Legislative Assembly

Thursday, 24 August 2006

THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers. AUSTRALIND RAIL SERVICE Petition MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury) [9.02 am]: I present the following petition, consisting of 463 pages with 8 633 signatures, from residents of Bunbury - To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned people, are very concerned at a proposal that will reduce the Australind passenger rail service from Bunbury to Perth. The Australind passenger rail service is a trusted means of travel for a large cross section of the southwest community, especially the elderly, disabled and unchaperoned children. It is our strong view that the proposal put forward does not consider the requirements of the current and future users of the Australind service for the following reasons: The elderly and disabled passengers may not be physically capable to board the coaches proposed for the first leg of the journey from Bunbury to Mandurah. This grouping and children will be forced to undertake an unassisted transfer with their luggage to the Metro train in Mandurah from the coach. The Metro train will not provide ticketed seating and a guarantee that a seat will be available. It will not provide luggage handling and storage services, food or toilet amenities. The major benefit of reduced travelling times is disputed by obvious delays associated with transfers. Coach services to Perth from Bunbury already exist. Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly direct the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to ensure that the Australind passenger rail service from Bunbury to Perth is not reduced in anyway, rather upgraded and maintained as an important community service. [See petition 138.] AUSTRALIND RAIL SERVICE Petition MR A.J. SIMPSON (Serpentine-Jarrahdale) [9.03 am]: I present the following petition signed by 630 people - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say that the Australind Rail Line between Perth and Bunbury is an important transportation service for the people of the Peel and South West regions. This includes the people of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, many of who rely on this service to transport them to Perth for work on a daily basis. The result of the proposed changes would make it difficult for many residents of the area to attend their places of employment. People will have little choice but to drive in to Perth for work, increasing the level of traffic congestion on our already overloaded roads. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to support the community of Serpentine-Jarrahdale by ensuring that the current Australind Train Service is maintained. [See petition 139.] AUSTRALIND RAIL SERVICE Petition MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury) [9.04 am]: I present the following petition, consisting of nine pages with 109 signatures, from residents who live along South Western Highway - To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled.

5200 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

We, the undersigned people, are very concerned at a proposal that will reduce the Australind passenger rail service from Bunbury to Perth, particular the effects it will have for the people of the South West Highway communities. Despite Ms MacTiernan’s assurances, we believe the travelling times, due to the embarking and disembarking in the eleven or so smaller towns on the Sth. Western Highway, will greatly increase from the present time table. ! We do not wish to sacrifice the comfort and convenience of the Australind train for the cramped and less than adequate conditions on a bus. ! Not being able to get out of our seats and stretch our legs, or have the choice of three or four easily accessible toilets, as on the Australind, is we believe much less attractive to our needs. ! The advantage of having a kiosk on the train whereby passengers can have a hot drink or a sandwich or hot pie, is also one of the main attractions that a bus cannot provide. ! Travelling on the train all the way to Perth is so much more stress free and relaxing. Especially for the aged, people in wheel chairs, mothers with restless children. Not to mention the extra handling and carrying of luggage and lack of allocated seats on the city trains, which will be made worse in the peak hour travelling. Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly direct the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to ensure that the Australind passenger rail service from Bunbury to Perth is not reduced in anyway, rather upgraded and maintained as an important community service. [See petition 140.]

PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house.

MINISTERIAL CODE OF CONDUCT Statement by Premier MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [9.07 am]: This government made a commitment in its 2001 policy statement “Integrity in Public Life” to establish a ministerial code of conduct. We tabled the ministerial code of conduct on 30 May 2001, making us the first Western Australian government to introduce such a code. The code is intended as a guide to assist ministers to avoid conflicts of interest. It has been revised to take into account and resolve apparent deficiencies in the first edition. We have - made it clear that the onus of disclosure of the interests of a minister and those of the minister’s family members lies with that minister; extended the relevant provisions in the code to include de facto partners; provided a disclosure form to assist ministers to make their disclosure statements; included a requirement that significant changes in the declared interests of ministers and their family members shall be disclosed within four weeks of the minister becoming aware of the changes; included a requirement that a minister disclose any conflicts of interest, or potential conflicts of interest, of family members to the Premier in cabinet; allowed for the cabinet secretary to raise independently any conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest, of a minister or his or her family, noting that this does not derogate from the minister’s responsibility; and allowed for categories of indirect pecuniary interests, only when ministers have pecuniary interests that are sufficiently remote, or sufficiently indirect, from their influence and control that they do not pose a realistic risk of conflict. In tabling the revised ministerial code of conduct, the government is reiterating its ongoing commitment to open and accountable government. [See paper 1784.] PREMIER Personal Explanation - Response to Question on Notice 961 MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [9.08 am] - by leave: Pursuant to standing order 148, I make a personal explanation regarding my response to question on notice 961 from the member for Vasse about details

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5201 of staffing at ministerial offices. Some of the information provided in tabled paper 1579 was not complete or correct. I table the corrected document. [See paper 1785.] SENTENCING LEGISLATION REFORM Statement by Attorney General MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Attorney General) [9.10 am]: I inform the house about the progress the state Labor government has made to ensure that people convicted of murder and wilful murder serve lengthy jail terms to reflect the heinous nature of their crimes. Western Australia has some of the toughest penalties in the nation when it comes to serious crimes committed against people. The Labor government’s sentencing legislation reforms ensure that those who commit the most serious offences receive longer sentences and serve longer time in prison. A Department of the Attorney General report on minimum sentences for these offences over the past 10 years shows that the minimum time to be served for wilful murder has increased by 32 per cent, while the minimum time to be served for murder has increased by 20 per cent. This means that the average minimum time to be served by prisoners given an indeterminate sentence for wilful murder has increased from 16 years in 1996 to 21 years in 2006. For murder the minimum time to be served increased from 10 years in 1996 to 13 years in 2006. Implicitly, the average time that is actually served across the total group will be significantly higher because large numbers of those sentenced for murder and wilful murder in the past 10 years have not been released and many will not be released in the near future. The changes to sentencing legislation made by this government in 2003 have closed the gap between the maximum sentences given and the time to be spent in prison. Before the removal of the one-third remission on sentences, the average time to be served by offenders entering prison was about 40 per cent of the average maximum sentence. By 2006 this proportion had increased to 58 per cent. An indication of the increased amount of time spent in prison for murder and wilful murder is provided by the data on prisoners released. This smaller group of prisoners consists of those who have been assessed as presenting a low risk to the public. Between 1996 and 2006, 199 people were given indeterminate sentences while only 83 were released. There is cumulative growth in the number of serious offenders who are not being released. Of those who have been released in the past 10 years, the average minimum time spent in prison increased by 66 per cent for wilful murder; that is, from 10 years to 16 years, while the average minimum time spent in prison for murder increased by 45 per cent; that is, from 8.5 years in 1997 to 12.2 years in 2006. The Department of the Attorney General’s report is a comprehensive analysis of murder sentences. Unfortunately, information that I provided in response to a question from the member for Churchlands in March was based on advice that was incomplete and did not provide the full picture. I am also awaiting a report from the Law Reform Commission on the state’s homicide laws, including penalties and defences for homicide to make the laws fairer and less complicated. Western Australia’s Criminal Code currently makes a distinction between wilful murder, which requires an intention to kill, and murder, which requires an intention to commit grievous bodily harm. This distinction between murder and wilful murder can complicate cases for judges and juries and create unnecessary trauma for witnesses and victims’ families. Western Australia is the only jurisdiction that maintains a distinction between the offences of murder and wilful murder, and it is time we considered making our laws more contemporary. I table the department’s report “Sentence Length v Time Served in Prison” which is also available on the department’s web site. [See paper 1786.] ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - OVERSEAS DELEGATION Statement by Minister for the Environment MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham - Minister for the Environment) [9.13 am]: Western Australia’s environment is under significant pressure because of the industrial and development boom that the state is experiencing. There are also many major projects before the state government, such as the Alcoa Wagerup expansion proposal and the Gorgon liquefied natural gas proposal, that raise significant issues for environmental regulators, and for me as a decision maker. In order to ensure that Western Australia adopts best practice in this area, I led a delegation to the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom late last month to study nature conservation and environmental regulation practices in those jurisdictions. The delegation included the Chairman of the Environmental Protection Authority, Dr Wally Cox; the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Mr Keiran McNamara; and my chief of staff, Darren Foster. The delegation visited the research facility of the Norwegian government-owned company Statoil to understand developments in geo-sequestration technology. This has particular relevance for the Gorgon gas project on Barrow Island where Chevron has undertaken to geo-sequester carbon dioxide. Since 1996 Statoil has been

5202 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] successfully geo-sequestering in the Sleipner West oilfield, which is the oldest such project in the world. We also took the opportunity to meet with environmental regulators, such as the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Institute for Public Health and Environment and the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, to discuss environmental compliance and audit practices, regulation of geo-sequestration, air quality issues and climate change policy. As members are aware, the state government’s sustainability strategy is at a new stage of development, so the delegation sought briefings from several European authorities to discuss energy and transport policy issues, as well as to explore practical initiatives for households and businesses. To that end, meetings were held with the City of Oslo’s Department of Transport and Environmental Affairs, the UK Sustainable Development Commission, the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development, Wageningen University, and Professor Leo Jansen, Chair of the Platform on Sustainable Development at the University of Delft, a leading exponent of sustainability in the Netherlands. The state government also has a keen interest in reducing the waste stream, given that Western Australians generate more waste per capita than the people in any other state or territory. For that reason, the delegation went to Sweden, where recycling practices are well entrenched, to meet with a reverse vending machine manufacturer, the industry peak body Returpak, and a municipal waste organisation to understand waste minimisation practices, economic instruments underpinning waste management and community acceptance of container deposit systems. Similar discussions were held with waste management organisations in the United Kingdom. Marine protection is another important priority of the government, and I had the opportunity to meet with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Stockholm County Administrative Board, and the UK Department of Environment to understand European policy developments in the protection of marine biodiversity and management of nutrient inflows and algal blooms. The delegation also learnt about the recovery of endangered species, protected area management, river and waterway restoration, and community participation in nature conservation from the UK agency English Nature, the UK non-government organisation Thames 21, and the Norwegian Directorate of Nature Conservation. In the United Kingdom, the delegation met with officials from the Millenium Seed Bank, part of Royal Kew Gardens, which has a partnership with Western Australia’s Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The seeds of thousands of Western Australia’s unique plant species are processed and stored in vaults at the seed bank for future generations. It should be a matter of great pride to Western Australians that Professor Stephen Hopper, the former director of Kings Park, has been appointed head of Royal Kew Gardens from next month. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Grievance MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [9.17 am]: My grievance is directed to the Minister for Health. I have not been in this job for very long, and I have had opportunities to deliver only a couple of grievances. However, since I have been in the job I have become much more familiar with the impacts and the scourge of domestic violence in our community. No doubt all members present this morning are familiar with the problems resulting from the criminal act of domestic violence, as well as the emotional impact it can have on families. Since being elected, I have had the incredible pleasure of attending a couple of meetings with the Central Metropolitan Region Prevention of Domestic Violence Committee. This committee is made up of people who are at the coalface of fighting and preventing domestic violence, and dealing with victims of domestic violence. Of course, most victims of domestic violence are women and children. The committee is fully aware of what happens, and it meets regularly. I am allowed to attend meetings, to help remove my ignorance and improve my knowledge of this area. I will quickly refer to two brochures before getting to the crux of my grievance. The first brochure is entitled “It’s Not Right to Fight: Abusive Relationships”. I helped to launch this document, which is targeted at young people in the community who find themselves in an environment of domestic violence. It states that no-one deserves violence and abuse, and everyone has the right to be treated with respect and care. Victims have the right to feel safe, and are not responsible for the behaviour of their partners or parents. They also have the right to seek help. That is the most important message contained in this brochure, which is the result of the work of students at Sevenoaks Senior College, sponsored by the Canning Division of General Practice and supported by the Central Metropolitan Region Prevention of Domestic Violence Committee. The launch of this brochure got me interested in the impact of domestic violence in the community. We should define the term “domestic violence”. I refer to a brochure released by the Canning Division of General Practice, entitled “Identifying and Responding to Family Violence: A Guide for General Practitioners”. It is stated on the front of the brochure - Family violence is coercive and controlling behaviour by a family member that causes physical, sexual and/or emotional damage to others in the family, including causing them to live in fear and threatening to harm people, pets or property.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5203

Family violence is most commonly perpetrated by one partner towards another (when it is sometimes called ‘domestic violence’ or ‘intimate partner abuse’) and/or by an adult towards a child or children (often referred to as child abuse). Other forms include elder abuse or sibling abuse. Whether the violence is physical, sexual or emotional, it may have long-term detrimental effects. It is a very good brochure and I learnt a lot from it. It states also - The medical profession has a key role to play in early detection, intervention and provision of specialised treatment of those who suffer the consequences of domestic violence, whether it be physical sexual or emotional. Under the headings “Listen”, “Communicate belief”, “Validate the decision to disclose”, “Emphasise the unacceptability of violence” and “What not to say”, the brochure gives some general advice to GPs on how to respond to disclosures that women are the victims of violence against them. Under the heading “What not to say”, the brochure advises GPs that saying certain things could create more problems. The brochure recommends that GPs should indicate their awareness of family violence matters and show a willingness to assist the patient. It is recommended also that GPs display in their waiting rooms posters on domestic violence. I emphasise that last point because I will speak on it later. The brochure contains further advice that GPs should make pamphlets on domestic violence available in the practice, and they should be put in a place where women can take them without being seen by other patients; that a folder of health articles that includes some articles on domestic violence be made available in the waiting room; and that the GP’s appointment card have the telephone numbers of domestic violence and sexual assault services printed on the reverse side. It is a brilliant document. However, it has come to my attention through my involvement in the Central Metropolitan Region Prevention of Domestic Violence Committee that a number of doctors and GP clinics are displaying signs in their clinics stating, “Assault victims will not be seen. Please go to your local hospital”, and apologising for the inconvenience. I find this outrageous, as no doubt do all members here today. I visited two clinics that I was told had put up this sign. The signs were identical and were located prominently in the reception area of the doctors’ surgery. I was shocked, to say the very least, in light of the fact that the type of brochures to which I have just referred advise general practitioners on how to deal with victims of domestic violence. I will not name the doctor involved in the incident I will describe because I have been told that she has since changed her tune. A worker at a clinic told me that two female victims of domestic violence presented themselves to the Cannington Police Station. It is often the police who must deal with these situations. The women had been to the same GP for a number of years. The GP apologised and told them that she did not see victims of domestic violence and that they would have to go to the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital or Royal Perth Hospital. Neither of the women could get themselves to a hospital, so they presented themselves to the police station. That behaviour is completely arrogant and insensitive to the needs of the victims of domestic violence. In today’s age, when most doctors receive public moneys from either the state or commonwealth governments, that behaviour is completely and utterly unacceptable. I rang the Australian Medical Association yesterday to receive its response. I was told that it is up to each doctor to decide how his or her practice is run. I was told that I would receive a telephone call from someone else from the AMA, but I did not get that call. I query how this situation sits with the Hippocratic oath that doctors take when they finish medical school. It is certainly a matter that I will take up with the Medical Board of WA later today. I seek the support of the Minister for Health to stamp out this type of behaviour. MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Minister for Health) [9.24 am]: I thank the member for Victoria Park for raising this very important issue in the Parliament today. Most people would find it very hard to believe that a medical practice would turn away victims of domestic violence at the very moment they are most in need of support and assistance. It is certainly something that members of this Parliament would universally condemn. It is a practice that places the short-term commercial interests of the medical practice ahead of the general practitioners’ basic duty to provide medical care to members of the community, particularly when it is considered in the context of domestic violence. Women who are subjected to domestic violence are at a most vulnerable stage and need support and assistance. Very often they have little other support. It is disgusting that a local medical practice would turn its back on them. I urge all medical practitioners who may be contemplating this type of action to place the care of their patients ahead of short-term financial gain. I cannot understand why general practitioners would do that, but the rationale is that the doctor wants to make money rather than have to be involved in the follow-up procedures, which might involve appearing before a court to give evidence or providing reports and things of that nature to someone who has been the subject of domestic violence. Occasionally it is necessary to ask people to undergo a reality check. What are they doing? Medical practices that are turning away victims of domestic violence from their doors when the victims most need that assistance must be confronted with the reality of what they are doing to the people who need their help and assistance. I urge those medical practices to review their policies and to change them. It is simply not good enough for medical practices to turn their backs on people who need that support.

5204 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

I do not think it is appropriate at this time to name and shame the medical practices involved, although they undoubtedly deserve it. I hope that by means of bringing home to those medical practices their duties and the realities that confront their would-be patients, they will modify their practices and place more emphasis on patient care. If they do not modify their practices, I believe it would be appropriate to follow the approach taken by the member for Victoria Park and to request that the Australian Medical Association review its policies and consider intervening to bring about a change in those types of policies. The matter also should be brought home to the Western Australian Divisions of General Practice, which has a significant policy-setting framework for general practice in Western Australia. If those two approaches fail, given that this is a matter of sufficient public interest and importance, the Medical Board should review the registration of doctors who refuse to treat victims of domestic violence as a matter of policy within their own practices. It is unconscionable and should be condemned. We are all aware that domestic violence is an insidious crime. The government has done a significant amount of work on the matter. In particular, our model domestic and family violence laws introduced police orders to enable early intervention to prevent the violence from escalating. We also removed the defence of consent, which too often was being abused. We introduced the concept of emotional abuse, which is all too often associated with domestic and family violence, so that it qualifies as domestic violence alongside physical abuse that results in the victim receiving a black eye or a broken arm. The government also has promoted family and domestic violence specialist courts for the resolution of these matters with the objective of not only dealing with the victims of family and domestic violence, but also preventing these matters from occurring in the first place. All these initiatives have been implemented to try to combat this problem. I am delighted with the way in which the police service, which is one of the very important agencies that deals with family and domestic violence, has dramatically changed its approach to family and domestic violence over the past decade. We are all aware that years ago the police took a reasonably dismissive approach to these matters and would say it was “just a domestic”. The view seemed to be that what went on in the confines of the home should stay there. Today the police service is extremely enlightened and is doing a tremendous job by taking a hard line on the perpetrators of domestic violence. The exclusion of the perpetrator of the violence from the family home has enabled the mother and the children to stay in the home, and it is now up to the perpetrator of the violence to find alternative accommodation. That is one of the consequences of the new legislation and of the police embracing it. I have not seen any figures in recent months, but the last time I saw them, the number of 72-hour police restraining orders was exceptionally high. The system changed from telephone retraining orders under the old legislation, which were rarely used and therefore the police were unable to offer protection to the women concerned, to a process that the police wholeheartedly embraced throughout the length and breadth of Western Australia to nip domestic violence in the bud. Anyone who is associated with the issue of domestic violence, from women’s refuges through to all the other people engaged in this area of activity, would have nothing but praise today for the police and the job they are doing dealing with family and domestic violence and the way in which they have changed their culture to one of embracing both a preventive and punitive approach to domestic violence. One of the consequences of that is a dramatic increase in the rate at which offences are reported. Any government would like to say that crime has fallen while it has been in government. The fact that many more people now feel there is some point to reporting domestic violence is a credit to the police, and to everyone else involved. It is bitterly disappointing that some recalcitrant doctors have taken the view that they can put their pockets before their duty to their patients, particularly victims of domestic violence, who are most vulnerable.

WHEATBELT REGIONAL COORDINATED RESPONSE TO FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Grievance MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin) [9.31 am]: My grievance this morning is to the Minister for Community Development and is along the theme of the previous grievance, albeit from a different perspective. I draw the minister’s attention to the situation facing the wheatbelt regional coordinated response to family and domestic violence, formerly known as the Domestic Violence Action Group. I raise this grievance in good faith to make the minister aware of the issues in my area and to ensure that a good service is provided into the future. It is no secret to anyone that domestic violence is a big problem in our community. The house has just heard from the member for Victoria Park on this issue. Domestic violence is related to wider social problems such as financial difficulties, alcohol, drugs etc. It is very difficult to define how many people are affected by domestic violence. However, it is generally accepted by those who work in the industry that the actual incidence of domestic violence is far greater than the number of reported cases. It therefore goes without saying that the need for coordinated and effective assistance for dealing with domestic violence is greater than ever before. Previously, 17 domestic violence action groups were established across Western Australia. However, amalgamation of them has brought the number to 14, of which eight are in country areas. One of these amalgamations has affected the Narrogin DVAG office in my electorate, which was amalgamated with the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5205 wheatbelt DVAG office in Northam. The people who work in DVAG do not have a problem with the newly amalgamated structure and they support its objectives. Nor do I have any problem with it. However, I am very concerned about the workload of the people who are working in this area and whether they have sufficient resources to do their job properly in a huge area that has suffered a budget decrease. This is not a problem in my area only; it is also a problem in Geraldton. The member for Geraldton will know more about that than I do. However, a woman from that group indicated that the Geraldton DVAG has some concerns. I understand that both the Narrogin and Northam offices employ part-time coordinators, who work 20 hours a week. This has not changed with the amalgamation; however, the focus of their work has changed from prevention and awareness to the development of protocols for a more coordinated response to domestic violence. That is fine. People who work in this area do a wonderful job. I do not envy the work they do. The new wheatbelt service will cover a huge area spanning the shires of Dalwallinu in the north, West Arthur in the south and west from Jurien Bay to Southern Cross in the east. That is a huge area by anyone’s standards. The wheatbelt region is 154 862 square kilometres - more than twice the size of Tasmania, according to the Wheatbelt Development Commission’s official web site. The region’s population is more than 72 000 people. Previously, each DVAG office in Narrogin and Northam received $44 041 in funding each year, totalling $88 082. I am informed that these are reliable figures. When the two offices were merged, the combined budget was reduced to $70 000. As a result, there is a shortfall of $18 082, which is a 20 per cent-plus cut, despite the huge area to be serviced. That is a significant decrease in a budget for a small establishment that must provide a huge service over a very large area. I would like the minister to justify the decrease in the budget and outline how this service can be reduced according to the cut in costs. It is crucial to note that travel expenses are now a major problem for the service. The committee will be forced to prioritise the areas that can be covered according to geographical location rather than need. My point is that, in many cases, staff will be unable to afford to travel to assist people who are victims of domestic violence. The Narrogin-based coordinator will be required to make the six-hour round trip to cover the Merredin area, which is by no means the longest trip that either coordinator must undertake. I do not hold out much hope for the citizens of Southern Cross receiving the attention they deserve, because they live too far away from the office. This situation is unacceptable. I would like the minister to detail how he expects the service to work on a reduced budget over such a large area. If I am wrong and the service is reaching all those who need it, I am happy to be told that I am wrong today. However, I am very concerned about it. I would also like the minister to advise how he intends to monitor the progress of this amalgamated service and what action he will take if it becomes evident that it is not working. The minister must keep an eye on this service because, if it is not working, the minister and the government have a responsibility to do something about it, particularly given the size of the area and hence the amount of travel involved, because those issues are placing too much stress on the people working in the service. I am seeking some reassurance that people in the wheatbelt region, regardless of how far they live from Narrogin or Northam, have the same access to services as people in Perth and regional centres and are not penalised because of their remote locations. It is crucial that services for domestic violence be properly funded in light of the patterns becoming evident in domestic violence that we have heard about today. It is important to talk about the children involved in domestic violence. At the end of the day, the children are affected. Evidence suggests that when children experience domestic violence close at hand they may well become part of the cycle of continuing bad behaviour in future generations. Therefore, it is important that we are not party to the perpetuation of domestic violence and instead implement measures to reduce it and assist families who are victims of it. People must be available on the ground who can attend situations regularly. As I said, if I am wrong, I am happy to be told that I am wrong on this occasion. I want to make sure that the amalgamated service is working. I feel genuinely very concerned for the people working in the area. I have chosen to raise this issue off my own bat after talking with people generally who raised their concerns. I hope the minister will accept this grievance in the manner in which it is intended. I look forward to his comments. MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah - Minister for Community Development) [9.38 am]: I thank the member for Wagin for his grievance, and I acknowledge his concern and the issues he has highlighted. He will be aware that the whole issue of family and domestic violence has changed dramatically over the past few years, particularly with the introduction of new legislation that provides increased penalties for the perpetrators of such violence. In reply to the earlier grievance today the Attorney General referred to the changes in police responses. As the member may be aware, the provision of powers to the police that enables them to take out 24 and 72-hour orders has seen a massive increase in the number of protection orders, for example, that have been issued. In the first year of the legislation 5 000 protection orders were issued as a result of an 80 per cent increase in domestic violence arrests. I am pleased that we have heard two grievances this morning on this very important area of family and domestic violence. The member is right when he says that between 2000 and 2006 the family and domestic violence unit funded 17 regional family and domestic violence committees, which comprised eight in the metropolitan area and nine in country areas, including Narrogin and Northam. The model

