Legislative Council
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.30 pm, and read prayers. LANDFILL LEVY Statement by Minister for Environment HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Environment) [3.32 pm]: I wish to advise the house that, as announced in the budget, the state government has decided to introduce a 300 per cent increase in landfill levy charges on 1 January 2010 to ensure certainty for local governments. Having received legal advice, the government has decided it is appropriate that prior to the proposed 300 per cent increase in levy charges taking effect, the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment Bill 2009 should occur. The government is confident that the legislation is valid and that it will provide for waste levy moneys to be used for both waste-related purposes and for the Department of Environment and Conservation to also utilise levy moneys for broader environmental and conservation purposes. Any funding matters will be dealt with by government as part of the midyear review process and the Western Australian environment will not be compromised. The government introduced the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment Bill 2009 into the Legislative Assembly on 18 June 2009. The landfill levy, in place since 1998, provides a financial disincentive to landfill and encourages the re-use or recycling of waste, which this government fully supports. Currently, landfill levy charges in Western Australia are well below those in other jurisdictions—for example, in New South Wales the equivalent levy is $46.70 per tonne. Even after the increase, Western Australian landfill levy rates will not be the highest in Australia. The low levies have been a major contributor to the low rates of recycling in Western Australia compared with those in other jurisdictions; for example, less than 20 per cent of construction and demolition waste is recycled in Western Australia, whilst in New South Wales the figure is more than 65 per cent. The scheduled levies under the current regulations will continue to apply until 1 January 2010. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Fourth Report — “Corruption and Crime Commission’s Response to the Select Committee into the Police Raid on The Sunday Times Report No 1” — Tabling Hon Nick Goiran presented the fourth report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission in relation to the first report of the Select Committee into the Police Raid on The Sunday Times, and on his motion it was resolved — That the report do lie upon the table and be printed. [See paper 899.] STANDARDISATION OF FORMATTING BILL 2009 Notice of Motion to Introduce Notice of motion given by Hon Simon O’Brien (Minister for Transport). DEATH OF MR WARD — IMPLEMENTATION OF CORONER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Urgency Motion THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I received the following letter this morning — Dear Mr. President, Urgency Motion I give notice that pursuant to SO 72 I intend to move that the House, as a matter of urgency, recommend that the Government immediately implement the recommendations of the State Coroner on the Record
5320 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
of the Investigation into the Death of Mr Ward, and that the House note the connection of this death with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Yours sincerely, Giz Watson MLC Member for North Metropolitan Region The member will require the support of four members in order to move the motion. [At least four members rose in their places.] HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [3.39 pm]: I move the motion. Through this urgency motion I seek to discuss a very serious matter. On Saturday just gone I attended a very passionate public rally in Forrest Place. Despite the fact that it was a cold, wet Saturday morning, more than a thousand people in Forrest Place were calling for justice for the death of Mr Ward, an Aboriginal elder who died in custody. The atmosphere at that rally was quite extraordinary. There was an enormous amount of despair, an enormous amount of grief, an enormous amount of anger and, I dare say also, an enormous amount of shame, particularly among the non-Aboriginal participants, in that once again we, I would argue, have been collectively responsible to some extent for the failure to provide an adequate duty of care to this man who died in custody approximately a year ago. The rally was not only well attended, particularly considering that it was called at relatively short notice and was held in the sort of weather in which most people would much rather have stayed at home, but also a public outpouring which called for many things. I was struck in particular by the call for no more excuses, no more delays and a full implementation of the recommendations from the coroner’s report. The rally also specifically called for an immediate termination of the contract between the government and the private contractor that is responsible for custodial transport, which is G4S. The rally also called for immediate steps to reduce Indigenous imprisonment, because at the very core of this case is the appalling rate at which Aboriginal Western Australians are imprisoned. There was also a call for a public inquiry into systemic racism. One of the things that struck me most about this gathering was the significant number of Aboriginal people who got up and spoke about their experiences of having family members incarcerated, some of whom were incarcerated at the time they were speaking, and their despair at feeling that it was just a constant cycle and that their family members would sooner or later find themselves back in prison. It is important that we acknowledge this case, because it is an extraordinarily terrible case. Mr Ward was a 46-year old Aboriginal elder. He was arrested in Laverton over a traffic offence. He was transferred from Laverton to Kalgoorlie, which is a distance of approximately 360 kilometres. It was a journey that took about four hours and occurred in a very hot part of the day and at a very hot time of the year. It is estimated that the temperature in the van itself went as high as 56 degrees Celsius. As a result of heatstroke, he died. I want to quote from the coroner’s report, which states on page 4 — A subsequent post mortem examination revealed that the deceased had died from heatstroke and it is clear that the deceased died as a result of being held in the rear pod of the vehicle in conditions of grossly excessive heat. The coroner goes on — It is clear that the deceased suffered a terrible death while in custody which was wholly unnecessary and avoidable and it has, therefore, been important at the inquest to explore the circumstances in which he came to be in custody as well as how he came to die. I want to inform the house a little about this man, because any death of this nature is not only a tragedy and an appalling circumstance, but also made all the more worse when we realise the standing of this man in his community and the loss to the community that his death has caused. The coroner’s report at page 10 states that he was —
• a central figure in his own family, both for his wife and four sons and for his extended family, he was an excellent provider and a loving and supportive family figure;
• a central figure in his community at Warburton and in the surrounding lands with a unique knowledge of culture, land and art; and
• a central figure who played a crucial role in forging relationships between his own community and non- Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, Australia and overseas. On page 11, the report goes on to say —
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5321
The deceased had been a chairperson in his local community and was chosen to represent the Ngaanyatjarra lands in a delegation to China. He had represented the lands and attended meetings both within Western Australia and in Canberra. The deceased had worked for many years in a battle to have the rights of his people in the Gibson Desert Nature Reserve recognised. Members might remember we debated a bill to achieve this in this place not that long ago. It was my good fortune to deal with a number of Mr Ward’s family in relation to that piece of legislation, which unfortunately was not supported by all parties in this place and has now lapsed. Again, that is a tragedy for that small community. The report further reads — In addition the deceased was a renowned artist who had skills across many art forms. … The deceased was a traditional owner of the land and he had worked as an interpreter in transactions relating to native title. The report goes on to say at page 12 — There is no doubt that no person should have died in the circumstances in which the deceased died, a captive in the back of an overheated prison van, but the death was particularly poignant, being the death of such a highly regarded man who had achieved so much during his relatively short life. How did this happen? We know from the coroner’s report that the vehicle was unsuitable. The van was converted over eight years ago by the then company that had the contract to transport prisoners; that is, the Australian Integration Management Services Corporation Pty Ltd, or AIMS. On page 19 of the coroner’s report, it is stated that these vehicles — … were never designed to be used in remote locations in conditions of extreme heat. This fact was known to the owner of the vehicles, the Department of Corrective Services. Apart from the general comment that the vehicle was not suitable for use in these locations and in extreme heat, we know that the vehicle’s pod had an all-metal interior, it had no hand holds, it had no windows, the closed- circuit television did not work properly, the duress button was inadequate, and the vehicle had no spare wheel. I quote from page 27 of the coroner’s report — … servicing or repairs had been carried out on the Mazda vehicle 45 times in the two and half year period prior to the death; an average of once every three weeks. One employee was quoted as saying that everybody knew the vehicles were crap. I think that probably sums it up. The question of the arrest of this man is also of concern, and was raised by the coroner. It is clear there was no discretion used. The man was arrested driving on the outskirts of a small town. The police were quoted as saying they saw nothing untoward about the deceased’s driving. There were no pedestrians around and, arguably, the prospect of him actually causing harm to anybody else was very slight. Who is responsible? The report is significant in that it says that this transfer should not have happened. I quote from page 117 — It is also important to note that this transfer of custody would not have happened at all if police and the JP, Mr Thompson, had complied with relevant legislation. The very arrest and holding of this man has also been called into question. The issue of the justice of the peace is damning, to say the least. Page 137 of the report states — The involvement of the JP in this matter is particularly concerning. It is clear that the JP had a very poor understanding of his role and responsibilities as a JP. He had never undergone any training as a JP … The JP had not read all the relevant handbook or legislation and did not have direct access to relevant legislation such as the Bail Act. The JP did not know that he was required by Section 7(1) of the Bail Act to consider the deceased’s case for bail whether or not an application for bail was made by him. It goes on. There is a huge question now raised about the role of JPs, particularly the role of JPs in the country. At page 138 the report states — The above evidence raises serious concerns about the use of JPs in country areas.
5322 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
It highlights a need for change. In relation to the two employees, Mr Powell and Ms Stokoe, the report clearly says that Mr Ward’s death was contributed to by the actions of Mr Powell and Ms Stokoe. They had little training. This is also a concern, particularly when there are private contractors providing custodial services. The report states — The GSL staff came from a wide variety of backgrounds and some had no prior security or custodial experience. Apparently, they had received some training. Page 54 states — The only practical training which they received was in the use of restraints and the use of force. That is probably telling in itself. The report says that the employees failed to check the air conditioning system, they failed to stop to check the prisoner and they did not show the prisoner where the duress alarm was. It is also concerning to note that the coroner found that the evidence of the two employees was untruthful and there was evidence of collusion between them before they were questioned by police. There are serious concerns about these former employees. The Department of Corrective Services is also culpable and was found to have contributed to the death of Mr Ward. It owned the vehicles from November 2006. It did not act on the reports of the Inspector of Custodial Services, which clearly highlighted the concerns about the vehicle fleet back in 2001. There was a serious issue with the division of responsibilities, which the coroner speaks to, in setting up contracts. It was very unclear who was responsible for what. Page 85 of the report states — … divided responsibilities had enabled questions of passenger safety, dignity and reasonable comfort to be evaded. … the Department and the contractor have focused on commercial issues and had reached such a stage of mutual disillusionment that service quality is at risk, and neither party has monitored service quality in an appropriate way. The coroner found that the department was well aware of the problems and took no action. The action of the department was found to have contributed to the death of Mr Ward. Then we go to the contractors themselves. It is clear that they were also found to have contributed to Mr Ward’s death. The report was damning in this regard. Page 111 of the report states — No effective action was taken to ensure that duty of care to prisoners could be complied with in vehicles with inadequate temperature controls, poor communication between prisoner pods and vehicle cabs and other such matters. With regards to a broader culpability—this is me speaking, not the coroner—it is important that we also note that successive governments have failed to provide duty of care and that this issue of safety and procedure in vehicles has been known about since at least 2001. I have raised this matter in this place by way of questions and statements. The government has failed to bring the private company into line. It has failed to adequately deal with a private company’s contract to provide custodial services. It is also beholden to note that the failure of the cabinet in the previous government to approve the purchase of a new fleet is shameful. This is despite the fact that it gave assurances that it was underway. It is extraordinary that in a wealthy state, in the middle of a boom, money could not be found from a budget to provide a new fleet of 40 vehicles to provide the minimum duty of care to prisoners and people in custody. We as members of Parliament have collectively failed in our representation—particularly members of the Mining and Pastoral Region, of whom Mr Ward was a constituent—to prevent an unnecessary death in custody. I call on all members to do whatever they can to ensure that the recommendations of the coroner are fully implemented as a matter of priority, otherwise it is almost inevitable that something horrific and totally avoidable will occur again. I convey my sincere condolences to Mr Ward’s family. HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.54 pm]: The opposition supports the spirit of the motion that has been moved by Hon Giz Watson. We all agree that Mr Ward’s death was both tragic and preventable. We have been watching the media, and the circumstances of Mr Ward’s death were indeed horrific. I thank Hon Giz Watson for outlining for the benefit of members the transportation deficiencies identified by the State Coroner. The coroner’s report goes through the various components of the transportation pods, and notes that in this case there was a camera installed that did not adequately cover the interior of the pod. He also noted that there was a duress button, but that it was not working or was inaccessible. It seems that much of what began as a series of very tragic circumstances or calamities resulting in Mr Ward being put into the van could have been prevented. The coroner has picked up on that, and the vast bulk of his recommendations focus on the training and monitoring of police and of the people who have responsibility for transporting prisoners in remote areas.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5323
All of the recommendations put forward by the coroner are achievable. Hon Giz Watson said that it was unclear which of the contractors and subcontractors involved had responsibility for duty of care in this tragedy. The minister may be able to advise me differently, but I would have thought that the contractors and subcontractors involved would have been required under basic occupational health and safety legislation to provide a minimum level of duty of care and to provide training, monitoring and management of staff in such situations. That might be something the minister may wish to comment on. In a simplistic view, however, I would have thought that that would be the first thing that was looked at. I take on board Hon Giz Watson’s criticism of former governments; this is something that all governments have to deal with. There has been quite a bit of media coverage on this matter, and I know that the former Minister for Corrective Services has expressed her regret and has acknowledged her responsibility; it took a lot of guts to make that acknowledgement publicly. Not many ministers would take on that sort of responsibility, and it is something that she will have to deal with. To have someone die on one’s watch is a dreadful thing to have to deal with, and I imagine that it is something that Hon Norman Moore, who has responsibility for occupational health and safety in the mining sector, would have to deal with every time a worker dies at a mining site. As tragic as this event is for Mr Ward’s family, in some ways it has provided a trigger to ensure that changes are made. When this event happened the then minister, Margaret Quirk, put a range of things in motion to address the issues surrounding the maintenance of transportation vans. She also called for better police cooperation in prisoner transport procedures. The current Minister for Corrective Services, Christian Porter, has acknowledged that the former minister did the best she possibly could, admittedly after the event, to try to remedy what was happening. Another issue that has been thrown up by this very sad event is the need for governments to take much more robust action on contract management. Previous governments have obviously not been diligent in ensuring that prisoner transport vans met the appropriate requirements. I cannot comment on cabinet discussions about the funding for prisoner transport vans as I was not at the table, so I am not too sure why issues raised about the vans were not dealt with. I know that the former Minister for Corrective Services talked about raising the issues of improving vans and getting new vans, but I cannot comment on why that was not done. Hon Giz Watson alluded to another very important issue related to the management of this fleet of vans, being the lack of training for staff and management issues around that. The issue of whether these types of services should be outsourced to the private sector or whether they should be brought back in-house also needs to be rethought. If they were brought back, the Minister for Corrective Services could have a better oversight of what was happening. That might be something that the minister might want to respond to. This tragic event has, I think, jarred everyone in the community and has really brought home that this could happen again; that it might not be one event in isolation but there could be others. When I was a fairly new member, I went to Bandyup and Nyandi, as it was called at the time, and talked to the women there. Some of those women talked about being transported from Perth up to other prisons in the country, and how uncomfortable the vans were for them and the long journeys and how hot it was. These issues are not related to one government or another; they have been happening for a while. This tragic event should bring great change to how these systems are managed. The current Minister for Corrective Services flagged in his comments last week that there is change afoot. It must be significant change. When members read the coroner’s report, they will see that every line of the findings of this report refer to the poor state of the van. The van did not meet minimum requirements: there was inappropriate seating; there were no restraints for people to be securely seated; there was no fresh-air vent to open; there was no access to water; there were no toilet facilities—Hon Giz Watson has talked about these matters. These are matters that need to be taken into account in the transportation of people. I know that the shadow Attorney General, John Quigley, has called on the government to pay some sort of compensation to the family in the wake of Mr Ward’s death. That was an issue that was canvassed when this matter was last debated. I am not sure what the appropriate amount is, but the government will either have to make an offer to the family or negotiate with the family. I think that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to provide a level of support to the family. A key message that I hope is taken from the findings of the coroner’s report is to ensure that all future contracts awarded for the transportation of people are far more stringent so that we can avoid these types of tragedies. On the whole, the findings of the coroner are eminently sensible and are matters that should have been implemented as a matter of course, but, for some reason, they had not been, and I think answers need to be provided about why they were not. They are all achievable goals such as improvements to training and monitoring, and I think that, given the circumstances, this is something that the government should step up to very quickly and provide the appropriate responses and actions so that we do not have to face this type of tragic death and great loss to the Indigenous community.
5324 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [4.04 pm]: It is painful to have to deal with these sorts of matters, but deal with them we must. I thank Hon Giz Watson for bringing this matter to the attention of the house today because it is something that does need to be aired in this forum. The death of Mr Ward on 27 January 2008 was a disgraceful incident and a black mark in the social history of Western Australia. It was a serious personal tragedy for not only the late Mr Ward but also his family and all those who were associated with the incidents of the day and of the administration of the system that he was caught up in. I think every one of us is bound to be affected by this tragic and utterly awful incident. As my colleague the Attorney General said recently in a statement to another place — On Friday, 12 June 2009, the State Coroner released his findings into the tragic death of Mr Ward, an Aboriginal elder and central community figure in his local community at Warburton. As I have now publicly stated, Mr Ward’s death on Sunday, 27 January 2008, while being transported between Laverton and Kalgoorlie, was a miserable and, tragically, avoidable, event that has acted as a critical moment for the administration of service delivery in the state’s criminal justice system. The incident we are talking about did lead to a response, as well it might, from the government of the day. It is important to note that after the death occurred efforts were made to address and remedy the failures surrounding the incident. To its credit, the previous government initiated that. It is now up to the current government to continue that process of reform. In the meantime, we have seen the coroner’s report come down, which is referred to in the motion, so I will address it now. I point out firstly that the coroner’s report tells us that a number of factors each contributed to Mr Ward’s death. These included the then state of the Department of Corrective Services prisoner transportation vehicle fleet; the lack of training of a number of Global Solutions Ltd staff who were responsible for the transport; in part, the lack of training of the local justices of the peace who were involved and; of course—this comes through in the coroner’s report—some very regrettable and terrible errors of judgement by people in positions of responsibility on the ground at the time. Already a number of actions by government have been set in train to address some of the problems that were identified as a result of the incident and that were confirmed and amplified by the coroner’s report tabled on 12 June. They have already started and will continue. I will touch on these in the brief time available to me. By way of example, and in response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, contractor duty of care procedures have been reviewed, strengthened and re-emphasised where required. In addition, a number of changes have been made to the management of vehicles in the existing prison fleet such as new roadworthiness checks, remote temperature monitoring and the installation of updated duress alarms. We earlier heard about some turnover in the fleet itself, which is a matter that I will come to if I have the time to do so. The recommendations of the State Coroner, which is the specific part of the motion that has been put before us, include a recommendation that relates to the police service. The minister representing the Minister for Police might have the opportunity to address some remarks to that shortly, but in general terms I understand that the police are examining the recommendation and will take action as required. The government response to the totality of the recommendations is now due in about 11 weeks; that will be forthcoming. However, I can give members some general indications just now. Recommendations 9 to 12 relate to the Department of Corrective Services. I advise that efforts to address and remedy the failures that led to the death of Mr Ward are and were well underway before the coronial inquest, as I have just indicated. The coroner’s findings tend to add emphasis and further purpose, of course, to that. By way of example, I have already mentioned that the contractor duty of care procedures are being reviewed and strengthened, there are renewed checks to vehicles in the prison fleet and so on. The specifications of the vehicles that will replace the current fleet have been reviewed and redeveloped, and more than $8 million is allocated over the next four years for that new fleet, which will completely replace the old fleet by December 2010 or sooner if that can be arranged. Following the death of Mr Ward, the Department of Corrective Services hosted the inaugural Custodial Transport Forum in August 2008, which included attendance by international and interstate delegates representing corrections, police, academia, health services and the Aboriginal Legal Service. The forum considered the possible development of custodial transport policy and vehicle design policy and I think that was a topic for consideration that flowed directly from this tragic incident. It was agreed that any guidelines relating to custodial transport should be outcomes-based and the development of national vehicle design standards may not be possible at that time due to the varying needs of each agency’s jurisdiction. However, it was agreed that Western Australia would progress the development of appropriate guidelines for custodial transport through proposed revisions to the “Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia”, which was last revised in 2004. A corrective services ministers’ conference was held in Perth just last week and hosted by the Attorney General, Christian Porter. In principle endorsement was given to the development of changes to the “Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia” regarding prisoner transport.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5325
To return once again to the specific motion before us, although the formal government response will be down in due course, I certainly indicate that the government’s view is to tend to agree with the recommendations that have been put forward and, indeed, it is actively moving to implement them. As I said, recommendations 9 to 12 related to the Department of Corrective Services. I will now turn briefly to the recommendations that directly affect the Department of the Attorney General, particularly those that relate to the training of justices of the peace and their monitoring. The length of time remaining means that I will not be able to give members the detail that I would like to. The government looks forward to providing its full response in due course but for now I want to reassure Hon Giz Watson and the house that the government does have the view that these are matters that need to be taken seriously. It is inclined to accept those recommendations and it will be moving quickly and persistently to ensure that they are implemented. HON WENDY DUNCAN (Mining and Pastoral — Parliamentary Secretary) [4.15 pm]: I rise also to pass on our condolences to the family of Mr Ward and the community from which he came. He was a highly respected elder in that community and worked with the police on many issues as an interpreter and assisting them with their work. Of course, he was a strong family man. As we have all said in the house today, it is an incident that should never have occurred. I note from both sides of the house that the government of the day and the current government have acted in response to this very unfortunate death by undertaking reviews and working to improve the transport of prisoners. However, the lesson that we need to learn from this event is that we must make sure that we are not reacting to situations like this after an unfortunate death. There was plenty of evidence and there were plenty of representations made before this happened that the transport vehicles were substandard. The officers who were driving those vehicles have said that it was really up to the luck of the draw whether they got a good one on the day or not. They decided that it was too difficult to complain in case their jobs were in jeopardy. It really gives us a wake-up call that we must make sure that government in Western Australia does not continue to act after the event. I can think, for instance, of the tragic death of a gentleman on Edjudina station while people were waiting for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. That organisation had been petitioning for quite some time for additional funding because the demand on it for government services was so high that it was unable to meet the requirement under category one emergencies in the required time, so unfortunately a death occurred there and then the funding was forthcoming. I think that one of the reasons the National Party did so well in the last election is that people in regional Western Australia were feeling that they were being treated as second-class citizens: that if there was going to be a budget cut anywhere in happened in the regions, and if they were Indigenous regional Western Australians they just did not rate at all. I believe there is a salutary lesson here for all of us. We not only need to look at how we transport prisoners, but we also need to make sure that our regional health services are being well funded and that our police have the equipment and services that they require. For instance, I know that the police radio system is not up to scratch. Do we have to wait for a tragedy there before that is dealt with? In this case as well as the conditions for the prisoners, the prison officers were working under very difficult conditions. It has been well documented that vehicles have broken down. I was brought up in that part of the world. There is no way that people would ever travel in those parts of the world without a spare tyre; it is just something that people do not do. I find it absolutely unbelievable that a prisoner transport unit did not have a spare tyre, let alone the other litany of problems associated with that vehicle that led to the very unfortunate and tragic death of Mr Ward. As far as the State Coroner’s recommendations are concerned, it is true that not only with the last government, but also with this government, many of the recommendations are being implemented. The Attorney General set a time line of three months to make sure that those recommendations were looked at and dealt with quickly. I commend him for that, because we really do need to have a look at this situation quickly. Another aspect we should consider is to actually try to avoid transporting prisoners such long distances from their home territory to be dealt with by the law. This can be dealt with by using current information technology methods, such as videoconferencing and that sort of thing. Maybe even, if it is such a long distance from places such as Warburton, Kiwirrkurra and so on, we should be thinking about flying our prisoners. Recently the government undertook to build a couple of multimillion-dollar work camps in regional Western Australia. One of those is in Warburton, and that is a great move on the part of the government. We now need to make sure that the prisoners to be housed in those facilities do not have to be taken long distances away from home to be processed by the law or to be remanded, and then taken all the way back to their communities to serve their sentences. It is very difficult for people from the regions—not only Indigenous people, but all residents in regional Western Australia—to be transported long distances from their families and support bases, and to undergo legal procedures without the comfort and support of their families in their home territory. In this modern age, I am sure there are ways to do this better. I commend the coroner’s report and the very thorough way in which this matter was investigated. I look forward to seeing some improvements in the way our Indigenous offenders are dealt with in regional Western Australia.
