are  not  an authorised
person will be strengthened. Removing or destroying a fence or barrier that  has
been set in place to  outline the area of  a coupe -- which effectively  becomes
the timber harvesting safety zone -- and removing or  destroying a  notice of  a
timber  harvesting zone  will also  incur a  penalty to the  tune of  60 penalty
units.
Authorised officers have very important work to do.

It is  interesting that  some of  the new  powers in this act empower authorised
officers to direct a person  to  leave  a  timber  harvesting  safety  zone.  An
authorised  officer will also be  able  to direct a  person  to  stop or move  a
vehicle  in a timber harvesting safety zone and  direct  a  person  in  apparent
control of a dog to remove that dog.
The bill  provides  that  authorised  officers will also have the power to seize
items which potentially come under the heading of 'prohibited things'.  Clause 4
of the bill contains definitions of 'prohibited thing', including a bolt cutter,
cement or mortar mix, a constructed metal  or timber  frame, a  linked or  heavy
steel chain, or a shackle or joining clip. No-one would doubt that many of these
items have been used in a very dangerous manner by timber harvesting protesters.
These items have  been used  for such activities as locking fences and gates and
putting chains around trees.

Sometimes protesters  have even driven metal spikes into trees,  which can cause
incredible damage and be  unbelievably  dangerous  for timber harvesting workers
through no fault of their own when they are going about their business and doing
their jobs.
The vast  majority of Victorians will see the provisions in this bill as  common
sense. It is about time  we let timber harvesting workers go about their work in
a lawful manner. It is  also about  time we  put some restrictions around people
who wish to protest so that their protests  are made in an orderly  fashion. The
people who want to protest have every right to protest  whenever they  want, but
such protests should be 

 Page 331


conducted in a lawful  manner that  enables workers  to continue to do what they
have to do in order to make a living.
This legislation provides those involved in  the timber harvesting industry with
some confidence into the future. A whole range of  reviews  have  been conducted
over the last 5 to 10 years, including an inquiry by the Victorian Environmental
Assessment  Council.  The  council  conducted  a  study  and  handed  down  some
recommendations,  including  that many  timber harvesting  companies  have their
available timber harvest allocations cut by up to 80 per cent. As a result, many
people involved in the forestry industry faced a serious loss of livelihood, and
many timber harvesting companies have had to adapt to these conditions.
Members of the government understand that many of our most pristine forests have
had  selective harvesting  operate within their areas for not just  5, 10  or 15
years but 150 years.

Many forestry coupes are providing a fourth generation of trees -- that is, they
are being harvested for the fourth time. These forests provide a glowing example
of people working in and using forests. They are enjoying forests with all their
associated natural beauty and working in conjunction  with  selective harvesting
companies that understand what it means to look after the health of a forest. In
no way are people in the industry  going to damage the asset that provides their
livelihood.  The sooner we understand that some of the best  custodians  of  our
forests are the people who  have the  capacity to work with the departments, the
better.
Staff from the Department  of Environment and Primary Industries will go out and
selectively  mark  appropriate trees  that  need to be  removed  to allow timber
harvesters to  reach the trees that  remain.  In this way we  can look after our
forests.  This is the way  we can generate the best  outcome for the people  who
love using our natural wonderland and environment.

There  are  also  bushwalkers,  four-wheel  drivers  and  --  God  help  us!  --
prospecting  miners  who  would  also love  to be  able to  use our  forests and
national parks  in  a  more  user friendly manner. However, there is a continual
push from the environmental movement, the  members  of  which  seem  to want all
human  activity to be removed from national parks and state forests.  They  want
forests to be locked up and -- --

  The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Ondarchie) -- Order! The member's time has expired.

  Mrs  MILLAR  (Northern  Victoria)  --  The  Sustainable Forests  (Timber)  and
Wildlife  Amendment Bill 2013  is about increasing  public  safety, both in  the
context of lawful  timber  harvesting  activities  and  duck hunting activities.
Forestry  operators and  duck  hunters  should be  able  to pursue their  lawful
commercial   operations   and    recreational   pursuits   without   disruption,
intimidation, interference or risk to their personal safety.

This bill is not  about  preventing  anyone's  right  to  protest,  which  is an
important right supported by this  government so long as  the protest activities
do not put anyone's safety at risk  or  break a law. This bill is  about  better
ensuring  the safety  of  all the  stakeholders  involved  in these  activities,
including  timber  harvesting  workers,  duck  hunters,  protesters,  authorised
officers and members of the public.
I understand that duck hunting and perhaps to  a lesser extent timber harvesting
-- given the significant innovations in that industry in  recent  decades -- are
highly emotive subjects for which people on both sides of the ledger have strong
feelings,  and in  the past  this has  led to some very regrettable incidents in
which people have been injured. I suspect that  the debate  is often  fuelled by
emotion rather than fact, which leads to a great deal of misinformation.