5206 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] was based on the principle that if we brought together key government and non-government providers to improve service coordination and agency practices, service providers and communities could better work together to protect women and children. Because this whole issue continues to increase in prevalence and in community awareness, a review of the regional structure was commissioned last year. The purpose of the review was to improve safety and look at the relevance of the current model to ensure that it was carrying out what the government intended that committee structure to deliver. The review found that although committees had strengthened agency networks and links between individual practitioners, there was no evidence that the model had improved agency practice or service coordination for women and children who should be the key focus. In some regions there has been a drift away from service coordination as a priority to broader strategies that focused on the awareness of domestic violence in communities. The review seeks to make sure that we refocus the work of those committees. The member is correct when he says that the new model has resulted in an amalgamation of the Narrogin and Northam provision of services into a wheatbelt regional model. We also looked at realigning boundaries in the metropolitan area to coincide with Magistrates Court boundaries. Because there was a strengthening of the link with the police response, we wanted to make sure there was an alignment of boundaries. Regional boundaries in the country have been aligned to those of the human services regional managers’ forums. That is the basis of the boundary change. Mr T.K. Waldron: It is not so much that that I am concerned about. I am concerned that with the reduced budget, the workers cannot do the job. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I will come to that. As the member correctly highlighted, the wheatbelt will receive $70 000 per annum. I am not sure whether the member is aware of the fact, but earlier this year I met with representatives from the wheatbelt regional family and domestic violence committee. I had a good meeting with them. As part of the review process, they raised a number of issues that the member has raised. I gave them my commitment, which I give to the member, that I will be monitoring these changes very closely. I ask the member to be assured of that. As the member knows, I have a history with Northam and Narrogin, so I think I know the region reasonably well. The member has raised concerns about workers being able to do the job with the funding level that they will operate under and the coverage of issues that they are expected to address. I am acutely conscious of that. I assure the member that I will be monitoring that very carefully. I will be requesting that the family and domestic violence unit continue to feed back to me that information. Of course, when I visit the wheatbelt I will make sure that I set up meetings with both the Narrogin and the Northam components of the new regional structure, certainly within the next few months or towards the end of the year when there has been some time to bed this down. As the member has correctly said in his grievance, the chairperson has expressed confidence in and commitment to the new model. The member has my genuine commitment that I will be watching it very closely. Mr T.K. Waldron: I will keep my eye on it as well and keep you informed if I see problems. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I think the member’s point about the workload issue is important. We need to make sure that we monitor this. The member’s points are appropriate. I am acutely aware, having been born and raised in the region that the member represents, that these are real issues for families and the workers. Of course, the main focus is on getting quality services for children and families involved in this important issue. EMPIRE SECURITIES PTY LTD - SOUTHERN RIVER ESTATE Grievance MR P.W. ANDREWS (Southern River) [9.47 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. First, I thank the minister for taking this grievance, because in part it certainly falls within her portfolio, but it also falls within the portfolio of consumer protection. I can barely contain my rage at times over what is happening to some of the people who are endeavouring to buy property in my electorate. A company is developing an estate called the Southern River Estate, which is located on the corner of Chamberlain Street and Southern River Road in Gosnells. I am talking, in particular, about 35 blocks of land. I acknowledge the people who are sitting in the gallery today, some of whom are potentially and some of whom are already my constituents, who endeavoured in good faith to purchase these properties from Empire Securities Pty Ltd. Not that it makes any difference, but many of the people who are attempting to buy those blocks are people I have taught at school or are sons and daughters of friends. That means I have a very close connection with this issue, but that does not make any difference. This is a matter of principle. My constituents entered into an agreement with Empire Securities Pty Ltd through its selling agents, one of which was Brown Murray Real Estate, to purchase lots on the estate subject to conditions contained in a standard Real Estate Institute of Western Australia contract for the sale of land or strata title by offer and acceptance. The copies that I have seen of these offers and acceptances date from June 2005 to January 2006. Those are the dates on which the offers and acceptances were made and accepted. My constituents were given assurances by the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5207 selling agents that the titles for these blocks would be available in six to eight weeks, a couple of months, or up to the period of December-January. They were told that the titles would be available over different periods. Nothing was written on the contracts themselves, but they were clearly given the impression that the titles would be available in a short period. My understanding is that at this point in time no titles have been released due to the presence of asbestos particles that were found in the soil. Environmental approvals have not been given, therefore, by the various government agencies involved, such as the Swan River Trust and the Department of Environment and Conservation. I believe that they are currently undertaking remediation work on this site. My constituents inform me that because the titles had not become available during the contracted period, the company offered them the choice of having their deposits returned or of signing a new priority to purchase agreement. That priority to purchase agreement, or the letters that accompanied it, indicated to my constituents that they would have to pay the current market price at the time of signing or the market price at the time when the future offer would be made, minus 10 per cent. From the documents I have seen, it appears that most of my constituents signed up at a price range between $108 000 and $120 000. Given the current market value in that particular estate, the increase in price could be somewhere between $180 000 and $200 000. Therefore, in a very short period of time my constituents, who entered into these contracts in good faith, believing that during the contracted period the contract would be honoured, now find themselves having to fork out another $60 000 to $80 000 or even another $100 000 in order to purchase those blocks. Adding that extra cost to the money that these people have already borrowed will disadvantage them enormously in the years to come, particularly when we consider that many of these constituents have also entered into agreements to build houses and that the cost of building houses has also increased during the contract period. Certainly my constituents are aggrieved about having to pay such an inflated price. I have so much to say about this matter. My constituents entered into their contracts in good faith. It is my belief that the developer knew in May 2005 that there was asbestos on the site. Therefore, having learnt that information in May 2005 and then entering into the contracts between June 2005 and January 2006, the developer knew that it could not possibly honour the conditions of the contract because it would not have been able to get the titles in time as the conditions had to be signed off by the Swan River Trust and the Department of Environment and Conservation. The developer did not enter into these contracts in good faith. It has been deceptive in its practice and has put my constituents at great financial disadvantage. This is a very serious matter. How does the developer justify the increase in price? I have an e-mail from Mr Ian McKeller, the director of the company concerned, in which he states - . . . want to re-negotiate the price list and conditions attached to the sales for a couple of reasons, the main ones being as follows: 1. As eluded to, there will probably be more landscaping done as part of the total package. That is of course contingent upon the Dept of Health . . . 2. The cost for the developers to buy broadacre land for their next project has spiked considerably (thereby substantively dimishing the value of their working capital). The company’s justification for the increase in price is that it needs more money to develop its next lot of land. That is hardly justification for increasing the price of the blocks. I have run out of time. I have supplied all the necessary information to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. I have written to the developer asking it to reconsider the situation. It is outrageous that the developer has set out to guarantee that the purchasers will receive $120 000 or $140 000 - or whatever the contract was when it was first entered into - only to float the lots on the market and say that the contract is no good. If the bottom had fallen out of the market, would the developer have told my constituents that they could have the blocks at the market value? No, it would not. It is outrageous. MS A.J.G. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [9.54 am]: Well done, member for Southern River. I totally agree with the member. This is a disgraceful performance on behalf of the developer. I will put this matter into context. The current overheated nature of the land development market means that land is being sold earlier in the planning process. For the benefit of members and the affected people who are in the public gallery, I will quickly explain the planning process. When a developer seeks a subdivision, it approaches the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provides conditional approval. In this case, some 30 conditions were placed on the approval. The developer has an obligation to work through and clear each of those conditions. A raft of conditions need to be cleared with the Department of Environment and Conservation, local government and various utilities. After those conditions have been approved and signed off, the developer takes them back to the Planning Commission. It then submits a diagram of survey to the Department of Land Information and the department goes through its process to issue a title. It is apparent that the developer’s representations to the purchasers indicated that this was a fairly routine matter and that it was simply waiting for the Department of Land Information to issue the titles when, in fact, what was really required was something far more profound - that is, a series of conditions had to be signed off. I assure

5208 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] the member for Southern River that the issue does not simply involve an environmental matter. As far as we are concerned, only one or two conditions have been signed off. Indeed, some 20-plus conditions remain outstanding. Therefore, the application has not reached the Department of Land Information because not all the conditions have been approved. I realise that the arcane world of planning is not understood by the average member of the public. Indeed, it took me quite a number of years to get on top of the details of the process. It is not surprising that when the alterations were made to the standard conditions - indeed, extensive alterations were made to the standard conditions - the purchasers did not understand necessarily what they meant and the huge out that they gave the developer. In particular, if any of the conditions or interpretations on the satisfaction of the conditions were deemed unacceptable by the proponent, the developer gave himself the absolute discretion to terminate the contract. I agree that there has been deceptive conduct in this matter. On the basis of the material that has been presented to us, it certainly seems to be the case that the process was not described to the home buyers and that they were not told that the developer was absolutely fully aware that 30 of the conditions had been upheld in the appeals process. The developer was well and truly aware that many of the conditions still needed to be signed off. It would appear from what I have heard and from the correspondence I have seen that there have been no disclosures to the home buyers. Of course, they now find themselves in a heated market in which they are at great financial disadvantage. In my view, there are plenty of grounds on which the home buyers can take civil action. I understand that the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection is working on this matter to determine what grounds there are for taking statutory action against the parties - that is, the real estate agent and/or the developer - for failing to properly disclose the consequences of the amendments that were made to the standard conditions of the Real Estate Institute of WA contract. I also believe that, having looked at this unscrupulous behaviour, we should put in place amendments that will ensure that when a developer sells lots that have not received final approval, it must disclose to all the purchasers the exact outstanding conditions so that they can seek advice on how long it will take before those conditions are satisfied. On the basis of the evidence that has been presented to us, the home buyers were constantly told that it would be only a matter of weeks. However, the developer has not even submitted a plan for environmental management, for example. Therefore, far from its being the case that the environmental agency has held up the matter, the developer has not even lodged with the department the report that he is required to lodge so that it can assess the proposed development. In this case there is clear evidence of substantial and systematic misleading of the public. The people who have relied on those developer representations have been gravely financially disadvantaged. I will certainly be working with the Minister for Consumer Protection to ensure that we do all we can to resolve this matter. However, I also advise these people to obtain legal advice. I believe there are plenty of opportunities to shoot holes in this contract and bring this developer to account. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the minister to order for having her mobile phone switched on while in the chamber. RUSSELL WOOD AND MAYA WOOD-HOSIG - CHILD CUSTODY CASE Grievance MR D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN (Leschenault) [10.00 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Community Development and is on behalf of the two children of Mr Russell Wood and Mrs Maya Wood-Hosig. Both their 10-year-old-daughter and eight-year-old son are Australian citizens. Both were born in Western Australia. Mr Wood and his wife split up, and the custody of their children became a matter for the Family Court of Western Australia. At the time both parents lived in Western Australia, and both had access to the children. A few years ago, Mrs Wood-Hosig abducted the children, and, using false passports, took the children to Switzerland. That was her second attempt to abduct the children. After applications were made to The Hague, the children were located in April 2003. However, the mother then hid the children from the Swiss authorities. After the mother refused to cooperate and return to Australia, the Wood children were eventually detained by the Swiss authorities and placed in an institutionalised home in Switzerland for a year until they could be returned to Australia. Upon arrival in Australia, the Wood children were not returned to their father and their father’s extended local family, as one might have expected, but were placed in the care of the Department for Community Development. This arrangement, which was supposed to be temporary, was due to the children’s perceived problems with the English language. I am informed that the Swiss judge who personally escorted the children to the aeroplane expected that the children would be returned to their father after a short while. However, it soon became clear that the Department for Community Development did not agree with the court and would not support the return of the children to their father. The department did not develop a reunification plan for the family, and nor did it develop a schedule for handover to the father, who has been allowed only four hours a week of strictly supervised access since April 2005, although more recently a more liberal overnight contact arrangement has been calculated. In the first week of July, amendments were made to the federal Family Law Act. Those amendments were made just days after the family court judgment in this case. Amazingly, just days before the amended federal law

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5209 came into effect, Justice Penny of the Family Court of Western Australia ordered that the children be returned to their mother in Switzerland. It seems that decision was made on that date quite deliberately to ensure that Mr Wood could not benefit from the new shared parenting, or father-friendly, components of the amended Family Law Act. Although there are a number of serious concerns about the court’s decision, I am focusing today on the department’s role in this matter. Throughout all that time, Judge Penny never met and interviewed the Wood children herself. This makes it all the more important to know the role of the officers of the Department for Community Development in this matter, what advice they gave the judge, and how they influenced the judge’s decision. Justice Penny set a deadline for the children deportation of 1 September. That is less than one week away. That means the Wood children will not even be able to spend Father’s Day with their father here in Western Australia. The Shared Parenting Council of Australia advises that there is firm evidence that at least one, if not two, employees or consultants of the Department for Community Development, among the string of some 23 employees or consultants who have been involved in this case, have committed serious breaches of procedure. Concerns have been raised that these officers conducted a seemingly personal vendetta of revenge for allegations made about the department by Mr Wood in his mountain of affidavits. If the minister’s department had evidence that Mr Wood had harmed his children, or posed a risk to them, this would be a valid reason to keep him at arm’s length from his children, or allow him only strictly supervised access. However, despite allegations from Mrs Wood-Hosig, the Family Court judge has repeatedly determined that Mr Wood has committed no offence. An officer from the Department for Community Development, Ms Gurner, told the court that the department’s actions were because, as she put it, “Where there is smoke there is fire.” This appears to have been sole reason given by the Department for Community Development for its extraordinary actions in this matter. Minister, was this really the basis for keeping the Wood children away from their parent for 19 months? Was this really the reason for depriving the Wood children of direct contact with their father, except under strict supervision for just four hours a week? Was this why the Wood children were shuffled between six foster homes rather than allowed to enjoy the love and comfort of their natural parent? Why did the Department for Community Development, or the judge, never explore the option of bringing the mother back to Australia so that the children could be brought up in a shared parenting environment, with ongoing and direct access to both parents? I understand that the department placed the children in foster care largely because it believed they did not have an adequate command of the English language. I have in my hands a DVD of the daughter’s recent birthday party. It shows clearly both children thoroughly enjoying themselves, with lots of friends and extended family members, and - guess what - they both speak fluent English! The first priority in matters such as this must always be to protect the children. If there is indisputable evidence that a parent has harmed a child or poses a risk to a child, or if there is another overriding, serious and proven concern for a child’s safety or welfare, every caution must be taken. Conversely, in the absence of such evidence or any reasonable explanation, and considering the court’s rejection of such allegations, there can be only one conclusion. That is that officers from the Department for Community Development deliberately contrived to prevent Mr Wood from developing a normal relationship and strong parental bonds with his children in order to jeopardise his chances of gaining fair access to his children through the Family Court. In so doing, the actions of these departmental officers have caused two children, both Australian-born citizens, to be taken to another country, far from their father, and most likely never to see him again in person during the remainder of their childhood years. Yesterday I gave the minister six questions about this matter. The minister’s answers will enable us to determine whether the department acted properly, or whether its officers acted in a biased, destructive and vindictive way. If the latter is the case, I strongly suggest that the minister has no option but to suspend the officers and psychologists concerned and instigate a thorough and independent investigation of his department’s handling of this case. I ask that the minister answer the six questions, and then provide further advice as he sees fit with regard to this matter. I have a letter from Senator David Johnson to the federal Minister for Justice and Customs calling for action to be taken in relation to the passport fraud. A lot of people hope that ultimately that will lead to extradition proceedings. I seek leave to lay that letter on the table for the remainder of this day’s sitting. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.] MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah - Minister for Community Development) [10.07 am]: I thank the member for Leschenault for raising this grievance with me. The member has highlighted a number of issues and concerns. I am a little concerned that the member has also identified certain people by name. I need to highlight at this point that, as the member mentioned in his grievance, a decision had been made by the Family Court of Western Australia that the children be returned to their mother in Switzerland. This decision has been appealed by the father’s legal representatives. Accordingly, my advice is that I cannot go into too much specific detail

5210 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] about the complexities of the case - this is a complex case, as I am sure the member appreciates - because that appeal is still before the court. My advice is that the judge has made it very clear that until she makes her final decision, the issue that she is considering should not be a matter for public discussion. I acknowledge the seriousness of this case, so I am not trying to - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: I am well aware of what Justice Penny has said. She has said that she does not want this matter to go to the media. She is obviously hoping the whole thing is kept quiet before the kids are taken off to Switzerland. However, no court proceeding is under way at the moment, so that does not prevent this Parliament from discussing this matter. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I am very mindful that I do not want to prejudice any decision that may be made by the Family Court in this matter, particularly as it has now been appealed. This case is an example of the complexities that occur when, for whatever reason, relationships break down. This is a particularly difficult case because, when this relationship broke down, one of the parents decided to go to another country. Conflicts that arise between parents muddy the situation, and the animosity between partners can cause a great deal of grief for not only their relationship but also, of course, the most important people in this case, the children. The new Children and Community Services Act emphasises that decisions about children must be made in their best interests, and sometimes the desires and aspirations of the parents conflict with the needs of the children. The new legislation also makes it clear - I need to highlight this to the member and others in this place - that the voices of the children should be heard when decisions are being made about their lives. The legislation contains provisions that ensure that that happens. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Can I point out that that is an incredibly important point, yet the justice of the Family Court never met or interviewed these children. That is why it is so important to understand the actions of your department, because those actions influence this case like nothing else. Had the judge spoken to the children, we may have seen a different situation. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: That is true, but it is not my responsibility nor the responsibility of the department to direct the judge’s determination. The member is aware that under our legal system it is the judge’s determination and direction that has to be carried out under the law. I understand the member’s point that the judge - in his view and the view of others - should have attempted to discuss the specific issues of this case with the parents. I do not have a great problem with that point of view. However, in the context of this case, the department could not have directed the judge. When this matter comes to appeal recommendations will be made. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: We are running out of time. There is one key question: does your department have evidence that Mr Wood posed a risk to the children or that he has harmed them? That is crucial. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: When I received the member’s question yesterday, I sought advice. Because of the complexities of this matter and because, to be honest, a number of issues have been highlighted to me, particularly in regard to the children and their responses, this is a very serious case. I take very seriously what I need to do for the member to ensure that the member’s questions are answered. I will organise an immediate briefing on this case as a matter of priority. I will make sure that one of my staff attends that briefing so that that person can respond to me directly. I will ensure that a senior manager of the department also attends that briefing. The member has highlighted the father’s concerns specifically, and he must have his interests heard. I will organise that briefing for the member as soon as possible. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Thank you, minister; that is much appreciated. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON DELEGATED LEGISLATION Eighteenth Report - Agricultural Produce (Egg Production Industry) Regulations 2006 MR P.W. ANDREWS (Southern River) [10.15 am]: I present for tabling the eighteenth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, entitled “Report on the Agricultural Produce (Egg Production Industry) Regulations 2006”. [See paper 1787.] Mr P.W. ANDREWS: For reasons that are set out in the report, the committee is of the view that no nexus has been established between the Agricultural Produce Commission Act 1988 - which in section 14 requires that a charge be determined having regard to the cost, or estimated cost, of the service to which the charge relates - and regulations 4 and 5 of the Agricultural Produce (Egg Production Industry) Regulations 2006, which impose a charge on egg producers calculated on the basis of the number of eggs sold. The committee noted that a charge of X cents per dozen eggs sold bears the prima facie appearance of a tax. No facts or circumstances militating against that characterisation were presented to the committee. The committee

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5211 concluded that regulations 4 and 5 of the Agricultural Produce (Egg Production Industry) Regulations 2006 are not authorised or contemplated by the Agricultural Produce Commission Act 1988. Therefore, the committee resolved to recommend that regulations 4 and 5 be disallowed. The Agricultural Produce (Egg Production Industry) Regulations 2006 were published in the Government Gazette on 31 March 2006. In part they state - Egg producers to pay charges A producer who sells eggs produced in the business of the producer must pay a charge to the commission within 14 days after the end of each quarter in which the producer sold the eggs. The committee considered the egg regulations at its meeting on 10 May 2006. Regulations 4 and 5 appeared to the committee to be premised on selling eggs, rather than the provision of service. The committee was uncertain about how a charge referred to in regulation 4 of the egg regulations related to a charge to be calculated by the commission pursuant to section 14 of the act. The committee formed the preliminary view that, on a plain reading of the words of the act, the act contemplates the commission calculating, or estimating, the cost of provision of a particular service and determining that cost as a charge. The committee saw the purpose of regulations as being to allocate any charge within the relevant industry, providing mechanisms for payment etc. However, regulation 4 of the egg regulations appeared to be made on the assumption that section 14 of the act contemplates a series of charges being imposed on individual producers - that is, individual levies - rather than a charge relating to the determined cost of provision of a service to the industry as a whole. This assumption did not accord with the committee’s preliminary reading of section 14 of the act, which does not appear to contemplate individual costings for the provision of services to individual producers. The committee considered that there appeared to be a gap between regulation 4 and 5 and the act, in that there was no nexus between the determination of cost of service contemplated by section 14 of the act and the imposition of a series of charges on individual producers as appeared to be contemplated by regulation 4. On the information that became available to the committee, there was no connection between a charge calculated on the basis of cost of provision of a service and the number of eggs a producer sold in a quarter, so as to justify a requirement for information concerning the latter to be provided for accountability purposes. Under its terms of reference, the committee was required to consider whether the charge imposed by regulation 4 is “authorised or contemplated by the empowering Act”. This necessarily involved consideration of whether the charge is a fee for service or a tax. It appeared to the committee that the charge contemplated by the egg regulations was a levy based on the number of eggs sold, whereas section 14 of the act contemplates a charge to be imposed on industry participants for services rendered. It is the committee’s opinion that section 14 of the act requires the commission to calculate the cost, or estimated cost, of the provision of a service by the egg producers’ committee and to impose a charge on industry participants that derives from and, so far as is practicable, equates with that cost subject to the consideration of any other relevant matters. No satisfactory explanation was provided to the committee about how a charge based on the number of eggs sold is derived from, or relates to, the cost of the provision of services. It is for that reason that the committee resolved to recommend that regulations 4 and 5 of the Agricultural Produce (Egg Production Industry) Regulations 2006 be disallowed. DR G.G. JACOBS (Roe) [10.21 am]: I support the comments made by the member for Southern River. I congratulate him for chairing the committee whilst dealing with his health difficulties. Unfortunately, he has left the chamber. He has chaired the committee under extreme circumstances and done a wonderful job. I will make a few brief comments about the ongoing issues that the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has. One of the dilemmas is the levies and charges that are raised by different agencies. This will be understood by Madam Acting Speaker (Mrs J. Hughes) as I recognise that she spent some time on the committee. Another is how cost recovery is justified. In the case of egg production, it is the question of whether the egg levy should be deemed a tax and whether a tax is not the sentiment of the legislation and is therefore outside the brief of the legislation; in other words, whether it is a determination that is not reflected in legislation. The committee had to assess the justifications and arguments. The joint standing committee asked the agency to provide reasons that a levy for each egg has been struck. The committee looked at those reasons. In this case, the committee deemed that the response was not satisfactory. It did not satisfy the committee that the levy was not a tax. The levy did not reflect the legislation and was provided by a regulation that was outside the sentiment of the legislation. That is the type of issue we are faced with almost every day. In this case it was thought by the committee to be significant enough to disallow the levy and to bring the subsequent report to the Parliament. MS J.A. RADISICH (Swan Hills) [10.24 am]: I give my support to the report tabled by the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the member for Southern River. I endorse the report. I congratulate the member on his leadership. He is new to the position of chair of the committee. He has carried

5212 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] out his duties in an exemplary fashion. I particularly note the administrative staff and lawyers who have worked with the committee. They have brought detail to the report, which is welcomed and appreciated by all members. I commend the report to the house.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BILL 2006 FINANCIAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT AND REPEAL BILL 2006 Second Reading - Cognate Debate Resumed from 23 August. MR T. BUSWELL (Vasse - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.25 am]: I hope to resume from the point at which I concluded yesterday. However, my capacity to go back to yesterday is somewhat clouded by the enormous volume of information that the government has decided in its generosity to share with the Parliament and the people of Western Australia today. The information includes such things as the report into money spent on consultants. That always interests me. There is information on parliamentary and ministerial travel and the new code of conduct. I have sat here waiting for all that to see whether there is anything interesting for me and the public of Western Australia. I reminded myself that I must start today at point eight. Why would this open and accountable government in Western Australia be dumping all this information into the Parliament and the press and upon the public of Western Australia today? Maybe the government has been under a bit of pressure on a matter this week. Maybe it is an attempt to divert attention from something. Mr E.S. Ripper: If we do not table information, the opposition criticises us. If we do table it, we are still criticised. Mr T. BUSWELL: The Treasurer waxes lyrical about these things. I suspect that there is a little more to this than meets the eye. Let me move on from where I finished yesterday. I was about to say that one of the other changes included in the Financial Management Bill - in particular in relation to the Financial Administration and Audit Act, which it replaces - was the increased formality associated with resource agreements. I have had the opportunity to read the resource agreements. They are of interest to me. We support the increasing formality attached to the resource agreements, which are no longer now simply an administrative requirement. I will talk about them later because we have some concerns with the overarching approach by the government to outcomes delivered by the public service to the people of Western Australia. Although I support the changes to resource agreements, my view is that resource agreements are only part of the issue and that there are some broader issues that need to be discussed. The bill also proposes the abolition of the capital user charge. That is the wonderful charge introduced in 2001- 02. As such, I assume that it was under the charge of the Treasurer. It was introduced for a number of reasons. It was introduced to help government departments and the people of Western Australia ascertain the true cost of service delivery and to provide incentives for departments to better manage their assets. When we look at the volume of assets tied up in the public sector in Western Australia, we can see that it was a noble cause. It meant that departments had to pay a charge that was equivalent to eight per cent of the value of their net assets. Unfortunately, in practice it has failed. It has been difficult to apply. It has been administratively burdensome in the extreme. It has not led to any appreciable improvement in asset management. In many cases, it has the potential to encourage agencies to manipulate their cash balances to perhaps reduce - heaven forbid they would ever do that - their capital user charge. We support the removal of the capital user charge, noting, of course, that the cash flow impact on the government is nil. Mr C.J. Barnett: When this government came in, that was their great financial reform - the capital user charge. They stood in this house and boasted about their great financial reform. They were sold a pup and they did not realise it. Mr T. BUSWELL: That is a very good point, member for Cottesloe. We will talk about some of the other great financial promises that this government made to the people of Western Australia in 2001. The greatest fraud perpetrated on the people of Western Australia by this Treasurer and the then Premier was to say that they would not put taxes up! That was another one. Mr C.J. Barnett: And public-private partnerships. Do you remember them? Mr T. BUSWELL: Yes, PPPs. The government loved them. Mr E.S. Ripper: We have one. Mr T. BUSWELL: That would not be the government’s multipurpose stadium, would it, built without a car park? Mr E.S. Ripper: That would be the CBD courts project.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5213

Mr T. BUSWELL: Tell us about the multipurpose stadium and the history of that project. That is an interesting little example of how the Treasurer’s government goes about managing infrastructure projects. It is very interesting to track the explosion in the costs. Mr C.J. Barnett: Has it brought one in on budget yet? Mr T. BUSWELL: I do not know - certainly not on time. To help rid this state of its dullsville title, the government is looking at building an entertainment complex or a multipurpose stadium that will supposedly seat up to 14 000 people. One minister does not want a car park to be built next to it because she does not like cars. She wants the multipurpose stadium to be a sound buffer between the freeway and all that wonderful land that she wants to let the East Perth Redevelopment Authority open up on the old Perth Entertainment Centre site. Fortunately, the Treasury and, by default, the Treasurer have become involved, and perhaps sanity will prevail. I am interested that the government now sends in the Treasurer to fix up all these ministerial muck-ups. It has sent him to the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre. The government said, “Crikey, the convention centre is going to cause us major headaches. Member for Belmont, jump on that great white charger, if it can bear it, and waltz down there and solve the problems.” Mr E.S. Ripper: I think the horses would be equally alarmed if you appeared on the scene. Mr T. BUSWELL: I was going to show you a great Clydesdale. However, I will move on, because there are some serious matters about this bill that I wish to discuss. Mr C.J. Barnett: What we have is e-bloat - expenditure bloat. Some might say it’s an Eric bloat, but it’s an e- bloat. Mr T. BUSWELL: Yes, perish the thought. There are a lot of them too. There are more bloats than with Bondy’s airship. Another aspect of this bill is that it attempts to improve the access of Parliament to information. That is, of course, a very important point. It is contained, in particular, in clauses 81 and 82 of the bill. I will talk a little more about clause 82 when we deal with the Auditor General Bill. Clause 82 basically says that if a minister of the crown deems that information should not be released in the public interest, he must do a number of things. He must tell the Parliament about that by way of issuing his reasons - I think that is a good idea - and he must also inform the Auditor General. In my view, there is a little break in that chain, and we will look at that when we deal with the Auditor General Bill. As I said, the opposition has some issues with this bill. I will spend some time working through those, and the Treasurer will respond as he sees fit in due course, and we will discuss some of those issues in consideration in detail. The first issue, to which I alluded yesterday, is the reporting of the Treasurer’s advance account. I indicated yesterday that the opposition supports the fact that the Treasurer’s advance account will automatically be set at three per cent of the previous year’s appropriations. I believe that is fair. It is a useful tool for the effective financial management of Western Australia, not forgetting, of course, that the TAA was set up to enable expenditure on items for which expenditure had not been appropriated, be they of an extraordinary or unforeseen nature or, I think, temporary funding of works and services. As I said yesterday, the current practice is for the Treasurer to come into Parliament and ask for $300 million. However, because of the government’s inability to control expenditure in general, in the past two years the Treasurer has come into the house and asked for more. It is always stuck on the end of the TAA for the following year, and it appears as a minor amendment. Of course, it is not minor for the Treasurer to come into the house and say that he has asked for $300 million but he needs to spend $500 million, or that he has asked for $300 million and he needs to spend $750 million. In the past couple of years in particular, the Treasurer’s advance account has become a tool used by the Treasurer and his government to facilitate sloppy financial management. It is one of the reasons that expenditure has been allowed to grow unchecked in Western Australia. I will remind the Treasurer, as I always do when we talk about the Treasurer’s advance account, of what he said in 2001 when he came to office. Mr E.S. Ripper: Am I to assume that I am the model for how a shadow Treasurer should behave? Mr T. BUSWELL: Absolutely not, because the Treasurer spends too much and taxes too much, and he refuses to use and acknowledge the once-in-a-generation opportunity in this state to do something good for the future, as I used to say. However, I have looked back at the financial history of Western Australia to see when wealth was generated as it is now in this state. I contend that we must go back almost to the great gold rush driven era of the 1890s. There are some similarities to the time when this state was governed and taken forward to Federation by Sir John Forrest. That was at a time when people like Sir John Forrest and C.Y. O’Connor put in place in Western Australia infrastructure that this state built on and grew during the twentieth century. That is what I looked at. Then I looked at what the Treasurer has left us. He has left us a huge recurrent expenditure problem. The public service is bloated, with 18 new public servants being employed each day. That will be the

