Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2013

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

Legislative Council

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers. BILLS Assent Messages from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. State Agreements Legislation Repeal Bill 2013. 2. Natural Gas (Canning Basin Joint Venture) Agreement Bill 2013. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2013 Notice of Motion to Introduce Notice of motion given by Hon Michael Mischin (Attorney General). NATIVE FOREST — CLIMATE CHANGE AND DISEASE Notice of Motion Hon Sue Ellery gave notice that at the next sitting of the house Hon Sally Talbot would move — That this Council condemns the Barnett government for its continuing failure to protect Western Australia’s remaining native forest from the effects of climate change and disease. INFRASTRUCTURE — LONG-TERM PLANNING Notice of Motion Hon Ken Travers gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — (a) that this Council expresses its concern at the failure of the Liberal–National government to develop a long-term state infrastructure plan for Western Australia; (b) this Council notes that the lack of long-term planning can lead to poor investment decisions being made in the expenditure of scarce government funds; and (c) therefore, we call upon the government to immediately commence the development of a long- term state infrastructure plan and to ensure that its development involves — (i) wide community consultation to identify priority infrastructure projects; (ii) the inclusion of major infrastructure projects based on a comprehensive assessment of their relative benefit to cost ratios; and (iii) the plan is developed in an open and transparent process. BROWSE LNG PROJECT — NEGOTIATION Notice of Motion Hon Stephen Dawson gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — (a) that this Council condemns the Premier for his lack of leadership in securing an outcome in benefits for the Indigenous communities in relation to the James Price Point LNG processing plant; and (b) that this Council calls on the Barnett government to honour the agreement signed with the Goolarabooloo–Jabirr Jabirr traditional owners to deliver the Kimberley benefits package. APPRENTICESHIPS AND TRAINEESHIPS Notice of Motion Hon Alanna Clohesy gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move — That this Council condemns the Barnett government for its disregard for the future of young Western Australians and calls on the government to commit to making substantial increases, beyond pre–global financial crisis levels, in the number of apprentices and trainees in training, especially numbers in trades training.

1976 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

DISABILITY JUSTICE CENTRES — PROPOSED SITES Notice of Motion Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson gave notice that at the next sitting of the house she would move — (a) that the Council notes the significant community response to the proposed disability justice centres in Kiara and Caversham, and the lack of consultation with the affected communities; (b) that the Council calls on the Minister for Disability Services to immediately stop the current process for placing these centres in those locations; and (c) that the minister instigate a genuine and thorough community consultation process with the communities surrounding the proposed centres; and (i) the process should include a community reference group, consisting of, but not limited to, representatives of residents, representatives of Lockridge Senior High School and Lockridge Primary School, the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission and the minister or her representative; and (ii) any final decision should be made with consideration for the communities’ concerns and within the guidelines already set for the location of these centres. FLORA AND FAUNA — THREATENED SPECIES MANAGEMENT Notice of Motion Hon Sue Ellery gave notice that at the next sitting of the house Hon Sally Talbot would move — That this Council condemns the Barnett government for its failure to resource threatened species recovery plans. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing Orders Suspension — Motion HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [3.09 pm] — without notice: I move — That so much of the standing orders be suspended as to enable the following variations to the order of business and sitting times for next Wednesday and Thursday — (a) no motions on notice on Wednesday; (b) no consideration of committee reports on Wednesday; (c) no private members’ business on Thursday; and (d) to sit after 6.00 pm on Thursday night, if required, with the dinner suspension from 6.00 pm to 7.30 pm. By way of explanation, this is the last week of the current sitting session before the winter break and the government would like to pass three pieces of legislation. Passing this motion will provide what we would regard as sufficient government time to pass that legislation. I have had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition behind the Chair and we have collectively come up with what we regard as the most viable avenue to ensure that that legislation is passed before the house rises on Thursday before the winter break. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.10 pm]: I rise to indicate that what the Leader of the House has said reflects the conversations and the agreement that has been reached between us. The three bills that the government advised us are its priority bills—that are on the notice paper— are the Supply Bill 2013, the Duties Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 and the Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Amendment Bill 2013. The basis of the understanding is that we will try to create more time to deal with government business this week. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Motion Resumed from 20 June on the following motion moved by Hon Liz Behjat — That the following address be presented to His Excellency — To His Excellency Malcolm McCusker, Companion of the Order of Australia, Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Queen’s Counsel, Governor in and over the state of Western Australia and its dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1977

May it please Your Excellency: We, the members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled, beg to express our loyalty to our most gracious sovereign and thank Your Excellency for the speech you have been pleased to deliver to Parliament. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.12 pm]: I want to use the remaining 16 minutes of my response to the Address-in-Reply to comment on the speech that was given by the Governor and, more importantly, to identify some of the things that were not included. As we know, the Governor’s speech to this house is supposed to outline the government’s agenda for the next four years. It outlined, obviously, the positive side of the government’s agenda, but there is a very negative side to this government’s agenda, which we have seen rolled out over the past few weeks since the Governor’s speech to this chamber. By that I mean the ongoing series of broken promises and announcements on issues that were never disclosed to the people of Western Australia before the election. I have mentioned before how the government—both the Liberal Party and the National Party, but particularly the Liberal Party—put a great deal of store in their re-election on the argument that it had a fully funded, fully costed plan. We still do not know whether its plan was so poorly thought out and worked upon that it did not know what it would have to do in the first few weeks of this Parliament or whether its plan included a range of measures that the general public would be devastated by and it simply chose not to declare them. On top of that, of course, the government has made numerous broken promises. I will give some examples of the sorts of things I am talking about. Before the election there was no mention of the public sector job cuts that have since been announced by the government. There was no mention in the Governor’s speech about public sector job cuts. There was no mention that the government would seek to put a secret tax on families through its compulsory third party insurance for motor vehicles. There was no mention of that during the election campaign, but immediately after the election campaign the government introduced legislation that will ultimately lead to an increase in the cost of third party premiums as part of motor vehicle registrations; that is a tax on the families of Western Australia. We have seen the broken promise of the Premier who stood there and—I was about to say stared down the camera, but looked sideways during the election debate—told the people of Western Australia that power prices would go up by only around the rate of inflation. Even though his own past budget suggested that they would be a lot higher, he specifically said that that would not be the case. He said it would go up by around the rate of inflation, yet after the election power prices have increased by 45 per cent above the consumer price index. That is not around the rate of inflation. That is a clear broken promise by the Barnett government. The original duties legislation had the duties on non-real property disappear out of the tax act. The government previously deferred that abolition, due to come in on 1 July, for a couple of years. Going into the election, everyone in Western Australia expected that that tax cut would come into place on 1 July, yet this government has now brought in legislation to remove that tax cut. That is a major impost on small business in Western Australia and a broken promise by the Barnett government. The government promised that it would build the Swan Valley bypass from Reid Highway through to Muchea. It did not make it clear before the election that that depended on federal government money; it got federal government money, yet now the government says that it will not build the Swan Valley bypass as per its election campaign. That is another broken promise by the Barnett government. The government made a very clear election commitment that it would have the Metro Area Express light rail built by 2018. Subsequently, the Premier has said that it is too complex to complete it by 2018, yet nothing new about the complexities of that project has been learned since the election that was not known before the election. It took a bit of time, but we finally got that concession through the Minister for Transport’s representative in this place. If the government does not deliver on the MAX by 2018, that will be another broken promise by the government. Before the election we were told that Fiona Stanley Hospital was all ready to go, noting that the cost of it was funded by the previous Labor government. This government made a mess of it by privatising the operation of non-clinical services. It is now running into problems, which were predicted by the Auditor General two years ago. However, this government continually told people before the election that there were no problems and it was on track. That is another broken promise by the Barnett government. Let us not forget that it is now June. The election was only in March, which was just over three months ago. I have never ever seen a government breaking so many promises concerning election commitments. Princess Margaret Hospital for Children is interesting because if we go back to the 2008 election, we see that one of the things that the Liberal government promised was that it would get the new children’s hospital built faster than Labor. It never delivered on that and we now see a crisis in PMH because the government is unable to manage the issues properly. It did not tell the people of Western Australia about those issues before the election—another broken promise! It did not tell the people of Western Australia that, at the same time as the government cuts public sector jobs, the salaries of staff members in Mr Barnett’s own office will increase by up to 52 per cent. It promised that it would cut back on consultants, yet it is still using consultants regularly.

1978 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

We have seen the problems with the loss of the Browse onshore processing in the Kimberley. It does not matter what the issue is about—some might be localised issues, some might be statewide issues. A classic local issue was the promise to the people of the seat of West Swan that they would have a 24/7 police station. I do not know how much it cost the Liberal Party to order those electronic flashing billboards that it put up across the electorate in the weeks leading up to the election and that told the people of West Swan that they would have a 24/7 police station. I note from my colleagues from the East Metropolitan Region that this is clearly an issue of great import to them and their electors. A solemn promise was made by the Liberal Party that if people elected it, they would get a 24/7 police station in Ballajura, and already we are being told that is not going to happen—another broken promise. None of these things were outlined in Governor McCusker’s speech when he made it to the house less than a month ago. Nothing was told to the people of Western Australia. My expectation is that this is a government that is massively overcommitted, and this is only the start of the broken promises. We hear about them on almost a daily basis. Another broken promise is for those members in the South Metropolitan Region. The Liberal Party promised that a police station at Warnbro would be built earlier under a Liberal government rather than under a Labor government. It has now walked away from that. Of course, we have had debates in this place about the election promises that were made by the National Party, a member of this coalition government. Yet, we now know from the motions of National Party members in this place that they have no commitment from their coalition partners, the Liberal Party; their promises are not worth the paper they were written on and, at this stage, can all be listed as broken promises. Mr President, as you would well know, under the Westminster system there is either a majority government or a minority government. There are, effectively, two types of minority government. The first is when the government counts on the support of members for supply, but is not in a coalition. However, if members from different parties form a cabinet together, by any definition of the Westminster system, it is a coalition government. Members face two choices when entering into a coalition; they can be either a coalition with a coalition agreement or a coalition without a coalition agreement. What we have now is a coalition government without a coalition agreement. That was fine for the National Party during the last term of government because its bargaining position allowed it to exercise control within the cabinet. Now it does not have that. Now the chicken is coming home to roost for the National Party not having negotiated a coalition agreement to form a coalition government. National Party members can try to dress it up and call it something else—alliances or whatever else—but the Westminster system says that this is a coalition government; it is two parties sitting together in a cabinet room making the decisions of the state. But if a member of the coalition government loses its negotiating power, it is lost. When the National Party was at its peak, it should have negotiated a coalition agreement. There is a long list of promises made by, at least, a part of this government that, at this stage appear to be completely broken promises—unless the National Party can somehow get an agreement from its Liberal Party coalition partners. I have no doubt in my mind that there are many other issues that members in this house will be able to raise about the broken promises of Mr Barnett, Mr Grylls and their respective political parties. Amendment to Motion Hon KEN TRAVERS: Mr President, that is why I therefore move without notice the following words — To insert after “deliver to Parliament” — but regrets to inform His Excellency that the Barnett government has already broken a number of promises made during the March state election campaign I think that would be an appropriate set of additional words to be added to those words moved by Hon Liz Behjat. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.25 pm]: Mr President, I just wonder whether we can get clear what the Leader of the House proposes that we do with the Address-in-Reply now, because the understanding we were given — Hon Peter Collier: We were going to adjourn after Hon Ken Travers’ speech and move to the Supply Bill 2013. Hon SUE ELLERY: Can I then seek leave to make my remarks on the amendment at the next sitting of the house? The PRESIDENT: Yes, I can give you the call, Leader of the Opposition, and then your first action in your speech will be to seek leave to continue your remarks at a later sitting. [Leave granted for the member’s speech to be continued at a later sitting.] Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House).

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1979

SUPPLY BILL 2013 Second Reading Resumed from 19 June. HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan) [3.26 pm]: I left off my remarks, when the debate was adjourned the other day, discussing what the people of Ellenbrook might expect from the Supply Bill 2013—a supply bill of some $7.942 billion. I said that some $1.193 billion had been allocated for capital purposes. An awful lot of promises about capital works were made during the election by this government to the people of Swan Hills and, in particular, the people of Ellenbrook. Therefore, I wonder what they might expect from this bill. The people of Ellenbrook are used to promises being made, particularly in relation to capital programs, but they are also used to promises being broken by this government. For example, I refer to the train station at Ellenbrook. It was promised by this government at the election before last; it is still not delivered and will not be delivered by this government. Therefore, what is the Supply Bill 2013 to include? Several members interjected. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY: Let us hope that it is something that the people of Ellenbrook and the East Metropolitan Region need. Let us hope that it comes with a long-term plan; let us hope that it is well costed and let us hope that it is well funded. We really do not know with this bill, because it is not clear and it is not transparent. All we have is hope that some of this funding will be used for the benefit of people in the East Metropolitan Region. I turn now to an issue that is also of importance to me in the East Metropolitan Region—that is, domestic violence services. Will this Supply Bill be used to improve services for women and children leaving domestic violence situations? There has been a significant increase in the number of personal assaults in the East Metropolitan Region, particularly over the past four years. As we know, domestic violence includes violence and abusive or intimidating behaviour. This type of behaviour can be carried out by any family member—a spouse or partner, a carer or any other. It is done to create fear, and to control and dominate the other person. This type of behaviour, as we know, is usually that with which most perpetrators could be charged, of course, if the domestic violence is reported. Only a small proportion of domestic violence can be seen to be reported. When we talk broadly about domestic violence, it can be not only physical abuse, but also emotional, psychological, financial, sexual and other types of abuse. There are services that support women and their children as and when they seek to leave abusive violent relationships and situations. There are services and ways to reduce the level of domestic violence experienced in our community; however, funding to these services needs to be increased. Will this bill address the advocacy, counselling, financial planning and outreach services all provided by fantastic domestic violence services in the East Metropolitan Region? We need to make sure that funding is in place to meet the demand experienced by those services that are already stretched. Those are just two critical problems, and what concerns me is also twofold. Will this bill that we have been asked to support go to improve other services related to domestic violence situations? Will it go to improve housing services, for example? Will we be asked to support an increase for all housing services for women and children seeking to leave domestic violence situations, not just the crisis services? I know that the Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services, the peak non-government organisation in this area, certainly hopes that funding issues are addressed, because in March this year it called for particular services to be properly funded. Ms Angela Hartwig, the women’s council CEO, stated on 7 March — “Electronic monitoring is an essential part of the solution we need to adopt here in WA if we are going to reduce the number of fatalities around domestic and family violence … The Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services seeks additional funding for urgently needed services to protect women and children once they have left the violent situation and electronic monitoring of the perpetrators of domestic violence is one of those essential services. In addition, women’s refuges in the East Metropolitan Region specifically, and more generally across Western Australia, are filled to overflowing. I know that service providers are looking to improve funding to assist them to meet that increased demand of women and children seeking to leave domestic violence situations and trying to find emergency accommodation. We need emergency accommodation at the crisis end of the housing spectrum, because day after day we witness families with nowhere to go, no roof over their heads and no hope of getting accommodation. They are in crisis. Not all these people we witness in these circumstances have left violent situations; some, of course, are experiencing economic crisis. It only takes not being able to find a job, losing their job or being on income support and very soon people find themselves in economic crisis, as occurs day after day to many families in Western Australia. For some people in receipt of income support, the bills mount up and there is very little that they can do about that, which is why housing support in particular is needed.

1980 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

Let me return to people who are in domestic violence crisis. Many women and children leaving violent situations require not only accommodation at the crisis end of housing but also longer term housing. Of course, many of them might be eligible for priority public housing over the medium to long term, but we have seen unprecedented demand for not only emergency housing but also longer term housing. Waiting lists for priority, as we know and have seen, and other public housing are growing day after day. Public housing waiting times can extend over a decade or more, and for some nearly two decades. The waiting list for priority housing is also growing. Are we being asked to support this Supply Bill to enable an increase in funding to allow the government to address these waiting lists? We have also recently seen in WA, particularly in the East Metropolitan Region, that rental affordability is becoming more and more out of reach of ordinary families, particularly people on low and medium incomes. The Community Housing Coalition of WA recently conducted a rental affordability study. It is the peak industry organisation for service providers that provide community and affordable housing. The CHC rental affordability survey for 2013 found that for people on low to moderate incomes in WA, there were very few rental properties available. The CHC found that — • The cost of renting has increased substantially over the past year. The highest proportion of rentals … 17 per cent … was priced in the $451–$500 per week range, $100 per week more than the same time last year. • The proportion of listings that were less than 30 per cent of the estimated median household income (over $79,000 per year) fell dramatically from 54 per cent of listings at the end of March 2012 to 39 per cent of rental stock in 2013. • Across the entire metropolitan area just 22 rentals were affordable to an individual or family solely reliant on the State Adult Minimum Wage of $627.70 per week. And only 38 were affordable to a full- time retail worker at the highest award level of $815 per week. • Rental affordability was worst for those wholly reliant on Centrelink benefits. No rentals were affordable and appropriate for couples on the Aged and Disability Support Pensions, who receive the highest levels of government assistance. • Individuals and families solely reliant on Newstart and Youth Allowance fared the worst out of the selected categories of Centrelink recipients. No rentals were affordable to these recipients, even with the maximum amount of rent assistance. I know the government recently announced that 1 000 new affordable homes will be constructed in the Perth metropolitan area and this is welcome, but these homes will not be available until 2016. The people I just spoke of, and who the Community Housing Coalition conducted the survey about, need accommodation now—perhaps they will in three years’ time, but they certainly need it now. There will be three years of waiting and hoping, so I ask: What will the Supply Bill do for these people being denied access to affordable housing today? Just as importantly, what will it provide for those people, and families, who are homeless tonight? HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.40 pm]: I want to make my comments on the Supply Bill 2013 in two areas. The first one picks up on the issue that Hon Alanna Clohesy was just talking about—that is, homelessness and housing, and social and public housing in particular. People would have seen the story in the media over the weekend about a particular family. I do not want to go into the circumstances, but I will raise the issue, in the first instance, of what it highlights about the importance of government agencies working together, because it was really disappointing to hear that story. I cannot remember what channel I saw it on, but the version of the story I first saw on the weekend had the Minister for Housing being confronted by some journalists about this particular family at an announcement for something else. He would not have been prepared with the details of this particular family. I heard him say it was the Department for Child Protection and Family Support’s responsibility to assist those families, particularly with children, who find themselves homeless. I understand the response that particular family got when it went to speak to the Department of Housing was to be referred to the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. The Department for Child Protection and Family Support has a big remit, but it is not its responsibility alone to deal with families who are homeless, particularly those with children, and how the situation is fixed so that families like the one I referred to do not end up not being able to pay their rent in the first place and are assisted to ensure they have a safe roof over their heads so their children can be cared for properly and safely and can do all the things kids need to do in the local neighbourhoods while the family finds some more permanent arrangements. I think the hardest thing to do in government is to break down the silos between government agencies; I certainly struggled with it when I was a minister in the previous Labor government. However, that is not an excuse not to do much better than we are currently doing. It is not an adequate response for Homeswest, as the public landlord, to make families homeless when it evicts families with children. It is not an appropriate response for Homeswest to do that without there being a plan in place to tackle the situation. There are meant to be much better systems in place between the Department of Housing and the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. I

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1981 understand there is a memorandum of understanding between them and they probably have a fairly good working relationship at a higher level, but I do not think that is the case on the ground—we need to do much better at that. In collecting the material about what non-government agencies have to say about homelessness and the demand for services on its resources, which I have been collecting for some time, I reminded myself by reading the Department for Child Protection and Family Support’s annual report about exactly how much it has to do each year to find emergency accommodation for homeless families. It was really quite revealing. In a few minutes I will talk about some of the comments that have been made publicly by NGOs like St Vinnies, the Salvation Army, Mission Australia and various other peak groups about the demand on their services from families seeking emergency accommodation. The operational response generally works like this: someone, whether it is someone on behalf of the family or the family themselves, will ring Crisis Care, which is the 24/7 service available through the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. They may also contact a range of other emergency services through the NGO sector and they may also contact other organisations. If it is a woman and children leaving family or domestic violence, for example, they may also go through a series of other hotlines. However, for those who contact Crisis Care, it has the option of providing people with some kind of emergency short-term accommodation. The accommodation used to be in motels and hotels, but that is less the case now because some of those motels and hotels say they do not want clients coming from family and domestic violence because they do not want violence happening at their business. The emphasis then shifted a bit more towards caravan parks and the caravans and chalets there. I know the response a person generally gets from Crisis Care because I have rung Crisis Care when constituents have contacted my office it seems, inevitably, at 5.45 on a Friday afternoon—that is when it happens. Crisis Care staff are very polite and very professional, but the response is that the person in question needs to try to find a family member or a friend to put them up. Crisis Care is very reluctant to offer vouchers or any kind of financial or organisational assistance to get those people into a caravan park, a chalet at a caravan park or a motel. Having looked at the Department for Child Protection and Family Support’s annual report, I am not surprised that Crisis Care is reluctant to do that. Every year the Department for Child Protection and Family Support annual report provides statistics on the kinds of emergency assistance that it provides for food, accommodation, transport, bereavement assistance—that is, assistance in paying for funerals when a family does not have the money to do so—furniture, medical, optical clothing and other things. Under the accommodation heading the number of instances of financial assistance provided to individual and families for accommodation in 2011–12 was 710. The number of people, of course, is less than that, it is 502. If the Department for Child Protection and Family Support only helps 502 people in any year to get financial assistance for emergency accommodation and the non- government organisations say they get many more requests than that, it is no wonder that Crisis Care is reluctant to say it can provide that kind of assistance, because I do not think it has the money to provide that level of emergency assistance that is one-off for maybe a couple of days at a time or a week. Crisis Care does not have the money to provide that; it is not funded to provide that. If we know that, increasingly, people unable to take advantage of the boom—to the extent that the boom is still happening—find themselves really struggling because the high wages that others are earning has led to higher rental costs in the private rental market, and if we know that the organisation responsible for providing emergency assistance for families finding themselves homeless only has enough money to help 500 people a year and that significantly more than 500 people seek assistance every year, are we not setting ourselves up to fail completely? We need to do something better about that. It is no good for the Minister for Housing to say it is the Department for Child Protection and Family Support’s issue to address if it only has enough money to provide emergency assistance for 500 people. There is no point in the minister or his department officers on the ground telling those people to ask the Department for Child Protection and Family Support for assistance. The Department for Child Protection and Family Support has only enough money to help 500, so it seems to me that we need to do things a bit better and a bit smarter. The family that was covered on TV over the weekend are not the only ones in that situation. We have learnt that homelessness can happen to anyone, not just those on a fixed income; it could also be people who are working but whose income is not enough to pay the increasing rents in the private rental market. My colleague Hon Stephen Dawson recently participated in the St Vincent de Paul Society’s Vinnies CEO Sleepout, to raise awareness of homelessness; I know Hon Liz Behjat did that last year, as have other members over the years. The chief executive officer of St Vincent de Paul, Mark Fitzpatrick, was quoted in an article that appeared in The Sunday Times as saying that higher cost-of-living expenses and rents had resulted in more people being without a home. The article read, in part — St Vincent de Paul Society chief executive Mark Fitzpatrick said higher cost-of-living expenses and rents had resulted in more people being without a home. “What we’re actually seeing and, I think, what a lot of the homeless providers are seeing, are more single parents with kids in cars,” he said.

