Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2020

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday, 21 October 2020

Legislative Council

Wednesday, 21 October 2020

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 1.00 pm, read prayers and acknowledged country. ASIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY HUB Statement by Minister for Regional Development HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [1.01 pm]: On Friday, the globally significant Asian Renewable Energy Hub project reached a major milestone, with environmental approval granted for the first stage of this mega-scale wind and solar hybrid renewable energy project that is located approximately 220 kilometres northeast of Port Hedland. In 2018, the project was granted lead agency status with the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, and it has the potential to transform the Pilbara economy with major flow-on benefits to the state. It will ensure that people in the Pilbara and international customers are able to access competitively priced green energy. At least three gigawatts of power is expected to be made available for Pilbara users. The approval marks a major step forward for the project, which plans to eventually expand to 26 gigawatts of renewable wind and solar generation, providing energy to service industries in the Pilbara and providing markets in Asia with green hydrogen and ammonia. The 15-gigawatt first stage of the project is anticipated to create thousands of jobs in the Pilbara and will be one of the world’s largest renewable hydrogen projects. It is expected to create significant new manufacturing opportunities in Western Australia, with an estimated 5 000 direct construction jobs to be created during the 10-year project construction period and 3 000 direct jobs to be created for the 50 years–plus operational period. Clean, cheap energy can also support new and expanded mines and downstream mineral processing. Most of the project infrastructure will be established in the Shire of East Pilbara, with an infrastructure corridor proposed to pass through the Shire of Broome to the coast to provide an offshore export terminal. Expansion plans for the project are underway, with the project proponent, NW Interconnected Power, having submitted its environmental approvals for a 26-gigawatt second stage of the project to the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority late last week. Key revisions to the original project include the addition of downstream processing facilities, utilising sea water and renewable power to produce green hydrogen and ammonia, replacing the transmission of power to South-East Asia and replacing export power cables with desalination plant intake and discharge pipelines and ammonia product export pipelines to ship load-out facilities approximately 20 kilometres offshore. The project also proposes to replace fly in, fly out or drive in, drive out construction and operations workforce models with the construction of a new company town. The project will put Western Australia on the map as a leading destination for green energy generation and a major contributor to lowering global carbon emissions. AGRICULTURAL AND HOSPITALITY SKILLED WORKERS Motion HON COLIN de GRUSSA (Agricultural) [1.05 pm]: I move — That this house — (a) notes the current impact and future issues with recruiting agricultural and hospitality skilled workers in regional Western Australia; (b) calls on the state government to provide transparency on its plans to ensure skilled workers in these sectors are available as soon as possible; and (c) discusses strategies to improve the availability and reliability of such workers to strengthen the resilience and populations of regional Western Australia. We all know that this year has presented an incredible challenge to not just our state but also the nation and the globe. We are acutely aware of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had right across our economy in all sectors. It was clear very early on that it was going to impact the jobs market, for a start, as businesses were forced to close. Many of those businesses have reopened, particularly in our state where we took measures that have led to better outcomes than we have seen in other states. Those things have been good and some industries, such as the mining industry, worked very hard to make sure that they could find the workers they needed to keep that industry going. There was obviously going to be an impact on our agriculture and hospitality workforce as well, and early on we could see that that was going to be a big challenge, particularly in the agriculture space. In a similar vein, it has been a challenge in the hospitality space as well. These industries are dependent on a seasonal workforce, and that workforce largely comes from outside the state and, in fact, the country. That was obviously going to create

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7057 a particularly difficult issue to manage, but it was known early on that it would require a great deal of work to try to manage it. We could see the immediate impact, for example, on the broadacre sector from a seeding perspective. In March, we were talking about border closures. Obviously, the seeding season was coming soon at that time, but harvest is here and we are still seeing issues. We recognised those issues and continuously raised them with government. We sent different correspondence to various ministers and to the COVID email hotline that we all that had access to. It was a very good idea. In most cases, certainly in my experience, we were able to get good results and a fast and timely response to most issues raised through that mechanism, notwithstanding that the correspondence sent regarding the issue of an ag workforce was one of the very few emails that we did not receive a response to. We just got crickets on that one. That is very interesting, given the significance of that particular issue to Western Australia. As I said, back in March my colleagues and I starting raising these issues, and we continued to raise them through various means such as asking questions about what was being planned, what steps were being taken to ensure that northern cattle producers would have access to people and the hospitality industry could find staff, and how those various industries were going to manage their way through a hugely difficult issue. In fact, I wrote to Minister MacTiernan in June about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on skilled workers in agriculture. At that stage, I had met with a group of farmers who were proposing all sorts of options for how they could bring skilled workers into Western Australia ahead of the harvest season. All these people were well and truly prepared to contribute financially and use whatever means they could to ensure that they could find a workable system to allow these workers to come into Western Australia and assist with the harvest, seeding, hay production and other aspects of the agricultural industry. I got a reply from the minister on that issue, quite promptly, I must say, which was great. She noted in her reply — It will likely prove challenging for workers to be sourced from Europe … We know that. It is a particular problem and the industry has had a particular reliance on workers from the Northern Hemisphere because our seasonal work happens in the opposite time of the year; when it is harvest time here, it is a good time to get harvest workers from the north. The minister noted in her letter that she was optimistic about the prospects of sourcing labour from New Zealand, which was strongly encouraged at that time. She also wrote — It is unlikely the WA Government would support contributing funds to the costs associated with quarantining individuals from the grains industry as it would not be equitable to those entering WA to complete other services deemed essential … The industry representatives did not argue that they wanted a free ride. They were certainly prepared to contribute and pay for whatever needed to be done to find a way to quarantine those workers remotely, if possible. They were prepared to engage whatever mechanisms were needed in order to do that. I will move on to discuss the impact of the COVID pandemic on future employment issues in these industries. I saw an interesting article in today’s digital edition of The West Australian on employment data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data release. It states — Australian Bureau of Statistics data released yesterday showed the number of WA payroll jobs fell one per cent between September 19 and October 3 … That figure was higher than the national average. It is interesting to note in the article the comments made by Conrad Liveris, who said that the drop was concerning because this government had been focused on attracting workers into industry. While these programs have been in place to attract people to work in these various industries, we have seen a drop in payroll jobs. The ABS data shows that the biggest effect on employment has been felt in businesses with fewer than 20 staff. The bigger end of town is coping better with the issues around staffing. It is the small and medium businesses, those businesses with fewer than 20 staff, which includes a great many agricultural and hospitality businesses across Western Australia, that are really struggling to find people to do the work that needs to be done. It has been a great effort on the part of large businesses such as those in the mining industry that have done a very good job of finding the staff they need, albeit with all sorts of incredible and difficult challenges around rostering and so on. That industry has done a very good job of finding the people that it needs. We know that a significant number of people are needed. It is estimated that 7 000 seasonal workers are needed in the agricultural industry across the state. We will need people in the mining sector down the track as well. There is going to be a very strong demand for people, and, obviously, the demands from one industry against another will present a challenge as well. As I said before, in terms of agriculture in the broadacre context, we rely on Northern Hemisphere workers. Those jobs in particular require skilled workers—people who knows how to operate the machinery, what a harvest is and how to do it. Essentially, during the Northern Hemisphere off-season, those people can come here, jump on the equipment that they are familiar with and do the job very well. That has been very good for Western Australian agriculture. It has also been good for those workers. They get to see our wonderful country. They get to do some work, earn some money and then spend some time travelling around—something that they cannot do at the moment.

7058 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

An organisation in Western Australia called 2 Workin Oz trains some of these workers. When I was farming, I used its services to find workers for our operation. That business did a survey this year and produced a report on some of the impacts of COVID on operations in Western Australia. It states — Western Australia has a long history, 50+ years, of welcoming professional educated farmers from around the world to work in our grains industry. In recent years when Visas were restructured, these workers were only able to enter Australia on a 417or 462 Working Holiday Visa and have wrongly been identified as ‘backpackers’. They are not really unskilled backpackers or backpackers in the traditional sense. They are skilled workers who come here to work and have a holiday at the end of their work, not the other way around. It is very important to note that difference. The report goes on to state — … while the agricultural sector has many unskilled roles available, not all roles within the sector are suitable for unskilled workers, and there will always be a requirement for skilled, experienced workers to operate heavy machinery and oversee farm operations. Expecting unskilled, inexperienced workers to fill these positions is not feasible and introduces and increases on-farm safety issues. We all know how important those issues are. We have been debating the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019 for many weeks in this place. If the only option we give farmers is to employ unskilled workers, it is incredibly important that we do not introduce a safety risk to their business. That is not something that anyone would intend to do. One of the questions asked in the survey was about the anticipation of when the hay and harvest season would start in Western Australia and what staff would be required. It was noted by 75 per cent of respondents that the anticipated start for the season was October. We are in October, members, and we still have a critical shortage of these workers. We are debating this important motion today to find out what we can do to not only address the issue in the short term, but also put in place a better plan in the long term. In the time that I have available, I will run through a couple of other issues around the hospitality industry. In the ABC news of 20 October, an article titled “WA seeks backpackers to fill staff shortages as Kimberley prepares for bumper wet season” makes this observation — In the six months from March to the end of August, the number of working holiday makers left in Australia almost halved from 140,000 to about 76,000 backpackers on various visas. Obviously, that presents a massive challenge, given we are talking about a 50 per cent reduction in those available right across the country. It continues — ‘Every day is a challenge’ All around town signs are appearing at businesses notifying customers that kitchens will be closed during certain hours, some major venues are only taking in-house guests at their bars and restaurants, and others are posting apologies to customers on their Facebook pages—all citing “serious shortages of available skilled staff” for the changes. Many operators out there, the small mum-and-dad businesses in the hospitality sector right across Western Australia, particularly in the north, are very heavily reliant on the seasonal and transient workforce. They are actually exhausted because they are working harder than ever. It is great that Western Australians are out visiting their own neighbourhood. That is fantastic to see because this state offers so much in the way of tourism, but the fact is that the tourism and hospitality workers are not to be found, so tourism operators are working themselves into the ground trying to keep up with the demand. We have seen many examples of people coming through a town being extremely disappointed that the accommodation is full. The signs are up saying, “We’re at capacity”, but the reality is that many of those businesses are at only 50 per cent capacity; they simply cannot take on more holiday-makers because they do not have the staff to clean the rooms and cook the meals. The challenge for those people is huge. They are doing themselves out of business because they simply cannot find the people to do the work. Tourists in the north have complained about the condition of some places. They have said that it is a bit untidy, the bins are full or the toilets are not as clean as they could be, yet only two people are working in the business because they simply cannot find people to assist them in doing their work. There are significant examples of stress and mental health issues arising for some of these operators because they are so under the pump that they are not getting a minute’s rest. We have talked about safety issues, and this obviously introduces potential safety issues and issues around the health of those people in the regional communities who just cannot cope with the number of visitors because they do not have the staff do so. Our tourism industry’s reputation is damaged when these businesses are unable to cope with the influx of visitors, which they would normally otherwise be extremely grateful for, especially in the north at this time of the year when it is normally starting to quieten down, but it is not doing that because there are many more people up there than usual. As I said, businesses simply cannot find workers to do the work. Accommodation is not available for those workers either, so trying to find a solution for that, particularly when some of those places are busy and there is not much accommodation available, is another issue. There are a great many issues around the hospitality program up north.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7059

It is great that we have encouraged people to visit Western Australia and I wholeheartedly support that idea, but there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of how we find the people to meet the demand of those holiday-makers. That is a complex issue because we have a reliance on workers from interstate and overseas. It is a collective responsibility as well. If we look at the ag sector in particular, it cannot be up to either the industry or the government on its own to come up with a plan; it requires everyone to collaborate on potential solutions. The minister said in her media release of 15 October 2020 — The Australia-wide international border closure has cut off the supply of Working Holiday Makers that WA’s primary industries are reliant on for harvest work. We know that. That has been the case since very early on in the COVID pandemic, and that is why we needed a plan earlier to try to deal with these issues. The minister goes on to say — The Work and Wander out Yonder campaign will continue to roll out and will ramp up activities in November … I mentioned earlier that peak demand for much of the ag industry was anticipated to be in October. As we learnt in the estimates hearings yesterday, I think 86 people have received payments for their Work and Wander Out Yonder accommodation claims. That is not going to help us find the thousands of workers that we need. That is a little bit disappointing. A glitzy ad campaign is part of the Work and Wander Out Yonder campaign that has been running. An interesting article from Caroline Di Russo paints a good picture of what that means to people. I want to read some of that into Hansard because I think she, much more eloquently than I, captures the feeling of it out there in the regions. She writes — One of the greatest challenges now faced by the regions is the dissipation of its seasonal workforce due to closed interstate and international borders. The federal agricultural minister has been trying to negotiate arrangements with state governments, but alas, playing politics on borders is more important than helping farmers get crops harvested and getting Aussies fed. I’m sure if food shortages or price rises hit supermarkets, inconveniencing city people, the narrative and the policy would change. Until then, regional areas have been given little reason to expect change. Which brings me to the winner of the 2020 NFI Shinybum award: the WA Government and its ‘Work and Wonder Out Yonder’ advertisement … Granted, it was a good idea to have an advertising campaign to encourage Perth people to take up seasonal work in regional WA for fruit picking, grain harvesting and the like. Credit where it’s due. The problem is how that idea played out into one of the most cringeworthy and fallacious adverts known to modern marketing. In short, it depicts peak hour in the Margaret River as going for a surf, watercooler chat in Exmouth as drinking at the pub and the company car in the wheatbelt as a $750K harvester—something a little more complicated than the average Volvo SUV. No wonder city people think country Australia is a burden rather than a driver of our national economy—they think we are all surfing, drinking or chilling in an air-con cab all day. When you stop to think about it, it’s actually quite offensive. … But the most hideously unrealistic part of the advert was when it cut to … fruit pickers styled head-to-toe in agrarian chic. Let’s be clear, when you pick fruit you don’t wear an off-white cheesecloth shirt cinched at the waist and an oversized boater while you frolic through the orchard giggling semi-stoned in the soft late afternoon sun. That said, seasonable labour would probably be less palatable to the soft-palmed, knot-bun barista set if they knew they’d be dressed in work clothes and a baseball cap, while they sweated their — Unmentionables — … off up the top of ladders in the summer heat. I think that paints a pretty good picture. What we should be trying to do is not paint some shiny advertising campaign to attract people. That, to me, is like throwing darts in the dark. We need real solutions. What is needed is very strong collaboration with industry and government to try to find the solutions to this issue in the long term. HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [1.26 pm]: It looks like this will be a popular motion today. I am very pleased that Hon Colin de Grussa has moved this motion. I have a few things to say about this government’s incredibly and woefully inadequate response to what is, effectively, an emergency in the agricultural sector in Western Australia. I was made shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food at the end of July this year, and this issue was already the most significant issue facing the agriculture sector. It is an issue that I am well aware of, coming from Donnybrook and being involved in the communities from Donnybrook to Manjimup where the reliance on the international workforce for fruit picking in particular for vineyards and orchards is absolutely paramount. There are orchards that rely almost exclusively on transient labour sources, particularly backpackers, but also Australian transient workers and transient workers from other countries who turn up. To not have that workforce in place is an absolutely dire emergency.

7060 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

I raised this issue in the public arena in a number of places as early as 11 August 2020. I make reference to one of those times, which ran in an article on the ABC on the morning of 11 August, stating that south west MP Steve Thomas was calling on the state government to bring in foreign workers to help farmers through harvest. That is when I began this process—11 August—which is now two and a half months ago. At that point I recognised there was a significant problem. It took some courage to take that approach because at that point the government was still spruiking its hard border and not letting anyone in. The public had a lot of support for that position, so it was a courageous position to say that we had to bring in some labour from COVID-safe environments and that those workers had to go through proper quarantining and do the appropriate testing, because otherwise this problem would be highly exacerbated. In my view, that position has been borne out in an issue that I will come to later—namely, this government’s incredible backflip a week ago when it approached the federal government looking to import foreign labour, something the government had refused to do for the two and a half critical months that would have made a significant difference to agriculture in this state. The government’s comments are quite telling. In an ABC online article also on 11 August, I made a couple of comments. This is a quote of my comments in this article, which states — He warned time was running out to make a move and urged the State Government to follow the lead of the Northern Territory Government. … Mr Thomas said such an agreement for WA was vital, and with arrivals to WA needing to quarantine for two weeks any preparations needed to begin soon. “We’re going to need to see these additional workers put in place by October,” he said. Bear in mind that was in August 2020, so there were a couple of months’ leeway for this government to get off its backside and achieve something. Hon Darren West interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The only farmer in the Parliament who cannot be the Minister for Agriculture and Food can keep his counsel to himself at the moment. The reply from the Premier was this — But Premier Mark McGowan rejected the suggestions, instead calling on farmers to look within the state for workers. “Our priority is to employ WA workers,” he said. “In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s time for industry to rethink the way it employs workers and look to locals to fill these roles.” If the Premier had the slightest understanding of agriculture in this state, he would know that that does not happen; it has not happened for 50 years. When unemployment rates have been at five per cent or higher, close to 10 per cent historically, we have never been able to rely on a local workforce to pick fruit from fruit trees and from vines and to get in the hop crops. That has never been the case, so why would it suddenly be the case now when the Premier has decided it is? It is not. This is an example of the Premier and the government having zero understanding of agriculture. That was the Premier, of course, and he probably has no understanding of agriculture, but the comments spread. Only two days later the issue was bubbling hot. This is an article from The Albany Advertiser of 13 August in which I again am quoted — … called on the State Government to negotiate a Pacific Island–type solution similar to one announced in the Northern Territory. … “The grains, fruit and avocado, and wine industries all need workers for their upcoming harvest, and they all need certainty that there will be a workforce available … “Naturally, we would all like to see these jobs filled by local West Australians. But history has taught us that producers have never been able to achieve this in the past, and it is unlikely that they will be able to do it now.” That was the simple truth two and a half months ago. It is still the truth today. The response came this time from the Minister for Agriculture and Food who said — “Since March we have recognised a potential looming shortfall of agricultural workers, and have been working with industry to develop local solutions,” she said. “We’ve had to be very clear with industry: they cannot rely on a hope that international labour will be available this year. Last week’s backflip might change that outcome unless the government messes around again with a couple of months of negotiation. Even with the best intent, we will not get anybody in this year. Perhaps this is a surreptitious

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7061 attempt to fill that. The government did a couple of things: it put in some extra training courses that no doubt the minister will describe shortly. I hope she describes how many graduates from those additional training courses are in the agricultural sector picking fruit or driving tractors today. That is not to say some good work is not being done, because additional training is a useful tool. To some degree, it will be useful next year, but it is not much use this year. Those graduates do not have much experience and they are already needed. It was not until 24 August that I put out a media release on this because I thought the media coverage was pretty solid at that point. The media release of 24 August states — The Shadow Minister for Agriculture Dr Steve Thomas has called on the State to take up the offer of the Federal Governments to deliver a Pacific Island type solution similar to the one announced in the Northern territory to address the impending agricultural shortfall of agricultural workers in Western Australia. That was 24 August. What was the government’s response at that point? A lovely article ran in many outlets, but I picked up that bastion, The West Australian, which has covered this in reasonable course, to get the minister’s response. An article in The West Australian of 25 August, the day after, starts with this — A row has broken out between grain growers and Agriculture Minister Alannah MacTiernan after she said farmers should consider paying harvest workers more to attract people to the industry. Having then realised that telling local people to go out there did not work, the minister suggested that the problem was they were not being paid sufficiently. I can tell members that avocado producers have generally being paying in the region of $35 an hour. But let me say this: a lot of properties are marginal. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: That was about harvest stock operators. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The minister may have been specifically referencing that. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: That is not what it says necessarily in the article, but the minister can get up and speak on that. My response was — … the Minister’s comments were an inadequate response to the impending crisis of a shortfall of farm labour, and represented “government flip-flopping on policy”. I will come back to flip-flopping on policy later, which is what happened last week. The opposition has consistently called for a solution involving the importation of labour. Why is that critical? There are simply not enough available, and locals will not fill it. Hon Charles Smith: Why not? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Because they are not interested in doing the work. That has always been the case. I wait for the member to stand up and tell us that he will pick fruit. I can guarantee that he will not be in the orchards and the paddocks, in what I can absolutely guarantee is a fairly tough environment. These workers are absolutely required. At the moment, the towns of Donnybrook and Manjimup are working very hard to retain their backpackers and transient workers because they are desperate to have them in for the pruning season. Growers are in the middle of thinning; it is peak thinning season. They want workers to go from thinning to harvest and picking. They are therefore offering cheap or free accommodation. Members might have seen some media not too long ago when a rally in Manjimup was promoting free accommodation and free food. Do we know why they are doing that? They are desperately worried that they will lose those workers to other sectors. When I go to places such as Albany, I see cafes that cannot find staff to serve people. That is partly because all my friends in the farming community are desperate to keep the very limited pool of workers who are available. The problem is progressing from one sector to another. There are worker shortages in agriculture and even among people who service beverages such as coffee, and in tourism. Because of that shortage, people are becoming desperate to withhold that labour. It is absolutely the case that they are making the best offers they can afford to keep backpackers away from the cafes and restaurants in Albany and up north, because they need them. That is the stage we have got to. Let me go onto the next step the government took. Having realised that the simple call to get people out of the metropolitan area and pay them more had failed utterly, the government then took the next desperate step, the next flip-flop, by doing a bit more advertising. The Wander Out Yonder campaign was already in existence, but a couple of words were added to the front of the slogan, Work and Wander Out Yonder, so it became a five-word slogan instead of a three-word slogan. A smidgeon more money was put in and, as the previous speaker said, it was an utterly unrealistic representation of what harvest looks like. It was completely unrealistic. It may come as a surprise that traipsing between cherry trees and picking the occasional cherry is not what harvest in an orchard looks like. To give the Minister for Agriculture and Food some due, I think she understands this. I am very interested to know, for example, the Minister for Agriculture and Food’s personal position on the need to import labour versus the