5214 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Treasurer’s legacy to the people of Western Australia. In time, people will use Google to look at the history of Western Australia. It may even be in 2020, on that night that I know the Treasurer is now looking forward to immensely. In 2020, when people go onto Google to look back at Western Australian history, they will type in “Ripper” and see what the Treasurer stood for and what his legacy was from this great time for Western Australia. They will see a bloated public service and tax that reached record levels in Western Australia. That will be the Treasurer’s legacy. Mr E.S. Ripper: Member, do you define teachers, police officers, nurses and education assistants as public servants? Mr T. BUSWELL: The Treasurer can throw that at me every time I raise this issue. The Treasurer should come with me and visit the parents and citizens associations in the schools of this state and ask them whether the quality of the education provided to their children has improved much under this government. Does the Treasurer know what the answer would be? It would be no. We could go into the community and ask people whether law and order in this state have improved much since 2001. Does the Treasurer know what they would say? They would say no. The Treasurer could come with me to the offices of the Department for Community Development in Midland, or to the DCD office in Rockingham, which is topical of course at the moment, and ask all the people there whether the quality of service and the protection of children in this state have improved since 2001. They would say no. The Treasurer can sit there and try to defend his bloated public service, but the runs are not on the board. That will be the Treasurer’s legacy to the people of Western Australia: a complete and absolute failure to use this tremendous opportunity for Western Australia to build a platform from which to launch the state into the twenty-first century. That is the Treasurer’s failure. My greatest disappointment in the time that I have been a member of this place is that I have had to come to that realisation. I can tell the Treasurer that I will travel the length and breadth of this state, and that will be my message. When I talk about that message in rooms of people, they all start to nod. Mr E.S. Ripper: They start to nod off. Mr T. BUSWELL: No, they start to nod. If the Treasurer really wants to see a crowd get excited, he should come to the real estate breakfast with me and see what happens when his name is mentioned. It is interesting. The Treasurer should come with me to the accountants’ society - he made fun of the fact that someone from the society made a mistake with my name tag the other night - and find out what people say about him when he leaves the room. That is interesting. That is not people nodding off; that is people telling the Treasurer how it is. I will get back to the TAA. The Treasurer nearly sidetracked me for a minute. The issue with the TAA is one of reporting. As we all know, every year the Treasurer trots into the Parliament with bills called Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 4). He puts them on the table and we look at them. Appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 can contain money spent under the TAA for anything in the past three financial years. It is almost impossible to examine that expenditure in a meaningful way. The Treasurer sits at the table, and his offsider sits beside him. I ask them questions. If I am lucky, I will get a one- paragraph answer. It is not acceptable that appropriations in this state are subject to only that level of scrutiny. It is completely and absolutely unacceptable. I note that the Public Accounts Committee made mention of the need to consider real-time reporting. I would like to think that in one of the new reporting mechanisms the Treasurer has in place there may be the capacity to report in real time on the uses of the Treasurer’s advance account. I understand that this would not be for the purposes of a formal appropriation, but for the purposes of scrutiny, accountability and openness. I request the Treasurer to consider that as we deal with issues surrounding the use of the Treasurer’s advance account. I now move to my second area of some concern with this bill, which relates to the Treasurer’s capacity to invest. I am not talking, of course, about his personal capacity to invest, but about the government’s capacity to invest. As I said yesterday, this bill provides a mechanism by which the state government can invest the funds of Western Australian taxpayers in a broader range of investment instruments, not just in government bonds and the like, but in cash. In principle, the opposition does not have a problem with trying to use the almost $1.4 billion of cash balances currently available to improve on the return of $70 million to $80 million of interest income per annum. However, we do have a concern about the powers this provision confers through regulation. The bill gives the Treasurer the capacity to invest credit funds in a manner prescribed by regulation, provided the funds so invested are invested within the limitations of the Trustees Act 1962. Section 17A of the Trustees Act allows trustees to invest in any instrument other than those expressly prohibited by the trust enabling document. That little piece of legislation gives the government the power to invest in any of the investment vehicles defined by regulation. We asked the Department of Treasury and Finance what it meant by that, and it provided a sensible answer that I accept fully. Essentially the answer was that the Treasurer could invest in debt securities issued in Australia by companies rated A or better by one of the Treasurer’s favourite rating agencies, Standard and Poor’s or Moody’s. Perhaps when the Treasurer reads the reports of those agencies he might like to read the whole letter, instead of just a couple of paragraphs, as he did last week. I always find it immensely amusing that the Treasurer reads the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5215 good little bits at the end, but in this case he did not tell us what the agency said about his recurrent expenditure. He did not tell us that the credit rating was maintained, in part, because of what were referred to as windfall gains in revenue. However, we will get to that another day. I cast absolutely no aspersions on the advice provided by the officers of the Department of Treasury and Finance - I would never do that - but we do not know the extent to which this regulation-making power will be subject to political interference in the future. We have a lot of difficulty getting information, as the legislation stands at the moment. Mr E.S. Ripper: I am glad you said “in the future”, because there is no way that I would politically interfere with the investment decisions of Treasury. Mr T. BUSWELL: It is interesting that the legislation refers to A-rated investments. There was a time in this Parliament when Labor members thought that an A-rated company would be Rothwells, and that the Bond Corporation was a good destination for the funds of the people of Western Australia. The Treasurer does have a history. He was around in those days. In fact, he told me the other day that he was a Minister for Community Development, and therefore he knew a lot about it, and because I was on this side I could not comment on that area. That is what he stood up and told me in his arrogant, smug way. He leaned across and said he had been a minister and that he knew about the problems in community development and he could speak about protecting children. I am a father, and the man next to me is a grandfather. We can speak about protecting children as well. The Treasurer is a minister in a government that thought Rothwells was an A-rated investment. I would not stand and boast about the fact if I had been a minister in a failed government. I would not stand and smile about that, but he wonders why I am concerned about the power given to the Treasurer by a regulation I have not seen. Crikey - to think I would not be concerned! I am concerned, and I want to place on the public record that I am hugely concerned, not so much perhaps about the Treasurer in this particular instance, but about those who follow. I know how Labor thinks. I know about the disdain with which Labor deals with public moneys. Mr C.J. Barnett: They were corrupt. Mr T. BUSWELL: They were proven corrupt. I know about the pain that this state suffered because of the government’s definition of an A credit rating. That is why I am concerned about that. The Treasurer should be very careful when he stands and says that because he was a minister in the Burke government, he has credibility and I do not. Mr E.S. Ripper: I was not a minister in the Burke government. I was not elected until after Brian Burke retired from Parliament. Mr T. BUSWELL: I thank the Treasurer for correcting that. Mr M. McGowan: You should learn your dates. Do some googling. Mr T. BUSWELL: My view is that, at the very least, the Treasurer should report to Parliament annually in one of his new reports and let us know where that public money has been invested. I have a couple of other minor issues. Mr M. McGowan interjected. Mr T. BUSWELL: Did I tell members that I put “McGowan” into Google the other day? Only three things came up - a picture of Kim Beazley, a road map of Sydney with the locations of various right-wing Labor luminaries on it, and a picture of a pair of sneakers. I was confused but, fortunately for the member for Rockingham, some of his colleagues told me what it meant. They explained to me why they call him “sneakers”. I thought it was because he was caught looking out through the curtains, but it is not. It is something else that I will not share with the house, because everybody on that side knows what I am talking about, and most of the people on this side suspect that they know. I refer now to the transfer of excess funds from accounts back to Treasury. As I said yesterday, I do not have a problem with that at all. I do not have a problem with the Treasurer being able to take funds that have accrued in those other agency accounts and bring them back. I think that is a good idea. However, I have some issues, which were highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee, about the accountability and openness of that process. Mr E.S. Ripper: Can I just refer back to your earlier issue, just to clarify your view? Do you think there should not be a regulation-making power governing investment guidelines for the public bank account? Mr T. BUSWELL: My view is that the concerns I have would be addressed if there was reporting on the investment profile. Mr E.S. Ripper: I receive reports on the performance of the investment bank account, and I have no particular problem with making those performance reports available. Would that satisfy your reporting concerns?

5216 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Mr T. BUSWELL: The advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance is that the investments would be effectively in public company debentures, commercial notes etc. Would it be possible to report on the nature and the names of the companies in which the public funds have been invested? That would resolve that issue. Mr E.S. Ripper: That information does not come to me. Mr T. BUSWELL: I know it does not. Mr E.S. Ripper: It may be available, but I receive reports on the investment performance. Mr T. BUSWELL: We will talk more about that during consideration in detail. Information would not be available now, because at present the government cannot invest in those things. I am referring to the situation in which the government can invest in those things. I think that would address the issue. These are not necessarily problems with what the Treasurer is trying to do; they are problems with the way in which that power is reported to Parliament. The situation is similar to what I call the harvesting of those excess funds. Mr E.S. Ripper: It is worth noting that the public bank account is not the largest lump of funds subject to government investment. If you look at what the Insurance Commission and the Government Employees Superannuation Board manage, their funds dwarf what is invested through the public bank account. Mr T. BUSWELL: I am dealing with this legislation. Mr C.J. Barnett: Can you imagine a Labor government that plundered insurance funds for accident victims. That is what this government did. Its members get up and ponce on about how they support Australian workers. That is their attitude. Mr T. BUSWELL: Well - Mr E.S. Ripper: That won you the 1993 and 1996 elections. Mr T. BUSWELL: I want to raise a couple of other issues that relate to reporting and the use of the Treasurer’s power. I am aware that this bill provides the Treasurer with a range of powers in addition to existing powers, which I think we have discussed. Other powers are provided through a variety of clauses of the bill; for example, the power to direct agencies to open and maintain bank accounts outside the public bank account, approve overdrawing, transfer appropriations, direct and transfer amounts, open suspense accounts and authorise act of grace payments and write-offs. For the sake of accountability, it would be useful for the public of Western Australia and, indeed, the Parliament to have an opportunity to understand when those powers are used and what they are used for. For example, more than $1.7 billion is held in suspense accounts in this state. Another interesting example is that, a year or two ago, the Treasurer allowed the Department for Planning and Infrastructure - that wonderfully managed department - to write off $587 000. The reason given was “bank reconciliation issues”. I fail to understand why that information was not made available to the Parliament so that it could have been scrutinised. In addition, the Treasurer allowed the Department of Industry and Resources to write off $2 million to a company called Compact Steel because the company had no assets and had been deregistered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. On the occasions on which those powers are used the Parliament should know about them. My issue is not with the mechanics of the bill; it is the reporting regime that sits over it. Not enough information is presented to the public for proper and thorough scrutiny. Mr C.J. Barnett: Don’t forget that this government gave $88 million to Alinta and its consortium. That was a nice little handout. Mr T. BUSWELL: I am touching a few raw nerves here, and that is very exciting, member for Cottesloe. I refer also to the reporting of agency special purpose accounts. We debated this matter last year when we discussed the Financial Administration and Audit Amendment Bill. I refer to the changes in the bill that require the Treasurer to report. He no longer reports on the Treasurer’s annual statement, and that statement no longer provides the list of the end-of-year trust account balances. At the time of those changes, the Treasurer said that it did not matter because each agency’s annual report will contain that information. Those trust accounts are now called special purpose accounts. I recently read an interesting quote in a Public Accounts Committee report by a chap called Professor Gordon Reid, taken from a publication called The Politics of Financial Control: The Role of the House of Commons, published incidentally in the year of my birth, 1966. Professor Reid said - Nowadays, methods are needed that will ensure that the political and the social implications of the Executive’s expenditure policies will be disclosed and debated publicly (albeit retrospectively) by means which will not obscure major facts in a maize of minor detail. When I read that, I thought that it was exactly what has happened with these special purpose accounts. They have been moved from a place in which it was easy to scrutinise them to a maze of minor detail. It concerns me that much significant financial activity in this state is lost in this maze of minor detail. The Treasurer will find

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5217 that many of the points I have touched on refer to our capacity to evaluate, assess and comment on the way the Treasurer uses the powers. Mr E.S. Ripper: It is normally the role of the opposition to demand more and more detail. This is no different. It is a bit rich for you to say the major facts are hidden in the detail. Mr T. BUSWELL: A bill is before the house; I am offering my comments on the bill, and that maze of detail is something I am concerned about. The last concern I have is about resourcing agreements. I have read them - Mr E.S. Ripper: What do you want with regard to reporting of special purpose accounts? Mr T. BUSWELL: I asked last year for a readily available summary to be provided. We have had that discussion; I do not need to have it again. I understand the Treasurer’s position on it but I thought it would be remiss of me not to raise the point one more time. I hope this is the last time we deal with this matter for some time because reading these bills was a thoroughly stimulating way to spend a weekend! Had it not been for the fact that I watched two great games of football, I do not know that I would have reached the end of the documents. I was also aware that I would be in this house looking across at the Treasurer for almost an hour while presenting my remarks in the second reading debate. Mr E.S. Ripper: Your leader is thrilled as well. Mr T. BUSWELL: I thought I would slip that in because he is here. The issue of resourcing agreements cuts in many ways to the nub of this debate on the processes of government. Should we focus on resources, staff numbers and total dollars spent or should we focus more on outputs, what is being delivered to the public of Western Australia, attempting to define what we are delivering, and reporting the progress of delivering those outputs in a clear, concise and readable format so that not only the Parliament, but also the people of this state can make informed decisions? I am always interested to hear the Treasurer talk about more staff for this and more staff for that, more resources for this and more resources for that, yet when I look at the outcomes I am sometimes concerned. I will finish with examples relating to two of the most significant issues facing this government and Western Australia. I will not talk about tax. One of those issues is the housing crisis. Over the past three quarters, median house prices in this state have leapt from $320 000, to $365 000, to what is now estimated to be around $420 000. There has been a huge, unprecedented explosion in housing prices in Western Australia, driven, as the Treasurer has admitted, by a huge divergence between land supply and demand. Land supply is the critical issue. I hope to talk more about this next week, if possible. It is interesting to note figures provided by the Urban Development Institute of Australia described as lots on market, metro. They track back over a long time. The quarterly numbers are always in their thousands, and range between just over 1 000 to just over 3 000. In the past four or five quarters, for a sustained period, the figure has been under 1 000. In the past two quarters, the number of lots on the market in Western Australia has been the lowest in the history of this state. This has resulted from a failure to deliver lots to the market in Western Australia. That is an outcome that amounts to a housing crisis and young Western Australians not being able to afford to buy a house. What has this government done about it? I refer to the agency primarily responsible for land releases, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Since the March quarter of 2001 to the March quarter of 2005 staffing levels - resource agreement based focus - have increased from 1 230 to 1 537, an increase of 307 full-time equivalents or 25 per cent. That is a substantial increase in resources allocated to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, yet huge problems are occurring in delivering lots to the market in Western Australia. It is the lowest level of lot availability in the history of this state, and housing prices are going through the roof to the extent that young Western Australians can no longer afford to get into the market, and the government is talking about resource agreements. The government should focus on outcomes that matter. It should explain to the people of this state and this Parliament what outcomes it intends to deliver, and be accountable when it does not deliver them. I have just read the government’s revamped ministerial code of conduct. According to that, the Treasurer must be accountable. I bet the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the member for Armadale, is glad that the code of conduct was not around about a year ago, because if it had been she would have been relegated to the Labor backbench. The code states that the Westminster system requires that ministers be accountable and answerable to Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the people. Indeed, it states that a minister’s responsibility is to act as a trustee of the public interest and that that should always be paramount in the performance of his or her functions. If the Treasurer focused more on outputs and the efficiencies in delivering those outputs - and less on the dribble about inputs and resource agreements - and if he stood by them, took responsibility for them and was accountable for them, we might be able to move ahead in the delivery of public service in this state. This is a paradigm of operation that has not only dogged this government; indeed, it has dogged governments for a long time.

5218 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

In talking about inputs and resource agreement, I will touch on one last topic of interest; namely, the deaths of Western Australian children. I had to sit in this chamber yesterday while the sanctimonious, pompous self- serving Premier pointed his finger at me and told me that I had no right to talk about such matters. The Treasurer did it the day before. The government has failed to deliver outputs. The year Wade Scale died, 80 children died of suspicious circumstances and of those, 42 had had some form of contact with the Department for Community Development. Of those 42 children, 21 were less than one year old. The next year 53 children died who were known to the department, and 34 of them were less than one year old. That is a disgraceful output and it is an absolute failing. It is wrong for the Premier to stand in this house and lecture me and my colleagues telling us that we cannot talk about protecting children or demand the delivery of outputs for the people of Western Australia. We will keep doing it. Every time we get a chance we will remind the government of the 34 children known to the department who were under the age of one. We on this side of the house are angry about this situation, because at some stage most of us have been parents or grandparents of a one-year-old child. The government tries to hide by attempting to shame us into silence; however, that will not work. They are the government’s outputs and delivery. The Minister for Community Development came into this chamber and said that the government had employed extra staff to solve the problem, and that the government would sign a resource agreement. Extra staff - that is rubbish! During that shameful period, the Department for Community Development employed an extra 225 staff. The government’s focus is on inputs. It increased the number of staff by 20 per cent. The government could have made them sign a resource agreement. Mr E.S. Ripper: Do you oppose that? Mr T. BUSWELL: I oppose the government’s failure to protect our children and the way the Department for Community Development is going about its job. Doubling the number of staff in the Department for Community Development would not make any difference. The government has already increased the number of staff by 20 per cent and that made no difference; indeed, if anything the outputs are worse. In concluding this debate I simply say this: the government should not hide behind the idea of glorified resource agreements and focus only on outputs. Rather, it must focus on the delivery of outputs, because the outputs matter. Indeed, the outputs make the quality of life for Western Australians better. I demand that of the government. As long as I am a member of this house - whether it is on the opposition or government benches - I will demand the same of either the government of the day or my colleagues when we are in government. MR M.W. TRENORDEN (Avon) [11.05 am]: From time to time significant bills passed by this house do not receive a lot of attention from members or the media because they are pretty dry. The former member for Merredin, Hendy Cowan, often told the story that the North West Shelf bill passed after several hours of debate, but the bill about whether liquor stores should be able to sell two bottles of beer took a week to pass. This debate can be viewed in pretty much the same context. From time to time, members of Parliament - particularly those on the Labor backbench - must give consideration to the function of the Parliament as opposed to their being a member of Parliament in the political process. It is important that there be strong financial legislation governing the functioning of Parliament. I will go through that process in a few moments. A few weeks ago I travelled to New South Wales, Melbourne and Brisbane with the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Due to unfortunate circumstances, both the members for Hillarys and Southern River could not make that trip. It was interesting to see how various Parliaments operate. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I am on television, so I had better adjust the collar of my jacket. Mr R.F. Johnson: I want you to look your best! Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Absolutely. Mr E.S. Ripper: It has made a massive improvement. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I am sure that is the case. The Treasurer should be careful in that area; we are probably pretty similar. When a budget bill hits the New South Wales Parliament, the Treasurer - who, at the moment, is a Labor Party member - and the leaders of the Liberal and National Parties make a speech and then the bill is passed. NSW does not have an estimates committee process. I make that point because I would have thought that in the process of any Parliament - a few points will be made about this in the next debate - the essence of being the Treasurer on a year-by-year basis is to control the budget. The budget is about being in government. If a party has control of the budget, it controls all matters relating to government. No-one in this house will argue that the party that forms government should not have that control. However, I argue that we need budget information, and that is a constant criticism of the budget process. My argument for those members in the chamber who want to think about it - many people will say that the member for Avon is wrong; however, I strongly believe this to be the case - is that we as a chamber have an absolute responsibility to deliver a strong robust budget, which the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5219

Treasurer does, so we must also have a strong robust process that allows the opposition of the day to debate the budget and to go through an estimates process. In that way, the people of Western Australia know that the expenditure of the state has been scrutinised. As I have said to many people, control of the budget is the essence of being in government. If a government cannot pass its budget bills, it cannot stay in government. It is a fairly fundamental process. What does the other chamber do? We all know that the other chamber has moved away from an estimates process to a more focused process that examines agencies individually. That is fine; I am not arguing about that. However, I want to encourage members - I do not think that the Treasurer has a different point of view from mine - to have a robust process in this chamber so that no matter on what side of the chamber members sit, they have an opportunity to be involved in the budget. It is important not only in relation to how the state progresses and how it is run, but also to members’ electorates. As the people’s representative, a member must be able to understand how the budget will affect his or her electorate, whether it is good, bad or indifferent. That is my position and, having listened to the Treasurer for many years, I suspect that the Treasurer has a similar position. Three dates always arise when I discuss this matter with people - 1984, 1985 and 1986. I think 1985 is when the Financial Administration and Audit Act was introduced in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper: It was 1985. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I came into this chamber in 1986, so I was born and bred with the FAAA. At the time that legislation was introduced by the Burke Labor government, it was presented as a unique and leading piece of budget legislation. I believe it was. As the lead speaker from the Liberal Party has pointed out, the FAAA makes pretty dry reading. I wonder how many people have read the FAAA. However, it does not matter anymore, because hopefully in a few weeks it will cease to exist. However, the FAAA did its job in this state for 20 years. It is important to focus on the fact that the FAAA introduced the concept of performance auditing. At the same time as performance auditing was introduced in this state with the FAAA, it was introduced across Australia. I have said this many times, so I am being a bit repetitive, but most members would know that I have an interest in this area. At the same time as performance auditing was introduced in this state, the Canadian government looked at this matter, not only at the federal level, but throughout the provinces. The Canadians tried performance auditing for a couple of years and threw it out, because it did not work. It did not work for the reasons I have raised in debate in this place on many occasions. This year I actually had a go at one of the agencies, because the mission statement that was contained in the budget statements for that agency was nothing but a motherhood statement. If we try to audit motherhood statements, we will be here forever. The trick in performance auditing is to make sure that the agencies produce mission statements that can be measured. To give an example - this is not fact, so do not ping me on it - the WA Police may say that their mission statement is to make Western Australia a safer place. However, how can we measure that? Therefore, if performance auditing is to work, we need to keep working on ways of improving it. The Treasurer will not recall this, because he was not here at the time, but when performance auditing was introduced, the view was that once performance auditing had settled down, and once performance indicators - or key performance indicators, which is the language that is now used - had settled down, we should move to outcomes-based auditing. After 20 years of performance auditing, we have now moved to outcomes-based auditing. The staff of the Parliamentary Library have been kind enough to supply me with information that shows that we moved to program budgeting in 1990. The staff of the library provide an outstanding service. I would encourage those members who do not use the library not to use the library, because that will allow me to make greater use of the time of library staff. They are an outstanding group of people, and they do a fantastic job. Mr A.D. McRae: Hear, hear! Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I have put a bit of pressure on the library staff in the past few weeks, and I am very grateful for their efforts. As I have said, we had a process of performance auditing. We then moved to a process of outcomes-based management. Members may recall that. We tried that for a couple of years and then threw that in the bin. We have now moved to a situation in which the budget is based on programs. A performance audit is done on those programs, and that is included in the budget papers at the end of each financial year. However, there is a problem with that system. This is not just my view. This is also the view of many academics who have an interest in this area. The problem is that if an agency is given X amount of dollars for a program that is to run for three years, but 18 months into that program things are not going well, the agency will not put in performance indicators that say the program is not going well. It will put in performance indicators that say things are okay. It does that because it does not want to embarrass the minister and the agency. Both the Treasurer and I, but particularly the Treasurer, have an interest in making sure that programs work well. Under outcomes-based auditing, each program has a mission statement and key performance indicators. At the end of the process, the program is audited to see whether it has achieved the objectives set out in its mission statement. Treasury likes that type of regime, because it allows it to knock off some programs that it has wanted to knock

5220 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] off for a few years but has not been able to. A lot of the programs that manage to hang in there are nebulous in nature; they are just there because they are there. The Treasurer may have some suggestions about whether those programs are appropriate. However, outcomes-based auditing provides the Treasurer and his department with a far stronger process to allow them to decide which programs should survive or not survive, and which programs should be altered. The reality in this world is that all programs change. We in the opposition will raise the problems with certain programs, just as the Treasurer did when he was in opposition. However, the reality is that we want programs to work well. That means we need chief executive officers who are willing to say they started a program with the best intentions, but a year down the track it is not progressing as they think it should, and it should be altered. The Treasurer knows that agencies do not do that. Mr E.S. Ripper: They do. There is one example in this bill. This government introduced a capital user charge. However, we have now conceded that the benefits of that charge are outweighed by the costs, so we are changing that. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: As I said to the Treasurer in the corridor, two Treasurers in this state can be considered to be reform Treasurers. One is the current Treasurer. The other is Max Evans. I have told the Treasurer personally that he is performing well as Treasurer. Therefore, I am not having a go at the Treasurer when I put this argument. However, I have put to the Treasurer - to his credit he has listened to me so far - how we should progress this matter. I took some time out when I went over east with the Procedure and Privileges Committee to speak to a range of people on this issue, separate from the committee. Every state Treasurer wants to change the process. I spoke to members of the Public Accounts Committee and National Party leaders. I did not speak to Liberal or Labor Party leaders. I also spoke to people within government agencies. They all say it is time for a change. I have also spoken to people from CPA Australia. I am trying to encourage an Australia- wide debate about the quality of the information that comes back to Parliaments. I have to tell the Treasurer that I have had a 100 per cent strike rate from academics, agencies, members of public accounts committee in various Parliaments and other members, that now is the opportune time to make a change. We have moved from a cash accounting system to an accrual accounting system. The first accrual accounting system was based on Australian standards. We have now moved from Australian standards to international standards. There has been significant change in a very short time. Not just the members of this Parliament, but the members of every state legislature - I have not spoken to any member in the federal system yet - say they have lost the capacity to read the budget papers. Therefore, this is a significant issue. In this bill, the Treasurer has rewritten the Financial Administration and Audit Act. This may be a slightly nasty thing to say - I do not mean to be nasty - but the Western Australian Treasury was the lead agency in this area for many years. My only disappointment in this bill is that apart from a few issues that the Treasurer has just pointed out, it will maintain the status quo. No reform process is contained in this bill. I will not pick on the Treasurer for that. However, I ask him to at least keep one ear open and listen to me, because the things that I want to do are not in any way party orientated. I want to talk only about function. I am getting tremendous support from a whole raft of people to go through that process. I hope the Treasurer will be part of that process. I have spoken to the Under Treasurer and I have no reason to doubt that he is not interested. I am not suggesting that this bill should be amended in any way. I would like to think that we will have, in a short period, a strong discussion with the Under Treasurer and the Treasurer about a new process. However, the reality is that we do not want Max Trenorden writing the next financial bill. More capable people than I are required to do that. I can bring into the process what I believe the function should be, and the talented people in our agencies can then look at how that function should be made into legislation. Returning to the bill, it separates the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985 into the Financial Management Bill and the Auditor General Bill. The Commission on Government suggested that should happen. That was a long, long time ago, but it has now happened. It removes the distinction between departments and statutory agencies. The point was that it involved cash provisions that are contained in the FAAA which now go through the accrual account, and that is no longer necessary. The real distinction between departments and statutory authorities is in how they handle cash. It also contains provisions relating to a shorter period for handling annual reports; that is, 90 days. This is a really important area. The people who suffer from insomnia from listening to my speeches in this place know that I have not been really keen about annual reports. Annual reports have turned into icon publications for agencies, which I have no problem with. They talk about the outcomes of the agency, the environment, how the agency has looked after staff and the public and so on and so forth. That is all fantastic information. However, they contain less and less financial information. That is indisputable. If members go back to previous financial reports, they will find that that is the case. Financial reports were put in place years ago to do just that so that members of Parliament and members of the public could pick up an agency report and follow the financial paths of the agency. That has gone. Part of the problem was that the agencies used to report way beyond the financial steps that had occurred. Introducing a shorter period for the tabling of financial reports will change that totally. Financial reports will become far more relevant. I will be looking for some sort of Treasury instructions that will ensure that the reports become far

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5221 more credible as financial statements than flagstaff, iconic statements about the agency. I have no problems with flagstaff or iconic reports about agencies. However, today we are talking about financial reports. The Auditor General made it pretty clear that this will impose an impost on his budget. He said that he needed $303 000 this current financial year to introduce early reporting. Guess what the government did? It removed that figure from his budget. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: The Treasurer says that it is important to introduce early reporting, but he removed the funding from the Auditor General after he said that he needed that funding to introduce early reporting. However, that is a debate for the next bill. Next week I am going to Malaysia with an industry group from my electorate. The purpose of the visit is to discuss hay and chaff supplies with the Malaysians. That is a $100 million industry in my electorate; a substantial figure. I will be visiting purchasers of that product over a week. I will also be going to four race meetings, but I will be doing that with my own money and have made no application for an imprest payment. Therefore, I will not be here next week. However, I want to vote against the Auditor General Bill every step of the way. The Auditor General Bill is a disgrace and I want to be heavily involved in the debate on that bill. I am a backbencher; I am not even in opposition; I am an insignificant person in the processes of this house. However, I am desperate to be involved in the debate on the AG bill. I understand that I will have a chance to make my speech on the second reading today. I want to discuss a significant range of issues in that speech and I suggest that I will be the most boisterous voice on this side of the house in that debate. Therefore, it may be a good idea to bring it on for debate while I am not here, but it would not be a good idea for me! I do not make many requests of the Parliament and I know that I am not in a position to make a request of this house. I know that I am not a leader of a party, but I have a very strong interest in the AG bill and would love to be involved in all processes of the debate on that bill. Dr E. Constable: They should delay it for you. You are the father of the house. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: I am just making the point that I will not be in the house next week. My trip is a longstanding agreement with an industry group in my electorate and I will be in Malaysia all of next week. The streamlining of annual reports is a very good thing. I congratulate the Treasurer on this initiative. It will bring annual reports back into their proper process of reporting. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the government should fund the Auditor General to actually introduce the process. The streamlining of reports of the Department of Treasury and Finance is also an excellent initiative. The provisions relating to the function for annual reports are going the right way. I refer to chapter 2, page 9, of the Public Accounts Committee review of the process, just so that the Treasurer knows where I am coming from. I will read a couple of comments from that review. It states - In the absence of a transparent reporting regime, important details may get lost in the hundreds of pages of government and agency financial statements produced each year. The 1992 Report of the Independent Commission to Review Public Sector Finances (the McCarrey Report) considered this issue and noted the late Professor Gordon Reid’s view that: Nowadays, methods are needed that will ensure that the political and the social implications of the Executive’s expenditure policies will be disclosed and debated publicly (albeit retrospectively) by means which will not obscure major facts in a maze of minor detail. Beautifully said, in my view. The committee then said on the same page - This usually occurs in the context of the Budget Papers, which also include separate reporting of some mechanisms at the whole-of-government level. In addition, agency annual reports may contain relevant information. Further on the same page the committee says - However, the Committee believes ‘real-time’ reporting to Parliament may - I stress “may” - significantly enhance the current accountability regime. I totally agree with the Public Accounts Committee. It continues - It also believes that using the Budget Papers to report on the use of these mechanisms is not sufficient, - As I said at the beginning of my speech, I agree that it is not sufficient - because Parliament’s focus at that time is on what the Government is planning to spend money on rather than on what it has spent money on in the recent past.

