Committee
Resumed from 21 August. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Robin Chapple) in the chair; Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) in charge of the bill.
Comments and speeches from various members
Clause 40: Section 4 amended —
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Because we are moving to a different part of the bill, I need to swap over my advisers. I ask that that take place before Hon Alison Xamon asks her question.
The DEPUTY CHAIR: We will pause momentarily.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise because I am obviously going to look at moving the first of what are intended to be multiple amendments to remove the capacity for simulated electronic racing to be part of the sale of the TAB. The amendment on the supplementary notice paper to delete the lines is one of a number of amendments, all of which are meant to effect the same outcome. I thought I would make it clear from the outset that the contribution I am about to make is all part of the same debate; I do not intend to revisit it with every proposed amendment.
On behalf of the Greens, I indicate that we are very concerned about the decision that has been made to include within the capacity to sell the TAB the introduction of simulated electronic racing. I listened with great interest to Hon Colin Holt’s comments and his concern about consultation with the racing industry, and principally the industry’s initial concern, as I understand it, about how the 35 per cent figure had been arrived at. I do not intend to revisit that debate, but I particularly note his concern that four of the key letters of support were very similar and looked as though they had almost come from a template letter. The minister’s response—of course, I am paraphrasing the minister—was: no, they were from four different organisations that clearly have four shared positions on this matter. I note that that was considered to be an indication of a shared view among those racing industry groups about how those decisions were made. I make that comment because we are in a similar situation here. For a number of years the racing industry was consulted on a number of elements of the proposed sale of the TAB. However, it is very clear that the community sector is not of the view that it was well aware of the implications of what was to be included in the sale of the TAB. We have seen an almost last-minute range of concerns about the adverse impacts on the community from the introduction of electronic gaming in our suburbs and regions. I think that these concerns are significant. These organisations are of the view that they were not appropriately consulted and did not fully understand the implications of what was being proposed, at the same time that the racing industry was being consulted. I am, of course, talking about the Western Australian Council of Social Service, which is the peak body for social services in this state; the Financial Counselling Network; the Financial Counsellors’ Association of WA; the Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services; the Public Health Advocacy Institute of Western Australia; the Public Health Association of Australia; Anglicare, which has to deal directly with the impacts of problem gambling; and the Salvation Army. I have also more recently received communication from Communicare, Centrecare, the Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia, Save the Children, Shelter WA, Ruah Community Services and a number of individuals. I am talking about a significant number of organisations that deal with people within our community who are the most vulnerable and who end up with a range of problems. In this instance, all those groups have expressed specific concern about problem gambling and about how the changes proposed in this bill will adversely impact on our community.
I want to respond in particular to a comment by the minister, which sounded disparaging but which I am sure the minister did not mean because I know he works with many of these organisations and holds them in high regard. It is true that a lot of concerns that have been raised are written in a similar way because effectively these organisations feel as though they only had the opportunity to express their concerns quite late in the piece. As has certainly been relayed to me, they do not feel that they were adequately warned through this consultation process with the racing industry of the sorts of changes proposed here.
I also want to respond to another comment the minister made in response to a question put at clause 1. He made the comment that there had even been correspondence received from the Cancer Council saying that gambling caused cancer. I would like to clarify the record on that, because that is not what the Cancer Council said when it wrote to express its concern about this. The Cancer Council actually said that in its experience problem gambling leads to poorer health outcomes. That is well illustrated in all the evidence and data, and public health associations have talked about this as well. We know that poor health outcomes generally can be a precursor to cancer. That is very different from saying that gambling is a carcinogen. The Cancer Council did not say that. I think it is really important that we are very careful when we make these sorts of statements and start disparaging these highly reputable organisations, many of which people in this chamber will go out of their way to be associated with, meet with, take advice from and be involved with. Let us be a little bit more respectful of the concerns being raised.
I also point out that I have noticed that one minister from the other place took it upon himself to suggest that the concerns being raised were only being raised by me. I just want to call that out and say what a load of nonsense it is. Clearly, I am responding to the concerns raised by the community sector, and it is not a surprise for anybody in this chamber to know that I work very closely with these organisations and take the issues they raise and bring to my attention very seriously.