5326 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
The reaction of the community to this tragic episode is understandable, and hopefully it has been a wake-up call to our whole community. Beyond the Darling Range there are real people with real families and real issues. We cannot simply look at the balance sheet and say that we need to save money, and then cut X million dollars from that hospital in the backblocks, because there are no votes there and nobody will complain. We have a responsibility as the government of the state to care for all our citizens. That means making sure that our government services and infrastructure are funded well no matter where they are delivered. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Energy) [4.23 pm]: There is a tremendous amount of sympathy for this motion across the chamber, and I think that is quite justified. Mr Ward’s death was totally avoidable, and it was absolutely tragic. The views that have been articulated in the past three-quarters of an hour reflect those of the community at large. I would like to touch on a couple of things before I make some comments on recommendation 3, which is specific to the WA Police. I am representing the Minister for Police on this motion. The whole notion of transporting someone from Laverton to Kalgoorlie presents some special problems in itself. They have been very clearly identified by Hon Wendy Duncan. I cannot imagine how distressing it must have been for Mr Ward in the last minutes of his life. It must have been a most horrific death. I can appreciate, sympathise with and understand the despair that is held by not only Mr Ward’s family and the Aboriginal community at large, but also the whole Western Australia community, that in our civilised, developed nation of Australia in the twenty-first century, we deal with one of our own in the way in which we dealt with Mr Ward. It was a shameful event, and we should have known better. The contingency plan should have been in place. We should not need a death like this to make us wake up and do something about it. The contingency plan should have been in place well before the death of Mr Ward. With Hon Giz Watson and other contributors to the motion, I offer my condolences to Mr Ward’s family, to the Aboriginal community and to his friends, in what should have been a totally avoidable death. I would like to think that perhaps the notion that he was Aboriginal was not responsible for the fact that those involved were not as vigilant as they possibly could have been. Unfortunately, I do not think that was the case—I simply do not. Again, that is a wake-up call for all of us. It has been mentioned that perhaps the fact Mr Ward held a special prominence in the Aboriginal community because he was an Aboriginal elder has been responsible for the outpouring of grief. Again, I would like to think that regardless of Mr Ward’s status in the community—I do not mean remotely to diminish it—it is inexcusable that any life is lost in the way that Mr Ward’s life was lost, it really is, and we need to do something about it. If anything, Mr Ward’s death has been a wake-up call to us. As I said, it was totally avoidable. I refer particularly to recommendation 3 that Western Australia Police should review its training procedures and ensure police officers have a better understanding of the Bail Act 1982. I outline a response from the Minister for Police on this recommendation: Western Australia Police have been active in implementing recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Gordon inquiry, through the Government Action Plan. Standard operating procedures and a lockup manual for the management of police lockups and detainees are maintained, regularly reviewed and, where necessary, amended to ensure WA Police minimise the incidents of self-harm and death in police custody. Throughout the state, safe cells have been installed in the larger police station lockups, and also in other stations that experience significant arrest rates. The majority of these cells have closed circuit television cameras and are designed and constructed to reduce incidents of self- harm. The Aboriginal visitors scheme is a program aimed at preventing Indigenous deaths in custody and is in operation at most police station lockups throughout the state. The AVS relies on the participation of community volunteers. However, the efficiency of the scheme in some subdistricts is affected by the availability of volunteers. Having said that, I go back to my original comments and statement that I think, quite frankly, we do not need a tragedy such as this to make the necessary adjustments and improvements to not only vehicle transfer procedures, but also any form of custodial service when those improvements should be glaringly obvious in the first place. HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [4.28 pm]: This is my first opportunity to speak since my inaugural speech, and it is a sad opportunity. I was quite distressed by the Minister for Energy’s recounting of the death of Mr Ward. I will be very brief. Much of this has been canvassed before. I speak, of course, in support of this motion. It is my duty to voice the concerns of the people who attended the rally on the weekend. I was there as well. This rally had a different feel to it from the others. It is plain to say that we have been grieving the deaths of offenders in custody for too long. We have had too many of these types of rallies and too many of these types of marches. We filled the Hay Street mall and had a moment’s silence. It was a poignant moment when, in the middle of that bustling retail centre of Perth, we stood in remembrance of a man who had suffered terribly in state care. It is
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5327 something that we as members of this Parliament should not forget. It is something that we should take to heart, and should take action as soon as possible so that we do not have to do that any more. There clearly have been systemic failures. The studies and the research since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody have articulated the problems that exist in our system. Members, it is up to us to act. Let us not do this any more. Let us not suffer the deaths—the injustice of it—any more. We must act now to ensure that this government does not just draw up another plan or another schedule, but takes action. We must ensure that the government spends some money and puts into place some programs to ensure that these kinds of events do not happen again. The cost is too high. The death of another prisoner is another death too many. Members, please do not sit back and be complacent. Please support this motion. Please support the efforts that we have made to put this matter on the agenda. Please support the efforts that the individuals who have participated in these reports for many years have made. Please take action to address the tremendous difficulties that particularly Indigenous people in Western Australia face when they encounter the justice system. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.31 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their contribution to this urgency motion. It is important that we go back to the very basics that led to the circumstances of Mr Ward’s death—that is, why are we transporting people around the state in the circumstances that Mr Ward was transported in? I am not talking just about the physical circumstances of the vehicle and the temperature and the failure of the department to provide a duty of care. I am talking about why a man of Mr Ward’s standing—a man who was well known in his community—was put into the back of a vehicle and transported 400 kilometres away from his home. Why could this matter not have been dealt with in Mr Ward’s community? I cannot help but make a comparison with a person who has had a few drinks too many and is apprehended by the police while he is driving to his home in Nedlands or Victoria Park, or wherever it might be. Imagine that that person—it might be our cousin or our uncle—then finds himself in the back of a vehicle and being driven 400 kilometres away from his home. It beggars belief that such a thing could happen. Something is fundamentally wrong with the system when a person who has committed what the coroner has indicated was a relatively trivial driving offence finds himself in a set of circumstances that has such an appalling outcome. Some of those events may have been circumstantial, but others were certainly culpable. It is clear from the coroner’s report that the Department of Corrective Services has a non-delegable duty of care. There is no doubt that the department cannot simply say it was the responsibility of the private provider to provide that duty of care. This has come out in other matters that we have dealt with in this place. The government cannot wash its hands of these matters. The government, and ultimately the decision makers—the ministers—have a responsibility to provide a duty of care to people who are in custody. That is why I believe the department needs to take back the responsibility of custodial care. The contracts were fatally flawed. The fact that the contract went from AIMS to GLS and then to G4S—the company that now has this contract—without the department doing proper checks and reviewing the contracts has created an absolute mess. That mess cannot be undone. The state has a duty of care to people whom the state deems should be taken into custody. The state cannot put itself at arm’s length from that responsibility. It is a recipe for disaster to have the state own the vehicles but then let someone else be responsible for maintaining and driving those vehicles. The structure is fundamentally flawed. I want to finish by acknowledging that the current government has found the money to buy a new fleet of vehicles, and it is to be congratulated for putting that money in this budget. We suggest that that action should be accelerated. I have already called for all the vehicles in the category that the coroner has noted in this case to be taken off the road and not used. I believe that they are being used only in the metropolitan area at the moment. However, these modified commercial vehicles are so fundamentally unsuitable for transporting people that we really need to think about other ways of driving people around securely. The coroner said that there were two pods in the vehicle and that the pod towards the front, which faced forward, had seatbelts and was secure, was not allowed to be used by the company because the company had a provision that said that if a male person was in custody, he had to be in the back because that was the only place that was considered to be secure. Mr Ward was so close to being safe. If he had been put in the other pod, which had airconditioning, faced forward and had windows, he probably would not have died. It was an appalling circumstance that led to his death. I conclude by saying that if members want to be reminded that all these things have already been said, they should read the recommendations of the 1992 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Every single thing about this method of transport is covered in volume 5, yet none of the recommendations has been taken up. That is extraordinary considering that we are now in 2009. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Assembly’s Message Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Council.
5328 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.37 pm]: I will get this right shortly, Mr President; I assure you. Several members interjected. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I thank members. I move without notice — That order of the day 1, “Children and Community Services Amendment Regulations 2008 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. Agreement has been reached over the concerns that the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation had with the regulations. Question put and passed. FISH RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT REGULATIONS (NO. 3) 2009 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.38 pm]: I move without notice — That order of the day 3, “Fish Resources Management Amendment Regulations (No. 3) 2009 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has received correspondence from the minister about the regulations, and the committee’s concerns have been addressed. Question put and passed. CITY OF JOONDALUP LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AMENDMENT LOCAL LAW (NO. 2) 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.39 pm]: I move without notice — That order of the day 4, “City of Joondalup Local Government and Public Property Amendment Local Law (No. 2) 2008 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. An agreement has been reached on the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation’s concerns with the local law. Hon Ken Travers: Is this the one about the shopping trolleys? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes. Mr President, because I am not sure of what I can or cannot say in this chamber about the committee’s deliberations, I was not sure I could answer that question. The PRESIDENT: There should not have been an interjection anyway, Hon Robin Chapple. Question put and passed. CITY OF STIRLING FENCING LOCAL LAW 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.40 pm]: I let the honourable member know that this is to do with fencing. I move without notice — That order of the day 6, “City of Stirling Fencing Local Law 2008 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. The committee’s concerns in relation to that matter have also been resolved. Question put and passed. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 17 June on the following motion moved by Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary) — That pursuant to standing order 49(1)(c), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 773A-H (budget papers 2009-10) laid upon the table of the house on 14 May 2009. Debate adjourned until a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House).
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5329
LOAN BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 16 June. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [4.41 pm]: Another day, and I stand in this place having just heard a ministerial statement from the Minister for Environment that highlights yet another hole in the budget that was brought down some weeks ago by the government. Today we deal with the Loan Bill 2009—one of a suite of bills that came in as part of that budget. This is the legislation that will allow the government to borrow money to fund its appropriations. The Loan Bill will authorise the borrowing of some $8 316 197 000—a significantly larger sum than my mortgage, I can assure you, Mr President! This bill, which allows for borrowings for general public purposes, does not represent the government’s full borrowings because government trading enterprises—statutory authorities—often have borrowing powers under their enabling acts that allow them to borrow sufficient funds for their operations. Therefore, this bill does not represent the government’s full borrowings. We know from the budget papers that expected government borrowings in the out years to 30 June 2013 will be some $19.1 billion. Tonight we are dealing with the $8.316 billion sufficient to meet the planned general government purposes requirement. This bill will allow the government to borrow money to meet its cashflow requirements on the consolidated account. I think it is interesting to note the history of Loan Bills in this place, because this will be the first Loan Bill that many members will have seen. In fact, it is probably only the second Loan Bill that many members have seen in this place; it is certainly only the second Loan Bill that I have seen. The last Loan Bill to be introduced to this place was introduced in 2003 and it appropriated the sum of $250 million. My research also suggests that a prior Loan Bill was introduced in 1993. In fact, when the 2003 bill was introduced, some $214 million of the $250 million provided in the 1993 bill was still available. Consequently, with the addition of the 2003 bill, some $464 million was then available to the government. Interestingly, Treasury has provided me with figures indicating that this year some $447 million in borrowings will still be available from those two existing Loan Bills. My understanding from the answer to a question that was asked in this Parliament recently is that that money has already been used by this government in the management of the current financial year’s cashflow. Therefore, this bill to authorise the borrowing of $8.3 billion is necessary to take this state forward. If we go into committee on this bill, hopefully we can explore this matter a little further. The key clause in the Loan Bill is clause 3, which applies the authorisation to borrow the money. The explanatory memorandum states that clause 3 — Provides authority for the raising of loans totalling $8 316 197 000 — I get confused every time I read out that figure because it becomes a complex issue dealing with a figure of that magnitude. It is a figure that this chamber has never had to deal with. The explanatory memorandum continues — for public purposes to meet the financing requirements of the Consolidated Account, generally relating to the State’s capital works program. As we proceed with this debate, I will come back to the point that generally a Loan Bill seeks authority for loans for the state’s capital works program, as it should be. The Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000 makes it very clear that borrowings should be for the purposes of capital works, not recurrent expenditure. Something that makes it hard for the opposition when debating such a bill is that although it would love to know the condition of the state’s finances today, and despite getting some very good reporting from which we can get a rough idea, often it must wait until September to fully understand what has happened in the past. When we debated the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009, which sought approval for sufficient funds— $1.2 billion this year, again a figure of a magnitude never before seen by this Parliament—to add to the standing appropriation of three per cent, members on this side of the house asked whether the government needed to borrow money to fund that figure. At that time we were told it was still under active consideration. It is interesting to note that, although many members on this side of the chamber predicted that the government would need to borrow money to fund the appropriation of money sought by the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill this financial year, having been through that active consideration, the government now expects to use approximately $225 million of the money sought in this Loan Bill this financial year; that is, it will do so providing it is the will of the house to have this bill passed by 30 June. I suspect that at this moment Department of Treasury and Finance officers and chief financial officers across government agencies are looking down the back of couches and searching offices for piggybanks to find every last cent of spare cash to get them through. I am sure that all members have gone through that experience at some point in their lives. They would have gone through the tin of gold coins that is left by the bedside table. I no longer have much left in mine. We have to raid that tin to ensure that the cashflow can be maintained. When all else fails, we resort to the credit card to fund whatever needs funding.
5330 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
The difficulty is that on this occasion the government has used its approved credit card limit and requires Parliament to agree to increase that limit to manage its finances this financial year and in the out years through to 2013. The debate on this bill is fascinating because this bill is seeking permission to allow the government to borrow funds for the full four years of the forward estimates. It is interesting to hear the Premier say that forward estimates are guesstimates, which are not that important. It is not until we consider a bill such as this that we realise how important those forward estimates actually are. This is the time when the Parliament will have its say on what it will or will not allow the government to do. Although the government’s figures predict that this money is all that is required to fund its forward estimates program, there is nothing to stop the government spending it all in the next two years. One thing I will do as I go through this bill is discuss this situation to see just where we are at. It is also worth noting that as well as borrowing $447 million, which the government has already used out of the existing authorisations for funding its appropriations for this year, there was also at the start of this financial year some $705 million in the bank. If we go back to the personal analogy, there was $705 million in the savings account, which was not even in the long-term fixed deposit account; that is, the trust fund that will allow the government to build its major infrastructure project for this term of government, the new southern tertiary Fiona Stanley Hospital. There was, therefore, a separate amount of $705 million in cash available, which the government has used already for its operations in this financial year. I must say that there is always an interesting question, and one that I continue to struggle to get my head around—I am sure there are members of this place better able than I to understand it—about how it is possible to have a net operating balance that is in surplus on the appropriation side of things but still in a net cash flow deficit. I do understand it, although I have to sit and work my head around it from time to time. However, it is a complex matter to understand how there can be a net surplus on paper and a net deficit from a cashflow point of view. Hon Nick Goiran: It’s not confusing at all. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am glad members understand it. As I said, I suspect many members of this place find it difficult to understand, because most of us in our personal lives work on a cash basis. As I deal with this Loan Bill, I will turn to the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000. It is appropriate before we pass this legislation that we remind ourselves of the requirements that the act places on both us as a Parliament and the government to operate in a financially responsible manner. Section 6, which refers to the financial management principles that are embedded in the act, states — The financial management principles are as follows — (a) funding for current services is to be provided by the current generation; That is a principle that I expect all members of this chamber would agree with. However, the government should not be borrowing to fund recurrent expenditure in its current term and expecting future generations to pay for it. There should be only very limited borrowings to fund recurrent expenditure—I will refer to the circumstances in which that may occur—but it is appropriate to borrow money to fund the purchase of capital goods that will last beyond our lifetime. The second financial management principle in section 6 of the act states — (b) spending and taxing policies are to be formulated and applied so as to give rise to a reasonable degree of stability and predictability; Again, it is an interesting point that we probably do live in fairly unusual times in terms of financial management and the circumstances with which we are faced. Nonetheless, we still have an obligation to manage our finances in accordance with these principles. What we must then do in these circumstances is apply a precautionary principle to the way in which we operate our finances. The third financial management principle states — (c) financial risks are to be managed prudently; One could argue that we are being quite cavalier with some of the financial risks. I will comment later about a public remark the Under Treasurer made. I cannot relay the remarks that he made to the committee, but he made similar remarks in public yesterday about the state of the state’s finances and some of the long-term risks we are facing. Later in the debate I will also provide an argument for why the Under Treasurer should be treated quite differently from a lot of other public servants. The Under Treasurer has a range of responsibilities, such as reporting and managing the state’s finances, that almost set him apart from many other senior public servants. It would be a very sad day if we were to see an officer of that magnitude and importance, not just to the public but also to this Parliament, being gagged. There was some suggestion in the
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5331 media today that the Premier wants to limit the comments by the Under Treasurer on financial management matters. If we look at the whole structure of the state’s finances, we often use the Under Treasurer not as an officer of the Parliament but almost as an independent officer to provide advice to Parliament on the state of the state’s finances. That is an appropriate course. It is a very important role. We have been very lucky in Western Australia to have had a number of Under Treasurers who have been prepared to take on that role for the state without fear or favour and to make sure that the Parliament is informed of the true state of the state’s finances. Any suggestion that that capacity should be taken away from that office would be a very, very sad day for this Parliament and for the people of Western Australia. State finances is one of the most important things we deal with in this Parliament. The final financial management principle is — (d) spending and taxing policies are to be formulated and applied with consideration to the effect of these policies on employment and the economic prosperity of the State. In the current economic climate we have to recognise that it is appropriate to try to stimulate the economy with an increase in expenditure on capital works. I do not have a problem with borrowing to try to stimulate the economy for capital works, but we also have to look at each capital work and ask: what is the net benefit to the state of Western Australia from that capital work? Will that capital work place a future burden on the state through recurrent expenditure—which some capital works do—or will it help stimulate the economy? Many of those sorts of capital works are done through the statutory authorities rather than through the general government sector. There is the capacity. Sometimes government trading enterprises do not have the cashflow to carry out the capital works they need and may require some form of equity injection from the government to allow them to carry out those works. As I understand it, embedded in the sums that we are dealing with here today is some equity injection into Verve Energy. I assume that will be to allow Verve Energy to carry out some of its work and the needs that it has. That will then allow the state to prosper. I will go through in more detail later some of the capital works that we need to look at that will provide stimulus and economic prosperity not just through investment by the state but also potential private sector investment into our economy. They are the financial management principles. It is important at this point in the debate that we remind ourselves of the importance of those principles. The government’s financial planning and reporting is a requirement of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, of which section 10(1) states — The Government’s financial planning is to be consistent with the financial management principles. That makes sense. Subsection (2) states — The Government’s financial planning may deviate temporarily from the financial management principles in special circumstances. If we are deviating from those principles, it is incumbent upon the government to explain those special circumstances as we go through this debate over the next couple of hours. Finally, subsection (3) states — If there is any deviation from the financial management principles, the Under Treasurer is to prepare for inclusion in the next Government Financial Strategy Statement to be released — (a) a statement of the reasons for the deviation; and (b) a summary of the Government’s proposed programme for reverting to compliance with the principles. That is important because it is another section that points out the importance of the Under Treasurer. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 5341.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES — REDUCED GRANTS EXPENDITURE 648. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Community Services: I refer to the government’s decision to reduce expenditure in grants by $200 million over four years, commencing with a $65 million reduction in the 2009-10 financial year. (1) Has the minister been consulted by the Treasurer on how the implementation of the reduction will be achieved? (2) Is the minister aware of which grants programs in the Department for Communities are to be examined to determine whether they will be subject to a reduction?
5332 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
(3) If so, which ones? (4) Is the minister aware of whether any of the scheduled processes for advertising or seeking applications for grants have been deferred awaiting the outcome of the implementation of the cuts to be achieved in 2009-10? (5) If so, which ones? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) I have not been officially notified of the reductions at this stage. (2)-(5) Not applicable. I make the point that in 2008-09 approximately 2 000 organisations received over $800 million from the state government. DISABILITY SERVICES — REDUCED GRANTS EXPENDITURE 649. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Disability Services: This question might have a familiar ring to it. I refer to the government’s decision to reduce expenditure on grants by $200 million over four years, commencing with a $65 million reduction in the 2009-10 financial year. (1) Has the minister been consulted by the Treasurer on how the implementation of the reduction will be achieved within the disability services portfolio? (2) Is the minister aware of which grants programs in the Disability Services Commission are to be examined to determine whether they will be subject to a reduction? (3) If so, which ones? (4) Is the minister aware of whether any of the scheduled processes for advertising or seeking applications for grants have been deferred awaiting the outcome of the implementation of the cuts to be achieved in 2009-10? (5) If so, which ones? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I have been consulted by the Treasurer. (2) There will be no expected impact on the Disability Services Commission as a result of the state government’s decision to reduce expenditure on grants over the next four years as the commission’s funding programs are out-of-scope grants referred to by the Department of Treasury and Finance. (3)-(5) Not applicable. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS — AFFORDABILITY INQUIRY 650. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy: I refer to the cost of liquefied petroleum gas in rural Western Australia. (1) Is the minister aware of the continued high prices that many regional residents are paying for bottled LPG? (2) Does the minister support the recommendations of the inquiry into affordability of bottled LPG for households in Western Australia? (3) What steps has the minister taken to implement some of the recommendations of that report? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(3) Yes, I am aware of the cost of LPG, particularly in the rural and remote areas of the state. I am conscious of the recommendations in the report, particularly the role of Hon Max Trenorden. The Gas Supply and Emergency Management Committee is looking at a host of issues relating to gas supply and the cost of gas. To diverge a little from the question, if there were to be another explosion such as occurred at Varanus Island or Karratha, all those issues would be dealt with. We will certainly be looking at the recommendations, but I cannot say at this stage whether we will implement the full swag of recommendations.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5333
WASTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY LEVY ACT 2007 — AMENDMENTS 651. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment: (1) When did the minister receive legal advice that the immediate massive increase in the landfill levy must be cancelled? (2) Will the minister table that advice? (3) Will the minister now explain where the government will find the additional $20 million to fund the daily operation of the Department of Environment and Conservation? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The government received advice from the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Department of Treasury and Finance, the Parliamentary Counsel and the State Solicitor’s Office during the usual course of drafting the legislation. Having received that legal advice, the government is very confident that the legislation is valid. This is an issue that has previously been raised through the Western Australian Local Government Association, as the member will be aware. However, having received further legal advice, the government decided that it would be appropriate to not increase the levy until such time as the legislation had passed. Hon Sally Talbot: When? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Advice has been provided recently. However, I will not table that legal advice. As the member would know, the government does not provide to the opposition legal advice that has been provided to the government. Given the advice provided, the government has made a decision to not increase the levy until after the legislation has passed, or has gone through the normal parliamentary processes. To provide certainty to local governments, we will increase the levy on 1 January 2010. I spoke to the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association today to advise him of that. As I indicated in my ministerial statement, the department will continue with all its programs based on the existing appropriation. The Treasurer has been quite clear that any funding matters will be dealt with as part of the midyear review process. I also said in my ministerial statement that the environment portfolio will not be compromised by this move. The Premier has reiterated that to me, and it will be dealt with as part of the normal midyear review process. KARRAKATTA CEMETERY — TREES REMOVAL 652. Hon LIZ BEHJAT to the minister representing the Minister for Local Government: I refer to the trees that were recently cut down and removed from Karrakatta Cemetery. (1) Does the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board plan to replace the trees? (2) Does the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board have a tree planting program for Karrakatta Cemetery in areas outside those areas that have been watered and developed? (3) If so, how many trees will be planted in such areas in 2009-10? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question, and on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, I provide the following answer — (1) Yes. Three Pinus radiata trees were removed along Railway Road. It is suspected that past car park and reticulation developments contributed to their demise. These will be replaced with more suitable waterwise trees such as Eucalyptus platypus or Melaleuca quinquenervia. Internally, an avenue of Agonis flexuosa that was close to the end of its expected life has died. These trees were removed recently when an adjacent road was upgraded as part of normal cemetery activity. These will be replaced with an avenue of Cedrela sinensis, synonym Toona sinensis. Over many years, the avenues of Queensland box trees have been replaced with more suitable trees. The Metropolitan Cemeteries Board takes pride in the visual presentation of the cemetery site. The tree planting vision and program has been strong over the years, in accordance with the view that a green, growing element in the cemetery creates a pleasant park feel to a sometimes stark and glaring area. Tree pruning is managed professionally and tree planting is guided by cemetery activities. (2) Yes. (3) More than 120 trees will be planted this winter; the majority of these will be in non-irrigated areas and will be hand watered for the first two seasons. Karrakatta Cemetery has an annual tree maintenance budget of $20 000, which enables safety and growth issues to be promptly addressed. In addition to this
5334 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
is an annual tree replacement budget of $6 000, which ensures that trees that are removed because of death and disease or because of cemetery development can be replaced. Consideration is also given to succession, shade and site beautification issues. Both budgets have been in place for nearly 20 years. The PRESIDENT: I am sure that answer will be provided to Hansard so that they can get the correct spellings! DEATH IN CUSTODY — MR WARD — CORONER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 653. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to answer to question without notice 528, asked in the Legislative Assembly on 16 June 2009. That answer stated in part that the government is seeking to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous prisoners in Western Australia. (1) How is the government addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous prisoners in Western Australia? (2) How is the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008 consistent with addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous prisoners in Western Australia? (3) Will the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008 increase the number of Indigenous prisoners in Western Australia? (4) If no to (3), why not; and, if yes to (3), what does the minister estimate will be the increase? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following answers — (1) The Department of Corrective Services is addressing the issue of Indigenous incarceration in Western Australia through the following listed initiatives—I have a long list that I wish to table, and I will seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard later. (2) As is the case with any legislation that creates or modifies a criminal office, the intent of the bill is to criminalise certain prescribed conduct, not to create, achieve or contribute to a certain predetermined ethnic or racial mix in the prison population of Western Australian prisons. Any criminal offence that could potentially be committed by an Indigenous person has the potential to increase the number of Indigenous prisoners in Western Australia, and, as with all other criminal laws, the offence created by the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008 (WA) also has that potential. (4) Not applicable. (5) No estimate of the number of Indigenous persons who may offend against section 318 of the Criminal Code (WA) exists, as it is intended to be modified by the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008 in the future out years. I seek leave for the answer to (1) to be incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 905.] The following material was incorporated —
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1. The Department of Corrective Services is addressing the issue of Indigenous incarceration in Western Australia through the following initiatives:
o Creation of an Aboriginal Bail Coordinator (50d) responsible for facilitating bail for offenders at the earliest opportunity to divert and minimise time offenders spend in custody.