5222 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

There are a lot of good comments on that page of the review and I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee for that. That is what I was referring to in my earlier remarks. We have a sound process. I totally support the Financial Management Bill 2006 but I would say that I am looking for reform. I am looking at a Treasurer who is meant to be a reformist Treasurer. I am putting that sort of pressure on him. I have that passion. I ask the Treasurer to think about that in the meantime. Outcome-based audit was always going to be part of the process. The argument was with bedding down performance auditing over a period. When reading some of the mission statements, I wonder what they are all about. We cannot say that performance audit is a perfect process. If we go to the Water Corporation and it says that we need more water and it puts in a bore, that is an outcome. We can all see the outcome. If it is the previous argument about looking after children, it is much harder to define the outcome. We need to move on. We need to have a secondary process in reporting because I think the current process of reporting is important - I have said that in the estimates process - and excellent. Treasury does it well. However, it is designed for a consumer group that is not us. We need a set of papers or documents or information that can be consumed by us - that is, members of Parliament - as well as agency heads, the general public and other people who like to look at the mechanisms of government. They need to be based on programs because budgets are now totally focused on programs. There has been talk about more current, relevant and even online reporting. We are moving to that process. That information now exists in agencies. Treasury is getting a lot of information on a monthly basis. Chief executive officers are also getting the information on a monthly basis. I hope and pray that ministers are getting the information on a monthly basis. It is fair and reasonable that members of Parliament get that information, although not necessarily on a monthly basis. Maybe we should agree here that we receive it on a delayed basis - maybe once a year. We could use a process in the estimates that looks similar to what we do now except that a different set of books is used with a different set of information. It would be prepared differently. To repeat myself for the third time, the information is there. It is not as though we have to create it. We have to gather it. That is what the academics and some chief executive officers are telling me, and that is what the Auditor General is telling me. As such, it is very important. Before I conclude, I wish to say that I consider the service given by Des Pearson to the state to be outstanding. I will say that again probably when we deal with the next bill. About two weeks ago I visited Victoria for a few days. The Victorians I spoke to - I certainly did not speak to every Victorian - in and around Parliament House are very excited about Des Pearson being their new Auditor General. They are excited because they have had a very good Auditor General - no-one is criticising him for that - but he was interested in the input process of accountability. The member for Vasse referred to that aspect. Many people in Victoria’s Parliament House - not necessarily the members of Parliament - are excited that Des Pearson is coming because he is an output- orientated Auditor General. Mr A.D. McRae: As far as people can get excited about auditing! Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Yes. I agree; auditing is not an exciting issue. However, Des Pearson has served the state with distinction. In the Australian context - not just the Victorian context - he will make a difference to Victoria. MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys) [11.34 am]: We are dealing with the Financial Management Bill 2006. I take this opportunity to bring something to the attention of the Treasurer of which he should be aware. Indeed, I hope that the Auditor General will take note of the comments I make in the house today. This measure is all about the financial management of this government of which the Treasurer has overall responsibility. I suggest to the Treasurer and the Auditor General that they both have a very close look at what is going on in what is now the Department of Corrective Services, which was the former Department of Justice. During the budget estimates this year - the minister and the previous minister responsible for the portfolio are in the house and they might also like to take note of what I am saying - I asked a question by way of supplementary information. That was because the very new minister and the head of the department, Ian Johnson, did not have the details with them at the time. I asked whether the minister could provide details of all consultants employed by the Department of Corrective Services and the former Department of Justice in the previous 12 months. I asked for details of the names, contracts, job descriptions, range of services provided and the value of the contracts. Within about 10 days I received some detail, which totalled about three pages. I have very serious concerns, Premier - I mean Treasurer, although he may become the Premier - Mr E.S. Ripper: I am very happy where I am! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Treasurer may be moving along one seat. Mr T. Buswell: I think the member for Midland has aspirations. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: And others! The information I received alarmed me enormously. The reference is supplementary information No B40. The answer, which covered three pages, outlined various sums of money under a column titled “Amount paid in last

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5223

12 months”. It also lists the names of the organisations, the contract numbers, the total value of the contracts and the job description/range of services. I was staggered to find that there was no contract for the majority. Some smaller amounts were linked with a contract number. A job description was given of what the money was paid for. A person would be staggered to find sums of, for example, $111 000-odd being paid to a particular organisation without a contract being in place. One description read “Strategic Development plans”. The company, Unisys West Pty Ltd, was given more than $111 000 for strategic development plans. That company got the deal but there was no contract in place. As such, there are no outcomes that my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be seeking or, indeed, I would seek. All we have is a very bland description. There are other equally high amounts for other entries. An amount of $11 850 was paid to a company called The Productive Edge but there is no contract. I have never heard of the company. It was to review Acacia Prison contracts. There was no contract in place for the company to review the contracts of Acacia Prison! That is amazing. There are other examples. Another was for more than $32 000 to Omnitec Systems, but there was no contract in place. What did that company do? It produced statistics and undertook reviews analyses. It is amazing that there would be no performance indicators for the companies and no contract details as such. An amount of $95 000 went to Yuco Pty Ltd, as a sole provider. That went to Peter Yu for Kimberley consultation. However, no contract was in place; there were no outcomes. Therefore, there is no measure. It is the overall responsibility of the Treasurer to know where the departments are spending public funds, and it is his ultimate responsibility to make sure that the public is getting value for money. It is not so much the Premier’s responsibility as the Treasurer’s responsibility, because the Treasurer has the overall responsibility for the state’s finances. I am concerned about whether I have all the details on this list, whether it is the total list of people who have been paid through government departments and ministerial offices, and whether they are being accountable and keeping proper records. I have been alerted to the fact that one name is missing from this list, and that is Kath White. I have nothing against Kath White, but I am told that she has been given amounts of money through the Department of Justice, as it was previously known, to do certain work. I am informed that those amounts of money are less than the statutory amount at which work needs to go out for public tender. That is an old trick of the Treasurer’s government. It gives people multiple contracts, or agreements in some cases - because some people do not even have contracts - and it keeps them within a certain amount so that they do not hit that magical figure at which the Treasurer is compelled, under State Supply Commission guidelines and rules, to put the work out to public tender. That has been happening under the Treasurer’s governance and while the Treasurer has been steering the Treasury ship. I ask the Treasurer to look into the Department of Corrective Services, because it seems to be a law unto itself. If the Minister for Corrective Services does not know, she should know. The minister is smiling at me now, so perhaps she knows about certain contracts or that certain deals have been done and that certain amounts of money have been paid but have not been registered and should have been. Mr E.S. Ripper: The minister is well known for her sweet disposition, and that is why she is smiling. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Her speech disposition; yes, I agree. She very rarely says much. In fact, she could not answer this question, and I was not surprised that she could not. She could not answer a lot of questions. That was because she was a new minister, and I accept that. I did not have a problem with that. However, when I get answers back that have gone through the minister - she has signed off on them; they have her signature on them - somebody needs to be accountable. The Minister for Corrective Services is the accountable minister. However, at the end of the day, the Treasurer is accountable, because he is responsible for the overall administration of finances in this state. Quite frankly, I want to know, and the Treasurer should know - he may not want to know - whether money was paid to Kath White and other people to do certain work in that and other departments, and whether the arrangement was that the payment would be less than the amount at which the departments are obliged to advertise the work. The departments get around that by keeping the payment under a certain figure. They then do not have to advertise. They pay somebody a certain amount of money, and when that amount is gone, they do the same thing again and again. If that is the case - I believe it could well be the case in certain instances within the Department of Corrective Services and other government departments - the Treasurer should be very concerned, this Parliament should be concerned and the people of Western Australia should be concerned. I demand that the Treasurer find out about these matters, because he has overall responsibility for the finances of this state. It is not the Treasurer’s money and it is not my money; it is the money of the public of Western Australia. The Treasurer has overall responsibility for that. He needs to look into this issue and have a long chat with the Minister for Corrective Services to find out whether the information that I have given today is correct. If it is, the Treasurer needs to report that to Parliament. If short cuts are being taken, for whatever reason, that is not acceptable to me, and I do not believe it is acceptable to members on both sides of this house. We do not want any sweetheart deals being done - which I believe may be happening - when it concerns public money. The debate on this bill has provided me with the opportunity to bring this matter to the Treasurer’s attention. I hope the Treasurer will take serious note of it, look into it and report back to Parliament on the issue.

5224 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Mr E.S. Ripper: The note says, “Speak for another 20 minutes and hope that the Deputy Premier provides you with some interjections to keep you going”! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am more than happy to say a few more words on this bill. I have made the comments that I wanted to make. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): I never thought the member for Cottesloe could save us. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Mr Acting Speaker, it is very unkind of you to say that about me. As I have said, I have a personal concern in this area because I have the shadow portfolio responsibilities for justice, which I believe involve more than just correctional services. I do not know why the government changed the name of the department. It seems that in the Treasurer’s government, if things get a bit tough sometimes, the government makes a few peripheral changes in departments and changes their names in the hope that all the bad news will go away. I can tell the Treasurer that the bad news will never go away, because we will hunt down the Treasurer and his ministerial colleagues in every portfolio area, and when we find things being done that are not correct and not prudent, we will find the truth and we will get that truth to the public, because the public of Western Australia deserves to know the truth. The Treasurer and his ministerial colleagues might try to run and hide, but we will find them, and we will let this Parliament and the public know when the Treasurer or his colleagues do something wrong. When the public’s money is being mismanaged, which is contrary to what the Treasurer is trying to get across in the bill that is before the house today, the Treasurer will stand condemned unless he does something about it. I am giving the Treasurer an opportunity to look into this issue, make the government’s ministers come clean and give the full details to Parliament. There is nothing worse than a member of Parliament asking a question in the budget estimates hearings and not getting a truthful answer. That is the only time that we normally get a chance to get a truthful answer, but we want the whole answer, not just a bit of it. I urge the Treasurer to look into the matter that I have mentioned. If it is happening in the justice portfolio area, I guarantee it is happening in other areas also, either through the agencies or through ministerial offices. It does not matter which. It is still public money and this Parliament has a right to know about it. This Parliament also has a right to keep the Treasurer and his ministerial colleagues accountable. Labor came into office promising transparency and accountability. The government so far is failing to provide that in many areas. We have seen it in the Department for Community Development, and I now believe I have seen it in the Department of Corrective Services. If it is happening in those two areas, I suggest that it must be happening in most of them. Some ministers sometimes think they are clever. They think they can get away with things that they believe will not be noticed. However, let me assure the government that the sins of those ministers will be found out, and we will bring them to the attention of the public. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe) [11.48 am]: I will make a couple of brief observations on the Financial Management Bill 2006 and on the topic of financial management. It is obviously important for the state that its finances - public funds - are managed well and spent well, that there are good outcomes and that accountability applies. Anyone who is in government, particularly in a Treasury or finance role, should do that, but it is done against the background of the economic conditions of the day. This government has been fortunate. It has had a period of particularly favourable economic conditions for Western Australia - almost unprecedented. When the coalition was in government during the 1990s, it had good times, but it also had a couple of serious issues to deal with. One was an overlay of massive state debt from the WA Inc days, which this government chooses to forget. The other one was the 1997 Asian financial crisis or meltdown. It was not as bad as we feared at the time; nevertheless, there were issues to deal with. This government has had nothing like that, and good luck to it, because that is good for Western Australia. Financial performance must be judged against the backdrop of the economic times. This Treasurer brags a lot and has a lot of bluster about him. He thinks that is good politics, and perhaps it is, but sooner or later there will be a more objective assessment of his performance and that of his government. Mr M.P. Whitely: You think it is a good idea to commit to massive infrastructure projects without costing them. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member used to take pride in himself as an accounting teacher, so perhaps he can contribute to this debate. All I intend to do is raise some of the things that might be considered objectively in assessing the financial management and performance of this government. The first area to be considered is taxation. Good government should be providing for low tax; allowing people to keep as much of their earned income to spend as they will. This government has been a high-taxing government. Its first three budgets contained massive increases in stamp duty, land taxes and payroll taxes. The so-called tax reform that this Treasurer talks about occurs against a background of huge increases in tax. It is fiddling at the edges, having imposed huge tax increases on householders and businesses in this state. Western Australia has moved, under this government, from being a low-tax state to being a high-tax state. I do not give the government any credit at all on taxation.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5225

This Treasurer likes to get up and talk about the AAA credit rating. Only the other day he was boasting about retaining that credit rating, and saying that it had never been at risk. Again, some people remember history. Who lost the AAA credit rating? It was the Lawrence government, in which this Treasurer was a minister. When the coalition came to power in 1993, one of the first things Premier Richard Court was advised about was that the Insurance Commission of Western Australia was technically insolvent. The body responsible for the insurance of people in this state against motor vehicle accidents and other things was technically insolvent. Dr E. Constable: Who was the minister responsible? Mr C.J. BARNETT: It was the former Premier, Dr Geoff Gallop. The Lawrence government had hidden from the public the fact that the Insurance Commission was insolvent. That was an enormous problem to deal with. It was the first major problem the coalition had to deal with. What were we to do - tell people that they were not covered for motor vehicle and industrial accident injuries? We had to impose a levy, otherwise the state faced a catastrophe. Yes, the AAA credit rating is maintained, but Labor lost it, and the Liberal-National coalition got it back. Anyone could maintain a AAA credit rating after some $4 billion worth of debt had been repaid, and in an environment of booming resource industries and high commodity prices. Retaining a AAA credit rating is only a good achievement in tough economic times, or when dealing with a tough legacy. The government has not had that, and good luck to it. Thirdly, what were the great reforms that this Treasurer brought in? He came in on the back of a policy of an efficiency dividend across the public service, and the capital user charges. Both of these have disappeared into history. That was his great plank when he became Treasurer, and they are now forgotten about. Mr E.S. Ripper: Although we said during the election campaign that we would introduce an efficiency dividend, the capital user charge was something that we inherited from Treasury as the final element in the reform program begun under the previous government. Mr C.J. BARNETT: They have both gone now. The media fell for it, but the efficiency dividend was a fraud from the start. Look at what we have left in the public service. The government introduced the machinery of government reforms, which were about combining departments and saving taxpayers’ funds by stopping a burgeoning bureaucracy. Now that a few years have gone by, we find that the public sector has grown by 18 000 employees. What came out of the machinery of government reforms? Nothing. Mr E.S. Ripper: More teachers, more nurses, more police officers, more child protection workers, more environmental protection people and more planners. Mr C.J. BARNETT: What was the increase? It was 18 000. Despite these good times, and despite an optimistic scenario for China and India, the very nature of a commodity price-driven economy is that there will be changes. There will be a period of declining commodity prices or, as in 1987, there will be a share price crash. Share prices are probably over-inflated around the world. An economic jolt like that impacts more on this state than on most other economies. When the public sector has been allowed to grow by 18 000, our ability to ride through a more difficult economic time is reduced. In a sense, the government has exposed the state to risk. Let us look at some other examples of the results of the machinery of government reforms. What state has the government now brought the Western Australian public service to? It is in disarray in many areas, none more so than in the Department for Community Development. When the government was elected, under its machinery of government reforms and other vindictive policies, it chased out of employment some of the best chief executive officers in Western Australia - long-term public servants who had served governments of both political persuasions. About half a dozen of them were chased out of office. That has destroyed much of the confidence and integrity of our public service. Mr E.S. Ripper: Who was the chief executive officer of the Department for Community Development at the time? It was Bob Fisher, who was made Agent General in London. It was hardly vindictive treatment; he got a plum appointment. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, and how is the Department for Community Development travelling today? Bob Fisher was a person of integrity and competence. Mr R.C. Kucera: Was? Mr C.J. BARNETT: He still is. Mr R.C. Kucera: Are you suggesting that the present CEO is not? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have grave concerns about the performance of the CEO of the Department for Community Development. Mr R.C. Kucera: Are you questioning her integrity as well? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Without hesitation, I question everything in that department, when children under the care and protection of the state are dying in Western Australia. If that causes a bit of discomfort to the member, I

5226 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] would put the safety of an individual child first. If our actions in this Parliament protect one child from sexual or physical abuse, or save the life of one child, it will be worth it, no matter how discomforting it might be to the member for Yokine or the staff and CEO of the department. It is a small price to pay. The government has not built up and established a high level of public service in this state. The machinery of government reforms may have been done with good intentions at the time, and perhaps there was a need for reform in the structure of the public sector, but when we look back and judge those reforms, we find 18 000 more public servants and many government departments that are not performing well. The Department for Community Development right now is in the spotlight, but let us look at some of the others, such as the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, the mega empire that the minister has created. We need a professional planning department and a professional transport department. Planning in this state has fallen behind. There are pressures on planning officers, because the department is confused. Talking to people within the department and people who deal with the department reveals that it is confused. It is a confused structure between planning, and one of the users of planning, the transport authority. It has not been a resounding success. Now the government is proposing to merge the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the Department of Environment. As time goes by, we will see other conflicts of interest emerge there. Mr R.C. Kucera: I can remember the Under Treasurer writing a letter expressing concern about you as CEO of the education department. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I was never CEO of the education department. Mr R.C. Kucera: You were minister, which is worse. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): If the member for Yokine wishes to have his say, he should wait his turn. Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is a very interesting example, because this government went through the files of the previous government and produced bits of correspondence. I never saw the letter referred to by the member for Yokine. I do not care about it, because I am going to come back to that correspondence at a later stage. Let us move on to another area - relationships with industry. The government has created a public sector in this state that does not have the expertise, in some cases the seniority and, in particular, the confidence to deal with the major issues in Western Australia. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the resources industry. The Premier today carries on about gas reservations, and yet a major prospective project in this state - the Pluto liquefied natural gas project - is not even covered by a state agreement. The project is being run out of Canberra. The government has no chance of protecting gas supplies and prices for this state if it does not even negotiate a deal with a major project. The project is in disarray, to some extent, as is the Barrow Island LNG project. The companies with the capacity to bring these projects to fruition and resolve the issues that they and the government face are no longer available. It is hands off now and the government is struggling. What has been the financial performance of some major projects around the state? Three months after taking office in 2001, this government decided to reroute the south metropolitan railway, and I think I said at the time that it would increase costs by up to $300 million or thereabouts. People in industry said they would increase by $500 million. My estimate was shown to be conservative. This government and the former Premier said that it would be delayed for one year but, apart from that, it would be on time and on budget. He knew and this Treasurer knew that that was not the case. They were not being truthful to the people of Western Australia. Step by step it has unfolded that the final cost blow-out will be probably $500 million. The government knew that and every consulting engineer in Perth knew it. In no way could the route of the southern railway be altered, a tunnel built under Perth and a below-ground station built without having an impact on cost. The government spent $100 million deepening the Geraldton port by a few metres, and that has undoubtedly helped the wheat export industry. However, within 12 months of spending that $100 million on the project, the cost of which predictably blew out, producers of mineral products - prospective miners - said the Geraldton port was not a good option for them; they needed a deep-sea port; namely, Oakajee. During its first four years in office this government criticised the coalition government’s involvement in Oakajee and ridiculed its development, but it is now grappling with the issue. Why spend $100 million on Geraldton port when Oakajee could have been used and been a genuine deep-sea port option that would have assisted value adding? How many major projects has the state lost? The state is experiencing a resources boom but almost all the projects are expansions of existing projects. Where are the new projects that could set this state’s agenda for the next 20 or 30 years and set it apart? One after one they have left, particularly the high value adding projects. The government has not advanced the quality of the resources industry. Certainly, it has become much bigger, but it has not advanced. When the government took office, it said it would cut back on consultants, but that has not happened. We might hear more about that later in the day. The government was also going to cut back on advertising expenditure. In the last state election the amount of money spent on advertising by bodies such as Western Power, the Water

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5227

Corporation, WA Police and so on was outrageous. Former Premier Dr Gallop went directly against something he campaigned on. I thought that some of the coalition government advertising campaigns during the last election were equally outrageous. The Treasurer campaigned against that sort of expense, yet it has blown out. He should, therefore, not come into this chamber as a braggart Treasurer and tell the house how great a financial manager he is. Based on increases in taxes, the AAA credit rating, public sector outcomes referred to by the member for Avon, major projects and cost control and expenditure on consulting and advertising, I do not find much to applaud. I refer also to something that, to my frustration I suppose, the Western Australian media has never reported on. In the 1980s the Labor Government was corrupt, as everyone knew. It raided Treasury and the State Government Insurance Commission; it poured money into Rothwells Ltd and the Petrochemical Industries Company Ltd project, which was not developed, and into city property developments. As a rotten government and a rotten Labor Party, it practised corruption at the highest level. Some of the players of that time are involved with the Labor Party in this state today. That legacy still hurts Western Australian small to medium businesses because they suffer penalties on finances they raise. What has this government done since then? It needed to deal with an issue in the gas industry, so it handed over $88 million to a partnership between Alinta and others. The member for Yokine referred to a memorandum relating to me and the education system. I am happy to debate that. Where was the public analysis of that $88 million? Where, for example, was the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry? In 1988 I think, when the then Labor Government allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to the failed petrochemical plant, The West Australian, I think, ran a story on the front page. I was the only person who questioned that deal. The major industry groups at the time went along with it. What happened with that $88 million handout? I questioned it and the major industry groups in this state went along with it. That gave me a sense of deja vu. The Treasurer has had a good run; he has had an easy time. However, he should not be a smart alec, blowing and blustering in this place about how good he is. His test as a good Treasurer will come - if his government is still in office - when this state faces an external economic shock. That has not occurred since 1997. That will be the test. Terrorism has threatened that but it has not had the impact we thought it would. In light of this government’s taxes, its AAA credit rating, the machinery of government reforms, the quality of the public service, grants to industry, cost blow-outs on major projects and expenditure on consulting and advertising and the like, I do not think this Treasurer’s record is flash. MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [12.05 pm]: The opposition has used the opportunity of a debate on financial management legislation to range far and wide over a variety of financial management issues, most recently in the speech just delivered by the member for Cottesloe. I urge the member for Cottesloe to look forward rather than backward in his analysis of these issues. The member for Cottesloe appeared to use the debate to rekindle many arguments that were had during his time as Leader of the Opposition and on which, by the verdict of the people, he was comprehensively defeated. The member for Hillarys raised some issues that I intend to become engaged in. He referred to consultancies, allegedly awarded by the Department of Corrective Services without the benefit of a formal contract. After listening to his speech, I have consulted with the Minister for Corrective Services, and I will refer those matters to the State Supply Commission. The State Supply Commission is the body charged with ensuring that procurement law and policy are followed properly by all government agencies. I will ask the State Supply Commission to investigate whether irregularities have occurred with these consultancies, and it will provide a publicly available answer on those issues raised by the member for Hillarys. Both the Minister for Corrective Services and I are determined to get to the bottom of the allegations he made. Apart from that, I do not really want to become engaged in the overall debate on the government’s financial record, except to say that I am proud of it and that the government has retained the state’s AAA credit rating. We have had a good approach to the management of the finances in this state. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Dr J.M. Woollard interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I am faced with interjections from two members at once. I will make a few more remarks and then respond to each interjector. Yes; there have been very good economic times in Western Australia. However, neither the government nor the community should be complacent, despite these very good economic times. We cannot be complacent about public expenditure. Although it is appropriate in a time of prosperity to increase spending on education, community development, mental health, disability services and other priority areas, the government and the community must be careful that they do not produce unsustainable levels of public expenditure. We cannot be complacent about public sector wages because public sector wage outcomes that are over and above what is realistic and fair produce an ongoing burden on the public purse that may become difficult for either this

5228 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] government or the government of the day should economic circumstances deteriorate. That is why we have engaged in public debate with the Western Australian Police Union, and why it is so disappointing that the opposition has simply accepted, in essence, the Police Union’s claim without thinking about the financial consequences. We cannot be complacent about infrastructure. The government must provide the infrastructure to support the future economic development of the state at a time when the development we are currently experiencing is exposing the limitations of currently available infrastructure and at a time when it is more costly and takes longer to build each specific piece of infrastructure that is required. We cannot be complacent about tax competitiveness. We must always look at whether our taxation regime is competitive compared with that of the other states and, indeed, alternative locations outside the country when investors are considering where to locate their investments. We cannot be complacent about public sector reform. We must continue with a vigorous public sector reform program. That is why we are proceeding with our Smarter Buyer reform program and our Shared Corporate Services program. That is why we are investing in professionalism and leadership in the public sector. We must proceed with even more comprehensive public sector reform. The government is working on ways of taking that issue forward. We cannot be complacent about economic reform. We must consolidate and further extend the program of electricity reform and we must proceed with the water reform and liquor reform agendas. To a certain extent, I acknowledge the point made by the member for Cottesloe; that is, we cannot be assured that the strong economic circumstances we are experiencing at the moment will continue day in, day out and year in, year out. We must take into consideration the fact that there might be different development, that commodity prices might fall away and that a global event over which the government of Western Australia has no control will impact on our economic circumstances. Therefore, in all my speeches to businesspeople and the community generally, I preach against complacency in the current circumstances. We must continue to act insofar as we can to sustain the high level of economic growth and to include all Western Australians in the prosperity that we are experiencing. From this period of wonderful economic performance in Western Australia we must ensure that we leave a good legacy for the future. I turn directly to the legislation before the house. I have tried to adopt a bipartisan approach to this legislation. I am trying to work with everyone in Parliament to achieve the best financial management and Auditor General legislation, taking into account all the different perspectives. That is why I referred the package of legislation to the Public Accounts Committee for examination. I was pleased that the Public Accounts Committee reported positively on the package of legislation. We have made some adjustments both to the legislation and to our proposed administrative practices in light of the Public Accounts Committee’s findings. I am also prepared to examine members’ remarks in this debate to determine whether we should make any changes to the legislation or adjustments to the administrative practices. I do not want this to be an adversarial exercise. The opposition played its role when it criticised the government’s financial management. As we deal with the Financial Management Bill 2006, I am very happy to engage with the opposition and other members on the detail of the legislation. I want to deal with a couple of specific issues raised by members. The issue of the investment of the public bank account moneys was raised. The regulations will prescribe allowable investment classes. The regulations will be disallowable instruments of the Parliament. The proposed regulations governing investments will only allow investment in debt securities, not equities of listed corporations with a credit rating of A or better. Only a relatively small number of such corporations issue debt securities in Australia. I give the Parliament an undertaking that the Department of Treasury and Finance will report on a quarterly basis which corporations’ debt securities have been invested in during the preceding quarter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can take that as an advance in response to the remarks he made. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also referred to the reporting of expenditure under the Treasurer’s advance. We intend, in response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report, to provide quarterly reporting on amounts drawn against the Treasurer’s advance account. As is stated in the second reading speech - In response to this recommendation, the existing quarterly whole-of-government financial results reports, which are required to be tabled in Parliament within 60 days of the end of the quarter, will include a new appendix listing amounts drawn against the Treasurer’s advance account and transfers of appropriations during the quarter. This will supplement the existing annual reporting framework. Mr T. Buswell: Is the requirement of within 60 days of the end of the quarter something that Parliament determined last year? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Yes, that is a new requirement that came about as a result of legislation we dealt with last year. We will include in those quarterly reports a statement about the amount of draw down from the

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5229

Treasurer’s advance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked questions about the level and detail of the information that will be provided. I have talked to Department of Treasury and Finance officers. Obviously, there will be a trade-off, because the more information that has to be provided, the more work they have to engage in and the more difficult it might be for them to meet the 60-day deadline. Mr T. Buswell: The issue is the line item presentation of the information. If we have issues when we are scrutinising that, we can always chase it up with you through questions in Parliament. My issue with the information is that we debate appropriation bills 3 and 4 some three years after the expenditure. Receiving a paragraph of information at that time makes the scrutiny somewhat more difficult. I am sure that if it reports quarterly, it will be a lot more relevant - in other words, almost real time - and we will have a much better handle on where we are at. Mr E.S. RIPPER: It will not be possible in the 60-day time line to report each line item. That is the issue I have been discussing with officers of the Department of Treasury and Finance. However, they can provide us with the amount that each agency receives through the Treasurer’s advance for the preceding quarter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition can then follow that through with the respective minister. With regard to the annual accountability framework, appropriation bills 3 and 4, we can look to provide a high level of detail in the information we give to Parliament to assist the debate. One of the difficulties is that members want to ask detailed questions about what has happened in a particular agency and, although I am the Treasurer, I am not the minister responsible for each agency. Mr T. Buswell: I have some ideas about that. We might talk about that later, in a quiet moment together! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I am alarmed at the prospect of a quiet moment with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but I am happy to engage in informal discussions with him about these matters as we go through this debate. It is possibly useful that the consideration in detail stage of this debate will not take place until next week, because that will give us some time to reflect on these issues. I also take account of the member for Avon’s disappointment that under the current timetabling he will not be available for the debate on the Auditor General Bill. I am happy to discuss that matter with the Leader of the House. Mr M.W. Trenorden: I would appreciate that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Perhaps the member for Avon and I could do a deal about the amount of time that debate may take. We will discuss that matter privately. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Frankly, I am prepared to do that, as I did on Tuesday with the Betfair legislation, when the Leader of the House and I had a conversation and we made a little agreement, and I had plenty of time to say what I needed to say, and it did not go on forever. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition commented on two other issues that I should deal with. He made some comments about special purpose accounts. However, he also referred to the fact that we have had this debate on a previous occasion. I hope we can each live with the outcome we have achieved from that debate. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also made some interesting comments about the need for resource agreements to focus on outputs. I think by that he means outcomes rather than outputs. The member for Avon also raised the question of outcomes-based performance auditing. I have considerable sympathy with those types of remarks, because, after all, we are not in this place to say we have employed so many additional teachers and so many additional education assistants. We are in this place to advance the education of Western Australian children. We are interested in how well our children are educated; that is, what their skills, knowledge and values amount to at the end of that process. Therefore, the argument can be put that we need to focus on outcomes rather than outputs. Bureaucracies have always struggled to find the mechanisms that produce the best results. I am prepared to engage in debate about how we might achieve a better focus on outcomes. Certainly, as Treasurer, I am interested in agencies pursuing outcomes; that is, I am interested in agencies thinking not only about how much they might be able to extract from Treasury, but also about how efficiently and effectively they might be able to use the resources that are allocated, and to what ends they might be able to put those resources to achieve social, economic and environmental outcomes. This debate reminds me of the argument that we are having with the federal government. About 45 per cent of this state’s funding comes from the federal government. A bit less than half of that funding is in the form of tied grants. The federal bureaucracy places a very unhealthy focus on micromanaging the inputs in joint programs that are funded by tied grants. We have appealed to the federal government to by all means hold the states accountable for the outcomes of those programs, but to move away from the micromanagement of inputs, the matching conditions and the duplicated bureaucratic procedure that these tied grants programs currently produce, and focus on the outcomes. Therefore, the argument the member for Avon was putting to me about how the state government operates is, in a sense, the same as the argument that I have put to the federal government about the way it should approach tied grants. At the moment the federal government is placing a lot of the focus on the inputs. As a consequence, a lot of the bureaucratic duplication that is occurring at the state level is being forced upon us because of the way the federal government is approaching its tied grants programs.