1982 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

“Kids who suffer homelessness are 50 per cent more likely to be homeless later in life. They don’t get to see the community nurse, they don’t get to school because they don’t have a shower.” New figures show that over two weeks in February, 630 homeless people sought help at metropolitan support agencies. If there are 630 people seeking assistance over a two-week period in February, and the Department for Child Protection and Family Support has only enough money in its annual emergency assistance for accommodation fund to assist 500 people in a year, there is a serious mismatch. That is even more reason why the Department of Housing and the Minister for Housing ought not be saying, “Sorry folks; if you find yourselves without a home, put yourselves on the priority list, if you can get on the list at all. In the meantime, go and see the Department for Child Protection and Family Support”. That is not going to work; those figures do not add up. There are 630 people seeking assistance over a two-week period in February, and the Department for Child Protection and Family Support only has the capacity to assist 500 people over a year; we have a pretty serious problem. The article also referred to a survey carried out by the Department of Housing and the Department for Child Protection and Family Support, which revealed that 35 per cent of the 630 homeless people had children. In the same article, Chantal Roberts from Shelter WA was quoted — Shelter WA executive officer Chantal Roberts said homelessness in this state was more desperate than people realised. “It might not affect you directly, but there will be someone you know who is having problems accessing some housing that they can afford,” she said. “It’s getting worse. It is definitely getting worse.” Ms Roberts said families were sleeping in cars or outstaying their welcome with relatives and friends while being repeatedly knocked back with their rental applications. “There is such a shortage of affordable rentals and such a demand that if you go to a home open, up to 70 people attend and outbid each other for the rent,” Ms Roberts said. “Very young people, families, Aboriginal people, they don’t even get a look in.” Mission Australia WA director Melissa Perry said there had been a 62 per cent increase in the number of families using its emergency-relief services in the past 12 months. “We are definitely supporting more homeless families, particularly those that have pre-school children,” she said. There was also an article in last week’s The West Australian about a mother of two young children who had to leave her Cloverdale home because it was being renovated. She had had notice of the renovation and had made attempts over 80 days to apply for other private rental. She is quoted as saying — “I must have handed in 15 to 20 applications,” she said. “I’ve been to the dodgiest houses thinking I might be the only one, but I’m not.” She had been on the public waiting list for five years, and even on the priority waitlist she had to wait another one or two years. That is the kind of story, unfortunately, that we are seeing more and more of. There was a serious attempt by governments state and federal to address the issue of homelessness, but it has not cut through, or the problem is getting worse and we are still playing catch-up. If we are serious about addressing the problem, we need to do more than we are currently doing. Anglicare WA’s “Rental Affordability Snapshot 2013” was released on Saturday, 13 April; it has published the snapshot for the last couple of years. The snapshot surveys available private rental properties and looks at online listings from realestate.com.au, gumtree.com.au—which was Perth only—and print listings in The West Australian. Interestingly, I heard a representative from the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia on the radio suggesting that Anglicare’s methodology was somewhat askew and saying that he did not think the situation was as bad as Anglicare was suggesting. I thought that was a brave comment for him to make; Anglicare is a highly respected organisation that releases this snapshot to reinforce what it already knows, because its organisations are dealing all the time with people who find themselves in this situation. For that REIWA representative to question the methodology of Anglicare is to miss the point; Anglicare is not suggesting that this is anything other than a snapshot survey. Frankly, Anglicare does this to highlight the issue of homelessness; it does not want to get into an argument about its methodology, whether it should have done it over a longer period of time, or what websites it should have used versus what websites the REIWA representative would have preferred it to use. The point of the snapshot is literally to draw attention to the issue, and I think there is validity in the way in which it does that, because that is what people such as the woman in The West Australian article or the family on TV have had to do—they would have gone to realestate.com.au or gumtree.com.au and looked in the paper. That is exactly what Anglicare did, so I think it think it was a bit cheeky of the REIWA representative to suggest that there was something dodgy about the way in which Anglicare does its work.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1983

Anglicare also looked at Gumtree this year because there is a perception that listings on Gumtree might be a bit cheaper, so it went there also so that it could not be accused of not using valid methodologies. It found that the situation was worse than it was last year. Private rentals are inaccessible for low income earners and those on benefits in Perth. Access to rentals for a couple on two minimum wages dropped from 6.7 per cent to 2.6 per cent in just over one year. Overall, the situation is very grim. For single people on fixed income there were no properties available in Perth. Only two properties were affordable for singles on an aged pension or a disability support allowance, both being rooms in shared properties. Seriously, if one is on an aged pension, does one want to start sharing accommodation? Lots of us have done that, and I am sure it was great when we were in our 20s, but I do not know that I want to be doing that in my late 60s or 70s. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon SUE ELLERY: Certainly not the same people that we shared with in our 20s! No, that is not the case; some of them are still my closest friends! These are not just people on fixed incomes; these are people who are working. Families on a dual minimum wage were only marginally better off, with 2.6 per cent of the market, or 95 properties in Perth, being affordable. At the same time last year, 6.7 per cent of the market was affordable for those families. For singles and single minimum wage income families there were limited options, with only 0.5 per cent of the market or 14 properties being affordable. The average rental in Perth was $609 a week, inclusive of share accommodation, and that is up by eight per cent from 2012 when it was $520 a week. The median rental price has risen by 16 per cent, from $450 a week in 2012 to $520 in 2013. Outside Perth the situation was also quite alarming; Anglicare made the point about the south west and great southern that moving to the country is actually becoming less of a solution to housing because the options available there are very low as well. Across the south of Western Australia the availability of suitable private rentals for people on pensions or benefits was very low. For young people on benefits, no properties were available. No properties were available for singles on an age pension or a disability support pension in the south west of WA. Other household types on fixed incomes were competing for a very small number of properties. Families on a minimum wage—this is working families in the south west of WA—did have private rental options. Five and a half per cent of properties were affordable for families with two children and a single minimum wage income. The average rental in the south of WA was $333; that was up by six per cent from 2012. But unless the people on that minimum wage got a six per cent pay rise in the same period, their wages would not keep up with their housing costs. The median rental price has risen by 5.5 per cent from $330 in 2012 to $350 in 2013. In the north west, prices have gone down since 2012, but not so much that rental accommodation is affordable to anyone on a low income. In the north west, not a single suitable private rental property was available for families and individuals on benefits or for those who work but are on the minimum wage. That was reflective of the overall housing situation in resource-based communities in WA. The average rental price in the north west decreased significantly by 21 per cent from 2012, with the average rental price now being $1 079 per week. The largest decreases were in Karratha and Derby. Although the decrease in price is notable, it is not significant enough to make rental accommodation affordable to anybody on a low income. That creates serious policy implications, and the Anglicare rental affordability snapshot went on to canvass some of those. It states — Rental properties are an important source of accommodation for individuals and families on low incomes. A shortage of affordable rental properties adversely affects the community on a number of levels. In an expensive housing market, which WA has, many low income earners are forced to accept a rental price that is much more than they can afford, and so they cannot spend money on other things. It continues — Coupled with increasing costs for childcare, transport and utilities, this is causing serious financial stress for these families … They are making serious concessions to their lifestyle and their livelihood, and that places more stress on family relationships. Young people who are trying to move out of home are finding that renting is not an option. For some young people, that leads to homelessness and couch surfing. The Anglicare snapshot continues — For public housing tenants, private rentals are the most realistic option to leave the system. However, there is very little incentive for public housing tenants to make this transition while the rental market is so unaffordable. It is worth noting that. I talked to some people from Anglicare and other organisations about this issue, and they are telling their clients in private rental accommodation to do their very best to stay there. These organisations will help people in private rentals to stay there and they will take care of everything else, but these people need to maintain their tenancy. These organisations know that if that tenancy falls over, the capacity of those people to stay in the private rental market will be significantly reduced because they would have to compete against a

1984 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] much broader field of people looking for fewer properties. The waitlist in the public housing sector is very high; it is well over 20 000 and there is still a wait of something like two years on the priority waitlist. Organisations such as Anglicare are saying to folks that they will do everything they can to keep them in their tenancy; they will pay all their other bills if they just keep paying their rent so that they stay in the private rental market. If they move out for any reason—the woman who was referred to in the article in The Sunday Times just needed a place to stay while renovations were being done to her private rental property—they cannot get back into the private rental market because the competition is so high. This has changed the way that services such as Anglicare provide assistance to people. These organisations will look after everything else if these people just maintain their private rental house. In terms of a policy, Anglicare believes that the state government needs to do more policy development and strategy on affordable housing. Its snapshot states that the strategies have yet to be implemented, but action needs to be taken now because there is a clear need for more affordable and appropriate housing options. Private rental properties play an important part in the delivery of affordable and appropriate housing, but in WA it is at such a critical low, and is becoming scarcer year by year, that multiple interventions are required to try to address this. One of the concerning factors—I think it was in one of the documents from Mission Australia or the St Vincent de Paul Society that I quoted from earlier—is the number of children who are homeless. The Mission Australia snapshot from 2011—I doubt that the numbers have changed for the better, although I would gladly be told that they have—showed that more than 84 000 children across Australia used specialist homelessness services. In November 2011 the number of homeless children in WA had increased to 8 400, with 3 700 of those children being under the age of four. That coincides with what those organisations that I referred to earlier were talking about. Mission Australia stated that it was definitely supporting more homeless families, particularly those that have preschool children. Mission Australia’s point of view is that what it was talking about in November 2011 is still the case in June 2013. The snapshot also showed that one in every 96 Western Australian females aged between 15 and 19 was homeless. That is a really serious figure and it is a damning indictment on all of us. Despite the fact that there has been a downturn in parts of the economy, we are still a wealthy community and we are able to do better. Sometimes when people talk about homelessness, they think it just means that there are too few houses and that someone is sleeping rough on the streets. That is a very narrow definition. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has done a lot of work on this issue to properly define homelessness. I want to touch on the ABS definition of “homelessness”. Its document 2049.0, “Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2011”, states — Homelessness is not just the result of too few houses. Its causes are many and varied. They are things that we already know and have talked about before — Domestic violence, a shortage of affordable housing, unemployment, mental illness, family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse all contribute to the level of homelessness in Australia … Homelessness is one of the most potent examples of disadvantage in the community, and one of the most important markers of social exclusion … The document goes on to refer to the definition used by the ABS. It states — … a person is homeless if they do not have suitable accommodation alternatives and their current living arrangement: • is in a dwelling that is inadequate, or • has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable, or • does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations. It is not just about not having a roof over their head; it is whether the roof over their head has any tenure attached to it, to what extent they are able to control what they do and whom they engage with in that space. A point is also made about severe overcrowding, which is defined as a usual residence or dwelling needing four or more extra bedrooms to accommodate residents adequately. This is the largest group of homeless people in each of the last three censuses. While the number of people in this group fell slightly between 2001 and 2006, it jumped 31 per cent in 2011 and has accounted for most of the rise in the homelessness rate. After severe crowding, the largest homeless group in 2011, accounting for 20 per cent of homeless people on census night, was supported accommodation. In 2011 there were 21 000 people in supported accommodation, which was up 23 per cent on 2006. On census night in 2011 there were 17 721 homeless people in boarding houses, which was up 15 per cent on the estimate for 2006, but still well down on the estimate for 2001. Under the category “Persons staying temporarily with other households”, the 17 369 homeless people staying as visitors temporarily in other households and who reported no usual address accounted for 17 per cent of the homeless population in

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1985

2001. In terms of improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out—this is what people tend to think of when they think of homelessness—there were 6 813 homeless people in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out in 2011. That is good, because that is six per cent down from 2006. It is a gender-delineated group in which males are overrepresented at 68 per cent. Indigenous Australians are also overrepresented. I refer to the rates of homeless people per 10 000 in Western Australia. In 2001 that rate was 53.6 per cent. In 2006 that dropped to 42.3 per cent and in 2011 it went up slightly to 42.8 per cent. That is still way too high. We need to do better things about that. The changing face of homelessness is important. People used to think it involved people who had no income or who were on a fixed income. That is not the case. It now includes working people which, I think, is shocking. My colleague Hon Alanna Clohesy referred to the Community Housing Coalition of WA work that was done earlier this year on the private rental market. During the state election campaign the Western Australian Council of Social Service, representing Shelter WA and CHCWA, put together some affordable housing and homelessness facts. Its documents states - The lack of affordable housing in Western Australia is the most pressing issue facing the state in 2013. In recent years WA has recorded strong economic growth and the lowest unemployment rate in the country as a result of a booming mining and resources sector. At the same time it has produced significant social costs particularly for low and moderate income earners. Nowhere have these social costs been more acutely felt than in a lack of affordable housing. The document makes the following points — • Job opportunities in the State have attracted a record number of domestic and overseas migrants which has put significant pressure the private rental market. Median house rents are higher than they have ever been, and the vacancy rate is near the all-time lows. • Since 2006, median rents in WA have increased by 76.5 per cent, the highest in the country. In the last year alone, rents in Perth have increased by 14 per cent, to $450 per week. It is interesting to note that Anglicare work done a couple of months after that put the median rent higher than $450 a week. The document continues — • In 2011, approximately one quarter of all renters in Perth, and 64 per cent of those receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance, were in rental stress—meaning they were spending 30 per cent (or more) of their income on rent. • Rental affordability surveys undertaken by the Community Housing Coalition of WA (CHCWA) and Anglicare WA in 2012 found that less than 0.5 cent of rentals were affordable, available and suitable to those on the minimum wage and in receipt of government benefits. • Low and moderate income households that have traditionally found long term housing tenure in the private rental market are now bearing the brunt of this market failure. Such households are, with increasingly regularity, the new face of homelessness in WA. These are the people who thought they would never need public housing assistance. They were probably confident that although they could not get a mortgage to buy their own property, they could afford to pay rent for the rest of their lives. That is no longer the case for these people. I repeat the last sentence —

Such households are, with increasingly regularity, the new face of homelessness in WA. If that does not shake us to do something better, I do not know what will. These are people engaged in the labour market who cannot afford to put a roof over their family’s head. The WACOSS document continues — • WA has become a more expensive place to live during the past five years and the pinch has been especially felt by people on low to moderate incomes. Although incomes have risen to some degree to compensate, higher income households have benefited most, and those in the lowest income brackets have benefited least. WA continues to have the highest level of income inequality in Australia. A whole lot of work has been referred to in this house about the sort of measure of income inequality that leads us to look at a range of other things that will start to go wrong in the community if that level of inequality remains at a high level. Under the heading “A social housing system bursting at the seams”, the document states — • By any international comparison WA, and Australia as a whole, has an extremely small social housing system, the role of which is to cater for households for whom the private market is not providing safe, secure and affordable housing options. • The public housing waitlist has increased by 76 per cent in the decade to June 30, 2012. At June 30, 2012, there were 22,871 applicants on the public housing waitlist and about 50,000

1986 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

people associated with the wait list. Over 3,000 households remain on the priority waitlist. The average wait time for housing has jumped to two and a half years (131 weeks). It states further —

• Demand for social housing is projected to increase significantly as the population ages. There are thousands of households currently in the private rental market that are facing retirement without adequate finances to provide for their long term housing needs. Many households in this position will apply, and already are applying, for social housing. On the weekend, the Minister for Housing referred to 1 200 new public housing units that have been built under this government. Given that the priority wait time is 131 weeks and that there are 22 871 people on the public housing waitlist, 1 200 units is just not enough. I was pleased that the state government signed on to extend the national partnership agreement for homelessness funding, but I was disappointed that it was only a 12-month sign-on. The organisations that get the money to deliver services have only 12 months of certainty rather than a longer period, which makes it hard for them to plan. Hon Helen Morton: Do you know there was no option to go beyond the one year? Hon SUE ELLERY: That is disappointing for both levels of government. It does not provide the certainty that people need. Hon Helen Morton: I agree. The state government pushed against it, but commonwealth government wouldn’t allow it. Hon SUE ELLERY: I want to touch on what the lack of services means for people. Last year the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs prepared report number 28 in response to petition 137 about emergency accommodation for the homeless. The committee found that on an average day in Western Australia nearly half of the people who made a new request for immediate accommodation were turned away. The committee also found that the scarcity and increased cost of the private housing market is contributing to homelessness in Western Australia. Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that 49.5 per cent of people in WA who made a new request for immediate accommodation were turned away, and the increasing rate of property repossessions reported by the Supreme Court of WA, which this house has talked about before, and the housing affordability crisis was forcing people who have not previously been homeless to access specialist homelessness services. An increasing number of people are being forced to access homelessness services. On any measure, we are not doing as much as we need to do. Indeed, the problem is getting bigger. It is no longer a question that the country tried to address back in 2007 and 2008. It is not enough to say that back then an injection of funds was given by the commonwealth and state governments because “back then” a big catch-up was to be made. It is not enough to say that that is enough. The problem is getting worse in WA. The range of income levels affected by homelessness is getting worse; it is getting bigger. The number of children affected is getting bigger. The number of children under the age of four affected by homelessness is getting bigger. If we are serious about wanting to invest in early childhood and wanting to give young children the very best opportunity and start in life, we can have as many child and parent centres and speech pathologists as we want and we can carry out as many hearing tests as we want, but if we cannot give those children under four a roof over their heads and safe and secure accommodation, we might as well forget everything else we are doing. All those organisations involved in housing will tell us that they follow the “housing first” principle, which is that before they try to address any of the social or other issues confronting a person who fronts up to them and says “I’m homeless”, if they do not at first deal with the issue of providing safe, secure accommodation within a reasonable length of time, they will not be successful in any of their interventions. People cannot focus on fixing all the other things that might be a bit chaotic in their lives if they cannot secure decent housing. I am pleased that I had the opportunity to talk about that. I wish that this government was doing more about that. I am a hopeful and optimistic person, and I am sure that in a couple of months the budget will show a massive injection of spending into homelessness services and a much better approach at coordinating the work between government agencies—a whole new approach. I want to touch briefly on a report released by the Equal Opportunity Commission the other day called “A Better Way: A report into the Department of Housing’s disruptive behaviour strategy & more effective methods for dealing with tenants”. It relates to the issue I raised earlier. It really is hopeless if one part of government is turfing people out and other government agencies pick them up and try to put their lives back together. My colleagues behind me are interjecting and saying that it is just cost shifting. They are quite right but it is more than that; it is just nonsense. It does not make sense that we would put people through the stress of making them homeless if we have another agency that will pick them up and create a home. To the extent that the Department

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1987 of Housing is saying to people that they should go and talk to the Department for Child Protection and Family Support, we know that child protection does not have the money to fix that. Child protection has the money to provide emergency accommodation assistance to 500 people a year. If more than 500 people are being told by the Department of Housing to talk to the department for child protection, there is a fundamental problem. The fact that we have a memorandum of understanding signed by two directors general does not fix that problem if one part of that memorandum is saying to its officers, “Tell people to go to the department for child protection.” If the department has enough money to give caravan park assistance to 500 people, we are not fixing the problem; we are sending people around in circles and we are adding to the exclusion that those people are feeling. I was pleased to see the Equal Opportunity Commission release its “A Better Way” report just the other day. I was concerned—we talked about this in the house before—that the department’s approach to how it implemented its disruptive behaviour strategy might be more about trying to create more churn, if we like, through the public housing stock by getting people whom it deems to be troublemakers out of public housing. This report found that there is significant room for improvement in the way that the department handles the disruptive behaviour strategy and that a lot more needs to be done to support people to maintain their tenancies. It was the case that any police contact was being treated as reason to either give a person a strike or to consider that they had been behaving in a disruptive manner. It related to a range of things. I hope that the government takes up that issue. It is important that tenants in public housing live in a way that encourages good relationships in their community. They need to take responsibility for their behaviour. The fact that they have a public housing tenancy does not give them the right to behave in a disruptive way to their neighbours or to their community. Equally, this report provided evidence that in some cases public housing tenants were being treated in a far harsher manner than tenants in the private rental market. We need to question why that would be the case. I am pleased that that report was released last week. I look forward to the government responding in a timely fashion and telling us that it has adopted many of the recommendations made in that report. The second issue that I want to touch on in my comments on the Supply Bill is the opportunity missed by the state government to take advantage of the offer of a significant increase in education funding through the Gonski reforms and the package of money that has been offered by the federal government. What we heard when the Prime Minister was here a couple of weeks ago was pleasing in that she significantly increased the amount of money that would be made available to WA. The comments made by the Premier on the day were to the effect that he welcomed the increase in money but he still had outstanding issues with reporting. He made some general comments about the role that the federal Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations would play in schools. Therefore, he said that WA would not be signing up to the deal. There may well be legitimate outstanding issues—inevitably, there always are in these negotiations—but it was disappointing that the Premier did not say that he is committed to resolving those issues and he has directed officials to sit down in a room to nut out those issues and not to leave until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. We heard him say that he will not sign up before the election. That leads me to ask: what is the alternative for the Premier? What does he think he will get after the election? The would-be alternative Prime Minister said that he does not support the reforms and the funding that has been made available through the Gonski reforms. He is on the record as saying that he thinks the current education system is not broken and there is nothing to fix. He has offered no financial certainty about additional funds. He has talked about building on some of the things that state governments are already doing. He has talked about more autonomy for schools, better standards of teaching and a range of things that I will identify in a minute, but he has not talked about any additional money. That leads me to draw the conclusion that the Premier is not taking full advantage of what is on the table. If, for whatever reason, he cares to articulate that the offer from the Gillard government is not acceptable to him, that is fine; he needs to make that judgement. But to make that judgement in the absence of any equivalent additional funds from the federal opposition is doing a disservice to the school communities of WA. He needs to spell out what promises he has from Tony Abbott, if any, so that we know what we are comparing. Why are we saying no to additional funds? The total amount of money that has been talked about by the Prime Minister is $900 million. Why are we saying no to those funds? Why are we not sitting down to negotiate the outstanding issues when we have nothing on the table from the alternative Prime Minister? Is that not cutting off your nose to spite your face? That is what it sounds like to me. I think WA school communities are entitled to be told exactly what the Premier thinks he will get out of the alternative Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, because so far Mr Abbott has made it perfectly clear that he will not match the additional money and he has put no money on the table for the things that he says he will work with the states to improve in our schools. That means we are left to reach the conclusion that the Premier is playing politics and is not taking seriously the issue of ensuring that extra money is on the table. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 1997.]