o As part of the integrated case management team, appointment of Community Justice Services Family and Domestic Officers to Family and Domestic Violence Courts in a number of courts in the metropolitan area and Geraldton. These courts provide customised programs and support the needs of Aboriginal people.
o Four (4) metropolitan Indigenous Family Violence Groups are running in the community to support the operation of Family Violence Courts.
o Appointment of Community Supervision Agreement Officers across the State to liaise and assist remote communities to undertake supervision as part of a program that provides the option for supervising Aboriginal offenders in local communities.
o Appointment of Sheriff/Community Development Officer positions across the State to facilitate the conversion of fines to community work for indigenous offenders residing in remote communities.
o Ongoing Community Justice Services participation in the development of Aboriginal Justice Agreements with local communities.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5335
o Use of regional work camps as a placement option for Indigenous offenders, enabling them to be closer to their country and engage in accredited training linked to real work.
o Development of prisoner employment programs in partnership with mining companies to prepare Indigenous prisoners for employment in the mining sector.
o Transitional Officers within each prison to assist prisoners with their integration plans back into the community.
o The Department endeavours to assist Indigenous prisoners with travel back to their homes upon release.
o Casuarina Prison has developed a special Unit to house Indigenous prisoners from remote areas, which enables prisoners to be housed with other members from their community and provide support to each other.
o Construction of an Indigenous meeting place at Casuarina Prison, in full consultation with Indigenous prisoners. It will be used for conducting cultural events and for prisoners to engage in a wide range of arts and cultural activities.
o Provision of five Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Abuse programs in prisons across the State and one community based Indigenous Family Violence Group during 2007/2008.
o Provision during 2008/09 of over 20 programs and interventions such as Building on Aboriginal Skills; a new Indigenous Cognitive Skills Intervention; Indigenous Family Violence; Indigenous Men Managing Anger and Substance Abuse; Indigenous Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program.
o Establishment of a unit to specifically address the program needs of Aboriginal offenders. The will ensure that the Aboriginal programs delivered maintain program and cultural integrity in content and delivery style. The Unit will also provide cultural consultancy in relation to clinical interventions for Aboriginal offenders for staff within the Department and will create networks within local communities to support the development of local organisations to enable increased delivery.
o Expansion of the Roebourne Regional Prison vocational training program to include the Decca Station Project where vocational training outcomes are contributing to increased employability of Indigenous offenders in the region; pilot Conservation and Land Management Traineeships at Millstream Work camp and The Rio Tinto Work Readiness Project at the prison where prisoners undertake a fifteen-week Work-Ready course. Following their release from prison, the successful candidates are to be placed in employment through the Rio Tinto Aboriginal Employment Strategy Team.
o Establishment of the Prisoner Employment Program in five regional prisons to increase Indigenous offender’s chance of successful rehabilitation and re-socialisation through increased employability skills. The Department is also providing high quality education services to Aboriginal prisoners. At a recent grant review with the Commonwealth it was identified that the module completion rate for Indigenous students within prisons was 83.0%; significantly higher than the Western Australian State rate of 66.7% and the Australian rate of 71.8%. In response to these figures the Commonwealth Government has requested the Department provide a case study of delivery and curriculum successes for publishing and to be included in the national Reports to Federal Parliament.
REGIONAL AIR SERVICES — NETWORK SERVICES 654. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: I refer to recent media reports which suggest that the state government intends to extend by one year the current coastal and inland network licences for air services in regional Western Australia. (1) Has the minister made a decision on the future arrangements for regulation of air services to each of the ports currently serviced by the network licences? (2) If yes to (1), what is the minister’s decision for regulation of services to each port, and why has he not issued a public statement? (3) If no to (1), is the minister aware of the difficulties the lack of a decision is causing in regional Western Australia, and why is the minister taking so long to make the decision? (4) Does the minister expect any new network licences to go through a tender process; and, if yes, how long does the minister expect the tender process and evaluation to take? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: Mr President, if the member had given me some notice of such a long and multipart question, it might have facilitated me being able to give an answer, which I am keen to do. A late dispatch has just arrived, Mr President! The member has just asked a full-page question, and he expects me to answer it. Hon Ken Travers: I want to be fair, but the four questions are not that hard to answer. Have you made a decision or not? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: My response is as follows — (1) Yes. I have been looking at this matter for some time, and I have formed a view in relation to the recommendations put to me by the departmental review into intrastate air services. (2)-(4) I can advise the member that the contents of the story that appeared in Saturday’s newspaper are substantially correct. As I have previously indicated to the house, my responsibility as minister in this matter is to ensure, firstly, that our regional ports have regular passenger services, and, secondly, that
5336 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
any changes to the current arrangements are for the better whether they be in frequency, standards of aircraft or other indicators of performance. I have formed the view that the best way to guarantee that in the future is to have long-term arrangements that will permit airlines to gain access to and invest in new aircraft fleets. To do that I think they need a little more time than perhaps they have had under the current network contract lengths, which were generally about three years with a one-year option. I am not making a criticism when I say that. I think those network systems have served the state well at a time of uncertainty in aviation. Out of courtesy to cabinet I have not released the report or made a public announcement, because it is the subject of advice that I have made to cabinet given the overarching interest. Hon Ken Travers: Have you decided, or not? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes. Regardless of which route we go down in the future, it is necessary to extend— this is contained in the report—current licences on protected routes beyond 30 June to provide continuity of service. I have invited existing service providers to take up a 12-month extension to enable them to provide that continued service. That has been made public through the press, and I will be making a further public statement once the matter has been to cabinet. I have advised the member of my views. Hon Ken Travers: How long will the tender process and valuation take? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The 12-month extensions give us the opportunity to thoroughly canvass Western Australia’s needs. I have decided that we will not move now to deconstruct the current protected route arrangements in Western Australia. Over the next 12 months, probably a lot earlier than that, we will look particularly at some ports that have special circumstances. Hon Ken Travers will probably be aware of the changing circumstances at Ravensthorpe and Mt Magnet. Exmouth has some aspirations and Geraldton is going through a period of transition. I will be working through all of that with the local community. Hon Ken Travers: That is not a decision. If you do not know that, all you are doing is delaying the decision. The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not a debate and there is no provision in this house for supplementary questions. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It has been put to me that we should deregulate our intrastate air routes, and I have rejected that—that is the decision. GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET — REDUCTION 655. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the Premier’s pre-budget media comment that the government car fleet will be cut by 10 per cent over the forward estimates. (1) Is it planned that the cut in fleet numbers of approximately 1 200 cars will be divided evenly over the four-year period; that is, by 300 a year? (2) Will all categories of front-line personnel requiring vehicle access as part of their employment be protected from the cuts; and, if not, why not? (3) To compensate for protecting vehicle access for front-line personnel, will some agencies be required to reduce their fleet by more than 10 per cent; and, if so, which ones? (4) How many vehicles, if any, have been cut from the government car fleet to date and, of these, how many were cut from ministerial offices? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No; the reduction in the number of vehicles has been planned to take into account existing lease arrangements with agencies, which are generally over a term of three years. (2) Any justifications for exemptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, it is expected that in all cases efficiencies will be identified in the allocation and servicing of vehicles. (3) The answer to the member’s question is yet to be determined. (4) Nil. ECONOMIC REGULATION AUTHORITY ISSUES PAPER 656. Hon ALISON XAMON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Water: I refer to the recent Economic Regulation Authority issues paper, which discusses an appropriate water management and planning charges regime for Western Australia in line with Council of Australian Governments and National Water Initiative commitments.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5337
Will the minister be seeking to recoup water management and planning charges on an equitable basis from all water users, and specifically from the estimated 165 000 unlicensed garden bore users in the metropolitan area? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. No decision has been made on any charges yet and will not be made until the Economic Regulation Authority has released its final report, which is expected in January 2010. There are no plans to charge licence fees to unlicensed garden bore users. ROCK LOBSTER COMMERCIAL FLEET 657. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Fisheries: (1) What is the current size of the rock lobster commercial fleet in Western Australia? (2) What size fleet does the minister believe is appropriate for Western Australia? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) There were 388 boats in the rock lobster commercial fleet in Western Australia as of 23 April 2009. (2) Management arrangements for the rock lobster fishery are focused on the sustainability of the fishery. I do not believe that the size of the fleet is a relevant consideration. BOYSTOWN TRAINING PROGRAM 658. Hon ED DERMER to the Minister for Training: (1) What progress has been made in securing a service provider agreement that will see the BoysTown training organisation embark on the long-awaited trade training program sought by members of the Balgo community? (2) When will this training proposal be finalised in order to secure much-needed training outcomes among the local Indigenous community members? (3) What is causing the delay associated with putting this agreement in place? (4) When will the BoysTown training organisation start formal training programs in Balgo with the financial support of the government? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The Department of Education and Training met with a representative from BoysTown in early 2007 and was briefed on its intention to establish a presence in Western Australia. The department has not subsequently received any trade training proposal or funding submission from BoysTown for Balgo or any other region of Western Australia. I add that if the member is aware of anything to the contrary or would like to discuss it further, I am more than willing to pursue this issue. TJUNTJUNTJARA ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY — DOCTORS’ VISITS 659. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Health: (1) Would the minister inform the house about the normal frequency of visits by a doctor to Tjuntjuntjara Aboriginal Community? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) How many doctors’ visits has Tjuntjuntjara had since 6 May 2009? (4) If no to (3), what will the minister do to resolve this shortfall and the wider lack of medical services to remote communities in this state? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Medical services are provided to the Tjuntjuntjara Aboriginal Community by the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia and are funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing’s Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health. (2)-(4) The Australian government, through its Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, is responsible for the funding and performance of this service.
5338 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
NGURRAWAANA COMMUNITY — SCHOOL BUILDINGS RELOCATION 660. Hon HELEN BULLOCK to the minister representing the Minister for Education: In answer to my question without notice 627 asked last week, the minister stated that Ngurrawaana Remote Community School was not closed. (1) Is the minister aware that the Department of Education and Training has advised the school that the school is definitely closing, and has issued instructions that classroom and office items be packed ready for collection by Grace Removals Group and that the school buildings will all be removed soon after? (2) Is the minister aware that the community, through its community liaison officer, had asked to purchase the remaining high school building and was told that it had already been earmarked for another school? (3) Does the minister now accept that her department did in fact know that the community wanted to purchase those buildings? (4) Is the minister aware that the community has been successful in acquiring a donation of a building to be used as a community library and adult learning centre but that it will now need to be used as a classroom and that the community liaison officer will be teaching all age groups in a voluntary capacity? (5) Will the minister now agree to meet with representatives of Ngurrawaana Remote Community School to discuss their future? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Minister for Education I provide the following response — (1) The Department of Education and Training has not said that the school is definitely closing. Items in the school buildings are being packed up for security reasons. Some resources were packed to be removed to Roebourne District High School where children from Ngurrawaana have enrolled. These items will be sent back when the children return. (2)-(3) I am informed that DET is not aware that the community, through its community liaison officer, has asked to purchase the remaining high school building. (4) Yes. (5) It is not at this stage practicable for me to meet with representatives of Ngurrawaana Remote Community School to discuss their future. I will ask a representative DET officer to meet with the representatives of Ngurrawaana Remote Community School to discuss this matter. HAYDN LOWE — APPOINTMENT TO ABORIGINAL CULTURAL MATERIAL COMMITTEE 661. Hon JOCK FERGUSON to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the appointment of Mr Haydn Lowe as the chair of the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. (1) Is the Premier aware of any business or commercial relationships between the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Mr Lowe? (2) If so, what was the nature of the relationships and any work undertaken? (3) Have the relationships ceased; and, if so, when? (4) Is the Premier aware whether Mr Lowe has ever been involved in any of the minister’s election campaigns? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) See (1). (4) No. HENDERSON WASTE RECOVERY PARK — BIRD DEATHS 662. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the recent death of 160 birds—including ibis, silver gulls, ravens, ducks and a pelican—at the Henderson Waste Recovery Park caused by illegal dumping of the pesticide fenthion.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5339
(1) Has the Department of Environment and Conservation determined what loads were taken to the tip on Friday, 29 May 2009 when the birds began to die—as The Sunday Times of Sunday, 31 May 2009 reported was being investigated? (2) If yes to (1), will the minister table the department’s investigation report and outcomes? (3) If no to (1), when will this investigation be finalised? (4) Has the department determined who holds fenthion licences, which The Sunday Times article also reported was being investigated? (5) Given that no Western Australian landfill site is currently allowed to receive liquid waste, would the minister explain the process by which loads are currently being logged and processed at the site? (6) Is it current practice to use the pesticide fenthion for bird management control at landfill sites in Western Australia? (7) Do the City of Cockburn or Henderson tip management currently have a licence for the use of the pesticide fenthion? (8) What action will the DEC take now to prevent further bird kills from fenthion contamination at Henderson landfill? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. The investigation by the Department of Environment and Conservation is still underway. (3) The investigation is expected to be completed within three months. (4) Under the Health Act 1911, licences are not required for pesticides that contain fenthion. (5) The Henderson landfill is licensed under categories 63 and 64 of schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987, and is not licensed to accept liquid waste. Waste arrives in trucks, many of which are sealed compactor trucks, and details of each truck, its company, the type of waste and origin are logged by the landfill operator. The trucks then deposit waste on the tipping face, where it is covered with sand. (6) No. (7) No. See the answer to (4). (8) The DEC will determine the appropriate action to be taken after it has completed its investigation. WESTERN POWER AND SYNERGY — PAY AGREEMENT 663. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Energy: I refer to Synergy and Western Power’s plan to bring their workers under a non-union collective agreement. (1) Does the minister support the actions of Western Power and Synergy in their opposition to their workers’ campaign for better pay? (2) Does the minister support Western Power in using the last days of the Howard government’s unfair WorkChoices law to settle the dispute? (3) Has the minister taken steps to ensure that no worker has been bullied or harassed into accepting the agreement? (4) What steps has the minister taken to ensure reliability of power supply to Western Australian homes and businesses during any industrial action taken by Western Power employees? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) At the outset, I will say that Western Power and Synergy are statutory corporations as a result of the disaggregation process that was implemented by the previous government. It is interesting and ironic that the very union that is now at odds with both Synergy and Western Power, the Australian Services Union, is screaming from the rafters that it bemoans the whole disaggregation process. The union did not want Western Power to be disaggregated, and it feels that the current situation is a result of disaggregation. The ASU represents around 700 workers of the 2 000 workers in Western Power.
5340 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
I am aware of the current negotiations between the ASU and both Synergy and Western Power. As statutory corporations, both are looking for efficiency measures. As far as I am concerned, unless there were a clear and identifiable situation in which Western Power and Synergy were working against the better interests of the workers, there is no necessity for me as Minister for Energy to step in. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, when the corporations are asked to work in a competitive environment and to look for efficiencies and at the same time ensure that their workers are looked after. I am aware of the offers that have been put to the workers, and I think they are fair and reasonable. All that is happening on this occasion is that Synergy and Western Power are asking the workers directly. I do not think any more than that can be asked for or expected. To this point, I am unaware of anything that Western Power and Synergy have done other than negotiate in good faith over months and months. In both instances, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union, the other union associated with both corporations, has made an agreement with the corporations. At this stage, after what I have seen, I have no intention of getting further involved. I am aware of the offer that has been made to workers and, as I said, I think it is a fair and reasonable offer. I have no problems with Western Power or Synergy asking the workers directly—that is only fair and reasonable. I understand that a limited stop-work meeting will take place on Thursday. The advice I have received at this stage is that it will not affect reliability, but I will continue to be informed by Western Power about electricity reliability until negotiations reach an amicable conclusion for both parties. OFFICE FOR YOUTH — DEVELOPMENT OFFICER POSITIONS 664. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Youth: I refer the minister to the Department for Communities’ Office for Youth development officer positions. Can the minister confirm the position of senior development officer based in Bunbury has been discontinued due to budgetary restraints; and is this the only development officer position to be defunded in recent weeks? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for her question. I will have to take that question on notice. GORGON GAS DEVELOPMENT — PREMIER’S STATEMENTS 665. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the Premier’s statements on 3 July 2003, and subsequently on 20 October 2003 in The West Australian titled “Gorgon viable on the mainland” and “Barnett pledges to move Gorgon Gas to mainland”. (1) What steps has the Premier taken to force Gorgon Gas Development from the environmentally sensitive Barrow Island to the mainland? (2) If none to (1), why not? (3) Does the Premier still believe this state would reap a better economic windfall by locating an LNG plant on the mainland with the underdeveloped Maitland industrial estate site south of Burrup Peninsula? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) What steps has the Premier taken to get the federal government and Chevron Corporation to spend the extra billion dollars to build the project’s main plant on the mainland? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I regret that I do not have a copy of the question, or an answer to that. I do not know whether it has gone astray in the system, but I will check it out and let the member know in due course. If it has gone astray, hopefully it will be found by tomorrow, and the member can ask the question again. FISHERIES ADJUSTMENT SCHEMES SPECIAL PURPOSE ACCOUNT 666. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Fisheries: I refer the minister to the 2009-10 Budget Statements, Budget Paper No 2, volume 1, page 234. (1) Can the minister give a detailed breakdown of the table titled “Fisheries Adjustment Schemes Special Purpose Account”? (2) Can the minister give details of the purpose of the following moneys noted under the 2009-10 budget estimates — (a) line titled “Other”, $1.6 million; and (b) line titled “Payments”, $2.1 million?
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5341
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: The answer is quite long, so I seek leave to table the document and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 906.] The following material was incorporated —
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. (1) 2009-2010 Budget Column Receipts of $500,000 represent the annual Consolidated Account allocation to support fisheries adjustments as they arise. Receipts of $1,600,000 represent proceeds of borrowings for the Abrolhos Island Trawl Voluntary Fisheries Adjustment Scheme. The payments assume that the two amounts received will be paid out during the year. 2008-2009 Estimated Actual Column Receipts of $500,000 represent the annual Consolidated Account allocation to support fisheries adjustments as they arise. The payments of $1,000,000 represent expected payments for established Fisheries Adjustment Schemes, for example the South West Coast Salmon Fishery. 2008-2009 Budget Column Receipts of $500,000 represent the annual Consolidated Account allocation to support fisheries adjustments as they arise. The payments assume that the amount received will be paid out during the year. 2007-2008 Actual Column Receipts of $776,000 comprises $500,000 annual Consolidated Account allocation to support fisheries adjustments as they arise and an additional amount of $226,000 as a corrective posting to the Account. The payments of $3,000 relate to administration costs. (2) a) $1.6 million in the Line titled “Other” is a provision for the Abrolhos Islands and Midwest Trawl Fishery Voluntary Fisheries Adjustment Scheme, which was established on 15 May 2009. (2) b) $2.1 million in the Line titled “Payments” is provision for licences to be surrendered to Voluntary and Compulsory Fisheries Adjustment Schemes that are either currently established or intended to be established.
LOAN BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [5.37 pm]: When I commenced my remarks, I said that just about every day that we come into this place we see another example of this budget unravelling and another black hole appearing in the budget. The pace is picking up as it now seems that every time we ask a question we find yet more holes opening in the budget and the financial management of this state by the members opposite. I will go through some of these a little later on in this debate. I will point out how some of the questions in question time highlighted just how out of control the budget process is under this state government and how — Hon Sally Talbot interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Absolutely. I started the debate by pointing out that $20 million had been lost from the environment portfolio through what could only be described as sheer incompetence! In fairness to the Minister for Environment, on this occasion I do not think it was her incompetence that caused this because, as we heard in the estimates hearing last week, the incompetence was that of the faceless men of the committee that imposed this revenue grab on her portfolio. It is my recollection, if I am not mistaken, that the Minister for Environment told everyone that it was imposed on her. The minister stated that she was not invited to make comment and was told it was going to happen! In the same way, the Minister for Transport, with the Perth Parking Management Act 1999, advised us that he had been told the authority would increase its levy and then he would sort out how he spent the money. I suspect that when he was told to raise the funds, the people who made that decision did not realise those funds are subject to control and, therefore, could be spent only on certain purposes. I wonder whether that is also what happened with the environment portfolio and they did not realise! The government thought, “Oh, here is a levy we can raise. We can pick some money up here. We can raise some money to fund the unsustainable election commitments that we made and the budget will be balanced. We will be able to present this budget—it looks fantastic—to the Parliament”. The problem is that underneath this budget there is a set of lies and mistruths, and an incorrect analysis of how the finances of this state work.