Going back to the Cancer Council, I put on the record some of the comments it has made. It said there is a direct link between gambling and negative health outcomes, including increased risk of chronic cancers. The letter said —
Gambling can put people into a cycle of disadvantage, further exacerbating their social and thereby health outcomes. This can have negative consequences across the whole cancer spectrum—from prevention and diagnosis, to treatment, access to support services and palliative care.
The letter went on to say —
Gambling addiction is one of the main drivers of homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are more at risk of chronic diseases such as cancer.
It goes on to make a number of informed points about the correlation between poor health outcomes and problem gambling.
I suppose the first thing I would say to members is that I realise they have a wide variety of views about what it means to include Trackside in this legislation.
The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Alison Xamon.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I ask at the very least that people show some respect to those organisations that have raised, I think, quite genuine concerns. I stress from the outset that these organisations do not feel that they have been consulted, so this is very last minute for them.
I want to pick up on some of the other arguments that have been put forward. One of the most emphatic arguments put forward was that these simulated races are not pokies—that we are absolutely not introducing pokies. People have responded vehemently to concerns raised by the community sector that it will potentially lead to a pokies culture. I agree with their concerns. It is a recognition from those people who are so vehemently opposed that we do not want pokies here in Western Australia and that pokies have had a highly detrimental impact in the states where they exist. There is a higher per capita percentage of gambling and problem gambling in states with pokies. Pokies are associated with higher rates of poor health amongst people who, unfortunately, become problem gamblers. Quite frankly, pokies have also ruined a lot of pubs and clubs, which can now be pretty inhospitable to walk into. One of the things I have always really liked about Western Australia is that if I compare walking into a pub here—which I am quite happy to do, frequently!—with walking into a pub in South Australia, for example, the atmosphere is entirely different. I understand why people are so vehemently opposed to pokies and want to make sure that we never, ever go down that path. We should be opposed, because they have such a detrimental impact on individuals and communities, and are also culturally detrimental to places where people like to congregate.
It is problematic to try to argue that electronic gaming has no connection with pokies whatsoever. I want to make a couple of points on that. Electronic gaming is by its very nature designed to be addictive; that is how people make money from it. It is designed to raise endorphins so that people just keep at it and keep trying. That is the nature of electronic gaming. I note also the spurious distinction people have tried to make between electronic gaming and keno. The previous government contemplated allowing keno and was smashed for it by the opposition; the opposition also at that point equated keno with Trackside. It has now been well canvassed in this second reading debate that the government has had a complete change of heart, and suddenly Trackside is now apparently not so much of an issue.
People have raised concerns that Trackside is problematic on two levels. It is potentially the thin end of the wedge; that is, if we introduce this form of electronic gambling, what restrictions will there be on introducing other forms of electronic gambling in the future? I listened intently to the questions asked by Hon Nick Goiran and I was left even more concerned after hearing the answers. It does not feel as though the door is going to be closed appropriately, other than through a verbal undertaking by the government that it might not be interested in expanding electronic gaming. Trackside is recognised as being a problem in its own right, and I will talk a little more about that in a moment.
Another thing to note is that there is nothing in this legislation that would mean Trackside is the only electronic gambling available. There is an option to expand the range of electronic gambling options, and that could potentially include pokies; that is what this legislation does, and I do not think we should try to pretend otherwise. I am greatly concerned about that and I do not feel that I can, in good conscience, stand here and pass a piece of legislation that will effectively change the landscape of electronic gambling in this state so that it is no longer limited only to the casino but will be broadly available in the regions and in suburbia.
I want to say something about the value of the TAB, which is also likely to be affected by this legislation. I want to make it clear: I am under no illusion that if we were to remove the capacity for electronic gaming and Trackside from this legislation, it would mean that the TAB would be sold for a lower price. I understand that. There are differing ideas about how much such a removal would impact on the price. Obviously, we could never arrive at a definitive amount, because we do not really even know how much the TAB will sell for. I have been told that the impact on the sale price of the TAB will be about three to four per cent. My argument is that I would rather take a lower amount from the sale of the TAB, and ensure that in our treatment of electronic gaming it is business as usual. However, if the government needs to invest in more services to support people who unfortunately are caught in the cycle of problem gambling, that will mitigate the overall profit from the sale of the TAB.