5230 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

I am happy to engage in further informal discussions with other members of Parliament on the detail of this bill. I look forward to the debate during the consideration in detail. I do not want to approach this debate in an adversarial manner. I am happy to cooperate with other members of Parliament to see whether we can secure improvements by working together. I believe this is a good package of legislation. I am not the only one who has reached that conclusion. The Public Accounts Committee has also reached that conclusion, on a bipartisan basis. I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill (Financial Management Bill 2006) read a second time.

FINANCIAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT AND REPEAL BILL 2006 Second Reading Resumed from 29 June. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. AUDITOR GENERAL BILL 2006 Second Reading Resumed from 29 June. MR T. BUSWELL (Vasse - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.27 pm]: Before I commence my comments on this bill, I must say it is a rare honour for me to have the Leader of the House approach me and whisper in my ear something about offering to procure my lunch for me if I will make sure my speech lasts until lunchtime! That was very generous of him, so I will endeavour to do that, of course. The opposition will be supporting the bill, albeit with some serious reservations. We will be supporting the bill because we understand the bill is the result of a long process - perhaps a bit too long - that originated, as did the Financial Management Bill, from the royal commission in 1992 and, of course, the 1995 Commission on Government. We believe, as I am sure the house believes, that the capacity of the Auditor General to hold the government accountable is fundamental to public confidence in the processes of government in Western Australia. Should that capacity to fulfil his role in an independent and properly resourced manner be compromised, public confidence in the government will be dented. We should fight to avoid that at all times. As I said yesterday, we do not need to go back far in the history of Western Australia to find a period when public confidence in government was dented. Even if I were to apply a non-political view of that period, it was a bad period for the governance of this state. It is unacceptable for us as members of Parliament to allow the public’s confidence in the processes of government to be dented and undermined to the extent that the public loses that confidence in the government. One of the great challenges for us, irrespective of whether we sit here in opposition or on the government benches, is to make sure that we do all that we can to ensure that public confidence in the processes of government is always maintained. I will spend a little time working through the opposition’s opinions and perspectives on certain mechanical aspects of the legislation and then conclude my remarks, hopefully before lunch or shortly after lunch, with an examination of some of our concerns. As I said to the Treasurer, our concerns with this bill are, I think, more significant than were the concerns we raised on the Financial Management Bill. When I took this bill to the party room, I said that, although I wanted to support the bill, I would support it reluctantly because I think there are significant shortcomings in the legislation. Mr E.S. Ripper: Nevertheless, the Public Accounts Committee signed off on it in a bipartisan way. Mr T. BUSWELL: Be that as it may. I was about to say that the Public Accounts Committee, in my view, highlighted issues that, when I looked at them, I considered to be substantial issues. I will refer to those issues and the member for Avon and I will follow up on those issues as we move through the consideration in detail stage of this bill. Also, having read the Public Accounts Committee’s report on this bill, I believe it is an excellent report. It gives substantial background on a variety of factors associated with the Auditor General Bill. It flags a number of concerns with the bill. I also acknowledge the Treasurer’s comment that the Public Accounts Committee does not share my concerns nor the concerns of the member for Avon. However, it did allude to the same concerns that I have, but as a result of its considerations, it chose to make the findings it presented in the report. I do not criticise those findings. All I am saying is that I have a slightly different view of the mechanics and the application of the bill in certain areas from the view that was formed by the Public Accounts Committee. First and foremost, Madam Chair - I am sorry, I have lapsed into my old days in the Shire of Busselton, when we were able to rescue the council from financial distress by making some fairly hard -

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5231

Mr E.S. Ripper: By putting up the rates! Mr T. BUSWELL: I will tell the Treasurer a story, because he may actually be interested in it. Within a fairly short time after I was elected shire president, I was called into the office of the newly appointed chief executive officer. He said that he had some good news for me and some bad news. He said that the bad news was that there were some significant underlying financial issues. I said okay. He said that a number of items had been carried forward in the accounts for a number of years that would not be realised and the council would have to have a significant reassessment of the financial affairs of the shire. However, he said that the shire could get out of it by putting up the rates by between 15 and 20 per cent in that year. I said that I did not think that would happen; we would reassess the expenditure priorities of the council. We came up with what I think was a good outcome. The outcome meant that over a couple of years we were able to get back on track in the control of our expenditure growth and managing the rate impost on the community. I should add that that rate impost was, in many cases - as it is in many of these potential sea-change councils - subject to enormous pressure. I apologise for that slight digression. Getting back to the bill, first and foremost it is important to acknowledge that this bill does exactly that which was suggested by the Commission on Government; that is, it formalises the separation of the Office of the Auditor General from the financial management of this state. A fundamentally important outcome of this bill is that the Office of the Auditor General will be identified, at least legislatively, as an independent, stand-alone entity with a range of very important responsibilities. This bill contains a number of provisions that attempt to reinforce the independence of the Auditor General and the Office of the Auditor General and identify and acknowledge the importance of that independence. It contains a number of provisions that add clarity to the independence of the Auditor General. One of the things I am particularly pleased about is that the bill clearly identifies the Auditor General as an officer of the Parliament. The bill also exempts the Office of the Auditor General from some aspects of the Public Sector Management Act, a move which we support. It is difficult to put the Auditor General in a situation of bringing to bear on his department the full effect of the Public Sector Management Act. It would be improper, in my view, for the Auditor General to have to go back and audit that department. I believe that was the rationale behind that decision, and we support that. This bill strengthens in some ways the relationship between the Auditor General and Parliament. As I said, it clearly identifies the Auditor General as an officer of the Parliament. It acknowledges a role for Parliament in the way the Auditor General is appointed - I will talk about that a little later, because we have some concerns about that process. It also gives Parliament, albeit the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasurer, or, through a substantive motion, the Parliament, the capacity to request that the Auditor General consider conducting an audit of a particular matter. Of course, the Auditor General cannot be directed to conduct an audit and nor should he be. However, Parliament can certainly request the Auditor General to conduct an audit. Based on my research, very rarely has the Auditor General not conducted an audit when the Parliament, the Treasurer or the Public Accounts Committee have requested him to do so. The bill provides for wider audit powers for the Auditor General in pursuing public moneys in entities that do not fit into the traditional definition of the public sector. The bill terms these groups “related entities”. The Public Accounts Committee spent some time examining related entities. Concerns were raised by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia. It had a legal opinion that the powers that this bill will give to the Auditor General are perhaps over and above those that had been intended. I think that was the gist of the submission. It asked the Public Accounts Committee to give the matter further consideration. The Public Accounts Committee did give the matter further consideration. If members take the time to read the Auditor General’s evidence to the committee, they will understand that the Auditor General is of an opinion that the powers provided are not enough to encourage him or his office to examine private enterprises that work with government; they only provide the power for the Auditor General to follow a money trail when that money came originally from public funds. In principle we accept that that component of the bill will be used to balance public accountability against the interests of private corporations. However, we acknowledge - I will in due course read this into the public record - some of the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia. I am confident that, when the five-year review of this bill is conducted, that will be one matter that the Public Accounts Committee will consider. This bill also enshrines, and in some ways strengthens, the right that the Auditor General has to access certain information. It basically says that there is an issue of accountability and an issue of public interest that suggest that information cannot be kept from the Auditor General because of cabinet confidentiality, commercial-in- confidence requirements or normal legal professional privilege. It is right and proper that that be the case. As I said earlier, a person does not have to go back too far in the history of Western Australia to find situations in which information was not provided in a timely and proper manner to the Auditor General and his capacity to do his job properly was therefore severely compromised.

5232 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

The opposition endorses other aspects of the bill that effectively improve the accountability of the Office of the Auditor General. I am talking about the inclusion in the bill of natural justice provisions, which basically say to the Auditor General that if he conducts a performance-based evaluation of an agency, he must give that agency the opportunity to respond to his findings. As I understand it, agencies will have up to 14 days to make a response. I believe that such a response will be included in the Auditor General’s report. I think that is fair and proper. The Auditor General will also have a limited tenure of 10 years. I cannot quite recall but I believe that at the moment appointments are open-ended or have a certain age limit. That will be replaced with a limited, 10-year tenure. I think that is fair and proper. It means that in a reasonably timely manner the Auditor General will change. That is a proper process. The bill contains a number of components that strengthen the structure of the Office of the Auditor General. For example, it will allow for the creation of a position of Deputy Auditor General. That will allow the Auditor General to delegate some of his powers. Both these aspects are supported by the opposition. Interestingly, the bill gives the Public Accounts Committee the opportunity to make a recommendation to the Treasurer in considering the Office of the Auditor General’s budget. That is a good step. The opposition will discuss with the Treasurer shortly its views on the financing of the Office of the Auditor General. My view - I know that the member for Avon touched on this earlier - is that although this provision is welcome, it is not enough. We will have a truly independent Auditor General only when the financing of his office is made independent of the executive processes of government and the Office of the Auditor General is not treated like a normal government agency that has to front up and work through the normal processes with Treasury. I understand the need to manage expense controls; I am a great believer in that, as I hope that I can one day convince the Treasurer and my colleagues to be. I see some major shortcomings in the bill’s proposal to deal with the financing of the Office of the Auditor General and the way in which the bill gives the opportunity to the Public Accounts Committee to make a recommendation to the Treasurer. I attended the Institute of Chartered Accountants’ function the other night. I have determined that the Treasurer tampered with my name badge and had me listed as Tony. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the name Tony. When I was there I discussed one of the other major things that this bill does; that is, it outlines the processes and practices of the Office of the Auditor General in line with what we would term contemporary audit practices. It is very important that the auditing and fiscal oversight of the government of Western Australia be done in a way that is contemporary and reflects modern best practice. I support the inclusion of those matters in this bill. I will talk about four issues of concern to the opposition. I view them as serious issues. I will deal with them first in summary and then in detail. The first is the resourcing of the Office of the Auditor General. The second is the process by which the Auditor General is appointed. The third is the manner in which the Auditor General has to deal with information that is deemed to be not in the public interest, or what I loosely call confidential information. The fourth is the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia as they relate to the concept of related entities. Members may notice that this is a somewhat drier and more subdued discussion compared with that on the previous bill. The Treasurer should not take that to mean that we are not as passionate about our desire to have the Office of the Auditor General operate as properly and appropriately as possible. I will touch firstly on the resourcing of the Office of the Auditor General. As I said earlier, it is absolutely critical to maintain confidence and integrity in the office by establishing its financial independence. The Commission on Government stated that any audit opinion issued as a result of a review in which the independence of the auditor is open to question will not engender confidence in its users and will generally lack credibility. The Commission on Government clearly identified the need for the Auditor General to be independent of government, particularly the executive, so that at all times confidence in the outputs of the audit process is maintained. As I indicated earlier, we know that the current budgeting process concerning the Office of the Auditor General means that the Auditor General is treated ostensibly as a normal public sector entity. I am assuming that, not having been in government and seeing firsthand how this works. I would be happy if the Treasurer invited me to participate this year. I assume that the Office of the Auditor General makes its bid, as would normally be the case with other agencies, and the bid is dealt with through the normal processes. Clause 42 of this bill states that the Treasurer must have regard for the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. We are not sure that that goes far enough. I know that the member for Avon mentioned earlier that in estimates hearings this year the Auditor General was asked whether his full bid was resourced by the government. Of course, the answer was that it was not fully resourced by the government. There was a shortfall of $300 000 or $400 000 that was not provided to assist with certain areas. I think it was to do with market adjustments to attract and

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5233 retain staff or some such thing. I cannot remember the details, but we have this example from the not-too-distant past in which the Auditor General made a request for funds but the funds were refused by Treasury. I know that it was made clear at the time in the estimates hearing that if the Auditor General wanted or needed certain money he could make a supplementary bid. There was a technical term for it. In my view, that is not conducive to independence in the operation of the Office of the Auditor General. It certainly does not go far enough. Mr R.C. Kucera: Who audits the Auditor General? Mr T. BUSWELL: Interestingly, the Auditor General is subject to a full and proper independent audit. That is one of the other strengths of the bill. It is a good question. I often ask myself who audits the Auditor General. The Office of the Auditor General is subject to a full and proper audit. In fact, the component of the bill that deals with that shows quite stringent requirements. What should happen to address this issue? Should clause 42 be changed to compel the Treasurer, if that is possible, to act on the advice of the Public Accounts Committee? In other words, rather than the Public Accounts Committee assessing the bid of the Office of the Auditor General and making a recommendation that the Treasurer should have regard to, perhaps the Treasurer should be compelled to accept it? I do not know. I look forward to the Treasurer’s commentary on this in due course. Could it be that the Public Accounts Committee should provide a report to Parliament on the budget of the Auditor General and his budgeting requirements? There is a separate issue that relates to supplementary funding. If at any time the Parliament tells the Auditor General that it wants him to conduct a specific audit for a specific purpose, the Parliament should also be prepared to give the Auditor General funding to do that over and above the funding that is provided to conduct the affairs of the Office of the Auditor General. There are two issues here. One is the relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasurer in terms of the PAC recommending or requiring that the Office of the Auditor General’s budget be resourced to adequate levels. The second is the requirement on the Parliament or the Treasurer or the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that when the Auditor General is asked to look at something, his office be adequately funded to conduct that supplementary audit. The process for the appointment of the Auditor General is an issue that caused me quite significant consternation. My understanding from the bill is that the process for appointment of the Auditor General will involve the Treasurer, as the minister, making the recommendation to the Governor, having consulted with the leaders of the identified political parties, I think the term was. I know that the Public Accounts Committee spent some time examining the definition of political parties, leader of the party or of the opposition, or whatever. However, effectively, the Treasurer is required to consult them. I am always concerned about the requirement to consult when it relates to the appointment of an important public officer or an officer of the Parliament such as the Auditor General. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5244.]

ABC CLASSIC FM’S CHOIR OF THE YEAR COMPETITION Statement by Member for Yokine MR R.C. KUCERA (Yokine) [12.50 pm]: Earlier this month I had the pleasure of attending the WA state finals of the ABC Classic FM’s choir of the year at His Majesty’s Theatre. Especially as an expatriate Welshman, it was a fantastic experience. Broadcast across Australia, the choir of the year competition is Australia’s largest choral competition. Over 7 000 singers from more than 250 choirs came together for auditions in every capital city. In the WA finals, presented by Damien Beaumont, four youth and four adult choirs sang out for the state title before a full house of music lovers. I congratulate the youth choir winner, Schola Cantori, as well as the other finalists: the City of Rockingham Children’s Choir, Exordium from St Stephen’s School, and St Brigid’s College Select Choir. It was wonderful to see so many young people enjoying themselves singing some truly beautiful music. In the adult choir finals, the Western Australian Youth Chorale took out the state title, with other finalists Vocal Evolution, the Real Sing and the Band of Angels Gospel Choir not far behind. The two winning Western Australian choirs have also been chosen by the judges to compete in the national title at Sydney’s City Recital Hall in late September. This already places each group near the pinnacle of choral music in Australia, with only three choirs chosen to compete in each division. In the youth division, Schola Cantori is made up of 15 to 17-year-old students from Perth Modern School. The winners of the adult division were a group of young people from the Western Australian Youth Music Association called the Western Australian Youth Chorale. This choir of 16 to 26-year-olds is co-conducted by Dr Robert Braham and Mr Andrew Bushell. Many students from my electorate, including my lovely niece Yana Buvari, are very excited to be representing our state.

5234 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Our national broadcaster, the ABC, must be praised for its continuing contribution to Australia’s culture and art. I think I speak for all Western Australian music lovers when I congratulate both choirs and wish them all the best. CURTIN PRIMARY SCHOOL’S FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY Statement by Member for South Perth MR J.E. McGRATH (South Perth) [12.52 pm]: On Friday, 4 August, I attended Curtin Primary School’s fiftieth anniversary celebration, which was a combined effort of all the students and staff, both teaching and non- teaching. Each class was allocated a different era and was responsible for dressing up to suit that era and for performing something emblematic of the period. The day’s celebration was highlighted by a performance of traditional Aboriginal dancing led by Mr James Webb, an international performer in the Wadumbah Aboriginal Dance Group. Accompanied by Mr Webb on the didgeridoo and led by Mr Webb’s son and daughter, who are both past students of Curtin Primary School, the school’s Nyoongah students performed the dance in traditional costumes and body paint. The dance symbolically commenced the celebration and was accompanied by Mr Webb performing the welcome to the country, which was responded to by the school’s principal, Mrs Robyn Hollier. The celebration marked an important milestone for a school that has nurtured an enthusiasm for learning and a keen sense of community spirit. Over the years, Curtin Primary School has been largely responsible for the smooth integration of migrant and refugee families who have settled in the Manning and Karawara districts by accepting them into the school and thus the wider community. I congratulate all the students and teachers, both past and present, who took part in the day’s celebration, and also Mrs Hollier and the hardworking parents and citizens group at the Curtin Primary School. HOCKEY ACHIEVEMENTS - ALBANY Statement by Member for Albany MR P.B. WATSON (Albany - Parliamentary Secretary) [12.53 pm]: I inform the house of two recent junior hockey achievements for Albany. Congratulations to Mitchell Pyle who has been selected in the WA under-15 hockey team to play at the national championships in Melbourne on 28 September. He is one of only three country players selected in the team of 16. Mitchell plays as goalkeeper. He is a tall athletic player with a fantastic reach who has a real passion for the sport. He was stoked to make the team and is looking forward to the challenge of playing against tough opponents at the national championships. Darren Howie and Chris Metcalfe, who play A grade with Mitchell for Manypeaks Gold, made it through the three tough selection trials and were unlucky not to be picked in the team. The strength of Albany hockey was again shown when the under-13 girls’ team defeated its nemesis Bunbury 2-1 at the recent state country championships. Coach Shauna Dale said that the performance of the girls exceeded her expectations and the way they worked together as a team enabled them to win the championship. Congratulations to the players Taylor Pomery, Stacci Chisholm, Fleur Mather, sisters Catherine and Megan Slattery, Alexia Drygan, Bronwyn Maher, Bianca Pyle, Issy Burcham, Shaydn Gardner, Tessa Maroni, Shannon Koster and Louisa Hawkins. Congratulations also to the coaches Shauna Dale and Bronte Ellis for their efforts in getting the girls to the final. BATTLE OF LONG TAN - MEMORIAL Statement by Member for Merredin MR B.J. GRYLLS (Merredin - Leader of the National Party) [12.55 pm]: Friday, 18 August 2006 marked the culmination of three years of planning, fundraising and hard physical work, bringing to fruition a dream to commemorate the Battle of Long Tan. Geoff Gamble’s vision was to develop a memorial to this momentous encounter, listed as one of Australia’s greatest victories in Vietnam. In a ferocious battle, 245 enemy soldiers and 18 Australians were killed. Aub Tompkin, a member of the Wheatbelt Vietnam Veterans, who fought at Long Tan along with his good mate Jim Willcox, set about making the memorial a reality. Mrs Ann Sutherland painted the vision and it developed from there. An area in Roy Little Park, next to the Merredin shire offices, was allocated to the reflection pond. Jim, Aub and Geoff, along with a band of some 30 helpers, from local tradespeople to friends who lent a hand or just gave their support to the project, erected a reflection pond with a white cross on raised supports within the pond depicting the Long Tan battle. On Friday, 18 August 2006 the surrounds of the reflection pond were filled with returned servicemen and their families, friends, dignitaries and members of the public who had watched this venture take shape. The returned servicemen marched in formation to take pride of place in front of the pond. A very moving and memorable dedication service was held with the assistance of an RAAF flyover, the Royal Australian Navy band Western Australian detachment, both local and services clergy, and the South Merredin Primary School choir. For those involved in this project at any time, the reflection pond is a wonderful architectural monument to the dedication of our Vietnam veterans and all returned servicemen. It is hoped that those who pass by this pond will take time to sit and reflect on the servicemen and women who fought and laid down their lives in the Battle of Long Tan.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5235

BATTLE OF LONG TAN - COMMEMORATION SERVICE Statement by Member for Kingsley MRS J. HUGHES (Kingsley) [12.57 pm]: Last Friday a service was held at Quinns Rocks to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan and the soldiers who died fighting on 18 August 1966. The service was organised by the Quinns Rocks Returned and Services League sub-branch and attended by members of the Wanneroo and Joondalup RSL sub-branches, the member for Mindarie, friends and family of the RSL and me. The total number attending was between 80 and 100. The Vietnam veterans’ service has become larger every year, with more Vietnam veterans and their families, as well as the wider community, attending to pay their respects. It has taken a long time, but the community is starting to recognise what happened in Vietnam and this is being reflected in the number of people attending the services. I would like to thank the RSL for its continued efforts in educating the community and for its presence in the community to remind us of the courage and sacrifice our soldiers have displayed in all the battles Australia has been involved in. The service was especially poignant for me to acknowledge the soldiers who fought during the Vietnam war as they were never given due acknowledgment when they first came home. I would like the commemoration of the Vietnam veterans to continue, and our children to be taught about the Anzac spirit. I believe it is important to value the contribution our soldiers have made in the history of our nation, regardless of whether or not we support the reasons for war. Though many hold different views on the justification of war and whether as a nation we should even be involved in international conflicts, the sacrifice made by the men and women who are sent to war should never be forgotten. Once again, I thank the RSL clubs in the northern corridor for being such important role models in the community. BRENTWOOD PRIMARY SCHOOL AND LEEMING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Statement by Member for Murdoch MR T.R. SPRIGG (Murdoch) [12.58 pm]: I congratulate two schools in the Murdoch electorate that have recently reached significant milestones. The Brentwood Primary School celebrated its fiftieth anniversary with an open day on 29 July. More than 500 people attended an assembly and visited displays of memorabilia, including items from the fortieth anniversary time capsule. Among the features of the school are its focus on e- learning; the Braille nest, a program supporting vision-impaired children from all over the metropolitan area; and the unit housing 17 special-needs children within mainstream classes. The school has extremely strong links with the community and many ex-students now send their own children there. Sincerest congratulations to Principal Brett Pescod, the staff and students, together with the school community of Brentwood Primary on achieving the half century. On Friday, 28 July Leeming Senior High School celebrated its twenty-first birthday. Head boys and girls from as far back as 1987 attended to plant commemorative trees but, sadly, 12 have been subsequently vandalised. In 1985 the school commenced with 87 students and five teachers, some of whom still teach at the school. It currently houses some 1 200 students and 100 teachers, led by an outstanding principal, Catherine O’Neill. Leeming Senior High School was rated in the top 10 schools in Australia in 2004, and is renowned for producing sporting stars such as Garth Tander in motorsports and 2005 swimmer of the year Lara Carroll, and for its commitment to the theatre arts. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CHILD PROTECTION 525. Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Premier: In 2004-05 there were 96 coroner notifications of child deaths received by the Department for Community Development. Of these, 52 had contact with the DCD. Of those children who were known to DCD, 43 were aged five years or under and 34 were aged just one or under. How many more children have to die or be abused before the Premier will change his government’s approach to the protection of our children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, and I welcome Shenton College students to question time. This issue stems from our discussion of the Wade Scale case. Again, I express great sorrow for what happened in that case. The broader issue is important and needs to be addressed as well. Over a period in government we have put in place a lot of changes to try to address circumstances that prevail in too many family homes around Western Australia and too many circumstances emerge that we would prefer did not emerge. We need to address them as they do emerge. It must be remembered that Wade Scale died in 2003 - three years ago. Since that time there has been a large amount of government effort to try to address the issues. I went through many of them yesterday. There have been changes to procedures. The Child Death Review Committee was established.