7062 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] government’s position, particularly that of the Premier. The Premier came out first and said, “No; we’re not having any of it. My hard border is my political wedge. It is the thing that will get me re-elected in March and no-one is allowed to put any pressure on it.” I suspect this minister understood there was an impending disaster or at least understood the work that is required. I think the minister said in the media that she has undertaken some of this picking work, which was good to hear. The Premier took a hard-nosed approach, particularly in the early stages, when he overrode the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who perhaps saw a little more. When we had the backflip a week ago, it was not the Premier coming out and saying, “Oops, I got it wrong.” I suspect he rolled out the Minister for Agriculture and Food and said, “I’ve got it wrong, but you have to pick up the pieces.” I have a bit of sympathy for the minister, who has to deal with a Premier who is in that self-styled deity mode, as it were, and was rolled out, unfortunately, to try to pick up the pieces. The minister’s comment back in August was that the government had recognised the issue since March. Let us look at its six to seven months of inaction. We have a little bit of increased training; that is not a bad thing. Then we have gone to, “We’re not going to open the borders; locals will fill those roles.” Then it said, “We were wrong; they’re not going to fill those roles, so what we’ll do is put some advertising in place.” Whoops, the advertising did not work—almost nobody took it up—so the government decided it needed to have some financial incentives. There were not enough financial incentives, so the next bit of this saga is that the state government said, “As long as these people can claim all of their JobSeeker payments and any other payments”—effectively double dip—“and as long as the commonwealth government pays all of these extra payments as well, we’ll bribe them to go out there. But we’re not paying for it; the commonwealth will.” That was the next step. What happened? Hon Jim Chown interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: What an incredible double standard. The state government basically said that as long as the commonwealth bribes them to work, that will work. Guess what? The commonwealth said no. I suspect that if the Labor Party were in charge at the commonwealth level, it would have said no as well. That was one of those attempted cost-shifting exercises. Obviously, that did not work either. So we had an advertising campaign. The government said, “No; we’re going to throw some money at it.” Throwing money at it has not particularly worked either. It may be that some people will go, but there is a difficulty in getting people out of the Perth metropolitan region, particularly if they are being paid particularly well on JobKeeper for the time being. The government has to accept that the commonwealth government will not be handing out lots of free money for the benefit of this state government, which rejected overtures, until last week, for the adequate importation of labour. Let us jump to last week. The Minister for Agriculture and Food was in the invidious position of having to announce a humiliating backflip. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: She had to reverse the position of the entire government and say, “Guess what? We are now going to have a look at this. We will now work with the federal government to look at the importation of labour.” Do members know what the government did? It wasted two and a half months on the process. The government should have listened to the call. I get that it was probably the Premier’s fault and not necessarily the minister’s. It was certainly the Premier’s fault; maybe the minister’s as well. The government said, “We’ll steal the workers that the Northern Territory government brought in.” It said, “This is our idea now.” The federal government has an agreement with the Northern Territory. We are all capable of that. The federal government has called on the state government to organise and negotiate an outcome to find a workforce from a safe COVID environment. That is not that easy. We do not want just anybody, even those people from the COVID-safe Pacific islands. They have to be from a safe community. Ideally, we do not want city people who have no farm experience, but there is a farm labour workforce there that the government could use if it was prepared to work at it. It should find its own workforce, strike a deal with the commonwealth, and bring them in. But that is all too hard! The government said, “What we’ll do is we’ll steal the Northern Territory’s workforce. When they’ve finished picking the mangoes up there, we’ll just take them.” Hon Rick Mazza interjected. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Guess what? Northern Territory farmers want them as well, so do Queensland farmers. Everybody else wants them as well. The Northern Territory government is saying, “Hang on a minute. We did the work, we invested, we brought them in.” Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Do you have evidence that that is what happened? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: That is what they are saying. Look up the media, minister. That is what producer organisations in the Northern Territory are saying. They are saying, “We don’t want to hand them over.” If the state government can get a third planeload diverted, good luck—fantastic! This government should have been in the marketplace months ago negotiating an outcome. It should have talked to the commonwealth government, got an agreement in place, and had labour available now. Guess what? It may come as a surprise to the government to realise—I am sure Hon Ken Baston knows this—but mangoes are grown up north. It is not just the Northern Territory

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7063 that grows mangoes. Agriculture is produced in the north of Western Australia! The truth is we could probably produce a bit more, but we produce agriculture up there. Mangoes are being saved in the Northern Territory but nothing is happening in Western Australia because this government, led by its Premier, had no interest in taking the hard and brave decision to support agriculture and had no understanding of how agriculture functions in Western Australia. I will end on this note because I have a very short amount of time. I wish it was a budget speech and we could spend a bit more time on it. The reality is this: six months have been wasted without a proper position in place. It is two and a half months since I started calling for the position of getting international labour from a COVID-safe environment, who could quarantine for two weeks and be tested on days 3 and 11. All of those things are critical. It was a brave position to take because at that point, particularly back in August, everybody was still very enamoured about this “hard border”. Even though thousands of people were still moving in and out of the state, it was called a hard border and it was politically popular—I understand that. It was not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to say, “We need to look after agriculture and put its needs first. By the way, if you look after agriculture, you might actually be looking after all the accommodation and service and tourism providers as well.” It was a fairly brave decision. I have had a fair crack at the government in this presentation. Heaven knows that keeps me amused most days! I want to make this comment to the mover of the motion: on 26 August 2020—a couple of weeks after I began my call for the importation of labour—the member for Warren–Blackwood, I presume on behalf of the National Party, put out his response, in which he called for a committee to be formed. I would ask the National Party to join us in a direct call for labour to be imported, because a committee will take months to develop not necessarily anything at all. I hope the National Party will join us at the forefront of this battle. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [1.47 pm]: I would like to start by letting Hon Colin de Grussa know that we agree in principle with the motion. I want to take a slightly different approach. Looking at the whole situation, this was looming before the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID pandemic is one thing that has happened in the past 12 months. Looking at the country and the bush, this sort of problem has been looming for many years. We cannot gut the hell out of the bush and expect a good result. That has been going on for many years through governments. It does not matter which government it is; this government is probably worse at that, but it has been going on for many years. I am happy that the government has some good initiatives. The free agricultural skills training for young people, migrants and unemployed was a great idea; also, some flexibility in the current working holiday-maker arrangements. However, as previous speakers said, it has all come too late. Many people were calling for these sorts of initiatives back in March, and all of a sudden they have popped up very late in the piece. Why is that the case? I say that it is not just because of COVID. We have had an issue with the bush for many, many years. Regional WA does not have the ability to respond when a workforce is needed. We have taken the search capacity, the agility and the services away from country areas. With things such as regional education, roads, hospitals and shires, there is a lack of desire to decentralise. Also, we have not built those innovation hubs. We have not done the work. There has been a non-stop city-centric approach from governments, and we have taken away the ability of regional areas to fend for themselves and create the majority of their workforce. We know that there will always be a need for them to bring in extra workers during harvest, but these days it is worse and worse, and it is not just because of COVID. There are now very few strong, vibrant country communities with permanent residents compared with what we used to have. There were more families and an ability to provide a workforce. There was also innovation by people who had the ability to be creative and come up with answers to problems. We have gutted that. We have made it very, very hard. That is the problem when we look at the overall situation. If we had vibrant regional communities and if previous governments and this government had put workers back into regional areas, the ability of regional areas to respond to this situation would be a lot better. The one vote, one value philosophy has decimated the voice of country areas. That is part of our philosophy. It is not good when policies are based just on election results, popularity results or numbers in the book, and that is the problem. Governments base policies on what will make it easier for them to get elected. Sometimes governments have to make hard decisions, whether they are Liberal or Labor, after they have done the research, done the consultation and worked with industry. Governments have to make hard decisions. Those decisions may not be popular at the election, but they are hard decisions that have been well researched and they need to be made. I believe that governments over the last 20 or 30 years have had an issue with making those hard decisions, because it is so much easier to make a decision that will be backed up by the numbers in the city. A return to royalties for regions may be a Nationals WA mantra, and I see that, but it should not take a tax on a tax for this government to see value in reinvesting in the regions. The reason we had to have royalties for regions is that, as I have said, this has been happening for 20 to 30 years. It has been going on for a long, long time, so we had to bring in royalties for regions. I support royalties for regions. Royalties for regions was maybe not so well administered towards the end of the last government and it certainly has been gutted under this government; we know that money has been distributed to other places. Several members interjected.

7064 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: The principle of this motion has our support — Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon COLIN TINCKNELL: — but this is not a recent situation. It has taken many years to come to this situation. I am a regional member. There are many in this house, especially on this side, who talk week in, week out— non-stop—about the lack of regional thinking from the government. It has been there. As the previous member said, I am sure the Minister for Regional Development understands this, but she is part of the government and she has to toe the line. Until this happens, I cannot see the situation improving a great deal. The member who moved this motion said it was like shooting darts in the dark, and that is the way it has been. I wish this had started only in March, but it did not, and the government only started to act later in May or June. That was very late in the piece. If we had a government that had a true approach to the bush and regional areas, this situation would not have run down over the last 30 or 40 years. It is a symptom of the way our governments have treated regional areas. Yes, we do need overseas workers. Yes, we do need to recruit a workforce, but that has happened because of a failure of governments to look after regional areas and provide infrastructure to create vibrant regional towns where families live and work. It is not like that anymore. We know that, and that is why we have to rely on outsiders to come and do the work. There is virtually 100 per cent reliance on outsiders to get the results. HON CHARLES SMITH (East Metropolitan) [1.55 pm]: There have been some extraordinary contributions to the debate on this motion. Quite frankly, I cannot believe my ears on some of the things I have just heard. This is an issue on which I differ significantly from the major slaver parties we have in Parliament today, which obviously support the continuing importation of cheap foreign workers. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: They are not cheap. Hon CHARLES SMITH: We will get on to that in a second. I remind the member about the exploitation that occurs on regional farms, particularly on berry farms. I can solve this problem for the house in three easy words: pay higher wages, and the problem will disappear like magic. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: No idea. Hon CHARLES SMITH: That is great coming from the slaver party over here on my right-hand side. One would have thought that the COVID-19 pandemic, the effective closure of our international borders and the current mass unemployment we are experiencing would have dampened calls from the business super-duper high-immigration lobby groups. That is apparently not so. The Labor government’s own minister for slave labour recently sought to grant amnesty to illegal workers. The policy she was chasing was quite frankly dangerous and grossly irresponsible. Not only are these people exploited, but also local people miss out on those positions. I find incredible in this debate that a Labor Party government that supposedly works for our working class people wholeheartedly supports something like this. I was thinking that perhaps after all the modern Labor Party is in fact the useful idiot of our capitalist elites. Several members interjected. Hon CHARLES SMITH: Prove me wrong. Despite numerous inquiries — Hon Kyle McGinn: What does that make the Liberal Party? Hon CHARLES SMITH: The member has hit the nail on the head. The major parties are almost exactly the same entity. They just wear different T-shirts at election time. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Member, perhaps you might not be distracted by unruly interjections and continue with your remarks. Hon CHARLES SMITH: I just want to expand today’s motion, which I of course support. We have serious issues in the agricultural sector and a need for workers. What gets me is that despite several official inquiries into these issues, particularly into the ruthless exploitation of workers on farms, the government is still okay to run with this type of policy. I want to remind members of something again, because I have spoken about this issue many times over the last three and a half years. I want to take a brief overview of what I have said previously. In 2016, the Fair Work Ombudsman completed an inquiry into Australia’s backpacker visa scheme, which found — … “many backpackers are being subjected to underpayment or non-payment, unlawful deductions, sexual harassment, unsafe working conditions and other forms of exploitation”.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7065

I have firsthand experience of that. In Bullsbrook, where I live, there are many berry farmers. I have spoken with backpackers up there and they have told me, face to face, that they have not been paid for working. They try to get their wages and they are told that they are not getting anything—that they are not even on the books! This is not just a one-off thing. It happens continuously around Australia. This is something that I am personally concerned about. That is why I call it cheap foreign labour; it is modern slave labour, and we need to do something about it. A recent Senate report titled “A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders” documented widespread abuse of Australia’s working holiday-maker visa program, which was — … ‘consistently reported to suffer widespread exploitation in the Australian workforce’. In 2017, the national temporary migrant worker survey found that one in every seven temporary migrant fruit and vegetable pickers was paid $5 an hour or less, and one-third were paid $10 an hour or less. In 2018, a group of academics jointly penned an article in a Fairfax newspaper claiming that exploitation of temporary migrant farmworkers was rife. It stated — Australia … has more backpackers, and relies more strongly on them for horticultural work, than any country. … Unlike agricultural visas in New Zealand, Canada and the United States, and unlike Australia’s own Pacific seasonal worker program, there is no pre-approval of employers. Nor is there systematic ongoing regulation to ensure compliance with workplace laws. There is story after story of this kind of thing. Thankfully, I heard some good news yesterday. The federal government ruled out an illegal worker amnesty, given the dangerous precedent that it would set for those who wish to flout immigration laws. The Morrison government rejected the McGowan government’s dangerous proposition to grant amnesty to illegal workers. This may, I hope, free up jobs for Western Australian citizens. It may also perhaps—I hope—open up the prospect of lifting wages, which will have a valuable flow-on effect as that capital funnels into the economy. It is my view that allowing farmers to pluck a migrant in lieu of paying higher wages to local workers discourages them from innovating and adopting labour-saving technologies, which, I would argue, would boost the economy’s overall productivity. I would also argue that it would prevent the so-called creative destruction that enables low-productivity farms to remain in business, which seems to be what this motion is all about. To put it another way, stemming the flow of low-wage migrants onto farms would force the least productive farms to shrink and go bust, which would transfer workers, land and capital to more productive businesses, thus raising average productivity across the economy. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but that is how markets operate. Further, all farms that observe higher wages would invest more in labour-saving technologies and restructure to raise productivity. There is a reason that farms in advanced countries typically involve a handful of workers operating heavy machinery, whereas in low-wage developing countries farms are manned by many workers doing manual labour. The higher cost of labour in advanced countries should force farmers to invest in labour-saving machinery, which will lift productivity. This is simple economics, which I have not heard so far in this debate. I know this is hard to hear, but here is a novel idea: maybe farmers should pay a natural proper wage to attract workers instead of gaming the visa system to exploit cheap migrant backpackers and overseas students or relying on taxpayer-subsidised Australian workers. Politicians on all sides of the house tout free market forces such as supply and demand and so on, except when it is time to pay people properly, when the notion of the market goes out the window. HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [2.04 pm]: This is an important debate and I respect the way that Hon Colin De Grussa, at least, has framed this motion. Of course we need to discuss these issues. We are in an immensely challenging time. We have never said that this would be easy or that there is just one solution. At all times we have sought to get industry to recognise as early as possible that there would be major challenges so it could not rely on just doing business as usual. We had to open our minds to at least trying to do something different from what we had done before. We saw this right from late March, when the borders started to close down. In fact, we convened our first meetings on this in March to bring industry together to work out how we would deal with this problem. We could see the borders closing, so we asked how we could deal with this problem of agricultural labour. In the first couple of months, our focus was very much on the existing backpackers and making sure that we kept as many of them as possible in Western Australia. We thought about how we would get them from Manjimup up to Carnarvon and how we could work through the various intrastate restrictions and processes that we had put in place and make sure that those backpackers were able to travel. We lobbied very hard for the commonwealth government to extend visas for those backpackers and those in the seasonal worker program. Much of the work early on went into that. That far out from the harvest season, we recognised that we would have to try to mobilise more Western Australians. Hon Dr Steve Thomas seems to think that that is impossible and that in these exceptional times we cannot possibly do anything other than what we have always done. That is completely stupid! Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

7066 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I think the member may have referenced one of the grain harvesting training programs—2 Workin Oz. We have interesting information from Ley Webster, who trains people each year for these jobs as header operators et cetera. She states — … we ALWAYS have a few Australians but in general the internationals are the bulk of our numbers as they are looking for better opportunities and willing to pay for the training .. But currently our courses are almost half and half with internationals and Australians … … From Pilots to Beauticians… from Physicists to Dance Instructors… What a Diverse group this was and All are Champions … Stepping up to the plate and putting their boots on to #workandwander thru the #grainharvest There is the evidence. We are not saying that this solves the whole problem, but that demonstrates very clearly that it is possible. I have another quote from Ley from 20 October — … This has been a training season like no other and like many small businesses we wrestled with the fear and then excitement of what Covid was going to do to our clients and the services we provide. We dug in and managed to run training from July–October and initiated new programs for both Uni students and Year 12 School Leavers as well as our amazing scholarship program run with support from Grain Industry Association of WA Inc and Careers In Grain. We have trained physio’s, airline pilots, hospitality workers, students, retirees, artists and so so many more. It has been a pleasure to help each and every one of you … Of course we can do something. Of course we have to try to do something. Of course we cannot just sit back on our shiny bottoms and say, “Let’s just open up the borders and bring them all in from Paris and Berlin. Let’s bring those people in. No, no, no—we cannot possibly train Western Australians.” Well, we can. It will not be easy. There is no easy solution. I agree that a lot of the work, particularly in the horticultural sector, is hard. As Hon Charles Smith said, it is not always the most generously rewarded work, although some people manage to develop a great deal of confidence and develop those skills. As it has got closer to harvest, the government has put more and more effort into those sites. There is no point running a program in June to recruit people for a harvest that will not start until late October. Of course the government has intensified its efforts as the time has come closer. I agree with one thing that was said here today. I think the government could have done much better with the visuals in the Work and Wander Out Yonder program. I have been firm on that. However, I do not think that has been a major detractor. Tens of thousands of people have come onto that website looking for work, many of whom are university students. There are some incredible stories from people. I am looking at some of the examples of people who have accessed the government accommodation and travel allowance. A high school leaver who previously had not worked in a primary industry moved from Manning to Cold Harbour near York to work in on-farm plant and maintenance harvesting. In the past couple of weeks, an unemployed person moved from the south west to the wheatbelt to work also in on-farm plant and maintenance harvesting. Another gentleman in his 60s moved from the south west to help with harvest. A young person from Cloverdale who was employed but wanted to work more hours than he was able to get—he had not worked in agriculture before—is now working in grain and livestock. There are people coming through. Several members interjected. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I do not have four hours to list every case. I could go on. I could talk about the physicist, the dance instructor and the beautician who have all gone out there. It is difficult. We have always looked at the options and at what point it might be safe to bring in seasonal workers. However, I want people to understand that in Vanuatu and East Timor there is not a lot of broadacre farming and there are not a lot of experienced harvest operators. They tend to be people who are working in the horticultural sector. They do an amazing job when they come out here and we would all love them to be able to come back. I was one of the people who pioneered the guest worker program with the East Timorese in 2007 because I could see the great benefit to both the people of East Timor and Western Australia of having such a program. However, the government had a paramount concern that we had to ensure that we kept COVID-19 from the state. Although we absolutely understood that this would be a partial solution if we were able to do this, this is not something that we were able to embrace without considering what the challenges might be. I know that Hon Dr Steve Thomas has some pretty big tickets on himself and it is all him who has created this, but I can tell members that in August I wrote to David Littleproud and said that WA would look with interest at the trial in the Northern Territory. We were then able to get to a point at which we agreed—this is after representation was made to us by industry—that we would be prepared to allow participants in the guest worker program to come through the Howard Springs quarantine centre. We have had discussions with the Northern Territory around that since August. We were finally able to land on an agreement that we would be prepared to participate in. Once the 300 or so workers who are there already finish their duties in the Northern Territory, they will be welcome across the border.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7067

With respect to a third plane that had been considered, there was a lack of grower demand at that point, but we would be prepared to work with the Northern Territory for our growers to underwrite a third plane from Vanuatu. That is dependent on there being sufficient grower interest and I understand that a number of labour hire firms that charter the planes were looking at it. This is an iterative process. Our number one responsibility is to keep the state safe, but to work as hard as possible within those boundaries to free up labour. It would be absolutely ridiculous if we did not make an effort to bring those workers on. We were conscious that we needed to make this financially more attractive to some of those workers because many people who would move would be required to keep their permanent accommodation, which is why the government offered the $40 a night accommodation allowance, plus the travel allowance. We recognise that travel to the regions is expensive, particularly to the north, which is why a $500 travel incentive is offered to people who go north. With respect to the issue of whether workers are properly paid and whether that is a disincentive, the comments I raised about that were about the header operators. The industry has often said that those are highly skilled jobs. For example, when the airline pilots went through the Muresk Institute training program, very successfully—virtually everyone has a job coming out of that program—they were shocked to find that they were offered only $25 an hour. Of course I raised that. Of course that had to be raised at an industry meeting. I said that this appeared to be a problem. A member interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Adele Farina): Order, members! May I remind members, as the President did yesterday, that members who are not sitting in their seats are not able to contribute to the debate because it is against the standing orders. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: They were the confines. I understand that horticulture is in a different position. I stand by the comments I made. It cannot simultaneously be argued that it is a highly skilled occupation requiring lots of training and that being paid $25 an hour is okay. I accept horticulture is a more challenging space to operate in. There is something in what Hon Charles Smith said that perhaps, to some extent, the reliance on overseas labour in that space has reduced the amount of innovation. Some interesting developments in technology have been looked at, which would not remove the demand for labour but would increase the productivity of labour. Perhaps we will see more of that being given priority in the horticultural sector because of the COVID outbreak and the borders being closed. We cannot presume, and nor should we, that COVID-19 is going to be the last pandemic we will have. We have seen an increasing frequency of pandemics, particularly with zoonotic diseases and because we have such a global economy. We have never said that this was going to be easy. We have never said that we do not understand the challenges that people are facing. We want to do everything that we can to assist them, whether it is through financial endeavours or otherwise. The work we have done includes a task force to make sure that when agricultural workers cannot be sourced here, they have a right of exemption to come across the border. Workers have been coming in across the borders. I think it is important for us to understand that opening the state borders is not really going to change this problem because these challenges exist right across Australia. There are not huge swathes of people in the eastern states who are looking to do agricultural work. We know that the number of backpackers and seasonal workers has halved. Even though I suspect we will see some increase in seasonal workers, we are talking more about hundreds rather than thousands of them. We have to continue with every possible endeavour to mobilise as many Western Australians as possible and do what we can to get seasonal workers in when there is a clear and safe pathway to do so. We have always said to industry that we know it is a problem. We have been right on this case since March. All our development commissions have been working on this problem, making sure that no stone is left unturned to mobilise the labour that we can. We are now working very hard with the government of the Northern Territory in order to see how many workers who are currently in the Northern Territory we can get into Western Australia. We have not had any negative response to that from the Northern Territory. I have had discussions with the previous minister, Paul Kirby, and the current minister — Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: We have been having discussions with them for a couple of months. Once the workers are finished there, the government is more than happy for them to come to Western Australia. They are happy, if it can be accommodated, to get subsequent planes in under the seasonal worker program. We are working hard on this. Some very exciting new programs are happening at Muresk Institute this month involving refugee workers who are incredibly enthusiastic about working out yonder. HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [2.24 pm]: I would like to thank Hon Colin de Grussa for bringing this motion to the house. I think it is a very pertinent, emerging issue as we get into the period when we need a lot of seasonal workers. At this time of year, it is the shearing season, so we need shearers. Shearers are not needed all year round; they are seasonal. They are imported at this time of year to undertake the wool clip. The vegetable and fruit season is also coming up. We are not right into it yet, particularly for stone fruit. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.

