Tuesday, 30 April 2024
Production of documents
Production of documents
Production of documents
Production of documents
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:54): I rise on the motion that sits on the notice paper from the last sitting week:
That this house suspends the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of today and for the next two subsequent sitting days.
I want to indicate that the government’s chronic failure to provide documents is the cause of this motion. I want to also indicate that many in the Council have noted that the government has begun to provide some documents – the Lay report notably and other documents just now – but it is still a very incomplete set of documents for the eight sets of outstanding documents. Without speaking too broadly, I can foreshadow that Ms Crozier will move an amendment to this motion that recognises certain progress by government but also recognises that there is still a great deal outstanding from these documents.
I just want to go through very quickly – it is not my intention to delay the house in the sense that there will be an amendment to the motion which will seek to provide an alternate date where this can be further discussed – and get on the record some of the key points from the documents that have been tabled today and the release last week of the Lay report. There are eight sets of documents listed in the original motion, and I note that the letter from the Attorney-General dated 23 April relating to a request on native bird hunting says ‘not sufficient time’. This is a well-worn theme, so that is a legitimate point to raise. There is the letter from the Attorney dated 29 April and a document relating to a request for Better Regulation Victoria’s review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation. I note that the government has partially satisfied this – it has released a single document – but there are many other documents still outstanding, and indeed we believe that there will be an opportunity for the government to provide those; it has got a further two weeks in this proposed way forward.
There is the letter from the Attorney-General dated 29 April and a document relating to a request on the medically supervised injecting room in Melbourne’s CBD. This is the Lay report, which was provided publicly last week and has been tabled now, but there is still a significant list of documents to be identified. The government need to get on with this; they have had plenty of time from February indeed to do that.
Then finally today there is a letter from the Attorney dated 29 April relating to a request on the redevelopment of high-rise public housing sites. This is in response to a motion by Dr Ratnam, and it says, following the substance of what was read into the chamber just now, that following consultation there would be 200,000 pages and it would cost $2 million in legal fees, and this should be revised. A two-week period would certainly give Dr Ratnam the opportunity to revise it, although I am not sure that she would want to do that – that is a matter for her. But I do note that that is an absurd suggestion by government. We have heard this kind of approach before in the past; it is an absurd suggestion that it would cost $2 million in legal fees to deal with this. What Dr Ratnam wants to do in any modification would be a matter for her, and she may be able to negotiate something with the government that is reasonable but also does not accept their more outlandish claim.
The substance of this is that there are a whole tranche of documents across a number of documents orders that the government has not provided. The government ought to have provided these documents, and in the case where there is some legitimate response where the government says, ‘We’re claiming executive privilege,’ for example, there is a mechanism in the chamber to test that. In the response, in a situation where the government has some other matter, then it can certainly request, as it has done in the past, that the chamber not insist on the production of this document or that document or whatever for a legitimate, thoughtful reason that is put before the chamber. That is not what we are seeing with the general approach here.
I accept that there has been a mini flurry of responses, but the fact is that there are still eight tranches of documents at a minimum that are outstanding, and for that reason I think that Ms Crozier’s suggestion, which I am foreshadowing, will be that there be an adjournment of this matter for two weeks. There will be a detailed motion that will lay that out, and it will be quite precise about the tranches of documents involved. I note the forbearance of the chamber on this matter, but we think this is a reasonable way forward. We have struck I think what is a sensible and practical way forward to say we do need to keep a focus on the government on this, and the Leader of the Government in particular, and we need to make sure that these documents are provided. The slowness and the obfuscation are not acceptable.
Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:01): It is important that contributions be made today because this is a serious motion seeking to deprive a member of this place of their ability to participate in its proceedings and to deprive Victorians of their elected representative’s capacity to represent them, which is the fundamental basis of our representative democracy. It is a matter that we should take seriously.
Ryan BATCHELOR: We should not laugh, Ms Crozier. This is not a funny issue. This is a very serious issue. It is not one that I think warrants laughter in the chamber.