5236 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

There has been increased government spending and government effort. I will take this opportunity to outline as many of those initiatives as I can. We established and acted upon the recommendations of the Gordon inquiry, investing $75 million in new resources and staff to protect children in indigenous communities. Since 2003, 51 positions have been created and filled in the area of child protection. They include 25 child protection workers, 14 Aboriginal support workers and 12 Strong Families coordinators. In this year’s state budget, the department received an extra $140 million as part of a funding package over the next four years, the biggest single allocation of additional funding in the history of the department. The funding boost will ensure that an extra 154 permanent staff are employed in the 2006-07 financial year, rising to 200 by 2009-10. We have undertaken a significant overhaul of child protection laws in almost 60 years in this state, with a stronger focus on accountability and transparency and the department’s responses to families in the case of concern for a child’s wellbeing and its responsibilities for children in care. We introduced tough new cyber predator legislation, enabling police to pose as children online to conduct sting operations against paedophiles. We established new laws to provide the indefinite detention of serious sex offenders and convicted child sex offenders on completion of their sentence if there is a risk they will reoffend. We passed new working with children laws, which will require criminal record screening for people working with children in a paid or voluntary capacity over the next five years. We introduced new laws, currently before the Parliament, to establish WA’s first independent children’s commissioner with a broad mandate to advocate and consider all issues covering children and young people. We closed the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp due to ongoing concern regarding child abuse in the community, despite Liberal opposition to that closure. A total of $27.2 million has been allocated for children’s expenditure in 2006-07. We established a Northbridge curfew to get children and teenagers off our streets. We established a process to ensure children and young people abused in care have access to independent legal advice. We independently reviewed the Department for Community Development’s response to children abused in care, the Cant and Murray reports, and established an independent child death review process. The independent Child Death Review Committee commenced child death reviews in January 2005. In its annual report in 2004-05, this independent committee identified the following improvements since August 2003. The new Children and Community Services Act, proclaimed in March 2006, will significantly change the way the department works. In particular, the act has a strong focus on engaging children and families in critical decision making which affects their lives. The act provides clear definitions of what is meant by a child being harmed and/or neglected and when a child is in need of protection and care. Field staff were trained in the act from September 2005 to March 2006. The department has issued a revised assessment safety framework, which encourages accountable decision making by caseworkers. Officers can use the framework to make informed decisions about when a child is in need of protection. Since 12 November 2004, caseworkers have been able to access field worker guidelines online. This tool provides a guide to decision making on complex cases, practical issues and professional standards of work. The department has also revised and strengthened its guidelines for responding to families where there have been multiple contacts and identifiable risk factors for children. The department’s team leaders have received supervision training and the department is establishing a standards monitoring unit, which will be fully operational by 2007. There is no government that has done more in this area in the history of this state. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CHILD PROTECTION 526. Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Premier: I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Premier again: in the interests of protecting our children, will he establish a royal commission to investigate the systemic failings within the Department for Community Development; and if not, why not? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I answered that question yesterday. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Cottesloe and Vasse. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I have provided a fairly comprehensive outline of the changes that have been put in place by this government to address these issues since 2003. WATER ISSUES - COMMONWEALTH SUPPORT 527. Mrs D.J. GUISE to the Premier: Can the Premier please explain to the house how the commonwealth can help Western Australia tackle the ongoing water issues facing this state?

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5237

Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for Wanneroo for the question. Despite some very timely rainfall in recent weeks, Australia is experiencing one of its driest winters ever. Fortunately, the diverse water strategy that the state government embarked upon some time ago has helped avoid the need for total sprinkler bans in the metropolitan area. The Kwinana desalination plant, which is due to come on stream within the next few months, is one of the key projects that will help alleviate water shortages. It has the capacity to deliver 45 gigalitres into our integrated system. We have to continue to look for new and innovative ways of providing water. That is why the Harvey water trading project, of which we are in the process of bidding for commonwealth funding, the Kwinana water reclamation project and the aquifer recharge research are also important. Western Australia is also now part of the National Water Initiative, by which the federal government can provide funds to our major water projects. The Prime Minister recently wrote to me seeking nominations for significant and iconic projects that would be eligible for funding. I responded on Tuesday by nominating the south west Yarragadee aquifer and the Wellington Dam. Work on the development of the south west Yarragadee aquifer is well advanced, with Environmental Protection Authority advice and a government decision expected before the end of this year. In relation to Wellington Dam, a range of options could be explored, including - The SPEAKER: I call the member for Vasse to order for the second time. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: In relation to Wellington Dam, a range of options could be expected, including desalination. The development of this dam could result in sustainable irrigation, a regional industrial water supply and the potential to supply Perth with an additional 50 gigalitres. Work on Wellington Dam is in its early stages but, with federal government help and private sector involvement, it could provide unique benefits to the state and the nation in the areas of conservation and the management of a major water source previously deemed unsuitable for potable use because of salinity problems. I hope these nominations lead to a collaborative approach between the state and the commonwealth on a very important issue for Western Australia. I highlight the contrast between the activity from this government to ensure that our water supplies are sustainable into the future and the complete lack of activity when the previous government was in power.

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - FAMILY REUNIFICATION POLICY 528. Dr G.G. JACOBS to the Premier: I refer to the report of the Legislative Council Select Committee on the Adequacy of Foster Care Assessment Procedures by the Department for Community Development, which was tabled today. The report states that the Department for Community Development is in the process of forming a family reunification policy. (1) Why did the former Minister for Community Development respond to the concerns of the grandmother of Wade Scale about her grandson by stating that the department had been focusing on reunification for some time, when no reunification policy existed? (2) Why is a policy of reunification into a potentially dangerous environment being pursued ahead of the safety of children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I have never heard such a ludicrous proposition. The safety of the child is always paramount. Everybody knows that. It is sad that the opposition has continued to pursue this particular line, despite the disgraceful outcome of its approach earlier in the week. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Hillarys and the member for Cottesloe to order. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Since 2001 the Department for Community Development has been reforming the way in which it responds to vulnerable children in its care. Since 2003 the government has been allocating additional resources to the department to enable it to strengthen the training and support provided to foster carers. A key part has been to ensure that processes for relative carers are consistent with processes for general carers. Rigorous processes have been established to ensure the initial and ongoing screening of both general and relative carers. Training of both general and relative carers is a priority to ensure that newly registered carers are as prepared as possible for their critically important roles and that existing carers are kept up to date on current trends and practice. Additional resources were allocated in the government’s 2006-07 budget to improve the training provided to departmental staff. This was part of the $140 million boost to the department’s funding in the budget. Mr P.D. Omodei: Why don’t you read out another letter?

5238 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Would the Leader of the Opposition have preferred that I did not read out that letter yesterday? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: A departmental standard requires that every child in the chief executive officer’s care should be visited on a quarterly basis and that the visit should be recorded on the department’s data system. As part of its ongoing review of its practices, the department has identified that this standard is not met in every case; however, in most instances the visits may exceed the standard. Additional caseworkers allocated in the 2006-07 budget will enhance the department’s ability to meet the standard in all cases. Mr R.F. Johnson: This has nothing to do with the question. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The member for Roe asked me a question about foster carers. Mr R.F. Johnson: No; he asked a question about reunification. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think you’re giving the wrong answer. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: No, I am not. I make the member for Cottesloe an offer: if he wants to ask the question, he should stand and ask it. He has not asked one question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I prefer to respect the wishes of Mrs Jakins. She made her wishes perfectly clear to me and, I understand, to the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, he has ignored that. I do not intend to. On the issue of foster carers, which the member introduced into the discussion, the select committee has identified some key issues in its report, which was tabled in Parliament today. It is obvious that the government is committed in a way that no previous government has ever been committed to improving the circumstances of both foster carers and the children in their care. The minister responsible for this area of government activity will involve himself in discussions with the chair of the select committee, Hon Robyn McSweeney, to determine what action can be taken to pursue the desirable outcomes expressed in the report. There is absolutely no question that this government is fully committed to resourcing, training and supporting foster carers and the children in their care. It is a key activity of government. In relation to the particular case referred to by the member for Roe, I had a discussion with Mrs Jakins and she made her wishes perfectly clear, and I intend to respect them. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - FAMILY REUNIFICATION POLICY 529. Dr G.G. JACOBS to the Premier: As a supplementary question, does the Department for Community Development have a policy of reunification; and, if it does, is that policy of reunification into a potentially dangerous environment being pursued ahead of the safety of children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I think the question should have been phrased slightly differently. Of course the department has a policy for dealing with children in those sorts of circumstances. The policy is not one of reunification at any cost; the policy is the protection of children.

RESERVE BANK GOVERNOR - RECESSION WARNING 530. Mr M.P. WHITELY to the Treasurer: Is the Treasurer aware that outgoing Reserve Bank governor, Ian Macfarlane, has warned of a recession within seven years? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Bassendean for the question. I am aware that Mr Macfarlane was quoted in today’s press as warning that a recession is likely within the next seven years. I do not agree with that view, but when someone of his status makes a statement such as that, it is a timely reminder that, as a community and as a government, we cannot afford to be complacent. That is why the government resists the efforts of the opposition and vested interest groups to plunder the surplus it is enjoying at the moment at, arguably, the top of the boom. We are not like the opposition; we do not dream up $1.6 billion worth of promises during the parliamentary recess in an effort to boost the sliding profile of its leader. We try to look to not only today’s circumstances, but also tomorrow’s circumstances when we make spending decisions.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5239

Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the members for Dawesville, Murdoch and Vasse to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER: We cannot be complacent about spending; neither can we be complacent about public sector wages. We believe in fair and realistic outcomes for wages for public sector employees. We are not like the opposition; we do not support the full ambit of any public sector claim that is made, as the Leader of the Opposition did with the Western Australian Police Union claim. Mr P.D. Omodei: That’s not true and you know it. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition said that the police should get a pay increase of almost 20 per cent. He should not try to run away from it. We cannot be complacent about tax. That is why there is $3.3 billion worth of tax relief in this financial year and in the forward estimates as the result of four rounds of tax cuts over two years. We cannot be complacent about infrastructure. That is why we have an $18 billion infrastructure program over four years, with the allocation in this financial year of more than $600 million each for water and electricity infrastructure. We cannot be complacent about public sector reform. Once again, I call on the opposition to support our procurement reform program. I call on the opposition to support our shared services program. We cannot be complacent about the need for continued economic reform. Once again, the opposition has a role to play. I call on the opposition also to fully support our liquor reform package. Do not run away from economic reform. Do not say that because the state is doing very well currently we do not need to worry about liquor reform. Mr T. Buswell: What about tax reform? Mr E.S. RIPPER: Tax reform is important too, which is why we have the state tax review, four rounds of tax cuts and $3.3 billion worth of tax relief in the budget and forward estimates. We want to keep the current level of economic growth going for as long as possible and we are working hard across all those areas I have mentioned to keep the growth going. We will not be complacent, and I do not want the opposition to be complacent either. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT - ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 531. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN to the Premier: I refer to the debate on 17 August 2006 on the Gas and Electricity Safety Legislation Amendment Bill during which I mentioned that members could not gain information from Western Power, Verve Energy, Horizon Power or Synergy Pty Ltd without first going through a minister. The Minister for Energy responded - As the member knows, there is a process that we must go through, and there is also the Public Sector Management Act . . . That means that a member must go through the minister’s office, particularly when it relates to operational matters. Given that the National Party is finding it increasingly difficult to get access to even basic information, further delaying response times - (1) Which section of the Public Sector Management Act forbids MPs from accessing agencies? (2) Does the Premier agree that members deserve to be given fundamental information, especially when it pertains to helping constituents, and doing so in a very timely manner? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for the question and for providing some notice of it, which I received at 2.20 pm. (1) I will find out for the member which provisions of the Public Sector Management Act, if any - Several members interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did say “if any”. I have no problem with the member trying to access information. I do not think members could posit anything other than that. (2) Members of Parliament are able to obtain information about matters relating to ministerial portfolio responsibilities in a number of ways. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Dawesville to order. It is unacceptable to continually interject. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I am advised that members of Parliament are able to obtain information about matters relating to ministerial portfolio responsibilities in a number of ways, including asking questions in the house. Ministers and their agencies usually establish appropriate protocols to ensure the timely release of information to other parties, including members of Parliament. This may involve queries being directed through the minister’s office. If the member has a particular problem, I am happy to take it up with him.

5240 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT - ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 532. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN to the Premier: As a supplementary question, will the Premier admit that this is a ministerial practice he has instituted? It may have happened in previous governments, but it is a practice that the Premier has instituted and it is affecting accountability. Will the Premier bring it to a conclusion? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: There were two parts to the member’s question. The answer to the first question is “no” and the answer to the second question is “not applicable”.

RAIL DEVELOPMENT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA 533. Mr J.N. HYDE to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: With eight train stations in my electorate of Perth, I am concerned that the Western Australian Liberals have shown great ignorance of the history of rail development in this state. Will the minister clarify this issue? Minister, I want the facts. Minister, I want the dates. Minister, I seek information on the state’s real rail history. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member, who is a very learned member who knows a lot about history. We are fascinated that the Prime Minister is rampaging around the country demanding that Australians get a better grasp of history and demanding, in particular, that we should know more about dates and facts. It is absolutely important that he should start with the Western Australian Liberals, because we have googled the Western Australian Liberal Party’s web site and found some truly extraordinary dates and facts that amount to a most extraordinary rewrite of history. We are going to educate members on the other side. Many of them are relatively new and are obviously not learned in Liberal Party history. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: Indeed, nor is their pronunciation all that good. Last night the Leader of the Opposition was unable to answer a few basic questions put to him about dates and facts, such as when and where the Liberal Party was formed. Obviously, there is a great information gap. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: You were really busy working in your ministerial office. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: We were, and we can do more than one thing at a time. Very interestingly, I visited the Liberal Party web site and looked at the purported achievements of the second Court government. The web site makes great play of reminding people that Richard Court was the son of Sir Charles Court. We have a hereditary monarchy! The Liberal Party has picked out a list of six of the achievements of the Richard Court government. Surprisingly, the belltower was not one of them. The web site states that the second most important achievement of the Richard Court government was to build a new railway line into the northern suburbs of Perth. I will give members opposite some facts. In 1989, during a Labor government, Premier Dowding announced that the Labor government would build a railway to the northern suburbs. Nine months later he drove the first spike into the ground. In January 1990 the act was assented to and on 20 December 1992 the final track was laid. All that occurred under a Labor government. We know that the Liberals were disgraceful performers, but they do not have to try to grab our achievements. We want facts and dates. The fact is that not one centimetre of rail was laid by the Richard Court government. Its performance was so poor that the Liberal Party has grabbed our history and relabelled it as its own.

COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 534. Ms S.E. WALKER to the Minister for Community Development: The Premier just boasted that the government had introduced the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill in June 2005. The government promised to put in place a commissioner for children by December 2005. (1) Is this minister aware that under this bill the children’s commissioner has limited investigatory powers to protect children? (2) Can the minister confirm that under this bill the commissioner’s powers will be severely limited because the commissioner will be prohibited from investigating individual cases; Department for Community Development staff will be prohibited from answering questions that are subject to confidentiality laws; and any relevant documents can be hidden behind legal privilege? Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Nedlands for the question regarding the children’s commissioner. Members are aware that the bill is currently in the other place. It would be very timely if the member for Nedlands

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5241

spoke to some of her colleagues in that place to ensure that the passage of the children’s commissioner bill was no longer obstructed, as it has been for some time. I highlight to you, Mr Speaker, and to the member for Nedlands some of the comments that have been made in the other place regarding this bill, and elements of it, that must be clarified. Hon Barbara Scott said in the Legislative Council on 22 August 2006 - The bill reduces the power of the commissioner for children to the level of an ordinary person in the community who might ring a department and get no information at all. I want to make sure that this bill, which the government has forwarded to the upper house, is a good bill that contains a very strong model, so that Western Australia will have a commissioner for children and young people. If the upper house gets its act together, we might be able to have that in place. The role of the commissioner, as proposed by the government in this bill, is to be an advocate for the wellbeing of children and young people in Western Australia. The commissioner will have a broad brief to comment to government in reports to the Parliament, as well as publicly, on laws, policies, programs, services and procedures and practices. The commissioner will have the power to initiate and conduct inquiries. The commissioner will be able to comment publicly on any matters the commissioner judges appropriate, such as advocacy, and the commissioner will report to the Parliament. I want to make that very clear, because there is a lot of misconstruction; the commissioner’s reports will be to the Parliament. They will not be subject to any amendment or approval by the relevant minister or the government. The fact of the matter remains that if we are to establish a commissioner for children and young people in this state, it is up to the upper house, and particular opposition members in that place, to ensure the bill’s safe passage. MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY 535. Dr E. CONSTABLE to the Premier: I refer to the definition of ministerial responsibility provided by the Commission on Government that a minister is directly responsible to Parliament for everything that occurs in his or her portfolio and is obliged to resign over any serious maladministration. (1) Does the Premier support the principle of ministerial responsibility? (2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her. FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - FUNDING 536. Mr P.W. ANDREWS to the Minister for the Environment: I refer to the Labor government’s increased funding commitment to fire management. Have there been any benefits from this program? Mr M. McGOWAN replied: I thank the member for Southern River for the question and acknowledge his interest in this subject. The government has, over the past four years, increased expenditure on fire management throughout the state by

5242 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

$24.4 million. This has meant an additional 78 staff being available for these purposes in the south west and on the south coast. This increased expenditure, and certainly the increased effort put into training and the management of these issues, has been recognised internationally, because various governments throughout the United States recently asked the Western Australian government if some of our fire experts could assist it in the management of the wildfires that are occurring in various parts of the United States. A few weeks ago we sent a team of seven people - five from the Department of Environment and Conservation, one from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority and one from the Forest Products Commission - to assist people in the United States with fire management. I have recently received another request. Another seven staff are going to America to assist in the management of some of the fires that are occurring. This is the fourth year running that the Western Australian government has provided this support for the people of the United States. I acknowledge those seven staff. The five from the Department of Environment and Conservation are Mr Roger Armstrong, Mr Vince Hilder, Mr Bob Hagan, Mr Gavin Wornes and Mr Tom Kenneally. I also acknowledge the Fire and Emergency Services Authority staff member Mr Grant Olsen, and the Forest Products Commission staff member, Mr Mark Read. They will be involved in a range of activities in the United States, particularly in supervision and management, to handle those fires, which should give all of us a great deal of comfort about the way in which our staff manage these issues. I wish them all the best and a safe return. I hope that they will be very productive while they are in the United States.

PASQUALE MINNITI - CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION 537. Mr R.F. JOHNSON to the Premier: I refer to Pasquale Minniti, who is currently appearing before the Corruption and Crime Commission on various matters, including allegations of fixing speeding tickets. (1) What assistance did the Premier’s current or former ministers give to arranging a meeting between Labor Party member and panelbeater Mr Pasquale Minniti and the Commissioner of Police? (2) More importantly, is the Premier aware that his former Minister for Police, the member for Ballajura, when he was minister, was captured by a telephone interception of the Corruption and Crime Commission, agreeing to meet Pasquale Minniti to discuss speeding tickets that the minister had incurred? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I am aware that Mr Minniti is appearing before the Corruption and Crime Commission. I am not aware of what evidence has been adduced from him today. I do not intend to make any comment on the matter while it is before the commission. I do not think that is appropriate.

PASQUALE MINNITI - CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION 538. Mr R.F. JOHNSON to the Premier: (1) Is the Premier aware that the telephone interception was recently played at the Corruption and Crime Commission public hearing involving Mr Minniti? (2) Will the Premier report to Parliament before the end of business today? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I have absolutely no knowledge of what has been heard at the Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry today. I refer the member to my previous comment.

EMPLOYMENT FIGURES 539. Mrs J. HUGHES to the Minister for Employment Protection: Will the minister update the house on the state of the employment figures for Western Australia? Mr J.J.M. BOWLER replied: I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. It will come as no surprise to the member that Western Australia continues to lead the way. The unemployment rate in Western Australia is now down to 3.1 per cent, which is a 30-year low. This compares very favourably with the national average of 4.8 per cent. In July 20 100 full-time jobs were created in Western Australia. Western Australia accounts for about 10.8 per cent of the national work force, yet Western Australia created three-quarters of the new full-time jobs in Australia. In fact, if Western Australia were taken out of the equation, the national increase in full-time employment would have been 0.1 per cent. The Prime Minister claims that the success of this and the reason Western Australia has such

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5243 a wonderful unemployment rate is the effect of his wonderful WorkChoices policy, yet it seems to be selective. The WorkChoices system appears to jump across the Nullarbor and Kalgoorlie and land in Western Australia. It does not go to Tasmania. The rate of unemployment in New South Wales is 5.1 per cent, yet WorkChoices comes only to WA and Queensland. If WorkChoices is such a good system, why does it not go to South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales or Victoria? The fact is that Western Australia continues to lead the way. If WorkChoices is so good, why did John Howard establish a task force under Joe Hockey, one of his ministers? A member of that task force is Senator David Johnston, an old mate of mine from Kalgoorlie, who is in WA to sell WorkChoices to the Western Australian industry. The fact of the matter is that WorkChoices is on the nose. The opposition does not want it; employers do not want it; employees do not want it; and family people do not want it. If it were not for the Western Australian economy with 3.1 per cent unemployment, I wonder where Australia would be.

MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES - WA POLICE UNION 540. Mr P.D. OMODEI to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: Earlier today the commissioned officers branch of the Western Australian Police Union passed a vote of no confidence in the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the government as a whole. (1) Will the minister please justify to the people of Western Australia why he should remain as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services when the men and women responsible for protecting families have no faith in his performance? (2) Will the minister concede that his position is now untenable, and will he do the honourable thing and resign? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have never shot my son and I never blamed the police for taking action. Several members interjected. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition, who was rightly charged, said that the police were after him for political purposes. That is his view of the police. The position of opposition members on industrial relations is to attack unions. I respect unions, I support the role they perform, and I accept that they regard me as a target when campaigning for wages. I do not set out to destroy unions; that is the view of members opposite. The question is totally hypocritical. Mr P.D. Omodei: I seek leave to table the motion. The SPEAKER: It can be left on the table of the Parliament for this day’s sitting. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.]

EDUCATION AND HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE Successful Initiatives in Remote Aboriginal Communities - Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling): I advise members that I have received a letter dated 23 August 2006 from the chairman of the Education and Health Standing Committee. The letter reads as follows - Pursuant to Standing Order 287, I advise that the Education and Health Standing Committee has adopted terms of reference for a new inquiry on Wednesday, 23 August 2006, and the inquiry will commence immediately. At its meeting of that date, the committee passed the following resolution - That the Committee examine, report and make recommendations on successful initiatives in remote Aboriginal communities. The committee will pay particular attention to - (a) the costs and benefits of successful initiatives; (b) the model utilised for the development and delivery of successful initiatives; and (c) where possible, comparing and contrasting the models utilised for the development and delivery of successful initiatives.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE Fire and Emergency Services Legislation - Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling): I advise members that I have received a letter dated 23 August 2006 from the Chairman of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, in which the chairman advises that the committee has resolved to extend the reporting date to 19 October 2006 for its inquiry into the fire and emergency services legislation.

5244 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

AUDITOR GENERAL BILL 2006 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR T. BUSWELL (Vasse - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 pm]: It is somewhat of a challenge to continue to debate the Auditor General Bill in the light of such exciting revelations that are sprinkling into the Parliament today. Mr R.F. Johnson: Pouring in! Mr T. BUSWELL: Pouring into the Parliament - heaven forbid! The member for Cottesloe is right: perhaps the Minister for Police and Emergency Services should get on to Mr Minniti and ask him to help fix up his problems with the police force. Mr C.J. Barnett: I got a speeding ticket 12 months ago. What sort of a fool am I? I should have seen Pasquale! Mr T. BUSWELL: I know. If only we had known, the minister could have shared the information with us and we all could have called him and fixed up our speeding problems. Mr F.M. Logan: What speeding problems have you got? Mr T. BUSWELL: I had a speeding fine. I paid it. I could have got out of it but, of course, the Auditor General Bill may make that a little more difficult; I do not know. However, I suppose we will find out. Mr R.F. Johnson: We will not find out from the Premier, my friend. Mr T. BUSWELL: No, we will not. The Premier is in shock. He is going to tuck his tail between his legs and nip off down to the derby, no doubt. I suspect that rather than have people line up at the derby and ask the Premier about why his government chooses to do nothing to address the terrible state of affairs in relation to the protection of children in this state, they might ask him to fix their speeding fines. They might even bring their parking fines down there and say, “You can fix a speeding fine” - Point of Order Mr E.S. RIPPER: I am interested in debate on my legislation, the Auditor General Bill. So far we seem to have covered two unrelated issues. I suggest that the member ought to come back to the subject of debate before the house. Dr G.G. Jacobs interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Roe’s opinion is his opinion and if he wishes to give it, he should stand and give it. It is true that we give some latitude in the second reading debate. However, I am at a loss to understand any connection between the bill before the house and what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying. In the near future the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should direct his comments to the content of the bill. Debate Resumed Mr T. BUSWELL: I thank you for that direction, Mr Speaker, which I will take on board. Of course the Auditor General Bill is about establishing in this state an independent system to ensure probity and confidence in government. That is what it is about. Mr R.F. Johnson: And collecting fines! Mr T. BUSWELL: The Auditor General may want to check that in the powers that the Treasurer has given him in this bill. In fact, I am keen to check the bill now, as I am sure there is something in the bill about the powers of the Auditor General to audit fine collections. I wonder whether there is any power in the bill for the Auditor General to audit meetings that government ministers have with builders from Victoria, such as Mr Grollo. I wonder whether the Auditor General can investigate matters such as that; I hope he can. That is what this bill is about. It is about confidence in government; it is about probity; and it is about never, ever revisiting the dim, dark days that the Burke Labor government drew governments into in this state. That is what this bill is about. It is about the Auditor General’s department, it is about probity and it is about confidence. I am sorry if I strayed a little when I talked about fixing speeding fines, but that may arouse the interest of the Auditor General. I am sorry if I strayed a bit when I talked about ministers meeting with builders such as the Grollo family, which is currently involved in commercial arrangements with the government. I am sorry if I do not necessarily believe the Treasurer’s version of events when he said that he did not talk about specific projects but just about the general state of play in Western Australia. I am sorry if I digressed and drew those issues into a debate on the Auditor General Bill. It is, of course, a bill about probity and about confidence in government in Western Australia. However, I am keen to return to the matters at hand, being the appointment of the Auditor General, which is where I was up to as I outlined the concerns of the opposition’s side of Parliament on this bill. It is

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5245 important that the Auditor General be independent. It is critical that the audit process by which the Auditor General is appointed in this state be seen to be, and always remain, above political interference. It is critical that the appointment of the Auditor General be regarded as the appointment of a non-political person to fulfil a very important probity and governance role. Under the Auditor General’s act, the Auditor General is appointed by the Governor on the advice of the minister in consultation with the leaders of the major political parties. As I explained before the lunch break, consultation is a term of widely varying definition. We are aware of consultation that has occurred in this house when a former, now discredited, Labor Premier crossed to this side of the chamber and put a yellow post-it note in front of the then Leader of the Opposition. Mr M.W. Trenorden: I was here then; it was Barry MacKinnon. Mr T. BUSWELL: Yes, Barry MacKinnon, whose father, Keith, recently married the lovely Una in Dunsborough. It was a wonderful day for the residents of Dunsborough, the MacKinnon family and those members who know Keith. The then Premier put down the yellow post-it note and said, “That’s how we define consultation.” Mr M.W. Trenorden: The Premier, Peter Dowding, said, “You have now been consulted.” Mr T. BUSWELL: There we go, and that comes from a person who witnessed that event. I am keen to understand the process that other people believe the Parliament should employ to appoint an Auditor General. I am interested to compare that with the appointment of the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. The Corruption and Crime Commissioner, as the house has been reminded, is a very important person in the oversight of public probity in Western Australia. That commissioner is appointed by a lengthy bipartisan process that takes out any possible hint of political interference. The Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 sets out the process for the appointment of the commissioner. That process involves a panel of experts choosing and submitting a list of three suitable candidates to the Premier. The Premier chooses someone from that list to recommend to the Governor. However, the Premier’s choice must have bipartisan support and the support of the majority of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. In other words, the appointee to that position, which is a very important role for the Parliament and people of Western Australia, must have the full support of both sides of the Parliament. Indeed, I was interested to read a submission to the Public Accounts Committee by Dr Harry Phillips, Parliamentary Fellow (Education) and Adjunct Professor at Edith Cowan University and Curtin University of Technology. Dr Phillips noted the potential for the Auditor General to become engaged in the political thicket. It is not unlike the thicket of political intrigue that is currently sprouting around the ankles of the government; the thicket of political intrigue that drags the government further and further down in the eyes of the public of Western Australia. In his submission to the Public Accounts Committee, Dr Phillips said the following about the potential for the Auditor General to become engaged in the political thicket - In practice ‘consult’ tends to mean ‘show’ .... and the 10 year Auditor General contract hence will become a Government Appointment. Given the sensitivity of the appointment it is my view that the appointment by the Governor, on the recommendation of the Minister, should be approved and/or endorsed by: • The Public Accounts Committee; and • Leader of the Opposition, and Leader(s) of each group with party status in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Is that going to happen? Mr T. BUSWELL: No. It is a significant issue that there is the very real potential - not, of course, member for Avon, that this government has ever been held to criticism for political appointments; not in my 18 months in this place, of course, have I ever seen that happen! I was looking at the annual report of the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board. Mr Mark Cuomo - Comrade Cuomo - took the state ALP to the edge of financial oblivion. The Treasurer may remember him. He was also rewarded with a position on the Builders Registration Board of Western Australia. In the five or six years that this government has been in office, I am not familiar with a political appointee being appointed to a position! Am I nervous that the government may put a political appointee in the position of Auditor General? Of course I am nervous. In fact, Treasurer, I am not just nervous, I am very nervous. Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should be paranoid. Mr T. BUSWELL: “Paranoid” says the member for Avon. I will not go that far. I have not been here long enough to develop that sort of paranoia. It is my view, and I think the opposition’s view, that this component of the bill is inadequate. This component of the bill has the capacity to make an officer of the Parliament subservient to the views of the minister, in this case the Treasurer. It could certainly mean that people might call into question the nature of the appointment that is