I recognise the huge appeal for the racing industry in maximising the profit that will ultimately be available from the sale. The industry will be given a flat 35 per cent of the overall sale price, as well as the attraction of ongoing revenue streams. Let us talk about those revenue streams. The reason those additional revenue streams will come through is that more and more people will spend money on gambling, and potentially on addictive electronic gambling. I reflect on the Treasurer’s comment that if substantive changes are made to this legislation, the entire sale will fall over. With respect to the Treasurer, it is not his place to dictate how this Council chooses to respond to legislation. I will not cease putting forward amendments that I believe are important simply because that threat has been made. However, I hope that the amount of money we are talking about is not such that the government will need to abandon the entire sale.
I reiterate that the Greens are not opposed as such to the sale of the TAB. We believe an argument can be made that government does not need to be in the business of gambling. On the face of it, our position on this bill might have been entirely different had Trackside not been part of the legislation. The suggestion has been put to me— rather wryly—that one of the reasons we should support Trackside is that it would be a good substitute for those people who are concerned about the treatment of animals in horseracing. I do not think that the intention of introducing Trackside is that it will reduce the level of horseracing in particular. I reiterate that I would be happy if greyhound racing were banned. However, I note that no-one is proposing to introduce a greyhound Trackside so that the greyhound racing industry can be banned. It is a cute argument, but it is pretty disingenuous.
The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Alison Xamon.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Thank you. Trackside is not intended to replace live animal racing. The intention of Trackside is to ensure that more gambling is conducted through the TAB. Let us be clear about what it is.
I am concerned about the effect on the services that will need to be provided for problem gambling. I am very pleased that an amendment was successfully passed in the other place to provide for a review of this legislation after three years, to look specifically at the impact of Trackside, should that continue in its current form at the current TAB. However, I am saddened that effectively, in order to undertake that review, we run the risk that problem gambling will have escalated in that time. The government is proposing to introduce something that will potentially cause enormous harm to individuals. I am disappointed that we will need a review in three years to assess how much harm we have managed to wreak on the community with the introduction of Trackside.
The submissions we have received make it quite clear that people think that significant pressure will be put on the community sector to support people caught up in problem gambling issues. Bear in mind that agencies are dealing with not only gambling addiction, but also mental health issues, family and domestic violence, and suicidality, which members know I take particularly seriously, as I think every member does. I am not pretending for one second that I am the only person who cares about that—we all do. Because we all care about that, we need to take this legislation very seriously. In the same way that we do not see a stipulated percentage of the racing industry’s 35 per cent share going to ensuring that the safety of animals is paramount, we do not see a dedicated commitment of moneys to be raised going to ensuring that we have the appropriate level of gambling and community supports to address any increase in problem gambling that might arise.
The argument has been put up that in other states the amount of money that goes towards Trackside gambling in particular is between only three to four per cent and, therefore, it is likely that we will see something equivalent in Western Australia. Members, Western Australia does not have anything else. Trackside will not be competing with keno or pokies; it will be only Trackside. At least that is the undertaking we have been given verbally by the government, although that is not in the legislation—I accept that. So, we could potentially be looking at a significantly higher percentage than three to four per cent. We cannot take the experience in other states and immediately assume that we will have the equivalent here.
I also want to raise the lack of protections around the introduction of Trackside. I raised this issue in my contribution to the second reading debate. Before this legislation came on for debate in this place, I sent a list of questions to the staff who briefed us about the connection between the introduction of Trackside and the national consumer protection framework for online wagering. From memory, the answers I received said that they would be correlated and therefore those protections would apply. When I asked about it further, it appeared that that is not the case; that the protection framework explicitly excludes Trackside and it does not apply. I am really concerned that when I started to raise the issue of protections, I was given these flippant answers, and when I started to look at it, I found the protections are not there after all. I am happy to hear from the minister if maybe I misunderstood that and, in actual fact, the national consumer protection framework for online wagering definitely applies and was always intended to apply to Trackside. I think we have a dearth of recognised protections for how we will roll out Trackside.