7068 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Hon RICK MAZZA: Some of it has started, but it is the beginning of the season. As we move into the season, seasonal workers are absolutely crucial to undertake these tasks. We have not yet seen the full impact. I will come back to seasonal workers a little bit further on in my contribution in relation to lower skilled workers, because I really want to highlight that it is not just seasonal workers in our workforce who we have problems with at the moment; there is also a massive shortage of skilled labour. I can give members an example from the transport industry. I have been in contact with a few people in the transport industry. They are really struggling to get qualified drivers to drive their vehicles. In some cases, transport companies have trucks parked in their yards but they cannot get drivers for them. Consequently, they are having to spend large amounts of money on contract operators to haul their freight. A lot of these companies transport goods in frozen food delivery vehicles but they do not have workers. It is getting worse by the day. With the mining industry doing so well in the north west and the Pilbara, the problem is compounded by it taking skilled labour out of the workforce. To the government’s credit, a pilot training program was set up in Collie for truck drivers. I understand that about 57 people originally enrolled to undertake that program. However, a fault was that the program did not upscale the classifications of their drivers’ licences. There was no ability to go from a heavy rigid licence to a multi combination licence. As a result, of the 57 participants, 50 dropped out, leaving only seven. People are after a qualification to get an MC-class licence or at least a medium rigid licence to be able to get a job. Some transport operators also said to me that they would invest very heavily in training people. That is not cheap. It can cost between $5 000 and $10 000 for transport companies to train staff, putting them through truck driver training school. It takes a long time. When they eventually get their licence, within a couple of months they may be gone— poached by the mines. This is an emerging problem for our supply chain within the state. We have issues when it comes to skilled labour. As I said, we are now moving into the season for seasonal workers. A lot has been said about fruit pickers but there is also the harvest. As with skilled labour, there are a lot of issues around workers being able to operate some of the machinery. Mic Fels farms near Esperance—maybe Hon Colin de Grussa knows him! In an article, Mr Fels said — … the WA government had ignored grain industry warnings about skilled worker shortages then launched a misguided recruitment campaign. “Their Work and Wander campaign targets young and inexperienced people, but we are already flooded with applications from young and inexperienced people,” he said. “Do you really want to put someone with no resume, no references because they’ve never had a job, no experience and no knowledge of agriculture on a $900,000 machine where they could either break it or kill themselves? Hon Alannah MacTiernan: No; we are saying that they go through one of the training programs. Hon RICK MAZZA: Minister, I am quoting the article. If the minister would not mind, I would like to continue. There is a lot of concern about the qualifications for people to operate some of this heavy machinery. My understanding is that there are TAFE traineeships for farming staff such as a certificate I, II, III or IV or a diploma in agriculture. I know of only one person who has ever undertaken that traineeship to get themselves up to a certificate IV and I know one other person who ended up with a diploma, but these qualifications are not widely promoted or used as a means of getting skilled labour. That traineeship is there. As has been explained to me, the incentives for apprentices are quite high; the incentives for traineeships are low. Consequently, farmers are not able to find people who have gone from school into these traineeships to take on as skilled labour for their farms. I think that the government should work on training people to operate this machinery and undertake all sorts of farm skills, because farm skills are broad and wideranging. If these traineeships were explored further and people given incentives to do them, they could be very, very valuable to the farming community. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: If you could decentralise them a bit so that you’re actually providing them closer to home, that would probably have an impact as well. Hon RICK MAZZA: Quite possibly. It is perplexing that we currently have an unemployment rate of around seven per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 15 per cent, yet we require thousands and thousands of workers for seasonal work. It might be easy to say, “We’ll pay them more money. We can get them out there at $50 an hour picking strawberries”, or whatever, but, of course, that is going to translate to the supermarket price. If we have to pay high wages for seasonal workers, food prices are going rise. There needs to be a balance. The unfortunate thing about a lot of this seasonal work is that it is not the type of work that people will aspire to—picking fruit in the hot sun, getting up at five o’clock in the morning, in dusty conditions, with flies, climbing up and down ladders. The backpacker workforce has been very successful. Firstly, backpackers do not get unemployment benefits. They are travelling from overseas. It is part of their adventure in Australia; they get paid and it keeps them going on their travels, so they are prepared to do that work. They will get up early and work and do all those things. Unfortunately, for our citizens here in Western Australia, that is not so attractive for them. In fact, the president of the Shire of Moora, Ken Seymour, has said again in the media that many farmers are finding it impossible to attract

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7069 people to the bush while the JobSeeker scheme is in place. He said that it is really difficult to attract people who are getting paid—this is going back a little while, I suppose—$550 a week on JobSeeker to sit at home. When the COVID restrictions were starting to lift and cafes and restaurants were starting to open, I saw many media articles in which a lot of those cafe operators and owners were complaining that they would ring their usual workforce to say they had a couple of shifts available and the workers would say no. They were getting their $550 or whatever it was on JobSeeker and they were not interested. These businesses are really struggling to get their hospitality staff. I read an article this morning about a cafe in Broome that has limited the hours that it will open each day because it has a very limited number of staff who are available to work in that business. All these issues arise out of this. When it comes to the seasonal workforce and Wander Out Yonder, it sounds romantic to go down and visit a few vineyards and pick a few apples or whatever, but it is just not cutting the mustard. Even though the minister gave us a couple of examples of people who have moved to take up work somewhere, it is nowhere near the 7 000 people that we need. The reality is that we need to import that labour. We have to bring that labour in. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Where would you like to bring it in from? Hon RICK MAZZA: Just let me finish, minister. I know the minister has a lot of questions and she wants some ideas from me, and I am happy to provide those, if she would like. At the moment, we have only around 76 000 backpackers; usually, we have around 140 000 backpackers in the state. We have a very limited number of backpackers. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: That is nationally. That is not in the state. Hon RICK MAZZA: That is nationally; all right. There is a limited number of backpackers available to do that work. There has been some discussion, and I think Hon Dr Steve Thomas raised the fact that the Northern Territory had done a deal with the federal government to bring in workers from overseas. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: From Vanuatu. Hon RICK MAZZA: They are from Vanuatu. He was concerned that we might try to poach them. Quite frankly, as far as Western Australia is concerned, I think that if we poach them, good luck to Western Australia. I am more concerned about Western Australia than the Northern Territory, so if the minister wants to go and get them, go for it, minister! A member interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: Absolutely! You go for it, minister. But at the end of the day, we are going to have to try to get them in. I do not know the conundrum that the minister will have to try to unravel to get that workforce in, but if we do not, we will not find a local workforce that is able to undertake this work. A lot of that unpicked produce will rot on the trees or on the ground, and we will find that our supply lines will be in trouble because we will not have the truck drivers and the workforce in the transport industry to transport that food, and that is going to translate to high prices in supermarkets and a limited supply of fresh fruit and vegetables amongst other things. We have not seen the impact of that just yet. I empathise a lot with the government because this has come on fairly quickly. It takes years to get traineeships up and running and to get skilled labour into the workforce. Even the government’s shearing programs, which are quite noble, take time. It is not something that can happen overnight. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Can I just say that the backpackers do their short-term courses, so sometimes we are exaggerating these things. A lot of the backpackers do those training programs. They do their five days or their two weeks. That is what they do to make them head operators. Let’s not exaggerate. Hon RICK MAZZA: I am not exaggerating anything, minister. In fact, the minister was exaggerating the Wander Out Yonder success earlier when she indicated that it was somehow a great success, with some of her stories. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Adele Farina): Order, members! Hon Rick Mazza has the call. Hon RICK MAZZA: It has even been reported that Minister MacTiernan admitted that the programs in place had not been sufficient to solve the worker shortage problems. Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon Rick Mazza has the call. Hon RICK MAZZA: Thank you, Madam Acting President. As far as the workforce is concerned, first of all, we have to get people into traineeships and try to get some of this skilled labour up, whether it is in farming or truck driving or the many other areas in which we have shortages. As I say, the mining industry tends to take all the workforce when it is busy, and that is occurring right now. As far as our seasonal workers are concerned, I encourage the government to find ways of getting that workforce imported, whether it works with the federal government like it does with quarantining, or whatever the case is. If those workers do not come in in the short term, we are not going to have the workforce to be able to undertake the work that we have.

7070 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

I find the Wander Out Yonder program to be a bit woke-y, to be honest. Hon Stephen Dawson: It’s a bit what? Hon RICK MAZZA: It is a bit woke-y; it is a bit woke. Hon Stephen Dawson: What does that mean? Hon RICK MAZZA: You know what it means, minister. Hon Stephen Dawson interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: The Labor Party is very woke. Hon Stephen Dawson interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: I woke you up! There you are. Suddenly the minister jumped into the action when he heard the word “woke”! Obviously he is excited by that. It looks good in the brochure, but it is not going to cut the mustard when it comes to the workforce we require. I support the motion that has been put forward by Hon Colin de Grussa. I think a lot of work needs to be done, and some of it quite quickly as we come into the agricultural season. It is not an easy fix and I am not saying that the government can wave a wand and sort this out in a couple of months. It is a huge, huge task to try to get the workforce that we need for our agricultural regions. But I implore the government to work more on the traineeships. I am surprised that the pilot program in Collie to train truck drivers has failed so dismally, starting with 57 people and ending up with only seven after a short time. Surely there has to be some pathway for people to get the licence qualification needed to operate trucks. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected. Hon RICK MAZZA: It takes time. Even after someone gets their multi combination licence, it takes a lot of experience, and quite often transport operators will have a mentor with them. If someone is to drive a huge vehicle on the road travelling at speed, they cannot be given just a few hours of lessons and be allowed to fly. They have to work towards getting experience and competency. I support this motion. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [2.39 pm]: I read this motion and I thought that it sounded interesting because no harm was intended in the written words; they were just stating that we should look at this issue. One good thing that came out from what we have just done, I hope, is that we get this issue in the news more often, more regularly, and keep it in front of people so they realise that it is an issue and that jobs are available and training is available. This motion is one of those opportunities for—dare I say it again—collaboration. This is one of those times when both sides of politics—like the crossbench behind me does when it tried to add some really useful information, ideas and thoughts on it—could actually work together, rather than going back to the adversarial system and yelling at each other, “You did this!”, “No; I did that!” and whatever. This is an opportunity to do as it says in the motion, which is discuss the strategies. That is what I am looking forward to. Given that Hon Dr Steve Thomas is so happy to quote himself, on 17 March, I said — … farming communities will need a workforce as the steady stream of backpackers we once had dries up. That is in Hansard on 17 March. Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected. Hon DIANE EVERS: On 5 April, if the member will let me continue — Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon DIANE EVERS: — the borders were closed. That was said before the time when we needed to close the borders, and I have to say that very soon after I said that, the government announced its first step, which was getting the Facebook page open so that people could connect and start putting forward this idea. But, as the minister said, we could not really start in April to give people jobs that we need filled in November, but a process needed to happen and through the COVID pandemic we learnt of many different processes and many different changes that we had to make. We were always trying to be ahead of the ball and always looking out for what was coming next. Maybe there were some slow steps along the way. The Wander Out Yonder campaign did not really work out as intended. In fact, I tried visualising a commercial in which we actually showed people really picking fruit and looking sweaty and grubby and so forth, but still carrying on through the day, making some friends now and then and having a bit of relaxation time at the end of the day after hard work. Hard work does not kill people, but the campaign put forward this glorified image of it and maybe that did not connect with a lot of people. But I think the hard work might not scare them off either. We need to go on from that, but there are some underlying issues and one of them is the culture that that work is for backpackers and we do not have to do it because we can work in our city jobs and do the things we want to. I am

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7071 sure that anybody who comes from a regional area knows plenty of young kids who did that work through their summer. They were picking strawberries in Albany. My daughter was one of them, picking asparagus. There are lots of possibilities down there for adults, too. If adults were not able to consistently work a full-time job because of whatever issues they had, they were still able to work in the seasonal areas, and they still can. It is just that culture that is the issue, and that is something that the advertising campaign could present realistically and show it as part of life and part of growing up. Kids can finally get their parents, who were telling them to go and get a job, off their backs. They can go out and do a couple of days of fruit picking and it is not so bad and then they can do it a little bit more. That is the sort of cultural change that we need, but we will not make that change today. This is an ongoing issue and, as was stated earlier in this place, it is not a new issue. There have always been difficulties getting the right people at the right time, and many places just carried on. One of the wineries in Albany goes out to community groups and gets the people who drink their wine to come and pick the grapes, and the winery makes a donation to the charity of their choice. Thinking outside of the square like that creates more opportunities. Again, it is not an overall solution; it is just one of the ideas that other people have come up with. Another underlying issue is the expectations of employers and employees. Employees need a fair wage. There is no point in discriminating against them. Many backpackers and some Australian kids do not get paid appropriately and that is abysmal. That needs to be dealt with, as it should be dealt with in the system that we set up. However, employers also need somebody who is going to show up and put in a day’s work. Therefore, there has to be a balance; it is a fair trade. But the regulations have to be there and be enforced to make sure that discrimination does not happen. Piecework is often used for paying very poor rates and that also needs to be addressed. There has to be some balance. We have to make it right. Employees need to be looked after and employers need to be able to make a profit or they will go out of business. This comes to the third underlying issue and that is we do not pay the real price of the cost of growing, producing and transporting our food. The COVID pandemic has highlighted a definite flaw in the system, whereby if our local growers cannot grow something at the cost we want it for, it is imported, because somebody else is growing it. That is a real problem that we have to address and face on a national basis. Somehow we have to find a way wherein people can continue to grow, produce and provide that food here to make us food secure into the future. There is no point in driving the price down so low that it puts the growers in our communities and in our state out of business. That is another issue that we should be discussing and looking at how we can address it. I understand that it falls to the government to work all this out, but I like the fact that in this chamber we have 36 people who, hopefully, get out and talk to people—18 of them are from regional areas, so, hopefully, they get into the regions as often as possible to listen to people, find out what is going on and feed it back here. But if we can feed it back in a way that is not so adversarial, maybe we can work together and move forward to try to find better solutions. I have come across a couple of other troubling areas and one is transportation. A lot of young people do not have vehicles. They do not know how to drive yet, but they would still like to have employment. However, once they get outside the metro area, there are very few opportunities for transportation. That is something that we can address. I appreciate that the government has put in the subsidy to get people to the community. Farm owners will often pick up the young people from wherever they are staying and bring them to the farm or they have on-farm accommodation, so that helps. If someone is 20 kilometres out of Manjimup on on-farm accommodation and they want to go into town to have a drink or something, their options are limited, so transportation is an issue that we need to address. Hon Dr Steve Thomas: You gotta hope the farmer’s thirsty, too. Hon DIANE EVERS: Maybe that is the case! Skill levels are something that Hon Colin de Grussa raised as well. I am pleased with all the training programs that are going on. It is really a good idea to train up the youth of our community and our state—and adults as well— because the more skills someone has, the more employable they are and they can find work more consistently. In the regional areas we have to accept that a lot of the work in agriculture and hospitality is seasonal. That means that the tourism season may be at a different time from the farming and harvesting season. However, I would not put it past a lot of people I know to be someone who is good at both jobs and has additional training. We started talking about where we should get these people from, whether it is from interstate, overseas or within the state—that is another issue that I want to get to—but it is a closed pool of people. We could go out internationally, but even then the number of people that we need to get from COVID-free-ish countries limits that potential, so we have to work together and not be taking people from one place and putting them in another. That actually occurred, and I will read a little bit from a letter that the Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry wrote to me. It said — During the pandemic restrictions, when hospitality businesses were dealing in a lock down environment, businesses in the health services sector advertised positions that did not require the completion of the usual certification, but rather on the job training. These organisations attracted employees from the hospitality industry. Many of these employees have made the decision to remain in the health services sector where they believe they have greater job security should there be a second wave.

7072 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Of course, taking people out of the hospitality or agricultural industry and putting them into health services has now caused an even greater shortage. I hope that we can somehow address the fact that if people are being taken from one area, another area needs to be filled. Another suggestion that the Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry put forward was that the federal sponsorship visa program is quite onerous. It takes a couple of months between finding the person with the skill level needed and getting them the correct visa and then having them go through the quarantine period. There has to be some way to facilitate that if we want to get those skilled workers here. We may have missed the boat on that, but that is assuming we do not go through another period with COVID, and we are very likely going to. Hospitality also is referred to in this well-written motion. A lot of times businesses are looking for someone with experience. We have TAFE training in agriculture skills, so maybe we should have free TAFE training in hospitality skills as well. Although people might not think that a barista provides an essential service, in a community that is heavily reliant on tourism, it is very important to have enough baristas to keep the shops open. The Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry also said — To remain operational, businesses are reducing operational hours, working significant hours in their business and taking on increased cost to increase salary offers and training on the job. Again, although we have been very good at getting tourists out there, a lot of small business owners in tourism areas now have to either shut their doors for part of the time when they could be open or work in their business themselves and also get their family and friends to work to do whatever they can to keep the shop open. That is a difficulty. It is really going to change the amount of revenue that flows through the state—gross domestic product and all of that. We have to look at that and maybe make TAFE training free for hospitality services, including cleaning. There could be a lack of cleaners; it is hard to get them. To give them on-the-job training, a week’s worth of their time may be lost while they go out with someone else to learn what the job entails. It would be useful to provide more training in that area as well. Of course, that also affects the reputation of the regions. People may have planned to visit Albany for five days, but instead, because they cannot find the services they want, they leave after two days. It just does not work. I want to go back to the motion, because, as I said, it is quite reasonable. It states — That this house — (a) notes the current impact and future issues with recruiting agricultural and hospitality skilled workers in regional Western Australia; Yes, we are noting that. It is what we have all been saying. It is difficult and we need to do something. Paragraph (b) states — calls on the state government to provide transparency on its plans to ensure skilled workers in these sectors are available as soon as possible … I learnt quite a bit about some of the other things that the government is doing now, but not everybody has been able to sit in this chamber and hear those things. I do not always agree with governments advertising their own things, but this government is not just advertising what it has done; it is advertising that this is still an issue and it is trying to address it and that more trained people are needed. It is letting people know some of the areas they can go to and some of the areas that have been filled. That information needs to get out. Hopefully, from this discussion, a media release will go out from whoever has been in the room to remind people in the city in particular that there are jobs down there. The last paragraph of the motion states — (c) discusses strategies to improve the availability and reliability of such workers to strengthen the resilience and populations of regional Western Australia. That is lovely. I really like that part, because I am a very strong believer in the idea that we need to decentralise the state. More people need to understand how good it is to live in regional areas, how many opportunities there are and how much industry could happen there if we had cheap power, which we will have over coming years; automation; a workforce; and services, because I really believe that we need to get the services going much more strongly in regional areas to keep people there. What I mean by that is better health services, better education opportunities and so forth—the things that governments get asked for all the time. That is the thing; if more people live in those areas, that is where our future can lie. The discussion that we are having here is just an awakening to those opportunities to get more people to go out to the regions not just for a short-term seasonal job, but to establish a home, a family, a career, a path and a future. We can be processing things and minerals out where we grow them and where we extract them. That is where we can add to them through innovation and activity. We can develop the industries out there. We have the space out there. If we get our transport structures right, it will be cheaper and easier to transport those goods, because once they have been processed out there, the transport needs lessen because the goods are not being sent in bulk. They are more refined in some way and there are smaller amounts.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7073

As I said earlier, in addition to getting people out there and getting industry happening, it will make us more resilient into the future. That will make us more likely to continue to produce the food that we want out there and to come up with an even greater variety of products that are grown or raised in Western Australia and expand on those opportunities. We need to support the people who are learning these things and support the cultural shift from thinking, “When I graduate from high school, my point is to get to the city, establish a career, earn the mega-salary that I know the city is going to provide and establish a base there because that is where all the excitement happens.” That is an idea that many young people in regional areas have. Later on in life, if they get the opportunity to move back there, they realise that in regional areas they have the opportunity for basically free entertainment, because they have this environment around them that allows them to go fishing or bushwalking or to look at the wildflowers. There are also job opportunities through tourism. Regional areas really provide a huge amount of opportunity. COVID is giving us that opportunity. We know that people immediately tried to flee to regional areas, so much so that we had to close the borders to stop them all going out there. When we opened the borders, tourists flocked out there because they could not go anywhere else. The idea is that when they go out there now, they are given a really good experience. They are seeing how beautiful it is, how lovely our forests are and how clean our waterways are. Some of this is a little bit of a dream, but some of it is true. We are working on making the rest of it true, because our forests are outstanding and we need to keep them that way. We need to make sure that they flourish and grow and become resilient. We have some very clean waterways, such as the Donnelly River and the few that are not salt affected or tainted with chemicals and things like that. We need to expand on that, because then the people who go out there for seasonal work will find out that it is really nice, the people are wonderful and the food is fresh and wholesome, and then more people will move out there. I see this motion as an opportunity for us to move forward and focus on our regional areas and make the rest of the state realise just how wonderful they are and encourage people to go out to those areas and enjoy them. If those people have the opportunity to spend three months down there, they could get a job while they are there. HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [2.58 pm]: I, too, thank Hon Colin de Grussa for bringing forward this motion today. Clearly, the member cares about this issue, as we all do. The motion was framed constructively so that we could all discuss it. As members know, I am the only working farmer in the Western Australian Parliament and this issue has affected our farm this year. We just finished making our hay, and we had to make some changes because we had three fewer workers than we would normally have. I have said before that there is never a year when we do not get the crops harvested, the hay made and the sheep shorn. We will get our sheep shorn this year, the hay has been made and the crops will be harvested. Madam Acting President may be interested to know that Hon Ken Travers, a former member of this house, is our number one hay rake operator this year. The tallest hay rake operator in Western Australia is on our farm this year helping us with the hay. It has been great having Hon Ken Travers on the farm with us. He has really embraced country life in his work and his wander out yonder. I think that most farmers will adapt. Hon Sue Ellery: Has he had a haircut yet? Hon DARREN WEST: The hair is longer than it was in his parliamentary days, but the Leader of the House will be pleased to know that the beard has been removed! Hon Ken Travers is looking very much at home on his Case 2090 tractor with a Vermeer R2300 hay rake in tow. He has done an outstanding job keeping the balers operating this year. Today, he is having his first day on a Caterpillar loader, picking up hay bales and putting them on a truck so that they can be carted into the shed. We decided that rather than raking, baling and carting hay simultaneously, we would leave the carting until after the baling. We have managed that way. We are a few workers short, but my son Dylan has taken charge. He has rung the changes and we will get our hay made, our harvesting done and our sheep shorn this year. Hon Jim Chown: Is Hon Ken Travers working for love or are you paying him? Hon DARREN WEST: Hon Ken Travers is being paid handsomely. He is getting more than $25 an hour and he is very happy to be up on the farm and doing it of his own free will. However, I do not want to get stuck too hard into the mover of the motion, because I agree pretty much with what he said. However, there was a paragraph (d) missing from his motion that would have provided some good ideas and opportunities. We did not hear a lot about that. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Member, I am required to interrupt you to give Hon Colin de Grussa, the mover, a right of reply under the temporary standing orders. HON COLIN de GRUSSA (Agricultural) [3.01 pm] — in reply: I appreciate that there is never a shortage of diversity in the debate in this place. Perhaps we could have a sign outside the chamber celebrating that diversity. During one particular contribution, though, I was reminded of a 1980s TV show, which some members might remember, called Charles in Charge. I thought, “Thank our lucky stars that isn’t the case.” Hon Charles Smith’s contribution was very interesting. He said that these industries in our state are essentially employing slave labour, and that because