In the context of the seriousness of this issue, I appreciate that Mr Davis has foreshadowed that an amendment to the original motion is coming – really the second amendment that we have seen since Mr Davis’s original motion was placed on the notice paper several months ago. Unfortunately, I have got the verbal outline of what that foreshadowed amendment is; it is always easier to see the substance when it is tabled and circulated. What we have in the context of that is an extension. The point of the amendment which Ms Crozier, we suspect, is going to be moving and which Mr Davis has foreshadowed is to extend the amount of time that is available for the government to respond to this. That is obviously an improvement on the original motion.
I think it is important to point out, though, that what we see in the repeated amendments to this original motion is a proper characterisation of this as not being a stand on principle about the profound and serious exercise of very significant powers of this chamber but as being something that is a little more about political manoeuvrings and seeking to achieve political outcomes. It is not about the substance of the important issues which are the subject of the original motions to seek documents.
There are a couple of issues that I want to get to in the context of this debate. They partly follow on from the letters that were tabled earlier by the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Government, about the nature of the orders for the production of documents that have been made by the chamber and the complexity and volume of those requests and what that means for the quite tight time frames under which those original requests were made. Then I want to get into a bit of a discussion about where that sits in the context of the very serious powers that this Parliament has and the serious consequence of what this resolution, the motion that is before us today, seeks to do, which is to deprive the people of Northern Victoria of their elected representative’s participation in this chamber. But it also has some other serious consequences for concepts of responsible government in the state.
I will start with that point. The request to produce documents arises, as we know, out of some pretty fundamental powers of the Parliament sourced from 1855 powers transferred from the House of Commons. That was, I think as we all know, quite thoroughly discussed by the High Court in relation to matters in New South Wales in the mid-1990s, and it basically held the fundamental principle that the executive is responsible to the Parliament. I do not think that anyone here is contesting those issues. What I think is important, though, when we seek to expel or suspend members of this place is that we look at what the High Court actually said in Egan v. Willis in their discussion of the kinds of judgements that we need to make in exercising these powers. The joint judgement in Egan v. Willis talks about the inherent powers of a chamber like this – not this chamber but a chamber like this – to exercise these fundamental powers. The joint judgement says:
What is ‘reasonably necessary’ at any time for the ‘proper exercise’ of the functions of the Legislative Council is to be understood by reference to what, at the time in question, have come to be conventional practices established and maintained by the Legislative Council.
I think what is important in that quote is the concept of what is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of this Council’s functions. The point I seek to make is that the level of detail and complexity that we see in the motions for the production of documents that have been outlined in the letters from the Attorney-General that were tabled earlier starts to, I think, go beyond what amounts to matters that are reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of the functions of the fundamental powers of this Parliament. A motion to suspend a member of this place because the volume and complexity of the requests is such that it is impractical to comply with I think goes beyond that and is a step too far and is one that we need to be really carefully considering, because we do want all members to conduct themselves in compliance with the decisions and orders of the chamber. It is very clear from the letters the Attorney-General has provided today that the government is seeking to comply as best it can, within the constructs of matters such as executive privilege, with the requests the Council is making.
Of the eight topics that were found in the original motion, we see that the motion requesting the production of the Lay report, for example, has been complied with now that the deliberations of the cabinet and the reasons for the claims of executive privilege have passed; we saw today the production of matters sought in relation to the report into the regulation of the tobacco industry here in Victoria; and we saw, in relation to the order for the production of documents in relation to public housing sites, an assessment of the complexity of complying with the very detailed request the Council has made.
One of the things that members do not have is discretion to comply with parts of things that this Council and this chamber does. When motions are made, they are done with the full force of the chamber behind them, and what we are all obliged to do is take them seriously. So in the drafting and in the passage of those requests we need to be thinking through how we can best achieve the outcome that we seek in substance, rather than using them as mechanisms to, for want of a better term, cast a very wide net and seek things like all of the emails or all of the correspondence in relation to processes.