1988 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MT GOLDSWORTHY MINE — EXEMPTIONS AND RELEASES 259. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Has the government provided any releases from the contaminated sites legislation or the indemnity provisions of state agreements in respect of the Mt Goldsworthy mine? (2) If yes to (1) — (a) when was the release or indemnity provided; (b) why was it provided; (c) to whom was it provided; and (d) on what terms was it provided? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) I have been advised by the Premier’s office that it will provide an answer to this question tomorrow. WA CERTIFICATE OF EDUCATION — EXAMINATIONS 260. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: I refer to changes to the WA certificate of education in 2015. Which courses, if any, will not be subject to examinations in either 2014 or 2015? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. Stage 1 courses will remain unchanged—that is, no examinations. All stage 2 and 3 courses are examinable. However, exams are not compulsory for stage 2 units in 2014 and 2015. If a school does not want to have compulsory exams for any of its stage 2 units, it does not have to. They are examinable and it can have them if need be, but it is not compulsory. STATE ELECTION — FAILURE TO VOTE — PENALTIES 261. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Electoral Affairs: I refer to the issuing of penalty notices to people who apparently failed to vote in the March state election. (1) Is the minister aware of incorrect BPAY details being sent to people who apparently failed to vote? (2) How many notices in total were sent, and how many incorrect notices were sent? (3) How will the government recover any money paid to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines in Queensland because of the error? (4) What is the estimated cost to the state of recovering any money? (5) What is the cost of any additional resources, including staff, required by the Electoral Commission to deal with this error? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1) My office was alerted about the problem by the Western Australian Electoral Commission. (2) In total, 89 231 apparent failure to vote notices were issued. Of those, 69 456 related to a $20 penalty and 19 775 related to a $50 penalty. The problem was resolved seamlessly in respect of the $20 penalty notices. The biller code number on the $50 penalty notices remains unusable. Other payment options remain available to notice recipients, and an individual who contacts the commission about this issue will be provided with an alternative biller code number should they still wish to pay the fine online. (3) Not applicable. No payments went to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines in Queensland. (4) Not applicable. (5) No additional resources have been required. SUBURBAN TRAINS — CLAISEBROOK DEPOT 262. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) How many A-series trains are currently stored at the Claisebrook depot each night? (2) Where are the remainder of the A-series trains stored each night?

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1989

(3) Currently, what is the maximum number of A-series trains that can be stored overnight at the Claisebrook depot? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Forty-four A-series trains are currently stored at the Claisebrook depot each night. (2) The remainder of the A-series trains are stored at the Nowergup depot. (3) Although 48 A-series trains is the maximum number of trains that can be stored at Claisebrook depot overnight, this number does not allow for the efficient movement and operation of trains given the depot’s current layout. MENTAL HEALTH LAW CENTRE — MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION FUNDING 263. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Mental Health: (1) How much funding did the Mental Health Commission provide to the Mental Health Law Centre in 2011–12 and 2012–13? (2) Can the minister confirm that this funding is being cut from 31 December 2013, and by how much is the funding being cut? (3) Why is the funding being cut? (4) Is the minister aware of any other WA service specialising in providing legal assistance to involuntary patients and mentally impaired accused persons; and, if so, which services? (5) If no to (4), how does the minister expect the demand for these specialist services to be met after this funding is cut? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) In 2011–12 the Mental Health Commission provided the Mental Health Law Centre with a grant of $250 000. This grant was repeated in 2012–13. (2)–(3) The funding by the Mental Health Commission to the Mental Health Law Centre is not being cut. The Mental Health Commission provided a one-off grant to the Mental Health Law Centre in October 2011. The grant was for the dual purposes of increasing the number of patients represented at the Mental Health Review Board hearings and assisting with some rental costs. This arrangement was repeated in 2012–13 on the agreed basis that it was not ongoing funding, but was a single grant for these purposes. The Mental Health Commission has commissioned an independent review of the issue of representation before the Mental Health Review Board. This review will make recommendations about representation before Mental Health Review Board. I might add that the Mental Health Law Centre is aware of the review. The Mental Health Commission has granted the Mental Health Law Centre interim additional funding of $115 000 for the continuation of its services until 31 December while the review is being conducted. One of the issues that the review is looking at is that despite the additional $250 000, there was not a discernible increase in the representation of people for whom the Mental Health Law Centre was required to provide representation. (4) No. (5) The Mental Health Law Centre receives most of its funding through the Department of the Attorney General. In 2012–13, state community legal services program funding to the Mental Health Law Centre totalled $692 000 and in 2013–14 the funding will total $772 466. This increase in funding to the Mental Health Law Centre from the government’s Delivering Community Services in Partnership initiative will assist the centre to support its rental costs as well as other issues of organisational capability. I am advised that the state community legal services program funding is sufficient to continue to fund core legal services at the centre. KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL — PREGNANCY TERMINATION 264. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to a letter from the acting director general of the Department of Health to the State Coroner of Western Australia sent on or around 14 August 2012, regarding a review by King Edward Memorial Hospital of all cases of termination of pregnancy greater than 20 weeks. (1) Will the minister table a copy of that letter? (2) If yes to (1), when?

1990 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

(3) If no to (1), why not? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) No letter was sent to the coroner on or around 14 August 2012. The coroner had access to the report prepared for the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs dated 21 September 2011. BROWSE LNG PROJECT — GAS PRECINCT 265. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: This is question C267. I refer to the statement by the Premier; Minister for State Development on Thursday, 20 June 2013 that the state intends to proceed with the compulsory acquisition of land for a gas precinct near James Price Point to encourage development of the offshore Browse Basin and onshore Canning Basin gas fields. (1) Is the liquefied natural gas precinct, to which both the 2011 Browse precinct project agreement and the 2008 strategic assessment agreement with the commonwealth government relate, for the processing of gas for the Browse Basin only? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Did any of the series of notices given for the compulsory acquisition of the land under the commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 and the state Land Administration Act 1997 refer to the purpose of the acquisition as being related to the Canning Basin fields or identify it as a relevant purpose? (4) If yes to (3), in what part of the relevant notice? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I am still waiting on approval for that question. If it comes in before the end of question time, I will provide it. Hon Robin Chapple: It was actually asked a while ago. Hon PETER COLLIER: Is it C267? Hon Robin Chapple: It is C267. Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. I have to say I am waiting on approval for this, but if it arrives before the end of question time, I will provide it; if not, tomorrow. FIREARMS — LICENCES 266. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: Can the minister provide for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 — (a) the number of lodged firearms licence applications that were refused; and (b) the basis of the refusal? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Police, I advise — (a) Firearms data obtained from the WA Police firearms registry system indicate that in 2010, 183 of 6 905 applications were refused; in 2011, 237 of 8 102 applications were refused; and in 2012, 316 of 8 343 applications were refused. (b) The response required for this question would take a significant amount of time and resources to collate and process, as each application would need to be reviewed manually. It is therefore not possible for police to obtain this information without significantly compromising other core policing activities. BEAGLE BAY — SWIMMING POOL 267. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Sport and Recreation: I refer to the WA Planning Commission document “Beagle Bay Layout Plan No. 1” with specific reference to lot 15 on Certificate of Title volume 2221 folio 75. In reference to lot 15 being “the most likely location for the community swimming pool”, this document also states —

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1991

The Department of Sports and Recreation have advised that funding for a community swimming pool is likely … (1) Have any budgetary commitments been made for this project yet? (2) When can the community expect planning for this project to commence? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) No; however, the Beagle Bay Community may apply for funding for this project through the Department of Sport and Recreation’s community sporting and recreation facilities fund. Planning for this project is the responsibility of the community. FEES AND CHARGES — PLANNING PORTFOLIO 268. Hon DARREN WEST to the minister representing the Minister for Planning: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Planning’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I request that the member place the question on notice. The information will be provided at the same time as the answer to similar questions the member has put to other portfolios. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! FEES AND CHARGES — TREASURY PORTFOLIO 269. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Treasurer’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Treasurer has indicated that it is not possible to provide the information in the time available and I request that the member place the question on notice. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! FEES AND CHARGES — WATER PORTFOLIO 270. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Water: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Water’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon COL HOLT replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Wait for it! It is not possible to provide the information in the required time frame and the member is asked to put this question on notice. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS — GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 271. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: My question, of which some notice has been given, does not relate to fees and charges! I refer to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs budget of 2011–12, page 637, in which there is an allocation of $2.3 million royalties for regions funding over two years for a governance and leadership development program. (1) Did the Department of Aboriginal Affairs ever receive the budgeted royalties for regions money for the governance and leadership development program? (2) If no to (1),why not?

1992 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

(3) If no to (1), when will this budget allocation be received by DAA? (4) If yes to (1), what was the money spent on and which of the program’s many goals were achieved as a result? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) To access the funding allocated by royalties for regions, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is required to provide an appropriate business case to support the expenditure. The business case is still being finalised and must be acceptable to both the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Regional Development. (3) Funding is available in the 2013–14 budget subject to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs finalising a business case for this important work. (4) Not applicable. FEES AND CHARGES — COMMERCE PORTFOLIO 272. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Commerce’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Providing the information in the time required is not possible and I request that the member place — Hon Adele Farina interjected. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I am sorry, Mr President; I thought the question was directed to me. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! You are quite right; the question was directed to you. The answer can be directed back through me to the house. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Thank you, Mr President. Providing the information in the time required is not possible and I request that the member place the question on notice. FEES AND CHARGES — HEALTH PORTFOLIO 273. Hon ADELE FARINA to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I suspect I know the answer to this question already! I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Health’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Health. Providing the information in the time required is not possible and I request that the member place the question on notice. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members. FEES AND CHARGES 274. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Leader of the House: My question without notice — Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! You are being interrupted by your own members. Hon SUE ELLERY: Yes, they will shut up in a minute! My question is to the Leader of the House and is without notice. I refer to answers to questions today that it is not possible for a range of ministers to provide an answer to a question asking ministers to identify increases in fees and charges starting in five days’ time, and I ask the Leader of the House to explain on what grounds it is not possible.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1993

Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for that question. I received a response to a similar question, I have to say, half an hour before question time. I put that question back to the other place and I was told that that was simply the case. I will follow up post question time and possibly give a more elaborate and extensive response tomorrow, but at this stage, as I said, I checked and I was assured that the information could not be provided. FREMANTLE TRAFFIC BRIDGE 275. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Is Main Roads still working with the Australian Urban Design Research Centre and Pracsys economic consultants on designs for a new traffic bridge across the Swan River in Fremantle? (2) If yes to (1), when is the work expected to be completed; and, what has been the cost of this work to date? (3) If no to (1), when was the work completed; what was the cost of the work undertaken; and, will the minister table a copy of any report produced as a result of this work? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) End of August 2013; and $28 000. (3) Not applicable. ENERGY — MARKET STRUCTURE 276. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing Minister for Energy: I refer to the “Fact File” section of the minister’s media statement of Wednesday, 10 April 2013, which states — • During its first term the Liberal National Government made incremental improvements to the structure of the energy market that reduced the cost to the State by approximately $1billion (1) Can the minister please provide an itemised list of the “incremental improvements”, along with their related dollar amounts, as referred to in the “Fact File” section of the statement? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (l) No. (2) Some of these issues improvements relate to changes made to the vesting contract and are strictly confidential. ELECTRICITY — PREPAID METERS 277. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to the use of prepaid electricity meters in Western Australia. (1) In which communities in the Kimberley and the Pilbara have prepaid meters been installed? (2) How many have been installed in each community? (3) Are these prepaid meters now being removed? (4) If yes — (a) why; (b) when was the decision made to remove the meters; (c) what is the cost of removal; (d) what is the deadline for removal; and (e) what alternative plan does the minister have to assist low-income customers manage their power costs? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. It is question C184, is it not?

1994 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

Hon Sally Talbot: Yes. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is quite a lengthy response, so I seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard. The PRESIDENT: That is unusual. It is only usually done for tabular forms, but the Leader of the House is perfectly entitled to do it if he wants. Hon PETER COLLIER: I would like to do so. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated —

I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1.&2. The communities which have been connected to the Horizon Power network and have had prepayment meters (PPMs) installed by Horizon Power are listed below by region. Also shown is the number of PPMs in each community or town. West Kimberley • Ardyaloon, 75 • Djardjin/ Lombadina,60 • Beagle Bay/Bobieding,58 • Bidgydanga 91 • Budulah/Bungardi, (Derby) 82 • Bayulu, 51 • Darigunayal/Djimung Nguda/Junjuwa/Karmulinunga/Kurnangki/Mindi Rardi, (Fitzroy Crossing) 127 • Yungngora 66 • Mowanjum 58 East Kimberley • Guda Guda 21 • Mirima /Nulleywah, (Kununurra) 58 • Red Hill/Nicholson Camp/Warrayu, (Halls Creek) 60 • Kalumburu 83 Pilbara: • Irrigunji 19 • Gooda Binya 12 • Cheeditha 15 • Bindi Bindi 20 3. The prepayment meters are not being removed. In May 2013, Horizon Power sought an extension to the grandfathering period for the replacement of existing meters from the 30 June 2013 to 30 June 2014, by which time Horizon Power plans to have a new metering solution developed. The extension has been sought from the Electricity Code Consultative Committee, the ECCC, which has supported the extension and the request is currently with the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA). 4. Although the meters have not yet been removed, they will be required to be replaced by 30 June 2014 should the ERA approve the extension. a. The ECCC reviews the “Code of Conduct for the Supply of Electricity to Small use Customers”, (the Code), every two years. In the 2009 review, the ECCC recommended changes to part 9 of the Code which were gazetted. These changes added requirements that both a retailer and a network operator were required to comply. The existing prepayment meter installed in communities does not meet these requirements. The meters are therefore required to be replaced by the end of the grandfathering period. b. The decision was made in the Code review of 2009. c. The meters cannot be removed without providing a replacement meter. The cost for the exchange of the prepayment meters to a credit meter will be ~$1 million which covers the cost of the replacement meter and its exchange in the field. d. The deadline for removal is 30 June 2013; however, the expected extension approval will move this deadline to 30 June 2014. e. Horizon Power remains committed to the delivery of an alternative prepayment metering system and is working through the development of such a system presently. A trial of a new system is expected to take place in the first quarter of 2014.

FEES AND CHARGES — FINANCE PORTFOLIO 278. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the minister representing the Minister for Finance: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Finance’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. Providing the information in the time required is not possible and I request that the member place the question on notice.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1995

FEES AND CHARGES — FISHERIES PORTFOLIO 279. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON to the minister representing the Minister for Fisheries: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Fisheries’ portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question, the answer to which I deliver on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who represents the Minister for Fisheries, but who is absent on urgent parliamentary business. It is not possible to provide the information in the time available and I request that the member place the question on notice. FEES AND CHARGES — HOUSING PORTFOLIO 280. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Housing’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question, which I answer on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Housing. The honourable member is asked to put the question on notice. FEES AND CHARGES — ENERGY PORTFOLIO 281. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Energy’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Providing the information in the time required is not possible, and I request that the member place the question on notice. NATURAL GAS — SHALE AND TIGHT GAS SOURCES 282. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to the “Natural Gas from Shale and Tight Rocks Fact Sheet: Providing responses to misinformation”, which appeared on the Department of Mines and Petroleum website on 17 June. (1) Will the minister provide equal space on the DMP website for an alternative view to be put? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If no to (1), will the minister encourage another minister to provide equal space on their website for an alternative view to be put? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question, which I answer on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum. (1) No, the fact sheets available on the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s website are not points of view. (2) DMP is committed to providing the community with factual information about the regulatory framework for natural gas from shale and tight sources in Western Australia. (3) No. (4) Even though DMP is the lead agency for petroleum approvals, the information provided on DMP’s website has been drafted with advice from other state government agencies. This is consistent with DMP’s broad whole-of-government strategy for the shale and tight gas industry.

1996 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

LYNWOOD HOMESTEAD 283. Hon KATE DOUST to the minister representing the Minister for Heritage: I refer to the imminent demolition of Lynwood Homestead in Middle Swan. (1) What measures has the Minister for Heritage taken to prevent its destruction? (2) Has the Minister for Heritage sought an independent estimate of the amount needed to preserve the building; and, if not, why not? (3) Has the Minister for Heritage considered issuing a stop-work order; and, if not, why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No measures have been taken. The City of Swan approved the owner’s application to demolish Lynwood Homestead. Having considered the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s advice, which did not support the proposal, the city approved the application, having determined there was no feasible and prudent alternative. That is the way our heritage laws work in Western Australia. (2) No. The determination of “no feasible and prudent alternative” rests with the decision-making authority, in this case the City of Swan. (3) The Heritage Council, which advises the minister on heritage matters under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, considered the City of Swan’s decision to grant approval to the demolition of Lynwood Homestead on 10 May 2013. The Heritage Council resolved to advise the city that it noted with regret the city’s decision to exercise its discretion under section 11(3)(c) of the heritage act and approve the demolition. The Heritage Council also resolved not to take any further action on this matter. Given the above, the minister has said that he has no reason to believe that issuing a stop-work order would be appropriate as it would not facilitate any improved heritage outcomes. RICHARD MUIRHEAD — APPOINTMENT 284. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to question without notice 211 and the appointment of Mr Richard Muirhead as chair of the Pilbara maritime common use facility steering committee. (1) Is the minister aware of any consulting engagements Mr Muirhead may have had with individuals or businesses with mining or resource interests in the Pilbara since Mr Muirhead’s appointment as chair? (2) If yes to (1), does the minister consider that any such work may lead to the perception of a conflict of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. However, I am advised that Mr Muirhead has undertaken consulting work with the Australian Children’s Trust, an organisation connected with the Forrest family. FEES AND CHARGES — MINES AND PETROLEUM PORTFOLIO 285. Hon DARREN WEST to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I preface my question by informing the house that I really hope at least one government minister has some basic grasp of his portfolio. The PRESIDENT: Order! That preface is not in order. Your question must be concise and relevant, as must be the answer. Hon DARREN WEST: My apologies, Mr President. I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Mines and Petroleum’s portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. There seems to be one draftsperson for all of them. On behalf of the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I advise that the honourable member is asked to put the question on notice.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1997

PERTH TRAIN STATION — TRANSIT OFFICERS 286. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Since 1 June 2013, has any minister raised concerns with the Minister for Transport regarding the number of transit officers at Perth train station rather than being on trains? (2) If yes to (1), which minister raised the concerns? (3) If yes to (1), what action has occurred since these concerns were raised? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) The Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Veterans. (3) The minister confirmed that this is a very visual reminder that front-line services on our public transport system are important for keeping public transport commuters safe. Under this government, the number of transit officers has continued to increase to a record level of 242 in 2013, contrary to claims made by the member in the house last week. FEES AND CHARGES — COMMUNITY SERVICES PORTFOLIO 287. Hon ADELE FARINA to the minister representing the Minister for Community Services: I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the Minister for Community Services’ portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The minister has asked that the honourable member please place the question on notice. SCHOOLS — PERIMETER FENCING — ENDEAVOUR PRIMARY SCHOOL Question without Notice 250 — Answer Advice HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Education) [5.02 pm]: I would like to provide an answer to the first part of Hon Sue Ellery’s question without notice 250, asked last Thursday, 20 June 2013. For 2008–09, $54 288. SUPPLY BILL 2013 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [5.03 pm]: I was about to wrap up my speech, but the events of question time have caused it to be extended a little. I want to make some comments in relation to the answers we received to questions about fees and charges for goods and services provided under a range of portfolios. The fees and charges we asked about are scheduled to be increased from 1 July 2013. The question for a range of portfolios was framed like this — I refer to fees and charges for goods and services provided within the X portfolio. Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much for each? A number of the answers we received were in the following terms — It is not possible to provide the information in the time available, and I request that the member place this question on notice. I raise this matter to remind members of the government that they are responsible for the answers they give. Even when they give those answers in a representative capacity, it is the representative minister who is telling the house that it is not possible to provide that information. The information that is being sought is about increases to fees and charges. There will be a range of fees and charges within each of the respective portfolios and I suspect that, for many of them, there will be no increase; but for some there will be increases, taking effect from 1 July, which is in six days’ time and three working days’ time. The agencies that are about to have fee increases will have that information material easily available. In fact, by now they will have either set up their systems so that they can send out notices advising people of the fee increases if they have not already done so, or calibrated their systems such that they can give effect to the increases in a small number of business working days. One has to ask oneself—I ask members opposite to ask themselves, which is why I asked the Leader of the House—what do government members mean when they say it is not possible? That information is

1998 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] available; the agencies have it to hand because they have calibrated their systems or sent out letters to advise the people who will have to pay the extra money that the increases will come into effect within about three or four business days. When members say it is not possible, what is it that they mean? It is unacceptable to me—but entirely legitimate for government members—to say, “We choose not to provide that information and ask you to put it on notice.” I say that that is unacceptable to me, politically, because I think it is unfair; but of course I would think that, because I am a member of the opposition. But it is entirely within the realm of what is reasonable, within the standing orders and respectful of the house for government members to say, “The government has decided we will not release that information and I ask you to put the question on notice.” The government can choose to say that, but that is not what most members opposite said. Most of them said that it is not possible. If, for all logistical purposes, the agencies’ systems have been recalibrated to take effect from 1 July—material may well have been prepared for relevant stakeholders and affected groups and, indeed, there may well have been media releases prepared—when government members say that it is not possible, it is very likely that they are misleading the house, because it is entirely possible for members to provide that information; the agencies are set up and ready to go to implement the change. If members opposite have misled the house by using that particular form of words, they will need to think very seriously about it because the standing orders allow for a member to make a mistake and for that to be accommodated through a provision that allows members, at the next available opportunity, to correct what they might have inadvertently said, or what they might have said not realising that they are responsible for the answers they give, even when they give them in a representative capacity. I am asking the government to consider what it has just said to the house. If we were, for example, to find a letter that was sent to a stakeholder, or in any way to find material that demonstrates it was possible for the member to give the opposition that information and the member chose not to do so, then the house has been misled. If the government does not take the next available opportunity—which might be, for example, in members’ statements tonight—to correct that, then the government is in serious trouble and really needs to think about the answers it has given. Politically it is one thing for the government to choose not to release the information; that is unfair, but it is a choice available to the government and I look forward to the day that it is available to me. But that is a choice the government makes; it is not what most government members have said. What most government members have said was that it was not possible when, in fact, it is known that the systems had been recalibrated to give effect to those increases in fees and charges. I ask the government to seriously think about that—because if no-one takes the opportunity to correct the answer, then there is a serious issue if we can demonstrate that, in fact, it was entirely possible for the government to provide that information. I want to go back to the question of why we are saying no to an additional $620 million to WA schools. When the Prime Minister visited WA just a couple of weeks ago, she increased the offer available to WA schools under the national plan for schools funding system from $300 million to $920 million; therefore, some $620 million of that money is federal government money. That would mean that, with indexation, WA would receive $2.8 billion in education funding across the six years of that plan. What that means, for example, in the state seat of Riverton, where my electorate office is located, is that schools in Riverton or on the border of Riverton—Rossmoyne Primary School, Riverton Primary School, Lynwood Senior High School, Burrendah Primary School, Rossmoyne Senior High School, Rostrata Primary School, Shelley Primary School, Willetton Senior High School and Willetton Primary School—over that six-year period will have increases in excess of 19 per cent per student. I know those schools well. Although Willetton Senior High School did well out of the election, Lynwood Senior High School, for example, did not do so well. But I know that absolutely none of those schools would be in a position where they could afford to say no to increases in funding over the six years. For example, for Rossmoyne Primary School, the increase would be $1.6 million; for Riverton Primary School, $1.682 million; for Lynwood Senior High School, $12.8 million; for Burrendah Primary School, $1.58 million; for Rossmoyne Senior High School, $19.5 million; for Rostrata Primary School, $2.2 million; for Shelley Primary School, $1.1 million; for Willetton Senior High School, $21.5 million; and for Willetton Primary School, $1.5 million. There is no way that those schools are in a position where they can afford to say, “No thanks very much, we don’t want you spending that money on us.” If that is what WA is saying and, it is, the Premier has said, “No thanks very much. We’re not going to sign up to that.” As reported in WAtoday.com.au, published 12 June, this is what he said on the day — I’m pleased with that — That is the higher offer of dollars — ... but there are still issues about governance and I made it very clear that WA is not going to have State Government schools governed or reporting to Canberra. Therefore, the Premier said he will not be signing up to that agreement. Not only is it beholden on him to tell us and spell out exactly what those governance issues are, but also he should direct his officials to sit down at the table with the commonwealth officials to nut out those issues so that we can get hold of some of that money. All those schools in Riverton I listed can get the more than 19 per cent increase in funding per student that is