7074 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] we have a reliance on overseas workers, they all work under slave conditions. That is not the case. Operators who do that should be found out and they absolutely should not be part of the industry. Certainly, operators do not do that in the main, and that sort of thing should never be supported. I thank all members for their contributions to the motion. It is an important debate to have had. A lack of labour is causing a great deal of angst in communities right across Western Australia, whether it be in the agricultural industry or the hospitality and tourism sectors. It is a very complex issue, but one thing we cannot do in the middle of a pandemic is restructure an entire labour market. We absolutely need to have a discussion about our reliance on particular overseas workers, even though they are skilled. That absolutely needs to be addressed in the longer term, but it is not something that can be done during a pandemic, and I think that generally most members recognise that. There is a real issue, particularly in the horticultural industry, around the availability of workers for picking or harvesting produce and around planning ahead for the next crop in those industries that has resulted in a reduction in productivity. There will be a reduction in plantings because producers cannot get reliable harvest labour. As a result, some senior managerial positions have been removed and there may well be a significant impact on the price of fresh food at the supermarket. That will have an impact on the consumer in general, but, of course, it will impact on the most vulnerable members of our community who simply cannot afford to pay more for fresh food and who may choose to go down a less healthy path when deciding what they will or will not buy. That is a problem and it certainly needs to be addressed. During this debate, only three or four minutes ago a little message flashed up on my phone on the Department of Education’s Connect Now app, which one of my kid’s school uses. There was a link offering free training opportunities for young people to work in the horticultural industry. It is great to see that that message is getting out there. I hope that some young people take up that opportunity, notwithstanding the difficulties they may face getting to some places. But it is good to see those initiatives are happening in the background. Longer term solutions will be needed to find the labour that is needed, but in the short term, we must focus on getting that crop off. It will mean that people in the industry, particularly in the broadacre grain sector, will have to work harder and longer hours. They will need to be careful about not putting themselves or their workers at risk. There is a penalty for delaying harvest. Plenty of research has been done on the effect of not getting grain harvested in time. There is an economic penalty and a resultant quality penalty depending on the conditions at harvest time. That can impact on the bottom line of some businesses. I think most businesses are cognisant of that and that they will need to work harder to get the crop off as fast as they can. I thank all those members who contributed to the debate. The mining industry has done very well out of this pandemic, but we cannot eat iron ore. This is about the food industry. In pandemic circumstances one of the first things we need to plan for is keeping our food secure. Question put and passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS — CONSIDERATION Committee The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Adele Farina) in the chair. Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station — Final Report — “Inquiry into Mining on Pinjin Station” — Motion Resumed from 14 October on the following motion moved by Hon Kyle McGinn — That the report be noted. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Kyle McGinn is not in the chamber, so I give the call to Hon Robin Scott. Hon ROBIN SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe that the motion that the report be noted has been moved already. I rise to talk about the final report of the Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station, tabled on 14 May 2020. I begin by acknowledging and thanking the members of the committee who carried out their duties very diligently. Those members are Hon Robin Chapple, Hon Kyle McGinn and Hon Jacqui Boydell, as well as Hon Michael Mischin, who was deputy chair of the committee. I would like to briefly acknowledge and thank Hon Michael Mischin who made a special effort to assist me in my duties as chair, and for which I am particularly appreciative. This was my first experience as a committee chair and it was described to me by some people as being a baptism of fire. That is because many people considered this to be a quite unusual inquiry. Normally, inquiries, particularly those of select committees, investigate a specific issue and make recommendations to the government about future actions to address the impact of that issue. This committee was formed on the back of a long-running commercial dispute between two parties, a pastoral leaseholder and a mining company, in a remote area of the goldfields. Prior to the committee being formed, I had tabled in Parliament a series of photographs showing racist signage and described allegations of racist behaviour, which I know was shocking to many members of this chamber. The Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station was therefore formed to inquire into the mining operations on Pinjin station with reference to the actions of mine operators, pastoral leaseholders and government agencies. The committee was to have particular

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7075 reference to allegations of intimidation, abuse and racial discrimination alleged to have occurred from 2012 onwards. Ultimately, the committee narrowed its focus to two main areas. The first area of focus was to look at the government’s involvement, particularly the actions and decisions of government in the lead-up to the dispute at Pinjin station and how those agencies managed the dispute. The second area of focus was on parts of the dispute between miners and pastoralists that were specifically raised with the committee. I would like to talk briefly about each of these. In respect of government agencies and their conduct, the two departments that had the most involvement were the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. The committee found that DMIRS largely acted appropriately in its actions and decision-making. On behalf of the committee, I would like to formally recognise the time and resources that this dispute consumed for DMIRS and I thank its staff for their cooperation. The committee makes two recommendations on how DMIRS can improve its internal processes. I must admit that I was a bit disappointed with the government’s response to those recommendations. It could not even fill one page to address both recommendations. In effect, the response was, “Don’t worry about that. We’ve already got it sorted.” There was not much more detail than that. The committee found that DPLH acted appropriately in its involvement in matters under dispute. The report states — The Committee is confident that the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage understands the issues at the root of the dispute and the steps required to address them for the future. That is all I will say about the committee’s focus on government agencies and their involvement in the dispute. I encourage all members to read the committee’s final report for further details. I will now turn to the second focus of the committee: the issues raised by the parties to the dispute. One party to the dispute was Tisala Pty Ltd, an Aboriginal corporation that held a pastoral lease over the land. The other major party was Hawthorn Resources, a company with mining interests on the pastoral station. From the outset it became clear that the committee was dealing with parties that had an imbalance in sophistication and knowledge of mining and pastoral matters. On one hand, the mining company was very sophisticated and experienced with such matters, whereas Tisala relied very heavily on the advice of certain individuals. The committee came to the view that this over-reliance may have been to Tisala’s detriment. For example, the language used in correspondence from Tisala to the committee and to other entities varied substantially. The committee felt that multiple voices were speaking for Tisala, despite all correspondence being signed off by its directors. Generally speaking, and not on behalf of the committee, I would suggest that many people in the regions are giving very bad advice and offering extremely dodgy consulting services to Aboriginal people. There is a serious problem in the community with the quality of the financial and legal aid advice being provided to Aboriginal corporations. Both state and federal governments should take up more action in this space. This committee unveiled what I believe is one example. In fact, I fell under the spell of this very same bad advice and the extremely dodgy information that was supplied to me. I went into this inquiry convinced that I was going to be the judge, jury and hangman. Nothing could have been further from the truth. If only I knew at the beginning what was expected of me. For a while, I believed that I was a shag on a rock. I felt that the committee was against me. Everything I said was questioned. Looking back, I am so glad that Hon Kyle McGinn, Hon Jacqui Boydell and Hon Robin Chapple kept me on a straight and narrow path. They basically wheelbarrowed me through this inquiry and I will always be grateful for that. Hon Michael Mischin, with his razor-sharp legal mind, would dissect everything I said and all the evidence that came in, and that is why I am very happy with the final report. My feelings at the beginning of the committee inquiry were strengthened by the first trip I took to Pinjin station long before the inquiry started. I was greeted with a hostile reception from the mining company, which only reinforced my thoughts that the mining company was the bad guy and the Aboriginal corporation was the good guy. But I am happy to say that thanks to the committee members, that was all straightened out for me right from the beginning. Ultimately, the committee made a series of findings with regard to racist signage that appeared at Pinjin station in June 2018. The committee considered there to be insufficient evidence and no obvious motive to suggest that the mine operators were responsible for the signs. Although there was insufficient evidence regarding the signage, there were plenty of other committee findings that were beneficial and will assist a range of stakeholders moving forward. I would like to again commend the other members of the committee who carried out their duties to a high standard. I came into this inquiry having very little understanding of what a parliamentary committee does or how it operates, but after 38 hours of hearings, including listening to a lot of evidence, I have learnt a lot and I can honestly say that the committee function of this chamber works—it really does work! It allows members of the political spectrum an equal opportunity to ask questions and seek the truth. It has a level of cooperation between committee members that allows the truth to be revealed to the greatest extent. To conclude, I sincerely thank Mr Sam Hastings, the committee’s legal advisory officer, for his help and guidance throughout the inquiry. I also thank Mr Mark Warner, the committee clerk, for not only his clerical duties, but also his logistical skills in organising the accommodation, vehicles and supplies required when we travelled to Pinjin station. Last but not least, I thank the Hansard ladies Ms Melissa Pilkington and Ms Sandra Stockman who must have thought we were going to drive off the end of the earth on their trip out to Pinjin station. Thank you.

7076 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Hon KYLE McGINN: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station, Hon Robin Scott, for those comments and his summary of what was quite an interesting inquiry to say the least. I made some brief comments a couple of weeks ago that I really did not get into, so I might firstly thank everyone who was a part of the inquiry, particularly all the members that Hon Robin Scott mentioned. Being my first term in Parliament, it comes as no surprise that this inquiry was a new experience for me, particularly with Pinjin station being in my electorate. When we travelled to Pinjin station, it was quite an experience. I had heard plenty about the road before we went out there and I can categorically say that Hon Robin Scott is a better off-road driver than Hon Robin Chapple if the cleanliness of Hon Robin Scott’s car and the absolute dirtiness of Hon Robin Chapple’s car is anything to go by! It looked like we had both driven along a separate route, to be honest. There are some photos flying around, so hopefully I can find them to show members—it is quite an image! The first time this inquiry was brought to my attention was when Hon Robin Scott raised the issues within Parliament about the mining company and the argument around the pastoral lease and crown land, which then turned into some hostilities between the mining company, Hawthorn Resources, and Tisala Pty Ltd, which has the pastoral lease on Pinjin station. I will try my best to go through the report in stages. I think it is really important for members in the chamber to get an understanding of the challenges we faced through this inquiry and some of the committee’s findings in the report and how they differ from the original positions put in this place. After listening to Hon Robin Scott, it is clear that the direction of the committee took a completely different turn from what was originally expected. That is reflected in some of the findings, particularly the dealings of one individual, which members will find is a theme throughout the report. That individual is Mr Steven Kean, who, at the time of launching this inquiry, was an electorate officer for Hon Robin Scott, the Chair of the Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station. From the beginning, starting at page 7 of the report, I refer to the involvement of Tisala Pty Ltd in pastoral operations. Tisala had acquired Pinjin station. I originally understood that Pinjin was a station that ran cattle. The owners drove and sold the cattle and that was how they maintained themselves on that lease. On 2 May 1991, the pastoral lease was transferred to Tisala and Pinjin station was acquired with the financial assistance of $730 000 from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, pursuant to section 15 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. During the inquiry, the committee received correspondences from the Menzies Aboriginal Corporation. Menzies is about 130 kays out of Kalgoorlie. The corporation provided the following background — Tisala Pty Ltd was established as the Trustee of the trust by deed between Maurice Eugene Trichot and Tisala dated 25th January 1991. The original beneficiaries named in the Deed of Settlement were: The Eastern Goldfields Aboriginal Advancement Council, the Ninga Mia Village Aboriginal Corporation, the Menzies Aboriginal Corporation and the Tabu Bindalunga Aboriginal Corporation. After a lot of work, the committee determined not to inquire into whether Tisala was a trustee company and the terms of any such trust, as such matters were outside the committee’s terms of reference. However, it was clear from two sources that Tisala was set up primarily as an Aboriginal corporation for the benefit of Aboriginal people. We also heard that the main activity on the station was pastoral activity. However, as at November 2018, mustering had not taken place for over four years. Tisala receives income through an agreement with Saracen Mineral Holdings for the use of parts of the Pinjin pastoral lease for mining-related activities. Saracen was another mining venture in that area close to Pinjin, which Tisala was to work with to ensure that it could work on that land. It was quite interesting delving into working out where the office holders were. Management of Tisala has been largely consistent since 2010. At the commencement of the inquiry, Tisala had three directors: Mr Lawrence Thomas, who became a director of Tisala on 4 November 2004, and Mr Leo Thomas and Mr Keenan Thomas, who had been directors since 1 April 2010 and 10 September 2010, respectively. As I said, Mr Lawrence Thomas had been a director since 2004. That was going back well before issues had come up with Hawthorn Resources and before discussions between Hawthorn and Tisala. We wrote to Tisala inviting its managers to make a submission to the inquiry and received submissions from both Lawrence and Leo Thomas. We also heard oral evidence from Leo and Lawrence on Pinjin station. When we got there, it was a real eye-opener to station life. We met in half a tin shed. Full credit to the Hansard people, who did a fabulous job ensuring that they picked up everything we said in half a shed, and it was quite hot out there. I must make mention of Hon Michael Mischin’s beautiful dress wear for the day. He wore a fabulous hat and looked like he was geared up to go bush for a few days. We had absolutely no interaction with Mr Keenan Thomas, who was also said to be a director. As it says in the report, we could not find time, and his name was barely mentioned throughout the disputes. It was clearly Mr Leo Thomas and Mr Lawrence Thomas who played the major role as directors. The Thomases obviously ran Tisala. We discovered that they paid $730 000 to purchase Pinjin station, which was quite the investment to start with. At first, it seemed the intention was to run and potentially diversify the station. We saw that in 2007, Tisala, through the directors, had plans to diversify the operations of the pastoral station and work with government agencies to facilitate this. Through our hearings, we met Mr Karel Eringa from the Department

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7077 of Planning, Lands and Heritage. I have to say that he was a book of absolute knowledge, particularly around this issue. He had been involved from as far back as 2007 and provided some great facts that the committee had been searching for to get an understanding of where this sat. I will quote Mr Eringa at page 8, where he says — In fact, in the period between 2007 and 2012, when I was dealing with Tisala then, it came up on a number of occasions that they wanted to change some of the tenure to suit some other activities—to improve their pastoral business but also to allow for some other activities that they were planning to do. This has been a conversation that is been going on for a number of years. Way back in 2007, diversification was on the agenda for Tisala. As we progress, members will see that things did not seem to progress in the way discussions had been put to the department. Mr Eringa also recounted to the committee his work in 2007 and 2008 to engage different government and non-government agencies to assist with the components of Tisala’s plans, including the Department of Agriculture and Food’s Indigenous landholder service and the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, an organisation based in Kalgoorlie, but which I believe is no longer there. This was consistent with what Leo and Lawrence had said and that they wanted to see different uses on the land. The CHAIR: The question is that the report be noted. Hon Kyle McGinn. Hon KYLE McGINN: Something said by Mr Lawrence Thomas when the hearing was held out there was that this is land and land is very important to Indigenous people. We always need land; we love land and we worship land, and we do everything on the land. His thinking was that he had a lot of respect for his uncle and there was an idea to potentially bring people from the City of Kalgoorlie–Boulder out to country. At one stage, Lawrence talked about a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. These were the issues we were confronted with when we first went there and commenced the hearings. I now move on to the key figures assisting Tisala. This is where it gets a little bit murky and a little bit sad. What Hon Robin Scott said about bad advice and listening to the wrong individuals is absolutely true for Mr Steven Kean. There is no doubt in my mind that over the years, based on advice Tisala had been given, people thought they were doing the right thing. However, as members will see in this chapter on page 11 under the subheading “Key figures assisting Tisala”, there are some very heavy questions to be asked. Mr Kean, who is currently employed as an electorate officer in the office of Hon Robin Scott, the Chair of the Select Committee into Mining on Pinjin Station, is also a prospector from Kalgoorlie with extensive knowledge of the mining industry. The committee heard that Mr Kean had been in Kalgoorlie on 7 and 8 June 2019, and that is when we heard from him. Lawrence Thomas explained to the committee that Mr Kean had become involved in Tisala’s affairs, and this was interesting to me. I quote Mr Lawrence Thomas — Mr Kean has been a friend of the family … The Thomases and Keans, you know, we are all prospectors. We all respect each other. We live in the same place, so same thing. You have problems, you talk. People can help you and that is where we got hold of Steve. Steve is very brainwise with the Mining Act, so I thought to myself: I better start using this man with all his knowledge to fight these buggers or to get myself right in my head so that I can tackle Hawthorn. That is how we came about with Steve. In an internal email sent in November 2017, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage discussed his understanding of what Mr Kean’s role was. I quote from this email — Steve Kean has been a contact for Pinjin Station since 2013 — Members, Mr Kean had been engaged with Tisala since 2013. That was not my understanding going into this inquiry, but it was discovered. It is plainly clear right here that since 2013 he was engaged with Tisala in some capacity. The email continues — and is listed in the Development Plan approved by the PLB [Pastoral Lands Board] in February 2015. He is described in the … plan as providing administrative and financial advice, support and assistance. In an earlier version of the development plan from August 2014 he was listed as a member of a Tisala sub-committee, being the secretary/minute taker. He was hugely involved in Tisala — Mr Kean has been present with the lessee, Lawrence Thomas, at inspections conducted in November 2013 and November 2015 and Mr Thomas has often requested that I follow up information with Mr Kean rather than himself. He would rather Mr Kean represent the interests of Tisala. The individual who was dealing with these issues and in 2017 was working in Hon Robin Scott’s office had had involvement in 2013, so much so that the department was going to him instead of the director of Tisala. That is astonishing. The email continues — … I spoke to Mr Keane regarding the application to incorporate a number of Reserves into Pinjin Station and he advised that he was now working as a Research Officer for the Hon Robin Scott, Member for Pastoral and Mining.

7078 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

That was on 1 November 2018. As we proved in this report, Mr Kean was also employed by Tisala, so he was not doing this just out of the kindness of his heart. He was employed as a consultant in 2013. We heard of the beginning of his involvement with Tisala; however, he was unable to clearly articulate with any precision what work he was doing for Tisala during this period—believe it or not. There is an interesting passage I will read now of an exchange between the deputy chairman of the committee, Hon Michael Mischin, and Mr Kean. It is important for members to understand this, because working our way through, we will start to see what is developing here. I quote — The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: have you ever received remuneration from Tisala? Mr Kean: In the past, yes. I had an hourly contract rate, which was signed off by three of the directors. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: For what sort of work? Mr Kean: Well, contracting consultative work. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: In relation to what subject? Mr Kean: It was doing all sorts of things out there. It was a whole range of things. That contract ceased upon when I commenced working as an electorate officer. That ceased. It does not exist. Mr Kean told the committee at his hearing that he was consulting to Tisala until the time that he became Hon Robin Scott’s electorate officer. He also said — I would have to go back and check because what happened—I did not always have an agreement. Look, Lawrence is the sort of person, and Leo, when they have problems or concerns or whatever, they ask various people, not just myself. So, they talk to people and if someone can help them, then they ask you some queries and then eventually they say, “Can you help us?” A lot of people will not help not them—not just them, not just peculiar to Tisala; I am talking Indigenous people. As I said, I have always helped them— not just them. I help a lot of … Aboriginal people even before I worked in the electorate office and I do not get remunerated from it. The deputy chairman asked — Could you please—just so we can put it in context—find out from your records just when you were remunerated by Tisala? You say that it finished when you became an electorate officer for Mr Scott; is that right? Mr Kean replied — That is right. Because part of it was that I served a formal notification on them that I no longer am employed. It is a requirement as part of my contract. It was very interesting to see that he had quite a recollection of ceasing his employment, but not a recollection of exactly what he was doing. We discovered that under the consultancy agreement, Mr Kean was remunerated at $250 per hour for what he was providing to Tisala. I find it very interesting that someone could be paid $250 an hour for something they do not recall doing. They cannot quite tell a committee what they were providing to this organisation, but they were being paid $250 an hour to do it. It is quite astounding, and, again, very telling of Mr Kean. A letter from Tisala dated 10 January 2014 suggested that the consultancy agreement with Tisala lasted more than two months from 1 November 2013. Irrespective of what Mr Kean was paid for consultancy work, it ended in 2014, but he continued to provide support to Tisala right through this entire process. Mr Kean described his assistance to Tisala as “administrative support”. This included assisting Leo and Lawrence to prepare correspondence to mine operators and government regulators; providing advice, when sought, on matters relating to Tisala; attending and typing up resolutions from Tisala’s director meetings; handling corporate governance paperwork on behalf of Tisala; providing administrative support in relation to matters such as GST compliance, copying receipts for expenditure and reconciling bank statements; acting as an intermediary between Tisala and its lawyers; acting as an intermediary between Tisala and mining companies in negotiation; and acting as an intermediary between Tisala and government departments. That administrative support was now done all without pay, and it is very, very telling to read this report. That was a lot of things that Mr Kean was doing for Tisala during that period. The CHAIR: The question is that the report be noted. Hon Kyle McGinn has the call. Hon KYLE McGINN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I assure all members that this is a great report. Please get up and have some input! Again, we can see that a lot of questions from that period have been left unanswered, particularly about Mr Kean being paid for acting on behalf of Tisala and then not being paid but still acting on behalf of Tisala as an intermediary with lawyers. It is such a high-level position for someone to be an intermediary between the legal advice and where they are heading with the organisation. As we said at the start, for an organisation purchased for $730 000, that is quite some trust to put in an individual without remuneration.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7079

Other parties who assisted Tisala over the years with correspondence and advice came up through discussion between Leo and Lawrence Thomas and the committee. After a lot of questioning and delving into matters, particularly from Hon Michael Mischin, we managed to get a few names out into the open. These were names of people who had frequently sought assistance through Tisala. They are Hans Bokelund, Ray Kean, Judy Sambo, Steven Kean and Jan Taylor. Other names came up through correspondence, which I will read into the record as well: Len Boladeras, Gerard Brewer, Brad Jennings, Dru Pratt and Eddie Oxenbridge. Nicholas Cukela was involved as well. Witnesses spoke to people who helped Tisala over the years by assisting in the preparation of correspondence and deciding how to respond to the challenges that Tisala was facing. Steven Kean told the committee — I certainly know Gerard Brewer, Brad Jennings, Dru Pratt. They also helped with letters. There was another guy, Len Boladeros, and some other people that I do not know. There are some other people in town that Lawrence is, let us just say, friends with. An exchange from the hearing between Mr Kean and I is reported on page 16 of the report. I will let members make their own assumptions on this. Mr Kean states — Because with both Leo and Lawrence, nothing was ever straightforward. They would always consult with a range of people and get people’s ideas on how to do things. Even if you had a draft letter, someone would always say, “We can do it this way or that way”. It is a bit what you asked about earlier. You would offer some advice, but they had their own way of doing things. Whether you liked it or not, that was just the way it was. I then said — You liked it that way, obviously, because you stayed on there. Mr Kean replied, “I did not like it that way.” I responded — Did you offer advice that it should be more succinct and open? Mr Kean said — I told them there should be one person, generally, doing it. The deputy chairman chimed in and said — I find it a bit strange that you can even operate like that, where every letter is drafted — I believe he was referring to its being drafted by everyone. Every time a letter came in, a group of people would get together and draft a letter to send back. As members go through this report, they will see the number of letters that were sent, to not just Hawthorn Resources, but also the department. The amount of correspondence that was sent over the years is staggering. Mr Kean said that it was dysfunctional. Finding 2 in the report states — The language in correspondence from Tisala Pty Ltd to the Committee and other entities varied substantially. There are multiple voices speaking for Tisala despite all correspondence being signed off by its directors. The majority of correspondence was signed off by Leo and Lawrence, but, as finding 2 indicates, the committee found that multiple voices were heard in those letters—they were not just Lawrence and Leo. I refer back to the comments by the chair, Hon Robin Scott, about taking bad advice. Members should remember the names that are constantly flowing through now. Some people would like us to believe that the mining tenements is another amazing coincidence. The committee became aware during this inquiry that mining tenements in the immediate vicinity of the mining operation at Pinjin were held in the names of, lo and behold, Mr Steven Kean and Mr Nicholas Cukela. We had the station on one side and the mining company on the other. In amongst that were the pegged tenements by Mr Steven Kean, very interestingly placed. Mr Kean told the committee that he had pegged those tenements on Tisala’s behalf. Again, I am not a prospector, but I think it is quite bizarre that a prospector would have someone else peg their tenement. I thought a prospector would peg it themselves. Page 17 reports another interesting exchange. It is important to understand the themes that run through this report. I quote — The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us about the circumstances in which that transfer occurred? What was the purpose of it and whose idea was it? Mr Kean: The tenement that was originally pegged was part of Tisala. Basically, I got my costs back, and, if you want to call it, the reason why it was put in Mr Cukela’s name was because basically he was seen, if you want to call it, as a person that could not only work the ground; he has experience in working the ground like with machinery and various things. My understanding is that him, Leo and Lawrence were also going to do some alluvial work and some other stuff on the ground as well. Hon Michael Mischin, the deputy chairman, then says — So originally that was Tisala and you got it to pay for your expenses?