This bill is  not about  entering the  fray of  the substantive  merits of  duck
hunting  or timber harvesting;  rather it is  implementing provisions which will
govern the safety of those engaged in these  activities or those who are seeking
to be within the vicinity of these activities for whatever purpose.
The bill amends the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, the Wildlife Act 1975
and the Safety on Public Land Act 2004. The main purpose of the bill is to amend
the  Sustainable  Forests  (Timber)  Act   to  establish  and  provide  for  the
enforcement of  timber  harvesting safety  zones,  enforceable undertakings  and
exclusion orders, and to amend the Wildlife Act to provide for  banning  notices
and exclusion orders. The primary objective of these measures is to preserve and
protect public safety.

Again  I stress  that this bill does not remove any person's ability  to protest
against duck hunting or timber harvesting  -- and  I would  not support any bill
which  purported  to silence freedom of speech -- but it  amends  provisions  to
ensure that protests in relation to these activities are conducted in a safe and
lawful manner. There  is  a  line between freely expressing our thoughts, if you
like  freedom  of  speech,  which  involves   expressing   ideas,  debating  and
influencing  thought,  and some  of  the violent  and  intimidatory conduct that
occurs within the sphere of what  can be called a protest. I stand  up  and say:
there is  no place in our society  for any form of violence,  or for any form of
intimidation or  other form of physical  aggression, no matter how important the
underlying cause.

 Page 332


It  was the author Edward Bulwer-Lytton who  coined  the  phrase,  'The  pen  is
mightier than the sword' -- a concept that I hope all in this place  would agree
with. It is equally true  that  there are some in our community  who  do not shy
away from resorting to violent, menacing, intimidatory  and aggressive behaviour
to   further   their  cause.  Some  of  these  are   well   known   to   us   as
'rent-a-protestors',  turning up  time  and again  and  moving from  protest  to
protest.  There  are many examples  of  violent protests that  have  occurred in
relation to both timber  harvesting  and  duck hunting, and these have been well
detailed in the other speeches on this bill. We are all familiar with footage of
these  types of clashes  between duck hunters and  protestors and between timber
workers and  protesters. Again I say  that there is no place  in our society for
any form of violence as a  means of  influencing public  policy. Equally  I note
that  there are law-abiding  people  who also engage  in  protests against  duck
hunting and timber harvesting, and they should be able to continue to do this in
a context which maximises their safety as well as their freedom of speech.

In  relation  to  timber  harvesting,   forestry  remains  an  important  though
significantly smaller industry  than in times past. Many communities continue to
rely  heavily  on  this  industry  for  the  provision  of  their   livelihoods.
Significant  changes  have been  made  within  the  industry  to  ensure greater
sustainability,  and we  all  welcome this. The  timber harvesting industry  has
certainly been hit hard in recent decades by factors including  the reduction of
stock through fire events and  increasing  global  competition, with significant
cheap imports  flooding the market. There are many fine people in this industry,
many of whose families have worked in this industry for a number of generations.
This  industry  and  the  people who  work in  it deserve  to have  their safety
protected when they engage in their lawful commercial endeavours.
Thus this bill will implement timber harvesting safety zones, which will include
the coupe, any road that is  within the coupe and any area of state  forest that
is within 150 metres of the coupe.

The bill sets out the offences and penalties which  will apply to those entering
the timber  harvesting  safety zone who are not authorised, those who allow dogs
to enter this zone, those  who possess prohibited things  including chains, bolt
cutters, shackles, cement et cetera in  this  zone,  and  those  who  remove  or
destroy barriers. People can  protest outside the  timber harvesting safety zone
as long as  they  do this in  accordance  with  the law. New  penalties  will be
imposed under the bill,  significantly increasing fines from approximately $1600
up to 60 points, which is $8660, and introducing banning notices  and  exclusion
orders,  as  is appropriate for  the  severity of the  offences being committed.
Again I will  not  comment on all  of  these in detail, as  other  speakers have
already done so.
In  relation  to  amendments  to the Wildlife Act, a number of offences  already
exist under that act which apply to those engaged in duck hunting protests.

This bill will strengthen the  penalties  that  will  apply  in  order to reduce
recidivism  -- as a significant number of offenders do repeatedly offend  --  to
create incentive to reduce aggressive, violent and confrontational behaviour and
conduct and  to give priority to the  safety of  all. This  will include  giving
courts  the ability to impose an exclusion  order  of up to a year. Again I  say
there that there is no place in  our society for any form of violence as a means
of influencing public policy.
In supporting this  bill, I note and commend  the excellent work of the staff at
the Department of Environment  and Primary Industries  (DEPI) and in  particular
the  department's  leadership  under Mr  Adam  Fennessy, its  secretary.  In  my
electorate I work with the staff  from  DEPI on a very wide range  of  issues of
great importance and significant complexity, as can be seen in this bill, and  I
can only say that I always find the work of the departmental staff at DEPI to be
exceptional. I am pleased to commend this bill to the house.

  Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) -- It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise
to speak to support the Sustainable Forests (Timber) and Wildlife Amendment Bill
2013. In  doing so, I can  only endorse the comments that  Mrs Millar made about
the right to protest. I am a strong believer in the right to protest, and I have
been  involved in a number  of protests myself, although  I  must say I am  more
inclined to defend the human species than perhaps the animal species -- however,
I do not  believe there is a place  for any form of cruelty. I  am certainly not
one who  holds the view that animals are more important than humans, as  clearly
some people in this house do.
This bill is very much a matter of personal safety.

What we have  with the duck hunting season, for example  -- and we have all seen
it on  the news, and some in this chamber  may have actually been involved in it
on one side or  the other -- is a  situation where a great number  of people are
lined up with  shotguns, rifles and things  that go bang in the  night, and they
are confronted by  fanatics running  across the  wetlands in the dark. That is a
recipe for big, big  trouble. That is a recipe for people  to get hurt, and that
is not something we as a government should be encouraging  or condoning. In fact
this bill goes a fair way towards attempting to stop that.

 Page 333


If people want to  object to duck hunting, fair  enough; that is their right.  I
have to say I have never been duck hunting. I do not think  I will ever  go duck
hunting. I have no reason to go duck hunting, but I know some people who go duck
hunting. A good many people  in the  western suburbs  go duck  hunting, and from
their point of view that  is a legitimate pastime, though it is not  one I would
partake in. I also respect the  rights of  those who  object to  this particular
pastime, because in a free country we have a right to do that.
The timber workers and demonstrators are a  little  different.  In  some  of the
timber areas we have seen groups of extremists who are prepared to do just about
anything  to  stop  the  timber  workers.  That,  again, is very big recipe  for
disaster. These extremists, or demonstrators -- call them  what  you  will -- do
not  particularly  care  if  they  put  themselves  in  harm's  way,  and   they
particularly do not  care if  they put  the timber  workers in  harm's way.  The
timber workers have a right to be protected in their workplace.

From that  point of view it is  an occupational health and  safety issue and one
the Labor Party should be wholeheartedly endorsing. One would hope it would, but
there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm from the ALP members in the
chamber just at the minute.
This bill is about protecting the timber workers, and it is about protecting the
demonstrators -- the extremists I  speak  of -- and that has to be  a  very good
thing. This is a very important bill. It  does not just lay down  or draw a line
on where  certain  activities  can  be  carried  out.  It also reinforces a very
important line and sends an important message to people in terms of how far they
can go in expressing their views before they put themselves or others in danger,
which is something that we as a Parliament and we as  a government are concerned
about and should be very concerned about.

Protest by all means, but do not put people's lives or physical welfare at risk,
which is what we have seen far too often in protests against the timber industry
and in the protests against duck hunting. I am very supportive of this piece  of
legislation, which sends a clear message to  those people  who wish to engage in
that sort of activity. I strongly support the bill.

  Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) -- In reply  I just
want to say  a few words. I thank  members for their contribution to the debate.
As always, debates on these subjects -- timber  harvesting  and  duck hunting --
cause  strong  views to be expressed. I acknowledge and respect that  people  in
this  chamber have different views regarding duck hunting and timber harvesting,
particularly timber harvesting that takes place on public land.

Subject to the laws that govern both practices, both are  lawful  activities, so
this  debate -- held today and on a previous  day -- should not be about whether
or not we have timber harvesting on public  land or whether or not we have  duck
hunting in  Victoria. That  is  not  what  this bill   is about.   This bill  is
predominantly  about how we conduct those lawful activities in a safe and proper
manner  while  respecting  the  rights  of  those  with  an  interest  in  those
activities.
As many people have said, this bill  is predominantly  about the safety of those
interested parties -- the safety of duck hunters, that of timber harvesters, and
that of authorised officers, who  have not been mentioned much; those who go out
and regulate and oversee these activities -- and that of protesters as well.

It  has been made out very  clearly that we all have an absolute right to have a
view and express that view,  but it is the way in  which that is done that  this
bill is  predominantly about,  and about it  being done  in a  safe, proper  and
responsible manner.
Bells rung.
  Mr Lenders  --  On a point of  order,  President, under cover --  I am putting
something  over my head -- my  recollection is that last sitting  week I moved a
reasoned amendment  to  this motion.  I moved  that the  bill be  referred to  a
Legislative  Council  legislation  committee  for  further  consideration.  That
question has not been  put.  I was not  in  the  chamber when the  division  was
called,  so  I  seek  the  chair's  guidance  as to  a  potential  solution.  My
recollection  is  I moved the amendment. I certainly  spoke  to  it  during  the
second-reading debate on this bill.