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 1999 promised under that funding. It is why I made the point. Why is the Premier saying no? What is the alternative he can offer that we just do not know about yet? I do not know if I can figure out what it is. However, I looked to the position of the federal coalition—that is, the opposition, and what it is reported to have said on 13 June in The Australian Financial Review. It states — ... an Abbott government would take on a hostile Senate to repeal the laws — That is the Gonski reform laws, the national plan for education laws — ... before January next year. The article goes on to state — The Coalition has long suggested it will overturn the Gonski funding model if it is not taken up by an “overwhelming” majority of states and territories. Therefore, once the Premier said he was saying no to that Gonski funding, opposition education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, told the Australian Financial Review — ... that the Coalition would move quickly to repeal the Gonski system before the start of a new funding year on January 1. I looked for words from the person whom Mr Barnett hopes will be the next Prime Minister—that is, Tony Abbott. He wrote an article for The Australian on 4 June—or it appears under his name—stating what the coalition would do — The Coalition believes in an education system built on choice. ... the Coalition, if elected, will work with states and territories to give local communities and parents much more say in the way schools are run. The key to better schools, at least as much as more money, is better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more parental involvement, and more principal autonomy. Concerned about national test results, he states — ... national test results have shown stagnation in literacy and numeracy. The Coalition’s Real Solutions Plan will put parents and principals, not unaccountable bureaucrats, in charge of determining how local schools will be run. He further states — We will continue existing levels of funding for schools, indexed to deal with real increases in costs and we will ensure that the targeting of funding is based on the social and economic status of the community. What is on offer is the same level of funding as is available now—an indexation. That is it. That is a lot to be saying no to when the government is not prepared to sit down with officials from the commonwealth government to try to nut out some of those issues that the Premier has referred to as governance issues. We really do not know any more detail about that. We really do not know why he is not confident that he cannot reach the outcome he wants in those negotiations, particularly since several more states than initially just New South Wales have now signed on. We need to hear from the Barnett government. The schools in Riverton, for example, will want to hear from the Barnett government about why it is that Mr Barnett is saying no to these millions of dollars for their students when what is on offer from Mr Abbott is existing funding only. That is a legitimate question for those school communities to be asking. I will be talking to the schools, as I talk to lots of school communities in my new capacity, about what it is that they are missing out on, but I will also be seeking their views on whether they think that is a satisfactory answer. I have canvassed the issues around why it is that WA can afford to say no to an additional $620 million from the commonwealth. I have canvassed the issue surrounding when the government is giving an answer in this place; be it representative or otherwise, it is the government’s answer and the government is responsible. If someone uses the words that he or she cannot give an answer because it is not possible, when they know that it is indeed possible, then they are potentially misleading the house and need to use the next available opportunity to correct it. I have canvassed the issues around homelessness and public housing getting worse and not better; that we need to spend more money and have much better coordination between the agencies that are responsible for people who find themselves in that situation. With those comments, I conclude my remarks on the Supply Bill 2013. HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [5.19 pm]: I rise tonight to speak on the Supply Bill 2013. I note that the second reading speech made by the Minister for Mental Health in this place on 22 May states — This bill seeks supply and appropriation from the consolidated account for recurrent and capital purposes during the 2013–14 financial year of $7.942 billion out of the consolidated account pending the passage of the consolidated account appropriation bills for the year ending 30 June 2014.

2000 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

Supply is an integral element of the Westminster system of government and successive state governments and Parliaments in Western Australia have … understood that the intent of supply is to give authority for expenditure from the commencement of a new financial year pending the passage of the consolidated account appropriation bills. For the most part, members in this place act as parliamentarians, and rarely do we see the antics of those in the other place. We in this place are well aware of the Westminster system and we gladly uphold its traditions—or we certainly try to. That is why it is disappointing that some members in this place were denied a briefing on this bill. Hon Ken Travers, who represents Rita Saffioti, Labor’s shadow Minister for Finance, requested a briefing on the bill for the Labor Party, but that request was denied. It makes life difficult for opposition members when the government refuses to provide briefings on matters that would only help us in our role as parliamentarians in this place. I am pleased that this bill will release an amount of $7.942 billion, with $6.749 billion for recurrent services and $1.193 billion for capital purposes. I am very hopeful that some of this money will be spent in my electorate. I hope that this money will be used by the government to deliver on the election promises that were made for the Mining and Pastoral Region. It is common practice for political parties to make promises in election periods; we all do it. But it is often on the basis of those promises that certain members of Parliament get elected. Voters choose particular candidates and parties based on those commitments. Labor, too, made promises at the recent election. I am pleased to say that Kelly Howlett, who was a fantastic candidate, made promises for the seat of Pilbara; Jennifer Shelton made promises for the seat of North West Central; Terrence Winner made promises for the seat of Kalgoorlie; and Greg Smith made promises for the seat of Eyre. Each of these hardworking candidates made promises but they did not get elected. Perhaps we are to surmise that voters preferred the election promises of the Liberal and National Parties. In some of these seats, Liberal and National Party MPs made different promises, so I will be very interested to see which of those promises are delivered in the Mining and Pastoral Region. Hon Dave Grills: All of them. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I hope so, Hon Dave Grills. An article in the Kalgoorlie Miner of Monday, 13 May reported that the Minister for Regional Development, who is also the Leader of the National Party, tried to reassure goldfields residents by saying that they should not expect the government to break the WA Nationals’ election promises to the region. Mr Grylls tried to assure the electors of the goldfields that those promises would be kept. The article states — But Mr Grylls in an interview with the Kalgoorlie Miner said Goldfields residents should be “very confident” about his party’s election promises. These included the Nationals’ $150 million Goldfields Revitalisation Fund. It also included numerous policies, including health policies. I am very pleased to say that that assurance was given, and I look forward to goldfields residents getting benefits from the election commitments. An article in The Sunday Times of 7 April 2013 by Joe Spagnolo, the political editor at The Sunday Times, states — “He (Mr Barnett) is looking at either scrapping or rebadging the Country Local Government Fund,” a source said. I wonder whether that source was from this place; perhaps not — The fund is part of the Royalties for Regions scheme. “Instead of using that money to fund community groups, he’d use it to pay for sewerage and roads which normally would have come out of consolidated revenue. It would (then) free up a lot of money and solve some of his problems.” I do not mind the government spending some royalties for regions money on roads, provided it is extra money and the government is not using sleight of hand to decrease spending on roads in the budget and replace it with royalties for regions funding. Surely all members in this place will agree that if we are to spend money from consolidated revenue on roads, we must make sure that that money is spent on the projects for which it was deemed, as is required under the royalties for regions legislation that passed through this place. Goodness knows that many roads in my electorate could do with funding. I drove to Port Hedland airport this morning after spending a couple of days at my electorate office. Thanks to the rain this morning, the water was very high and the roads were trashed. I hope that some of this appropriation will go towards fixing those roads. Hon Alanna Clohesy: Good drains. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes, good drains. I thank Hon Alanna Clohesy for her interjection. Hon Col Holt interjected.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2001

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Floods certainly do, but lots of roads in that electorate never get any money and they should. If Parliament is to give the government the authority to spend $7.942 billion in the next few months, I hope that some of that money will be spent on the roads in my electorate. The Cape Leveque road is one example. It is often subject to closures after heavy rain, which in turn means that children from some of the communities on the Dampier Peninsula cannot go to school for days at a time. During the last flood a couple of months ago, the children from the communities along that road could not go to school for 14 days. I certainly hope that some of this funding can go towards fixing that road and perhaps sealing it. Some of the top has been sealed, but the bottom has not been sealed. Hon Col Holt: Is that your top priority? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I have a number of priorities right around my electorate, but I certainly hope that the government makes this road a priority. Hon Col Holt interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Adele Farina): Order, honourable members! Hon Stephen Dawson has the call. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: The road from Newman to Nullagine also could do with some extra funding. During the recent election campaign, Hon Mark McGowan drove along that road. I am very pleased to say that during the election campaign he made a commitment of $50 million to seal the road. Hon Ken Travers: In advance of the campaign. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Absolutely; it was in advance of the campaign. Hon Ken Travers: It forced the National Party to realise that it was an issue, in fact. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: We saw that it was an issue and we sought to fix it. Had we been elected, that money would have gone towards that road. As we have given this issue prominence, I hope that the government will put some money from this $7.9-odd billion towards this road. When Mark McGowan made that statement, he also said that under the Barnett–Grylls government we had seen a steady decline in funding for capital works and regional state roads. So I hope that some of this money will be spent on this road. Last week I had the privilege of spending a few days in Menzies and Leonora. The streetscape in Menzies looked great. It is a real credit to the local shire, which has put a lot of effort and resources into tidying up the town. Buildings are being refurbished. Some of the stately old buildings that have been around since the turn of the century or longer are shiny again. There is street art in the town. It was very good, so I congratulate the shire for that work. Hon Dave Grills interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I have said previously in this place that I am a supporter of royalties for regions; in fact, I said it in my first speech a couple of weeks ago. I certainly hope that the government does not start spending money from the consolidated fund elsewhere and using royalties for regions money, because that was not what Parliament voted for originally. Hon Col Holt would agree with me that the money from royalties for regions should be on top of whatever we do in the regions. After Menzies we visited the town of Leonora, which is also looking good, but it is not as shiny as the town of Menzies. I was disappointed when I visited the Nambi Aboriginal community. Members would have heard me ask some questions last week about the state of that Aboriginal community, particularly the playground. The playground equipment was old and broken, there was glass on the ground and it was overgrown. Unlike playgrounds in the metropolitan area, it had not been looked after. It certainly did not go anywhere near to meeting Australian standards. It is a real concern. I was also concerned about the lack of community footpaths and street lighting. The community centre was dilapidated—it is the most unloved place. It is as though governments have just left it there and never looked after it. The answers I received to my questions certainly indicated that the government did not have any intention of looking after it. I will certainly make it a priority to make sure people listen and pay attention to that community. There are two playgrounds in the town of Leonora—the one I have spoken about already and the one in the main street right in the heart of town. The playground in town has been well looked after. It recently received federal money from either the Gillard or Rudd Labor government. The playground in Nambi is a disgrace. It has received neither love nor funding for many years. Maybe some royalties for regions money can go towards that playground or maybe money from the Supply Bill 2013 could be used to give the young Aboriginal children in Nambi a decent and safe place to play. Hon Dave Grills interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I visited a few things, Hon Dave Grills. I will get to those later. In the past few weeks I have also spent plenty of time in Hedland. I feel very lucky to have my office in the South Hedland Shopping Centre, which is right in the heart of the community. Having spent a few days there,

2002 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] there have been quite a lot of walk-ins by constituents who have real problems. We have had to drop everything to deal with them, which is what we do. Since being sworn in four weeks ago, I have been approached by my constituents about a range of issues that need to be addressed in not only the Hedland community but also right around the state. One of those issues is young kids roaming the streets at night. I guess Hedland, like many communities in the metropolitan area and around the state, suffers from the problem of children as young as six out on the streets at night displaying antisocial behaviour. Houses have been ransacked and children have been fighting other children. These are children with nothing else to do who congregate late at night and cause social problems because they do not have a playground or a youth or sports facility. Hon Dave Grills: Didn’t you say that Port Hedland had too many facilities? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am not sure that was the case. What we have said is that some of the royalties for regions facilities in town do not get recurrent funding. The money is given in the first place, but it does not continue. Hon Dave Grills, I have said that that is a good policy. However, we did not think it through properly. We did not spend it on the right things and we consistently do not spend it on the right things. A recent act of vandalism was the $130 000 worth of damage to Wanangkura Stadium. If the government had spent money—perhaps some of the Supply Bill money—properly and appropriately to keep children off the streets and keep them engaged, local councils and government would not have to find an extra $130 000 to fix the damage. On Monday, 17 June there was an article on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website by Ebony Springs. In that article she referred to some of the issues currently concerning the community, which have also been raised with me. She said that since January there have been 90 incidents of rock throwing at targets that have included cars and public buildings. South Hedland police have been returning home up to 20 children a night as late as 2.00 am and 3.00 am. The Port Hedland Youth Involvement Council runs a program called Mingle Mob, which is a fantastic program. It seeks to take children off the street to give them things to do and to play with other kids in a safe environment. It does a great job. However, the patrol operates from Thursday to Saturday from 6.00 pm to 10.00 pm. Really it should run until 2.00 am, seven days a week. We should be trying to stop kids from causing damage and being out on the streets at 2.00 am instead of ending the patrol after normal kids go to bed at 8.00 pm. The patrol should operate to ensure that kids are not committing petty crimes. Perhaps some of the Supply Bill money could be used to fund the Port Hedland Youth Involvement Council to ensure that Mingle Mob operates until 2.00 am every night of the week. That would certainly be a good use of that money. I hope the government considers that. While I am on the issue of crime in Port Hedland and South Hedland, recently Labor’s candidate for the federal seat of Durack, Daron Keogh—he is a lovely bloke who has worked with children and Aboriginal people on a range of issues, including foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, homelessness and housing—was driving through the town of Roebourne when a rock was thrown at his car. The rock totally smashed poor old Daron’s front windscreen. He had to go to hospital to have stitches in his arm. Daron raised this issue in an article in the North West Telegraph that week. The article stated that the incident caused a cut to Mr Keogh’s right shoulder and broke the skin. Daron is such a good bloke that he did not go after the kids to get them into trouble or have the police chase after them to seek justice. Rather, Daron sought to highlight the fact that these kids should not be on the street late at night and that if the government were serious it should fund services to take children off the streets and to lessen the incidence of crime. Back to Port Hedland—but this could apply equally to Wyndham, Kalgoorlie, Leonora or Carnarvon—another issue that has been raised with me over the past few weeks is the issue of homelessness. Homelessness in Port Hedland is on the rise. Recently, we have had a lot of cold temperatures at night. I was shocked to learn of the number of homeless people in a town like Port Hedland, which is a mining boom community. I hate to think of people being on the street. In the last 24 hours Hedland has had 180 millimetres of rain and Karratha has had 210 millimetres of rain. There are people living on the street in that weather. Hon Jacqui Boydell interjected. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Hon Jacqui Boydell, I am pleased you are here listening to me. I always appreciate the member’s interjections. I always appreciate listening to the member. Tonight is not about my plan. Tonight is about the government’s Supply Bill 2013. Hon Jacqui Boydell is a member of the Liberal–National government. Members opposite, particularly National Party members, are often very happy to say that they are not part of the government—but they are. What I am speaking about tonight is the Supply Bill 2013, which will release $7.942 billion. I mentioned the breakdown earlier; it was $6.5 billion for capital — Hon Helen Morton: The other way—recurrent. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I thank Hon Helen Morton; I appreciate her interjection. It was $6.5 billion for recurrent expenditure and one point something for capital expenditure. I lost my train of thought for a second. The total is $7.5 billion. I am raising these issues this evening because I hope members opposite—indeed, those

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2003 members sitting close to me—will listen to what I have to say and consider spending some of this money on these important projects in my electorate and the electorates of other members in this place. It can only make this state better and it can certainly solve some of the problems that we face. Some of the other projects that I would love to see funded from this Supply Bill include the Tom Price Hospital and the Paraburdoo Hospital, places dear to me. I note that on 26 March 2013, the Shire of Ashburton wrote to Hon Kim Hames, the Minister for Health, about this issue. The letter states — Dear Minister Hames … It was reported at the Ordinary Meeting of Council in October 2012 that the residents of both Tom Price and Paraburdoo are concerned regarding their respective hospitals. The issues are the buildings are quite old and home to a lot of old medical equipment and the number of beds available for patient use has declined. In this place only last week I asked a question about those hospitals, seeking some information from the government and hoping that it would put some funds into these hospitals. The author of this letter was Frank Ludovico, the acting chief executive officer. He went on to say — There have also been rumours circulating that the Paraburdoo hospital is expected to close and that the much needed upgrade of the Tom Price hospital is not planned for some time. The residents of Tom Price and Paraburdoo have sought Council’s assistance in bringing this matter to your attention. Council seeks your advice on the future plans for these hospitals and how the services mentioned above can be delivered. On 2 May the Minister for Health wrote back to the council, thanking it for the letter. I was pleased to say that he put in writing that there were no plans to close Paraburdoo Hospital and, despite the age of both hospitals, they continue to deliver quality services to the community. The minister went on to say that, essentially, he was not in a position to give funds to those hospitals for their upkeep and to ensure that they adequately service the community. I hope that some of the money from this Supply Bill can go towards those two hospitals in those two communities. I mentioned the state election earlier and some of the policies that political parties spoke about or announced during the campaign. The Liberal Party’s regional health document put out during the state election campaign was part of its regional development policy. It stated — If re-elected, the Liberals will: … • Provide funding for an additional 45 school health nurses in regional Western Australia • Fund a $4.2million renal analysis service for the Wheatbelt region, I think that is a great policy but it is remiss of the Liberals not to have done something for the Kimberley community. Members who know Broome and the Kimberley would know that the incidence of renal failure in that community — Hon Helen Morton: Are you sure there’s not one already in Broome? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: There is but I was going to say that it brings people into town. It takes families away from the community and it takes kids away from school. Sometimes we see families camping on the oval in Broome. I was going to say that I was hoping that perhaps the government would consider a mobile dialysis machine that could go out to those communities across the Kimberley and give people the health services they need right on the ground in their communities. Perhaps we could look at doing something similar with some of this $7.942 million. It is a great amount of money. I do not think I am up to $7.942 billion yet; I think I am only up to a couple of million. I say to Hon Helen Morton that I am not trying to spend all the money; I am simply saying that I hope some of this money is used for some of these services. Hon Ken Travers: Try to get them to focus on the proper priorities of the electorate. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Absolutely. That is what I am trying to do. One of the other things that was mentioned in the policy document was the pledge to provide $474 000 over three years to fund research into foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the Fitzroy Valley region of the Kimberley. I certainly support that. In fact, we could probably do with more money for a service like that. It is very important. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate June Oscar from the Fitzroy Valley. June is an Aboriginal woman—a Bunuba woman—and also the chief executive officer of the Marninwarntikura Women’s

2004 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

Resource Centre. June was recently appointed an officer in the Order of Australia for leading the campaign to introduce alcohol restrictions in the community. She has also been a leader in dealing with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I have a copy of the National Party’s “North West Health Initiative”. This document shows that the Nationals (WA), through royalties for regions, are planning to invest $150 million in the north west health initiative, which will improve existing health and aged care facilities in key towns across the north west. Again, I support the investment of $150 million. Hon Jacqui Boydell: You support that? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I absolutely support spending this money for such a vital service in this community. I was going to say that Labor had a policy worth almost $300 million—the northern health initiative policy—which trumped that of the Nationals. Imagine $300 million for vital health services in the Kimberley and the north west. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Adele Farina): Order, members! Hon Stephen Dawson has the call. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: My apologies, Madam Deputy President. I am getting quite boisterous. I am welcoming these interjections and probably causing this. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon Jacqui Boydell may take the call if she would like to address this motion rather than do so by way of interjection. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is the role of the opposition to hold a government to account, not to say anything we want. Members on the far side who are feeling a little angry or concerned because we are raising these issues should not be. Hon Alanna Clohesy: Embarrassed. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Perhaps they are embarrassed. It is our role as members in this place to hold the other side to account. I am raising these issues because they are very important to me and to the electors in my region right across the north west of this state. These issues affect people’s lives. I am raising them because they could make people’s lives better. I am raising them under this bill because this government will have an extra $7.492 billion over the next few months and I am hoping that it will listen to me and fund some of these initiatives and make the north west a better place. Under our $300 million northern health initiative we were going to: fast-track the Karratha health campus; invest $54 million to rebuild Newman Hospital and increase bed capacity; commit a significant amount of money to upgrade smaller regional hospitals, including Roebourne, Wickham, Tom Price and Paraburdoo, and the health clinic in Exmouth; and invest $35 million in a north medical workforce program to train and employ more health professionals for the north of the state. This would have included doctors, nurses, Aboriginal health workers and other health professionals. The reality is that we invest lots of money in rebuilding these hospitals, but unless we have specialists, doctors, nurses and workers on the ground to deliver the services, we could be wasting money. We would have spent $300 million on the northern health initiative. I certainly hope members on the far side will read and perhaps copy our policy. I would be only too happy for them to copy our policy. They should find an extra $150 million, perhaps in this Supply Bill, and take up some of these projects because each of them is worthy. We had good policies not only in health, but also across the board. However, unfortunately, we are on this side and you are on that. Not you, Madam Deputy President. You are neutral in that role. We are on this side. The government is on that side. I certainly hope that it will take up some of these issues. Hon Ken Travers: One of the government members is on this side. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Hon Jacqui Boydell is a good person and Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich and I enjoy having her over here. She is a sensible person. She is good-natured. She contributes to the debate. I have no issue with having Hon Jacqui Boydell here. She is a sensational member of Parliament. Hon Jacqui Boydell: Thank you. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: You are welcome. One of the other issues I will raise tonight relates to the patient assisted travel scheme. In probably the first week after I was sworn in, I was approached by a constituent living in a regional town. I will not say which one because I think the issue is the same regardless of which north west town it is. She raised with me that it appeared that constituents living in regional Western Australia are not eligible to apply for travel to a major city under PATS when they need skin cancers removed that cannot be treated by a local health service provider. This

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2005 shocked me. As someone with freckles and fair skin who is prone to sunburn—I get my mole scan done every year—it concerned me to hear that people in remote communities who cannot get their skin cancers treated in their local communities — Hon Helen Morton: Are you talking about surgery? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am talking about surgery. I am not talking about the initial consultation or assessment. No, it is the surgery. In fairness, some surgery can be done — Hon Col Holt interjected. Hon Jacqui Boydell: Have you checked that out? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Yes, I have. I have written to the Minister for Health on this issue and I am yet to receive something back. I have looked at the PATS document. My PATS application form is in black and white, but if members were to see it in colour, they would see that it has the royalties for regions logo in the corner and it looks like a piece of National Party propaganda. I am very surprised that the government has allowed the National Party to have its logo and its colours on a document such as this. Hon Jacqui Boydell: It is not our logo. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: It is a logo that is synonymous with the National Party. It is no wonder that the National Party won more seats than us in the last state election. It is because it has propaganda on the PATS application form. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: In answer to Hon Col Holt’s question, I pulled out the PATS documentation and it seems to me that constituents living in regional Western Australia cannot access PATS to have skin cancers removed that cannot be treated by a local health service provider. As I said, I have written a letter to the Minister for Health and I look forward to receiving that reply. If by some chance he comes back and says that I am wrong, I will happily stand up and say, “Great, I’m pleased”. This is very important given the temperatures in regional Western Australia, particularly the north west of the state; it is a real concern that people with skin cancers cannot get government assistance to go to Perth to access — Hon Jim Chown: Are you going to acknowledge this government’s contribution to PATS by increasing — Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: As I have said, I am very happy to acknowledge the good things that governments do, whether it is more funding for PATS or royalties for regions. If governments are spending money in my electorate to make better the lives of people who live in those areas, I am very happy to stand up in this place and say it is good policy. Hon Jim Chown: Do it. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am standing up and saying it is good policy, but it is few and far between. Look at the health policies. Yes, foetal alcohol syndrome got $474 000. Yes, it got 45, or whatever it was, new nurses. Yes, the National Party had $150 million for a north west health initiative, but it was not as good as Labor’s $300 million. I hope members on the other side take heed of that. When members opposite talk about spending this extra $7.492 billion—I should know that figure now; I have said it often enough—I am certainly hopeful that they will consider spending it on some of these projects or services that I have raised tonight. I was going to talk to members about the prevalence of skin cancers in the region and the research and funding spent on cancer in Western Australia over the past few years, but I will not now. This is an issue that is certainly dear to me. Another issue that I am passionate about—I have mentioned it, but I will go back to it—is homelessness. Hon Sue Ellery mentioned earlier that I did the Vinnies CEO Sleepout last week and I was joined by Matt Taylor, the member for Bateman. Hon Ken Travers: Did you need the afternoon off to prepare for it though? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I did not. I do not begrudge members getting ready for it. Matt Taylor spent the night out in the cold, raised funds and raised the issue in the community, and I have to congratulate him for doing it. Hon Liz Behjat: I did it the two years before that. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I know. I realise that Hon Liz Behjat has done it and on the evening I spoke to people who mentioned that she had done it. Some people lamented that she was not there that evening. Hon Liz Behjat: Tony Simpson has done it. Liza Harvey has done it. Margaret Quirk has done it — The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! If you want to make a contribution, you need to take the call.