7080 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

The transcript continues — Mr Kean: Well, it cost me—when I pegged it, it cost me a substantial amount of time and money to peg it. They knew that the ground was coming up. They actually asked me to peg it. They did not want it to go— it is the same thing; they did not want it to go in their own name in terms of being able to take it through, if there was an objection, to the Warden’s Court. That is how it transpired. That comes from the individual who has been acting on behalf of Tisala. It cannot go in Tisala’s name, but it can go in Mr Kean’s name. It is very interesting. I continue — The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Why did not they want it in their own name? Mr Kean: Well, I have just said to you, they are not experienced in dealing with Warden’s Court matters. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: So was it being held in trust by you? Mr Kean: I beg your pardon? Oh, effectively, yes. That is why I transferred it out. It is transferred in— my understanding is that they have an agreement with Mr Cukela. They have also said they will receive whatever percentage, I think it would be 40 or 50 per cent, with that tenement. It was then discovered that Mr Cukela told the committee that he purchased the two pegged tenements from Steven Kean for $5 000 cash each. I am not sure how much time, effort and resources go into pegging a section, but Mr Kean received $10 000 for those two tenements. It was also discovered in correspondence that to settle matters with the operator, Hawthorn Resources, Nicholas Cukela offered to sell the two tenements that he purchased for $5 000 each back to Hawthorn Resources at $150 000. It is interesting how quickly the cost of those tenements went up. Many things came out of this report that make me re-read it because it was one of those inquiries in which each time we thought we were getting somewhere, we ended up hearing something different. Members will see in this report that the committee went through a lot of battles over how we could get this report together. In all, we have come up with some really good findings. It is important to state that the original fears that were put in front of this house prior to the inquiry about the department’s role were put to bed in this report. The department played a critical role and ensured that the right information was being forwarded to Tisala. The CHAIR: Members, the question is that the report be noted. Hon Kyle McGinn. Hon KYLE McGINN: It is important to note that the original pretext to the discussions in this chamber around the department’s role is cleared up through this report, particularly through the findings. Finding 3 states — There were significant difficulties within Tisala Pty Ltd concerning the role of directors and the issuing of shares. I might not delve into that issue yet, because there is some more exciting material further in the report. I will come back to that, around shares that were given to an individual as payment and then some complications that arose around having those shares. Finding 4 at the end of the chapter states — Leo Thomas and Lawrence Thomas relied heavily upon the advice of several individuals as to how to run the station and to guide their dealings with mining companies and the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety. The assistance provided by Steven Kean in this regard was more than what would commonly be considered administrative in nature. We could not say it was administrative, and that is in finding 4. This is while also being engaged as an electorate officer, which to me is just absolutely unbelievable. There were obviously a lot of mining interests in the area of Pinjin, which is the reason we originally got into this dispute. I mentioned correspondence earlier. To give members an idea of some of the engagements that have been sent over a period to the department, it is important that I go through paragraph 3.14 on page 26. Members should take note of this. It reads — The Committee obtained from the Department, a copy of Hawthorn Resources’ Stakeholder Engagement/Consultation Register. This document was provided to the Department along with an application to amend the mining proposal for tenements, including M31/79. The document lists each engagement by the joint venture with stakeholders, the overwhelming majority being with Tisala or its representatives. Almost 190 pages of the document are dedicated to the period between 2012 and the commencement of mining. Table 1 provides a summary of the joint venture’s contact with specific stakeholders between 2013 and 2017. Between 2013 and 2017, which is the so-called period that Mr Kean was not being paid to operate Tisala, he alone contacted the employer 53 times; Mr Leo Thomas, 52 times; and Lawrence Thomas, 195 times. Again, going back to the finding, it is very hard to understand who was putting the information into these letters, so I take it that whoever has been acting for Leo or Lawrence in that space could also have had some involvement.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7081

It is not as though we see it as unreasonable or unusual for the mining company to have contacts with these individuals. However, Hawthorn described this period as one of the most frustrating and delaying periods that it had. Mr Kerr mentioned a pattern. He said that they would run through a legal process for as long as possible with many, many questions; they were saying they were not prepared; they were saying they needed some more time; and it was constantly dragging out. But there was always the expectation that if they could not get past these delays, they would end up in the Warden’s Court, and then they would revert at the last minute and change position. Mr Kerr said — The Warden’s Court matter had to go on because we’d just run out of options … They went to the Warden’s Court to get a decision on whether the land that the homestead was on was common land or part of the pastoral lease. This is the dispute, and at its core is that the homestead itself was alleged to be not on the pastoral lease but instead on crown land or common land, and that common land was obviously where Hawthorn Resources had discovered its deposit and where it was setting up its mine site. When we visited, we saw that it was almost like when one goes to Kalgoorlie and sees the super pit right next to the city. This was much smaller and a more isolated location with the homestead very close to the blast wall, I think it is called, that protects the mine site. It is basically a big heap of dirt. We could see the operations happening right there before our eyes, which was quite amazing. There was a lot of discussion on what would happen to the homestead when mining commenced, and attempts to come to a financial settlement were also made over that period. This is another interesting twist, because the joint venture sought to enter into a financial settlement with Tisala that would provide it with what were presumed to be the necessary consents to conduct mining operations. We saw eight documents from 2014 to 2019 that set out offers from the joint venture to Tisala to enable mining to take place without objection. The financial value of the offers decreased as time went on. The first offer was in August 2014, and that was at a sum of $550 000. That was to relocate the homestead onto the pastoral lease and was quite a significant offer of money. That offer was not accepted. Two years later, in October 2016, there was an offer of $450 000 plus $4 000 a month for rental of a building and employment of Leo Thomas and Steven Kean at $25 000 a year. This offer came from Hawthorn, and negotiations had been taking place with representatives of Tisala. We know that Mr Kean was a representative of Tisala. In 2016, when he was presumably not being paid by the contract, which had terminated, in a deal that had been put to Tisala, he was to receive $25 000 a year I am assuming for all the administrative duties that he was doing at the time. That offer was not accepted. We fast forward to November 2017, when there was an offer of $170 000 plus $20 000 each year during mining and no claim for costs in court proceedings. That was not accepted. We move to December 2017, when there was an offer of $270 000 plus $20 000 each year for mining and no claim for costs in court proceedings. We move to October 2017, and an offer of $270 000 plus $20 000 for each year mining and no claim for costs of $50 000 in court proceedings. In November 2018, there was an offer of $300 000 plus $20 000 each year during mining and no claim for costs of $50 000 in court proceedings. Then, in January 2019, when this committee was operating, we see an offer of $550 000 again, put to Tisala by Hawthorn. Finding 7 at the end of this section reads — As the length of the dispute between the joint venture and Tisala Pty Ltd grew between 2014 and 2017, the value of the offers of compensation decreased from those originally presented. As one reads this report, one gets an understanding that Hawthorn was of the view that it was common land and that it had the right to proceed with what it was doing. Originally, it made an offer of $550 000. We then have all this correspondence, $192 000, $52 000 from here, $53 000 from there, constant questioning, constant requests for consultation, and then we see the offers go down. Then major issues happened out at the homestead, at which Mr Steven Kean was present, as Hon Robin Scott raised in this chamber, as he sent his electorate officer out to site. The CHAIR: Hon Kyle McGinn. Hon KYLE McGINN: Thank you, Mr Chair. What a great day! All these things were going on, and then all of a sudden, Mr Kean, who was working as an electorate officer, who was apparently no longer being paid by Tisala to act on its behalf but was still acting on its behalf, got an offer in 2016 of $25 000 a year from Hawthorn as well. It is very, very murky, as I said from the outset. I hope that members are getting an understanding of how difficult this inquiry was to embark on. Just to make things even more interesting, we are about to get to another twist. One of the things that was coming through was how long Tisala had known that the homestead was on common land. One would think from all the correspondence and from what was raised in this house that it was made aware of it only when the mining had taken place. That would be a fair assumption, remembering again that Mr Kean was involved in 2013. We heard from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, and I will read this quote from Mr Eringa, who, again, as I said, has been involved in this situation since 2007. It states — In fact, in the period between 2007 and 2012, when I was dealing with Tisala … it came up on a number of occasions that they wanted to change some of the tenure to suit some other activities—to improve their pastoral business but also to allow for some other activities that they were planning to do. This has been a conversation that is been going on for a number of years.

7082 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

… Hon KYLE McGINN: My question is around the discussions you were having with Jan Taylor, Lawrence and Leo. Were you talking about the homestead being on common land at that stage? Mr Eringa: I remember it coming up because the nature of the discussions was that we had a map and we were pointing out what could happen in different parts of the station … Hon KYLE McGINN: So all three of them — Referring to Jan Taylor, Lawrence Thomas and Leo Thomas — would have been clearly aware that the homestead was on common land? Mr Eringa: If you look at a map of Pinjin station, you cannot not be aware that that is the case; it stands out very clearly and they had the same maps—we were looking at the same piece of paper. Hon KYLE McGINN: Was there any advice or recommendations at that stage to try to get title or to move away from that common — Land? It continues — Mr Eringa: Yes, the advice was the standard advice that if you have an asset that is on a piece of land that you do not have tenure over, then it is an unprotected asset and from a business perspective, it is not a good idea to have. Those discussions were tied up in the broader discussions about future uses of Pinjin station and, depending on their business model, in the longer term a pastoral lease may or may not have been the correct vehicle. These issues had been discussed in 2007. Mr Lawrence Thomas was the director in 2007 and he was aware of it then. Then, in 2017, the Warden’s Court made a decision and we saw things spur off into an amazing dispute that managed to turn into an inquiry by a committee of this house. Again, the electorate officer who was involved represented the organisation against the mining company has been seen to have money given to him for representing that organisation, and is also a part of offers that have come from the mining company! There are way too many arrows pointing in the direction of Mr Kean in this process. To think that he was working in the office of the member who raised these issues in Parliament! I believe the member was unaware of his involvement, but Mr Kean was still systematically representing Tisala whilst working in the office of Hon Robin Scott. It is absolutely astounding that we could see that happen when not only the Warden’s Court said that Pinjin station was on common land, but also the directors were aware of that in 2007! In 2007, they were told that they were on common land and they needed to diversify and look at trying to get tenure over the land. We saw a complete change in 2013 when along came Mr Kean to represent their interests. Again, I go back to what Hon Robin Scott said in his opening address: it was bad advice. They were listening to the wrong individual. It looks as though this person has dabbled in trying to create a dispute even though the directors were made well aware in 2007 by the department, that they did not have the right to that land. It was common land and they had to seek tenure. It is astounding. I feel really bad that individuals have been affected by the dealings of this man. Finding 10 states — Tisala Pty Ltd was, or ought to have been, aware by 2007 or 2008 that Common Reserve 10041 did not form part of the Pinjin pastoral lease. This committee was able to establish that, as was the Warden’s Court and as was the department back in 2007. This committee was able to reiterate that in this report to ensure that once and for all it is very clear that it is common land and does not form part of the pastoral lease. Such a huge part of this process was trying to understand why the offers from Hawthorn reduced. Back when I negotiated as a union official, offers reduced as your leverage disappeared. If we were getting fewer offers than before, the employer obviously had something up on us and had something coming for us or knew that they were in the right and we were in the wrong. It is sad to see that the offers, which were substantial, that were put forward dwindled all whilst Mr Kean was acting as an agent for Tisala. Again, it is interesting to see that his name disappeared from getting any financial assistance in future offers after the original one. The report comments on the legal reasoning behind the Mining Warden’s decision. It states — The Committee makes no comment on the legal reasoning behind the Warden’s decision. The Committee understands that several parties are aggrieved by it, including Tisala and the residents at Williamstown. The Committee has been told that the decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. I am not 100 per cent sure where that one is at, but, obviously, we did not want to delve into the decision that the Warden’s Court made, and it was very clear, broken down within that decision, the reasoning behind the land being common land and not on the pastoral lease.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7083

The CHAIR: Members, our time for consideration of that report today has now expired under temporary order 4. Noting the time, this is a good opportunity for me to report. Consideration of report adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders. SAFETY LEVIES AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Committee The Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair; Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — The CHAIR: I draw attention to the existence of issue 2 of the supplementary notice paper, dated Tuesday, 13 October. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I am relaxed about whether the minister would prefer to take the questions at clause 1 or clause 2. Perhaps I can just make some preliminary comments about the amendments on the supplementary notice paper, which all pertain to clause 2. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon NICK GOIRAN: We can do it that way. I just indicate to the minister that I think there is a problem with the supplementary notice paper, so I want to give her as much notice as possible. I will make these comments and then if the minister wants to move on to clause 2, that is what we will do. There are two foreshadowed amendments on the supplementary notice paper, amendment 1/2 and amendment 3/2. My understanding is that the genesis of those amendments is in some issues that the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review identified and some agreement by the minister in the other place with overall carriage of this bill, the Minister for Industrial Relations, that those matters will be attended to. The first of the two amendments on the supplementary notice paper—if they can be called amendments because they are recorded in such a way that they are requests to the other place—causes no difficulty because it is a mere drafting matter. It is the second amendment that I draw to the minister’s attention. Amendment 3/2 on the supplementary notice paper is a substituted amendment. Amendment 2/2 used to be on the supplementary notice paper, but this is issue 2. That amendment was consistent certainly with what I had been told was the government’s intended way of dealing with this matter, but now there has been this change. I think there is an issue. I think the first version was superior to the second version. I think that clause 1 might the easiest place for the minister to provide an explanation of what caused the decision by the government to move from the second proposed amendment to the third proposed amendment? The CHAIR: Members, it is quite appropriate in contemplation of clause 1 to canvass issues in the bill, but I think the detail of the consideration of this question might be reserved for our consideration of clause 2. However, I give the call to the minister to respond now. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I appreciate what the member is trying to do. I ask that we deal with clause 1 and then we try to find someone during the break who is able to explain the difference between the first amendment and the second amendment. I ask that we deal with clause 1 and as soon as we have done that, we will change advisers. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we support the passage of clause 1. Clause put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement — Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: The explanation is that the original amendment was copied from the Work Health and Safety Bill, which has a differential start. There is no differential start in this bill. It is just a single start, so it was not appropriate and it has been redrafted to deal with that error. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I encourage people to have a close look over the break at the difference between the two because that explanation does not correlate with the two documents. I am happy to take this matter up further on the next occasion. It is clearly the case that clause 2(b) reads — the rest of the Act — on the day on which the Work Health and Safety Act 2019 Part 15 comes into operation. The CHAIR: Members, there will be an opportunity to discuss these matters behind the Chair because I am going to leave the chair until the ringing of the bells. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 7091.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm

7084 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE LOTTERYWEST GRANTS — VICTORY LIFE CENTRE 1138. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I have two questions and three questions from other members today. I refer to the Leader of the House’s response to question without notice 1056, asked on Tuesday, 13 October 2020, and to section 26(2) and section 26(5) of the Lotteries Commission Act 1990 which state, in part, respectively — For parliamentary processes or for the proper conduct of the Minister’s public business, the Minister is entitled to have information in the possession of the Commission and to have and retain copies of documents. And — parliamentary processes means for the purpose of — (a) answering a question asked in a House of Parliament; (1) Was a Lotterywest grant proposal that was recently lodged by Victory Life church rejected? (2) If yes, why was the proposal rejected? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No proposal has been received from Victory Life church. (2) Not applicable. LOTTERYWEST GRANTS — VICTORY LIFE CENTRE 1139. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I am sorry if the Leader of the House misled the house. (1) Is the Premier aware that the CEO of Lotterywest, Susan Hunt, publicly stated that the Victory Life church was refused a grant specifically due to the views of Margaret Court on same-sex marriage? (2) If yes to (1), has the Premier or anyone from the Premier’s office spoken with Ms Hunt in relation to this issue; and, if not, why not? (3) If yes to (2), how did Ms Hunt justify this decision? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) Not applicable. AGRICULTURE — PACIFIC LABOUR SCHEME AND SEASONAL WORKER PROGRAMME 1140. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Minister for Regional Development: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Dr Steve Thomas, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the minister’s backflip on the need to import farm labour to ensure that this year’s crops can be harvested, which is more than two months after my first call for this to occur. (1) On what date did the state begin discussions with the Northern Territory and federal governments to bring new Seasonal Worker Programme and Pacific Labour Scheme workers into the country, as per the minister’s media release? (2) When does the government expect to complete those discussions and reach an agreement? (3) By what date can producers expect to see workers under either of these schemes on their farms in Western Australia? (4) Does the minister stand by her comments to the Albany Advertiser on 13 August, reported in an article on my call to import Pacific labour, when she was quoted as saying, “We’ve had to be very clear with industry—they cannot rely on a hope that international labour will be available this year”? (5) What has been the Northern Territory government’s response to the minister’s suggestion that the Western Australian government would seek to steal the workers the Northern Territory has already imported? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for asking questions on behalf of Hon Dr Steve Thomas. I think that we have addressed these questions at length. Given the highly political and egocentric nature of the question, I will give an appropriate reply.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7085

(1)–(5) We reject totally, of course, the idea that there has been a backflip. I have said, and I have been saying since March, and I still say that we cannot just rely on the opening of borders and the availability of international workers. That is still the case. The first thing we had to do, our first range of endeavours, was to keep as many backpackers and seasonal workers as we possibly could in place. That was certainly our focus over those first few months of the pandemic. Then we started to prepare for the harvest. How would we do that? How would we continue to build on our work to bring on more Western Australians who had not previously done this sort of work, whether it was in grain harvesting or fruit picking, and encourage and entice them in? That is what we have been doing with a series of measures, including an advertising campaign. Today, I read that detail. There are physicists, therapists, dance instructors and airline pilots—an array of people— who have gone into harvester training and are now out working. We have never said that there would be a single answer. As time has gone on, we have developed more and more strategies. We started conversations with the Northern Territory government through the Agriculture Ministers’ Forums and outside those meetings. In fact, in August this year, I wrote to Hon David Littleproud to say that we will be watching the trial to bring in seasonal workers that would start in September, which we did. We were then able to make an announcement that we would embrace the scheme and work—as we had discussed with both Hon Paul Kirby and the current minister, Hon Nicole Manison—to use the Howard Springs facility to bring in workers. The approved employers, the labour hire firms, that bring in these people, are more than happy to have those workers who finish their duties in the Northern Territory to then come over to WA. We are now looking at a new plan. We answered these questions at length in the debate today. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I will say that when members ask long, detailed questions, sometimes they might get a long, detailed answer. Hon Peter Collier: Thank you, Madam President, but not War and Peace! The PRESIDENT: You never know, Leader of the Opposition. WASTE — DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL 1141. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Minister for Environment: This question is asked on behalf of Hon Tjorn Sibma, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s responsibility for managing the oversight and implementation of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Regulations 2008. (1) In reporting by category of waste, please advise on a yearly and cumulative basis from 2016–17 to 2019–20 what volume of waste has been diverted from landfill in Western Australia. (2) Please advise the levies collected for the above years. (3) Noting the 3 October 2020 article titled “Rubbish rules may be a total waste” by Ben Harvey in The West Australian, how does DWER account for the reported discrepancy between claims of landfill volume diverted and levies collected? (4) Has the minister directed an evaluation of those discrepancies and, furthermore, has he sought a review of DWER’s compliance and reporting protocol; and, if not, why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Due to the level of information requested, it is not possible to provide an answer in the time available. I request that the honourable member place the question on notice. CORONAVIRUS — INTERSTATE TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS — NEW ZEALANDERS 1142. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Jim Chown, who is on urgent parliamentary business. I refer to two points: first, Premier McGowan’s claim that 23 New Zealanders slipped into Western Australia over the weekend without exemptions; and, second, Commissioner of Police Chris Dawson’s comments that most of those 23 New Zealanders had legitimate reasons and pre-approved exemptions to enter WA. Which of the two claims is correct: that of Premier McGowan or that of Commissioner of Police Chris Dawson? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Premier rejects the premise of the question and would request that the honourable member provides a reference to the source if he intends to use quotes or comments as the basis for a question.