5342 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
Hon Sally Talbot: So our questions were not just hypothetical! Hon KEN TRAVERS: No. They were not hypothetical at all. It is interesting that the opposition has been able to predict most of the things that have unravelled during this budget debate. As I mentioned earlier, we predicted that before the end of this financial year, this house would have to debate another Loan Bill to fund the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. We were told by the government that another Loan Bill was still under consideration. However, we on this side of the house predicted that we would be back in this house to deal with a Loan Bill before 30 June—and, sure enough, we are here today to deal with this bill. I will make another prediction. I predict that before 30 June 2013, we will be back in this house to deal with another Loan Bill, because the government will have run out of money. The government cannot control its expenditure. The government has thrown into this budget a range of savings. However, the government has not worked out how those savings will materialise. The government has also thrown into this budget a range of revenue streams from increased fees and charges. The government, in its attempt to fund its unsustainable election commitments, has predicated its budget on making families pay more, and on letting off scot-free people who could probably afford to pay increased taxes and charges, even in these current economic circumstances. It is not as though the government went into this budget with its eyes closed. The government would have known that its election commitments were unsustainable. That is not to mention the numerous election commitments that the government has failed to even try to implement. As I was saying before question time, the government is required to report to the Parliament if it deviates from the financial management principles laid down in the Government Financial Responsibility Act. The government might argue that we can wait until the midyear review for that report. However, given the nature of this budget, the government should have given us an explanation in the budget papers of how it expects to meet those financial management principles. The government has not been able to meet the financial targets that were set by the former government. It has not even been able to get close to meeting those targets. The government has shifted the goal posts and put in place new targets and new measures. The government has decided to forget about the financial management targets that this state has operated under for the past five years, and probably longer, because it cannot meet those targets, and has put in place a new set of targets that it intends to meet. The problem is that those targets are predicated on a range of factors that are beyond the control of the government. The government is gambling on the fact that interest rates will go up only because the economy is expanding— that is, that the economy will expand at a faster rate than interest rates will go up. Many economic commentators are suggesting that there may well be an increase in interest rates, but that will be due not to an expansion of the economy, but to an overheated economy. This state is facing very troubling times. The government is operating not near the precipice, but actually over the precipice. I will point out the state that we have reached. It is important with the Loan Bill to understand the state of the finances and what is happening in this process. Yesterday the Monthly Report of General Government Finances was released. I accept that one must be very careful about how these figures are interpreted on a year-to-year basis or even as a prediction, because the revenue and expenditure streams of government are not normally a nice, smooth, even line; they vary from month to month. That is why there can be a significant operating deficit in one month, as happened in April when there was a deficit of some $303 million, while an annual estimated net operating surplus of $647 million was predicted. I do not think that $647 million is a realistic figure for the end of the financial year, but that is what the estimate was at the time. The telling point can be seen in the revenue and expenses graphs in the document that was released yesterday. The flow of revenue this year has been quite different from those of previous years. I understand that that is probably because the land tax bills were issued late this year, and so the revenue stream came in a bit later than would normally be expected. In fact, the table shows that the revenue received to date is down by a similar amount to the end of 30 June when compared with last year’s revenue. There is a reduction in that revenue of just under $1 billion, and we are on track in that regard. Although the revenue has come in at different times of the year, it is roughly what would have been expected and predicted to come in, and a bit of a surge would normally be expected in the last couple of months. In fact, last year about $1 billion came in between 30 April and the end of the financial year. This year we need about $800 million in revenue to come in on target with what has been predicted. Figure 2 shows the expenses of government and is the more telling table in this document. It highlights that the expenses of this government are out of control and the government does not have the capacity to rein them in. We have seen consistently since the midyear review was released a government that is not able to meet its expenditure targets and is not able to control or rein in the rampant expenditure it is facing. It is not the situation of a couple of years ago when we had massive increases in revenue, a massive increase in the public’s expectation of what could be funded from that revenue, and massive pressures on public sector expenses for both wages and the cost of capital goods. The Perth building price index was going through the roof at that time. That is what was driving the increases in expenditure. There were pressures on the human capital of the public sector to maintain a quality public service. There was pressure on the previous government to pay those public servants
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5343 more. However, this government is not facing those pressures today. If members get a copy of this document, they will see that the revenue received in some months of last year was slightly below the revenue received in some months this year, but, on average, the position is probably the same; that is, it is a bit down on last year but it is what was predicted. However, we can see in the expenses graph that in every month since July last year, expenses have gone through the roof. Expenses have been significantly above those in 2007-08. Despite the requirement for three per cent cuts and other savings in government agencies, I expect that a similar graph in the end-of-year figures available in September will show expenses for the next two months as being significantly above those of 2007-08. The expense side in the Monthly Report of General Government Finances tells the same story. To further demonstrate my point, it is worth going through the expected figures in the midyear review, for those members still not convinced that this government has lost control of the state’s finances. I refer members who follow these things closely to table 1, “Key Budget Aggregates”, on page 2 of the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement released in December of last year. At the time that document was released, total government revenue was expected to be $20.039 billion, yet a similar figure in the table on page 2 and page 3 of the budget, shows a slight reduction in predicted revenue for 2008-09. The expected out turn in the midyear financial review for expenses this year was $18.853 billion, yet the expected out turn in the budget for the end of the financial year is $19.03 billion. It has gone up. The figure below that in the midyear review highlights that government expenses were predicted to grow by 12 per cent in the 2008-09 financial year, yet the expenses growth figure outlined in the key aggregates on page 3 of the budget is for growth of 13 per cent—a one per cent jump in growth. People may say that that is nothing, but it is a very significant figure. More importantly, it shows a government that is unable or unwilling to control expense growth. That control will be the great challenge for anyone who sits on the Treasury benches in Western Australia for the next couple of years during these very tough times. It is even more telling to further drill down these figures, because we find an even greater growth in recurrent expenditure while we have been paring back on capital works expenditure. The thing that will save this state will be the federal Rudd Labor government’s capital expenditure that will stimulate and grow capital works investment in Western Australia. Therefore, we will see a growth in capital works and stimulus in Western Australia, but that will be thanks to the Rudd Labor government in Canberra There is no doubt in my mind that expense growth is out of control. Even in the past six months, despite the government assuring us that it was going to be okay, it has not been able to deliver the savings it expected to deliver and that it promised to deliver six months ago. We need to be aware of that when we deal with the Loan Bill tonight, because we are expected to authorise the borrowing of money required over the next four years, but there is no requirement for the government to spend that money over the next four years. As I said earlier, it could all be spent in the next two to three years, and then the government will come back looking for an increase in the credit card amount. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: That would be right! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Indeed. It is of grave concern to me that we face expenses being out of control, and the government so far demonstrating that it does not have the capacity to control that expenditure or to manage future circumstances. This bill seeks approval for the state to borrow funds for the next four years. The Premier likes to talk about what is happening now and not about the forward estimates, because they do not tell the story that he wants to hear. I will touch on the risks to this state’s finances over the next four years. I have already mentioned that today $19.5 million worth of funding was taken out of the environment portfolio budget because the government did not do its homework to find out that it could not raise a new levy without amending the act. An amount of $20 million has disappeared from the budget today. Members might say that it is only $20 million. However, amounts in the budget of $20 million here and $10 million there add up to a large amount of money. The government’s approach is that as it is dealing with huge amounts of money, which are beyond its comprehension, an extra $20 million will not pose a problem. That is the reason this state has the problem it faces today. I refer also to the amount of $16.4 million in the budget for Perth Parking Management Authority. The budget shows that additional revenue, but it indicates that it can be spent only on certain activities. It is already clear that this $16.4 million in additional revenue has not been accounted for in expenditure. I advise members that the amount of $16.4 million applies to each of the next four years, which adds up to $65 million. That amount, added to the $20 million from the environment budget totals $85 million. It all adds up. I will go through some of the capital works projects that, although we know this state government will proceed with, have not been allocated funding in the budget. The Premier said that the number one economic stimulus item for this state — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: What is it?
5344 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is the Oakajee port. The Premier decided that this government could not continue with a project that Labor was to implement and it had to be changed. He decided that this government would provide capital funding for the basin and build the port at Oakajee. Even though the private sector was happy to undertake the project, manage the cash flow and hand the asset back to the state, the Premier decided that this government would do it differently. There is no mention of that project in the budget. The Premier went to the federal government stating that it was Western Australia’s number one priority and requested that it go halves in the funding of this major project, some $330 million. One of the problems the opposition faces is that we still do not know the final figure for the Oakajee port. Apparently, it is still subject to negotiation. Negotiations between the state and the private sector about what that figure will be are ongoing. One of the reasons that this project was not included in the budget was that there was insufficient certainty surrounding the amount of money that was required and the scope of the project. It is interesting that other projects are included in the budget, but the relevant figures have been plucked out of the air. Nonetheless, the Oakajee port project is not mentioned in the budget. We know from the rough government estimate that the expenditure that will be needed to be found by the state government is approximately $330 million. That amount will be included in the loan requirements for the next four years. We do not know what is happening about the Oakajee port. Perhaps the argument will be that it is a project that will be funded by the Geraldton Port Authority; therefore, it will involve borrowings that will be separate from the amount being sought in the Loan Bill. If that is the case, it will increase the amount of borrowings of $19.1 billion in 2013; it will add to the state’s total net debt; and it will have a potential impact on this state’s AAA credit rating, even if the loan required is sought through a government agency. If the Geraldton Port Authority has to manage that amount of debt, it may well be that it needs a cash injection because it does not have the cash flow to fund it out of its day-to-day revenues. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage of this day’s sitting. THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Michael Mischin): The question is that the member be given leave to continue his remarks at a later stage of today’s sitting. Hon Wendy Duncan: No. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the ayes have it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am happy to continue my remarks after the break. Point of Order Hon NORMAN MOORE: Mr Deputy President, the question is that leave be granted. Would you be good enough to ask that question? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will put the question again. Debate Resumed Question put and passed. [Leave granted for the member’s speech to be continued at a later stage of the sitting.] [Continued on page 5355.] Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 pm The PRESIDENT: I give the call to Hon Phil Edman. I remind members that this is the member’s inaugural speech and the usual courtesies need to be adhered to. HON PHIL EDMAN (South Metropolitan) [7.30 pm]: Mr President, as I stand to speak in this chamber for the first time, let me begin by congratulating both you on your election as President of the house, and the Chairman of Committees on his election. The performance of this chamber depends heavily on these positions and I am confident that we will all benefit from the skills and experience that both of you bring to these roles. I would also like to thank the Clerk of the house and the parliamentary staff for helping introduce all the new members to the workings of Parliament; your help has been invaluable. Furthermore, I will also take a moment to congratulate those members who, like me, are also giving their maiden speech. I can appreciate the hard work that everybody has put in and I look forward to working with all of you. While it is customary that a maiden speech focuses on the member and his or her background, I prefer to start with some of our state’s history, because we tend to forget, in such beautiful surroundings, of the vision, hard work and determination that our forefathers gave to bring us to where we are today. Notwithstanding the history of the first Australians, Western Australia’s road to colonisation began in 1827 with Captain Stirling’s exploration of the Swan River area, which drove him to argue for the establishment of a
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5345 colony for “free” settlers, as opposed to the penal colonies of the east. Backed by a favourable botanical report and a desire by the British to prevent French colonisation, Stirling won government support to start the new colony. Much to the dismay of Stirling, the requirements of other colonies at the time meant that British support for the colony was insufficient. Despite this and a lack of land and coastal charts for the Swan River area, the five-month voyage from England was taken, and on 1 June 1829 the Western Australian coast was sighted from HMS Parmelia, a moment which we celebrate every year on Foundation Day. While we can appreciate the natural beauty seen by the first settlers, it would be hard for us to relate to the hardships they faced. It was only emergency supplies from outside and the constant search for farmable land that saved many from starvation. Apart from getting enough food, the clearing of land and the building of shelter were also challenges. Today some members may agonise over having to share offices in Parliament House, but we should take comfort in knowing that, unlike in Stirling’s time, the roofs in our offices do not leak and our newspapers are delivered, because back then the local newspaper was nailed to a eucalyptus tree on St Georges Terrace. Hard times saw many settlers leave the colony, but those who stayed on did so because they had a vision they believed in and the courage to carry that vision through. My family history in Western Australia began in 1948 when my grandparents, David and Cynthia Raeside, immigrated to Australia. Like many at the time who arrived with no family or friends, they considered themselves a “pioneering couple”. Soon after arrival, my grandfather began working for Westrail, and during his career he saw many changes as Western Australia grew through the second half of the twentieth century. Working as the Assistant District Engineer in Kalgoorlie, he saw the final days of steam and helped to receive the first diesel loco to Kalgoorlie. After this, he worked in Geraldton as District Engineer when Sir Charles Court was Minister for Industrial Development. It was during this time that Western Mining hauled its first shipment of iron ore from its mid-west operations to the Geraldton port. Liaising between government and resource companies of the time, he oversaw the laying of new tracks and several upgrades where existing tracks could not handle the ore trains. The heavier axle loads caused many problems and moving forward was neither easy nor without its challenges. Beyond his work, my grandfather was also a keen contributor to the community; an attribute that has been passed from one generation to another. Despite his demanding career, he gave up much of his own time to sit on the WA bush Fires Brigades Board, be an active member of the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Knights of the Southern Cross. In short, he loved this state and its people. My parents, whom I am blessed to have with me today, are also strong believers in contributing to the community. My father ran a financial services business, was a member of Jaycees International and was a district governor for the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal in 1984. My mother, who started her own counselling practice in 1994, helped out in the school tuck shop, did meals on wheels and volunteered on the Samaritans’ help-line. Educated in Perth, my upbringing instilled in me the principles of reward for effort in giving to the community. My brother, Mark, and I earned our pocket money doing chores. We learnt to save for the things that we wanted and were taught to care for what we had. I recall Mark and I spending our Christmas holidays helping out on Father Brian Morrison’s Christmas Appeal by collecting and distributing gifts for the needy. All through my school years I had a strong desire to one day own and run my own business: I, just like both of my parents, wanted to be my own boss. Consequently, I left school early to enter into an apprenticeship as a cabinet-maker, and in May 1991, just nine months after finishing my apprenticeship, I started my own cabinet- making business. Since then, 18 years as a small business owner has made me very aware of the issues that small businesses face, and it is a privilege to be a member of the Liberal Party, which works so hard for small business. Having been an apprentice, I am proud to say that I have personally employed several apprentices with some now owning their own businesses and compete directly with my own. Although becoming a member of the Legislative Council has led me to place my business under management, it continues to take on apprentices, with all staff living in the South Metropolitan Region. Although being a small business owner is a large part of my life, it was a terrible storm that hit Rockingham at night in May 2003 that started me towards a life in politics. That night, I saw many boats lose their moorings and be pushed onto the foreshore. That event reinforced my view, and that of many others, that a marina was badly needed for Rockingham, and the government needed to act. After six months of lobbying government for the construction of a marina and six months of disappointing responses from elsewhere, I travelled to Canberra to meet with the then Prime Minister, John Howard, as only he and the Liberal Party had shown any interest in building this much-needed community facility. It was encouraging to finally meet people who appreciated the needs of our community and who saw the need for government involvement. Five months later, I became a member of the Liberal Party, and in 2004 I stood for the federal seat of Brand, achieving a 15.9 per cent primary vote gain, which made Brand a marginal seat. My desire to see more amenities and services in our region remained strong, and in February 2005 I successfully ran for the council seat of Safety Bay in the City of Rockingham. During my four years as a councillor in the City of Rockingham many things
5346 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] were accomplished; however, the most memorable achievements were helping to obtain $6.7 million in federal AusLink funding for the Mundijong Road extension and being at the opening of both the Gary Holland Community Centre and the Lark Hill Sports Complex after personally sourcing regional partnership funding from Canberra. Being involved in bringing amenities and infrastructure to our region and seeing just how much government could do inspired me to run for office again, and, thanks to the support of those in my electorate, I am here today. Having spoken about this state’s history, and my own, it is now time for me to speak of the future that I would like to see for our state. We all know how lucky we are to live in Western Australia but having such a large state with natural beauty and plentiful resources should not be taken for granted, and it should not stop us from seeing the many problems that still need to be fixed and the many opportunities that are still out there. No government was ever elected to simply administer everything, change nothing and hope for the best. Governments are elected to make things better and to make a difference, and to do this we must be innovative. Not all the opportunities for innovation are obvious; often the best ideas are the ones that take society by surprise, forcing us to accept that there is a better way. To be able to identify, develop and act on the kinds of ideas that throughout history have pushed society forward, we need vision, imagination and creativity. It was, for example, vision, imagination and creativity that saw the first settlers through. It was also vision, imagination and creativity that helped our resources sector grow into what it is today, but the need to push forward is never-ending. Technologies change, markets change and humanity changes, and if we do not respond—if we simply sit back—we risk being left behind. In recent times we have been reminded of just how volatile resource markets can be. We have seen the fallout of dropping prices and we have seen many people lose their jobs as a consequence. The lesson from all this is that even though the resources sector has contributed so much to Western Australia, it still has to deal with local and overseas markets and economies, all of which are beyond our control. To date, we have done the right thing by working in partnership with the private sector and responsibly developing our resources, and although I am a great believer in our resources sector and its ongoing importance to the state, we must become more than our resources; we must be more than we are today. As a government we can do this by working with industry and the community to make this state a place where things happen; a place where people from all over the world want to visit. This is where tourism can tell us just how attractive our state really is because when people plan their holidays, our state is compared with the rest of the world, and the reality is that we need to offer a more diverse experience to visitors than we currently do. In speaking on tourism, I refer to the recently-released Jackson report, which highlights the many issues faced by the tourism industry. For example, the tourism industry depends heavily on external infrastructure, which means that before tourism businesses even get to see their customers, those customers have already been experiencing Western Australia, which makes infrastructure such as our ports, roads, airports and parking very important. We should be particularly aware of our airports and realise that we are a long-haul destination for most inbound tourists and that their first and last experiences of Western Australia are often had at our airports. How good or bad these experiences are can have a strong impact on a tourist’s lasting impression of our state, no matter how good we have performed in other areas. It is a harsh reality for our tourism industry that the external infrastructure it depends on is often developed and maintained by all three levels of government, often with the involvement of the private sector, which makes getting the necessary infrastructure for tourism so much harder. Even if infrastructure is not an issue, high-quality tourism operations, by nature, require exceptional locations if they are to succeed. Development applications must tackle not only founded and unfounded community fears of inappropriate development, but also excessive red tape, which means expensive and frustrating battles with complex planning requirements and regulations. Large-scale developments need to deal with not only all three levels of government, but also multiple agencies across those governments, creating costly and unnecessary overlapping, which can block the investment our tourism industry needs. With this in mind, we must recognise that our world is so interconnected that if we become a state where ideas are held back by bureaucracy and red tape and where the biggest barrier to innovation and creativity is the government itself, our creativity and vision will go elsewhere. Where will they go? They will go where government does not resist change but, rather, embraces it. Unless we provide fertile soil for these ideas to grow, those ideas will benefit other communities, grow other economies and provide new jobs for other workers. I am glad to say that this government is responding and ensuring that we are better placed for the future no matter what it holds. Moving to a more local focus, my desire for the electorate that I represent is for the communities of the South Metropolitan Region to be whole communities where people can live complete lives within their local area without having to go to Perth for basics such as education, job opportunities and health treatment. This is not saying that we need a second capital city; but, rather, saying that we should provide for the needs of everyone, no matter where they live, because we are not a government of a select few; we are a government for all Western Australians.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5347
As a member of the Legislative Council, I cannot claim that we will fix every problem faced by society or that we will not make mistakes, but I can say that when potential and vision come together we, like our forefathers with their vision of a new colony, and Sir Charles Court with his vision for the state’s resources sector, will nurture that vision with hard work, determination and an unshakeable belief that what we are doing is both possible to achieve and a worthy legacy for our children to inherit. I would now like to take a moment to thank some of the many people who have helped me over the years, providing me with advice, support and encouragement. Although not everyone is mentioned, you know who you are and how much your support is appreciated. I thank Rick Palmer, Tony O’Leary and Les Dodd for their help in the electorate of Brand. I thank Barry Sammels, Chris Thompson and the late Gary Holland, whom I worked with on the Rockingham City Council. I also thank some of my many friends from the Liberal Party—John Corser, Nick Rawlins, Phil Turtle, Donna Gordin and Frank Parker—for all their help. I also thank the 500 Club for its ongoing support for the Western Australian Liberal Party; its contribution often goes unrecognised. I would also like to thank and congratulate the members of the South Metropolitan Region team. In the Legislative Council I am joined by Hon Simon O’Brien and Hon Nick Goiran. In the Legislative Assembly I am joined by Hon Christian Porter from the electorate of Bateman—one of the best Attorneys General the state has ever seen—Mr Joe Francis from Jandakot, Dr Mike Nahan from Riverton, Mr Peter Abetz from Southern River, and Mr John McGrath from South Perth. It is a privilege to be part of this hardworking team and to be part of the Barnett government. Finally, I would like to acknowledge those who are closest to my heart. I acknowledge my mother and father, who brought me into this world, and I would like to acknowledge my wife, Virginia, and my newly born son, Matthew: you are closest to me, and it is often your love and support that keeps me going when I need it most. Having acknowledged those who have supported me in life and in politics, I recognise that my presence in this chamber is ultimately due to the trust and support that the people of the South Metropolitan Region have placed in me. Mr President, in conclusion, the South Metropolitan Region is a great place, where I am proud to live, work and raise my family. However, it is more than just a place; it is a community, of which our team in the South Metropolitan Region is a part of. We will be working hard not only for the South Metropolitan Region, but also to make Western Australia a better place to live. Thank you. [Applause.] The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Michael Mischin. I remind members that this is the member’s inaugural speech, and I ask that members extend the usual courtesies. HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan) [7.47 pm]: I rise in this place as a humble, grateful and proud Australian. I am humble because I know that in electing me, the people of the North Metropolitan Region have put their faith in me, and I am well aware of their expectations. I am grateful to everyone who has helped me to get here, including the Liberal Party, my family and my supporters. I am a proud Australian because I recognise and am reminded daily that I owe this country for everything I have and everything I am. Despite popular cynicism, I still believe that it is an honour to serve the community in the Parliament of a robust democracy such as ours. It is also a challenge, perhaps more so now than ever, but there are some values and institutions that must endure and are worth preserving. I will briefly reflect on what I believe is important about being part of this institution and why it should never be taken for granted. We, the newly elected members of this place, take our seats in global economic circumstances the like of which have not been seen for nearly 80 years. The world is changing rapidly in many ways, and we owe it to the people who have placed their trust in us to adapt to, persevere with and overcome the challenges that those changes present. More than that, we owe them our commitment to ensure proper regard for, and protection of, their fundamental rights and liberties. We owe it to them to maintain a balance between the powers of this Parliament, those of the executive and those of the judiciary, and we also owe it to them to rebuild respect for the institution of Parliament. Mr President, I am an ordinary middle-aged Australian; I make no claim to any political ancestry, or, indeed, to any lifelong ambition to have a political career. My interest in parliamentary service came rather late in life, and I have been fortunate to have been allowed the opportunity to realise that interest. I merely hope that when I leave this place, people will say of me that I served the state well. That is something that can truly be said of my two North Metropolitan Region predecessors, Hon George Cash and Hon Ray Halligan. They are men who, despite the differences they may have had with political opponents over the years, were nevertheless respected for their service to Parliament and to the community. I will acknowledge them in more detail in due course. If I can bring to this Parliament some of the values that I have tried to live by in my private and professional life, I will consider my time here a success. Those values are loyalty, integrity, respect for others, and a commitment to do what is right. These are the touchstones that, with the forbearance of members, will guide me during my parliamentary journey.