I have maintained before, and will again, how disappointed I am that we are breaking the decades-long consensus we have held in this state not to have electronic gaming within our suburbs and regions. It has served us well as a state, and the community has been rightly proud of it. This legislation has now opened the door, and we will have a form of addictive electronic gambling within our suburbs and regions in a way that we have not had before. What is more, especially if we look at the Gunston report, we see it is quite clear that it was always the racing industry’s intention to extend the options for electronic gaming beyond Trackside. The industry has made that very clear. I know why. Hon Dr Steve Thomas, in his contribution to debate on this legislation, stated that one of the things that he recognises the government has been trying to look at in the sale of the TAB has been to put in “sweeteners”. “Sweeteners” is the word he used. I recognise that having Trackside as part of the sale certainly would raise more money, as well as provide ongoing revenue back to the racing industry, but, as I have said, the community sector and I believe that the price paid by the community is simply not worth those extra dollars, even though I recognise that it would be far more commercially appealing to include it in the sale.
We are obviously going to debate this issue. Although I recognise that people in this chamber have a strongly held ideological position, which I disagree with but respect, it is not up to the state to determine what sort of gambling options should be available for individuals. I believe there is a very strong role for government to ensure that it does all that it can to reduce the potential for individual and community harm. I would like members to contemplate my amendments and I will debate this further.
I move —
Page 28, lines 6 to 12 — To delete the lines.
Comments and speeches from various members
Hon AARON STONEHOUSE: I can think of no greater harm one might do to oneself than ending one’s own life. Members may argue that other harms, such as lingering pain and suffering, are worse, but we are really sweating the small stuff. We are talking about somebody taking their own life, ultimately. We are really at the thin end of the wedge there. Despite that harm, advocates of voluntary assisted dying recognise that that decision ultimately rests with the individual. They own their own body, they have control over their own body, and they have their own autonomy. If they are exercising their own will, if they have capacity, if they consent and they understand what they are doing, they are merely exercising their own free will and they have a right to do that. Although others may protest, ultimately it is their own decision to make.
Why do we treat gambling differently? It may be argued that gambling has externalities. People who gamble do not only cause harm to themselves, they also cause harm to their friends and family. That argument can also be flipped around when it comes to voluntary assisted dying. A brother’s decision to access voluntary assisted dying may cause harm to his siblings, his parents or his children. At least as I understand the arguments for voluntary assisted dying, the family do not get to veto that decision; ultimately, it is still that individual’s right to make that decision.
I hope I have not gone too far off track. The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to autonomy and personal choice, what is it that sets gambling aside from all other activities in society? Why is this one thing— putting coins into a machine and bells ringing as a result—so much worse than everything else that someone might do to themselves of their own free will? I am not saying that somebody who is suffering from a crippling addiction should be left to their own devices. There is obviously a need for some intervention at the stage that somebody is no longer able to exercise their own free will in those instances. But does that necessitate a wide, broad ban on all simulated racing products; or is that, rather, the role for a more targeted response—a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer? If problem gambling is identified, there can be some level of intervention, perhaps by the state, to assist those individuals who need that help, but the rest of us, who are exercising our own free will, who can enjoy gambling without it becoming an addiction or a problem, can be left to continue having fun without unnecessary government intervention. That is what I would like members to think about.
I will not be supporting the proposed amendment. I look forward to comments from other members.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I have some questions for the minister, please, arising from some of the contributions just then. The minister said that 107 submissions were received. Did anyone raise concerns around problem gambling and a potential increase in the rates of problem gambling in any of those submissions?
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The answer is yes, the issue was raised in some of the submissions.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Were those concerns raised by individuals or by organisations? If they were raised by organisations, would the minister be prepared to advise the chamber which organisations raised those concerns?
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: This issue was raised in the submissions from UnionsWA and the Community and Public Sector Union–Civil Service Association of WA.