7086 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

UNIVERSITIES — INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 1143. Hon CHARLES SMITH to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the recent article in WAtoday entitled “‘We will not be viable’: WA university leaders call for state borders to reopen”. Does the minister concede — (a) Western Australian universities are over-reliant on international students; (b) WA universities have dumbed down entry and teaching standards for international students; (c) the persecution of whistleblowers like Gerd Schröder-Turk at Murdoch University was disgraceful; (d) wage theft and over-casualisation of staff is a systemic problem in our universities; and (e) WA universities are putting dollars ahead of lives by incessantly lobbying to open Australia’s borders throughout this pandemic? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (a)–(e) The question is seeking an opinion on each of the five parts, which I am not obliged to give under the standing orders. However, I will confirm that international students are an important part of the WA community and economy. PRESCRIBED BURNING — SOUTH WEST 1144. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Minister for Environment: With summer approaching and the bushfire season imminent, can the minister advise the following. (1) What is the total number of hectares that have been prescribed burned in the south west for the year ending 30 June 2020? (2) What is the prescribed burning target for the south west for the year ending 30 June 2021? (3) What is the total number of Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions staff who will be available for bushfire suppression this season? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions achieved a total of 132 940 hectares of prescribed burning across its three south west forest regions for the financial year ending 30 June 2020. Despite some limitations in 2019–20, including drier than usual spring conditions, resource commitments to large bushfire events in summer and COVID-19 restrictions in autumn, 49.5 per cent of the landscape had a fuel age of less than six years at 30 June 2020. (2) DBCA aims to maintain 45 per cent of the forested area across its three south west forest regions at a fuel age of less than six years since last burnt. Depending on the area affected by bushfire, this equates to achieving approximately 200 000 hectares per financial year across that area. (3) DBCA has approximately 920 staff available for bushfire suppression for the coming bushfire season. This figure includes frontline fighters, fire management staff and support staff who participate in fire management activities in addition to their core role. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 1145. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to section 303 of the Mental Health Act, which requires adult inpatient mental health units to fulfil a set of conditions before they admit a child under the age of 18 years and to notify the Chief Psychiatrist of that admission. (1) Was the minister’s office notified of the new interpretation of section 303 by the Mental Health Commission and the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist? (2) Are there any plans to review the new interpretation, given the number of notifications of children being admitted to adult inpatient mental health units has increased from eight in the 2018–19 financial year to 107 in the 2019–20 financial year? Hon ALANNA CLOHESY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The minister’s office was not notified. Section 303 is a protection under the Mental Health Act 2014, which requires various things to happen when a child is admitted to a mental health service that also admits adults. Among the things that must happen is that the Chief Psychiatrist be informed of such admissions.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7087

As part of its function as the agency principally responsible for administering the act, the Mental Health Commission, working with the Chief Psychiatrist, considered the effect of section 303 of the act on the new mental health services that have been developed in recent years to better meet the needs of the Western Australian community. These initiatives have included the development of inpatient mental health services that cater specifically for children and young people aged between 16 and 24 years. During 2020, the MHC and the Chief Psychiatrist worked with health service providers to ensure that their understanding of the reporting responsibilities under section 303 remains current. (2) At the time of drafting the act, new initiatives such as the youth inpatient mental health units were not contemplated. The MHC will be considering whether any amendment to section 303 is necessary to exclude new initiatives, including the youth inpatient mental health units. However, as consideration of any proposed amendment requires broad consultation, any such consideration will need to occur as part of the statutory review of the act, which is due to commence as soon as practicable after 30 November 2020. ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS — 2020–21 STATE BUDGET 1146. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the royalties for regions expenditure found in budget paper No 3 starting from page 171. (1) Please identify any projects or initiatives that prior to the 2020–21 budget were funded by the consolidated fund and are now funded by the royalties for regions fund. (2) Please provide a detailed breakdown of the line item “Administered Items” in 2020–21 and across the forward estimates. (3) Why is there a forecast cut of $10 million to the administration of the fund in 2021–22 that is sustained across the forward estimates? (4) How is the underspend provision calculated and why has it not been forecast in the last two years of the forward estimates? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) There are no new items in the 2020–21 royalties for regions budget that were previously funded by the consolidated account. (2) The administered items budget line provides funding mainly for commitments that require further planning to deliver the proposals. It is not appropriate to provide a funding breakdown until projects are properly scoped and costed. (3) Rather than an apparent cut being forecast to the administration line item, the budgeted funding of $94.8 million for 2020–21 is slightly higher than it would ordinarily be. This funding level reflects that some operational funds have been brought forward from 2021–22 to 2020–21 to support critical industry programs and also that some program funding was carried over from 2019–20 to 2020–21. (4) The underspend provision recognises that historically there has been an underspend in the royalties for regions annual budget. Although I understand that it was the standard practice for the previous government to include an underspend provision for all years of the budget, this has the potential to build up a significant unfunded liability. We consider it is financially responsible to include an underspend provision for only the first two years of the forward estimates. DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT — OFFICES 1147. Hon COLIN HOLT to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the relocation of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development offices to the Perth CBD. (1) Did the minister consider relocating DPIRD to a regional location and was any analysis done? (2) If yes to (1), can the minister please table the relevant documents? (3) Were any specific roles considered to be decentralised to regional WA; and, if so, which roles and to which locations? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) Member, I find this extraordinary. The member was part of a government for eight and a half years that took out all the money that was in the 2015 budget for the development of a new premises for the then Department of Agriculture and Food. When we came into government, absolutely nothing had been done. In fact, during its time in charge of the portfolio, the Nationals WA managed to cut 300 agricultural jobs from regional Western Australia. There were massive cuts; for example, the Esperance staff were cut from 44 FTE to 23 FTE.

7088 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

We had to act very urgently in the middle of this year when it became very obvious that a couple of those buildings at South Perth were no longer able to provide a safe place of employment for staff. It was necessary for us to act as a matter of considerable urgency. We have been negotiating to get some premises not too far from the existing South Perth premises to relocate 500 of those staff while we are spending some $20 million to ensure that the 250 technical and scientific staff can continue to operate at South Perth. I think that over the long run we should look at decentralising some of that employment. That is a very clear agenda of the government. We had to do this as a matter of urgency. I would love members one day to explain why they had all this money in the budget, but in the dying days of their government, they took it out of the budget. An opposition member interjected. The PRESIDENT: Members, I might just remind you again that we are in unusual circumstances. Not every member is seated in their normal place here. That does not give you the right to speak on your feet away from a seat. POLICE — MISCONDUCT CLAIMS 1148. Hon ALISON XAMON to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the answer to my question on notice 3198 answered on 20 October about civil legal claims against WA police officers from 2015–16 to 2019–20. (1) How many police officers were the subject of successful civil claims against them? (2) How many officers from (1) were — (a) stood down; (b) sanctioned; or (c) subject to no sanction? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The following answer has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. (1) The Western Australia Police Force advises there were three. (2) (a) One was stood down; (b) nil were sanctioned; and (c) two were subject to no sanction. One officer faced loss of confidence then resigned. The other officer retired. “CLIMATE CHANGE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA” ISSUES PAPER 1149. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the Minister for Environment: I refer to the state government’s “Climate Change in Western Australia” issues paper. (1) How many submissions were received during the public comment period? (2) Will the minister please table the submissions made during the public comment period? (3) If no to (2), when will the submissions outlined in (1) be made public? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation received 3 758 submissions to the “Climate Change in Western Australia” issues paper during the public comment period. (2)–(3) Feedback on the issues paper is being considered in the development of the Western Australian climate policy due for release later this year. The submissions to the issues paper will also be published later this year. SCHOOLS — COMMUNITY VISITORS 1150. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the answer given to question without notice 601 provided on 17 June regarding the review of the “Criminal History Screening for Department of Education Science Policy” and the “Community Use of School Facilities and Resources in Public Schools” policy, which was expected to be completed by the beginning of term 4. (1) Has the review of both policies been completed; and, if yes, what is the outcome of the review? (2) If yes to (1), will the minister table a copy of the updated policies? (3) If no to (1), why not and when is the review expected to be completed?

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7089

Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) The review of the “Criminal History Screening for Department of Education Sites Policy” has been completed. The policy is publicly available on the Department of Education’s policies website. I table a copy of the policy for the member’s information. The “Community Use of School Facilities and Resources in Public Schools” review is in its final stages of completion. [See paper 4504.] SANDALWOOD — BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1151. Hon DIANE EVERS to the Minister for Environment: (1) Has the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions completed a biodiversity management program for wild sandalwood as provided for under the Biodiversity Conservation Act recommended by the Environmental Protection Authority and promised by DBCA and the Forest Products Commission in 2016? (2) If no to (1), when is it expected to be completed? (3) If yes to (1), please provide it. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions anticipates that a draft biodiversity management plan for native sandalwood will be released for public comment in 2021. Comments received will then be considered before finalising the program. ART GALLERY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA — ADULT CONTENT — SCHOOL VISITS 1152. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to a report in The West Australian of 26 September, “Victoria Park Primary School complains of lack of warning about ‘inappropriate’ Art Gallery of WA exhibit”. (1) What has been done to ensure that young children are not exposed to explicit sex acts on a school excursion? (2) Has the minister spoken to the Minister for Culture and the Arts regarding this incident? (3) If yes to (2), when did this occur and what was the outcome of this meeting? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) The chief executive officer of the Art Gallery of WA has apologised to the school. He also confirmed in writing that additional signage had been added as requested and sighted as a form of barrier that people have to pass to enter so the warning of content is immediately visible. In addition, gallery staff have been asked to provide all self-guided school groups on entry of works of art that have adult content so that the school staff have the necessary information to ensure students are not exposed to inappropriate material. The Department of Education recommended to the chief executive officer of the Art Gallery of WA that clear signage be placed at every entrance to the exhibits so that signs are visible at whichever entrance visitors use. ON-FARM EMERGENCY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REBATE SCHEME 1153. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the minister representing the Minister for Water: I refer to an article in the Countryman of 15 October regarding the federal government’s on-farm emergency water infrastructure rebate scheme that stated — Mr Kelly said the State’s budget included $6.7 million to help farmers suffering water deficiency, which would be used to match the federal funding. (1) Please identify the line item in the budget that pertains to the $6.7 million figure the minister mentioned. (2) Why is the ABC news today reporting that the government has still not committed to matching the federal government funding? (3) When will the state government reopen the scheme for WA farmers and begin processing previously received applications to give support to farmers ahead of summer? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Water. (1) It is in division 42, Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, page 649, under “Spending Changes”, “New Initiatives”, rural water deficiency and community water supply, for $3.850 million to provide for carting non-potable stock water and provision of new and upgraded community water supplies for farmers. Additional money is within the Water Corporation budget, which is not referred to in the budget papers.

7090 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

(2) This question is best referred to the ABC. (3) The state government did not close the scheme in Western Australia. We have continued to receive and process applications pending further funding from the commonwealth. BANNED DRINKERS REGISTER — KIMBERLEY 1154. Hon KEN BASTON to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: (1) Will the minister please confirm that a banned drinkers register will be rolled out in the Kimberley on 1 December? (2) If no to (1), will the minister advise when a banned drinkers register will be established in the Kimberley? (3) What is the estimated cost to the state government, not including costs that will be covered by local government, of implementing a banned drinkers register across the Kimberley? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. (1)–(3) The McGowan government commenced work to establish a Pilbara-wide banned drinkers register trial as part of the whole-of-government response to widespread child abuse across the Kimberley. Subsequently, the Kimberley zone, consisting of four local governments in the region, has indicated that it would like to conduct a takeaway alcohol management system and a BDR trial that will be community led at their own expense. This offer was accepted by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. The minister also subsequently offered to lend support to the trial through access to the BDR, and administrative support through the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries. However, it has become apparent that the Kimberley zone does not have an adequate capacity to completely fund a trial of a BDR and a TAMS. The Minister for Racing and Gaming, therefore, is working with government and other stakeholders in an attempt to source additional funding for the trial. The cost of the trial is estimated to be $1 million. In the event funding is sourced, a trial will commence as soon as possible. ABORIGINAL HERITAGE — SECTION 18 APPLICATIONS 1155. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Noting the answers supplied to question without notice 1093 regarding the Silvergrass project by Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd and the Solomon project by Fortescue Metals Group, I ask two simple questions. (1) Did the minister, pursuant to section 18(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, grant consent to Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd to impact on two Aboriginal sites on 15 August 2019? (2) Did the minister, pursuant to section 18(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, grant consent to Fortescue Metals Group to impact on 12 Aboriginal sites on 30 November 2017? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. There is nothing about simple questions in the copy of the question I have. I presume it is the same one, but I could not be confident. This is the answer to the question that has been submitted. (1)–(2) This question relates to question on notice 3329 and will be responded to as part of that answer. SCHOOLS — ABORIGINAL STUDENTS — ATTENDANCE 1156. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the Minister for Education and Training: Publicly available data shows that there is little to no improvement in the school attendance rate of Aboriginal students in WA schools. Can the minister explain the government’s failure to improve the school attendance rates of Aboriginal students? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for the question. If the member would like to be briefed on the initiatives we are putting in place, particularly in the Kimberley, but also in a number of our remote schools, to address the longstanding and difficult issue of school attendance, particularly of Indigenous kids, I would be happy to provide him with that briefing. I will give him an example. Out of something as terrible as the coroner’s report into suicides some amazing work has been done in Halls Creek. It is a fantastic initiative that effectively created a case management approach to identify the real reasons that those kids were not attending school and working with families to get them to attend. In addition to that, the Kimberley schools project was started under the previous government, which we have continued. It specifically tries to address issues of literacy and numeracy, but as a consequence of that, it is also having a really positive impact on attendance. To use the vernacular, these are wicked problems and they will not be resolved overnight, but there are some really good examples of where school communities are tackling those issues head-on, and I am happy to brief the member on those matters.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7091

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — STATE GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES 1157. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Local Government: (1) Which local governments have been the subject of state government–initiated inquiries at any time during the course of this year? I clarify that I am referring to any inquiry commenced, concluded or in progress over the course of 2020. (2) In each case, what is the estimated cost of each inquiry? (3) In each case, will the cost be recovered from the relevant local government? (4) Conversely, in each case how will costs be met? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) They are the Town of Cambridge, Shire of Toodyay, Shire of Wiluna, City of Subiaco, City of Cockburn, Shire of Coolgardie and Shire of Mingenew. (2) The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries does not record specific costs for individual authorised inquiries unless there is a specific reason to do so. An authorised inquiry is part of the department’s core business. (3) The Local Government Act 1995 provides for the minister to order a local government to pay all or part of the cost of the inquiry under certain circumstances. The minister has not made this order on the inquiries that have been completed in 2020. (4) See the answer to (2). SAFETY LEVIES AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. The Chair of Committees (Hon Simon O’Brien) in the chair; Hon Alannah MacTiernan (Minister for Regional Development) in charge of the bill. Clause 2: Commencement — Committee was interrupted after the clause had been partly considered. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: Hon Nick Goiran very kindly raised a question about the amendments we are proposing to make to this clause and asked us to consider it in light of the earlier version of the clause we have. He wanted an explanation about the difference between the two and why we have changed from the original formulation of this clause. I gave a very brief explanation, but now I can give a more extensive explanation that is really along the same lines. The sunset provision first proposed for the Safety Levies Amendment Bill mirrored exactly the language of the sunset provision proposed in the Work Health and Safety Bill. However, on examination it appeared that the language that was apt for the Work Health and Safety Bill was not apt for the Safety Levies Amendment Bill. In each case, the language referred to a day to be fixed for the commencement of the relevant bill. Although the WHS bill commencement clause provides for a day to be fixed for commencement, the SLA bill commencement clause does not. Instead, it provides that the commencement of the SLA bill is an automatic consequence of the commencement of part 15 of the WHS bill. The legislative schema is that once part 15 of the WHS bill is commenced, it automatically triggers the commencement of the SLA bill. It was therefore not accurate in the original version of the SLA bill sunset provision to refer to a day to be fixed for the commencement of the SLA bill because there is no day to be fixed; it is an automatic consequence of the commencement of the other bill. The version of the sunset clause now on the supplementary notice paper corrects this error. It reflects the link with the commencement of the WHS bill. The SLA bill will commence when part 15 of the WHS bill commences and will expire if the WHS bill is not commenced within 10 years. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I thank the minister. It is helpful to have that clarification. I still think there is an issue, which I will identify in a moment. Before I do that, Mr Chairman, can you explain how this process will now work? Ordinarily, the minister would move the amendment standing in her name at 1/2. I am not clear whether that will be the process, given that the supplementary notice paper refers to our requesting the other place to make an amendment. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: It has been explained to me that the process is that I do not simply put the amendment but that I use this opportunity to move that the Legislative Assembly be requested to make the amendment at 1/2 on the supplementary notice paper. The CHAIR: To address the question of the last two speakers, I draw the attention of members to standing order 135, “Requested Amendments”, which provides — If an amendment may only be made by request to the Assembly pursuant to section 46 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899, the requested amendment shall be proposed and dealt with as any other amendment.

7092 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

That is in the first instance, of course. Therefore, we will contemplate the amendments, if moved, that are contained on the supplementary notice paper and the Committee of the Whole will resolve those questions. If it exceeds two amendments, we will entertain the motion that the minister has just foreshadowed in her remarks, which is about a message going to the Legislative Assembly. However, in the first instance, we must decide whether we want such a message to go to the Assembly, so it is as per normal at this stage. I look forward to the minister moving the amendments standing in her name. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I move — That the Legislative Assembly be requested to make the following amendment — Page 2, line 7 — To insert after “Royal Assent” — (assent day) The two amendments on the supplementary notice paper are obviously related. This first amendment is to facilitate the second. The CHAIR: I remind members that I am referring to amendments contained in supplementary notice paper issue 2, dated Tuesday, 13 October. Hon NICK GOIRAN: We support this request by the minister, but before the minister moves the next amendment at 3/2, I have some further comments to make. Question put and passed. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I propose that I move the next amendment so that we can have a discussion around it. Hon NICK GOIRAN: By way of explanation, I would like to give the minister the opportunity to consider whether she moves exactly the words currently listed on the supplementary notice paper or a small variation to that effect. The small variation would be to insert the phrase “Part 15”. I note that the genesis of this matter is the 126th report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, tabled in May 2020. The relevant paragraph reads — Clause 2(b) of the SLA Bill — Which is what we are dealing with now — provides that the substance of the Safety Levies Amendment Act 2019 comes into operation on the day on which the Work Health and Safety Act 2019 Part 15 comes into operation. I pause there to note that recommendation 2 dealt with a similar matter in the Work Health and Safety Bill and it was indeed agreed to by the government, and the Committee of the Whole House has already addressed that. I return to paragraph 6.22 at page 12, which states — If Recommendation 2 is adopted, Part 15 would automatically be repealed if it does not come into operation within 10 years of the Work Health and Safety Act 2019 receiving Royal Assent. The substantive provisions of the Safety Levies Amendment Act 2019 would not operate and that Act should also be removed from the statute book. Consequently, the standing committee made its third recommendation, which was — Clause 2 of the Safety Levies Amendment Bill 2019 be amended to require the Safety Levies Amendment Act 2019 be automatically repealed if the Work Health and Safety Act 2019 Part 15 is not operational within the expiration of 10 years of the Work Health and Safety Act 2019 receiving Royal Assent. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: White flag, white flag, white flag! The CHAIR: Minister. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: I will now move the amendment in the following form — That the Legislative Assembly be requested to make the following amendment — Page 2, after line 10 — To insert — (2) However, if the Work Health and Safety Act 2019 Part 15 does not come into operation before the end of the period of 10 years beginning on assent day, this Act is repealed on the day after that period ends. Question put and passed. The CHAIR: Now that we have dealt with the two amendments on the supplementary notice paper, I will invite the minister to move a motion without notice. Just by way of explanation, because this is where we hit a slightly different procedure, which only erupts every 23 years or so—hopefully, it will not happen every 23 years!—we are now going

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7093 to entertain a motion from the minister relating to a message. If that is agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House, we will then report progress. Then, at some stage, we will have a message hopefully come back from the Assembly, at which time we will take on board what the substantive bill, as amended, then looks like, and we will complete our finalisation of it at that point. Requested Amendments Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN — without notice: I move — That a message be transmitted to the Legislative Assembly to request that the Legislative Assembly make the amendments requested by the Legislative Council at clause 2 of the Safety Levies Amendment Bill 2019. Hon NICK GOIRAN: I indicate that, of course, we will be supporting this motion that has been moved by the government. I just make the observation, given that apparently this happens only once every 23 years, that I would hate to have a situation wherein the matter comes back to us and the government decides that it would like to move messages of this sort with respect to clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 and then we would have to go through this exercise again. I take it that there is not an intention by the government to do that; there is certainly no intention on the part of the opposition. I make that observation whilst standing to support the motion. The CHAIR: I think you will find that that would be procedurally irregular, which may give some comfort to the member. Nonetheless, we have a fairly straightforward motion before the Chair now. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: There is certainly no intention for us to pose any further amendments. Question put and passed. Report The Chair reported that the committee had considered the bill, made progress and resolved to request the Assembly to make the amendments agreed to by the committee. Report adopted; the Assembly acquainted accordingly. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2019 Report Bill reported, with amendments, and, by leave, the report adopted. As to Third Reading — Standing Orders Suspension — Motion HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [5.27 pm] — without notice: I move — That so much of standing orders be suspended so as to enable the bill to be read a third time forthwith. HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [5.27 pm]: I am a little confused. We were debating these two bills cognately. The motion is to suspend standing orders to have the third reading of the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019 now, but my understanding was that that bill needs the Safety Levies Amendment Bill 2019 to go along with it, and we have just sent a message to the Legislative Assembly for it to make amendments to that bill. Why do we need to suspend standing orders to have the Work Health and Safety Bill now read a third time, when we will have to surely wait for the Assembly to consider the message we have just sent it, make amendments and then return the bill to us for agreement, and then pass that? Is this all intended to take place in the next hour before we rise? The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Martin Aldridge): Members, just for clarity, at an earlier stage of the consideration of these bills, the house granted leave to consider both of the bills cognately. The minister has now moved a suspension of standing orders to allow the house to progress to the third reading of the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019. It is a decision subsequent to the leave of the house to consider the bills cognately, and the minister is entitled to move that motion. HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [5.29 pm] — in reply: I will provide an explanation. The Work Health and Safety Bill 2019 can exist separately from the Safety Levies Amendment Bill 2019. The Safety Levies Amendment Bill will obviously be part of it, but that legislation can exist by itself. I think it is important for us to make progress on this bill because once the bill is finalised, a huge amount of work has to be done in drafting the regulations. I would ask the house to not defer this because it would effectively mean deferring it for a number of weeks. I think that would be a breach of faith with all those people in the public who are very keen to see us make progress on the work health and safety legislation. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Members, having counted the house, I confirm that an absolute majority is present. If there is no dissenting voice, I will declare that the motion is carried. Question put and passed with an absolute majority.