5348 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
Like so many Australians, I count the experiences of my immigrant forebears, reinforced by what I have learned through my study of history, among the most important building blocks in my life. Mischin is obviously not an Anglo-Saxon name. My parents came to Australia as displaced persons following World War II. They came here as children, with what was left of their families, and with only what possessions they could carry in suitcases. They came here in the aftermath of a war that in the 12 months before its end was killing one million people a month. It was a war that ravaged Europe and had threatened to destroy civilised society and replace it with a refined barbarism masquerading as law and order. It was not their first dislocation. My paternal grandparents were Russians who had fled a murderous revolution and eventually settled in Yugoslavia. My paternal grandfather was killed in a bombing raid on Belgrade during World War II; my father was only about 10 years old at the time. My father’s brother was an officer cadet in the Yugoslav army when the Germans invaded, and he was taken as a prisoner of war. However, my father and my grandmother managed to escape Yugoslavia and reunite with my uncle; they ended up in Germany as displaced persons. My mother’s family also hailed from Eastern Europe. Her family—from a small village on the Polish- Belorussian border—suffered loss and dislocation during the war, and, by its end, most of what remained of her family were working on farms in Germany. It was from there that they, like so many others, came to Australia. Mum and dad met and grew up at the Holden Immigration Camp in Northam. They married in that town and then moved to Perth. They struggled to find a place in a country that offered peace and prosperity but was nowhere near as cosmopolitan as it is today, and where sometimes immigrants found it difficult to gain acceptance. Members will understand why Hon Helen Bullock’s account of her own coming to Australia and her experience of being a stranger in a strange land struck a sympathetic chord with me. My parents worked hard and lived frugally and they provided all that they could by way of comfort, educational opportunities and familial support to me and my three sisters. I was educated in state schools—Karrinyup at primary level, and then Scarborough Senior High School—after which I attended the University of Western Australia. There, after a shaky start, I graduated in law with honours. I did my articles in a private law firm, and for a couple of years I worked for a one-man practice—that of one Athol C. Gibson, a man of generosity and of whom I have fond memories. In 1985, I commenced work at the Crown Law department as a research officer for Ron Davies, QC, then state crown prosecutor. Ron was and still is something of a legend in the legal profession and is a man whom I regard as a consummate prosecutor and fearless advocate. Anyway, that was the start of a career in criminal law that has spanned almost 24 years, almost exclusively as a prosecutor for the state. I presented cases in courts across Western Australia. In doing so, I met all manner of people, young and old, good and bad, and from all backgrounds. To do my job I have had to be able to understand what makes people tick. In the process, I have learnt to appreciate, if not necessarily agree with, other people’s points of view. Of course, in the course of my career I have seen incompetence, I have seen corruption and I have seen base behaviour. But I have also had my faith in human nature strengthened by finding resilience, honesty, community spirit and generosity where I least expected it. I have travelled widely across the state and I have seen the circumstances in which others live—city and country—and I believe that I have acquired an appreciation of their problems. In my view there is nothing so destructive to a community, even a state as great as Western Australia, as the feeling that others do not understand or care about their particular problems. I have learnt the importance of listening to others and the importance to them of knowing that they have been heard. For example, I have stayed in distant regional centres when out on circuit. Although that, of course, is not the same as living there full time, it does give one an inkling of the sorts of problems people face in those centres: the frustration of poor telephone connections, unreliable electricity, prohibitively expensive air fares, lack of accommodation in growing centres, reduced access to medical facilities, and even getting the morning paper a day later than everyone else in the state. All in all, it is the feeling that, because people are in a rural centre, they may as well be in another country altogether. I have found also that even differences between some parts of this city can be as profound as those between Perth and the remotest parts of the state. It is appreciation of this unique diversity of ours that reinforces my commitment to preserve our state’s autonomy; we are, I believe, best served by a genuinely cooperative federal system of government. I have alluded to one of the things the wartime experiences of my parents and grandparents hammered into me. What happened in Europe in the lead-up to the Second World War has indelibly impressed on me the dangers of concentrating too much power in the one set of hands and how badly power can be abused. Although of Eastern European heritage, I was born and raised in Australia. My career as a legal practitioner has made me an even greater admirer of the institutions we have inherited from Britain—ideals such as an independent judiciary, an independent civil service and the concept of a bicameral legislature. I accept that, as a general principle, the government of the day should not be obstructed in its legislative program. But that does not mean that the manner in which it implements its program should not be examined with the utmost probity and, when necessary, opposed. For example, in some cases when public passions over an issue are inflamed, a hasty
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5349 response may result in laws that are badly drafted or have unforeseen or undesirable consequences. We cannot afford the luxury of allowing expediency to triumph over principle. Our system provides us with a cooling-off period and an opportunity for further examination and consideration. No publisher, for example, would consider sending something to print without it being reviewed by a proofreader, yet the way we are going I genuinely feel that the erosion of our rights and freedoms may occur by stealth. I acknowledge that the community’s desire for security, whether it be from terrorists or thugs in pubs, creates a seemingly increasing demand for regulation. There is an assumption, its genesis probably in the concept of the welfare state, that governments can cure every ill. But laws alone cannot eliminate every risk a citizen faces, and no human institution has ever functioned with machine-like precision, let alone satisfied everyone’s expectations of it. Laws can provide only a measure of our rights and obligations; they guarantee nothing. History has shown us that such a quixotic search for state-guaranteed safety can result only in the creation of a police state. We must be wary in our search for security and to perfect our institutions that we do not lose the flexibility that allows them to adapt and to evolve. This, after all, has been the source of their resilience over the centuries and their value until now. Let me say that I believe the greatest defence against that is not a bill of rights. We will not protect the people by abrogating responsibility to unelected judges or to broad and bold statements of principle that do not allow for subtlety and necessary exception. People can, however, protect themselves by better understanding the basics of our system of government and the institutions upon which our society is founded. We, as legislators, can protect the people by exercising our power in the most principled way. The latter is why the Legislative Council continues to have a vitally important role in our system of government and why I am particularly grateful to be able to serve in this place. But, as every comic or movie superhero knows, power carries with it responsibility. I believe our responsibility is to deal with the business before the house diligently and expeditiously and to not wilfully obstruct the progress of matters before it by insubstantial attempts at point scoring. I believe that obstruction and disruption are an insult to the dignity of this house and a betrayal of the responsibilities that we bear towards our constituents. It is customary on this occasion to acknowledge those who have contributed to my being in this place and I am honoured to do so now. There is a risk in this, of course. Firstly, there are so many to whom I owe so many things that to mention them all might take up not only the rest of tonight but also part of tomorrow. Secondly, it will inevitably mean that I will miss someone out or not do someone justice. Therefore, I will specifically name just a few people in the knowledge that those whom I do not mention by name will know that their contributions are close to my heart and I shall not forget them. I have already thanked my constituents. The reality is that people who vote for candidates in this chamber are primarily voting for a party. I recognise that I am in this place as a representative of the Liberal Party of which I have been a proud member for some 17 years. Nevertheless, I especially thank the 161 North Metropolitan Region voters, out of 280 235 voters who cast a ballot, who eschewed the party ticket and gave me their first preference. I had no idea I was that popular, but I can assure you, Mr President, that even my extended family is nowhere near that large! I now turn to those who had a direct influence on my being elected. Firstly, I thank my wife, Robyn. Her love and friendship have sustained me in the hard times and, despite her serious misgivings about the impact my change of career is going to have on her quality of life, she nevertheless continues to support me. I thank my family and my parents, George and Maria, for their love and nurture, for doing the best they could for me and for providing me with what they were able. I thank my parents-in-law, John and Noelene, who have supported and encouraged me and, as a bonus, are great friends. To my sisters, Lana, Tania and Nadia, I thank them for putting up with me all these years. To Hon Peter Collier, I also say a heartfelt thanks for his inspiration, counsel and support. I marvel—no pun intended—at his energy and the commitment that he brings to the job, and I look forward to adding a long and fruitful working relationship to our enduring friendship. I thank the Liberal Party for its support. I thank my branch, Dalkeith, which has a wonderful bunch of people, such as the president, Ann Patrick, and the vice president, Ian Warner. Our branch activities have been dedicated to not only the advancement of the Liberal cause, but also the principle that we should have fun while doing it, and I think we have tended to succeed in both. I also thank the other members in my division and the neighbouring divisions within my region for their support and confidence in me. At this point, I further acknowledge the contribution of Hon Ray Halligan. As the Leader of the House said on the occasion of Ray’s retirement, Ray has been a tireless worker for our parliamentary party. He has had a long and genuine interest in the ethnic communities of the North Metropolitan Region and throughout the state, and he has contributed significantly to this house and to its committee system. I also acknowledge and thank him for his personal support, his encouragement and his advice since my election. One of my objectives will be to maintain the high standards he has set.
5350 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
I also wish to pay tribute to Hon George Cash. I need not recap his long and distinguished career in politics, our party and this Parliament. His achievements speak for themselves. For me personally, however, George has been someone who has also generously volunteered his time, his counsel and his wisdom over the months since my election—my period in limbo, as it were. I shall certainly value his advice in the future. I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the parliamentary staff and the help that they have given me over the past several weeks, and the level of professionalism they bring to bear to their duties. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the support of my electorate officer, Sherril Paternoster, and my research officer, Peter Ramshaw, and thank them for their enthusiasm to join me in what promises to be an exciting and rewarding adventure. Like most newly elected members, I arrive here as a relative neophyte. My experience in law for some 24 years will no doubt help me, but I am, nevertheless, conscious that I am starting at the bottom of an evolutionary ladder. I know full well that I have very much to learn. At the same time, I do believe that I have something that I can contribute. I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues, whom I thank for the warmth of their welcome since my arrival here. I also look forward to working with, and, as necessary, opposing, the members on the other side of this chamber. I look forward to doing that with the conviction that whether we work in concert or in conflict, we are doing so for the betterment of this institution and striving for the benefit of the people of Western Australia. I look forward to serving my electorate and the people of the state as best I can; I look forward to honouring this Parliament and this chamber; and I look forward to honouring the Liberal Party. On a parting note, I would like to say that my experience in nominating for, being selected for and winning a seat in this house has been a journey that I will never forget. As Western Australians, we should never forget what a privilege it is to be able to be involved in politics in our uniquely Australian way. We must never forget the unique freedoms we have and must cherish these above all else. One of the most satisfying things I have found about polling day—apart from winning, of course—is the fact that no matter what passions are aroused by the issues and the circumstances on the day, or in the weeks leading up to it, voters can cast their vote with the confidence of knowing that they can then go home safe and sound. That is a lot more than can be said about so many other places in the world. I would like to be able to do my bit to keep Australia that way. I thank you, Mr President, and members, for your patience and your indulgence. [Applause.] The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Mia Davies. Once again, as it is the member’s inaugural speech, I ask members to observe the usual courtesies—and that applies particularly to members not sitting in their own seats. HON MIA DAVIES (Agricultural) [8.10 pm]: Thank you, Mr President, and I congratulate you on your recent election. I look forward to working with you in this chamber. I also extend my thanks to the Clerk and staff of Parliament House, who have made the new members feel welcome and have provided us with valuable guidance. I also acknowledge, with respect, the traditional custodians of the land upon which we meet. I also acknowledge my friends and family who have joined us this evening in the public gallery, and those who are watching via the World Wide Web. It is wonderful to have them close by as I shake my way through my first address to this house. It is indeed a humbling experience to realise that I have been elected to be one of just 95 people who sit in this Parliament and have responsibility for legislation that will impact on the lives of every person of this state. I remember the day that Hon Colin Holt, Hon Philip Gardiner, Hon Max Trenorden and I were confirmed elected, for more than one reason. Without doubt, there was a sense of personal achievement to think that a girl from the bush could end up in this place. More importantly, I recall the moment my name, along with those of Hon Philip Gardiner and Hon Max Trenorden, appeared on the screen at the Fremantle Passenger Terminal on the day the count for the Agricultural Region was finalised as being a triumph for the WA Nationals and the people of regional Western Australia. On that day, our small political party with the lofty aim of holding the balance of power in the Parliament and delivering our key election commitment, royalties for regions, achieved what the pundits had claimed would be impossible. I will talk about royalties for regions later. At this stage I ask for the indulgence of members as I tell them how a girl from the bush ended up in this place. If what my colleague Hon Colin Holt said in his inaugural speech is true, that all the things we have done in our past are preparations for what we about to take on, it would seem that a life in politics was a path set for me some years ago. I grew up in the central wheatbelt on the family farm in Yorkrakine, an area between Tammin and Wyalkatchem, approximately 200 kilometres north east of Perth. I will paint a picture for members that illustrates the humble beginnings of many families in this region. In April 1908, the then Minister for Agriculture and Lands, James Mitchell, having traversed the area between Tammin and Yorkrakine Hill, arranged for 51 sections to be surveyed in the Yorkrakine and Korrelocking areas. Blocks of country were valued at 10 to 12 shillings an acre, with the payment to be made over 25 years. In 1899, labourers’ wages started at seven shillings per day, and a man, horse and cart could be hired for 10 shillings a
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5351 day. In today’s currency, this equates to land prices of $1.20 an acre, labourers’ wages at 70 cents a day, and a bargain price of one dollar for a man, horse and cart. How times have changed! Unemployed and married folk with large families were invited to apply through the local press and, of the original settlers, five of the families had 10 or more children, and the smallest family consisted of six. These families eked out a living in a harsh and unforgiving environment. They lived in houses made of hessian bags and corrugated iron with dirt floors while they cleared the land for farming. They did it with no mechanical equipment, just sheer hard yakka. In amongst this work, they found time to build their community, open a general store, build a town hall for gatherings and form sporting clubs. The schools, hospitals and sealed roads came much later. They built their communities from scratch, with little assistance from the government of the day. In fact, James Mitchell was criticised for his bland optimism in allegedly throwing new settlers into the bush with just an axe, claiming that new railways and a little muscular activity were all that was required for success. He became the prime target for the Farmers and Settlers Association, founded in 1912, and two years later the association returned eight Country Party members to the Parliament. Today, there are fewer families and bigger farms. Ten families remain in the area taken up by the original 51. Names like the Hutchisons, Ryans, Everetts, Tilbrooks, Charltons, Nocks, Naughtons, Maitlands and Falkeners are still there. Other early settlers, including my family, are also in the district along with the dePierres, the Divers and the Mackins. My childhood was spent on the family farm. My Mum returned to Wylie with Dad the year I was born, and remained there for the next 20 years. Dad, his brothers and their wives worked with my grandfather, Lloyd, and my dear Nanna Iris and built the property and merino stud into a successful business enterprise. I know that Nanna and Pop would have been so proud to see me standing here today. My primary school years were spent at Wyalkatchem District High School. It was a small community and I am privileged to say that I still count some of these schoolmates as my close friends. Boarding school was the next challenge, and at 13 years of age I left home and headed to Perth to attend Methodist Ladies’ College. If nothing else, boarding school broadens a person’s horizons. I learnt to be independent and to look after myself. Many of you may know that MLC and Christ Church Grammar School are located side by side. In those days my boarding house, Langsford House, was located right on the boundary of the school. On the other side of the fence, not 10 metres away, was the Christ Church boarders’ year 10 common room, with a gate that was usually unlocked. But that is not where this story is going. What was always curious to me was that the girls in the boarding house were expected to manage their studies and attend to domestic duties such as their own washing and ironing—and we cleaned on the weekend—while it seemed the boys on the other side of the fence were able to put their washing into a bag and have it delivered back to them the following day while they had fishing passes and day leave. It just goes to show that even at that young age women are able to multitask. I enjoyed those years and the opportunities the school offered me. My interests tended towards art and music, but my upbringing meant I also played a bit of sport. I hasten to add that I was much better at literature, art and music than on-field pursuits. Unfortunately, the only sporting prowess I inherited from my father, who was an accomplished sportsman, is my love of the Fremantle Dockers. School was followed by university where I studied science for a year, followed by three years of studying marketing and the media. Again, the friends I met during that time have remained some of my dearest. On graduating, I left Australia for two years to travel and work overseas. I did everything from working for London Underground, pulling beers at a pub in Ascot to selling cocktails to tourists in Majorca, and I was a housekeeper- cum-maid in a stately home in Essex. I had a fabulous time. Mr President, I have had a privileged upbringing. My family gave me the best possible start in life, a safe and loving home and an education that was second to none. Sadly not every child has the same opportunity. An education is something that once gained can never be taken away. It is a pathway to employment, understanding and empowerment. Education breaks down barriers—racial, social and economic. It can put people on a level playing field, depending on how they choose to use it. It is a reality that people who live in regional WA may not have access to a school, university or TAFE close to their home, or their school may not have a teacher who is qualified to teach science or English literature. It is also a reality that students from regional WA are poorly represented in the state’s universities. We must get better at supporting families and students to make sure every child and adult gets the education they deserve. My mum, who is here in the gallery tonight, has taught more year 1 students than she probably cares to remember. Those early years are so important. We must get better at supporting the people who teach our children. They are an important part of our community. Members may recall that I mentioned the names of the pioneering families of Yorkrakine, including the Charltons, the Divers and the Davies. Some members of this house will also recognise these names as people who have served as members of this house. Sir Leslie Diver, Hon Eric Charlton and Hon Dexter Davies have all represented country people as members of the Nationals, and its forerunner the Country Party. As history has it, I believe I have Eric Charlton to thank for my family’s involvement in state politics. He was a close neighbour and he convinced my father to attend his first branch meeting, and from there stemmed a long association with the party. Dad was the state president of the Nationals for 10 years. He took his place in this house in 1998 on Eric’s
5352 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] retirement, and his time here ended in 2001. Since then, he has continued to work tirelessly on behalf of regional communities. I will strive to apply the same dedication and tenacity that he exhibits in daily life. I know him to be well regarded by members on both sides of this house, and he is and will remain an inspiration and a mentor to me. Despite this political category my real interest in politics grew from my first job. My professional career started in Hon Max Trenorden’s leader’s office working as a receptionist, and a research officer. Having shown little to no regard for the political process throughout school or university, I felt I had come home to the Nationals. I thank Max for giving me that opportunity. Opposition is a great training ground, and my pre-season has been a long one. I continued working in the leader of the Nationals’ office under the leadership of Brendon Grylls until the private sector beckoned and I took a position with the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia. This role took me to the north west of the state. I was a regular visitor to Port Hedland, Karratha, Newman and other towns throughout the Pilbara. That is a vastly different environment from the one I grew up in, but the people and their stories are the same—different faces, same stories. I turn now to my electorate, the Agricultural Region. The Agricultural Region covers the four Legislative Assembly electorates of Geraldton, Moore, Central Wheatbelt and Wagin. It stretches from Kalbarri in the north to Bremer Bay in the south and is home to a diverse number of communities. The Western Australian Electoral Commission defines the Agricultural Region as a region in which the land is used primarily for agricultural purposes. This may well be the case, but there is also a wealth of activity beyond farming in this region. As luck would have it, last week The West Australian published a booklet titled “the wheatbelt: inside the state’s heartland”. That booklet provides a snapshot of my electorate and the diversity of the communities I represent. It begins with Burracoppin, noted as the starting point for the construction of the state’s first rabbit proof fence. It highlights Meckering, a tiny town, once flattened by an earthquake, that is currently promoting itself as the perfect base for fly in, fly out workers. It speaks of Westonia, home to the 98-year-old Edna May gold mine, once one of Western Australia’s richest mines, and set to reopen on the back of improvements in the price of gold. It speaks of Merredin, soon so be home to one of the biggest wind farms in Western Australia. It speaks of Mukinbudin, the men of which are about to hold the first “Men’s Shed Conference”. That conference will be held in what is said to be “one of Western Australia’s most impressive men’s sheds, built in 2007 after it was decided that a group of local retirees restoring farm machinery needed somewhere to work”. What started as a group of men tinkering on machinery has grown into a forum for promoting men’s health, combating depression and isolation, and raising funds to assist the local community. What a wonderful story. It also mentions Wickepin, once home to Albert Facey, author of the Australian classic A Fortunate Life. It highlights the innovation of the Moora Shire Council, which came to the rescue of long-term residents of the Kingsway Tourist and Caravan Park in Madeley who had received notice that the park was about to close. People from the Moora shire bussed residents up to the town and presented a pitch for them to move into a purpose-built lifestyle village on the outskirts of the town. The booklet says that 10 of the Kingsway residents will be relocating to Moora. The booklet also talks about Jurien Bay, which boasts a ballet school run by a former member of the Royal New Zealand Ballet and Europe Dance Troupe. The booklet also mentions Darkan. While I am speaking of Darkan, I would like to acknowledge another special person who is in the gallery tonight—my granddad, Mr Donald South. Grandad is my mum’s dad. He and my nan, who is no longer with us but is certainly watching over us, raised my mum and her brother on the family farm in the wheatbelt shire of West Arthur. You see, the country is in my blood, on both sides of my family. My nan and grandad, as with my nanna and pop, were committed to their family, their farm and their community. My grandad is a true gentleman—softly spoken and generous, without pretension or a need for material things. In this fast-paced, materialistic world, I am pleased to say that we still have time for the odd game of Scrabble. While my grandad’s preference would be to not step foot in Perth for the remainder of his years, he has made the journey to be here tonight. I return now to the towns of the Agricultural Region. In Katanning, almost seven per cent of the population are Christmas or Cocos islanders. Originally attracted to Katanning to work in the meat works, they are now a valued and unique aspect of the Katanning community. The booklet also mentions Wagin and the Wagin Development Association. The Wagin Development Association has come up with a novel idea to deal with excess groundwater in the shire and create a new industry in the town. It is proposing to pump excess groundwater into fish tanks or ponds that will be appropriate for farming saltwater fish species. Finally, I come to Geraldton, a thriving town, 450 kilometres north of Perth, supporting agriculture, fishing and mining industries. It is on the cusp of major growth. I could go on. Every town has its own story—far too many to recount tonight. The great qualities of innovation, adventure and pioneering spirit are in the blood and bones of the people in these regional communities. My dad said that in his maiden speech to this house just over 10 years ago. They are
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5353 people who ask for little and give generously, even if the only thing they have to give is their time. It is not unusual to find that the person who drives the ambulance for St John Ambulance also umpires the kids’ sport on the weekends and turns up for the busy bee at the school. It has been, and always will be, the case that country people wear many hats to make their communities work. They will adapt themselves to their environment and find new ways to sustain themselves. But there is no place for rose-coloured glasses when we are looking at life in the regions. Life can be tough. Our rock lobster fishery—one of the most valuable in Australia—is under immense pressure, and the livelihoods of many families are under threat. Our farmers, whose livelihoods depend on the winds of Mother Nature, find themselves working in an ever-increasing competitive global market. As a government, we have recently given them another tool to deal with this changing world. I support the Minister for Agriculture and Food’s move to introduce genetically modified organism trials throughout the state and will watch with interest as they progress. New mines are being opened throughout the region, and with the promise of a diversified economy, towns are faced with new population dynamics. Geraldton will become the hub for mining in the mid-west and it will take the commitment of all tiers of government, the private sector and the community to apply lessons learnt from other parts of the state to maximise the opportunity for this region. Balancing care for the environment with development continues to challenge us all. It is not a new phenomenon in the Agricultural Region. Long before it was fashionable to be green, our farmers and country towns were finding new and innovative ways to deal with rising watertables and the scourge of salt. I am firm in my belief that regardless of whether scientists agree or disagree with climate change, we all have a responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. Mr President, although the physical environment can sometimes define regional Western Australia, it is the social fabric that makes a community. Recent events have shown that we still need to work hard to break down the barriers of racism in our communities. Is it too much to ask that everyone stops to take a moment to walk in another person’s shoes? We are a lucky country. Our forefathers fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy today. In his inaugural speech, President Barack Obama said that America’s “patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness”. Australia is not so different. I was proud the day Prime Minister Rudd said sorry to the Aboriginal people of this nation. There is still much work to do and it is incumbent on leaders of our community to continue to reconcile past deeds, but surely the first step in healing any rift is to utter that simple word. The unique social fabric of each of the communities in the Agricultural Region is what holds them together. They have chosen to live, work and invest in the region. Some, like my family, have been there for nearly a century. I hope that others will move there tomorrow. I stand here ready and willing to listen to each of these communities. I will be their voice in this place. I ask all members to listen and learn along with me, and I will do the same when they are representing the needs and aspirations of their regions. Mr President, it will surprise some people in the gallery that it has taken me this long to mention President Barack Obama. Last year I joined the world watching the American presidential election with great interest as Barack Obama campaigned on hope, change and progress. It is my great hope that his presidency is marked by the same stunning moments created during that campaign. I truly hope that he can deliver on his promise to Americans and the world that change is possible. The context within which Obama took his message to the people of America was not dissimilar to our approach in Western Australia. I am not overstating the point when I say that people living in regional WA were feeling neglected and forgotten. We are a resilient lot—self-sufficient and stoic. But in the lead-up to the 2008 state election, the electorate was apathetic. We had told people that one vote, one value would destroy their political representation. In fact, we had done such a good job of convincing them that it would spell the end of regional representation that it took a lot of convincing on our behalf to show them that the Nationals had rallied in the face of adversity and were ready and willing to deliver the change they were looking for. I think it is true that in each of us there is a Barack Obama waiting to burst out. Who has not dreamt of giving a speech that captures the imagination of thousands of people? Who has not dreamt of giving a nation of people hope and creating a sense of renewal and excitement? Who has not dreamt of giving the “yes, we can” speech? Under the leadership of Brendon Grylls and Wendy Duncan, the Nationals took the “yes, we can” message to the regions. We stepped out of the election cycle and out of the campaign box and started the process of rejuvenation by inspiring the electorate. There was no room for the left or right of politics in this message. We were simply saying that if regional people wanted representation in the Parliament, they needed to back the team that could deliver change. Of course, we did it without the pomp and fanfare that goes hand in hand with an American election campaign; we would have been laughed out of town. Instead, we travelled to each corner of the state, telling people that their vote could make a difference. Along the way, we collected people who had never considered voting for the Nationals before. We found the challenges facing communities in Port Hedland, Kalgoorlie, Kununurra and Tom Price were the same as those faced in any town in our traditional heartland— different faces, same stories.