Hon ALISON XAMON: That was in addition to the organisations that have subsequently raised concerns, although I recognise that the organisations I mentioned before had not put in original submissions. I remain concerned about the lack of preparation that has been undertaken around how to regulate the issue of problem gambling. I would like to know what will be done to pre-empt any concerns that may arise from the rollout of Trackside. Bear in mind, as I mentioned already, that when I asked questions prior to this bill being debated, I specifically asked about the “National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering in Australia—National Policy Statement”. The response I got was that the wagering licensee will be required to comply with the principles outlined in the national consumer protection framework and that this will be a condition of the wagering licence, yet we have been told subsequently that it does not apply—it applies only online. Another member asked whether any reviews were intended around the responsible service of gambling guidelines. In addition to increased levels of services that may be required as a result of increased availability of electronic gambling in the community, is there any intention—if so, what is it—to review any of the standards, regulations or processes to address problem gambling?
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: In relation to that last bit, that can be addressed as part of a review. In the lower house, amendments were made to the bill and the government committed to undertake to table in Parliament a review of the post-sale arrangements, including any impacts of simulated racing. This is provided for under clause 161. The government will also continue to ensure that problem gambling support services are well funded. I will not go over the current arrangements. The arrangements will not change as a result of the sale of the TAB to a private operator, and funding arrangements for the Problem Gambling Support Services Committee will be annually reviewed in light of any increased levels of demand for support services. There is a commitment to an annual review of the legislation, and to monitor it. The commitment is not only to review it, but also to table that information in Parliament. Members of this chamber can be aware of the review, the implications and the actions that need to be undertaken as a result of it.
Back to the question about the national consumer protection framework: as I said, that now applies only to online wagering operations; however, proposed section 10 of the Betting Control Act will also have application to retail betting. I will say it one more time: the new wagering licensee will need to meet the requirements of the national consumer protection framework as well as provide its consumer protection policy for the retail network. I went over that. Racing and Wagering Western Australia’s current responsible wagering code of practice will remain in place. It is expected that, as a minimum, the new wagering licensee will maintain the same standards of consumer protection.
Hon ALISON XAMON: A lot of what has been said is that the current protections and guidelines will pretty much be business as usual, but the government will assess and report. I was asking whether there would be scope to pre-empt the level of harm that could potentially occur and do a review beforehand. This could potentially mitigate some of the worst impacts of problem gambling. The question I asked was whether there was any intention to undertake a review of those protections and potentially strengthen them.
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: No, we do not propose to do any work before the passage of the bill, but we certainly have made commitments to do a review post the sale. I also mentioned in a previous comment that there is latent capacity within existing gambling services.
Hon Alison Xamon interjected.
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: There is capacity at the moment. The strongest commitment I can give the member relates to clause 161, in which we have committed to annually reviewing this legislation and tabling the results in Parliament, and to ongoing monitoring. Should further changes need to be made or further funding need to be provided, obviously, the decisions will be made at that time. I have referred previously to the three to four per cent turnover figure for Victoria and New South Wales, but, in all honesty, we do not know what the figure will be in Western Australia. In fact, there may well be a novelty factor early on in Western Australia—people will try it and then it might wane. We are not in a position to do work before the sale and before the introduction of simulated racing in TABs, but we are certainly committed to ongoing monitoring and for the results of any monitoring to be tabled in Parliament.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I thank the minister. Obviously, the concern I have is that, by then, the cat will be out of the bag. I want to ask about the potential to wind back these provisions in the future, if it is found that they are causing more harm than is considered tenable by the community. Just as it has been said that we are not going to be able to look at the wholesale rollout of other forms of electronic gaming without coming back to Parliament, would it be the case that if we found that electronic gaming was causing too much harm, a legislative change would be required to actually wind back the introduction of Trackside?
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that it would be in the Gaming and Wagering Commission’s power to tighten the regulations around it. I will go through a hypothetical example. If at some stage Centrecare came to the Problem Gambling Support Services Committee and said that it was seeing an increase in problem gambling as a result of Trackside, the problem gambling committee could go to the Gaming and Wagering Commission and raise that issue. At that stage, the commission could provide extra support to Centrecare and other agencies that undertake counselling services, or it could tighten the regulations around it.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I note that Centrecare was one of the organisations that wrote to all members saying that it was opposed to the introduction of Trackside.
Hon Stephen Dawson: You have made that point already.