2006 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am aware of Hon Alyssa Hayden also doing it. She was mentioned last week at the CEO Sleepout and people said she has been a prolific fundraiser and supporter of the project. I note Hon Sue Ellery has also done it. I think Hon Kate Doust might have. Hon Margaret Quirk — A government member: Is she honourable? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Margaret Quirk? Perhaps she is not. She is certainly honourable, but she does not have a title anymore. She did as minister. Hon Liz Behjat: She is Hon Margaret Quirk. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I am not sure whether she kept the title. She is certainly honourable in my book! I am aware that Hon Margaret Quirk and Michelle Roberts have also done the sleepout. Last week 113 CEOs slept out and I have to congratulate Vinnies; it really was a good evening. It probably got down to four degrees that night, but it was not rainy or too cold. It put into perspective what people in the community, not only in Perth but right around the state—I have raised homelessness in Hedland—go through on a daily basis. Some people spoke about their experiences, including a mother of six children—Jo, perhaps her name was—whose lease ran out. It is funny; it is hard to explain, but when we think of someone being homeless, we think of someone sleeping under a bridge. It is not only that. It is people who have six kids and their lease expires; not many real estate agents or landlords want to take a family with six kids when they could take a cashed-up couple who work in the mining industry instead. This poor mother, Jo, spoke from the heart on this issue. It had an impact on me because it made me wake up to the fact that we need to do more on the issue of homelessness in this state. I hope that out of this money in the Supply Bill we do more for homelessness in the community. I congratulate the 113 CEOs who took part. Andrew Forrest and his foundation ended up donating more than $200 000 towards the fundraising total and about $1.2 million or so was raised on the night for homelessness in this state. It was about not only the money, but also raising the issue and giving it some prominence. I am just a member of Parliament, but there were CEOs of important companies there that night and I think they also found it was a very important thing to do. People who were there will, hopefully, pay more attention to the issue of homelessness. Members in this place will find that those people will come back to us and lobby us on the issue of homelessness, and I welcome that because it is a very important thing. In my last couple of minutes I want to talk about the Closing the Gap funding that was recently announced by Hon Helen Morton and Hon Kim Hames. On 19 June the minister issued a press release, which stated —

• $31million Closing the Gap funds to continue critical services aimed at improving health and wellbeing of Aboriginal West Australians • $412,000 for Closing the Gap Mental Health services • Cabinet subcommittee to oversee improved co-ordination of service delivery I have to commend Hon Helen Morton and the government on this. The money was a bit slow in coming forward. I heard from some community groups that they were getting a bit scared that they would not receive the money or know about it before this financial year finished. I certainly congratulate the minister. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.00 pm Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: Mr Deputy President (Hon Simon O’Brien), as this is the first time that I have been on my feet and you have been in the chair, congratulations on your election to the position of Deputy President. For the last three minutes, I will just recap the issues I have raised in the past little while. As I said, I am very pleased to be able to stand and speak on this bill tonight, and also very pleased to have been able to bring to the attention of the house a range of issues that are dear not only to me, but also to electors in my electorate of Mining and Pastoral Region. In the past little while, I was pleased to have been able to quote the Leader of the National Party when he said that goldfields residents could be very confident about his party’s election promises. I was pleased to have spoken about the roads in my electorate, particularly the Newman to Nullagine road, and the Labor Party’s election commitment of $50 million for the sealing of that road. Indeed, I hope that the government may well take on that issue and put some money from this bill towards that road. I was also able to raise the good work of the Youth Involvement Council in Port Hedland. That council, along with its manager, Vicki-Tree Stephens, does some very, very good work with children who wander the streets in Hedland. I hope that from this bill and from the extra money that the government gets from this bill, the government is able to extend the service that the Youth Involvement Council runs—that is, the Mingle Mob service—and that it may consider extending this service so that it does not go from just 6.00 to 10.00 pm on Thursday to Saturday nights, but it goes until 1.00 or 2.00 am, seven nights a week, because I really believe that that would make a big impact on some of the social problems in the community of South Hedland, in particular.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2007

I also was able to raise the issues of vandalism in Roebourne and the fact that the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Durack, Daron Keogh, was injured and had his car smashed by a rock. That social problem does not exist in just Roebourne, so I hope that, through this bill, some funding is put towards that issue. I also spoke about homelessness—not just in Port Hedland or in fact in any one community. This problem exists right throughout the state, be it the metropolitan area or the regional areas. I certainly hope that the government continues to put funding into this area. In this day and age, I find it amazing that people are homeless in this state—a state that is essentially flush with cash, particularly when we compare it with a range of places around the world. I certainly hope that issue is addressed. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [7.34 pm] — in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Supply Bill 2013. I note that most members have talked in some detail about areas of their electorate or portfolio areas. I think the word that I heard mostly was that they “hoped” this bill would cover this, that or the other in areas that they had raised. Of course, being a Supply Bill, it is not going to focus on the individual and specific areas that people sought some detailed information on. I think we need to get it clear from the start that I do not intend to cover all of the individual electorate-type issues of funding that people talked about. Hon Ken Travers: Why not? Hon Kate Doust: Weren’t you listening? Hon HELEN MORTON: Because this is an aggregated level of funding, and I will talk about that in a short while. Hon Ken Travers: We can still ask details about — Hon HELEN MORTON: The member can ask details, but I am just telling him that that level of information will not be provided tonight. The Supply Bill is aggregated funds that are non-specific. When the appropriation bills go through, which give the detailed level of information around the specific votes or the specific areas of funding that people are looking for, that is when members will get the level of information that they probably have been asking for. Why do we need the Supply Bill? The Financial Management Act 2006 provides for automatic supply funding for two months after the end of the financial year—that is, until the end of August. That is meant to be at the same rate of spending that has occurred in the previous financial year. This is an extension of that. The Parliament must authorise funding from the consolidated account so that the agencies can incur obligations and pay for them—that is, agencies cannot operate unless they have authorisation from the Parliament to do so, and that authorisation is in the form of an appropriation. Basically, without a Supply Bill, government would stop by the end of August, as things are at the moment with our current legislation. Normally, an appropriation bill would be brought down about early May—say, 8 May or something like that. It would take us through three months—from early May to June, July and August. What we have here is a bill that needs to take us through another two months—that is, September and October. Both houses of Parliament need to consider the budget and the appropriation bills. Both houses recess for at least two weeks from 26 August to 5 September, so in that process we need a bill that will cover us for August, September and October. The estimates hearings are likely to occur in September. The agency budget appropriations are not confirmed until after the estimates hearings in both houses. That normally occurs, as I said before, after two months, in July and August. Why is it 40 per cent of the 2012–13 appropriation? That amounts to about 40 per cent of the budget. The Financial Management Act provides for an automatic supply of 20 per cent for two months until the end of August, which is 16 per cent of the year. After August, there is no authorisation for agencies to incur obligations and to pay for expenditure. This bill allows for the parliamentary process, including estimates hearings and other parliamentary priorities, which will take us through September and October. This amounts to about 33 and one- third per cent of the budget, and that is why, to enable that to be comfortably achieved, we have settled on the amount of 40 per cent. The allowance for any major capital works also is included in the first quarter of the year. Why is there no budget before 30 June? I heard quite a lot of comments about that. I think most people know the answers to that, but I am happy to go over them. First of all, as members know, there was the election in March. Prior to that, of course, we were in caretaker mode. There is a new government and there are new ministers, so the whole process starts again. As noted in the second reading speech, an August budget will allow time for a number of new ministers to critically look at each of their departments’ spending. In considering all existing policies, each minister can reprioritise if needed, with the aim of delivering programs more effectively and implementing new election commitments. That is part and parcel of it. Very strong economic and population growth is driving demand for government services. Realising that over 1 000 people a week move to Western Australia, the reprioritisation of services comes into play. The government

2008 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] needs to review current policies to ensure funding is directed to where it is needed most. We also need this time to review commonwealth commitments, particularly in health and education. In my portfolio of mental health, we worked with the commonwealth on a particular area of funding that resulted in two letters of approval. The commonwealth government indicated that that money was there. It was written up in the budget and then, without any notice, the money was withdrawn from the state. Those sorts of things come into play. We needed to respond to those things appropriately after the federal budget was brought down and things happened after that. We also need to review the status of the economy, particularly falling commodity prices, the price of iron ore, the exchange rate and our low share of GST. Of course subsequent machinery of government changes have taken place. In turn, that has resulted in some changes. Further efficiency measures had to be implemented. These make up the full raft of reasons why bringing the budget down at this stage is a better outcome. Questions were asked about how the government is tracking with expenditure for this year and how agencies are progressing in meeting efficiency dividends. I think that was asked by Hon Ken Travers. As reported in the 2012–13 midyear review, the general government efficiency dividend is estimated to deliver savings of $1.9 billion over the period 2012–13 to 2015–16. Following an evaluation of projected spending activities, general government agencies and the Public Transport Authority incorporated the savings in their operating budgets and have been delivering programs and services within revised parameters. In this context, agencies manage to their total expense limits rather than individual elements such as the efficiency dividend. General government expenditure for the first nine months of 2012–13 was $18.7 billion, as reported in the March 2013 Quarterly Financial Results Report. This figure is consistent with the estimated out-turn figure of $25.3 billion reported in the 2012–13 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement. Another question was: what is the interest bill that the state government is paying? Based on the 2012–13 Pre- election Financial Projections Statement, the general government sector is projected to pay $447 million on interest in 2013–14. Another question was: how much money will be needed from the Supply Bill to pay interest? The answer is that the Supply Bill provides the funding until the required appropriation bills are passed. The level of funding provided for interest payments is not specified in this. Another question Hon Ken Travers asked was whether the Public Transport Authority is classified as a general government agency or a public non- financial corporation. It is incorrect to assert that the PTA was recently reclassified from the general sector to the non-financial public sector. The PTA was created in July 2003 and has always been classified as a public non- financial corporation in line with the Australian Bureau of Statistics guidelines and under the government finance statistics framework. The public non-financial corporations sector is included, along with general government agencies, in the non-financial public sector; sometimes also referred to as the total non-financial public sector. Another question was: do the estimates contained in the March 2013 Quarterly Financial Results Report have the same rigour as the budget papers? The answer to that is yes. The Quarterly Financial Results Report is prepared by the Department of Treasury from information provided by agencies, although neither the budget papers nor the quarterly reports are audited. They are prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards and other authoritative pronouncements from the Australian Accounting Standards Board and they are consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ requirements. Another question was: why are the estimated out-turn figures contained in the March 2013 Quarterly Financial Results Report identical to those reported in the 2012–13 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement? That is a concern Hon Ken Travers has. The quarterly report compares the latest actual information available with the most recent budget revision; in the case of March 2013, quarterly. The most recent revision was the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement published in February 2013. The Department of Treasury ceased publication of monthly reports in June 2010, bringing Western Australia into line with all other jurisdictions. Hon Ken Travers: Why was one not done for that quarterly report? Hon HELEN MORTON: I will have to keep going; otherwise I will not get through this. It will be fine if Hon Ken Travers asks that question during committee, because I will have a break in between. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asked about revenue projections for the iron ore price and whether government leaned on Treasury to artificially change the methodology to show a $1.4 billion increase in revenue in the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement. I again suggest that anyone who thinks Treasury would behave like that is actually unaware of the role of Treasury and the ability of Treasury to provide independent advice of that nature. Hon Ken Travers: I guess the question is not whether it was Treasury; it is whether it was an instruction of government. I have great faith in Treasury, unless they are instructed by the Treasurer. Hon HELEN MORTON: Do the estimates contained in the March 2013 Quarterly Financial Results Report have the same rigour as the budget papers? The answer is: absolutely, yes. The Quarterly Financial Results Report is prepared by the Department of Treasury from information provided by agencies, although neither the budget papers nor the quarterly reports are audited. They are prepared in accordance with applicable accounting

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2009 standards and other authoritative pronouncements from the Australian Accounting Standards Board and they are consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ requirements. Hon Darren West asked questions about WA’s credit rating status. The state government is committed to responsibly manage the state’s finances. Independent assessment of this commitment is reflected in the retention of the state’s AAA credit rating. WA is one of only three states, along with New South Wales and Victoria, that is rated AAA by both Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service. Since 2008–09 the state government has faced significant revenue challenges, including lower-than-expected GST revenue and volatile royalty income and effects on stamp duty collections from a very subdued property market. At the same time economic expansion, along with strong population growth, has driven demand for public sector services and infrastructure. In response to these pressures, the state government announced a number of significant savings measures aimed at ensuring the state’s finances remain sustainable and that the state’s AAA credit rating is retained. The issue of voluntary redundancies was also raised. One thousand voluntary redundancies are being sought. I re-emphasise that this is a temporary measure. There has been a significant increase in payment from 12 to 20 weeks for voluntary redundancy. People must not forget the fact that these are voluntary redundancies. Another question that was asked was how many times has this government fallen under the 10 per cent growth rate in expenditure since it came into government. I think Hon Ken Travers suggested that it never happened once. Hon Ken Travers: I said that it happened only once. Hon HELEN MORTON: Is that what he said? I must have misheard him. Hon Ken Travers: I said it never happened under the current Treasurer. I acknowledge that it happened under Christian Porter. Hon HELEN MORTON: Is that so? Okay. I just wanted to clarify that in 2008–09, it was 13.5 per cent; in 2009–10, it was 10.9 per cent; in 2010–11, it was 5.2 per cent; and in 2011–12, it was 10.2 per cent. The source of that information is the Annual Report on State Finances. Hon Ken Travers: So my claim that the current Treasurer has never been able to bring it in under 10 per cent is actually correct. Hon HELEN MORTON: We actually want to talk about this government rather than individuals. So as long as the member is acknowledging that there has been a time when this government has brought that expenditure well and truly under 10 per cent — Hon Sue Ellery: Are you a new government or are you not a new government? Hon HELEN MORTON: It is about the government. Hon Ken Travers: So not one single current member of your government has ever been able to be a Treasurer who has presided over expenditure growth of below 10 per cent? Hon HELEN MORTON: Hon Ken Travers can keep playing on words, and we can keep on saying that this government has certainly had a time when growth in expenditure has been well below 10 per cent. The new consumer price index–based public sector wages policy will have legislative backing to ensure that it will be taken into consideration in meetings and discussions by the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. That will apply to all agreements that expire after 1 November. Hon Ken Travers asked why that date of 1 November applied. I want to make it clear that it will apply to all agreements that expire after 1 November 2013. Hon Ken Travers: My question was: why was 1 November chosen? Hon HELEN MORTON: Because of the time it would take to get that legislation in place. A question was asked about the words “Sum to be available for services and purposes voted by Legislative Assembly”, and the Leader of the House sought advice as to why there is no reference to the Legislative Council. I will not go into this in a lot of detail, but I have some interesting historic data about this. Clause 4 of the bill states — The sums referred to in section 3(1) are to be available to satisfy the warrants under the hand of the Governor, given under the law now in force, for any services and purposes voted by the Legislative Assembly during the year beginning on 1 July 2013 and ending on 30 June 2014. This form of words has been employed in respect of the consolidated account—previously titled the consolidated fund—from earlier Supply Bills and reflects the view that the Legislative Assembly is the primary chamber in financial business. For example, money bills can originate only in the Legislative Assembly; the estimates are not attached to the appropriation bills when passed from the Legislative Assembly to the Legislative Council;

2010 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] and under section 46(2) of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899, the Legislative Council may not amend Loan Bills, or bills imposing taxation, or bills appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government. So it is noteworthy that in earlier Supply Acts, the reference to “voted by Legislative Assembly” applied only to the consolidated fund, or recurrent expenditure, and no similar limitation applied to the general loan fund, or capital works. This would reinforce the Legislative Assembly’s pre-eminence in relation to bills appropriating ordinary annual services. Some questions were asked about the South Australian Supply Act 2012. In essence, the South Australian legislation does no more than what our current legislation does, which is allow for the first two months of the financial year to be a carry-over. That is what was agreed to in the South Australian Supply Act. A question was also asked about the methodology for pricing iron ore. The methodology for preparing iron ore assumptions to inform the state’s revenue estimates has had to be revised to better reflect the way in which iron ore is currently priced. The previous approach based price assumptions on lagged spot prices. The new approach to iron ore assumptions has a significant impact on iron ore royalty estimates. It is not surprising that the method had to be changed, because the way in which iron ore is priced is continually evolving. For instance, just five years ago, iron ore prices were negotiated annually. Now, iron ore prices are either negotiated for individual sales, known as the spot price, or, more often, based on average spot prices of recent sales. With those few comments, I will conclude my remarks, because I know that members want to go into the committee stage and be given some more detailed information when my advisers are with me. I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair; Hon Helen Morton (Minister for Mental Health) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Hon KEN TRAVERS: The minister tried to answer this question but did not give a sufficient enough answer. I am yet to understand why a re-elected government was not able to have its budget brought in in May and passed in the usual way so as not to require supply. The minister may recall that this issue came up when we were discussing fixed-term elections and the March date was chosen. I got the clear impression during that debate that the government was of the view that the March date would allow sufficient time for particularly a returning government to bring in a budget by the end of the financial year. I expressed concern that a new government would have difficulty in getting a budget in order. I seek the minister’s explanation as to why the government was not able to bring forward its budget in the normal time frame; that is, before the end of the financial year. Hon HELEN MORTON: I think I have covered that, but I am happy to go over the comments that I made. Apart from the election and the caretaker time that was involved, what I have heard the Premier say over and over again is that this is a new government, with new ministers and new priorities, that had to take a number of things into account. The things that had to be taken into account are the election commitments, the reprioritising of some of the programs to be delivered and the new efficiency dividends being sought. Hon Ken Travers: What new efficiency dividends? Hon HELEN MORTON: Areas like the reduction in marketing costs. Quite a number of new things have come into play. Ministers had to critically look at the spending of each of their departments and changes have been made to the machinery of government. All those things have occurred since this government has been in office; it is nothing to do with the previous government. They are the reasons that we have had to start afresh and look at the issues of budgeting, and that process is continuing right now. There were also changes to the federal government’s finances. So many things have been in play and, as I said, the Premier has been quite adamant that this is a new government and a new start. Consequently, there had to be a new budget. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I thought the minister was better than coming in here and repeating the government’s spin that somehow this is not a continuing government. This is the same government that was there on 7 March. It is the government that went to the people saying it had a fully funded, fully costed plan. Why was the government not able to transfer the fully funded, fully costed plan into the work it had previously done on the budget? Hon HELEN MORTON: I have already answered that but the member does not want the answer that I have given him. He wants something else but I do not have anything else to give to him. The information that I have already provided is the reason that we have a new budget.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2011