5354 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
Every person has the right to a decent health service, an education system that supports and nurtures their children and the opportunity of gaining employment. Further to this, every community should aspire to make their town or city a better place to live, work and invest in. Royalties for regions will assist many communities to do just that. A bill to enshrine royalties for regions in legislation will shortly arrive in this house from the other place. It is my hope that all members will support this bill. It is my great hope that all country members of this house will support this bill. Royalties for regions is much more than the sum of royalties quarantined in the proposed fund. With some programs, what people see is what they get. For example, funding this state’s Royal Flying Doctor Service was the right thing to do. Most country people do not have a Royal Perth Hospital or a Princess Margaret Hospital for Children in their town. The Royal Flying Doctor Service is the next best thing. The Country Age Pension Fuel Card is a $500 fuel card to mitigate the cost of living and match both the Australian Labor Party’s and Liberal Party’s promise of free travel on public transport for pensioners. Developing the Ord will bring benefits to the entire state. It is much more than a commitment to agriculture. It is about developing communities outside Perth, creating employment and wealth for everyone who lives in Western Australia. It is absolutely the role of government to facilitate development, and not just in the city where it may be cost effective. Royalties for regions has also increased the boarding away from home allowance, a long overdue measure to support country kids and their education. Similarly, it has provided funding to create incentives to encourage our small and mid cap mining companies to continue to invest in greenfields exploration. We should be supporting industries that create jobs in and revenue for our state. These initiatives have obvious benefits. The effect will be almost immediate. Not all royalties for regions initiatives will have such an immediate impact. Some of the funding will create intangible profits. The real story behind royalties for regions is empowerment—communities taking control of their destiny and shaping their future. The regional grants scheme, the country local government fund and funding for community resource centres is a first step towards decentralised decision making. The notion that these communities will squander or waste these funds is laughable. They know the value of a dollar, and they know how to turn it into three. At the risk of sounding clichéd, this policy has delivered hope. Change is happening and progress is not far behind. While royalties for regions seeks to redress years of neglect and centralised decision making, it is incumbent on us to start planning the next step. We need to re-examine the way we govern the regional and remote areas of this state. Cost shifting between tiers of government, siloed approach to delivering services and infrastructure and centralised decision making has not served us well. I give notice that I will use my time in this place to better understand these processes and how they can be improved. It is a lofty ambition, but we should all be aiming high. To succeed would indeed be progress. Mr President, I am the sum of my life experiences and I have shared these with many people. To begin with, as this is the first opportunity I have had to speak, I would like to thank the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Greens for supporting the motion that passed through this place last year to reinstate me as a member of Parliament. My journey to this house has not been without its challenges, but it has been said that, “What does not kill you, will only make you stronger.” I am expecting the powers of Wonder Woman to kick in any time soon. I would like to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support and advice. To Brendon Grylls, you are an inspiration and the journey has been a blast. I look forward to the next four years. I extend a big thank you to the members of the Nationals for the opportunity to represent this great party; in particular, Pat Hughes, Allan Marshall, Ian Robertson, Leigh Hardingham and Darren Moir. I thank them for backing a young woman to represent this great party. On that note, I will have to include a gratuitous tickety-boo and acknowledge and thank Darren for his advice and guidance over the past years. To Mr Doug Cunningham, a man who has taught me much, and the team in the leader’s office—Jill, Aila and Jane—who have shared so much of my journey, thank you. A special thank you to Susanna Ling and Marty Aldridge; it is an honour to have them as friends and colleagues. Thanks must also go to Hon Murray Criddle for his advice and counsel on my decision to run as a candidate. I am nothing without my friends and family. My friend Claire, whom I have known since the first day of university, is, at the ripe old age of 30, about to become Dr Smallwood and I am Hon Mia Davies. That is not too bad for two chicks who have slept in nearly every train station and bus port in Europe, stood in the rain to watch Jimmy Barnes at the Doodlakine pub and had a strategy for getting tickets to the AC/DC concert. The dePierres family—Colleen, Paul, Madeleine and Juliane—are an extension of my family. There are not too many people in the world who can say that they have friends whom they have known their whole life. I thank Mads and Rich for sharing their house with me last year as I saved to buy my own.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5355
Mr President, you will be pleased to know that I am nearly done. My last thank you is to my family. I have spoken about my father and the contribution he has made to this state through public life. At the end of the day he is my dad. He is one of the most patient and generous people I know, and I love him. I spoke earlier of my mum and her contribution to this state as a teacher. She has stoically turned up to every National Party function as dad’s partner—and continues to do the same for me. She is a confidante, a counsellor and a friend, and I love her. Finally, my sister Emma. Em, you make decisions about people’s health and wellbeing on a daily basis and deal with people when they are at their most vulnerable, yet you remind me that there is more to life than just work and I love you for it. This path will no doubt be challenging, but my promise to all is that friends and family make me a better person, so there should always be time for them. I will leave members with one last anecdote. I recently attended the funeral of the father of one of my friends. They are a large family from the wheatbelt, and as is the case at many country funerals it seemed that the whole town had turned out. I had never met my friend’s father, but his story seemed familiar to me: family farm, boarding school, kids—not too different from my own family. My friend gave part of the eulogy and he has given me permission to relate this story. His father was at boarding school in Perth and, by all accounts, was a fairly outgoing fellow. He had reached a crossroads in his schooling and had decided to return home to the family farm rather than stay on at school. On learning this, the principal called him into his office for a chat. He asked him why he was leaving and urged him to stay on to complete his matriculation. He was puzzled and said, “Sir, I’m not sure why you want me to stay. I’m not the brightest in chemistry or maths and I’m not your star footballer or track and field athlete.” The principal responded that he was the “sort of person they wanted at the school” and that “he had qualities that had earned the respect of the staff and fellow students”. Mr President, it is my great hope that I can acquit myself and my duties as a member of this house with similar aplomb—perhaps not as the brightest or best, but to make a contribution that will allow this Parliament to make good decisions and to provide governance that will bring change and progress for the benefit of all Western Australians. Thank you. [Applause.] HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [8.36 pm]: I congratulate all three members who have just given their inaugural speeches and I look forward to serving with them in the chamber, along with the other new members who have arrived and have either given their inaugural speeches on other days or have yet to give them. Before the dinner break I was going through some of the issues which sit outside of the budget but which will have a clear financial ramification for the budget. I guess, until the government makes a decision to not proceed with these items or to cancel other items or, alternatively, there is a massive turnaround in the revenue receipts of the government, these projects will place further strain on the budget and blow out the total borrowings of government over the next four years. I mentioned earlier the Oakajee port project. The next project I want to talk about is the Northbridge Link project, which will cost $250 million of state government money. Again I am not sure why this project was never included in the budget. Although there might have been an argument about the scope of the Oakajee project, I do not understand why there was a problem with determining the scope of the Northbridge Link project, considering the amount of work that had been done on it in the past. Again, it is some $250 million-odd that is yet to be incorporated in the budget. Another project is the redevelopment of Midland hospital for which there is some money but certainly not of the magnitude of $180 million, which the federal government has granted and on my understanding we need to match. I expect, based on my experience of the cost of upgrading Joondalup Health Campus, that $360 million to build a 300-bed general hospital is probably about right. We will need to find that money to match the commonwealth government’s contribution, either in this budget or in a future budget not long beyond the time of this budget. Another project would be a new sports stadium in Western Australia. The new sports stadium in Subiaco has been put on hold. I think that is really code for “cancelled” in the current climate. That is a great disappointment. I certainly could understand the need to defer it. If we want to look at infrastructure that could actually provide a long-term economic benefit to the state, that is one. I may come back to that later. The government has made it clear that it still wants to be part of the FIFA World Cup bid for 2018 or 2022. The reality is we do not have a stadium in Western Australia that meets the criteria for that bid. If the state government wants to be part of the bid in 2018 or 2022, it has to come up with the money—probably starting at some point over this current four-year period. If we are successful in the 2018 bid, money needs to be put into the budget at some point between now and 2013, which is the period this Loan Bill is supposed to provide coverage for, for a new stadium. It has been proposed that we build a similar stadium to those found elsewhere around the country—namely, a 25 000-seat permanent stadium with capacity to expand to 45 000 seats for the purposes of the World Cup. If we take that short-sighted fix, the estimate for that project is $250 million; I suspect that it will probably be slightly higher. Even if we accept that that is the figure, it requires $125 million of state government money. Again, a lot of that may be spent in the years beyond 2012-13, but a sizeable sum of money needs to be allocated at some point over the next four years.
5356 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
I will go through the road projects that have been funded. There are numerous projects in the budget that require commonwealth government funding to bring them to fruition. There is no guarantee that we will succeed in getting commonwealth funding. Those projects were not put in as part of the Infrastructure Australia bid. The projects around the airport are certainly in the budget but there are a number of projects that I would very much doubt the commonwealth will come to the party on—some that I hope it does. But the question remains: does the government intend to proceed with those projects if it does not get commonwealth money? If that is the case, it has to double its contribution if it believes the projects are of sufficient magnitude. The true source of funding is not allocated in this budget. I want to go through some of them. There is the airport roads at $535 million or thereabouts. It may end up being higher than that. It is absolutely essential that those roads are in place by the time the domestic and international terminals are amalgamated in 2018. Significant amounts of work will need to commence. There is some money in there but I suspect that there is probably not enough money to do the sort of work that needs to be done on those roads. Before I go through any more projects, I refer to one of the issues of concern: what will be in the future out years? When we look at the way the budget is structured, unless we get a significant increase in revenue streams coming into this state, the sum total of money going into capital works by the time we get to the 2012-13 year is approximately $100 million from the state government. We drop to a very small amount of $31 million coming out of the capital side of it. The other $69 million or thereabouts comes out of the money that is appropriated through the Road Traffic Authority from motor vehicle licences. The trend over the next couple of years, in terms of expenditure, is for more and more money to go into recurrent expenditure and less and less money to go into capital works. I do not know whether that is the case, but I would hope that that is about trying to fix up the backlog in road works. The contracts that were entered into 10 years ago by the Court government have created the circumstances that we now face as a state. For 10 years, basically, we have not being able to get proper maintenance done on our roads. It is worth looking at the budgetary implications, not just in 2013 but just beyond that year. Roe Highway stage 8 is a $550 million project, of which approximately $80 million of state government money has been allocated in the forward estimates. A total sum of about $166 million will be forthcoming from the state and commonwealth governments, with the commonwealth money yet to be committed to. That means that immediately following these out years, the state government will need to find $170 million to finish off that project. This budget will leave future governments with no option but to continue that project if the work has already commenced by that stage. The next project I could mention is the Esperance-Coolgardie highway, a very important project that will provide alternative access into the Esperance port. That is a $125 million project. It has been deferred so that Roe Highway stage 8 can be brought forward but it will still need another $80 million of state government funding in the years immediately after 2013 if it is to continue to progress in the current time frame. That is a significant sum of money to be added to the budget. Then we have the upgrade of Leach Highway, an important project that will lead into Fremantle port. Some $65 million is required for that project. A range of projects were outlined during estimates hearings last week relating to the freight management network that have all been deferred to make way for Roe Highway stage 8. The total bill for those projects is around $350 million. Going through the budget, again, they will be jointly funded by the federal government but very little state government money has been allocated. We are looking at a minimum of $400 million or $500 million in the budget just beyond the period that we are dealing with in this Loan Bill, but money that will be locked in if we are to follow the forward estimates as they are outlined in the budget. That will leave a significant burden on the state and will potentially require additional loan money beyond the period that we are dealing with. When we start these projects, we need to be aware of our capacity to fund them. It is interesting to look at the net-liability-to-revenue ratio. For every approximately $300 million additional money, another one per cent is added. If we add up the cost of those projects that I mentioned, we can clearly see that we are getting very close to an additional five per cent. The importance of that figure is that it takes us over the 90 per cent trigger that puts our AAA credit rating at risk. In today’s debate we can purely try to look at what will happen up to 2013, but I am sure that the ratings agencies will be looking at the trends beyond 2012-13. At this stage a lot of these projects have been pushed out so far that it is arguable that any real commitment will not happen for another year or two. If the government is true to its word and it progresses those projects, we will be in great difficulty. That is not to mention all those other $10 million and $20 million amounts that are floating around in the budget that will cause pain and anguish in the long term. On top of that, a number of other projects sitting outside the budget will also have an impact on our total net borrowings and may potentially require some form of equity contribution from the state government because they will be completed by government trading enterprises. One such project is the 330-kilovolt powerline between Perth and Geraldton. That is a project that is worth borrowing money for. It is a project that will pay for itself and stimulate the economy. It will also stimulate Geraldton and some of the regions of Western Australia. It is a fantastic project. Not all debt is bad debt; there is bad debt and there is good debt. The 330-kilovolt powerline would be a very good piece of infrastructure and would be worth borrowing money for. However, according to the minister, it will now cost some $700 million, and no provision has been made for it in the budget. If the minister is genuine when he says
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5357 that the project has been deferred rather than abandoned, that money will need to be factored in at some point over the next four years. As I understand it, Geraldton will need this power supply within the next couple of years because power supplies in Geraldton will run out; it will simply not have the capacity to meet the demand for energy. That is why there was a fair degree of time constraint in getting that project up and running. I would have thought that that was a key project for which funding should have been allocated in this budget. It will need to be done because if it is not, the development of the entire mid-west region of Western Australia will be completely held back. One would have to question a budget that does not make provision for stimulation of the regional economy. One of the state government’s obligations under section 6(d) of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000 is to ensure that — … spending and taxing policies are to be formulated and applied with consideration to the effect of these policies on employment and the economic prosperity of the State. If the act requires the government to follow this principle, it is essential for the government to construct the 330- kilovolt powerline. Some $600 million will probably be added on by way of debt, and there will possibly be some sort of equity contribution from the state government. I turn now to the Esperance port for which, we are told by the government, $400 million will be forthcoming. From what I can work out, the government has provided the first $38 million, but cabinet has not yet reached a formal decision on stage 2 of that project. Again, that is not mentioned anywhere in the budget papers, and it is additional debt that will sit above and beyond the debt that will be authorised by this bill. Finally, I turn to the Fremantle port. It is a little more difficult to try to work out the true cost of this port, but as I understand it, by 2015 the current Fremantle port will reach capacity. It will be necessary to build a new port south of Perth. Even if it is only to be the port built at James Point by the private sector, the state government will still be obliged to complete the road projects that have been removed from this budget. That will also incur additional costs for the state government. These are projects for which funding will be needed between now and 2013. We are looking at somewhere in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion for projects that are sitting around and that fall outside the budget process. Funding will have to come from this budget appropriation, or it will add to debt by way of an appropriation through a statutory authority. That places the state at significant risk. It is disappointing that the state government expects Parliament, this week, to pass the Loan Bill 2009, whilst not having provided it with an accurate picture of the state’s finances. We have been given a set of documents that have been, on almost a daily basis, discredited in their construction and their fundamental basis, in that the reasoning and the appropriations just do not add up. The figures in the Budget Statements are completely rubbery, but we are expected to come into this place and authorise a blank cheque to finance a credit card; a blank cheque for a credit card the like of which has never before been seen in this state. Hon Sally Talbot: It shows contempt for the process. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It does. I have listened with interest to the maiden speeches of some of the new members, which I found fascinating. I know they are new members and it will probably take them a bit of time to find their feet in this place, but I look forward to seeing whether or not they really rise to the challenge and become agents in this chamber for holding the government to account, or whether they become a rubber stamp for the government. I accept that as government members sometimes that holding to account may occur outside of this chamber in the privacy of party rooms and meetings with ministers and the like, but nonetheless I hope that all members who talked about the importance of the role of this chamber whilst making their maiden speeches—I think just about all of them have in one form or another—recognise that we have a role to play in this place. I do not believe we have a role to block budgets and I do not believe we have a role in frustrating the government’s supply or financial agenda— that is a role for the lower house. But we do have a very important role to play in terms of holding the government to account and ensuring that decisions made by Parliament are made in full knowledge, and that the public is fully informed of the circumstances and what the risks are. That brings me on to the topic of recurrent expenditure and capital works programs that are also creating risk. Yesterday, during a committee hearing, the Under Treasurer of the state of Western Australia was not able to give the state’s finances a big tick and say, “Yes, look, the finances of the state are sustainable”. The Under Treasurer was asked a question about whether he considered the current budget figures sustainable, and after a long pause—I mean a very long pause—he responded with words to the effect of, “Well, it’s probably the best we can do in the circumstances”. That answer did not indicate that the figures are sustainable—“Probably the best we could do in the circumstances”. But he also, at the same time, made it very clear that there are a range of risks that lie beyond the budget years with respect to recurrent funding for projects like the maintenance of Royal Perth Hospital. Health care forms a significant component of the state budget, and the state faces a number of risks related to Royal Perth Hospital, such as the recurrent funding and trying to staff it. That means, potentially, that if staff are not available, to try to attract more staff, wages and conditions are driven up, which is probably a good thing for nurses. I suspect it will probably more likely be a good thing for doctors first, then the nurses
5358 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] second, and then all of the other workers at the hospitals will come third, even though they are just as important. There is also the problem that, on current interest rates, the Fiona Stanley Hospital account may not have enough money in it to build the hospital. Hopefully that is not the case, but if it is, then that is another risk that the state faces. One matter that has not been factored into the Royal Perth Hospital debate is that, as members recall, the Reid review recommended that Perth should have three tertiary hospitals: one in the north, one in the centre and one in the south. The forgotten project in the current debate is the northern suburbs tertiary hospital. Based on the projections for demand in the clinical network review, that hospital will be needed by about 2015. Now, Royal Perth Hospital will be not only robbing funds from Fiona Stanley and Charlie Gairdner Hospitals, and I have no doubt from regional facilities across the state, but also it will be preventing the people of the northern suburbs from having access to the tertiary facilities that they deserve and that their population will warrant. That is a third area that provides a risk. As I mentioned earlier, a range of sources of funding for projects have been included in this budget to try to make the income side of it look better. But those funds are subject to control and cannot be used for just any project; they must be used for specific projects. I have not been able to drill down into the detail of Perth parking management area funding but, hopefully, we can get the Department of Transport back for a future estimates hearing so that we can get to the detail of it. I suspect that part of the revenue allocated under the bill is the money that goes into the taxi industry development fund; again, a project for which funding is controlled. The government announced some expenditure of that money the other day. I suspect the government is treating those funds as revenue but, on the expenditure side, it can be spent only on certain activities to do with the taxi industry. At this stage, I am not aware of that being factored into the expense side of the budget. Again, that is another example of where there are potentially rubbery figures. I refer to another part of my portfolio for which the figures appear to be rubbery. At the last election, the government promised to increase the community sport and recreation facilities fund. That was a good initiative. The Liberal-National Parties outbid us in that regard. We promised additional money and they promised additional money on top of what we promised—one of the few areas in which they did not say, “Well, that’s a Labor promise, we’ll match it.” Good luck to them, but they then proceeded to make another range of promises around the state for which $25 million worth of that additional funding had been already committed for specific projects. Some would argue that that is fair enough. The Leader of the House got very upset about a project he claimed Labor had promised before the 2001 election but had not told the local community about the funding it had to provide as matching funding. The Liberal-National Parties saw us on that and raised us with probably about 10 projects for which they have done exactly that; that is, projects have been promised around the state that are supposed to be funded from the CSRFF grants. No additional funding has gone into the Sport and Recreation budget to fund them. There are two problems with those projects: firstly, the local communities were not aware that they would have to match the funds. If they are allocated $1.6 million for a drag strip, they have to come up with $3.2 million of their own money. They thought they were getting the $1.6 million because that was the cost of the project. More importantly, a number of the projects do not meet the CSRFF guidelines. No matter what the government does, probably about $10 million worth of those projects will not meet the CSRFF guidelines. The question we must ask ourselves of the government and its budget circumstances is: is this another $10 million black hole or are the guidelines for the CSRFF going to be rewritten to enable the projects that do not qualify to suddenly meet the guidelines? That might be a solution, although it will be a surprise to all the people who thought they would be able to get the additional funding. Nonetheless, that is an option. The Liberal Party might suggest to the National Party that it call the funds royalties for regions funding and fund the projects that way. That might be how the Liberal Party is intending to do it. Tonight we will be asked to pass the Loan Bill and probably the two appropriation bills later this week. However, we have not been given even the most simple answers to questions like this. There is a $10 million black hole in the budget when the government promised sporting infrastructure to communities throughout the state but it does not have a funding stream for it at the moment. However, the government is telling everyone it is still going to be funded over the next three years. Hon Jon Ford: You can borrow the money! Hon KEN TRAVERS: We could borrow the money! Again, we could borrow the money or say, “Don’t worry about that; don’t you worry about that.” We have almost got Joh Bjelke-Petersen back again in the new Premier — Hon Kate Doust: Hansard won’t pick up the accent! Hon KEN TRAVERS: So long as Hon Kate Doust records for the purposes of Hansard that it was a fantastic impersonation of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, then we will be fine. Hon Kate Doust: I don’t think so. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But that is the problem we have with the Premier at the moment: every time someone raises a problem with the budget, points out a hole in the budget, points out a black hole in the budget or points
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5359 out the rubbery figures contained in his budget, he says, “Don’t you worry about that.” It got to the point today where he was saying the Under Treasurer should not be commenting on these matters. If the Under Treasurer does not get to do it, I do not know who does. As I say, I think the Under Treasurer almost has a role to play as an almost independent officer in keeping Parliament informed. Hon Norman Moore: If ever you’re in government again, I will remind you. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Leader of the House is welcome to do that, because I remember Under Treasurers making comments over a number of years—about both governments—where it has been appropriate for them to make those comments. I know that the current Premier has had a serious problem with run-ins with Under Treasurers. It is not the first time the current Premier has had a run-in with an Under Treasurer pointing out that his approach to finances is irresponsible and reckless. He has upset every Under Treasurer we have ever had in the state. When the Premier was Minister for Education in a previous government, the then Under Treasurer took the extraordinary step of pointing out in writing the irresponsibility and recklessness of the way in which he approached finances. This goes on in terms of the problems that occur in this budget. The midyear review, again, contains the expectation by this government that it will over the next couple of years somehow find savings from a reduction in the grants program—the expenditure on grants, subsidies and other transfers to basically non-government organisations. That is a fairly broad area, but this budget is based on the government finding $200 million in savings in that area, and we do not actually know where it will find it. It is based on the fact that there has been massive growth in the past in those areas, so the government thinks that it can find $200 million. However, there is no explanation of how the government thinks it can actually get to that point. There is no explanation. The Minister for Disability Services today in question time said that his portfolio will not be affected by those cutbacks, which, as a former shadow spokesman for disability services, I am glad to hear. It is fantastic that disability services will not be subject to those cuts. The Minister for Community Services told us that no-one has told her about any cuts. I do not know whether that means her department will get those cuts or whether no-one thinks that it is important to tell the minister at this stage that her department will get those cuts; that it will be done anyway. I am not sure what the situation is, but we have two ministers in this place saying the cuts are not in their portfolios. But to find that $50 million out of grants, transfers and subsidies we must wonder where it will come from. Will it come from subsidies for pensioners and the like somewhere along the line, so that the people who are less well-off in our community will get hit again? It will not only be the $1 000 in increased fees and charges; they will get hit in another way on top of that down the track that we do not know about yet. That is another option that the government may be thinking about but does not want to tell us. The government still wants us to pass the budget and the Loan Bill over the next week, but it is not prepared to give us any indication of where and how those savings will be achieved over the next four years. It is simply the case that we are back to the old argument of the government saying, “Trust us; it’ll all be okay. It will all be okay, even though we can’t tell you.” What that says to me is that these figures have simply been plucked from the air to come up with a set of figures that allows the government to say its budget is in order when we all know its budget is in complete disarray. What we will see on 30 September this year when we get the report on the state’s finances for this financial year will be that their health is a lot worse than had been predicted in this budget, and in the out years we will see it get worse. The government wants to achieve a 10 per cent saving with motor vehicles across the government fleet. The government recognises that it needs to be done as a staged approach as leases come up for renewal. One would think that if that were to be the case, at the time the decision was made all agencies would have been notified that they would be required to start reducing their government fleet car pool by 10 per cent. The government would say that that was the decision and that agencies could get on with it. Let us face it, budgets are not formed overnight. They are usually done over an extended period of time, unless a Treasurer decides to go on holiday for the first couple of months of the year. One would have thought, therefore, that the paperwork, the policy and the process of how that decision would be achieved would all be in place by the time the budget was handed down and that one of the things that would be sent out on the day after the budget would be an instruction from the Treasurer to all ministers telling them what they are expected to achieve; in fact, it might even be sent out a week before. What did we find out during estimates last week? When we asked agencies what they were doing about reducing their car fleet, at least two agencies said that they had not received any official notification from the government of what the requirements were, but they were aware of it because they read The West Australian. Hon Kate Doust: Is that how they get a memorandum now—they read it in The West Australian? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Why not get rid of the Government Gazette? Why not occasionally put out a press release and hope that it gets run in The West Australian? There we go; there is no need to waste money on the Government Gazette because a couple of press releases could be put out in the hope that they get published in The West Australian at some point. What amazing financial management of an organisation. Over a month after the budget was handed down and just a week before 1 July when the government would want these savings to