Certainly the stance and the attitude that the Leader of the Government, the Attorney-General, has held in her willingness to sit down and try to figure out how we get through that broad net to the crux of what is actually required in the ways that we have done with the tabling of the Lay report and in the ways that we have done with the tabling of the illicit tobacco report I think demonstrate the seriousness with which the government treats the resolutions of the Council. I think it is an indicator of how the drafting of those requests should occur both now and in the future, so that we can actually get to the crux of the issue that people are concerned about and not try and get everything – every email associated with a particular consultation process or every different briefing or document or piece of correspondence that may have taken place, which is something that exists in some of the motions. For example, motion 288, which was removed, in relation to the Port of Hastings facility required within three weeks the production of all materials relied on by the Port of Hastings and the Victorian government in preparing its submission. That is an enormous request for information – not just requesting a submission but everything associated with it, and within three weeks. I think that demonstrates the difficulty of complying with such detailed requests and of the seriousness of the consequences that come with noncompliance that are sought by this motion in removing a member of this chamber and frankly undermining principles of responsible government that come with having a member of the executive who has significant portfolio responsibilities that are matters of great public import right now be unavailable to answer questions about those portfolio responsibilities in this chamber. That is also an abrogation and an undermining of our concepts of responsible and accountable government in a range of settings.
I think my time is up. I hope to have made some inroads into a very complicated and sensitive topic that enlighten the house.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:11): While we welcome the government’s agreement to table some of the documents this Parliament has requested, we do note that not all have been adequately responded to. We also welcome the Attorney-General’s offer to work with the Parliament on agreed processes regarding documents motions, and we are genuinely open to constructive discussions around this. We also, however, need to see a commitment to abiding by standing orders in the future when claims of executive privilege are made.
It is worth taking stock for a moment and remembering how we got to this point. We are debating this motion, as has been highlighted, because of a failure to produce documents – a failure to abide by the will of this Parliament. We appreciate that not all documents requests are possible to meet for various practical reasons, but when every request is met with the same generic response that there is inadequate time and no other explanation or alternatives are suggested, it is pretty hard to buy. Not only have the government gone against the will of the Parliament in failing to produce requested documents, they have disregarded standing orders when executive privilege is claimed in relation to some documents by not following the required processes.
This motion is not about politics – as you can see, there are people from all different sides of the chamber who are raising concerns about this. It is about compliance with the rules of the chamber and fundamental principles that underpin representative democracy. This government has routinely failed to produce documents and thereby failed to comply with a simple accountability measure. These are mechanisms which governments in other jurisdictions seem to be capable of complying with. The New South Wales executive, for example, have almost identical standing orders to this place, and yet they recognise the right of the Parliament to request and receive documents. The difference in those places is that there is an accepted culture where the executive respects the decisions of Parliament, versus the one in this place. This culture here has developed over time, but that does not mean it is accepted or acceptable. We want to see this changed.
The outcome we are seeking is not to suspend a member. We do not want to have to do this. What we actually want to see is this Parliament functioning as it is meant to. This is not personal. We are approaching this from a principled position. It is a matter of integrity. It is about transparency and respecting the role of Parliament. It is actually in the interests of the government to respect these democratic processes. It is also in the interests of the broader Victorian public.
This motion has contributed to some of the documents being released and commitments being made on others, but this really is not a particularly sustainable way to do things or to get things done. Kicking members out of the chamber is not great for democracy either, I agree with Mr Batchelor, but the government needs to appreciate that we do not have a lot of other choices if it just continues to ignore the will of the Parliament.