5246 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] made to the Office of Auditor General. This is a significant and serious issue, Treasurer, and I mean that in all sincerity. Mr E.S. Ripper: I am supported in my role by the majority of the Parliament. Mr T. BUSWELL: That is a very interesting bent on it. It is the same argument the Treasurer used to justify the appointment of Sharryn Jackson and her group of political appointees who assist the government’s marginal backbenchers with their re-election with all sorts of wonderful electorate-based paraphernalia. I am sure the Treasurer was supported by the majority of his members in putting her into that position. However, that is not the issue, is it Treasurer? I think the Treasurer knows that. If the Treasurer has a serious look at this aspect of the legislation he will agree that it is fraught with danger. The opposition will look seriously at introducing amendments to this legislation, either in this place or the other place, to address this issue. Dr Harry Phillips makes an excellent point. I think he politely uses the term “political thicket”. I thought when I first read it that it was political thick head, but I have moved past that. That is the first issue. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr T. BUSWELL: So is cranial vacuum on legs, but we will move away from that. Another significant concern that the opposition has is with disclosure of confidential information, and this comes under clause 36 of the bill. What clause 36 and related clauses of the Financial Management Bill say is that a minister of the crown can determine that the release of certain information is not in the public interest. If he does that, the minister has to do two things: he has to make available to the Parliament a notification of that determination and he has to provide a brief reason and let the Auditor General know about it. We assume when the Auditor General conducts the audit of that organisation, that non-disclosure will be made available to the Auditor General. Clause 36 then says that the Auditor General may pass that information on to the Public Accounts Committee and that the Auditor General is not to include that information in a report to be tabled in the Parliament. There are two issues with that. The legislation is silent on what the Public Accounts Committee can do with that information. I am not sure whether the Public Accounts Committee can bring that information to the Parliament. The more significant issue is that it is at the discretion of the Auditor General whether that information will be passed to the Public Accounts Committee. I see some problems with that. Mr E.S. Ripper: If the Auditor General is an officer, he should have that discretion and not be bound. Mr T. BUSWELL: The Treasurer did not let me finish what I was saying. One of the reasons for my concern is that we should look at what happens in other Australian jurisdictions and at the recommendations of the Western Australian Commission on Government report. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Under the new legislation the Auditor General is not independent. Mr T. BUSWELL: That is a point of view that the member for Avon has, and I am afraid it is a point of view that I am close to having. In Victoria, the Auditor General can include information if he deems it relevant and in the public interest. In the commonwealth, the situation is quite similar, although the Auditor General can prepare a variety of reports to the Prime Minister and relevant ministers. In Queensland, the Auditor General must report confidential information to the Public Accounts Committee of that Parliament. The Western Australian Commission on Government recommended - and this is the reason for my concern - that the Auditor General should be required to report - not may report - confidential information to a proposed upper house committee, which then shall be required to determine, in camera, whether the proposed information should be included in a report to be tabled in Parliament. Look at what this government is doing: confidential information is deemed not to be able to be released if it is not in the public interest; the Auditor General must be informed by the minister; the Auditor General may then pass the information to the Public Accounts Committee, or may not; and the Auditor General must not publish that information in a report to the Parliament. Let us have a look at what the Commission on Government said. It is the same process - the Auditor General is informed - but the Auditor General should be required to report this confidential information to a committee of the Parliament. The Commission on Government referred to an upper house committee, but I am unaware of the rationale behind that. However, the Auditor General must report to a committee of the Parliament. The decision of the executive to deem information to be confidential must be reported by the Auditor General. Mr E.S. Ripper: There is a distinction, is there not, between the decision to keep information confidential and the information itself? Mr T. BUSWELL: I am trying to explain to the Treasurer that his bill falls far short of the level of accountability to the Parliament that the Commission on Government recommended. That is the critical issue. Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should know that the Commission on Government wanted to have a singular Public Accounts Committee, as a joint committee of both houses, as in Victoria. That is why it refers to a joint house committee.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5247

Mr T. BUSWELL: Notwithstanding that, which I appreciate, the essential argument is that the Auditor General must report the executive’s decision to a committee of the Parliament. That is what the Commission on Government said - he must do it. That committee shall then be required to determine in camera whether the proposed information should be included in a report to Parliament. There is a clear difference between the standard of parliamentary scrutiny of the decision of the executive in the COG recommendation, and that in this bill. This bill is a significant watering down of the capacity of the Parliament to examine decisions of the executive as they relate to the handling of confidential information, when that confidential information is loosely defined as information that the minister has determined it would not be in the public interest to make public. That is a fact, and it causes me significant concern. I am all for openness and accountability and the capacity of the Parliament to hold the executive accountable. I will conclude with a couple of comments on the response of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia to the Auditor General Bill, and the power it now gives to the Auditor General to extend audit-related activities into related entities. Overall, the CCI considers the reforms embodied in the two bills to be worthwhile and considerable improvements to the current arrangements. I loosely endorse those sentiments. However, with regard to the related entities provisions, in clause 17 of the bill, the CCI document states - This has raised concerns as to whether these powers have been broadened too widely, particularly if the Auditor General is able to audit private sector companies if they are “related” to the functions of a government agency. The document goes on to explain the preliminary legal interpretations, leading it to conclude that use of the related entities powers may give the Auditor General the capacity to audit and examine private companies beyond that to which he should be entitled. The recommendation states - Given the above legal interpretation, CCI is concerned that the Auditor General’s powers may reach beyond what is required for it to undertake its duties. It is unclear why the Auditor General should be afforded the powers to audit “related entities”, if these related entities are private companies that operate independent of government. . . . In the CCI’s view, private companies that operate independent of government should not be within the scope of the Auditor General’s powers under Section 17, and this Section should be amended accordingly. I read that into the public record, and I will raise it during consideration in detail, because I think it is important that the Treasurer have an opportunity to respond formally on the public record to that concern raised by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia. The CCI requested the Public Accounts Committee to further examine that issue, and the committee duly did so. As I indicated earlier during my second reading contribution, the Public Accounts Committee determined that the powers would not be exercised to the extent that the CCI feared. That was largely based on the advice of the then Auditor General, Des Pearson. That, of course, is not to say that if the Auditor General changed the interpretation of how those powers would be used, they would not change accordingly. However, that is the state of play at this stage, and I will be seeking some clarification from the Treasurer. In conclusion, I will say once again that the opposition will support this legislation but does so with substantial reservations. We believe that the matters I have outlined, relating to the funding and resourcing of the Office of the Auditor General, the appointment of the Auditor General and the handling of confidential information, are of significant concern. I know the Treasurer made the point earlier that, in a bipartisan way, the Public Accounts Committee endorsed the bill, but the committee raised significant concerns on each of those issues. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Were those concerns met? Mr T. BUSWELL: The member will have to ask that question of members of the committee. I am of the view that their concerns were not necessarily met completely, because the Public Accounts Committee recommended that a five-year review clause be put into this legislation. I believe that the Public Accounts Committee was rightly somewhat nervous about how certain aspects of this legislation would be interpreted in practice and how certain aspects of this legislation would impact in practice on the workings of the Office of the Auditor General. I will be interested to hear the Treasurer’s responses during consideration in detail, but I have raised those concerns in the sincere best interests of the Parliament and confidence in good governance in this state, and certainly not for reasons of political gain. MR M.W. TRENORDEN (Avon) [3.07 pm]: I will not be able to say within 30 minutes all the things I wish to say on the Auditor General Bill 2006. I have a stack of papers two inches high, and I would love to go through them all, but I will not have time. I will be speaking to a range of key issues in the bill that I consider to be important. The first important thing to say about the bill is that it will take us from the Financial Administration and Audit Act to the Auditor General Bill - it will take us from the 1950s to the 1950s. It will take us from a

5248 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] situation in which the Auditor General, under the current Financial Administration and Audit Act, is open to interference, to a situation in the future in which that interference will continue totally unabated. We need to go through the history of this matter; it is not as though it does not matter. We need to consider the relatively recent history of auditors general. Most members present were not members during the time of the Pyramid crisis in Victoria and the crisis of the South Australian Bank. Both situations directly and heavily involved audit of state institutions. Then, of course, Western Australia had its own set of circumstances that led to the Commission on Government. These are three separate occasions on which audit failed - one each in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. It is unacceptable to be lax about this bill. I will say that gently to the lead speaker for the Liberal Party, the member for Vasse. I ask him to think about that. I also say this gently to the Treasurer. I think the Financial Management Bill 2006 was a good bill, but I do not think the same of the bill now before the house. I do not personally accuse the Treasurer of this, except perhaps in one small area, but this bill is lax and cannot be supported. In recent times, members opposite have referred to circumstances that are quite true. The appointment of the Victorian Auditor-General was terminated by the Premier. The appointment of a federal Auditor-General was terminated by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating. It is not as though we have not had recent interference with Auditors General in this nation. During my early years in Parliament, we had a situation involving the then Acting Auditor General, Neville Smith. He was brand new to the task and excited about his role as Acting Auditor General. He advised cabinet of his program, which immediately cut his budget by $500 000, so he could not carry out his plans. That happened in Western Australia not that long ago. It is absolutely critical that we think seriously about the Auditor General Bill. There are rumours going around this chamber right now. As I walk the corridors of this place and talk to people, I hear that most of the Treasurer’s ministerial colleagues think that the current Auditor General, Des Pearson, exceeds his responsibility. When I was a government backbencher, I know from my conversations with them that most of the ministers in the Court government believed that the Auditor General exceeded his responsibilities. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Out of respect. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Yes. Ministers do not like Auditors General. Chief executive officers do not like Auditors General. But that is not the point. We should not be introducing legislation to this chamber because ministers feel threatened by Auditors General. This bill reeks of that circumstance. There is a reluctance by the Treasurer’s administration to bring in a sound Auditor General Bill. I will spend some time discussing that process. Some people may not believe me when I say that former Premier Brian Burke regularly said that he did not like the Auditor General either. That is the whole point of this argument. If we were to conduct a poll about the Auditor General in this state, he would come out exceedingly well in the eyes of the public because he has been an outstanding Auditor General. The fact that CEOs and ministers do not like what he has done is immaterial. He has been outstanding in the carriage of his duties. Early in his administration, after two very famous faux pas, which he would admit to if he were in the chamber - I am not here to pick on the Auditor General - he changed the process in this state. There was also action in the eastern states that changed the processes over there. No agency in Western Australia gets an adverse audit against it without consultation in advance. Our current Auditor General brought that process into the state. It is fair. I agree with it. I do not believe that any minister should be ambushed in this house by any report from any agency. I do not believe that any agency should be ambushed. Under the current arrangements, any agency that receives an adverse audit has the opportunity to prepare itself to answer it in this house if need be but most of the time it will answer it publicly in the press. No minister should get ambushed in the current process, thanks to the operation of the current Auditor General. Four points that are not negotiable have been met in this bill. The first relates to the Commission on Government, which stated that the Office of the Auditor General should be a statutory body. Is this body a statutory body? No; it is an agency. I will tell members why I believe it is an agency later. Secondly, the COG stated that the Auditor General should have budgetary independence. Is there provision in this bill for budgetary independence for the Auditor General? The answer is no. There is a range of new provisions in the bill but, in the end, the Treasurer has the final say. Thirdly, the COG stated that the appointment of the Auditor General should not be controlled by the executive. Under this bill, is the appointment of the Auditor General controlled by the executive? Absolutely. It has the only say after the consultation that the member for Vasse outlined. Professor Harry Phillips pointed out that individuals, the Public Accounts Committee and leaders of political parties need to be shown the applications. Mr E.S. Ripper: Do you think those people consulted ought to have the right to interview the nominee? Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Yes. I believe it should be done as per the recommendation of the COG, which the Victorian Public Accounts Committee currently does. As outlined in the Commission on Government report, the Public Accounts Committee should look at the total field of nominees. It should whittle them down to a field of

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5249 five and then the Treasurer and his cabinet colleagues can make the decision. That is the Victorian process. That is the recommendation of the COG, which has not been followed. That still gives us the opportunity to appoint the Auditor General. It gives a committee of this house the opportunity to whittle the field down. It would still give the Treasurer what he wants - the opportunity to be the entity that actually picks the Auditor General - but he would be picked out of a field of five. Not only is it done in Victoria but also it is done in the United Kingdom and a range of other countries around the world. There is nothing to say that a group of people cannot vet those applications for the position of Auditor General. Every day in the state specialist panels go through applications to arrive at a short list. The Treasurer might shake his head, but that is what the COG recommended. It is also practised in Victoria. Mr E.S. Ripper: I am certainly not averse to the Public Accounts Committee having a role and I’m listening to some of the comments you’re making, but I don’t think the PAC is the best body to short list and interview applicants. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: In Victoria - Mr E.S. Ripper: I will have a look at the Victorian model, but, on the face of it, I don’t think the PAC is the best body. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Like other bodies, it could bring in experts. It does not have to do it by itself. It will not choose the Auditor General; it will just provide a short list of applicants. Mr E.S. Ripper: Member, I know you do not have much time, but we have an independent Commissioner for Public Sector Standards who runs recruitment processes. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: That does not mean that the Treasurer should pick the Auditor General. That is mentioned in the Commission on Government report. That is one of the processes available. The Treasurer is suggesting that he should choose the Auditor General. That is provided for in this bill. My other concern relates to the review process. The report by the Commission on Government does not contain many pages for government backbench members to read. There are words after words about the requirement of the Auditor General to be independent. Who will review the Office of the Auditor General? The minister will. Of all the people in this chamber, he is the most unlikely person to do it. It takes away all accountability proposals. Not only does the bill say that the minister will put up the parameters for the review, but it also limits the review process of the Public Accounts Committee. That is absolutely outrageous. I do not believe that members of the Liberal Party can support this bill. I do not think this bill is worthy of support in any form. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: Chapter 6 of the Commission on Government report 1 - I have many pages in front of me but I cannot go through them all - states - Indeed, the international standards for government auditing state that: independence from both the legislative and the executive branch of government is essential to the conduct of audit and the credibility of its result. This bill does not achieve that. There are four key issues. It is still an agency - I will talk about that in a minute - it is still appointed by the executive, it is still budgeted by the executive and it is still reviewed by the executive. Outrageous! It is absolutely outrageous that responsible people would bring a bill like this into the house in 2006. I saw the film Kenny last night; Kenny would have said it should be “ship high in transport”, and that is what I think of it. It is very ordinary. The report goes on to say that Auditors General often seem subordinate to the Treasury. In this case, the Treasurer is in fact saying that it is subordinate. I will not dig through all of my papers to quote him, but the Treasurer basically said during estimates that it is a government agency and that the government has the right to cut its budget. That is completely lacking in credibility and accountability. It is absolute nonsense. There is no suggestion from the Commission on Government that the Office of the Auditor General for Western Australia should be an agency so that it can have its budget cut; it is absolute nonsense. The report continues - . . . Funnell (1995, 4-5) concludes that the measures employed to bolster the independence of Auditors General merely provide for a limited or conditional form of independence rather than substantive independence. That is a direct quote from the report. That is what this bill does. I need to skip some quotes because I do not have time to read them. The report continues - . . . it is generally thought that the appointment, salary, and dismissal of the Auditor General should be beyond the sole discretion of the executive . . . Appointment? It should not be beyond the control of the executive; it has absolute control of the new Office of the Auditor General. Salary? Yes, it is independent. Dismissal? Yes, it is independent. Two of the three are

5250 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] covered under the bill. In this case, two out of three is bad - I am not going to quote Meat Loaf! Nevertheless, the provision for appointment is unclear. It is clearly an executive appointment. The report makes clear that appointments and similar processes in New South Wales and in the United Kingdom are clear of the executive. I will jump to some issues that are more relevant; there is a lot that I would like to have quoted. I quote Des Pearson, the Auditor General, who wrote - Parliament should exercise a direct role in the selection of the Auditor General . . . I repeat, Parliament. He continues - . . . [f]ormal involvement of Parliament in the selection process would enhance the independence of the Auditor General - “Would” - he was speaking about the future - and reinforce the relationship between the Auditor General and the Parliament. It is meant to be a relationship between the Auditor General and Parliament, not the Auditor General and the executive, as the new bill would have it. I am jumping over a lot of things I would like to have said, but I further quote from the report - . . . it is not strictly correct to say that the basic principle of the Westminster system requires the government to have ‘control of the public purse’. The government must exercise satisfactory control and high standards of stewardship over funds voted to it by parliament but it is that very parliament which holds the government accountable for its proper use of such funds. The over-riding principle of Westminster is that the government can only fund its expenditure where parliament has provided it with the money to do so. The government requests finance but it is parliament’s prerogative to grant it. As such it can be seen that the proposal to have a parliamentary committee advise the government of the amount of funds to be appropriated to the OAG does not derogate from the Westminster system at all. I have pointed that out to the Public Accounts Committee, which reported the opposite view. I have pointed it out to the Treasurer, and I despair of whoever has drafted the bill. The report continues - This model, which was first initiated in the UK in 1983, has not resulted in any constitutional difficulties. The budget does not have to be controlled by the executive. The statement by this executive and by the Public Accounts Committee is just wrong. Parliament should have the power to decide what the Office of the Auditor General should receive in the carriage of its functions. Who has control under this bill? It is the executive. Why is this bill leaving the Office of the Auditor General as an agency? It is for the simple reason that the government can have standard Treasury control over the Auditor General - QED. There is no reason to leave it as an agency other than to control it. That is what the Treasurer is aiming to do. It is a deliberate act. The Commission on Government recommended that the Office of the Auditor General not be left as an agency. What has the government done? It has left it as an agency. Why has it done so? It is so it can control it through the budget; it has done so in the past. The Labor administration in this state has controlled the Auditor General in the past through the budget; it did so in the last budget. During estimates I asked the Treasurer what vote was put forward by the Auditor General. I will not search for the papers because it will take too much time, but the Treasurer slashed the Auditor General’s bid by $700 000. His reason for doing so was that it is an agency and therefore the government had the right to do it. That was the Treasurer’s response. Mr E.S. Ripper: Public servants asked for four times as much as what could be supplied. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: That is not the point. The point of the Commission on Government was to say that the Office of the Auditor General should not be part of the public service. It should be a statutory body that stands alone. Mr E.S. Ripper: Bodies funded by the state government asked for four times as much as could realistically be appropriated. Bids have to be trimmed. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: What happens in Victoria? The COG said that applications for budget should go to the Public Accounts Committee - which is a government-controlled committee, but for which I have a lot of praise - and then to the Treasurer. That would at least afford parliamentarians the opportunity to have a say on the budget before the Treasurer does. Mr R.F. Johnson: When the government was in opposition, it agreed wholeheartedly, with two or three exceptions, to all of the COG recommendations. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: The Treasurer should know that because he signed them off. I need to push on; I do not have much time. The report continues -

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5251

. . . the argument that the Government would lose control of the budget if a parliamentary committee were to determine the resources to be allocated to the OAG fails to acknowledge that permanent appropriations pursuant to ‘Special Acts’ have existed in Western Australia for a number of years. The Treasurer’s argument does not hold water in any shape or form. As I am running out of time, I jump over some points I wished to make and flick to the four points again. First, the Office of the Auditor General will remain an agency of government, and, therefore, it will be under the control of Treasury and the Treasurer; that is a deliberate act. It is in the bill, even though the Commission on Government clearly outlined that that should not be the case. The Auditor General has not been under the control of the executive in the UK, from where we derive our system, since 1983, but the Western Australian government has ignored that situation. Why? It is because the government wants to control the Auditor General. I refer now to the budget of the Office of the Auditor General for Western Australia. It is a simple process. The government could give the Public Accounts Committee an opportunity to play a role in determining the budget of the Office of the Auditor General, as does New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Victoria. However, the government need only take regard of the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendations. What does that mean? It means absolutely nothing. In effect, the government has put up a Clayton’s argument about the funding of the Office of the Auditor General. The responsibility for the budget for the Office of the Auditor General under the new legislation and for pitching it forward will be in the hands of the executive. The Office of the Auditor General will become a government agency, and the Treasurer will be the last person who has the final say about its budget. More importantly, considering the paranoia of current ministers and chief executive officers, the new Auditor General will be appointed in a few weeks or months’ time. Who will appoint the new Auditor General? The executive. There will be no participation by anyone else. The legislation requires the minister to consult with the leaders of political parties before making a recommendation. Big deal! As I said when the member for Vasse was speaking, I was a member of this house when Peter Dowding showed Barry MacKinnon the name of a new selection and then said, “You have just been consulted.” It was done in less than 30 seconds and it was legal. Under this new legislation it will remain legal. That is absolutely disgusting. That should not be supported by either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. How can tenure be given to the new Auditor General? The government wants to pick a compliant Auditor General who will not rattle the government’s cage as much as the previous one has. Mr E.S. Ripper: I like having a strong Auditor General. It is a good thing. Mr M.W. TRENORDEN: The Treasurer should talk to the people who drafted this bill, because that is not the way it will be. The Treasurer will take his selection of candidates to the executive, the executive will argue about it and no members of this chamber will have one iota of influence on the selection. We will be shown who is being considered for selection. Big deal! The Governor, who is also on the executive, will make the appointment. What role will the Parliament play in that process? The answer is none. The review clause is an absolute classic. It has come from a John Cleese movie. The people who are meant to be reviewed by the Auditor General will conduct the review. Where did that come from? Read the report of the Cole inquiry, Treasurer. Read what happens in Victoria, New South Wales, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Where did this idea come from? It came from a cabinet that is paranoid about the Auditor General. A provision in the bill states there will be no limit to the review by the Treasurer. I quite correctly ask: why should the review have any limits? Why does the bill go into great detail about limiting the role of the Public Accounts Committee in the process? The bill is absolutely silent about what the minister can do. The minister or cabinet might be annoyed about something. No limitation is placed on the way in which the cabinet can pitch the review, but the Public Accounts Committee’s response to the review will be limited. The Public Accounts Committee may have a different view than that of the cabinet. This bill fails on the primary issues. I will talk about other issues of the bill, although I will not have time to go through them in detail. The matter of confidentiality is a difficult issue. I am not totally opposed to it, but I am uncomfortable with it. It runs against all the provisions of accountability that I have heard debated in this house for a number of years. The minister is to decide whether something should be hidden from the public view. It could be a matter of commercial in confidence. California does not have commercial-in-confidence provisions. When the Treasurer was in opposition, he often spoke about commercial-in-confidence arrangements and said they should not be made available to ministers. Under this legislation, the minister can decide whether something should be subject to commercial-in-confidence arrangements. Another provision in the bill that I do not like is the requirement for agencies and ministers to table a report in response to a finding from the Auditor General. I find that amazing. Unfortunately, that is a recommendation in the Cole report. I cannot argue that that measure does not have validity from the point of view of the Commission on Government. However, I cannot see any logic for that position considering that the Office of the Auditor General gives the minister and the CEO a considerable amount of time to put an argument together. The

5252 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] place to have that argument is in the Parliament rather than in the report. The Auditor General’s report should not be scrutinised or politicised to that level. In response to a question asked during the estimates committee this year, the Treasurer said that he should have control over the Office of the Auditor General because it is an agency. That is an extraordinary statement for the Treasurer to make. The Office of the Auditor General should have some freedom. The government will make the Office of the Auditor General an agency that must comply with Treasury and the Treasurer; the Office of the Auditor General will not be given budgetary independence; and the government will appoint the Auditor General and review the office. This is an outstandingly poor bill. MR E.S. RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [3.37 pm]: I trust that the instructing officers from the Office of the Auditor General and Department of Treasury and Finance will not be offended by the member for Avon’s description of the bill as outstandingly poor. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They should be ashamed of themselves. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I acknowledge that the member for Avon has an intense and longstanding interest in matters involving the independence and operations of the Auditor General. He and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have raised issues in two broad areas. Both members have dealt with the appointment of the Auditor General. It is always important to acknowledge the present situation when talking about making improvements. The present situation is governed by section 71 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985, which reads - (1) The Governor shall appoint an appropriately qualified Auditor General. (2) The Public Sector Management Act 1994 does not apply to or in relation to the appointment of the Auditor General and the Auditor General is not, except as provided in section 4 of that Act, subject to the provisions of that Act. In other words, under the existing legal situation, which applies until the passage of any subsequent replacement legislation, the government has the sole right, through its advice to the Governor, to appoint the Auditor General. An improvement to that arrangement has been proposed. There is no doubt that if this bill is carried, there will be a requirement to consult the leaders of other political parties and to consult the Public Accounts Committee. Although there has been fierce argument that the bill should be even better, there is no doubt that from the point of view of the perspectives adopted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Avon, the bill is an improvement on the present circumstance. I say to both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Avon that they should not let the best be the enemy of the good. The bill is good and an advance on the present situation. It is possible that if a long argument over this matter were to delay the passage of this legislation, the government would be forced to fall back on the existing legislation for the appointment of the Auditor General. Nevertheless, I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Avon that I am not rejecting outright the arguments that have been put. When Hansard is available, I and my advisers will examine the arguments that have been put. I am prepared to reflect on those arguments to see if there is any way in which some accommodation can be reached. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Will the Treasurer take an interjection, because he has time, which I did not have? If the Treasurer were to look at that, it would be a fantastic outcome. I am only concerned about the four points. The Treasurer is right in that substantial changes in this bill are very good. However, the four points that I have raised do not entail a lot of change to make them acceptable; they require marginal changes. If the Treasurer would allow me to speak to him about that, I would be very pleased to be part of the process. As I know him well enough, I do not accuse the Treasurer of some of the things of which he has been accused, but I am not convinced by the argument that ministers do not like Auditors General. If there is a process in which I could be involved, I would much appreciate being involved. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can confirm that there is a natural tension between the role of a minister of the Crown and an Auditor General. If one were to conduct a poll of every minister who has served in this state over the past 15 years and ask them about their attitudes towards Auditor General reports, it would not be surprising to hear criticism of some of the reports by all ministers from both sides of politics. That is the nature of the game. The Auditor General is paid to be critical and to raise errors of commission or omission in the performance of agencies in the public sector generally. I fear that because of the member for Avon’s conflicting engagements he may not be present during the consideration in detail of the Auditor General Bill. Mr M.W. Trenorden: I am bitterly disappointed. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I am advised by the Leader of the House that he will schedule other legislation next week before my bill comes on. In the case of the Financial Management Bill package, we will deal with the Financial Management Bill and consequential legislation first and then the Auditor General Bill. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Will you throw the Sunset Hospital Site Bill in there as well? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The Sunset Hospital Site Bill will come on first. It may well be the case that the member for Avon will be back in the house before we finish consideration in detail. In any case, I would be prepared to have