5360 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] start to be incurred, public servants have not received any information about it. I would certainly have thought that with some grants and subsidies, the government would be looking at dealing with those matters up front to get the $50 million. If the government wants the $50 million over the full four years, it would need to put that in the budget process now. A lot of these organisations operate on contracts now. I suspect that a lot of non- government organisations would be having their subsidies cut back and, as people are employed and working, there would need to be some process for this, but absolutely nothing is to be done about it. I enjoyed the inaugural speeches, particularly the speeches of the new National Party members. We can respect people who sit on the other side although we do not necessarily agree with them and often do not share their ideology. When I listened to a number of the new National Party members, I was impressed with their speeches. I realised that I felt that based on what they had given in their speeches, I could develop a good rapport with them all and their ideologies, values and the way they approach the world, but I must say with the exception of Hon Mia Davies, because I am not sure I would have lined up for the Jimmy Barnes concert, but each to his or her own musical taste! However, I do say to those new members that they have a challenge on their hands to make the changes that they want to make in this place. One of the great challenges that they will face is to keep their partners in government honest and accountable. I recognise that National Party members were elected on the basis of the royalties for regions program. However, if National Party members want to form government with the Liberal Party and fund the royalties for regions program, the Nationals have to be part of the project of finding areas within the budget that can be cut to keep the state financially sustainable. Royalties for regions cannot simply be added on top of the existing expenditure by the Liberal Party. The Nationals need to make sure that the Liberal Party is identifying the areas that can be cut so that royalties for regions can be funded and made sustainable. That will be a great challenge, and at the moment, while we have a problem with the figures, that hard work has not been done. We need to make sure in this economic climate that we spend money in all areas, not just the regions, in ways that will help drive the economy in future years. I do not have a problem with the state borrowing $8.3 billion. It is a very scary amount, and it is unheard of, but it may be the appropriate course of action in the current financial circumstances as a way of helping stimulate the economy. However, this must be done in a responsible way, and the government must make sure that the money it borrows will provide for a future Western Australia that is different from what it is today. It will be a place where the economy is stronger, and the economic opportunities for Western Australians are greater, while Western Australia is environmentally and socially sustainable. That is where that expenditure needs to be focused. We must be very careful about borrowing money for the purposes of recurrent expenditure. Although this is a very short bill, I will want to go into a committee stage with it, because it will be very important for us to ascertain that the money being borrowed over the next two years is for capital purposes and not for recurrent expenditure. If we are borrowing for recurrent expenditure, we need an adequate explanation from the government of why that is happening. We should only be borrowing for capital expenditure. That is the challenge we face, and I look forward to having that debate. The remainder of my comments will be left for when we get right into that detail during the committee stage. We should not forget in this debate that we are dealing with an unprecedented amount of borrowing. It is unfortunately a blank credit card. Although we can have expectations about what that money will be spent on, the government can spend it on whatever it can get appropriated. It has flexibility in what it can spend the money on. It can also spend it at a faster rate than is expected. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that we need to be out there stimulating the economy with capital works projects. We need to be fully informed of the risks when we take these decisions. I hope that we can get a better explanation, before we pass this bill, of exactly what the future risks are, although I doubt that we will. This government has already spent approximately $1.3 billion in cash and $440 million in borrowings just to get us to this point. I would love to be in the offices of the Treasury and of the chief financial officers of some of the agencies as they try to juggle expenditure between now and the end of the financial year. To some degree, that is probably a good thing, and I hope that Treasury is using that as an opportunity to work out where some of the surplus cash may be sitting in government agencies. There is nothing like putting a bit of pressure on people to find the cash for finding out where some of the pots of money are that CEOs have not wanted to tell anyone about before! I do not think it will be a problem that we might take another couple of days on this bill before it gets through this house if, in the meantime, it puts a bit of pressure on those agencies to own up to holding cash and to indicate where they can make savings in the future. It is my view that there are savings to be made within government agencies, but finding those savings is all about hard work; sometimes it is about making compromises for those savings. In every portfolio for which I am the shadow minister, I have sat down and thought about where savings could be made. Unfortunately, the government has shown us the broad-brush approach without going into the detail and it has cut programs without understanding the consequences. I want to finish my contribution by referring to the impact of the abolition of the subsidy for liquefied petroleum gas conversions. I would have understood an argument for phasing that out over a period of time. The federal government is going down that path, and I think there is an argument for the state to do similarly. However, I cannot understand that the government has taken the decision to abolish that levy, but it does not seem to have
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5361 any comprehension of what that may do to the economy; that is, the economic impact and the impact on jobs. Before the government took those decisions, it should have informed itself on those measures and understood what the impacts would be. The government needs to make sure that in these times it does not take action to save money that will cost us more in the long run. That is why there are a range of areas in industries, such as tourism, that might seem to be an easy way to save money, but what is the long-term impact on economic stimulation in Western Australia? People may view sporting infrastructure as simply a stadium, but what about the opportunities that infrastructure will generate to the economy from the events that it will attract, and also international marketing for Western Australian products that can occur? With those remarks I conclude my contribution on this stage of the bill, and look forward to the committee stage. HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [9.23 pm]: The government is borrowing $8.3 billion. One of the things we have to think about when we are confronted with a figure like that—given that not so long ago we were debating the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009, which authorised expenditure of something like three-quarters of a billion dollars—is that it makes one ask if it is enough, when will it finish and what is it being spent on. It worries people. My perspective is not focused on the detail to the length that Hon Ken Travers went into, but from what I hear around the traps, within my shadow portfolio, my electorate and from general discussions with family and friends. I will also touch on some of these issues from a personal perspective as well. The Loan Bill 2009 provides authority for the raising of loans exceeding $8 billion, consisting of a top-up on the Loan Act 2004 up to the end of this month—as I understand it, 30 June—and then $2.9 billion in 2009-10, $2.1 billion in 2010-11, $1.7 billion in 2011-12, and, finally, $1.2 billion in 2012-13. Before we go into the detail of those borrowings, we need to look at where we currently stand at the moment. We are in the process of debating the budget in this house. This budget seems to be taking us down the path of ruin. Some people have made the comment that they are wondering whether what is happening in this state is due to the world economic crisis or to poor management by this government. The problem is that when we start talking about the money that the government is seeking to borrow, and about the capital infrastructure projects that it has cut back, we cannot find any details. Even when we think we have found the details, we find out not long afterwards—as we have in this budget—that many of the items have not been accounted for, or have been deferred or are not going to proceed. Today, the Minister for Environment backed away from the landfill levy policy that she had been promoting. We now need to ask ourselves where the $20 million that was to have been raised from that levy over the next six months for the Department of Environment and Conservation will come from. We were assured by the minister today that that will have no impact on the delivery of services by that department to Western Australians. I find that extraordinary. In the portfolios that I had the privilege of being responsible for as a minister, if someone from Treasury had told me that my budget would be cut back by $20 million, even spread over those portfolios, I would have found it difficult to say in this house that that would not affect the delivery of services to the state. This budget is mean-spirited. It is seeking to milk Western Australians of cash, in a desperate grab for revenue, when what they really need is assistance. I will talk about that in more detail later. The budget seems to be unravelling. I have given the example today of the Minister for Environment. I can give other examples. The Treasurer’s comments in this Parliament and the Treasurer’s comments in the press seem to be in contradiction. Also, since we had the first leaks about the budget, the Treasurer has been contradicted by the Premier. We have not heard anything from the government about its plan for recovery. There seems to be no way forward after this bill. In the second reading speech on the Loan Bill, there is nothing about how the government is proposing to pay back the money that it will be borrowing. There is an explanation about when the last Loan Bill was put forward, and about how this bill will be building onto the surplus that was left under that Loan Bill, but there is nothing about how the debt will be paid off. At a time when people in Western Australia are concerned about their jobs, particularly in the resource sector, but across all parts of Western Australia, the government is telling them that it needs to borrow more money. People who are struggling to pay their bills, and who are trying to protect their income and their asset base and provide a reasonable lifestyle for themselves and their family, know that the best way out of their situation is not to keep borrowing money. They may borrow money so that they can consolidate their debts, but they know that they cannot just keep borrowing and borrowing. They certainly will not just keep borrowing without understanding that one day they will need to pay that money back. In this debate today we have heard nothing from the government to explain to us how it will pay the money back . We need to hear that explanation. I am not the only person who is worried about that. The people I have spoken to in my electorate are worried about it. Local government is worried about it. About a week and a half ago the local government in Geraldton told me that although it had been happy to receive some money from the royalties for regions program, it could not see an overall strategy and what that might deliver strategically for the state. We will hear about some of those things in my speech and in other speeches to come. The local newspapers also are commenting about the secret bits and pieces hidden away in the budget that are hitting people. The commentary is getting louder and louder. In fact, while doing a bit of research I went through
5362 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] the public commentary on the budget. An article in The Sunday Times of 21 June gives a pretty good summary of the budget. It states — Treasurer Troy Buswell said the State Budget would cost families an extra $330 each year. But the REALITY is … $1000 king hit. Of course, that term is repeated a couple of times in the article. Interestingly, the article contains a table highlighting what people will really pay. Depending on their circumstances, some will pay certain costs while others will not, but it is interesting reading. Hon Norman Moore: They work on the basis that everybody pays everything, if you have a close look. Even those who drive to work and pay parking fees pay for the price of a train ticket. Hon JON FORD: The interesting thing about the article is that we have been told one thing but the reality is that people will pay more. Charges have been sneakily pushed through to other government authorities, but their revenue will increase. People who complain about the cost of parking in a Wilson Parking car park need to know that the real reason they will pay more for car parking is the state government increases. The article indicates that people will need to find an extra $115 for council rates. It goes on to state — Typical metropolitan councils are increasing property rates between 4 and 8 per cent. Forty per cent of this increase will flow straight to State Government agencies. The extra costs include: • Increased waste levy: Will add $24 for each household. But it may or may not, depending on what we will hear from the minister — • Increased costs for street lighting and electricity: Will add $15 a household. • Increased costs for Emergency Services levy, which is collected by local governments on behalf of FESA: Will add $7 a household. The article also indicates that people will need to find at least an extra $46 a year for public transport, and if they live in the outer suburbs, they will pay more than $90 extra a year. It goes on to refer to the price rises in the two zones. People who register a vessel less than five metres long will need to find a further $12.70. People will need to find an extra $690 a year for public car parking in town, and those people who do not park in town will pay more for public transport, unless their company supplies transport. People will need to find another $7.72 for motor vehicle licence fees. Childcare licence fees will go up $15 as of 1 January next year. In education, the $400 It Pays to Learn allowance has been axed, and that is based on $200 a semester. The interesting thing about the article is that, individually, the increases do not seem all that significant. But when they are added up, the costs are quite significant. Most Western Australians are tightening their belts to protect their family assets. Western Australians do not have much room in which to move. They do not have many opportunities to save their money. Many of them are committed to mortgages for which the interest rate is either fixed or variable and, in the end, that is out of their control. They are being hit with increases in charges for electricity, water, local government rates, parking, child care and education. It is a pretty hard thing for them to swallow. It is extraordinary that some of these increases have led to interesting advertising, and this has occurred in this government’s first term in office, which has been for less than a year. In The Sunday Times to which I referred, there is an open letter signed by Lisa Scaffidi, Lord Mayor, City of Perth; Craig Smith, the chief executive officer, Wilson Parking; and Joe Lenzo, the WA executive director, Property Council of Australia. The advertisement lists the increases in the parking levy as follows — Short stay bays — currently at $183 will be $555 per bay per annum. This is an increase of over 200%. Long stay bays — are $212 and will jump to $586 per bay per annum. This is an increase of over 175%. Motorcycle bays — jump from $91.50 to a massive $460.50. This is an increase of over 400%. We are united in emphasising the State Government’s responsibility for the higher parking fees you will soon pay. We are simply collecting tax on their behalf. Further on the letter states — Through this increased Parking Levy, the actual revenue which the State Government seeks to raise is an extra $16.4 million. We are very concerned there has been no specific budget commitment as to how the extra revenue will be spent.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5363
Of course, that concern is shared by every Western Australian. Nobody really knows to what this government has or has not committed. It seems to change its circumstance. The government no longer uses the excuse that this circumstance has been caused by the downturn in the economy, but by the world economic crisis. It cannot say that, because it is in control of the levers. Having not been very successful in cutting back recurrent spending through its three per cent efficiency drive, the government is putting extra costs onto every Western Australian in a bid to fill the gaps. The people it really hurts are the people who are already suffering the most. It is not a great time for Western Australians. It would be nice if the government could tell us when this will stop and what is the need to have all these increases to the budget. Why does the government need to borrow this extraordinarily large amount of money? What effect will it have on the current state budget and, particularly, the state’s AAA credit rating? What happens to the rest of the budget if Western Australia loses its AAA credit rating? From where will the money come to pay the significant increase in interest rates that would be required to be paid if the state loses its AAA credit rating? Why is this state in the financial situation it is in? It brings me to other commentary concerning the retention of the Royal Perth Hospital and the cost of tertiary beds versus secondary general beds. The Reid report estimated that it will cost $1 100 a day for a tertiary hospital bed. The commentary in last Saturday’s edition of The West Australian on keeping Royal Perth Hospital referred to a blow-out in expenditure while the minister was saying there would not be a blow-out. The reason there will be a blow-out is that there certainly will be a major increase in the most expensive beds available to Western Australians. We all know that the Department of Health is a huge spender and needs to be reined in. It needs to be focused particularly on the services that are expected of it and that it must deliver. It must not fall into the trap of thinking that every service must be gold-plated and must be the best we can possibly have. What we actually need is a health system that works and meets the needs of the people. It is a big struggle—we know it is a big struggle—but it is an even bigger struggle when the minister of the day tells us that the budget will be okay and that he does not expect there to be an increase in recurrent expenditure. I tell members that absolutely there will be an increase. That view is supported by the Under Treasurer. In today’s edition of The West Australian the Under Treasurer, Tim Marney, is quoted as having given evidence to a committee hearing as follows — Under-Treasurer Tim Marney told a parliamentary hearing yesterday the Government did not have enough money to keep a “full-service” RPH open while operating Sir Charles Gairdner and the Fiona Stanley Hospital, due to open in 2013-14. He said the Health Department had been unable to detail how it would fit into its budget. After a paragraph, it goes on — Mr Marney’s concerns came as a monthly report of the State’s finances showed overall Government expenses grew 15.1 per cent in the year to April, up from 13.4 per cent for the year to March, because of higher salary costs and increases in rail and bus services. The figures also revealed that the Government’s target of a $650 million surplus for this financial year was under threat after lower revenue gave the State an operating surplus of $245 million over the 10 months to the end of April. Where is the revenue going to come from to pay off this $8 billion? I was thinking to myself just for a second that it was $80 million, but it is $8 billion. Where is the revenue going to come from? We know that the boom is over. Where is the cash cow? Where is the secret stash? Where is the hollow log that is hiding the $8 billion that we can reach in for and pay this back? We know that no matter what we do—unless we shut down the state hospital system tomorrow—everyday there will be an increase in costs. Some of the increase will be within our control and some will not. Some of it will be the result of fighting new diseases. Some expenditure will blow out as a result of new technology that is required for long-term health trends that cause adverse reactions. Some of it will blow out due to the replacement of ageing infrastructure, an issue with which local government has a real problem and which I will talk about shortly. This bill points to a government that is in denial. The government comes into this house and asks for $8 billion. It denies that it is putting extra tertiary beds into the hospital system. It says that the cost of a hospital bed at $1 100 a day versus $750 a day will not cause us a problem, will not affect the health services provided and will not cost us more money. It is exactly the same as the Minister for Environment telling us today that a $20 million reduction in her department’s income in the next six months because of a change in policy will not affect the budget. It does not add up. It could be deliberately deceptive; it could be just plain dumb. It could be a combination of those two things. We are talking about a government that has not been in office for a year. I expected to have to make this sort of speech in four years’ time. This is its first budget. It is amazing. Hon Norman Moore: It is good that the member can get it off his chest!
5364 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
Hon JON FORD: Members will hear a lot more about it. There are lots of people who will get it off their chests, if they have not already done so. In Geraldton about a week and a half ago, as I said before, I had the proposition put to me that we are dealing with two governments—the Liberal government and the National government. One is broke; one is not—it is cashed up. I thought that was quite funny. I chuckled like Hon Ken Baston just did. I thought that was an interesting, quirky spin to put on it. I got the same comment in Newman on Friday night. Those people could have been talking to the same people, but they were from the fishing industry. They came from Geraldton, so maybe it reflects a Geraldton perspective of the world. That leads me to royalties for regions, particularly the local government fund. An amount of $400 million has been granted to local governments in Western Australia over the next four years. The Minister for Regional Development implies that he and his party are the saviours of the bush. When we came into government in 2001—I have said it before in this house—the bush was a basket case. Even though there was a huge amount of money spent on it, we were starting from such a broke base that it took a lot of effort to get it up. I am very proud of the work we did in the bush. I actually think royalties for regions, in parts, is a good idea, provided it is sustainable. But a lot more needs to be done and it needs to be done in a sustainable and structured way. We have $400 million going to local governments, which is pretty well untied. That will come from the National Party. The Liberal Party—correct me if I am wrong—through Minister Castrilli attempted major local government reform. He had his head pulled in pretty quickly, amazingly enough. He is now struggling to offer any real suggestion of reform other than to talk about it generally. He has made idle threats under the table, through the department, to local government. The one that was put to me was, “We were told very clearly that they want amalgamations, good old-fashioned restructures, not some of these other complex sharing arrangements, and they are looking for efficiencies.” The reason he cannot go into a major reform of local government is that he has no money. Here we have the National Party giving incredible amounts of money to local governments all around Western Australia. It is boosting its recurrent bills because those local governments are lucky enough to get a new town hall or a swimming pool. A swimming pool is a good example. Swimming pools in the Shire of Ashburton cost between $60 000 to $200 000 a year recurrent, and the shire has absolutely no plan or ability to raise the revenue to pay for that recurrent expenditure. I bet that that is the case for just about every local government that receives a grant. In fact, I recently asked the chief executive officer of the City of Geraldton-Greenough how it will pay for these things in the long run. He said, “We haven’t got a plan for that; we’ll see how it goes in the long term.” I suspect that that will be the attitude of other local governments. I have been looking at royalties for regions, the local government grant, what has been handed out, what has been promised and what is on the table. I went through the enrolment statistics of all our local governments. I am not sure how many we have; I think we have about 130. Sixty-one local government authorities have fewer than 1 000 electors. Some of them are quite small. The Shire of Boddington has 899 electors, the Shire of Brookton has 682, the Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup has 795, the Shire of Bruce Rock has 710, the Shire of Carnamah has 425, the Shire of Cue has 177, the Shire of Dowerin has 520, the Shire of Goomalling has 721, the Shire of Jerramungup has 732, and the Shire of Kent has 428. I think my favourite is the Shire of Murchison with 94. It does not even have a town. I think it is getting nearly $600 000 out of royalties for regions to build a bridge. One of its councillors is Bill Mitchell, the head of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who lives in Perth somewhere. Hon Kate Doust: And occasionally goes to a council meeting. Hon JON FORD: There we go! Hon Norman Moore: I think you should be a bit more accurate about this and understand that Mr Mitchell’s had a very long and meritorious career as a councillor for the Shire of Murchison and lived there for many, many years. Hon JON FORD: When we get to talk about local government elections, some of them are better off having a family meeting. Hon Norman Moore: Not many people live in that shire. Are you suggesting they get rid of it? Hon JON FORD: I am saying that all these local government authorities have one thing in common; that is, they are completely and utterly unviable. The Nationals are cashing them up and boosting their recurrent bills. Hon Ken Travers: They’re a team. Hon JON FORD: Sometimes they are a team; sometimes they are separate. Local governments deserve some real help in restructuring. Imagine what we could do with $400 million over four years if it was actually targeted at assisting local governments in real reform. It costs a lot of money to amalgamate. It costs a lot of money to set up combined waste services. I am not saying that they need to be closed down but we have to have real reform. Hon Norman Moore: What are you saying then? You can’t say one thing and not the other.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5365
Hon JON FORD: Yes, we can. Hon Norman Moore: What do you mean by reform if you don’t mean amalgamations? A minute ago you were saying the Shire of Murchison was unviable so I assume you mean amalgamations. If you don’t mean that, say what you mean. Hon Ken Travers: That is what the Minister for Local Government thought as well. Hon JON FORD: That is right. The minister cannot talk about reform because the government does not have any money for it. He needs to talk to Minister Grylls. When Minister Grylls fought for royalties for regions in the election campaign, he said that the money was not to be ferreted away by jobs in the regions that should normally come out of consolidated revenue and be supplied by government. In fact, he said that it should go towards significant infrastructure. However, sometimes that is right and sometimes it is not right. I would have thought that the grain rail would qualify as significant infrastructure; it is certainly economic infrastructure. At the moment only $50 million is being asked for it. Hon Col Holt: Why didn’t you invest in it? Hon JON FORD: The Labor Party was going to fix it, had we been re-elected. The Liberal Party and the National Party are in government now. Is the National Party in government or not? Hon Norman Moore: I love the things you were “gunna” do that you just didn’t put any money in the budget for. Hon JON FORD: That is right. Hon Norman Moore: You’re a mob of gunnas! Hon JON FORD: How much money did the previous Liberal government spend on health in the Kimberley? When I looked at the current budget papers, there was about $2 million for Broome, over and above what would normally be spent. The previous Labor government spent $80 million. Hon Ken Travers: How much was that? Hon JON FORD: It was $80 million in the Kimberley alone. Hon Ken Travers: Forty times the amount! Hon JON FORD: Yes. How are local governments going to pay for the infrastructure that the state government is going to build for them, apart from entrance statements? There will be billions of those scattered all over Western Australia; I always have a laugh about the Shire of East Pilbara entrance statement as I enter Newman. How are they going to pay for their swimming pools and for the running of their community halls? The lights of community halls will be left on permanently for security, but the halls will be used by the community only two or three times a year. There will be no way to pay for them because local governments do not have the revenue base to do so. They will have to keep on putting out their hands to the royalties for regions scheme and the state government will have to keep on paying them to keep them happy. That will prevent the state government from getting into the business of real strategic infrastructure. I also want to know how the government justifies spending $80 million of royalties for regions funding on mining exploration. Mining exploration is essentially gambling; or if it is not gambling, it assists people to gamble. It is a high-stakes market. What benefits will accrue for the regions from spending $80 million on exploration? Will it be the flow-on effect from any discovery? That funding should have come from the Department of Mines and Petroleum allocation. Hon Norman Moore: If you have a look at where it’s all going, it’s not all going to subsidise drilling at all. Hon JON FORD: I can tell the minister where it has not gone; it has not gone into resource safety—not a cracker. Hon Ken Travers: To protect the people who generate the royalties. Hon JON FORD: That is right. A lot more money should be spent on resource safety. Hon Norman Moore: You shouldn’t cast aspersions about mine safety, because you were the minister prior to the last election. Hon JON FORD: Now we are working off the reports provided by the previous government. Hon Ken Travers: Nine months, and they still won’t take responsibility. Hon JON FORD: That is right.