Integrity bodies hold serious concerns about the failure of the Victorian government to produce documents, and these have been well aired. But some have suggested that the Parliament should go even further than suspending members, and we do not want to have to go down this road. We are willing to give some additional time to the government to allow them further opportunity to not only produce the documents that remain outstanding but also make good on their offer to engage regarding a way forward on dealing with these documents request motions in the future. Failure to do so will just see us having to revisit this issue and contemplate what other actions might be necessary when I am sure we would all just rather be getting on with doing the business that this chamber should be doing, which is passing legislation to make things better for Victorians. I hope this serves as an opportunity to reset the way that document requests are dealt with in this chamber so that the Parliament can function as it is meant to.
Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:15): I also rise to speak to this motion. Mr Davis has highlighted what is required and what the government has actually provided today in relation to a number of letters, but it has not gone to the full extent of meeting the requests which have been made by various members across the chamber to the government in relation to issues that are important to the Victorian public. They have not been provided in full. That is essentially what we are asking for.
This issue around the transparency that we are just not seeing, that is just not being done by government, has been a longstanding issue. We have just come out of commentary on the Commonwealth Games interim report talking about the refusal of the production of documents into that inquiry. This is what the Parliament has been up against the entire time with this government. It is a serious issue, and Mr Batchelor was saying that it was being politicised – it simply is not being politicised. It is a very significant issue that the Parliament be able to do its work, especially this house. We are a house of review, and we need to understand exactly what the intentions of government are and what the legislation requirements will be for Victorians, and part of that is understanding what mechanisms the government has put in place through various elements.
That is why the requests for documents through the parliamentary process of this chamber occur. It happens through parliaments across the country, and Mr Davis in the original motion highlighted that very significantly. He spoke about that. There is nothing wrong with this. In the case of the Albury Wodonga Health documents we are seeking, the New South Wales government released theirs and they did that within two weeks. Those are important documents that my colleague Ms Lovell has requested time and time again, and still we have got nothing.
I am moving an amendment, and I would like that to be circulated if I may. I know that it has already been provided to the crossbench and to members of government electronically, prior to this debate, so for Mr Batchelor to say that it was not provided is completely wrong. The government did have a copy of the amendment. I move:
That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘this house:
(1) notes the failure of the Leader of the Government to comply with a number of resolutions of the Council requiring the Leader of the Government to table specified documents in the Legislative Council by particular dates, and further notes that orders for the following have not been complied with:
(a) Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project, on 22 March 2023;
(b) gas and electricity supplies, on 15 November 2023;
(c) redevelopment of high-rise public housing sites, on 15 November 2023;
(d) kangaroo harvest management plan, on 29 November 2023;
(e) Commonwealth infrastructure review, on 29 November 2023;
(f) Port of Hastings application for offshore wind turbine facilities, on 7 February 2024;
(g) Better Regulation Victoria’s review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation, on 7 February 2024;
(h) medically supervised injecting room in Melbourne’s CBD, on 21 February 2024, paragraph 2(b);
(2) affirms the privileges, immunities and powers conferred on the Council pursuant to section 19 of the Constitution Act 1975 and the power to make standing orders under section 43 of that act;
(3) affirms the right of the Council to require the production of documents;
(4) believes that the Leader of the Government’s failure to comply with the orders in paragraph (1) is unacceptable and disrespectful of the Legislative Council;
(5) requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, by 12 noon on 14 May 2024, the documents ordered by the Council in the motions identified in paragraphs (1)(a) to (h); and
(6) permits that if the Leader of the Government has not complied with standing order 10.01 in relation to all the documents listed in paragraph (1) within the time frame specified in paragraph (5), the Council will, at the conclusion of formal business on Tuesday 14 May 2024 – or if formal business does not occur that day, at the conclusion of formal business on the next sitting day – give precedence for a non-government member to move, without leave, “That this house suspends the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of today and for the next two subsequent sitting days”.’.