Hon KEN TRAVERS: Was the Premier correct when he said repeatedly during the election campaign that the Liberal Party had a fully funded, fully costed plan? Hon HELEN MORTON: That is a question the member needs to put to the Premier. I believe so and I am assured so by the Treasurer, so I do not have a problem with those comments. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the government had a fully funded, fully costed plan, why is this budget so complex? To me it is a fairly simple matter. I would imagine the government was still doing budget bilaterals last year in preparation for the budget. The government then went to the election with all the benefits of having access to Treasury prior to formally calling the election. The Treasurer commented many times on the benefits of incumbency. I find it absolutely extraordinary that the government is now coming into this place and saying that it cannot get the budget done by 30 June because it must do all this work. I think the government’s words were to “include” the election costings into the budget planning. These are not my words; they are the Liberal Party’s words that it used during the election campaign. It said it had a fully funded, fully costed plan. I find it extraordinary, but I will move on for a minute. The minister also said that the new efficiency dividends were another reason that the government could not get the budget done by 30 June. What does the minister mean by “new efficiency dividends”? Hon HELEN MORTON: The reduction in advertising was the main one that took place. I do not know whether the member was aware, but for a time the government was unable to advertise any information that it wanted to. There was a significant reduction in the public relations and advertising work. That is one example. In my own portfolio, for example, I could not advertise for people to participate in a range of things in the drug and alcohol sector that we had previously been looking for. That advertising was held over until the end of the financial year. There also was a requirement to slow down procurement in a number of areas. They are all areas that we have had to progress to ensure that we could bring in the budget on time and on budget this year. Hon KEN TRAVERS: This is why the minister confuses me. They were not efficiency dividends. Hon Helen Morton: What were they? Hon KEN TRAVERS: They were emergency measures the government had to take because prior to the election the government had failed to implement its efficiency dividends. One of the things we will work through tonight is how agencies are progressing their efficiency dividends. Referring us back to the midyear review is simply unacceptable, in my view. If the minister wants to go down that path, I am more than happy to read out what was contained in the midyear review regarding efficiency dividends. That was the same technique that the government used when the previous Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations conducted its thirty-ninth report on efficiency dividends. Many of the agencies said that all that information would be detailed in the midyear review. Of course, we know that the midyear review did not give us details of how the efficiency dividends would be met; they simply identified the quantity of the efficiency dividends. Is the minister able to confirm today that every agency has met its two per cent efficiency dividend this year; and, prior to the announcement of the emergency measures, were they on track at that point to deliver their efficiency dividends? Hon HELEN MORTON: The financial year has not finished, as the member knows. The member is asking whether they are on track. Until we get the audited accounts, we will not know for certain. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is the minister saying that neither the government, the minister in her own portfolio, the Treasurer nor the Premier is receiving regular updates from Treasury and their government agencies on how they are tracking this financial year? Hon HELEN MORTON: The expectation from Treasury is that the agencies will be managing within the amount that has been given to them. If there is a requirement to vary any of those, that will be a separate requirement to go before the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee for approval. That has happened from time to time. That is also an authorised level of funding that they can make use of. In the absence of that, the expectation is they will work within their level of appropriation. Hon SUE ELLERY: I want to pursue a couple of the minister’s answers. The first is that I think we need to debunk the notion that we are dealing with a brand-new government and the reason that the Supply Bill 2013 is before us is that the brand-new government had to completely reset its priorities. It is the same Premier and Treasurer — Hon Ken Travers: The same Minister for Mental Health. Hon SUE ELLERY: Indeed. They made a series of promises before the election but they were aware, to a certain extent, to be generous—although I think they were completely aware—of the constraints on their spending. The government announced a series of efficiency dividends in the budget in May last year. On 26 September last year, the Premier and the Treasurer—the same Premier and Treasurer—announced a series of savings initiatives that included an immediate lowering of the ceiling of the number of full-time equivalent employees in the general government sector, which would apply effective from that date until further notice;

2012 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] limiting the growth in public sector leave liabilities by capping them at 30 June 2012 levels; and a 1.5 per cent reduction in agencies’ 2012–13 budgets for purchasing non-essential goods and services, including consumables such as stationery, communication, administration and consultants. The media release on that date goes on to say — These measures are expected to generate savings of $328million in 2012–13, and are in addition to the measures previously announced in the 2012–13 Budget, including the two per cent general Government efficiency dividend. Prior to the election the government announced the efficiency dividend of $328 million in additional savings. The election was then held and we all saw the material that was published, much of it in the name of the Premier—the same Premier we have now—with a little stamp on it like the old-fashioned wax stamp in that round shape that said “fully funded, fully costed”. They are all the promises that were made. The government knew prior to the election that it had a budget with some constraints that it should be worried about. The Liberal Party then made a series of promises and told the people of Western Australia they were fully funded and fully costed. The Liberal Party got elected and the Premier stood up that night and said, “It’s a new government” and then proceeded to break a series of promises. I am not sure what in that sequence of events should lead us to believe the Premier when he says that it is a brand-new government. It is not a brand-new government. If the government, the Premier and the Treasurer knew prior to the election that they did not have the money to fund all the promises they were about to make, they should not have put that little gold stamp on it that said “fully funded, fully costed”. They got themselves elected, and they came back and said, “Now we have to break a series of promises.” The Premier broke the first one within, I think, a matter of 10 days or so. We had the farce of the notion that what is said on FM radio does not count and then the farce of the notion that, “If you take literally what I say, I guess I have broken my promise”—aghast that someone should take literally a person in the senior position of Premier of Western Australia. We also know that last year the estimates and financial operations committee inquired into how agencies were progressing with the efficiency dividend and that many of those agencies reported—as reflected in a report the committee tabled in this place—that, in fact, they could not tell us just yet how they were travelling with the efficiency divided, but that it would be published in the midyear review. The details were not published in the midyear review. The minister stood and said, “You’ll just have to trust us. I can’t give you any details about how agencies are travelling; you’ll just have to trust that you’ll see it in the budget.” Why would we believe the minister when she says, “Just wait until the midyear review and we will tell you then”? She did not tell us then, and the Premier told us at the election that all his promises were fully funded and fully costed, and they clearly were not. Liberal members went to the election saying, “Please elect this government and you’ll have this person as the Premier if you do.” We got the same Premier. How is that a new government? I think we need to debunk the notion that we are dealing with a new government; we are not. We are dealing with a government that made a set of promises it did not have the capacity to deliver, and that is why there is a Supply Bill before us and that is why we have a budget that will not be before us until August. The government has to scramble now to find the money and because of the bungle in the other place last week around the Insurance Commission of Western Australia Amendment Bill, it will have $30 million less to play with. That is why we are dealing with the Supply Bill; it is not because we have a new government that has set new priorities. It has the same priorities it went to the election with, unless the Premier is going to break more promises. There are 12 or 15 so far, but maybe there are more to come. This is about the government scrambling to find ways to raise the money it knew it did not have when it made a series of promises to the WA electorate. Hon HELEN MORTON: It is a new government. I do not know what has happened to other people when they have experienced government. A few on that side have experienced government. We went down to Government House and were sworn in as a new government. It is a new government. Hon Sue Ellery: For heaven’s sake. Hon Kate Doust: You’re not starting from scratch. Hon HELEN MORTON: There is nothing the member can say. Hon Sue Ellery: You haven’t changed your priorities. You knew the state of the books before the election and you know them afterwards. Hon HELEN MORTON: There is no doubt about it whatsoever. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Simon O’Brien): Order! I will not have multiple members talking over the member who has the call. At the moment, it is the minister and I invite her to continue to address the question. Hon HELEN MORTON: Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Chair. As much as members opposite do not like being reminded of it, the fact is that it is a new government. There are new priorities and there are new ministers. We were all sworn in anew and the Premier made it absolutely clear that from his point of view we were starting from scratch. That is why none of the bills that were previously on the notice paper were able to be rolled straight into this Parliament; every one of those bills had to be reconsidered by cabinet and go through various

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2013 other processes before being introduced. It is a brand-new government—a brand-new start. That is precisely what we are doing. Apart from that, I have already indicated a number of things that need to be taken into account: iron ore prices, commonwealth funding, the GST rate and the machinery of government. All those things make a difference to the budget. That is why it is being renegotiated right now. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am fascinated by why the budget is being “renegotiated”. The “budget is being renegotiated” as we speak; negotiated between whom? Hon HELEN MORTON: I understand Hon Ken Travers has never been a minister. It requires each minister to take a budget to cabinet and to the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee for those negotiations. I may or may not get more of some of the things that I thought I would be funded for in mental health, child protection, family services, drug and alcohol services or disability services. Those things are happening right now. Hon Sue Ellery: That is negotiation, not renegotiation. Hon HELEN MORTON: I am sorry I put the “re” word in front. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is the minister seeking things over and above what were in here as election commitments or is she talking about things that were in her election commitments? Hon HELEN MORTON: Both. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Does the minister accept that she has to negotiate or renegotiate to get her election commitments honoured? Is that what she is saying to us? Hon HELEN MORTON: Election commitments are commitments given but a process needs to be gone through to get them budgeted for. That is a process. There is no opportunity to say through the election commitment that because we are committing this level of funding to this new initiative, it is therefore done and dusted. There needs to be a process by which that is formally agreed to through the Treasury and the EERC processes. Those things are happening. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I come back to the question: what was meant by having a “fully funded, fully costed” plan at the election? Hon HELEN MORTON: It was funded and costed. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the plan was funded and costed, why is that plan not able to become the budget? Hon HELEN MORTON: I will probably make this comment once more and I shall not make it again; it is to formalise it. Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is strange for a minister to be representing a minister in another place and to have carriage of a bill that is not hers but for that minister to draw upon her own portfolios, for which she is responsible, to illustrate the points she is trying to make on the bill. I ask the minister a question, recognising that she is new to the portfolio of child protection and family support, about the areas for which she did have responsibility, and I relate it directly to clause 1, because Hon Ken Travers is trying to establish the parameters in which we are operating and the kind of assumptions that have been brought to the development of the Supply Bill 2013. In relation to the portfolios the minister was responsible for, were the commitments she took to the election budgeted? Hon HELEN MORTON: At the outset, I just want to make a really clear statement about the difference between a Supply Bill and the appropriation bills that will come. The Supply Bill is about a continuation of funding equivalent to the level of spending that has already been agreed to for a period of time into the coming financial year. The appropriation bills will give appropriation to all the line items by individual agency levels of expenditure. Election commitments that are identified and the amount of funding required are taken into that process through a process we are now undergoing, through the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee and through the process of cabinet sign-off to that. That is the process; that is formalising the process by which election commitments get fully funded. They are already funded and budgeted for, but there is a process by which that needs to be formalised. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am sorry, but has that left me even less sure of what we are actually talking about here. Is the minister attempting to clarify her own understanding of what is going on? In that case, is she retracting her previous statement that the budget was being renegotiated, or is she talking about something quite different, which is the appropriation process? I cannot understand the points she is making about drawing the distinction between the two. After all, we are using the minister’s own words here; is she saying that up to now in this clause 1 debate, she has actually used the two processes interchangeably and that we now need to extract one from the other? Hon HELEN MORTON: Not at all, Hon Sally Talbot. I made it absolutely clear that the Supply Bill will enable government to continue to operate using levels of funding that are already known. The appropriation bill,

2014 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] quite separately, will be around individual agency line items, which the member is also going to be interested in when they come through. I do not think that the member should be concerned about appropriation at the moment, but I needed to be able to explain to the member why we are not going into levels of line items agency by agency, and that is because that is applicable in appropriation bills. What is applicable right here is agreement for the level of funding to continue at the level that expenditure has been occurring in the 2012-13 year, and that will continue for a number of months. The discussion we got into around what we are going back to Treasury for right now in terms of formalising our election commitments was because some members on that side are asking why we need a Supply Bill and why we have not brought a budget down right now. The discussion then was about the process by which the appropriation bills will be brought down, because that is the process that gives the line items by agency, and that is what we are going through right now. In the meantime, we need to allow the government to continue to operate, and that is what the Supply Bill is about. There is no interchangeable discussion between these two issues. Hon KEN TRAVERS: With all due respect, minister, I accept the minister’s point that with an appropriation bill we get an agency by agency break-up, and by agency it is a single line appropriation. What the government is asking for with the Supply Bill is a single line appropriation for the totality. Hon Helen Morton: That is correct. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think that means we are entitled to ask the minister about how that money is going to be spent. It becomes even more complex, because the minister, by her own admission, has said that the Supply Bill is about the continuing expenditure into the first part of this year, based on what the government was spending last year. But the questions that a lot of members on this side are going to ask—I will start to go into them—will be to try to understand what that means. Of course, we had the farce at the last budget whereby—this is what the government actually did—on a service level, the total cost of services of the government was more than was being appropriated. So, with the passage of the budget, the agencies needed to achieve what was referred to in the budget papers as an efficiency dividend, to bring their expenditure down from where the line- by-line expenditure within the agency was to a level that matched the appropriation given. I think the chamber is entitled to an explanation this late in the financial year of how the government is tracking, whether or not agencies have been successful in achieving their efficiency dividends, and what the actual figure is when we appropriate this money to allow agencies to continue their expenditure in accordance with what they were expending in the 2012-13 financial year. I find it appalling, and I think we are going to be here a very long time as we go through each agency if we are not going to get at least a broad explanation about how about the government is on track to meet its efficiency dividends. I am quite convinced that the reason the government brought in its emergency measures after the election is that agencies had not been meeting their efficiency dividends. I will give the minister an example, and one that she should be in a position to know because it does not go to her representative capacity; it goes to her day-to-day role as a minister. Last year, Child Protection was given an appropriation of $483.475 million, and its efficiency dividend was calculated for this year to be $7.6 million. So, to actually come in at that appropriation, the minister’s agency of Child Protection was going to need to save $7.6 million. The minister kindly referred us to the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement of December 2012, page 140 of which outlines the explanation of the implementation of the general government efficiency dividend and reads — The Department for Child Protection will streamline processes (particularly in the areas of ICT and the current Secure Care facility’s bed usage and requirements), and reduce expenditure on corporate and policy support functions (non-front line services), communications, training, administration, stationery and printing. Did the minister’s agency succeed in doing that to find that $7 million that it had to? Hon HELEN MORTON: I have indicated that I am not going to start debating or discussing individual agency budgets. This is not a bill that considers individual agencies, line items et cetera. If I start discussing agencies that are within my own responsibility, I will get into broader stuff that these gentlemen who are in the chamber do not have information on. I am not going to get into individual agency information. Hon Ken Travers: They can take notes and come back tomorrow with the answers. Hon HELEN MORTON: What I can say, Hon Ken Travers, which is within the area the member is discussing, is that all the information around the performance of the Department for Child Protection and Family Support is clear. Where the department has had to get additional funding, that has been achieved, so its budget will be achieved this year. I do not want to get into any more detail on that. The areas the member referred to have been addressed. I can say that because I am obviously across that information. When Hon Ken Travers starts asking me about other agencies, I will draw the line. This is a Supply Bill; it is not around individual agencies and individual appropriations. The bill purely enables the government to continue to operate until those appropriations are brought in in August.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2015

Hon KEN TRAVERS: It allows the government to operate based on the expenditure in this year. We are trying to find out what has been the expenditure this year. I might stand corrected, but I could not quite understand the minister’s answer—I could not work out whether the minister’s agency has come in on budget or whether it has had to go back and get additional money. The minister said that it will be reported on later that it is getting additional money. Is it going to come in on budget? Will its expenditure be less than the $483 million and, therefore, can we rightly assume that the agency will get 40 per cent of that $483 million? That is what I am trying to get to. How will this money be allocated and divvied up between the different agencies? We are now within minutes to midnight in terms of the financial year. I refuse to accept that Treasury and the government are not aware of where we are tracking. The grand total appropriation last year was $16 872 940 000; Child Protection got $483 million of that. Is Child Protection still going to get $483.040 million of the $16 billion, or does it need more money out of this Supply Bill? Hon HELEN MORTON: Spending across agencies, and not just by the agencies that I represent, is undertaken on a fortnightly basis. That information is provided by the agencies to Treasury to enable that funding to continue. Once again I assure Hon Ken Travers that any issues around Child Protection that needed to be sorted out have been sorted out, and the agency will come in on budget. Hon KEN TRAVERS: When the minister says “come in on budget”, will expenditure be at or below $483 040 000? The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Simon O’Brien): I do not know whether the minister wishes to respond, but just before I give the call I will make some comments. I have been listening with great interest to the debate on clause 1, because part of my role is to facilitate the working of the Committee of the Whole House. I do not have any concerns in that respect; I think we are achieving that. I am just looking at the detail of what is being inquired into and I am of the view that, to make progress, perhaps some of the current line of questioning needs to be undertaken under clause 3, which is where the Committee of the Whole House will consider the quantum proposed to be supplied. Members might just want to consider that. It is a bit of a technical point, but it does help us to make progress if we can proceed with putting the question on the short title and then perhaps returning to these other matters in later clauses, plus, of course, there may be members who may wish to discuss other points in relation to clause 1. I make that observation. The question we are considering is that clause 1 do stand as printed. Does the minister want to seek the call? Hon HELEN MORTON: I will just make a final comment; that is, I am not going to discuss the individual budgets of individual agencies in this process. This is a supply bill, not an appropriation bill. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Order! Hon KEN TRAVERS: The government may be embarrassed about its financial mismanagement and may not want to answer the questions, but we have an obligation to ask the questions. Hon Helen Morton: You are confused about what we are talking about. This is a supply bill, not an appropriation bill. Try to stay on track. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, this Supply Bill grants the government money to spend—40 per cent of what it had last year—and, by the minister’s own admission, some time to allow it to continue to expend through to October. It is no different from an appropriation bill in this sense; it is a bill of the Parliament that authorises the government to expend money. If we did not pass this bill before 30 June because of a lack of cooperation from the government—I am hoping that the government will be a bit more cooperative so that we can move on with the legislation at some point—it would not change the world; I accept that. What would happen is that the money would continue to run out. In the minister’s response to the second reading debate she indicated that we would start to run out of money sometime around late August. Hon Helen Morton: The end of August if we do not pass this bill. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The end of August. Beyond then, without the passage of this bill, the government would not be able to spend any more money. In that sense, this bill is no different from an appropriation bill. Hon Helen Morton: It is a problem that you think that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, it is a problem that the minister does not realise it. This is a bill that allows the government to expend money. What the minister is saying is that because the bill has been titled a Supply Bill rather than an appropriation bill, we do not have a right as a Parliament to know how the government is going to spend public money. That is the logic of what she is saying. Well, I disagree with that. I am not going to block supply and I am not going to block a budget bill in this place, because that is where I come from as a member of the Labor Party, but I will affirm the rights of this house to expect a government to outline how it is going to spend money that is appropriated. The wording of the preamble to the bill is —

2016 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

An Act to apply out of the Consolidated Account the sum of $7 942 million for the services and purposes of the year ending 30 June 2014. That is asking the Parliament to give the executive the right to spend money. Why is it not appropriate for us to then ask: how is the government going to apply and spend that money? In normal circumstances the minister’s answer that the government is just going to spend it in accordance with the way in which it spent money in the previous financial year might be sufficient to answer that question, but the thing that makes today’s debate different from probably any debate on any other supply bill in the history of the Parliament is that this government has made a complete mess of the way in which it has managed its budgets. This is the only government that I can recall that has set about to not detail how it will keep expenditure below the appropriation. Before it even started, each agency was required to find a two per cent efficiency dividend so that they would be able to bring expenditure back to what was being appropriated. That was the starting point. On top of that, a range of global financial savings measures were included in the budget over and above the appropriation. Then, as Hon Sue Ellery pointed out, in September last year the government announced a further range of saving measures for leave liability, full-time equivalent caps and non-essential purchases. Since the election, the government has outlined what it calls its new efficiency dividends for advertising, procurement and other measures. So, unlike in past Parliaments, when members would have a reasonable understanding of what the line-by-line expenditure of agencies was, the government’s explanation now is that it is going to continue to spend money in the same way it spent it last year. That is not an acceptable answer because this house does not know, and has no way of knowing, unless the minister answers tonight the question of how this total amount will be allocated. The appropriation bill can be broken down agency by agency and the whole estimates process drills down into the detail. The opposition is not asking for that level of detail here, but it is asking for the minister to at least give an idea of the breakdown on an agency-by-agency budget and to explain whether agencies are on track, which agencies will be on track for further efficiency dividends and will therefore get as a proportion of this total amount the proportion that was allocated to them last year, and which agencies will have to get a greater share of this money because they have simply been unable to contain their expenditure to the point that the government has been required to implement these emergency measures. The matter is made even more complex because much of the emergency procurement appears to be things such as telling police officers that they cannot buy pens and paper. I would have thought that would be the same as the efficiency dividend the government applied in child protection, where it cut back on the expenditure on stationery. Hon Kate Doust: They should just buy iPads. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is the old J-curve effect: you have to spend a bit of money before you get the savings. Hon Kate Doust: I always tell my husband that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have still not worked out how buying a new outfit every week eventually saves money. I look forward to that explanation. Members are distracting me. It is the right of this Parliament to expect, at the very least, an explanation from the minister about how the money that is going to be granted to the government will allow it to use money as a result of the passage of this bill in a level of detail not dissimilar to the appropriation bills. That is very different from the appropriation process under which the house goes into even greater detail on the minutiae of expenditure through the estimates process of each agency. I make that point, and I do expect answers. I would be happy if the minister were prepared to have the opposition put questions to her, go away and come back tomorrow with the answers. In fact, if we were to make progress on this bill tonight, I would be happy to defer consideration so that the minister can get information on how we are travelling and give the answers tomorrow, so that in the meantime the house could get on with the Duties Legislation Amendment Bill. I am more than happy to do that. But if the minister is not prepared to do that, so be it. I will try another way of getting the minister to give more information to this house. Does the government expect to deliver a surplus or a deficit on the operating surplus as at 30 June this year? Hon HELEN MORTON: The member spoke for over 10 minutes and then asked the simplest of questions at the end. Hon Kate Doust: What is wrong with that? Hon HELEN MORTON: Nothing is wrong with it, but I would say again that this is a responsible government staying within budget. That is what the number of efficiency dividends relate to. I am concerned that the member thinks there is no difference between a Supply Bill and an appropriations bill. Perhaps it underlines why the opposition would seek to hold up this bill, because the member is seeking the same level of information that

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2017 would be applicable in the appropriations bill. The estimated actual expenditure figures the member is looking for will be published in the budget papers, and that will present the opportunity for the member to question or understand each of the agencies’ levels of expenditure, the efficiencies they have been able to achieve and the issues around their budget processes. But this is not an appropriations bill this time. I am not prepared to go into that level of detail on anything. The answer is no. We will not be providing that level of information. It will be provided at the right time when the appropriation bills are brought in, which is August. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I would like to see if some agreement can be reached on what a Supply Bill does. Does the minister agree with the opposition that Supply Bills allow the government to spend money out of the consolidated fund? Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What does the appropriation bill do? Does it allow the government to spend money out of the consolidated account? Hon HELEN MORTON: I am really sorry I have to go over this with the honourable member again, and I appreciate the difficulty he has understanding this. Appropriation bills provide information, line by line, agency by agency. Supply Bills enable the government to continue to spend money whilst the appropriation legislation is brought into the house. The level of information the member seeks is the appropriation bill level of information, and that is when the member will get it. He will get that information at that time. This bill is about allowing a continuation of expenditure for government to put in place until the appropriation bills are brought in on 8 August. Hon Ken Travers: Is the minister going to answer my question about an appropriation bill? The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Liz Behjat): Does Hon Ken Travers want the call? Hon KEN TRAVERS: So the minister agrees that a Supply Bill and an appropriation bill allow the government to spend money out of the consolidated account. The difference is that an appropriation bill appropriates money line by line by agency, and a whole range of detail comes with it. This is the first Supply Bill since 2001, when a new system of introducing budgets before the end of the financial year was introduced. On that occasion in 2001 there was a new government, with a new Premier, and a new political party, with a new range of commitments and promises, not a government returned. As I say, the general concept of traditional Supply Bills was that expenditure would continue to occur on those matters appropriated in previous years. The difficulty—the minister wants to give me lectures and become patronising — Hon Helen Morton: I don’t want to give you lectures. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think she tried to just then. She tried to give me a lecture and to be patronising. The difference between this Supply Bill and previous Supply Bills is that never before have we had a government that has had to make so many adjustments throughout the year because of its mismanagement. That is why we are demanding more detail than may have been asked for previously under a Supply Bill. Nonetheless, if the house of review cannot ask the government questions about how it is going to spend money that it is asking us to authorise, it is a very, very sad day for the Parliament. I might move on, and we can come back to that issue a little later and see whether we can have another go at it. The minister, on reflection, might want to start to answer some of the questions. Hon Michael Mischin: Now who is being patronising? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I did say that if people want to be patronising to me, I will make the points — Hon Michael Mischin: No, you just said you would take a lot of time; that’s all you said. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No. If the Attorney General wants to interject, I always welcome his interjections. Hon Michael Mischin: You might learn something. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes; feel free to go. I will sit down and let the Attorney General get the call for a second. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Liz Behjat): Order, members! Hon Michael Mischin: Don’t waste time. Come on; get on with it. Don’t play games. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister, would you like the call? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Sorry, Madam Deputy Chair. I seek the call. Hon Michael Mischin: Grow up. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the Attorney General has a contribution to make to this debate, he should feel free to take the call and I will defer to him at any time.