5366 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
I remember when the previous Labor government came to power; the minister sat on this side saying, “You’re the government now”. We are talking about the current budget, and we are talking about the Liberal-National government asking the people of Western Australia for permission to borrow $8 billion, when it does not actually have a plan. It does not have a plan to extend revenue and it does not have a plan to pay off the $8 billion. The government recently announced funding of $21 million from the royalties for regions scheme for Nickol Bay Hospital. I would have thought that that amount would be normal expenditure for the Department of Health. The government is going to give $20 million to the Shire of East Pilbara so that it can revitalise the town of Newman, but it is not yet possible to deliver a baby in the hospital. There is $20 million for the town of Newman and $20 million for the Nickol Bay Hospital. I fail to see the plan. I can see a con and I can see a pork barrel, but I cannot see a strategic, coherent plan to move ahead, yet Parliament is being asked to authorise the government to seek an $80 billion loan. Hon Norman Moore: How much? Hon JON FORD: Sorry, $8 billion. Hon Norman Moore: You’re just a bit over the top—10 times as much! Hon Kate Doust: That might be next time! Hon JON FORD: That might end up being the amount next time! Included in the Loan Bill 2009 is an amount of $30 million for the patient assisted travel scheme. I would have thought that would have been funded out of royalties for regions; I would have thought that should have come out of consolidated revenue. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE Special HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.00 pm] — without notice: I move — That the house at its rising adjourn until Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 2.00 pm. By way of explanation, it is my intention that the house sit at two o’clock tomorrow, to provide an extra couple of hours of debate on this very important bill. Question put and passed. Ordinary HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.01 pm]: I move — That the house do now adjourn. Perseverance Mine Accident — Adjournment Debate HON JON FORD (Mining and Pastoral) [10.01 pm]: I rise tonight to talk about a matter that happened last week whilst I was crook—I lost my voice; I am sure the government is disappointed that my voice has come back! Hon Norman Moore: No, we were very disappointed that you lost it! Hon Simon O’Brien: We’d rather you were still out looking for it! Hon JON FORD: Well, I found it—there we go! I wish to talk about answers given by the Leader of the House in response to questions asked of him about the mining accident at the Perseverance mine, where a worker was stuck underground because of a seismic event. He made comments along the lines of, “Are you blaming me for the seismic event?” or “How can you blame me for the seismic event?” The answer is, maybe not this time—the Department of Mines and Petroleum, yes, maybe, depending upon the findings of the investigation. But in the future, the government will be responsible for any underground mine or open-cut mine that it approves. I will tell members why: before the granting of those approvals, the department is supposed to carry out due diligence checks, particularly around resource safety, and it has to actually understand the risks involved in mining certain minerals. The Perseverance mine goes down more than one kilometre under the earth. Anybody who has had any sort of remote connection to underground mining will know that underground seismic events are common. As part of designing a mine, those risk factors must be taken into account to design a mine that will mitigate those risks. One of the first steps is to establish what the risks are. A decision that must be made right at the very start, after the risks have been examined, is whether there should actually be mining at that location. On an answer tree,
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5367 there should be a yes or no to that decision: if it is no, that is the end of it; if it yes, one then moves on to decide how to mitigate the risks. Decisions must be made on matters until one gets to the point of dragging a vehicle down there or setting up ventilation, or deciding what would happen if there were an unplanned event. In the case of the Perseverance mine the outcome was good because it had been anticipated that there might be a seismic event. Experience dictates that uncontrolled seismic events occur at those depths all the time; if mines are a mile deep, they will happen. Along the line, someone had to approve the building of that mine. Someone knew what those risks were. In fact, the situation is a bit different with this mine because it was built as part of a surface operation. It is an extension of a surface operation. It is very similar to what is happening at Argyle; there were previous mining operations around it. Hon Norman Moore: The shaft went down long before it was open cut. Hon JON FORD: All right, so it happened in reverse. I accept that what the minister is saying is right. Hon Norman Moore: I know the history of it well; I went down there. Hon JON FORD: I could talk about that also. Constant assessments must be done to ascertain the risks. Someone in the company has assessed the risk and the mitigation and, hopefully, someone in the department made his own assessment of the risk and then looked at the mitigation. Ultimately, when the department says that it thinks a mine is okay, the government is responsible, so it would be well for the government to understand what it is being asked to sign for. The government is not being asked only to approve the development of a new mine; it is being asked to do a preliminary detailed inspection to see whether that mine site can be operated safely. One of the justifications the minister gave for moving the responsibility for regional safety back to the government agency was that it is a specialty issue and, in this regard, it is. However, in many regards it is no different from any other operation. Those types of assessments in the oil and gas industries are exactly the same. The study and assessment of a risk-based analysis is a formal process that forms part of the safety process, and that is exactly what the government will be committing to. It should become very, very transparent to everyone that it will be consistent, and even novices to the game should be able to understand it. The minister must be very careful when asking, “How could I be held responsible for a seismic event?” I suspect that in this case he cannot be and that all due diligence was applied. We will have to wait and see the outcome of the case. That brings me back to, I think, section 45, which applied to BHP Billiton after the recent tragedies that the minister got the State Mining Engineer to look at. BHP does not seem to have a problem. In his report, the State Mining Engineer said that, legally, it cannot be done, but BHP is happy to tell people all about its section 45 study. The minister attended one of the forums and I went to one at which selected parts of the performance were shown. An interesting matrix showed the risks of BHP’s operations. It showed that one of the highest risks in its operations was contact with mobile plant and other small vehicles. Fitters are the other high risk. If BHP is happy to show those extracts in public forums and talk about them, perhaps the minister might consider talking to the State Mining Engineer about BHP showing the section 45 study or even talking to BHP about whether it should share it. I do not care if it does not become public, but it certainly should be shared among the mining community because a lot of other people will want to look at those risk factors to see whether they have mitigation systems in place to reduce the risks. BHP is doing that because even though the current statistics that seem to be showing up at BHP’s operations are bad, the recent tragedies have shown that, although BHP had pretty good safety statistics based on a number of years of operation, the statistics did not show the fatalities. Therefore, other miners will be particularly interested in seeing the results of that, so the minister might want to talk to the State Mining Engineer about that because it will ultimately be better for the whole industry in Western Australia. Regional Air Services — Network Services — Adjournment Debate HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [10.10 pm]: Before the house adjourns tonight I want to raise a matter that appeared in The West Australian last Saturday and that I also asked the Minister for Transport a question about today; that is, the way in which we regulate regional air services in Western Australia. There are currently two contracts—one for the coastal network, and one for the inland or goldfields network, as it is called. This process has been going on for some considerable time. A departmental review was conducted and, as I understand it, it was completed earlier this year and handed to the Minister for Transport to make a decision about. Many people in the community have been waiting for the decision so that they can actually work out what the future for airline services is in Western Australia, particularly the tourism industry, for which the airline industry is incredibly important. Last week our regional tourism operators went to the Australian Tourism Exchange, which is the largest international trade fair for Australians selling tourism products. The ATE is the vehicle by which Western Australia’s regional operators, and all Australian operators generally, sell their tourism product to the world. For tourism operators who want to be in brochures in travel agencies around the world, hopefully attracting people to Western Australia, the deals that are done at the ATE go a long way to ensuring that they are in the product mix and that their products are being sold to the world. It makes it very
5368 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] difficult if operators do not know the airline services to their town, because most of those brochures include a complete package—the airline, accommodation, often a rental car, and sometimes even some of the attractions in the town are all rolled into the one package. Our operators were left in the situation of having to go to the Australian Tourism Exchange and say that Skywest is operating at the moment and that they expect there will still be an airline—which they hope is Skywest because it is a good airline—but that they cannot give any certainty about that because they are waiting for the review by the state government. Then there was the article in The West Australian on Saturday and I must say that the first thing I found fascinating was that the online article stated — Mr O’Brien confirmed information obtained by The West Australian at this week’s Paris Air Show … I do not know that I have ever heard of a government announcement coming via the Paris Air Show to Western Australia, particularly one that is so important to regional people who live in the towns covered by these networks. I tried to get an indication from the minister of whether a decision had actually been made because the current licences run out on 30 June, and logic dictates that there would need to have been some form of extension whatever decision had been made. If the system were to be deregulated, the government would have, I guess, arguably let the licences simply expire on 30 June, let nothing else happen beyond that and let the market operate; however, if the government were to continue with some form of regulated system, it would need to have extended the licences so that it could go through the proper process of calling for expressions of interest or tenders from interested parties and then go through an evaluation process. That would have been the appropriate course of action. I would have thought that the government would have realised that that was the case a good month ago. Therefore, the first question I have is: why was an extension not granted a least a month ago, given that the decision was going to go beyond 30 June? Maybe it was because the government was still actively considering whether to deregulate the system. The next question is: what will be the new system after 30 June? The minister has had a considerable amount of time to consider this matter, and I note that the article in The West Australian on Saturday pointed out that the minister had got hold of all the submissions and personally read each of them to the review. In his answer in question time today, the minister indicated that he had been looking at the matter for some time, so I would have thought that after all that, a final decision would have been on the table for all of us to look at to see the new structure that we are going to go to; but, no, all we got was an answer that seems to be that a decision has been taken that we will not deregulate, but that no decision has been made about what form of regulation will occur after 30 June. The minister now wants a 12-month extension so that he can consult with the community to work out what form that regulation will take. I would have thought that that should have been happening over the past three months, if the minister has been working on all this. I found extraordinary his comment today that although part of the decision had been made public through the press, he had not put out a public statement because although he was telling us his views, cabinet had not yet made a decision. Has cabinet made a decision or has it not? It is not just the minister’s personal views on these matters we need to know. Hon Simon O’Brien: How many ways can you say it? What is it you are concerned with—that cabinet should or should not be involved in these matters. You are a dope; you are a waste of space. Hon KEN TRAVERS: What I want is certainty. The minister is absolutely right: there are 20 different variations of this speech because 20 different options could emerge from the minister’s statement about the reality today. The minister has not made it clear to this house or to the public. Is it his view or is it the cabinet view of what should happen after 30 June? What will be the situation after 30 June other than the minister continuing to consult with the community? How much longer do we have to wait for him to continue to consult with the community? Hon Simon O’Brien: You don’t have to wait at all. All this was sorted out ages ago when I was dealing with the principal airlines that you have referred to. I alluded to that in previous answers some time ago. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Alluded to? Hon Simon O’Brien: All right, I have stated it, if that is better. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No, that is the problem; the minister has not stated it and has not alluded to it. Hon Simon O’Brien: I have, in answer to your questions. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is not a clear decision. Hon Simon O’Brien: I have stated it to make sure they have a business going as usual and that they can carry on with confidence. The PRESIDENT: Order! Let us have one at a time.
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5369
Hon KEN TRAVERS: Where is the minister’s press release? What we need from the minister is a clearly articulated position of the pathway forward. We have not got that from this minister on a whole range of issues. After nine months as minister, he went out the other day and said that he would set up a task force to tell him what needs to be done about grain rail freight. That process was already there nine months ago. He just had to implement it. He has sat on his hands and done nothing for nine months. Now he will set up a task force. The same applies to regional airlines services. He has sat and done nothing for the past nine months even though, in his own words, he has been looking at the matter for some time. Now he is going to consult and start the process again. I will tell the minister why it is important. He talked today about changing circumstances at Ravensthorpe, which we are all aware of, but we know what the situation is. Surely, the minister must know by now what the situation is for dealing with Ravensthorpe and Mt Magnet. The minister has said that Exmouth has aspirations. Does that mean that the minister will allow some form of deregulation at Exmouth? Hon Simon O’Brien: Do you want me to announce these things by way of interjection or something? You are even more useless than you sometimes appear. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If that is the way we can get an announcement out of the minister, I am happy for it to be by way of interjection. I would prefer that as minister he would explain to the people of Western Australia— put out a report and a response that explains clearly to people—what the future is. However, if the only way we can get an answer is by way of interjection, I am more than happy to have it by interjection, except that we are running out of time. The minister has talked about Exmouth having aspirations. He has talked about Geraldton going through a period of transition. On one thing we agree: I will support the minister on the issue of having longer contracts than have previously been in place. In the past a three-year contract was appropriate, but as we move forward, and there is a need to upgrade the fleet, it is quite appropriate to look at a longer period. Hon Simon O’Brien: A longer period for what? Hon KEN TRAVERS: For the contracts. Hon Simon O’Brien: Which contracts? Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is exactly right. We do not know exactly — Hon Simon O’Brien: Which contracts are you talking about? Hon KEN TRAVERS: If there is a renewal of a licence for an operator, if the minister issues a licence, the minister will issue it for longer than three years. Hon Simon O’Brien: You want to keep the network system going and not go to deregulation. Is that what you are saying? Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is right. That is what we have been saying for months. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is what I am saying, too. What is your problem? Hon KEN TRAVERS: We do not know that. What is the minister planning for Exmouth? What is the minister planning for Geraldton? That is the problem. We cannot even get it by interjection now, because when we ask what will happen in those towns, we do not know. Why is it important? It is important because the services to Shark Bay, Kalbarri, Carnarvon and such places are all interlinked to what happens at places such as Exmouth and Geraldton. That is why to make a statement like this, that it is all up in the air, means that it is not just places like Exmouth and Geraldton that will be affected; it will have flow-on implications for those other places. If the minister does not understand that by now, it is a sad day for Western Australia. That is why we need a clearly articulated position from this minister of what is the future for regional airline services. Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act 2007 — Amendments — Adjournment Debate HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [10.20 pm]: My colleague and friend the member for Mandurah, Hon David Templeman, comes up with some wonderful phrases in his contributions to debate in Parliament. The other day he repeatedly used the phrase “dead, stinking cat” when referring to an aspect of the budget. I rise tonight, labouring under some difficulty, as members will hear, to talk about this dead stinking cat, which is the increase in the landfill levy. Hon Ken Travers, in his contribution to the debate on the Loan Bill, talked about the speeches that we have heard from new members, and the commitment we are hearing from new members right across this chamber to respect the processes of this place and to honour the processes of government. They must be horrified by what they heard in this place today when, at the start of proceedings, the Minister for Environment stood up and announced that the government had cancelled the proposed rise in the landfill levy. It has cancelled next week’s rise and postponed it until 1 January 2010. This is the part I want to draw to the attention of honourable members, because this afternoon we saw a complete act of subterfuge. It was pulling the wool over the eyes of members, and if they cannot see that, they need to go back and have a close look at what was done in this place this afternoon. The minister said in her statement that the government had now received legal advice that —
5370 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009]
… it is appropriate that prior to the proposed 300 percent increase in levies taking effect, the passage of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment Bill 2009 should occur first. Apart from the appalling grammar in that sentence, which I have just read out from the minister’s statement verbatim, let us just understand what it means. Since 14 May, when the government pulled this little stunt on us, I have stood up in this place almost every day and asked the minister to explain to us what she thinks she is trying to do. Every time I have raised it she has come back with statements about our appallingly low level of recycling and our high level of waste going to landfill. I will provide members with a bit of the flavour of this to show that I am not making it up. The minister said, in reply to a question from me on 14 May 2009 — There is a very real problem in Western Australia in that the levies are far too low … We believe that an increase in the levies … will provide a significant opportunity for industries to recycle. Are members getting the message here? The levies are raised and then the amount of waste going to landfill and the amount of recycling go in what we would call the right direction. We are all supposed to be working here on the policy towards zero landfill by 2020. Everybody is committed to that. Again I quote the minister, on another occasion — an increased landfill levy will provide an incentive for industry to invest in services in WA to lift its current recycling rate. As recently as last Thursday afternoon, the minister took up a significant number of pages in the Hansard during the Department of Environment and Conservation estimates process in this place talking about what the rise in the landfill levy is supposed to be doing. I quote again, from page E52 — The PRESIDENT: I think you need to identify the document. Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is the Hansard from the budget estimates in this place on Thursday, 18 June. The PRESIDENT: I think you need to identify it as the uncorrected Hansard. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Thank you very much, Mr President, I take your advice on that. It is the uncorrected Hansard. Nevertheless, this is consistent with all the previous statements. The minister said — It is certainly fair to say that the evidence suggests that an increase in the levy will provide an incentive for people to recycle. She then goes on to talk about New South Wales. Let us be absolutely clear about this. Two things happened in the budget. Firstly, the government decided to increase the landfill levy by some 300 per cent. It will not have escaped anybody in this chamber that when the Carpenter government, under the minister, David Templeman, put through the waste avoidance and resource recovery bills we talked about incremental increases over the next few years. We knew and we specifically said; we acknowledged, and we brought it to the attention of the Parliament and to the electorate in Western Australia that the levy rates were starting low but would increase. Indeed, there was a schedule of increases going over the next few years. When the minister stood up to announce there would be a 300 per cent increase, we were obviously concerned that it was an impost on Western Australian households. Given all the other imposts that this government has put upon them, we were concerned about that. However, from a philosophical point of view, from a public policy point of view, I do not disagree, nor does anybody on this side of the chamber disagree with the minister’s basic principle that increasing the levy over a period of time—which is what we were arguing about and the style and manner in which it was done—is not a bad thing. That is the first thing that was done: the increase in the levy. The second thing that was done was that amendments were flagged to the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007. These legislative changes were last week introduced into the other place and presumably will get here sometime in the second half of the year. What is the connection between these two things? I can tell members that there is no connection, because the rate of the landfill levy can be altered by regulation. The government does not need to come into the Parliament and amend the bill to increase the landfill levy. If the minister really believed in what she was doing, there was no reason why she could not have gone ahead with the increase in the landfill levy, sticking to all the rhetoric that she has given us in the past six or so weeks consistent with the basic broad approach that the Labor government adopted when it introduced the bill, and she could have re-looked at the legislation. Instead of that, the minister has collapsed the two things into one another. There was one element of what the minister has done that I really have to say is quite a remarkable achievement. The minister has managed to put offside every single stakeholder in this debate. There is not one person in Western Australia who thinks that she has done the right thing. Local government is angry because of what they saw as being the government’s attempt to turn the landfill levy into a tax; that was the first thing. What has that to do with? Is that to do with increasing the levy by 300 per cent? Of course it is not! All local government is angry about is that the government was going to increase the levy by 300 per cent and then take away 75 per cent of the revenue and put it into running one of its departments. That is what upset local government; and a few
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5371 other things too, like there being absolutely no money—which we discovered in estimates last week—for policing illegal dumping and no money for cleaning up illegal dumping. The electorate is angry because local government, quite rightly, has turned to its ratepayers and said, “This will cost us a lot of extra money, expect your rates to go up by at least $24 a week, which is on top of all the other imposts in the budget.” Hon Ken Travers: That is what the government says; local government says it is going to be more than that! Hon SALLY TALBOT: Indeed, local government says it will be more than that because, of course, families pay visits to tips on other occasions; it is not just the kerbside rubbish collection. Local government is angry and the electorate is angry; householders are angry; the environment groups are angry. What are the environment groups angry about? Hon Norman Moore: They are always angry you know! Hon SALLY TALBOT: Oh, no, they are not! What a tired cynical comment that is coming from the Leader of the House. How long has Hon Norman Moore been in government? Nine whole months! My goodness me, the Leader of the House’s stamina is pretty low and his tolerance is — Hon Norman Moore: I guess you do stretch my tolerance. Hon SALLY TALBOT: The Leader of the House has been here a bit too long, as Hon Kate Doust said. Local government is angry, the electorate is angry, and the environment movement is angry. What are they angry about? Are they angry about the 300 per cent increase? No, they are not; they are ecstatic about that. They are angry that the government is taking funds away from the Waste Authority. That is what they are angry about. Everybody on the government side has been absolutely silent about what we saw in this chamber today! Did members on this side notice that? Members opposite have all said, “It is probably sensible to wait until the legislation has gone through.” The legislation has nothing to do with what the government has cancelled for next week. Hon Norman Moore: You’d better talk to Mr Travers tonight who explained it in his speech. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I do not know what the government is trying to do. Hon Norman Moore: She does not understand about levies. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I understand very well. I suspect that Hon Norman Moore understands very well, too. I watched the faces of members opposite this afternoon after they heard that announcement. They looked as though they had been in government for a couple of decades. They looked very, very miserable. Mine Safety — Adjournment Debate HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Mines and Petroleum) [10.30 pm]: Having listened to the pontification of members opposite all day today, I cannot work out why they are not still in government! They are so good at everything! Their arrogance has not gone anywhere—it is still with them! It is beyond comprehension to me that the people of Western Australia threw them out at the last election! I cannot work out why they would have been so stupid—considering the great abilities that members opposite have been displaying all day today! It is a huge irony. I want to respond to a couple of issues that Hon Jon Ford has raised about my portfolio. I said last week that I actually do not cause earthquakes—and I do not. I said that I cannot make the earth move—and I cannot. However, when it comes to seismic events in mines, I have a responsibility as the Minister for Mines and Petroleum to ensure that mines that have a record of seismic events are made as safe as possible. The Perseverance mine at Leinster has been in operation since about 1976. The mine shaft has been sunk into an ore body that is generally considered to be unstable. It is a state-of-the-art shaft. It was made by a raised borer. It is round. It is concreted. The engineering of that mine has taken into account the potential for seismic events to occur. Just a week or so ago the engineering of that mine saved the day, if I can put it in those terms, because it meant that there was a safe haven to which the worker could go and was able to be rescued. That is the purpose of that sort of engineering. It is the duty of the Minister for Mines and his agency to make sure that if that mine is not safe, it does not operate. Ever since 1976, ministers of all persuasions, and the mines department under all governments, have deemed that mine to be safe. If the inquiry into this particular incident says that that mine is not safe, action will be taken. If Hon Jon Ford is suggesting that I should close down that mine tomorrow, he should say so. I am saying to Hon Jon Ford rhetorically: if that is what he wants done, he should say it; but he should not get up in this place and start making political mileage, if he can, about this sort of incident. I remind Hon Jon Ford that in the last two months of his term as the minister responsible for mine safety there were three mine fatalities. The difference between Hon Jon Ford and me is that I did not get up in this place every time there was a fatality and give the member a serve. I did not give him an explanation of why we want a section 46. I did not ask him why he was causing seismic events to occur and why he let that happen. None of
5372 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] that happened. That is because these are not issues for blatant party political politics—not that the member plays that as much as do some of his union mates. That is the reason I took exception to the union’s comment that it is the fault of this state government that this seismic event occurred, and we should have a commonwealth takeover. That is the response of the member’s union mates. They want to play politics on this issue. I do not. My view is very simple: if mines are unsafe, we fix them up. I inherited the situation with mine safety that the former minister had left to our government. Under the former government, the mine safety division had come under the former Department of Consumer and Employment Protection. Not only mine safety but petroleum safety and a host of other issues had become lost in the huge amalgamation of mess that the former government had created by trying to shift mine safety from one agency to another. The former government also had the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority in place. No-one knew who was responsible for what. There was jurisdictional conflict all over the place. I inherited that, and I am fixing it up. Hon Jon Ford will see what I will do about mine safety, and he will be pleased about it, because I will fix it up. Why did Hon Jon Ford not do something about mine safety when he was the minister responsible? Hon Jon Ford got up about five minutes after he came into opposition and asked, “Why not have cost recovery?” That is a good question. Why did he not do that? There is no answer. I am going to go down that path because that is the way we have to go in order to raise the necessary funds. The member should not come into this place and criticise me when he has a bit of history in this. I never spent one second of my time criticising him when he was the minister. Hon Jon Ford interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE: I never spent one minute of my time in opposition criticising the member over mine safety, yet he has not wasted any time in criticising me since he has been on that side, bearing in mind that what we have in place right now is what he administered. The legislation is Labor legislation. Labor had eight years in government. It brought in a number of amendments to the legislation. It is the Labor Party’s legislation. It should take ownership of it; and, if it is no good, it should take responsibility for it. That is what I have; I have not had time to fix it, but I am about to fix it. Hon Jon Ford interjected. Hon NORMAN MOORE: The member should just take a deep breath and he will see somebody do something about this, other than just sitting back and sniping from the back bench, like he is doing now. On the matter of the section 45 issue as it applies to BHP Billiton Ltd, I have told the member that the legal advice provided to my predecessor, Mr Logan, about a similar instance was that the minister cannot make publicly available information that has been obtained by a government agency using its coercive powers. The other day the Federal Court ruled that information provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum to an inquiry into the Varanus Island incident and obtained under coercive powers could not be made available to the minister. That is in line with the advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office. I am not about to say that I will ignore that advice. Neither would the member if he were in the same boat as I am, and nor did Mr Logan when he was given the same advice that has been provided to me. If the member does not believe me, I will give him a copy of the letter, because that will explain it all to him. But I will not table legal advice, because that is not done. The bottom line is that I am not at liberty to make public the BHP Billiton section 45 report. Whether it is at liberty to do so, I do not know; that is its business, because it commissioned it and paid for it. I will not go against the advice provided to me by the State Solicitor’s Office on this matter. I hope that Hon Jon Ford will do what he normally does and take a moderate approach to these issues. He is a person we can talk to and argue about things with, but he should not get angry about it. I get irritated when people try to make political mileage out of safety issues, because it is not a political issue; it is an issue of management. What happened to him has happened to me. There were fatalities on his watch, and there have been fatalities on my watch. We do not want that to happen; we want to prevent it from happening. I am about to make dramatic changes to the way in which we look after mine safety in Western Australia. I suspect that the member will go along with what I am seeking to do. That is what we should be talking about. The member should not come into this place and accuse me of causing earthquakes. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 10.37 pm ______
[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 23 June 2009] 5373