I say again: these amendments are in line with the expectations of the Victorian public, who want greater transparency in relation to the government. Yes, the government has released some of these documents, but not all. That is why we are putting it on the record to have them back in and giving the government a further two weeks to comply with the will of the house. I would urge all members to support the amendment to the motion.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:20): I rise today to speak on the motion put forward by Mr Davis and indeed on the amendment just put forward in this place by Ms Crozier as well. This is a motion that, in its original form, was extreme. It is a motion that in its amended form is also extreme. Nevertheless, despite the various and capricious changes of mind that the opposition have had in the various amendments they have put through – this being, I believe, the second one they have already put forward on this motion – it ignores, in some cases, outright facts, in particular Ms Crozier’s amendment (1)(g), which references Better Regulation Victoria’s review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation on 7 February 2024. If Ms Crozier was listening at the time, she would have noted that that was one of the documents that was actually tabled this morning. So to support this motion today, aside from anything else, would be to enter into the Council demanding things it has already received.
I think at the outset as well it is important in declaring this to be such an extreme motion to outline why. My colleague Mr Batchelor in the final moments of his contribution entered into a discussion of what it means to have a minister of the Crown absent from the Parliament for several days. Whether it is one day, several days or even longer, to have a minister absent and not able to respond to the Parliament and not able to be accountable to the Parliament in question time or in various other forums is a significant thing, and it is a significant loss of accountability that this Parliament would be imposing on itself, particularly when that minister is both the Attorney-General and the Leader of the Government in this place.
Beyond that, it would also of course be extreme because it is depriving the people of Northern Victoria of one of their elected representatives being able to represent them in this place, as we are all elected to do. 132,000 people voted for the Attorney-General in the Northern Victoria Region at the last state election, and to put this up today and to kick her out of the house is to say that their voices do not count. Two weeks ago we had a regional sitting of this Parliament in Northern Victoria, in Echuca. We heard ad nauseam in fact, time after time after time, another member for Northern Victoria, Ms Lovell, get up and say how important it was for us to be up there – she reminded us that it was her motion that took us up there – and how important it was that we listened to the needs of Northern Victoria. What this motion seeks to do, if it is brought into effect, is to suspend one of their members and to reduce the voice of that region in this place and also reduce the voice of the single government representative of the Legislative Council for Northern Victoria. That is the government representative for the seats of Eildon, Euroa, Shepparton, Ovens Valley, Benambra, Murray Plains and Mildura. What this motion says is that none of those constituencies would get to have their government representative having a voice in this place. That is why I say this is an extreme motion. If those opposite are serious about listening to the needs of regional Victoria, if they are serious about listening to the needs of places such as Echuca, where, as they would have had us believe last week, they were insisting that we must be listening more, then they would not expel or suspend one of its members.
In relation to the various documents motions, aside from what I have already covered in relation to (1)(g), I think it is important from the outset to say that we do support the appropriate accountability and the role of this Council in providing documents. To touch again on my colleague Mr Batchelor’s remarks in regard to the Egan case, you could very easily find yourself on a happy minefield, a happy little rabbit hole – perhaps not so happy – and spend hours and hours looking into the formation of executive privilege and its concept as it applies to the role and rights of the houses of Parliament to compel production of those documents in the state of Victoria going all the way back indeed to the constitution, which makes reference to the House of Commons standing orders on 21 July 1855, in fact, as the first basis for the rights and privileges of this place – standing orders which refer to Crown privilege. But notwithstanding any of that, it is important to note again that in the Egan case in New South Wales we had highlighted what is reasonably necessary for the house to compel – it should be able to do so – and this is a government that is endeavouring as much as it can to act in accordance with that and to act in good faith with this place and provide documents as it can.
I do note we have had a number of reports tabled today and a number of documents that had been requested tabled today, including the Ken Lay report, which was requested by I believe Mr Ettershank in his motion, as well as a report on illicit tobacco which was requested by Mr Limbrick into this place and supported by this chamber. Those reports have been provided. There has been further detail provided on additional requests, including with regard to housing towers. That was a motion put forward by Dr Ratnam, and it was noted that the current broad nature of that motion would take in around 200,000 documents, requiring approximately four years to work through and $2 million in legal fees to produce. It cannot just be a case of ‘Here are 200,000 documents; you can just have them.’ There is appropriate work that needs to be done in assessing the legal privilege of those documents, and that is why in that case that would be such a costly and lengthy process.