7094 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Third Reading HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [5.30 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. This piece of legislation has been a long time coming. Indeed, it might be said that it started in 2008 with the move towards developing a model scheme. Because of the complexity of this legislation, it has proceeded quite slowly. But I know that there is a very significant constituency out there that wants to see this new modernised legislation in place. Other than Victoria, Western Australia is the only state that has not adopted the model code. We note, as we have noted in discussions, that even New Zealand has moved to harmonise those laws. We think that harmonisation is very important. We know that, increasingly, we have many companies operating across Australia. We know that case law is developing, and it is in the interest of everyone that we have harmonisation of those laws and that we make sure that they are more contemporary and foster a greater culture of work health and safety and provide a new focus on it. Therefore, it is a very significant step forward. We have had the introduction of much stronger penalties, including the introduction of the notion of industrial manslaughter, again in an attempt to really change the culture of workplaces and to see adverse results for workers driven down and a reduction in lost-time injuries and, even more importantly, the number of fatalities. We are all very conscious that just last week another young man lost his life on a building site. I want to acknowledge the work of many families who have mobilised, I guess you could say, their grief into creating something of a legacy for the people they have lost, in particular those people who have formed Families Left Behind. Regan Ballantine was mentioned often during the debate. She has been a tireless advocate for us to move forward with industrial manslaughter legislation and a stronger regime in general. We take this opportunity to recognise the family and friends of Jonnie Hartshorn, whose recent death at Curtin University has really moved the Western Australian community. I want to acknowledge the union movement that has been working to press these changes. The whole movement has campaigned for this change, but a very special role has been played by UnionsWA, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union and the State School Teachers’ Union of WA in arguing for the change needed for workplace health and safety. We also recognise the many employer representatives who have engaged so constructively over the many years of creating the model code, the green bill, and then our ministerial advisory panel process. They have come together to work constructively to achieve this outcome. One of the strongest things that we see in work health and safety is the development of a tripartite culture. This has been a long debate on a very complex bill. I want to thank all the officers of the departments that were involved in developing this legislation. I also want to reference the importance of the fact that we have brought mine safety into this harmonised regime. When I was first in this place 25 years ago, a matter that was debated regularly was whether we should bring mine safety into a single, unified piece of legislation, and I am very pleased to see that we have. I want to acknowledge the great work that has been done by Minister Johnston’s team and all the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety personnel who have worked hard over so many years. I am sure that a couple of bottles of champagne will be cracked tonight if we manage to get this legislation through. I think this legislation is very important. This legislation is not about convicting people; it is very much aimed at improving the focus on occupational health and safety in the workplace and creating a culture that will see a high degree of awareness of risk, a high degree of literacy in assessing risk and a great preparedness to take the steps necessary to make sure that every Western Australian worker comes home at night. HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [5.39 pm]: I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the third reading of the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019. When this bill was brought on for debate for the first time on 15 September 2020, I advised that the opposition’s position was that it would not oppose the bill, but it had some amendments for the chamber’s consideration. Our position has not changed. We still do not oppose the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019 and we are pleased to have had the opportunity to move various amendments. What has changed is that the bill now before the chamber is significantly different from that which was second read on the following day, 16 September. The first time that this bill came on for consideration by the house for debate was 15 September, and on the next day it was second read. In other words, for those interested stakeholders, all 35 voting members of the chamber who wanted to say something on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019 had the opportunity to do so on 15 and 16 September. The entire debate on this matter took place over the course of those two sitting days, because the government brought it on for the first time for debate on 15 September this year. However, the bill that is currently before us is significantly different, to the tune of 43 amendments by my count. Very interestingly, 30 of those amendments came from the government, 10 from the opposition and three from the Greens.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7095

The question that needs to be answered in part at this point is: has the bill been stuck or delayed in the Legislative Council? I note that in an article titled “Get Justice For Jonnie” in The West Australian of 21 October, the following remark was made by the two authors of the article — The Bill, which has been stuck in the Upper House since February, was debated throughout the night with all clauses finally agreed to by 10pm. In a moment I will deal with whether the bill has indeed been stuck in the Legislative Council since February this year. The article goes on to refer to me and says — South Metropolitan Region MP Nick Goiran, a Liberal, yesterday addressed the rally’s calls for action in Parliament, claiming the legislation had been stalled “not because it’s a Bill that shouldn’t be passed” but because it was “flawed” with late introductions of “Henry VIII” clauses. That is wrong. With due respect to the authors, I have never suggested that the government has brought in by way of late introduction Henry VIII clauses. The Henry VIII clauses were in the bill all along; they were not lately introduced. More to the point, it is worth interested stakeholders being aware of this very important convention and principle of Parliament: the legislative agenda is determined by the government of the day. The McGowan government decided to introduce this bill in the other place on 27 November last year, but not bring it on for debate until 19 February this year. The McGowan government decided not to move that the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review review the whole bill when it was referred to that committee on 20 February this year. It decided to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Legislation on 21 May, with instructions for that committee to look at only one of the 16 parts of the bill. The McGowan government decided to bring in a plethora of amendments, in part because it had catastrophically failed to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those are the inconvenient facts, particularly for the Minister for Industrial Relations, who has been on a strong crusade to try to paint the Liberal Party in particular, as the opposition, but also other non-government parties, as somehow being architects of the bill being stuck or delayed in the Legislative Council. As I say, the first time that the bill was able to be debated by any of us—I was the first speaker—was on 15 September this year. Those people who want to say that this bill has been around since last year and it has been stuck in the Legislative Council since February should talk to the McGowan government, because it, and in particular the Leader of the House, determines when we get the opportunity to discuss these things, and the first time was on 15 September, and on the next day, 16 September, the bill was second read. Some people might say that it has been a long time since 16 September. As today is 21 October, it has been just over a month, so why has there been a delay over the past month? As I say, the bill currently before the house is significantly different from the previous bill, to the tune of 43 amendments, 30 of which came from the government. I note also that this article that was printed today quotes the Minister for Industrial Relations on his ongoing crusade as saying — “The new legislation simply increases the penalty, it does not change the circumstances in which charges can be brought, … “The campaign by certain employer groups is misdirected. “It’s time for the Liberal Party to stop talking and support this legislation.” It would appear that, quite contrary to what the Minister for Industrial Relations has been quoted in the newspaper today as saying, the campaign by certain employer groups has not been misdirected. If it has been misdirected, why has the government moved, and had this place pass at its request, 30 amendments? Perhaps the campaign by certain employer groups actually was well directed. As I say, the house has, in addition, agreed to pass another 30 amendments. The reality is that, with regret, this deeply flawed bill that was introduced in the first instance, when added to the catastrophic consultation failures of this government and, frankly, the chaotic handling of the bill, has done nothing, with all due respect to the Minister for Industrial Relations, but guarantee that the Legislative Council is not going to have sufficient time this year to complete all the matters that the government would ideally like it to deal with. Had the bill been addressed in a far more sensible and competent fashion, including not flying through the other place, it might have been a different story. I turn to the amendments that have been agreed to by the chamber. I note that three amendments to clause 2 moved by the opposition were agreed to. They introduced an improvement that was recommended by the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. They also ensured that the statutory review provision will come into operation rather than being left for proclamation by the government. I note that clause 4 is now different from the one that was agreed to at the second reading, and that is because of one, in my view, unnecessary, albeit unobjectionable, government amendment pertaining to some belated drafting preference. Clause 5 is different from what was originally agreed to at the second reading, to the tune of two amendments moved by the Greens, one of which, interestingly, was opposed by the government. As I understand it, it simply confirmed when a strata company will be deemed to be a person conducting a business or undertaking.

7096 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Interestingly, there was a clause 12A in the bill that was read for a second time in this place. That no longer exists; that clause has gone, and that is because the government asked us to oppose it due to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review identifying that it was a Henry VIII clause. Clause 12B is different from that which was agreed to at the second reading, and that is the result of one government amendment that removed reference to health and safety magistrates following the pleas of the Chief Magistrate. Clause 30 has been amended by one amendment requested by the government, and that simply shifted the definition of “serious harm” from clause 31 to clause 30. Clause 30A, which attracted a fair amount of attention and controversy at various stages, was amended on four occasions at the request of the government. Two of those four occasions were, in my view, again, unnecessary but unobjectionable amendments that pertained to some belated drafting preferences. The other two addressed the fundamental failure by the government to capture actual knowledge of serious harm that results in death. There were a further two opposition amendments to fix drafting problems arising from the deletion of clause 30B. That takes me to clause 30B, which no longer exists in the bill that is now before the house and is in contrast to what was agreed to at the second reading stage. It has gone completely, admittedly at the suggestion of the opposition. Very interestingly, however, members will recall that it was done because the government asked us to oppose this ill-considered second tier of industrial manslaughter. One must ask the question, particularly for interested stakeholders: how much time might have been saved in the passage of this bill had the government not introduced clause 30B in the first place? We spent an inordinate amount of time on that clause only to have the government put a supplementary notice paper before us during the Committee of the Whole House asking us to oppose clause 30B. I move to clause 31, which was amended by the barest of margins—15 to 14 votes—at the request of the opposition. The amendment addressed a gaping hole that the government had left in the bill following the removal of clause 30B. Amazingly, the inept McGowan government flagged a proposal to also remove clause 31 in its entirety. Clauses 32 and 33 were each amended upon the government’s request, in this instance because of some drafting corrections. We then moved to clause 216, which was recommitted at the government’s request, again, because of its belated drafting preference and the consequence of that. Clause 223 was amended on one occasion at the request of the Greens, particularly Hon Alison Xamon. It should be acknowledged that all members of the house considered it to be a good improvement pertaining to reviewable decisions. Clause 230 was amended on two occasions at the government’s request, addressing fundamental flaws caused by the catastrophic failure to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, I ask the question, much as I did of clause 30B: how much time would have been saved had the government decided to talk to the Director of Public Prosecutions? It is quite remarkable that the McGowan government has at various times boasted about its machinery-of-government changes and, in particular, this department, which is headed by two ministers—Minister Johnston and Minister Quigley. Minister Quigley happens to be the Attorney General and also the Minister for Commerce. Apparently, it would have been asking too much of Ministers Johnston and Quigley to talk to each other, despite the fact that they are both heads of this department, to ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted. That catastrophic failure to consult caused significant issues and multiple government amendments to what would have otherwise been deeply flawed legislation. Clause 231 was amended on two occasions. The first amendment was again at the request of the government and consequential upon the earlier unnecessary but unobjectionable drafting preference. The second amendment, which deleted almost a full page of the bill, was required once again because of the failure of the government to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Clause 232 was amended on four occasions. The first amendment was from the government and was again due to the catastrophic failure to consult, and the second amendment was from the opposition, which was a consequential drafting amendment following the deletion of clause 30B. The third and fourth amendments were once again due to the government’s catastrophic failure to consult with respect to the DPP. Interested stakeholders who have been concerned about the amount of time that this bill has taken need only read the appendix of the Standing Committee on Legislation’s report, which annexes the two-page letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions, to see how bad it was that Ministers Johnston and Quigley were unable to talk to each other. Clause 272A was amended on two occasions at the government’s request to harmonise the maximum fines that will exist because of the insurance prohibition clause. Clause 274 was amended on one occasion, again at the request of the government, albeit it had to be fixed at the suggestion of, and after pressure was exerted by, Hon Michael Mischin. That amendment ensures that people can access codes of practice and other documents that can be used, I would say, to skewer people. There was some debate as to whether it would be a shield or sword; I have come to the conclusion that the codes of practice can be used to skewer people. Clause 287 was amended on two occasions at the request of the opposition to fix up the government’s statutory review clause to bring it in line with the twenty-first century. Clause 288 was before us at the second reading stage and was agreed to by the house. It is no longer there. It is gone at the request of the government. There is now a new clause 288, which is consequential on the government’s earlier request to amend clause 12B.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7097

Clause 417 was amended on three occasions at the request of the government, again consequential on the Chief Magistrate’s pleas that the government fix up an error it made in clause 12B. Schedule 1 was before us during the second reading and was agreed to. It is not there anymore. There is no schedule 1. It has gone and it is consequential on this government’s obsession with Henry VIII clauses. The Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review found that it was a Henry VIII clause and it requested that the government find an alternative to it. The government said that that would be too hard and it deleted the whole schedule and clause. Why was that? It is because the government wants two years to work out what it needs to do with dangerous goods. Schedule 2 was amended on one occasion at the request of the government, again as a consequence of the earlier amendments that it made to clause 12B. Even the long title of this bill has not been immune to amendment. At the government’s request, the long title has been amended on two occasions. That, again, is consequential on the government’s obsession with Henry VIII clauses at clause 12A and its unpreparedness to deal with dangerous goods and high-risk plants for two years. I have taken some time to take interested stakeholders through that large list of amendments agreed to by the house to explain why the bill that is currently before the house is significantly different from the bill that was originally pressed at the second reading. In conclusion, I make this observation: I think it is bizarre that the McGowan government decided to start what I have described and acknowledged was a gold-standard law reform consultation process, only to allow it to degenerate into a process that involved a stacked ministerial advisory panel and a catastrophic failure to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. Worse still, after all that, it sought to shift the blame onto the Legislative Council, the upper house. It said that the bill had been stuck in the upper house despite the fact that the government determines the agenda. The bill had to be amended on 43 occasions, 30 of which were government amendments. I make this final observation. I know that there is genuine goodwill and intent by a vast number of stakeholders impacted by this legislation—stakeholders within the industry, whether they are unions, employers or the families who have suffered through the tragedy of losing a loved one. I know that the strength of feeling is genuinely held by all those groups. If those stakeholders are interested in law reform in this area, I ask and recommend that they do one thing, which is to look at the government response that it tabled yesterday to the thirty-first report of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, titled “Coming Home Safely: WorkSafe and the Workplace Culture in Western Australia”. It is a mammoth report on this issue of workplace culture and the role of WorkSafe. It is so large that it is to the tune of 523 pages. Some interested stakeholders will read all of it while others, understandably, will not be as enthusiastic to do so. I would, however, suggest that they read the 25-page response from the government. The 25-page response from the government tells people everything they need to know about the authenticity of this government to deal with the real issues of workplace safety. I encourage those stakeholders to take a look at that 25-page report. I suspect very much that those interested stakeholders will be appalled that the government could pen such a contemptuous response to an inquiry of a standing committee of this place that took more than three years. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [6.01 pm]: I want to say only a few words on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019. I am one of the members in this place who has been calling for reform in this space for a long, long time, even before my first term in Parliament when I worked in the union movement. I am very glad that we are finally seeing this long overdue and desperately needed reform. I note that too many families have suffered injustice because of the penalties that have been meted out when wrongdoing by employers has been found out. I am sad that we cannot, of course, change history in that regard, but I hope that we will be able to see better outcomes for people in the future, noting that the purpose of this type of legislation is to save people from being injured and killed in the first place by creating a disincentive for employers to provide unsafe workplaces. I say from the outset that I am pleased to see industrial manslaughter come through as an offence, but I note that we still have in front of us in this bill penalties for industrial manslaughter that do not mirror the manslaughter provisions that exist in the Criminal Code. We still have a two-tiered manslaughter regime, which recognises that manslaughter that occurs under the Criminal Code attracts higher penalties than manslaughter that occurs on worksites, and I am disappointed about that. I hope that at some point we will have manslaughter provisions that are consistent across the board. I particularly pay tribute to those families, many of whom I have been in contact with for a very long time and some of whom I have known in more recent years, for what they have brought to this debate. They have been able to rise above their pain, distress and loss to ensure that these necessary changes occurred. I want to pay tribute in particular to Regan Ballantine. Nothing can bring Wes back, but, hopefully, this at least brings some degree of comfort. I also want to note my disappointment that it took so long for this bill to finally come to this place and be debated. I have noticed that over the course of the last week in particular there has been some pretty unseemly behaviour in relation to allegations being made about the progress of this bill, including, unbelievably, against the Greens, which have been straight-out lies, particularly considering the Greens have been at the forefront of pushing for improved

7098 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] and increased penalties around this area for a very long time—certainly when the Labor Party in opposition stood in the way of any sort of reform around this. It has been very disappointing to see that sort of poor behaviour, but I am glad that we are here now and that this bill has finally been addressed. As I said in the second reading debate, it is one of the two reforms that I critically wanted to see happen during my term in Parliament. I hope that this will be successfully passed in the other place and that we can move on to having that long overdue, improved regime for worker safety in this state. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and returned to the Assembly with amendments. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 15 October on the following motion moved by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) — That pursuant to standing order 69(1), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 4389A–D (budget papers 2020–21) laid upon the table of the house on Thursday, 8 October 2020. HON CHARLES SMITH (East Metropolitan) [6.05 pm]: I will bring my comments on the budget papers to a close. I will briefly sum up the main points that I was trying to make to the house. I was saying that a little bit of state protectionism is good. I will even expand on that and be brave: slapping some iron ore tariffs on China is good policy; diversification is good policy; investment in new manufacturing is good; enhancing productivity measures is good; continuing, or trying to continue, the population Ponzi scheme is bad; and amnesties for sending our taxpayers’ money to property developers is bad. Unfortunately, the government continues to do those last two things. For me, the budget continues to be a resounding fail. I conclude my statement there. Thank you. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [6.07 pm]: I rise to make some comments on the budget papers. At the outset, I will make some comments this evening and tomorrow I will seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage in order for Hon Nick Goiran and Hon Alison Xamon to make their contributions. We have made some accommodation for the bills this week. I was meant to deliver my speech on Tuesday, but that is just how we will operate it. I am delighted to stand and make some comments on the budget papers. My original intention was that this was to be my last speech on the budget. My Belgian friend and I were going to go out together. He lived up to the bargain but I did not. I can say that as far as Mathias is concerned, he has been an exceptional Minister for Finance—the longest-serving finance minister for Australia. I would like to think that he will become the new head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. If he does, I will miss him, Hayley, “Izzy” and “Charlie”, but it will be a good place to visit, ideally, when the borders eventually come down. All the best, Mathias. You’re a champion, mate. I intend to go through several issues that have arisen, particularly over the last 12 months. I want to make some comments on COVID and the impact it has had on our community as a whole. I will comment on the issues regarding an agency of government, the Corruption and Crime Commission, and issues that have arisen as a direct result of decisions made by the government regarding the CCC. In particular, I will refer to certain standards that mean that we, as an opposition, have not been able to sufficiently, as I see it, scrutinise government legislation and spending. That has continued to concern me or over the four years of this government. I have moved probably five or six motions on transparency and the government’s lack of fulfilment of a promise to provide an open and transparent government. I do not need to go over all those issues again, but I will most definitely touch on a couple of the more problematic issues as far as the opposition is concerned. Mindful of the fact that we have a debate tomorrow on what is seen as the politicisation of government agencies, including Lotterywest, I would like to make some introductory comments to that debate now that fall in line with my response to the budget papers. We are talking about Lotterywest spending. Over the last three years, we have seen a shift in terms of the decision-making of Lotterywest. That is not the gospel according to Pete; that is the gospel according to the CEO. The CEO admitted on the ABC earlier this month that there has been a shift in the priorities of Lotterywest. I will provide evidence of that tomorrow. Trying to get information, yet again, from the government on the spending of Lotterywest has been problematic. People have heard me ask around eight questions on Lotterywest, in particular about a grant proposal from Victory Life Centre, the Margaret Court Community Outreach centre, which provides 75 tonnes of food and supplies for 4 000 people a week—extraordinary! The centre put in an application for a freezer van to assist it in the process. It was knocked back exclusively because of Margaret Court’s views on same-sex marriage. There is no ambiguity. It was knocked back because of Margaret Court’s views on same-sex marriage. Again, members should not take my word for it. That was admitted by the CEO of Lotterywest on ABC radio. She also told representatives of Victory Life Centre that that is why they had their application rejected and that they need not apply for further grants.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7099

I asked the Premier about this. My first question got the usual hand straightaway. I asked him whether any church had applied for a Lotterywest grant, what church was involved and why was it rejected. This was the answer that came back — (1)–(3) Decisions on grant applications from LotteryWest are made by the LotteryWest board, which is independent of Government. The decisions are independent, to a degree, but it does not mean that the Premier cannot answer the question; he can answer the question. Today, I asked the Premier another question based upon the fact that in section 26 of the Lotteries Commission Act, it states that the minister can access information from Lotterywest specifically for the purpose of answering a question from Parliament. I asked a legitimate question. I am going to talk about this tomorrow. Unfortunately, I only get to talk for 20 minutes; I would love to have an hour on this. As a community and a government, if we have got to the point where Lotterywest is, quite frankly, complicit in social engineering, we have to seriously look at Lotterywest in terms of its board and where we are going. Really? I admit this: Margaret Court is one of my closest friends. I have known Marg my entire adult life. I coached with her for 30 years. I have travelled around with Marg for tennis. That has nothing to do with the comments I make now and the comments that I intend to make tomorrow during debate on that motion. I am not a member of the Victory Life church at all. Once a year I go to the Anzac ceremony. I really enjoy it. I am a Christian but I am not involved with any denomination or church; I just have a faith. But it incensed me that this has happened to an organisation or a government agency like Lotterywest, which is logically meant to provide grants, believe it or not—not believe it or not—to organisations that actually provide a benefit to the community. Yet somehow an organisation that provides a tremendous benefit to 4 000 people in our community every week is value judged because the board of Lotterywest has said, “Margaret Court doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage so you are not going to get a grant.” That is exactly what happened, members. That board said, “You are not going to get a grant and you’ll never get a grant while Margaret Court is head of that church.” That is what Lotterywest is all about. When was the last time anyone here thought that that was the case? Where is the social engineering? This is exactly what we are talking about in terms of social engineering. An agency such as Lotterywest, which is sacrosanct in the eyes of the community, is starting to make value judgements like that. Do members know what? It has been happening for the last three years. They are not my words; they are the words of the CEO. Interestingly enough, three years ago, the previous board was napalmed—the government got rid of it and put in place a new board. That new board happens to include the former Attorney General, Jim McGinty. Hon Charles Smith: Labor? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes. This really struck a chord with me. As I said, everyone knows that I have been associated with Margaret Court—one would have to be an idiot not to know that—but that has nothing to do with this. This has nothing to do with my association with Marg or the church. I have no association with the church and I respect Marg’s commitment to her faith and her community, but that has nothing to do with this. I was a minister for nine years and over that time, I personally distributed dozens of Lotterywest grants. One of the great opportunities I had as a minister was when I got to go out and visit the various little groups with their volunteers, who were doing such a good job in assisting the community, and was able to give them a cheque for $3 000, $5 000 or sometimes $50 000 to help them operate. The Victory Life community service group was just asking for a bit of money for a freezer van to assist them in their operations. They had provided everything else and had never asked for anything. They just wanted a bit of money for a freezer van to assist those 4 000 people every week. Remember that, members, to put things in perspective. If members want some perspective, I challenge them to have a look at the big shed that those dozens of volunteers work in in Osborne Park. Every week a multitude of food and clothing is distributed throughout the community to people who desperately need it. The amount of food and supplies that has been distributed over the last six months has doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic. This puts an enormous pressure on the outreach centre to provide food for some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised people in our community. The people who are really affected are not Marg and Barry or the church members; it is, quite frankly, the people who desperately need food at the moment and who are really struggling. They are the ones who really need this service. They are the ones who suffer as a result of this social engineering from Lotterywest. I will speak about that tomorrow. I will also give the specifics about the admission from the CEO that the decision the board made was exclusively as a result of Margaret Court’s views on same-sex marriage, and also that they need not bother applying again. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2019 Statement HON MATTHEW SWINBOURN (East Metropolitan) [6.20 pm]: I wanted to make a statement because I did not get an opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2019. I thought it was better to hold my tongue on the third reading so that the bill could finally pass. I will take this opportunity during a member’s statement to make a few brief comments.