2018 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

One of the things that the minister talked about in her response—I do not think it was her intent—may have left members with the impression that the Supply Bill somehow concludes at a time and that the automatic supply contained within the Financial Administration Act would end in August, when in fact it is a percentage. That is when it is likely to run out rather than it being a fixed date when it runs out. It is about the percentage of money, and it is just a case of when that money runs out—that is the key. I do not think it was the minister’s intention, but her answer almost gave the impression that it is appropriated until the end of August, as opposed to the fact that that is when the 20 per cent is likely to run out. Again, that is one of the issues that we have concerns about. I have another issue with this bill. The thing that makes this Supply Bill quite different from previous Supply Bills is a number of the emergency measures that have been taken by this government in recent weeks. The minister outlined a number of measures in her own portfolio with respect to advertising and things that she had wanted to advertise but had not been able to do. I think the minister suggested that she had wanted to advertise a range of areas in her portfolio, but because of the most recent emergency measures that were put in place to try to bring the budget expenditure in on target, she had not been able to do so. One of the concerns I have is: because we are allowing the government to apply out of the consolidated account, to use the correct terminology in the bill, an amount of money, what measures are in place to stop agencies on 1 July suddenly catching up on all the things they wanted to do over the past six weeks? Hon HELEN MORTON: As I have already indicated to the member, those expenditures are undertaken on a fortnightly basis, and the information is provided by the agency to Treasury about what its expenditure requirements will be on that fortnightly basis. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But that is a retrospective expenditure; that is not a proactive expenditure, is it? Hon Helen Morton: No; you are wrong. It is proactive. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is proactive. Hon Helen Morton: Yes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But they have to present to Treasury what they want to spend over the next fortnight. Hon Helen Morton: That’s correct. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Okay. That is the control. Treasury will just not allow them to spend. That is what I am trying to get to—I do not want to get into the specifics of agencies at this point. What will be the amounts that agencies will be allowed to expend out of the Supply Bill in that first period of the new financial year? How will the amount that agencies are allowed to spend—I do not even expect the minister to get into the detailed amounts on an agency-by-agency basis—in those first couple of months of the new year be determined? Hon HELEN MORTON: It is based on their payment obligations as they present those to Treasury on a fortnightly basis. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I almost thought we were going to put the question. Hon Ken Travers. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am sure if the Deputy Chair stays in the chair long enough, she will get to put the question. Again, I am not asking the minister to get into the details of the tourism budget, but, as an example, there was a major issue recently about tourism. One of the things is that it had a cap on its expenditure. It does not automatically have an obligation for a new round of advertising, but because of the cap that was put on expenditure, it was not able to engage in a round of advertising that it wanted to do as part of its normal, everyday operations. In fact, I think that the tourism minister even said that he regretted the fact that it had been stopped from doing an advertising campaign. Hon Helen Morton: Yes, you are right. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What I am trying to understand is: as of 1 July, is tourism back to its expenditure as of 1 July last year or is it now doing its expenditure according to the expenditure obligations that it had in the last six weeks of 2012–13? Hon HELEN MORTON: The first comment I make is that, as the member knows, the efficiency dividends around marketing were time limited. The other comment I make is that the expenditure that an agency incurs on a fortnightly-by-fortnightly basis is never nice and even throughout the whole year, as the member knows. The agency will provide to Treasury the information that is required around that level of expenditure that is required for that fortnight, and it is not going to be a nice, even amount that is the same as it was last fortnight; it goes up and down, as the member knows. That is the level of information provided by the agency to Treasury. Treasury considers that in light of information that it has, and then appropriates the funding through that process. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I accept the minister’s argument that it was time limited. Will agencies be able to go back and ask for that money? If they have completely run down stocks of pens and papers and everything else, and deferred a range of expenditure as a result of those time-limited caps —

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2019

Hon Helen Morton interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Please go on. Hon Helen Morton: I am speaking to my advisers; I am sorry. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If those caps were time limited, I am trying to get an understanding of how that will operate immediately after 1 July in terms of how agencies are allowed to expend money. Hon HELEN MORTON: I am really sorry, but I was concentrating on a conversation that was occurring at the table. Hon Ken Travers might need to repeat that. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The last round of emergency measures were time limited—things like the restriction on Tourism WA advertising. If it has, as part of its ongoing plans, expenditure for campaigns in July and August, will it be allowed to expend money on those sorts of programs? Will there be any continuation of those caps into the new financial year? Hon HELEN MORTON: I cannot speak for individual agencies. I just know that the efficiency dividend was time limited until 30 June. If there was a concern around any one particular agency or another, that would be negotiated directly between that agency and Treasury. I know that overall efficiency measures taken, especially around marketing et cetera, were time limited until 30 June. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I presume I still use that nomenclature for you? The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Liz Behjat): Deputy Chair. Hon DARREN WEST: Thank you. Such is my newness at this committee phase of proceedings, I may need to be referred to the correct terminology from time to time during my questions and concerns about the fact we are debating clause 1 of the first Supply Bill since 2001. I have made several points that the Minister for Mental Health acknowledged in her reply to the second reading debate. As we established at afternoon tea time, God helps those who help themselves. As an elected member of a very large region, I have some concerns on behalf of those people who elected me. I would like to pose a few questions and put some concerns forward. The very first concern is that we are indeed debating this Supply Bill. I do not accept, and I do not think my electorate will accept, that this is a new government. Using that logic, the 1999 Toyota Hilux sitting in my shed is brand new—it is not; I am the only one who has owned it! It has not had a change of owner. Although the minister might argue this is a new government because its ministers have been sworn in at Government House, the important point to make is there has not been a change of government. We did not have a change of government in March, unfortunately for those of us over here on this side of the chamber. Not only have we not had a change of government, we also have not had a change of Premier or Treasurer, and we have not had a change in several cabinet members. I still grapple with the reason why we are even debating this bill and why the budget could not have been brought down in May when it traditionally is brought down. If the Treasurer is as competent as I have been told he is and is fully focused on the job at hand, the budget would have been brought down. There has been a lot of talk about why it has not; I still wish I really knew. After all this debate, I really do not know why we do not have a budget before us in the normal time frame. Would the minister concede, setting aside semantics, for the clarity of the people I represent that there has not been a change of government and that there has been some continuity in the term of the Barnett government between pre and post 9 March? Hon HELEN MORTON: I would really like to talk to Hon Darren West along the lines that he is a new member of this Parliament. He was not here in the last Parliament—there is one new thing. There are a whole lot of new things here. Hon Ken Travers: So it’s his fault! Hon HELEN MORTON: I take it that the member has moved into new electorate offices that he was not in before—there is another new thing. There are a whole lot of new things. Does Hon Darren West understand this is the thirty-ninth Parliament and that the Parliament before this was the thirty-eighth? I think I have that right. My comment is that this is a new Parliament, this is a new beginning and this is a new government. I can absolutely assure the member, if he is under any doubt whatsoever, that the Treasurer is an incredibly competent Treasurer. I am not going to go over all of the reasons I have already explained about why we are bringing in a Supply Bill, but let me say once again: be assured that this is a new Parliament. Hon DARREN WEST: Given that I cannot get a concession that the government has not changed, which I find a bit disappointing even though all of the electors believe that, I had some concerns during my speech about the state’s AAA credit rating. The Minister for Mental Health touched on that in her comments. I am a businessperson; I am looking at this matter from a business perspective. I know that government is not a business organisation. If someone wanted to be in business, they would be in business and not in government. I accept all of that. At some point we are responsible to the taxpayers of the state and the nation who supply the money for these bills. At the time this government took office in September 2008, my figures show that state government

2020 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] debt was in the order of $3.8 billion. At the moment we are venturing into the area of $18 billion. That is a massive increase in debt. It was pointed out earlier that the interest on that debt is around $477 million. Extrapolating those figures back, had there not been such an increase in state debt, we would have paid in the vicinity of only $85 million at the same interest rate. We are paying in the order of $390 million a year more in interest because we have this higher level of state debt. Interest rates are now very low. They are at about a 54-year low. In the last three months I have rolled over some of my loans. I can tell members that the rates are very sharp. Heaven help us, minister, if the rates get back up to 12 per cent. If that happens, I have grave concerns about Western Australia’s AAA credit rating. As the minister quite rightly pointed out, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s have rated the state’s credit rating, along with a couple of other states, at AAA. I think that is great and needs to be maintained. It is very important to everyone who does business in the state of Western Australia and everyone who is a taxpayer and ultimately uses government services that we maintain that rating. The implications of that are dire—the cost of our funds will rise even more and investment will diminish. Given that we had a AAA credit rating at $3.8 billion in debt, and a AAA credit rating in these economic times of $18 billion in debt, there must be a point at which that rating comes under serious threat. I suggest that point is not that far away. Can the minister give us any advice as to what that figure may be at which our AAA credit rating becomes extremely wobbly for the taxpayers of Western Australia? The DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister, before I give you the call, I understand that the member on his feet asking a question is relatively new to this chamber. I reiterate the comments made by the previous Chair, that whilst we allow some latitude when considering the short title of the bill, perhaps the member is stretching it a little and straying into areas that might better be dealt with in clause 3. I point that out to Hon Darren West at this stage. Hon HELEN MORTON: I will just go over some of the comments I previously made in this area, especially around the AAA credit rating. I agree with Hon Darren West that the government is absolutely committed to maintain its AAA credit rating. I do not think we are in any danger of losing it. Since coming into office, the state government has faced some really significant revenue challenges including lower-than-expected GST revenue, volatile royalty income and the effect of stamp duty collections in a very subdued property market. At the same time economic expansion, along with strong population growth, has driven the demand for public sector services and infrastructure. These are the things that the government is grappling with to maintain its AAA credit rating. I do not know whether Hon Darren West was looking for a figure or an understanding of what might be a trigger or something like that. All I can tell the member is that the government is very committed to maintaining its AAA credit rating. Taking all of those things into account is part of the reason the government has to be given the time to bring its budget in. That is what we are committed to doing. Hon SUE ELLERY: I want to take the minister back a bit so that I can understand the process and why the minister is comfortable with this being a new government. Did the minister begin any form of bilaterals around the 2013 budget in 2012? Hon HELEN MORTON: I assume the member is talking about bilaterals for the 2013–14 budget. The answer is that the normal negotiations that take place between agencies and Treasury were continuing. We then went into caretaker mode, and nothing occurred during that time. We then went into the election process, and it all started again after that. Hon SUE ELLERY: So we have established that the process began in 2012; there was a hiatus over the caretaker period; there was the election; and the process was picked up again in 2013. Is that correct? Hon HELEN MORTON: I do not think the Leader of the Opposition quite got what I said at the beginning. I said normal processes between agencies and Treasury; so this might be talking about current expenditure, or about trying to ensure that agencies are bought back to the level of expenditure that they are budgeted for, et cetera. These are normal day-to-day or week-to-week processes that take place between agencies and Treasury. In fact, at any one time throughout the year, three cycles are occurring at once. Those cycles are the acquittal stage for the year gone by, the current stage of expenditure that a process is in, and looking forward to where things might be for the coming budget. So, at any one stage, three levels of consideration are taking place continuously; it never stops. Hon SUE ELLERY: Indeed; the minister is quite right. In the second part of the year, agencies start to identify what they want out of the following year’s budget; and Treasury starts to figure out what it is not going to give, and what advice it is going to give the Treasurer on instructions that should be given to agencies and ministers about doing up their wish list. Did that process begin in 2012? Hon HELEN MORTON: Again, I would say that those processes never stop. They are continuous processes that occur all the time. The actual formalisation of the budget process occurs in the period leading up to May, normally, when there is no election. But in this process, it is occurring right now, leading up to the August budget.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2021

Hon SUE ELLERY: I thank the minister for her explanation. As I understood what the minister said, the normal budget processes were begun in 2012; there was then a hiatus during the caretaker period, as is appropriate; there was then the election; and the normal processes were then begun again. However, this time, the government has decided that the process will be extended to August, for reasons of its own choosing, which it is entitled to do. But the process was started in 2012, and it has continued, with a break in the middle around the caretaker period and the election, for a longer period than normal in 2013. But it is the same budget process, by the same government. Hon HELEN MORTON: The same budget process that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is the same budget process as the midyear review, which occurs every December. Those things occurred in December. But the formalisation of budget bids and budget information occurs after that process. Hon Sue Ellery: Agreed. There is nothing new about that. The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Liz Behjat): Members, we are dealing with the Supply Bill 2013, and the question is that clause 1 do stand as printed. Hon Ken Travers. Hon Simon O’Brien: Aye! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Was that an aye, or is someone seeking the call over there? I am happy for Hon Simon O’Brien to have the call if he wants it. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I have given you the call, Hon Ken Travers. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Thank you. Hon Simon O’Brien: I had almost gone to sleep, so I might get up and have a stretch! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Feel free! This bill allows the government to apply money out of the consolidated account for both recurrent services and capital purposes. How will the capital projects be selected? Will it be only those projects that are currently underway, or will some of this money be able to be applied to new projects? Hon HELEN MORTON: They are ongoing projects. Hon KEN TRAVERS: So, even if a project was included in the capital works to commence in the 2013–14 year — Hon Helen Morton: That is ongoing budget. Hon KEN TRAVERS: According to the Premier, it is not, because forward estimates do not have any meaning; they are in never-never land. This is what I want to understand. Hon HELEN MORTON: If it is reflected in expenditure for the 2013–14 year in the current budget papers, that expenditure will be able to be made in this current process through this allocation of funding. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Can the minister assure us that none of this money will be expended on projects that were not included in either last year’s budget or the midyear review; that is, in the 2012–13 budget papers and the forward estimates? I assume that if a project was put in in the midyear review, that will be added to the list of capital projects. There are some projects that were announced in the midyear review. Does the minister understand what I am saying? Can the minister assure us that none of this money will be spent on capital projects that were not included in either the 2012–13 budget papers and forward estimates — Hon Helen Morton: Not included, yes. Hon KEN TRAVERS: — or the midyear review? Hon Helen Morton: Which means that they have never been appropriated. Hon KEN TRAVERS: They have never been publicly reported. My point is that there may be capital works projects that cabinet has made decisions to proceed with but that have never been publicly reported. I am trying to find out whether the minister is asking us to give the government money to spend on projects that have never been publicly reported. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Minister, before you take the call on that, perhaps I could direct Hon Ken Travers to clause 3, because I think he is definitely starting to stray into that area now when he is asking about the specifics of the capital purposes. We have had a very long and wide-reaching, but very interesting, debate around clause 1, and Hon Ken Travers might consider that we might like to move on a bit further this evening; so could he just bear that in mind? Hon KEN TRAVERS: At the moment I am still asking about general issues, not the specifics of them. I assure the chair that the specific debate will be far more specific than it has been so far. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I am sure it will be! I am just trying!

2022 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

Hon HELEN MORTON: Obviously the process by which that can occur, if it were to occur, is through a Treasurer’s advance. Even if it has been appropriated in the 2012–13 budget and has been picked up in some form through the midyear review, it would be via a Treasurer’s advance. My advisers and I are not aware of any such project that is not in that process. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Is it the minister’s view that this bill would allow cabinet to make a decision after 1 July to commence a project without it having been previously determined before the end of this financial year? Are we allowing the government to appropriate money for projects for which a decision has not yet been made by cabinet? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The question is of the difference between an appropriation bill in the sense of a budget, which we will contemplate in August, and the Supply Bill, such as the one before us now that has taken up some time in committee stage. I wonder how protracted the discussion about that really has to be. Hon Ken Travers has been careful to keep his line of questioning and discussion relevant to clause 1 of the Supply Bill. However, in doing that, he and one or two of his colleagues are making these matters far more protracted than they need to be. I remind the Committee of the Whole that the purpose of this Supply Bill, as has been the purpose of other Supply Bills in the past, including Supply Bills when it was standard for a budget not to be passed until August or September of the financial year, is that the funds to be approved by Parliament under the Supply Bill are for the normal ongoing expenses of government as the new financial year commences. The question Hon Ken Travers has put to the minister is an unreasonable question. Hon Helen Morton: It is hypothetical. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is hypothetical, but there is a little more to it than that. He is asking for a definitive answer to the question of whether the money allocated for capital expenditure proposed in this bill, which is ostensibly for up to several months extra normal expense of government payment if approved by the house—I presume it will be approved because we have heard nothing to the contrary—can be allocated by cabinet for capital works projects that have not been announced. The member is asking that question in a definitive sense so that if the minister were to say no and it was ever used for such a purpose, the opposition would say, “Aha, we’ve got you!” Conversely, if the minister was to say that it could be, the opposition would also say, “Aha, we’ve got you! Tell us what it’s for or else you’re requiring us to give you money for some unknown purpose.” Again we come back to the purpose of a Supply Bill, which is to continue the normal processes of government. I am pretty darn sure that there is no proposal to spend the $1 billion-odd contained in the bill for capital purposes on new, unannounced capital works ventures to build bridges over the water in Melville or anything like that. It will be for the normal process of government. Sometimes cabinet will make decisions outside and subsequent to any budgetary or appropriation process and will want to spend money to do it. The fact is that that is a normal process of government. Hon Ken Travers: But they can only do it when it has been appropriated by Parliament. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Indeed it can. This allocation is for the normal purposes of government activity. I think the member’s question is a non-question in that sense and I do not think it is germane to the consideration of clause 1. I give full marks to Hon Ken Travers for having a go at perpetuating the habit of successive oppositions to continue to talk these matters out unnecessarily while protesting that they are doing their job. Hon HELEN MORTON: A Treasurer’s advance can be used for anything that is unforeseen, urgent or extraordinary that takes place, and that can be a recurrent or capital expenditure. I cannot anticipate whether anything of that nature is likely to happen between now and August. I hope not because that would mean there was a major catastrophe that would require a Treasurer’s advance to fix. Even if that did occur, the funding would have to be reflected in the 8 August budget. In the absence of that, I cannot think of any way that type of expenditure could take place other than if the funding was already being appropriated through the Parliament or through the 2012–13 process or the 2013–14 budget process on 8 August. There always have been Treasurer’s advances, as the member is aware. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I agree with the minister’s comments that the Treasurer’s advance would pick it up. I am testing my memory but my recollection is that when Supply Bills were a regular event in Parliament, we also had annual Treasurer’s advances. Three per cent of the budget was not automatically available for a Treasurer’s advance as contained in the Financial Management Act. Potentially, at the same time as the Supply Bill would have been passed, a Treasurer’s advance would have gone through so that Treasury would have been informed of those issues until 30 June this year. As a way of trying to help facilitate the debate, perhaps the minister could give an undertaking to confirm that no new capital projects have commenced that are over and above those that were contained in last year’s budget and its forward estimates or in the midyear review. I appreciate the minister’s comment that to the best of her knowledge she is not aware of anything like that. I am sure we will have an opportunity during the debate on clause 3 tomorrow to discuss that if the minister is in a position to give us that undertaking now so that we can move on.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2023

Hon HELEN MORTON: The difficulty is that the financial year has not ended and the new financial year has not started. Therefore, trying to give the member information about any capital expenditure that may have occurred via a Treasurer’s advance that is not already known into the two months of the new financial year at this stage is difficult. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I accept that the minister cannot tell me what will happen in the future, although if there are ongoing discussions, she could give us a scoop. Hon Helen Morton: Crystal ball. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We have all heard the terms “unforeseen” and “extraordinary” used in a fairly liberal way for many years. We regularly debate on a Treasurer’s Advance Bill exactly what unforeseen and extraordinary mean. I am asking the minister to confirm whether any decisions have been taken by cabinet up to today that have not previously been reported and whether the expenditure will continue beyond this financial year and, therefore, some of the money made available under the Supply Bill is being used. Hon HELEN MORTON: I am about to ask the committee to report progress. I will read the transcript to see all the things the member has asked because it is still a bit confusing around what he is specifically wanting. I do not think I will be providing hypothetical information. Hon Ken Travers: Decisions that have been taken. Hon HELEN MORTON: The member is reflecting specifically on capital expenditure issues that might not have yet been appropriated in some way through the Parliament in the 2012–13 report. The member made some comments about them not being known to the public in some way or another. I think the member is asking whether some secret thing might have already commenced — Hon Ken Travers: I am saying that, in the normal course of events, cabinet might take a decision and that would normally have been reported as part of the budget process. Hon HELEN MORTON: — and will be reported on 8 August. Hon Ken Travers: Yes. Those budgets are going forward. Hon HELEN MORTON: I understand what the member is asking for and I think his concern is that there is some unknown agenda or unknown initiative that has taken place that the member does not know about. Hon Ken Travers: I am not suggesting anything Machiavellian about it or that it’s deliberately secret. I am saying that in a normal budget cycle, a Treasurer’s advance and budget papers for the following year would be brought down together. That gives a clear picture going forward. I want a similar clear picture going forward to the next budget. Hon HELEN MORTON: My problem with providing that information is that it will be the first of a number of those asks the member will make, and it is the information I said I would not provide. I will not get into that level of information. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon HELEN MORTON: I will not get into that level of information around the budget. This is a total allocation of funding for both capital and recurrent funding, as I have indicated, to enable the government to continue to progress the work of government until 8 August. Hon Ken Travers: You’ve changed your language already. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, on motion by Hon Helen Morton (Minister for Mental Health). INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 2013 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Helen Morton (Minister for Mental Health), read a first time. Second Reading HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [9.35 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to further align the Insurance Commission of Western Australia to the state’s policy statement on competitive neutrality. The statement aims to eliminate resource allocation distortions arising out of the public ownership of entities engaged in significant business activities. In Western Australia, minimum requirements for government trading enterprises to achieve competitive neutrality include being subject to both full commonwealth and state tax equivalent payments, and the payment of dividends to the consolidated account.