In saying this, we are not saying to the house that 200,000 documents is unreasonable – do not ask for it. I note repeated comments from the Attorney-General and others from this side who have put to the crossbench and the opposition as well, where there is a matter such as this, ‘Talk to us; let’s work through an arrangement.’ I believe that is actually what happened with Mr Limbrick’s documents in relation to illicit tobacco, from what I understand. I do note with some optimism Dr Mansfield’s comments that those in that part of the crossbench, in the Greens, are prepared to do that and have those conversations, because I think we can agree that, again, as Mr Batchelor said, 200,000 documents which may involve various perfunctory emails are not going to be the sorts of documents that members would be seeking out of these resolutions in the first place. So what I encourage all members to do, including from the crossbench in particular, is work to get to best outcome in terms of those documents for you as well – and again noting offers made by the government, including in particular by Attorney-General Symes, to provide that support as well.
I said at the outset this is a motion which was and is extreme. It very much is extreme, and putting it back by two weeks does not change that. It is still a very severe thing to be suspending any member of this place. It is particularly galling coming from those opposite in light of what we very much know to be their record when they were last in government, when 50 per cent of documents motions were completely ignored and when 1174 questions on notice were also completely unanswered. In closing, as I say, these are extreme measures which are unwarranted in this situation, and I say to all members of this place: if you do not support the suspending of a member from this chamber, do not support this motion.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:29): I rise to make a brief contribution on the motion and the amendment before the chamber. As members of Parliament we have an enormous privilege in serving the communities that we represent. We have a responsibility to ensure that democratic principles are maintained. We have a responsibility to protect the accountability and the transparency that are implicit tenets within our democracy. This motion is about the provision of documents. It is also about holding the executive accountable to Parliament and the communities that we all represent.
We acknowledge that the government has released some of the documents requested across various documents motions. We also acknowledge that some of these motions seek to capture a large and possibly excessive amount of information and that the work required to be undertaken by departmental staff and the government itself to respond to these documents motions is no doubt time consuming and onerous. To that end we would be pleased to discuss with the government how future documents requests could be most efficiently and efficaciously processed. That said, it is more than a year since the first of these documents requests was made. The government could have chosen at any point to open a dialogue with the crossbench about the nature or the extent and establish some priorities for the release of some or all of the documents. But the government has chosen not to, and we are only having this debate because the government has done nothing other than send out the same old letters, which exclude the totality of the documents being requested and make no attempts to open a dialogue.
It is hard to fathom why it took, for example, the government almost 12 months to release the Lay report into the supervised injecting service trial in the CBD or why they chose to hide it for so long. In reference to that motion, I remind the government that we actually requested other documents in relation to the Lay report that have still not been produced. The documents requested do not, I believe, require a great deal of work to compile, and notwithstanding the government’s announcements last week in response to the report, we still require the government to release them. I would also appreciate it if the government could clarify if they are continuing to claim executive privilege over this second tranche of documents that was requested with regard to the Lay report or if they are just choosing to continue to ignore the chamber’s request.
We are gravely concerned that this government continues to evade documents motions. With the greatest respect to Mr Galea, this is not an extreme resolution. Rather, in giving the government another two weeks to comply with the collective democratic will of this chamber, it is much more like a slap across the face with a wet lettuce leaf. This is not extreme. This is simply trying to defend certain Westminster principles to which supposedly we all have a commitment. We have a moral imperative to ensure this government respects parliamentary process and lives up to its public commitments to accountability and transparency. Accordingly, Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting this motion as amended.
Council divided on amendment:
Ayes (24): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (15): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amendment agreed to.
Council divided on amended motion:
Ayes (24): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (15): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Amended motion agreed to.