Hon ALISON XAMON: The minister is right. There is one thing I would like to ask. I am trying to get an idea of how much this could be wound back by regulation, or even just by the commission itself, without having to go through a parliamentary process, should it emerge that the harms are considered to be untenable.
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that under proposed section 10Y, the commission can direct the new operator on its consumer protection policy. Under proposed section 4C of the Betting Control Act, the commission may approve rules for the conduct of betting on a race, event or simulated race. The rules must specify contingencies relating to races et cetera. That can happen at any stage. Therefore, although it can sign-off on the rules at the very beginning, it can also seek to change the rules during the course of the game. After the sale has happened, it will be able to also change the rules in the future should it see the need to do so.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I want to confirm, for the record, that the contract that will be engaged in for the purpose of sale will not lock in contractual arrangements in the delivery of Trackside, which will also lock in the existing regulatory regime as it is?
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: While the minister is discussing that, can I suggest something? I think that the reality is that a future government and a future Parliament may change the whole process. The reason that there is a payout to Crown casino in this process is that the existing arrangements are being changed by government by legislation. The same would occur if a future government decided that it had to get rid of artificial racing for some reason. I see nothing constitutionally that would prevent that from happening, with the exception that there would be a compensation mechanism because the government would have come to an agreement in advance. The minister may be able to justify and/or alter what I think is the situation, but, as I understand the constitutionality of this, there would be nothing to prevent a future government from removing Trackside with a deal done with the purchaser as long as a compensation package was agreed to. It could also do it unilaterally, but that is a more complicated and technical issue. However, it is not ruled out under the Constitution.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I want to clarify part of what I was asking. I wanted to know whether Trackside could be banned despite the fact that it is in the future, but I also wanted to know the degree to which it could be regulated and clamped down on, if you like, if it should be found that it is causing untenable levels of damage?
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am told that the sale transaction documents will not impede or limit the commission’s ability to regulate. The Gaming and Wagering Commission can decide in the future to pare back to change the rules around simulated racing—I will not use the word “Trackside”, because that belongs to a company and it is not what we will have in Western Australia. The sale transaction documents will not impede or limit the commission’s ability to regulate. If extreme changes were made in the future as part of the legislation to go through Parliament, there could well be the risk of a need to make a payout to an operator, but certainly as it stands now, the sale transaction documents will not impede or limit the commission’s ability to regulate.
The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Hon Alison Xamon has the call, but I remind her and others that we are dealing with the amendment on the supplementary notice paper. This discussion has been very broad, but the specific question is that the words to be deleted be deleted.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I indicated to the chamber that I intended to complete the debate on this amendment, so we do not have to revisit it on every amendment on the supplementary notice paper from here.
The DEPUTY CHAIR: I understand, member.
Hon ALISON XAMON: If it is the view of the Deputy Chair that we need to revisit the debate on every single amendment, which was not my intention, that can be accommodated.
I would just like to make one more comment. People are now talking about the nature of the product likely to be on the market, but I am aware that the gambling industry is clever and there is always much development around the way that addiction can be promoted, if you like, through various neurological processes, particularly as we learn more and more about the way the brain and addiction work. One of the concerns I have is that although members in this chamber may right now simply be contemplating a particular product in a particular form that they view as not overly problematic, I am aware of the potential scope for other similar products to be developed that fall within the definition and that may prove to be extraordinarily harmful and addictive. One of the issues I have is that we want to ensure that future Parliaments, commissions or someone are able to keep up with developments in technology as they become more opportunistic, so we have the capacity to wind back emerging harms if they occur.
Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I again make the point that this bill does not authorise any other forms of gambling other than simulated racing. The commission will have wideranging powers to regulate, and if something sneaky— I think they were probably the member’s words—was done by the gaming industry in the future, the commission would have the power under the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987 to deal with that issue and make changes at that stage.
Division
Amendment put and a division taken, the Deputy Chair (Hon Matthew Swinbourn) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result —
Ayes (7)
Noes (23)
Amendment thus negatived.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise to indicate that I will not be moving any of the further amendments standing in my name on the supplementary notice paper, for the reason that they all relate to the issue we have just debated, and the will of the chamber has been made clear. It would be a nonsense to try to move the rest of the related amendments.
Comments and speeches from various members
Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.