2024 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

The majority of Western Australian GTEs, from large utilities such as the Water Corporation and Western Power, through to smaller entities like Western Australian Treasury Corporation and Gold Corporation, are subject to these requirements. Under current arrangements, the Insurance Commission of Western Australia is subject to full commonwealth and state tax equivalent payments. However, unlike most Western Australian GTEs, it is not required to return any portion of its profits to the state in the form of dividends. This bill will align the Insurance Commission of Western Australia to other state-owned GTEs by making it subject to dividend provisions. The bill will provide for the Insurance Commission of Western Australia to recommend both an interim dividend and final dividend payable for each financial year. If the Insurance Commission does not believe it is in a position to pay an interim dividend or dividend for a financial year, it can make this recommendation to its minister. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party; nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and I table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 372.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. CITY OF FREMANTLE AND TOWN OF EAST FREMANTLE TRUST FUNDS (AMENDMENT AND EXPIRY) BILL 2013 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Helen Morton (Minister for Mental Health), read a first time. Second Reading HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [9.39 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle Trust Funds (Amendment and Expiry) Bill 2013. This bill is essentially about repealing an obsolete act and reducing red tape. The Fremantle Municipal Tramways and Electric Lighting Act 1903 created a board to undertake the provision of electricity, tramways and passenger transport in Fremantle and East Fremantle, with the now City of Fremantle having six- sevenths interest and the Town of East Fremantle having one-seventh interest. By 1961, these functions were no longer provided. The City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle Trust Funds Act 1961 dissolved the board and transferred assets to a trust with interests held in these proportions. The 1903 act was repealed. Currently, these assets and liabilities must be managed and reported on in accordance with a range of legislation, primarily the act that is to be repealed and the Local Government Act 1995. The amendment and expiry provisions will remove a double compliance burden on these two local governments. Removal of an unnecessary layer of compliance is certainly welcomed by the city and the town. This government is committed to ensuring that local government assets and finances are managed in a manner that ensures that the public gets the best value for money in the services delivered, but at the same time the community can be assured that public moneys are being managed in a safe and accountable manner. The current requirement for the city and the town to manage the subject assets separately from their main assets is not efficient and imposes an additional administrative burden, when the Local Government Act 1995 provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for local government management of, and reporting on, finances and assets. Under this government, this framework has been considerably strengthened by initiatives such as introducing the requirement for integrated planning and fair value accounting of assets. It is completely appropriate, therefore, that the assets be transferred to the city and the town and be managed under the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. At 30 April 2013, the fund assets currently being managed by the City of Fremantle were in the order of: current cash and receivables of over $3.7 million; Tapper Street freehold properties comprising three buildings with a total of 11 units, operating as a retirement village; and a heritage-listed property on reserve 34837, known as the old Fremantle fire station, currently leased for commercial purposes. At 23 May 2013, the Town of East Fremantle fund’s only asset was a term deposit at bank with a balance in excess of $201 500. Repealing the City of Fremantle and Town of East Fremantle Trust Funds Act 1961 will serve to eliminate a duplicate layer of compliance. The bill provides for the transfer of the assets and liabilities, inclusive of any existing financial agreements and proceedings, of the Fremantle fund to the City of Fremantle; revesting of reserve 34837 from the Fremantle fund

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2025 to the City of Fremantle; transfer of the assets and liabilities of the East Fremantle fund to the Town of East Fremantle; subsequent abolition of the Fremantle fund and the East Fremantle fund; and registration of documents with the Registrar of Titles and the provision of reports to the Minister for Local Government prior to ministerial notice of the expiry of the act. This bill represents yet another step in this government’s strategy to improve legislation for local governments. Removing this obsolete layer of compliance will result in administrative cost savings for both the city and the town, to the benefit of their communities. I commend the bill to the house. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party, nor does the bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 373.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Statement HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [9.44 pm]: In question time today, the opposition asked a number of questions about fees and charges that were due to start in a range of agencies from 1 July, which is five days away, and fewer than that in working days. The answer to some of those questions included the same words, which are that “it is not possible to provide the information”, and so members were asked to put the question on notice. I have been engaged in the debate on the Supply Bill, so I just had time to check a couple of the websites of those respective agencies. Some members were in the house when, in my second reading contribution on the Supply Bill, I raised the issue that using the words “it is not possible” perhaps may have led some of the people who were giving their answers in a representative capacity to mislead the house, if indeed we were able to demonstrate that providing that information was indeed possible. In my comments I noted that it was the right of the government to say it was choosing not to give us that information, but it was not accurate and therefore, potentially, the members were misleading the house by saying it was not possible to provide that information. I happened to look at a couple of websites when I was in between my erudite contribution to the consideration of the Supply Bill during Committee of the Whole. One of the questions was asked by Hon Alanna Clohesy to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy, and it was — I refer to fees and charges for goods and services … Which fees and charges will increase from 1 July 2013 and by how much … On the Synergy website, under the heading “News & media releases”, is the following — The state government has announced a 4% increase to the Home Plan (A1) electricity tariff for WA households, which will be implemented on 1 July 2013. I looked at the Department of Planning website—I have not got to the others, so I am going to do that even though I do not think it is a particularly productive use of my time—because the same answer was given in respect to Planning, which was that the information will be provided at the same time as the answer to similar questions the member has put to other portfolios. On the Department of Planning website, under “Application fees”, there are a range of fees that are valid from 1 July 2013. I am asking those ministers and parliamentary secretaries who gave answers today and who said it was not possible to provide that information to reconsider their answer, bearing in mind that they are responsible for the answer, even when they give an answer representing somebody else, and to ask themselves whether or not they misled the house, because it is a serious thing to do. It appears to me that those two answers given by the Minister for Mental Health representing the planning minister, and the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy did indeed mislead the house, because the material is available. When a member of Parliament asks a question in the house, whether that material is available elsewhere or not, if it is available, the member is obliged either to provide it—that is, I think, the honourable thing to do—or to tell us that they are choosing not to provide it. They are not to come into this place and say that it is not possible, when clearly it is. QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE 264 — CORRECTION OF ANSWER Statement HON ALYSSA HAYDEN (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [9.48 pm]: I rise to correct an answer I provided during question time today to Hon Nick Goiran. Following the answer I provided, further

2026 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] information was brought to my attention. I subsequently made further inquiries of the minister’s office, and I have the following correction to make — (1) Yes. (2) I now table the copy of the letter. (3) Not applicable. [See paper 374.] PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF INDIA Statement HON LIZ BEHJAT (North Metropolitan) [9.48 pm]: I rise tonight as one of the co-conveners of the Parliamentary Friends of India—a most important group that was started in the last Parliament. I am very pleased to report to the house tonight that an invitation was sent to members on both sides of the chamber in both houses to continue their membership of that group, and to the new members to find out whether they were interested in participating—a good number of members took up the invitation. I think the parliamentary friendship groups we start can play a very important role in our parliamentary lives. I went to a lecture at the University Club of Western Australia hosted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy and the University of Western Australia. The lecture, which was delivered by a most excellent speaker, Dr C. Raja Mohan, was on the topic “Churning the seas: India–China strategic competition and what it means for Australia”. Also attending on that evening was the US Ambassador to Australia, Jeffrey Bleich, who also participated in that debate. It was a very interesting lecture and I am hopeful that a paper will be presented that members will be able to access. There were some very interesting and wide-ranging topics discussed in relation to Indo–Pacific relationships and where Australia can play a part. We need to perhaps look at trilateral agreements in that space. Yesterday evening I sat with the US Consul General to Western Australia, Aleisha Woodward. Many members of this house know Aleisha well. I will take a couple of moments to let members know, in case they are not aware, that Aleisha’s tenure as US Consul General to Western Australia is rapidly coming to an end; she leaves us on 3 July. Aleisha will return to the US for a period of 12 months where she will undertake a very intensive course in the Russian language and, following that, she will take up a post as head of her embassy’s public affairs department in Kazakhstan. I take this opportunity to thank Aleisha for the wonderful contribution she has made to Western Australia in her role as Consul General over the past three years. She has been willing to participate in any number of things. Indeed, she attended with me at Ashdale Secondary College just two weeks ago to talk to the students about the US political system and what life is like in the foreign service. On behalf of everyone here, I bid her a very fond farewell. She will be very much missed in Western Australia. I also wish her successor all the best when she arrives to take up her role. One of the other people there last night was Rory Medcalf, who is a director of the Lowy Institute and a very well-known person to speak on Indian matters. I would like to take a few minutes to draw the attention of the house to the Lowy Institute’s “India–Australia Poll 2013”. For those who are interested in the relationship that Australia, and in particular Western Australia, has with India, I urge them to go online and have a look at that poll. Mr President, you led a very successful delegation of members from this chamber to India in December 2010. I was fortunate enough to travel to India with you at that time. From that trip we formed the Parliamentary Friends of India Group. For those who have been to India, it is very interesting to go through the “India–Australia Poll 2013” to see what we can do to grow the relationship between Western Australia and India. The poll was conducted nationally; it was an opinion survey of 1 233 Indian adults conducted face-to-face between 30 August and 15 October 2012. The poll was a collaboration between the Lowy Institute and the Australia-India Institute. One of the topics canvassed in this survey was Indians’ warmth towards Australia. Whilst the United States of America is by far the country to which Indians feel the greatest degree of warmth, at 62 per cent, Australia sits not far below that at 56 per cent. Members who have quickly done the maths in their heads—I am sure Hon Ken Travers, being the financial wizard that he is, has done so—will know that there is six degrees of separation between the United States and Australia. That is something for us to work towards to perhaps lessen that degree of separation between the two countries. Other questions included asking participants’ views on Australia as a model for India, Australia’s qualities, Indians in Australia, education in Australia, uranium matters, Indian Ocean security and something that I think you, Mr President, will be very interested in—cricket diplomacy. The executive summary states — It seems cricket really does help. Three-quarters of Indians think the game carries three diplomatic benefits: it projects a positive image of Australia, a positive image of India, and helps the two countries grow closer. That said, 35% think cricket can sometimes cause frictions between the countries. That is quite relevant. The poll indicates that relationships between India and Australia have deepened dramatically over the past decade. We certainly saw evidence of that when our group travelled to India. I will

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2027 just put on the record, to remind members—I think we did this some time ago—that the delegation to India included the President as leader of the delegation, Hon Kate Doust, Hon Adele Farina, Hon Col Holt, and me. The places we visited during that whirlwind tour—I think it was eight or nine days — Hon Kate Doust: Seven. Hon LIZ BEHJAT: I am corrected by Hon Kate Doust; it was seven days. We went to Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore in India and also to Colombo in Sri Lanka on our way back. The poll indicates that one important area for Indians is education. Whilst the poll itself was taken some time ago, it shows that Indians still felt a bit of anxiousness about how their students were treated in Australia. That stems back to the issues in 2009 and 2010, mostly in Melbourne, when there were some problems with Indian students. The poll that will probably be taken next year will probably show a rapid change in that attitude. Australia is a very popular place for people of Indian origin to call their home. A lot of my neighbours are of Indian origin. I welcome them to our community because they make very good neighbours and they are making a wonderful contribution to our society in Western Australia. Only 42 per cent of the people polled thought that Australia was the best place to be educated; 61 per cent thought that America was the best place. There is a bit of work to be done in that area. I think next time around those figures will change. It is quite an extensive poll. The question of uranium and its export to India was also canvassed in the poll. Following on from discussions I had last night, whilst we all know that attitudes have changed in that regard, it is probably more of a hypothetical question these days as to whether uranium exports to India will happen. I think they have issues they are looking at. I commend the Lowy Institute for this poll. I encourage those members who are not members of the Parliamentary Friends of India Group to join me and Hon Adele Farina—we are co-convenors of that group—and get on board. There is a great future between Western Australia and India. I encourage all members to be involved wherever they can be. HOUSING — AVAILABILITY — CHIVERS FAMILY Statement HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.58 pm]: I rise tonight to continue some of the comments I made last week during the debate on the Supply Bill about a homeless family with whom I have had some dealings. I want to add some further comments because their story continues. Some members may have come across the Chivers family in the media over the weekend. Last week the family was offered the opportunity to stay in a caravan park by the department as part of their third day of crisis care. At the time they were offered the capacity to stay for a period of time, but the accommodation costs were too high—I think it was $460 a week for the caravan allotment and this family has an income of only $900 a fortnight. Members can imagine that that would not leave a lot of money in the kitty to pay all the other bills and feed the kids. The family then went back to the department and was offered a night’s stay, because the caravan park offer had been pulled back as it would have exceeded their crisis care arrangement. They were then offered a night at a chalet in Advent Caravan and Camping Park. The family did not take up that offer, because when they arrived at the chalet, they discovered that there was no running water, no linen was provided, and there were bunk beds. As the mother of the family said to me, a lot of single men were around and it was a bit of an unusual place. She would have had to stay in a separate facility to her husband and her son. So they did not stay there; they went back and stayed with friends in a one-bedroom flat in Karawara. That family has continued to seek accommodation. As well as their continued engagement with the department, what has been interesting is that on two occasions last week they were contacted by the police. I think I referred to the first occasion in my earlier speech. They were contacted, I think, on Tuesday or Wednesday. On Thursday, after they did not stay at Advent Caravan and Camping Park, the father received another phone call from the police, saying, “Why did you not stay at that accommodation in Advent Park?” I am quite curious about why the police knew where the family had been sent for the night and why they asked the family why they did not stay there, given that the family had already received correspondence from the Department for Child Protection and Family Support, stating that because there were no further issues with the children, the department would not be engaging with them on any further matters. I would be interested to know who had contacted the police to advise them where the family would be staying; and the second question is: why would the police be calling them at all? The family has received an enormous positive response from the community of Western Australia. I understand that there have been 11 or 12 offers of accommodation to help them. Hopefully, something will come out of that, given that we know there is an extensively long waiting period for public housing. I know that currently people are looking at work opportunities for the father to try to help get him employed and assist in that respect. The children have returned to their original school, and I understand they are very happy and doing well. That is a real plus. We all know that children need routine and to be amongst their mates and back in the system, so that is a very good positive. Today, the parents came here to Parliament House to watch a question being asked in the other chamber. I was told by Fran Logan, the member for Cockburn, who is the shadow Minister for Housing—he has been giving the

2028 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] family some assistance—that today he was contacted by a number of journalists who said to him, “Look, we don’t know what’s going on, but we’ve been contacted by the media officer for the minister.” I do not know whether it is Minister Morton, or Minister Marmion, the Minister for Housing. The particular media officer said to these journalists, “Listen; you haven’t been given the full story about this family. You don’t know all the detail. It’s not what has been told to you.” I do not know which ministerial office has encouraged its media officer to do that, but if that is indeed true, it is shameful. That is vilifying the victim. It is indeed shameful that people would be trying to take this family down further by doing that—by casting them in a bad light when they are desperately trying to seek a roof over their heads. What we should have is the department trying to provide them with that assistance. I know that today a question was put to Minister Marmion in the other place. I note that when I read the uncorrected Hansard for his response, I was quite disappointed in the way he managed the answer. He, as well, tried to put it out that there may be other circumstances around why this family is in this situation. Really, that is not relevant, because we all know that this could happen to anybody in any situation. It is a simple change of events that sometimes puts us in dire need of assistance. I really do not think it is appropriate that this minister should be casting these people in this light. The minister also talked about how Minister Morton’s Department for Child Protection and Family Support has been offering this family help, and I do not dispute that. I know that because I have seen the emails. I canvassed those matters last week and we talked about the frustrations and limitations in that department in terms of providing assistance. Minister Marmion made note that the family had not taken up the offer of bond or other assistance. The reason that they did not take up the offer of bond was simply because they did not have any other money to pay the rent that they would have been asked to pay, say, in the situation of the caravan park, $460 a week, and certainly not to find other private accommodation; we all know how difficult that is. I just wanted to update members about the family’s situation and express my extreme disappointment in whichever ministerial adviser, spin doctor, had been trying to cast aspersions on the character of this family who are in a dire situation and trying to put them in that difficult situation when they are no different from any of the other people who are currently trying to find a home—people who are having to resort to sofa surfing in a mate or family member’s house or sleeping in the carport of a friend’s place or indeed in a car with their family. We have seen a number of those types of examples through a range of media over this week and we have certainly heard a number of members in this chamber canvass those issues over the past few days. Mr President, like you, I take this issue very seriously. Homelessness unfortunately appears to be a growing epidemic. I think that it is disgusting and shameful that a minister—I am not saying Minister Morton—would treat this so tritely and that a minister would send their spin doctor to try to put these people in a bad light and turn attention away from their dreadful situation. I hope that this government views these matters seriously and will do everything it possibly can to provide assistance to this family and to many of the others whom we are aware of. This indeed is a significant priority for government. As I discussed in my speech last week, this is a government that has not put organised its priorities in the right order. I would regard addressing the needs of families such as the Chivers family as being of much higher priority than a number of the other matters that this government currently has us deal with. FRED ROBINSON — CONDOLENCE Statement HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural) [10.08 pm]: It is with much regret that I advise the house tonight of the recent passing of Mr Fred Robinson from Geraldton. Fred was a life member of the Australian Labor Party and I think the greatest honour we could bestow on Fred, aside from that life membership, was to tell him and his family that he was a true blue Labor man. Fred was born in the goldfields and worked on the railways for many years. Fred was of tremendous assistance to both the former member for Geraldton, Shane Hill, and Hon Kim Chance, who was a member in this house. Fred worked on somewhere around 25 election campaigns. His modus operandi was to get there very early, set up his chair and table, have his lunch, have his campaign material ready and set about talking the leg off that chair to other polling booth workers who would invariably drift off during the morning because they could not stand hearing Fred’s biased precis on the virtues of the Australian Labor Party. Needless to say, the poll results were good on the booths that Fred worked on, because he was there on his own most of the day. Fred was an avid collector of Labor material and has a great collection of memorabilia going back over the years. We urge Janice not to have the bonfire that she often threatened to have to clear out the house of some of that memorabilia. Our thoughts are with Fred’s family. Fred was very proud to receive his life membership and he came to the Labor state conference with his family to receive this honour. The Geraldton community is a lot poorer for the passing of Fred and so is the labour movement in Western Australia. Our thoughts and condolences are with Janice, Fred’s family and Fred’s friends.

[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013] 2029

“2030 VISION FOR DEVELOPING NORTHERN AUSTRALIA” Statement HON MARK LEWIS (Mining and Pastoral) [10.10 pm]: I rise to bring to the notice of members the federal coalition’s “2030 Vision for Developing Northern Australia”. I believe this policy initiative will be very important for Western Australia and in particular to my electorate. As we see the mining industry flatten out, we need to develop secondary industries to take some burden off the mining industry. This policy is aimed at developing a food bowl in the north, growing the tourist economy and building an energy export industry. It will also look at establishing world-class medical centres — Hon Kate Doust: Do we lease the food bowl back from the Chinese or do you have to talk to Brendon about that? The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon MARK LEWIS: I will get to that. The policy also aims to create an education hub and to grow Australia’s export of technical skills related to resources and agriculture. As I said, it is important that we embrace this federal initiative and ensure we get synergies along with it. For example, not only in the Ord as we know it now, but also in the area immediately around and to the north of it, an area of about 38 000 hectares could be used to develop significant energy and cattle related projects. I go back to Hon Kate Doust’s point: we will need investment to do this. Food security is critical to China and Asia and they will spend money. It is not about how much profit they make; it is about how much they lose per kilo of protein. Down from Fitzroy Crossing, there are significant areas that can be properly and sustainably developed through mosaic agriculture techniques. Coming down further, La Grange, south of Broome, is a significant area of water resources and again holds significant potential for food production. Within the next 10 years, the Pilbara, which is of particular interest to me, will probably be the second biggest agricultural area outside the Ord and its development will mostly be done with water resources coming off the back of mining. To give some idea of the potential in the Pilbara, the Gascoyne area uses 10 gigalitres of water. The prospects in the Pilbara from dewatering could be 200 gigalitres to 300 gigalitres—that is in the magnitude of 20 to 30 times the water resources we use in Carnarvon. The issue in the Pilbara will also be to develop energy for off-grid mining companies and the like. We are very close with the technology in the agricultural area to realising that potential. I add that we need to make sure that when the new coalition federal government rolls out this program that Carnarvon, or the Gascoyne, is actually brought back into the north, because at the moment it is not, as it sits underneath the Tropic of Capricorn. We need to make sure Carnarvon and the Gascoyne food bowl are brought within this initiative. Given Carnarvon is my home base, I will give members some idea about it. I have just had some figures come through, and this year Carnarvon produced a gross value of $100 million worth of agricultural product. To give some idea of that, the Ord, with all its size and all its might, produces a bit over a gross value of $50 million worth of agricultural production, and that is imputing the future cost of sandalwood back into today’s dollars. Therefore, Carnarvon is a very significant area for Western Australia. As I said, a gross value of $100 million worth of agricultural production comes out of that place and we are in the process of trying to increase that by 50 per cent. Therefore, it will be important that we try to get Carnarvon drawn back into the federal coalition’s 2030 vision for developing northern Australia. That is it, I will leave it there. I just thought that it would be of critical interest to the house that that vision statement exists. Hon Kate Doust interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Kate Doust was not interrupted. Hon MARK LEWIS: We need to hook up with that vision and make sure we pick up the synergies as it comes through. House adjourned at 10.15 pm ______

2030 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 25 June 2013]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

ATLAS IRON — CORUNNA DOWNS AIRSTRIP 90. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to reports (North West Telegraph, 8 May) of a drilling program by Atlas Iron at the Corunna Downs prospect, and I ask: (a) what restrictions on the activities of Atlas Iron are in place to protect the social, historic and scientific heritage values of the Corunna Downs World War II airstrip; and (b) how are these restrictions being monitored? Hon Ken Baston replied: (a) Under the provisions of the Mining Act 1978, Atlas Iron Limited is restricted to only carrying out exploration activities that are approved by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. The approved exploration activities (referred to in the North West Telegraph) are approximately 12 km south-west of the airstrip and therefore do not impact on the social, historic or scientific values of the airstrip. There are no live or pending Mining Act 1978 tenements covering the Corunna Downs airstrip or the immediate vicinity around it. (b) Not applicable SHEEP PRODUCTS — WORKING GROUP INVESTIGATIONS 97. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: (1) Will the Minister table the terms of reference for the working group investigating market options for sheep products? (2) Will the Minister list the members of the group? (3) When did the group start meeting? (4) How often does the group meet? (5) Will the Minister table minutes of any meetings held between 1 January 2013 and 31 May 2013? Hon Ken Baston replied: (1) Yes. The term of reference for the industry led working group is to develop new supply chains for African breed sheep from the southern rangelands and northern agricultural regions of Western Australia. (2) No. The Minister is not at liberty to list the members of the group. The group is being chaired by a member of the Sheep Industry Leadership Council. (3) The group had its first meeting on 21 February 2013. (4) Meets as required. (5) No. This is an industry led working group and the Minister is not at liberty to table the minutes from its meetings.

______