We are now at the vote  on the second-reading motion, and  we have not addressed
the reference to the committee.
The  PRESIDENT -- Order! We  will  deal  with  Mr  Lenders's  motion  after  the
second-reading motion vote. It is just  a sequence issue. I thank Mr Lenders for
raising the matter.  It has been a while since we  have had somebody put a piece
of paper on their head. That  is one of the grand  traditions of the Parliament.
For  those newer members of Parliament, in the course of  a division you are not
supposed to move from your  seat or stand or suchlike, so the convention is that
if there is an issue -- a point of order  or an issue  with process --  a member
may stand, but they have to have their head covered.

 Page 334


House divided on motion:
                                    Ayes, 35
Atkinson, Mr                  Lovell, Ms 
Broad, Ms                     Melhem, Mr 
Coote, Mrs                    Mikakos, Ms 
Crozier, Ms                   Millar, Mrs 
Dalla-Riva, Mr                O'Brien, Mr 
Davis, Mr D.                  O'Donohue, Mr 
Drum, Mr                      Ondarchie, Mr 
Eideh, Mr (Teller)            Peulich, Mrs 
Elasmar, Mr                   Pulford, Ms 
Elsbury, Mr                   Ramsay, Mr 
Finn, Mr (Teller)             Rich-Phillips, Mr 
Guy, Mr                       Ronalds, Mr 

Hall, Mr                      Scheffer, Mr 
Jennings, Mr                  Somyurek, Mr 
Koch, Mr                      Tarlamis, Mr 
Kronberg, Mrs                 Tee, Mr 
Leane, Mr                     Tierney, Ms 
Lenders, Mr 
                                    Noes, 3
Barber, Mr (Teller)           Pennicuik, Ms (Teller)
Hartland, Ms 
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.

                             Referral to committee

  Mr LENDERS (Southern Metropolitan) -- I move:
  That  the Sustainable  Forests  (Timber) and Wildlife  Amendment Bill 2013  be
  referred to  the Legal and  Social Issues Legislation  Committee  for inquiry,
  consideration and report by 30 June 2014 on the impact  of the measures of the
  bill and that the committee specifically be required to call as witnesses --
(a)  Secretary  of  the  Department  of Justice in relation to the  severity  of
        penalties; and
(b)  Secretary  of  the  Department of  Environment  and Primary  Industries  in
        relation  to  the  resources  currently  applied  to  enforce  the  laws
        regarding duck hunting.

  Hon. D. M. DAVIS (Minister for Health) -- On this occasion the government will
not support the motion. I understand the reasons Mr Lenders may wish to move it,
but the government believes that the legislation needs to proceed.

  The PRESIDENT -- Order! I will give Mr Lenders another opportunity  to  speak,
given that the Leader of the Government has said no.

  Mr  LENDERS  (Southern  Metropolitan)  --  For  the  reasons outlined  in  the
second-reading speech  debate, we think that the severity of the penalties ought
to be reviewed to see how they match up with other sanctions under state law. We
also think  that there should be  a  full, frank and open  discussion as to what
resources from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries go into  the
start of the duck hunting season to make sure the  law is enforced. We think the
secretaries would be the appropriate people to give  that evidence and therefore
the motion should be carried.

House divided on motion:
                                    Ayes, 17
Barber, Mr                    Mikakos, Ms 
Broad, Ms                     Pennicuik, Ms 
Eideh, Mr                     Pulford, Ms 
Elasmar, Mr                   Scheffer, Mr 
Hartland, Ms                  Somyurek, Mr 
Jennings, Mr (Teller)         Tarlamis, Mr 
Leane, Mr                     Tee, Mr (Teller)
Lenders, Mr                   Tierney, Ms 
Melhem, Mr 
                                    Noes, 20
Atkinson, Mr                  Koch, Mr 

Coote, Mrs                    Kronberg, Mrs 
Crozier, Ms                   Lovell, Ms 
Dalla-Riva, Mr                Millar, Mrs (Teller)
Davis, Mr D.                  O'Donohue, Mr 
Drum, Mr                      Ondarchie, Mr 
Elsbury, Mr                   Peulich, Mrs 
Finn, Mr                      Ramsay, Mr 
Guy, Mr                       Rich-Phillips, Mr 
Hall, Mr                      Ronalds, Mr (Teller)
                                     Pairs
Viney, Mr                     O'Brien, Mr 
Motion negatived.

Sitting suspended 6.33 p.m. until 8.07 p.m.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1