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5253 a discussion with him about some of the points he has raised. For example, I have been in opposition and I know how some governments view the concept of consultation. I was present in the opposition office when a letter arrived from the then Premier in which he said that he proposed to appoint so and so to a position. That receipt of the letter was the consultation required by the legislation. I am interested in giving content to the consultation, which is why I am prepared to have a further discussion. I believe that consultation should have the meaning that a lay person would understand, rather than the receipt of a letter or receipt of advice procedure that has been the way in which some government politicians have interpreted it in the past. Another serious issue that was raised was the question of the Auditor General’s budget. I want to say very clearly that the government does not, has not and will not seek to influence the program of work of the Auditor General by our approach to the Auditor General’s budget. It is worthwhile thinking about comparable organisations. The government determines the budget of the Department of the Attorney General and, by extension therefore, determines the budget of the courts. No-one says that our decision making on effectively the budget of the courts interferes with the independence of the courts. The government determines the budget of the Corruption and Crime Commission. No-one says that because we determine the budget of the Corruption and Crime Commission, we are compromising the independence of that organisation. In short, my argument is that it is possible in our system for the government to determine the budget of organisations that need to be independent without having an impact on the independence of those organisations. Two examples are the courts and the Corruption and Crime Commission. Ms S.E. Walker: It is different. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I hesitate to engage in debate with the member for Nedlands, but why is it different? Ms S.E. Walker: The Auditor General reports on departments under the government’s control, whereas the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Corruption and Crime Commission carry out inquiries into matters that may not touch on you, although they might touch on someone connected to you. It might result in a paranoia on the part of a particular government of the day that the Auditor General - Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Victoria Park is out of his seat. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unless the member for Victoria Park is acting Whip, he is out of his seat. Ms S.E. Walker: No wonder he did not get very far. The Treasurer’s analogy of the Corruption and Crime Commission is wrong. I agree with what the member for Avon says. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Of course, the actions of the Corruption and Crime Commission and the courts could have a profound impact on a government’s political fortunes, depending on the issues that are being discussed. I agree that they may not in all their activities have an impact, as one could possibly argue that the Auditor General in all his activities could have an impact, so I think there is some point there. I do not accept that my analogy is thereby completely defeated. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Clause 7(1) reads - The Auditor General is an independent officer of Parliament. There is the difference. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The concern I have with the budget of the Auditor General is that the government, in particular, the Treasurer, must take responsibility for the raising of taxes to fund the expenditure. The government must take responsibility for meeting financial targets, such as the expense growth target, which is adopted pursuant to legislation passed by this Parliament. Given that the government must accept responsibility for those financial issues, I am extremely reluctant to say that issues that might have a bearing on those things for which the government must accept responsibility should be placed outside the government’s control. Every aspect of financial management has an impact on almost every other aspect. If I and the government must take responsibility for taxes, debt and expense growth, I am reluctant to say that the Auditor General’s budget should be determined by the Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee, when neither has responsibility for taxes, debt or expense growth, and that determination can have an impact on things for which the government is held accountable. I believe that what we have in the bill is an acceptable balance. The Public Accounts Committee can make a recommendation on the budget of the Auditor General and the Treasurer must have regard to it. That would mean that the budgetary bid of the Auditor General is out there in the public arena. Everyone will know whether the government has acceded to the full request. Countervailing pressure will be able to be exercised. Opposition members will be able to stand in this house and say that the Treasurer should have given the Auditor General $1 million more, as that is what he or she asked for. It will then be necessary, if there is that sort of debate, for

5254 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] the Treasurer to outline the reasons for not doing so, so that members of Parliament and the media will be able to make judgments. The Treasurer will need to have a strong case to differ from the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, otherwise the Treasurer and the government will pay a political price. I believe that is an appropriate balance between the overall responsibility of the Treasurer and the government for meeting all the financial management targets and for the need to make sure that budgetary matters are not used to compromise the independence of the Auditor General. I am therefore not keen to reassess that matter, as I believe a good balance has been arrived at. However, I am prepared to look at the question of the appointment process to deal with the assertions of members that, arguably, a situation could be arrived at in practice in which there is no content to the consultation required by the legislation. On the question of the budget of the Auditor General, it is noteworthy that administratively I allowed, in effect, some greater transparency to the Auditor General’s budget by providing supplementary information to the estimates committee on the Auditor General’s bid. I will give members some understanding of how these things work. A typical budget will provide additional expenditure across the forward estimates of between $600 million and $1.2 billion, depending on how aggressively expenditure is growing in that budget. Typically, all the people - I will not use the term “public servants” because it is provocative - who put forward bids to the government seeking additional funding collectively seek $4 billion in additional expenditure over the forward estimates. The position the government faces, therefore, is that four times as much is asked for as can responsibly be allocated. Everyone’s bid is cut because the government simply cannot afford to pay the collective total of what is asked for. When we go about cutting those bids, it is not as though many bad or unworthy proposals are put before us. Most of the proposals put before us have behind them an argument, a rationale, a community need, an economic need, an environmental or social need, some political advantage or some advantage for society. What the government must do therefore is not just knock off the bad proposals; it must knock off the less worthy proposals in favour of the more worthy. We must choose the best as opposed to the merely good proposals that are put before us. That is the context in which we must make decisions. That is why I am resistant to requests to pay whatever an agency asks for in its bid, because everyone’s bid gets cut back or trimmed; it is the only way in which the budget can be responsible and sustainable. However, we never have used and never will use that process to affect the work program of the Auditor General or to punish or reward the Auditor General for any course of action that he has adopted or will adopt. Mr M.W. Trenorden: I have two points to make. The first is that I agree with what you have said you have done. I think all 57 members of this chamber agree that you cannot give everything to everyone. However, it is a different thing for members to know that $100 000 has been trimmed off the budget and to have that decision made behind closed doors and not know about it. Did we give the Treasurer a hiding on that? No. I issued a press release to let the world know that it had occurred, but that did not cost the Treasurer any skin. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That is why the legislation provides for that Public Accounts Committee rule. I assume the Public Accounts Committee will issue a public report on what it believes the Auditor General’s budget should be. I will therefore be in receipt of publicly available advice from someone outside the process on what the Auditor General’s budget should be. If I do not agree with that recommendation, I will certainly have to provide a public defence of the government’s actions. I believe we have a good package. I believe it is a package that advances the independence of the Auditor General. I believe it is a package that provides for modern, rigorous, contemporary audit practices by the Auditor General. It is certainly a package that has been signed off in a bipartisan fashion by the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that the bill should be supported. Nevertheless, some criticisms of the bill have been made by a couple of speakers during the debate. I am prepared to examine those arguments in more detail to see whether we can finetune the package. Mr M.W. Trenorden: Before you sit down, I just add one point. I would have voted against the bill right now, but I am making an assumption about the sort of agreement that is going to come, so I will not. I am assuming that I will have a role in the committee process, but the Treasurer and I both know that that may not happen. I am therefore making the decision on a judgment, because I feel that I should be voting against and dividing on this bill right now. Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Avon is taking a certain risk, as I cannot guarantee absolutely that the consideration in detail stage will go over into the week after next. Nevertheless, I am prepared to have a discussion with the member - it had probably better be this afternoon - to get some more detail about his particular arguments. On that basis, I commend the bill to the house and I ask members on all sides to work together so that we can get the best bill possible, taking into account all the different perspectives that must be accommodated. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5255

SUNSET HOSPITAL SITE BILL 2006 Consideration in Detail Clause 1 put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement - Ms S.E. WALKER: Clause 2(2) provides that section 46 of the Land Administration Act, immediately upon receiving assent, will allow clause 12(1) to become effective. Clause 12(1) refers to class A reserve No 1667, which is the Sunset site, and the management of the site. Before anything else happens, as I understand it, as soon as this legislation receives royal assent, the University of Western Australia, under the University of Western Australia Act, will take control of 22 acres of the Sunset site. Is that correct, minister? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: This can happen only upon my request. I draw the member’s attention to clause 12(1)(b) to which I referred in my response to the second reading debate; it reads - (1) The Minister for Lands must, on being requested by the Minister for Works to do so, by order under the Land Administration Act 1997 section 46 - . . . (b) . . . confer on the University of Western Australia power to grant a lease - That is over the Sunset site. The member needs to read that in conjunction with clause 12(1). Ms S.E. WALKER: I understand that. I saw the minister’s adviser nodding when I asked the question. As soon as legislation is assented to, the University of Western Australia Act will kick in and it will take control, provided that it gets the minister’s direction. Otherwise, the bill will not go anywhere. Mrs M.H. Roberts: They take control, if I request it. Ms S.E. WALKER: What happens if the minister does not request it? Mrs M.H. Roberts: It does not happen until such time as the minister does. Ms S.E. WALKER: The minister will request that, will she not? Is the minister saying that she will not do that? Mrs M.H. Roberts: A management order will have to be granted. No, I am not saying that I will not be granting that. The intention is to grant it. The member has put it in a way that suggests it will suddenly happen the moment that the bill is assented to and UWA will have total control straightaway. I am saying that is not the order of the process. Ms S.E. WALKER: What is the order of process under clause 12(2)? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The commencement of the process is for the University of Western Australia to pay the $2.5 million that has been referred to, and following that the minister will put in place the management order. Ms S.E. WALKER: Where in the bill does it say that the UWA will pay $2.5 million? Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is in the memorandum of understanding. Ms S.E. WALKER: There is nothing in the bill about the $2.5 million. There is no obligation. Mrs M.H. Roberts: It will not get the management order unless that condition in the memorandum is met. Ms S.E. WALKER: Why is that not in the bill? Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is not appropriate for it to be in the bill. Ms S.E. WALKER: Why not? Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is not necessary. Ms S.E. WALKER: It is paying $2.5 million for a property worth $200 million, and it is not considered appropriate to include it in the bill? Mrs M.H. Roberts: That is right. Ms S.E. WALKER: What happens if it does not pay? How do we know it will pay? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Obviously if the money is not paid the management order will not be given and none of the provisions that would flow on from that will proceed. Without that payment, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, the management order will not be given and the other matters that are outlined in the bill will not flow from there. Ms S.E. WALKER: Where does it refer to the memorandum of understanding in the bill?

5256 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Mrs M.H. Roberts: There is no reference to it. Ms S.E. WALKER: No reference to it at all? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: That is right. Ms S.E. WALKER: We are voting on a bill and the bill says that particular clauses come into operation immediately after the order under the Land Administration Act section 46, pursuant to a request of the minister, who is sitting at the table, under clause 12(1) becomes effective. The minister somehow seems offended that I asked the question. Mrs M.H. Roberts: I am not offended. You can ask what you like. Ms S.E. WALKER: That is the minister’s demeanour and I can only go by that. Clause 12(1) will come into operation when the bill is assented to. Mrs M.H. Roberts: If I was offended, you would be able to work it out. Ms S.E. WALKER: I do not want to get offside with the minister. We have had our stoushes in the past and I have won. Several members interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: I ask the minister not to allow herself to become bitter. The land is worth $200 million and as soon as we vote for this bill, the minister will give an order that will provide for the University of WA Act to kick in and the UWA will have complete control over the management of the land. The minister is telling me it is wrong, and I am trying to be a smart alec. The minister is saying, “You are wrong, member. Can’t you work it out yourself? They have to pay $2.5 million first.” How can I work that out when the $2.5 million is not mentioned in the bill? Why is it not in the bill for the public of Western Australia to see? Why is not that process outlined in the bill? Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: The member for Victoria Park is not a minister yet. He should pipe down. He could be a minister - we have knocked a few off. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): The member on her feet is asking questions of the minister; we do not need other members to interject. Mr T. Buswell: He will not have too many to leapfrog over. The member for Victoria Park will be there shortly - we are working on it. Several members interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: This is a serious topic. My point is that in the lead-up to this very strange bill we have heard all sorts of figures. Where is mention of the $15 million? I cannot see that mentioned in the bill. We are being asked to vote on this bill. It is a shocking piece of work. We are being asked to give control of this site to the University of WA, and we hear that it will not happen until UWA pay $2.5 million, but we do not know how that process will work. That was the point of my question. Will the minister tell me that as soon as the order is given and clause 12(1) becomes effective, the land will vest in the University of WA? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The purpose of this legislation is to change the nature of the various land tenures. Other commercial arrangements will take place when the bill is passed. It is not necessary to have those matters in legislation. The memorandum of understanding has been made publicly available. I sent a copy of the document to the member and other members upon their request. The member is attempting to dictate what is a good land deal, what is not a good land deal and how much the government should get for a site. The government makes decisions on a weekly if not a daily basis about buying and selling land. As Minister for Housing and Works, I am very much aware of that. Those are commercial arrangements; they are not matters that are legislated for. The member may have a view as to the dollar value of that land. Interestingly, under the proposal she put forward in her private member’s bill, one might even argue that, in terms of dollars, the land would have a negative rather than a positive value because very little income would be able to be derived from it. The member is attempting to confuse commercial arrangements with land tenure issues and that is inappropriate. It would also be inappropriate to conduct commercial negotiations on a piece of land through legislation. That is not appropriate, and it would be, if anything, unusual to say the least to put those kinds of things into legislation. What is happening here is that the state will once again be gaining access to a fabulous heritage asset. As I have advised previously, the heritage buildings would require a considerable amount of money to effect repairs. It is nonsense to suggest that they could just have a minimal amount of money spent on them to bring them up to standard. Significant buildings like these must not only be brought up to standard but also put to an appropriate use. The use planned for the buildings here is nothing short of sensational, and I expect that the University of

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5257

Western Australia will do an excellent job of refurbishing and maintaining those buildings, providing the exhibition space, allowing public access and preserving an asset for the whole community of Western Australia. Ms S.E. WALKER: I am concerned that this bill will never go ahead, because I am wondering where in the University of Western Australia Act the university senate gets the permission to pay the $2.5 million to the government. I frankly cannot see it. This whole deal is that we own an asset worth $200 million that we are allegedly giving away for $2.5 million to a private body corporate so that it can raise a mortgage to get the money to pay for the buildings. Are we nuts? That is why the opposition is not voting for this bill. In the electorate of the member for Perth, the government has just spent about $15 million on the East Perth power station, yet it is neglecting this heritage-listed site that it is giving away, purportedly, for $2.5 million so that somebody else can use the asset and raise funds on it. It has been owned by the people of Western Australia since 1830. That is what is happening here. We do not even know whether the money will come from the University of Western Australia. It could come from an aged care provider for all we know. We do not know, because it is not in the legislation. Mr R.F. Johnson: How old is the power station? Ms S.E. WALKER: I do not know, but I asked the member for Perth today, and he is pretty cagey. The point is that millions have been spent on keeping that site and mistakes have been made. I am concerned that when this land is vested in the University of Western Australia, under its act, which comes into effect immediately, the university is able to sell that land. That is the worry with the way the government has concocted and set up this bill. Perhaps the minister can tell us, in relation to clause 2(2), when the order will be given, presuming the $2.5 million is paid. Is there something in the commercial deal she has made outside the bill? How long will it be before the university takes control? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I make this point about the memorandum of understanding. The member for Nedlands has attempted to suggest that the university may not eventually part with the $2.5 million, and she asked how that would be approved, and so forth. The memorandum of understanding was signed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia. It was also approved by the university senate. In any event, if the University of Western Australia does not stand by the memorandum of understanding, the whole arrangement will not go ahead. The other thing that the member for Nedlands said in her comments is that the University of Western Australia could sell the site. That is simply not true. UWA could not sell the site, which remains an A- class reserve. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Clause 2(2) reads - Sections 4, 8, 11, 14 and 15(1) and Parts 4 and 5 come into operation immediately after the order under the Land Administration Act 1997 section 46 . . . Section 46 of the Land Administration Act is headed “Placing of care, control and management of reserves”. Obviously the minister, in dealing with this bill, is wearing her hat as Minister for Housing and Works. I have great difficulty with this, because of the other hat she wears, which is Minister for Heritage. The Department of Land Information, in the glossary on its web site, states - CLASS “A” reserves forever remain dedicated to the purpose declared . . . Class “A” is used where there is a need perceived for the highest form of protection, for example “Kings Park”, or national parks. How does this fit with what the minister is planning to do with the Sunset site? How does this give protection to this heritage listed area? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The point I would make with respect to clause 2(2) is that the member read out the first three lines, but did not read out the final line, which reads - . . . pursuant to a request of the Minister under section 12(1) becomes effective. That must occur first. The member also has a view about heritage issues. I addressed those matters in my second reading response when she was not in the chamber, and I do not intend repeating them, given that they have nothing to do with this clause. Ms S.E. WALKER: In relation to clause 2(2), the minister commented that the government will receive the $2.5 million because the minister and the university have signed the memorandum of understanding and of course she expects that to be legally binding. She also expect us to believe that it will be legally binding. The minister obviously has not read the memorandum of understanding because it states that it is not legally binding; it is in the last paragraph just above the minister’s signature. It states that both the minister and the university agree that, other than clause 13, which refers to the $2.5 million for the aged care site, the memorandum of understanding does not create any legal rights and obligations between the parties. It means nothing. Obviously, the minister will keep her word, because in the Nedlands by-election, I had one of the liberals for forests

5258 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] candidates, Dr Robin Collins, standing against me. He has been a strong advocate. There was an article in my local Post newspaper at that time. I will read what he had to say. How betrayed must he feel? Point of Order Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It seems to me that the matter the member is raising is not relevant to clause 2(2). Ms S.E. Walker: You do not want to hear it do you? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member should understand that consideration in detail is not a free-ranging debate. The bill must be debated clause by clause. Her questions or comments should be relevant to the clause under discussion. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): I remind the member for Nedlands that when we are going through each clause in consideration in detail, she needs to stick to what is relevant within the clause. If she wishes to speak to something that is coming up in a later clause, that is the appropriate time to raise it. For the moment we are on clause 2. I ask that she stick to clause 2. Debate Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER: Clause 2 refers to several sections of the bill, one of which relates to development. Dr Robin Collins said that the Labor Party had saved the Sunset site and would not develop the site. He must feel terribly betrayed by the minister. What a bunch of hypocrites! The minister is not only giving over the control of management and probably ultimately the whole subdivision of the site, but she is also specifically giving over the subdivision of the site. When we come to that provision of the bill, she will be able to do anything she likes when it is zoned urban. I have made my point. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Clause 2, the commencement clause, concerns development. It is about the development of a site which on 2 September 1997 was a permanent entry on the Register of Heritage Places. The minister is not only the Minister for Housing and Works but also the Minister for Heritage. I will remind the minister of her other responsibilities. The Heritage Act provides for and encourages the conservation of places that have significance to the cultural heritage in the state, to establish the Heritage Council and for related purposes. How will this bill conserve a site in the state? It will give commencement to something that allows development. It is basically like privatisation. We wonder what the government wanted to do with Wireless Hill Park when it wanted to excise part of it. The government is not protecting our parks and heritage sites for the future; it is giving precious land away to make a quick buck. The minister has a conflict of interest. She is meant to be protecting heritage. She should not have this portfolio. She should not be putting this on the table. I do not know how the government can say that this minister has any accountability. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member, I ask you to come back to clause 2, please. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I ask the minister how she can sit in this chamber with this conflict of interest and sell off community assets, which is basically privatisation. How can she do this when this government said in 2001 that it would not sell off community assets? This is the commencement of a sell-off of community assets. If this legislation goes through, what will it sell off next? Maybe it will sell off Solidarity Park. First it was Wireless Hill Park and now it is the Sunset Hospital site. We do not see Solidarity Park on the agenda. I am sure that would fetch a nice sum of money. The minister has a complete conflict of interest and she is not fulfilling the role that she is meant to fulfil. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Perhaps the member is not aware that there is a requirement for a heritage agreement between the University of Western Australia and the Heritage Council of WA. That is a condition of the management order for care and control of the management of the A-class reserve. I say to the member for Alfred Cove that much has already been said about the facility being located on the eastern part of the site, which is the parks and recreation metropolitan region scheme. That part of the site currently includes two buildings - a two-storey building and a Catholic church. It also includes a car park. In 1921 this part of the site was included in the hospital grounds but was incorrectly reserved in the 1963 metropolitan region scheme. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The minister has just said that this development has gone to the Heritage Council. I am sticking to this clause; it relates to the commencement of the sale of a community asset and development of buildings. Although the protection of those buildings has been looked at by the Heritage Council, heritage is not just about bricks and mortar. Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 relate to class A reserve 1667. This bill is about commencement of the sale of land and development on class A reserve 1667. The permanent entry on the Register of Heritage Places is Swan location 9547, being crown reserve 1667. The minister said that this application has gone to the Heritage Council. I have said in the past that the Heritage Council should have been disbanded a long time ago because of the abuse that it has allowed to happen. Since the government was elected, there has been a continual abuse of the Heritage Act. There was abuse of the Heathcote site with the sale of Duncraig House.

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5259

Point of Order Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We are hearing a very general argument about heritage, a debate that I would love to have with the member on some other occasion. I may then choose to respond on a whole range of heritage matters. However, that is not contained within this clause. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Further to the point of order, I can understand that the minister might express some frustration but this is the early stage of consideration in detail. Sunset Hospital is a heritage-listed site. It is impossible to avoid the issue of heritage when discussing all aspects of Sunset. The ACTING SPEAKER: I have mentioned to the member for Alfred Cove a few times that she needs to keep her comments strictly to clause 2. She is starting to waiver quite widely. I ask her to narrow her comments to clause 2, the commencement of the bill, not heritage or development. Debate Resumed Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Clause 2 relates to the commencement for the purpose of sale a certain section of land. A 99-year lease will be given to the University of Western Australia. One of our crown assets is being sold off. That crown asset is on the permanent entry Register of Heritage places as Swan location 9547, crown reserve 1667. That is what this bill is about. Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 relate to class A reserve 1667, which is where the development of this site is occurring. This minister cannot say that this clause is not about heritage because this is a heritage site. The ACTING SPEAKER: Class A reserve 1667 is part of clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12. The member for Alfred Cove can refer to that when we get to those clauses. Right now I want her to come back to clause 2, commencement of the bill. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I ask the minister how she can sit in this chamber as the Minister for Heritage and allow this bill to come to the table with clause 2, which relates to the commencement of the development of a heritage-listed site, something that is very precious to the metropolitan community of WA and WA in general. If this goes through, everyone will want to know which patch will be next. The government has always been eying off my electorate and has tried to sell Wireless Hill Park. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Sorry, Mr Acting Speaker; I was going off the track again. This is about the commencement of the development. This minister is the Minister for Heritage. Where is the accountability in this government? The minister has been given the portfolios of heritage and housing and works. Someone from the government should be arguing against this proposal. The person who should be arguing against this is the minister sitting at the table, but she has two conflicting portfolios. Where is the Premier’s accountability on this? He is allowing a site that is part of a class-A reserve to be sold. It is a crown asset. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Order, the member has gone way off the point again. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mrs M.H. Roberts (Minister for Housing and Works). PREMIER Personal Explanation - Corruption and Crime Commission Hearing MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee - Premier) [4.31 pm]: I rise to give a personal explanation to the house. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether this is a personal statement under standing orders, which has strict criteria, or whether it is a ministerial statement, which is a general statement of policy. It is important that it be clarified. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that this is a personal explanation. I would like guidance from the Premier. Is it about a matter that was before the house earlier? Is that the context in which the Premier is making the statement? Does the Premier wish to correct the record of a matter raised in the house earlier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I wish to clarify the issue, and I understand that it is a personal statement. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does it regard clarifying a misimpression that was given earlier? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is a matter of clarification. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will allow it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: In my view, it is a form of ministerial statement, which would immediately give the opposition the right to respond. If it is a personal explanation about something personal to the Premier, he is entitled to make a personal explanation under the standing orders. However, he is not entitled to branch wider into policy issues or issues affecting other members of Parliament.

5260 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is clear under standing order 148 that a personal explanation may be made to correct any misimpression that is given. No new matter may be raised and the member must confine himself to the matter of the explanation. If it is within those confines, it is allowable. If not, there are other standing orders that cover the matter. I will proceed on that basis. Debate Resumed Mr A.J. CARPENTER: During question time I was asked to respond to evidence that had been heard in the Corruption and Crime Commission this afternoon. I have now had a chance to acquaint myself with some of that evidence. I have complete confidence in the CCC, and it is important for me to not say anything that will in any way interfere with the proper conduct of its inquiry, which is ongoing. However, I would like to make one thing very clear: I will not tolerate any misconduct by any member of my government. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta - Leader of the House) [4.33 pm]: I move - That the house do now adjourn. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: I would like to speak on the motion that the house do now adjourn. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can advise whether it is possible to debate the motion that the house do now adjourn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a procedural motion and is not open to debate under standing orders. Therefore, I will put the question that the house do now adjourn. Motion Resumed Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (24)

Mr P.W. Andrews Mr R.C. Kucera Mr A.D. McRae Mr T.G. Stephens Mr A.J. Carpenter Mr F.M. Logan Mr N.R. Marlborough Mr D.A. Templeman Mr J.B. D’Orazio Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr P.B. Watson Dr J.M. Edwards Mr J.A. McGinty Ms J.A. Radisich Mr M.P. Whitely Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M. McGowan Mr E.S. Ripper Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr J.C. Kobelke Ms S.M. McHale Mrs M.H. Roberts Mrs J. Hughes (Teller) Noes (19)

Mr C.J. Barnett Mr B.J. Grylls Mr J.E. McGrath Mr T.K. Waldron Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan Dr K.D. Hames Mr P.D. Omodei Ms S.E. Walker Mr T.R. Buswell Ms K. Hodson-Thomas Mr A.J. Simpson Dr J.M. Woollard Mr G.M. Castrilli Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr G. Snook Mr T.R. Sprigg (Teller) Dr E. Constable Mr R.F. Johnson Mr M.W. Trenorden

Pairs

Mr M.P. Murray Mr M.J. Cowper Mrs C.A. Martin Dr S.C. Thomas Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr M.J. Birney Mr S.R. Hill Mr G.A. Woodhams Question thus passed. House adjourned at 4.38 pm ______

[ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006] 5261

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

MAGISTRATES - APPOINTMENTS, EXPERIENCE, SELECTION PROCESS 1269. Mr M.J. Birney to the Attorney General (1) Will the Attorney General advise the names of all Magistrates that have been appointed (and date of appointment) since Labor came to power? (2) Will the Attorney General advise which of the above mentioned Magistrates formally worked in the area of Legal Aid or Aboriginal Legal Service? (3) Will the Attorney General advise which of the Magistrates appointed by the Labor Government were not recommended by the selection panel; and (a) if any of the above mentioned Magistrates were not recommended by the selection panel then who was recommended in each case? (4) Will the Attorney General advise the make up of the selection panel and the process that is used for the appointment of a Magistrate? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1) The names of the Magistrates and the dates of their appointments are as follows: HOGAN Pamela Margaret 18 June 2001 SHARRATT Stephen Paul 2 October 2001 RICHARDSON Susan Peta 7 October 2001 TEMBY Denis Ronald Vincent 11 June 2003 EDWARDS Vivien Christine 7 July 2003 STEWART Vicki Laura 18 August 2003 LAWRENCE Geoffrey Dudley 30 April 2004 AUTY Kathryn 26 July 2004 CAMPIONE Elaine Duncan 30 May 2005 JONES Leighton 1 August 2005 HAMILTON Elizabeth 1 August 2005 PONTIFEX Michelle Ethe 1 August 2005 BAYLY Richard George Wykeham 28 November 2005 CRAWFORD Catherine Patricia 1 July 2006 POTTER Deen Graeme 17 July 2006 FLYNN Martin Michael 4 September 2006 LANGDON Elizabeth Kathryn 11 September 2006 (2) The following Magistrates were working for either Legal Aid or the Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) at the time of their appointments: Magistrate Sharratt ALS Magistrate Temby ALS Magistrate Jones Legal Aid Magistrate Hamilton Legal Aid Magistrate Potter Legal Aid Magistrate Langdon Legal Aid Magistrate Bayly was a Commissioner of the Legal Aid Commission at the time he was appointed. As for the other appointees, a number of them had worked in the area of Legal Aid or for the Aboriginal Legal Service at some stage earlier in their careers. (3) None. (4) Magistrates Selection Panel Magistrates Hogan, Solicitor General, Mr Robert Meadows QC (Chair), Richardson and Sharratt Judge Kate O'Brien, District Court, Chief Magistrate Seven Heath and Mr Gary Thomson, Executive Director Court Services Magistrates Temby, Solicitor General, Mr Robert Meadows QC (Chair), Edwards and Stewart Judge Kate O'Brien, District Court, Deputy Chief Magistrate Elizabeth Woods and Mr Gary Thomson, Executive Director Court Services

5262 [ASSEMBLY - Thursday, 24 August 2006]

Magistrates Lawrence, Solicitor General, Mr Robert Meadows QC (Chair), Auty and Campione Judge Kate O'Brien, District Court, Chief Magistrate Steven Heath and Mr Ray Warnes, Executive Director Court Services Magistrates Jones, Hamilton, Solicitor General, Mr Robert Meadows QC (Chair), Pontifex, Bayly and Crawford Judge Kate O'Brien, District Court, Chief Magistrate Steven Heath and Mr John Klarich, Director, Magistrates Court and Tribunals Magistrate Potter Solicitor General, Mr Robert Meadows QC (Chair), Judge Denis Reynolds, President, Children's Court, Judge Jane Crisford SC, District Court and Mr John Klarich, Executive Manager, Country Courts Magistrates Flynn and Langdon Solicitor General, Mr Robert Meadows QC (Chair), Judge Jane Crisford SC, District Court, Chief Magistrate Steven Heath and Mr John Klarich, Executive Manager, Magistrates Court and Tribunals In outline, the procedure adopted is as follows: • The positions are advertised. • Applications are received by the Attorney General. • Once applications have closed, the applications are referred to the selection panel. • The selection panel assesses each applicant's suitability for appointment against the designated selection criteria and short-lists a number of candidates for interview. • The short listed candidates are interviewed by the selection panel, who proceed to identify their preferred candidates. • Referee checks on the preferred candidates are conducted. • The selection panel consider the referee reports and confer to select their recommended candidates. • The selection panel prepares a written report on their deliberations, which is submitted to Attorney General for his consideration. • The Attorney General makes a recommendation to Cabinet for its approval. • The Governor, acting with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, makes the appointments. ______