7100 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

Like some other members, such as Hon Kyle McGinn and Hon Alison Xamon, in my first speech to this house I called for industrial manslaughter laws to be introduced. I am sure that other members of this chamber have also advocated for that. I am pleased that we will now have laws of that kind. I must personally admit that I would have liked clause 30B to have been retained in the legislation. I understand that when legislation comes through this chamber, the old rule 13–22 applies—that is, the Clerks’ rule about how the numbers in this house generally break up. It is the case that the government does not have the numbers to just get what it wants or any of those sorts of things; it must compromise. That is what happened with the Work Health and Safety Bill, and I accept the compromise. From my contact with the families of workers who have passed away, I know they accept the compromise as well. I do not see it as a failure or flaw of the bill that we had to compromise to get it through this chamber. In my view, the debate was painful, and unnecessarily so. The feedback that I got from the affected families was also that it was painful. Members of this house should reflect on how the community perceives the way in which we conduct ourselves. The way we conduct ourselves is not well understood outside of this chamber. It is not appreciated. Members conduct themselves earnestly, and sometimes not earnestly—perhaps disingenuously and in a manner that is more about scoring points and feathering egos, and any number of other things. I hope at some stage we have some reform of the Legislative Council so that it more accurately reflects the perceptions of our community—the people we are here to represent—and that we conduct ourselves in the most efficacious way when considering legislation. Notwithstanding the compromises involved in passing the bill, it is a very significant reform. One of the most significant reforms is the introduction of the concept of a PCBU—a person conducting a business or undertaking. This will mean that the regulator will be able to drive home the responsibility for workplace injuries and deaths to perhaps those who are the most responsible for them. My experience comes through my time working for the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and seeing employers, contractors, principal contractors and designers and others face very little sanction for their involvement in and responsibility for the serious injuries and deaths of workers. Deaths of workers gets the most publicity, but in that industry many, many very serious injuries to people get no publicity whatsoever. The impacts of a death on families are very well highlighted, but now we have some laws to go after those responsible. The concept of the PCBU will make a difference. Those who control the business unit are held responsible. If officers of corporations with decision-making responsibility are happy to take responsibility for the profit, they also have to be liable for the negative things that can happen in those situations. I also had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Legislation, which examined the Work Health and Safety Bill. I thank Hon Pierre Yang for stepping down so I could step up on that inquiry. I have to say that the quality of submissions made to that committee were not of equal measure. Perhaps I am a little biased because of my union background, but I did appreciate my union colleagues coming in and giving a very strong argument in support of elements of the bill. They were very well weighted arguments. They were not inclined to use hyperbole and they focused on what the bill could possibly achieve and how it would be achieved. I cannot say the same for those groups who represented alternative views. The contribution made by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association was truly alarming. The problem we are trying to deal with is the idea that the cost of people’s safety and wellbeing is just brought down to what it costs the individual in terms of money. It was shocking to listen to some of the evidence that was given. It was truly appalling for a representative from the Master Builders Association to equate families with just wanting to achieve an eye for an eye. Those families gain nothing out of this bill for their personal circumstances. They have lost their loved ones; they have gone. What they want to see is a regime that discourages employers and those who control workplaces from having another death in that workplace. That is all they want, so that another family does not have to go through what they went through. To call that an eye for an eye seriously puts into question the motives of the person who made that statement. I could not stand for it. I called it out at the time and I will call it out again. This is not what this is about. Nobody wants workplace deaths. Lobbying went on behind the scenes. Ridiculous arguments were raised against the bill. Individuals from this house were bullied behind the scenes by some of these groups, with threats of dire consequences thrown at them. None of that will happen. In some respects, this bill is a modest reform but a very important reform, and a reform in the right way. One thing is absolutely true: the culture of a workplace is very important in terms of how safe it is. No laws can stop good employers from having good safety cultures. Parliament does not need to make a law to do that—they should do that anyway. The idea that the safety chain will be broken by this law is absolute rubbish. Good, responsible employers will make sure that their workplaces are safe for all workers at all times. They do not need us to tell them to do that. These laws are not aimed at them; they are aimed at those who do not get that message and who are being expedient in terms of what they think about—money versus safety. They make a judgement to put in place a moral calculus. It is not even a moral calculus; it is perverted in that way. It happens. As I say, I am glad that the Work Health and Safety Bill passed this house. I am glad a reform that was introduced in most of the rest of Australia will finally be put in place here, after it passes the other place, after 10 years of it being in and around this place. I had the unique experience of drafting enterprise agreements 10 years ago that contemplated the introduction of this model law into workplaces. We kept turning it over every couple of years. We anticipated that it was coming. Finally, in 2020, it looks like it is about to pass. I am glad to see that.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7101

I will finish my comments by acknowledging the families. We can never appreciate the suffering that they have gone through with the loss of a loved one. The legislation committee heard evidence from some of the families and it is very hard to understand what they go through each day. I thank those families for being courageous enough to come in and share their stories. They continually share their stories and relive the emotion and the hurt that they went through probably the first time they heard they had lost their loved one. I hope no worker and no family goes through that ever again. Unfortunately, life suggests that that will probably be in vain. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge my union colleagues, who have been championing these changes for many years. It is a hard slog, but the bill has got here and I am really pleased that we now have the chance to see what these reforms can do to make our workplaces safer. RETURN-IT DEPOT — CLARKSON Statement HON TJORN SIBMA (North Metropolitan) [6.29 pm]: I intend to make only a very brief contribution. I have conveyed the nature of this statement to the Minister for Environment, Hon Stephen Dawson, because the issue pertains to his portfolio. I have reassured him that I intend to shine a light on an issue that probably involves a more robust and proactive response on behalf of the local government involved. It probably also potentially highlights an issue that relates to the rapid operationalisation of the container deposit depots. I think there might be some unintended consequences at least in the case of one I will mention here. In the last few days, I have received representations via Trish Botha, our Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Burns Beach, on behalf of residents and some businesses affected by the operation of the Return-It depot in Clarkson located at 23–25 Caloundra Road. The essence of the complaint is that serious aggravations are being caused by either glass processing, crushing or handling within that facility that operates, I understand, from Monday to Friday and now on weekends. The sound is allegedly permeating in the residential area some 200 to 250 metres away from the site. I have been advised by residents there that when they have sought some sort of redress or action from the City of Wanneroo, the city has advised them that they should effectively take a log of complaints for a period of three weeks and the city will helpfully send them out the form to make these log entries on, but short of that has not made any offer to send out some noise measuring equipment or council officers who we would think would ordinarily deal with these issues in the day-to-day discharge of the health and environment functions that the departments often attached to a larger authority in any event. I am here to urge the City of Wanneroo to immediately attend the site, if it finds it within its power, and start taking some measurements. If indeed those measurements reflect a problem or exceedences of volume that is otherwise permitted by our environmental regulations that a swift, meaningful and final outcome that will fix the problem. I am a little bit grumpy with the initial bureaucratic response on behalf of local government and the sense of blame shifting between state and local. However, I must say I have heard none of that negativity or lack of responsibility adopted by the state government yet. I want to highlight this issue and wonder whether there might be some problems with similar facilities co-located in mixed-use environments particularly those without a real large buffer between residential areas. I imagine this is completely well intentioned. The government has every right to introduce the legislation and enact this program in the way it has done so. But I am now a little bit concerned that perhaps some of the depots in which this activity is taking place are causing a negative environmental outcome that is undermining the quality of life and business practice for everybody it surrounds. I look forward to a response of some form from the minister at the time as well as an expedient and proactive response from the City of Wanneroo if it is within its power, and a positive outcome for the residents concerned. GORDON WISE — TRIBUTE Statement HON DR SALLY TALBOT (South West) [6.33 pm]: On 25 February 2016 I made a statement in this Parliament paying tribute to a remarkable man, Gordon Wise, who had a few months earlier been awarded France’s highest honour, the Légion d’honneur. The award was a recognition by the French of the significant role played by service men and women of other nations to the liberation of France during the Second World War. Although I was able to tell only a small portion of Gordon’s story in my statement that evening, I hope I was able to give members a sense of a remarkable man whose devotion to duty as an airman during the war was followed by a long life of deep spiritual conviction during which he never resiled from his profound commitment to a fine and inspiring set of values. I am sorry to tell the house now that Gordon Wise has died. He passed away at his home in Ticehurst, East Sussex, in the UK, early in the morning of Sunday, 4 October 2020. It is fitting, I think, that this Parliament note Gordon’s passing and, in so doing, send its condolences to Gordon’s wife, Marjory, and his family. Gordon was the son of Frank Wise, who became the sixteenth Premier of Western Australia in 1945, having been elected, along with Bert Hawke and John Tonkin, as a Labor member of Parliament in 1933. Gordon was born in Queensland in 1923

7102 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] and spent time in both Broome and Carnarvon before arriving in Perth in the year his father entered Parliament. He was a scholarship student at Perth Modern School, then when he was 18 years old he joined the Royal Australian Air Force, where he saw several years of active service during the Second World War. In 2006, Gordon published an autobiography, dedicated “To my Australian family, who may wonder how I spent the past 83 years”. His opening words are “I am an ordinary Australian”, but within a few lines he is describing conversations with giant personalities who include Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Clement Atlee, John Curtin, Konrad Adenauer and Jawaharlal Nehru. A delightful paragraph follows this list, and I will quote from his book, according to my note — “So what?’ you may say. I am reminded of one of Fredrick the Great’s advisors who said, ‘That general is a great military leader.’ ‘Why?’ asked the Emperor. ‘He has been in four wars,’ answered the advisor. The Emperor riposted, ‘You see that mule? He has been in five wars but he is still a mule.’ So in writing down some memories, it may become clear that I have not improved much on the mule—though a mule, I am bound to say, is a very useful beast in the right place at the right time.” Gordon has been interviewed about his memories of John Curtin, and the transcripts, which are held in the John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library, make great reading. Their first meeting was around 1937 when Gordon had wandered from school into town to get a lift home with his father, who was at that stage a state government minister. They found Curtin, who was by then Leader of the Opposition, waiting at a bus stop on Mounts Bay Road and gave him a lift back to Cottesloe. Here is how Gordon described a later meeting, after Curtin became Prime Minister, when Gordon and his friend Jim Coulter went to London on a break from Air Force training leading up to D-day. The following conversation is reported verbatim and I quote from my note — We went to London and we heard, because the papers then didn’t say much about what was happening with national leaders, but we heard that John Curtin was coming for a Dominion Prime Ministers Conference. He went to America and landed [in Britain] by ship on April 29. So as we knew his private secretary, Fred McLaughlin, Coulter and I went off down to The Strand to Australia House. We had the temerity to find our way to Fred McLaughlin’s office and said, ‘any chance of shaking hands with the Prime Minister?’ Fred being his private secretary and in command of the diary said, ‘There’s just no chance, his time is totally booked.’ We felt a bit disappointed but came outside. As we stood on the pavement for a minute a big black Daimler car pulled up with an Australian flag. So we thought well that’s possibly the Prime Minister’s car, why don’t we just wait and at least see him drive off? So we stood there and then Curtin came out soon after. Seeing our uniforms, the RAAF, he came straight across to us and he talked to Jim first who was closest to him. ‘What’s your name?’ And so Jim said, ‘My name is Jim Coulter, from Perth.’ He said ‘Any relation to Jack Coulter, Plaza Theatre manager?’ So Jim said, ‘My father.’ ‘Oh.’ he said ‘I know him.’ And then he said to me, ‘What’s your name?’ I said ‘Gordon Wise.’ He said ‘The son of Frank Wise?, I’ve got a letter for you from your father.’ So he said ‘Hop in the car.’, and came to the hotel. So there we were jumping in the car with the Prime Minister and we went round to the Savoy Hotel which was five minutes drive down the Strand. So he said, ‘Come up to my hotel bedroom.’ He said ‘I’ve got to change my clothes, I’ve got to go to the Palace for an event.’ So he said ‘We can talk up in my bedroom and I’ll get the letter for you.’ So we went up to his room and we sat in the sitting room. He went into the bedroom and proceeded to put on his striped trousers and what have you for going to meet George VI and the other Prime Ministers while chatting away to us. It was an extraordinary moment because there you had the Prime Minister of our country chatting away while he changed his clothes in the next room getting ready to go to the Palace and totally involved with us. So he found the letter from Dad which he had brought. The COVID-19 restrictions currently in place in the United Kingdom meant that that Gordon’s funeral service last week was small and private and many people are sad that they could not be with Marjory and her family to pay fitting tribute to Gordon at his funeral. Marjory says that the family knew that Gordon was comfortable and peaceful in his last hours, laughing with one of his carers and pointing upwards to indicate where he was heading on his next journey. His family feels grateful that he is now released from the difficulties of his long illness, while noting how amazingly well he coped with those difficulties. Thanks to our former colleague in this place John Cowdell, who was a close friend of Gordon’s for many years, I am able to share with honourable members an account of Gordon’s funeral by Mike Deeks, Western Australia’s Agent General, who was one of only 30 people able to attend. According to my notes, Mr Deeks wrote in an email — It was a very simple graveside affair with us all carefully spaced out as per the rules. Marjory had arranged for the three local ministers (Catholic, Anglican and, I think, Presbyterian) to all participate in the Service in accordance with Gordon’s wishes. Amazing Grace was played at the start of the service and Peter Allen singing ‘I Still Call Australia Home’ at the end […]. The coffin was made from banana leaves and is entirely biodegradable. The Aussie flag and Gordon’s medals were on the coffin along with some beautiful flowers. I was presented with the flag and medals during the service, which was unexpected and a nice touch. Marjory was, as expected, very stoic. Her son Gordon and his partner, Michael […] were great support to her.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7103

Mr Deeks also placed a notice in The West Australian of Monday, 12 October calling Gordon a man who devoted his life to others. WA family members paid their tribute on 14 October, expressing their great affection for Gordon and his remarkable life of service to others across the world. Gordon’s quiet funeral is in stark contrast to the state funeral accorded to his father, Frank, in 1986. I will again quote from Gordon’s autobiography, which, according to my notes states — To experience the full magnificence and graciousness of Western Australia’s last tribute to my father was overwhelming. There were twelve pallbearers, headed by the Premier, Brian Burke, with Kim Beazley, Junior, federal minister of Defence, representing Prime Minister Bob Hawke. The entire state cabinet attended the service in the Cathedral, together with three former state Premiers, the leaders of the opposition, the senior churchmen, the judiciary, the consular corps and the service chiefs. The Archbishop of Perth came back from retreat to give the blessing...” Gordon tells us that his father was twice offered a knighthood—in 1948 and 1954. It was, he notes, Labor Party policy not to accept old Empire knighthoods so both times his father sent back telegrams saying “Beg to decline” which apparently was the established code to ensure news of the refusal did not leak publicly. Frank, however, added the words, “Have not deserved it.” I cannot help thinking that Gordon’s response would have been very similar. He was clearly a modest man, who was loved and respected by his many friends for his grace and humility. Gordon did not deserve a modest send-off and Marjory has said that there will be a full celebration of Gordon’s life at some stage in the future. In the meantime, I know that members will want to join me in expressing our sadness at the loss of a fine man. The PRESIDENT: I add my condolences to the Wise family on Gordon’s passing. GUIDE DOGS WA Statement HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [6.42 pm]: There is lots of talk about the need to create jobs at both the federal and state level, and for good reason, particularly because the COVID-19 pandemic means that we are likely to be looking at a recession next year and that means that we need to look at opportunities to create employment. I want to draw to members’ attention a business case that has been put forward by Guide Dogs WA that is about creating jobs and addressing the longstanding need to deal with the backlog in the availability of guide dogs. As I have mentioned previously in this place, there is a backlog, a long waiting list, and not everyone who needs a guide dog is able to get one. Further, it costs a lot of money—about $50 000—to train a guide dog, a cost that is effectively covered by charitable donations. We need to acknowledge the fantastic work that Guide Dogs WA does. One of the things that Guide Dogs WA is looking to do is to set up and run what it describes as a world-class breeding program in multiple regions right across Western Australia. It is hoping to increase the number of available puppies in our state. It is looking to match between 70 and 100 guide dogs with people each year. It is very keen to broaden the reach of these dogs, which are highly trained, so that they can also meet the increasing need for autism assistance dogs, therapy dogs, dementia dogs, court dogs in the justice systems, post-traumatic stress disorder dogs and mental health assistance dogs, as well as guide dogs. The important role that these highly trained dogs play in the community has become increasingly understood. Guide Dogs is looking to create about 30 cadet traineeships and it estimates that it will result in 25 full-time equivalent new jobs. It is also seeking to create an additional 150 volunteer positions to enable this to happen. It is seeking a one-off contribution from government to establish the program. A lot of issues need to be addressed. One of the problems is that suitable puppies are not being bred in our state. Guide dog puppies have to be purchased from either over east or New Zealand and that has created a number of issues. Guide Dogs WA has been particularly affected by the difficulty in sourcing puppies during COVID but it is finding that breeders, particularly those over east and in New Zealand, tend to hold onto the best-bred dogs, which means that the dogs they are being sent here are, what it terms, of a lower quality, which means that the dogs that are being bred here are not acclimatised to the Western Australian climate and so they are experiencing a disproportionate number of things such as skin allergies— and that is within the context of an already existing shortage of breeders across Australia. There is also a worldwide shortage of guide dog trainers and mobility instructors. Guide Dogs WA constantly struggles to recruit appropriately qualified trainers in Western Australia and, of course, it competes with the eastern states. It has come up with a solution to this involving the recruitment of top-level genetic expertise to ensure that it has dogs within Western Australia from which it can breed. It is looking to establish a partnership with a university over here and also building a network of volunteers to assist with the breeding program. It has estimated that if the program is able to proceed, up to 100 more people will benefit from the invaluable support of a guide dog each year. Of course, we know that in addition to the enormous positive social impact that will have on people, for many it will enable them to return to or commence employment, which will obviously broaden the benefit even further to the wider economy and will mean more than simply the jobs that are created in the breeding program. Guide Dogs WA wants to create a cadet program for dog trainers and establish a partnership with a training body so that it can set up a remote postgraduate course in orientation and mobility speciality for allied health professionals. It wants

7104 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] to develop an advanced specialised cadet program for guide dog trainers and look at the availability of career progression. Hopefully, it can create a hub within Western Australia of guide dog trainers, who can then be utilised in other states and elsewhere, but this state will generate that expertise and make sure that it is meeting the need here within Western Australia. Guide Dogs WA has put together a carefully costed business case and has identified that it will be able to establish a world-class breeding program with an investment of $5 million, which it will match with $5 million from money it has sourced from donations and bequests. Guide Dogs WA is not simply asking for money; it is well and truly putting its hand in its own pocket to achieve this outcome that will be beneficial for people who are visually impaired and blind and will create jobs and provide a suite of guide dogs that are able to assist in a whole range of other areas. That will have positive flow-on effects for our economy. I also note that Guide Dogs WA already has suitable premises to implement these measures. I think this is something members are likely to hear more about. I certainly encourage Guide Dogs WA to make this idea more widely known. It is a relatively modest investment, when we look at what could potentially be produced out of this and how beneficial it would be for so many in our community and also Australia-wide. These dogs are trained to support people who need a range of supports through dog therapy, whether they are the vision impaired, or blind, or they have autism, dementia, mental health issues or post-traumatic stress disorder, and also people who are vulnerable in our justice system and children with all kinds of disabilities. I think this is an exciting opportunity. We talk about jobs, but this is a really unique job with enormous flow-on benefits. I hope it can be seriously considered by government. I would be absolutely thrilled by any announcement or commitment at any point before the election to fund such a fantastic idea. AGRICULTURAL AND HOSPITALITY SKILLED WORKERS Statement HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [6.50 pm]: Before I make a brief member’s statement tonight I want to reiterate the words of Hon Matthew Swinbourn, who just spoke before, and acknowledge his work in what is getting ever closer to becoming historic legislation here in Western Australia to protect workers. Everyone has a right to come home from work safely. A lot of people have put a lot of work into this bill and it is indeed a historic moment for the state. Tonight, I briefly want to make some concluding remarks on my contribution earlier today to the motion moved by Hon Colin de Grussa. I had a short time to reflect on how we have managed the shortage of workers. I wanted to make a couple of observations. I sat at the back and listened to the contributions from all the parties. Hon Colin de Grussa meant well. His motion was well intended, but it offered no solutions to how we should address this problem. Hon Dr Steve Thomas’s only solution was to open the border. That is not a good idea and it is not supported by the public. He gave up fairly easily on alternatives to how we might address the issue. Hon Colin Tincknell gave an incoherent address. We also heard from Hon Charles Smith, who thought that paying workers a higher rate of pay might incentivise them to work, which sounds fair and reasonable. The difference I noted was that only one speaker brought some proactive and solutions-based ideas to this debate, and that was the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Hon Alannah MacTiernan. All the way through she has been the only person to put a hand up and ask: how are we going to manage this problem that is looming in front of us? Hon Peter Collier interjected. Hon DARREN WEST: That is already done, member. How are we going to train workers to adapt to these roles that need to be filled in the regions? How are we going to take workers who have lost their jobs through COVID and retrain and reskill them to drive our agricultural machinery? The issue touched on by Hon Rick Mazza is a very live one, and that is the issue of JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Ask any hospitality operator and they will stay that that is the impediment to them finding staff. I was in the Imperial Homestead in York, which is the winner of a heritage award. I presented the award and the subsequent discussion was about the difficulty in finding staff. It is not that staff are not there; they are cooped up on these JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments. That is a very real, live issue. The coalition—the opposition—may want to tell its friends in the federal government how we might change it for agriculture and hospitality. That would be a fruitful discussion, should it be held. Just to reiterate the point: it is the McGowan Labor government that is driving what we need to do. We do not give up easily on our workers in Western Australia. They are the powerhouse of our economy and will step up this time and get the important roles of harvesting the crops, bailing the hay, shearing the sheep and picking the fruit. They will get that done. The minister has been proactive in providing training for young Aboriginal people to become shearers and training truck drivers. Hon Rick Mazza had it a little bit wrong there. A person cannot go from having a car licence and driving a car to driving a road train. I know that because I have a road train licence. Nor should they; they should have several years’ experience before learning to drive that type of truck. Courses have been undertaken at Muresk Institute, and the staff at Muresk have been fantastic in adapting to this here-and-now need and have trained several trainees through that course and made them ready to do these agricultural jobs of the future.

[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020] 7105

There has never been a better time to be in agriculture, and our Work and Wander Out Yonder program, which has been looked at with some disdain by the opposition, portrays agricultural careers in a good light. I do not hide away from that. I think the campaign could have been a little bit different, but it portrays our careers in a good light. That is a change, because it is not what we hear from the opposition and it is not what we read in the rural media. If we listen to ABC WA Country Hour, being a farmer in Western Australia sounds terrible. I welcome anything that portrays our industry in the light that it should be portrayed. To everyone who is contemplating taking up the offer to Work and Wander Out Yonder, just do it. It is a great opportunity to get out into some rural communities, meet some fantastic people and understand a little bit more about how the regional economy works. It is important as a consumer. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Isn’t it interesting how many different people from a whole range of walks of life we were able to quote who are taking up the opportunity? Hon DARREN WEST: Indeed, minister. Let us talk this up. We have had nothing but criticism and disdain from the opposition—no ideas. “Open the border” is really all it has got. It is great that our minister is so proactive. I think she is the best minister since Kim Chance and probably even as good as Minister Chance. I think it is great that we have a proactive and solutions-based minister who is getting on with the job of delivering the outcomes that the agricultural sector needs. Members should make sure they tell everyone to Work and Wander Out Yonder, because it is a great idea. House adjourned at 6.56 pm ______

7106 [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 21 October 2020]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

PATIENT ASSISTED TRAVEL SCHEME 3225. Hon Martin Aldridge to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to question without notice 815, answered on 13 September 2018, in relation to the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme (PATS), and I ask: (a) what is the status of recommendations 1 to 5, 8, 10 and 13 to 18, noting that the Government claims to have addressed the other recommendations; (b) when was the fuel and accommodation subsidy last reviewed by the Government and please table the review or advice received; (c) what was the actual cost of PATS in 2019–20 and projected costs in 2020–21; and (d) Have, or will, the Minister seek additional funding to further enhance PATS in the near term? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised: (a) Recommendations 1–5, 8, 10, and 13 to 15 continue to inform improvements to the PATS scheme administered by the WA Country Health Service (WACHS). Recommendation 17 was addressed in July 2019 and Recommendation 18 is currently being implemented. Recommendation 13, 14 and 16 were not supported by the previous Government when the report was tabled in 2015. (b) The PATS fuel and accommodation subsidy was reviewed by the Standing Committee on public Administration (SCPA) in June 2015. The report was tabled on 16 June 2015 and the then State Government’s response was provided on 17 August 2015 and is publicly available. (c) The full year spend on PATS subsidies and administration costs for 2019/20 was $35,518,542. Planned 2020/21 PATS budget allocation for PATS subsidies and administration is $37,887,005. (d) Yes. ______