[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 23 August 2006] 5115

Sadly, after 11 years Sunset has become, and remains, a neglected eyesore. Millions of dollars are being spent in just leaving it to rot. The money that has been spent on maintaining it to its present state could have been used incrementally over the time since it was closed to beautify the site. That cost was estimated at $6 million when it was first closed. At least that amount of money has been spent on all the security, which costs between $450 000 and $500 000 a year, and on all the committees and reports. A lot of time has been spent in working out what to do with the buildings instead of working out what to do with the site. I think that has been the problem. The solution that I have proposed will fulfil the concerns that have been raised by the local groups, authorities and individuals. A lot of people have written to me or come to see me about the government bill. Not one of those persons has suggested that the government bill should proceed. I had a meeting with the representatives of each of the local groups on Sunday for about three and a half hours. Those groups were the Sunset Heritage Association, the Keep Sunset Safe Group, and the Friends of Point Resolution Group. Importantly, this bill will fulfil the wishes of the Nedlands City Council, which rejects the government bill outright. I again pay particular tribute to Professor Geoffrey Bolton. I also pay tribute to Mrs Anne Pooley, who for many months sat on top of the Iris Avenue steps and collected signatures on petitions. That gave us a picture of the number of people from all over Western Australia who use that area. I also acknowledge Mr Greg Pooley; Mr Dick Frith, and his wife, Elizabeth; Mrs Bronwen Tyson from the Friends of Point Resolution Group; Mr Michael Travaglione; Dr Robin Collin from the Sunset Heritage Association; and Councillor Ian Argyle, who has spoken passionately on this issue. I am sure I have left someone out. This bill is in no way a sign of disrespect for the University of Western Australia. I hold that university in high regard. It is the university that I attended. However, we simply cannot hand over this site and give away our responsibility to future generations. If we do that, we will let down not only future generations, but also the past generations of this state that fought for the public policy principle of maintaining beautiful assets such as this in public ownership. The Berndt art collection can still be housed at the site, and the authority has the capacity to work with such corporations and other organisations to progressively restore and manage this site. There is plenty of scope for the acquisition of funds for the ongoing development of these buildings and the site. At this time in our economic history, a full and proper commitment, both financially and publicly, should be made to this site. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr E.S. Ripper (Deputy Premier). POLICE (COMPENSATION FOR INJURED OFFICERS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006 Second Reading MR M.J. COWPER (Murray) [4.20 pm]: I move - That the bill be now read a second time. Since the earliest establishment of the state legislature, an anomaly has developed in the status and treatment of Western Australian police officers who are injured or who otherwise suffer illness through the performance of police duty or functions, in that they are treated significantly differently from ordinary employees in terms of the support they receive for work-caused health problems. From the historic military foundations of the constabulary, police officers have been severely disadvantaged by a quirk of law under which their non- employee status as independent agents of the Crown has intentionally or inadvertently excluded them from consideration of the compensation benefits appropriately provided to all other workers in a modern and morally responsible society. The Parliament of Western Australia has rightly legislated to ensure that workers injured through no fault of their own in the course of their employment will be recognised, treated with dignity and financially supported toward rehabilitation and returned to a reasonable quality of life. Police officers are specifically excluded from that legislation, save for death. Successive governments and police administrations have not had the resolve to accept the moral responsibility for the impacts of this most injurious of professions, undertaken by good men and women in the service and protection of our society. On our behalf, police officers are frequently exposed to levels of physical and psychological trauma, thankfully unseen by the general public. Any number of cases are available to example the effects of this life of service undertaken in order that the community may be and feel confident of its safety and security. However, there is no balance in this service-benefit relationship when those dedicated officers who put themselves on the line for us suffer long-term and permanent injury or ill health leading to their being prematurely forced out of their vocation. They are not broken machines beyond their economic life, but human beings requiring ongoing and expensive medical and pharmaceutical assistance to endure the residual suffering arising from their police service. They and their families do not deserve to be consigned to a life of pain and poverty because they have been injured in the pursuit of our demands for law and order. In accordance with the Police Act 1892 and its regulations, the health and welfare of police officers who suffer illness and injury arising from work undertaken as police duty or functions are rightly and reasonably cared for at the expense of the Commissioner of Police. The current anomaly is revealed when a police officer 5116 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 23 August 2006] resigns, retires or otherwise leaves the Western Australia Police, such as under forced medical discharge. Thereafter the commissioner has no current authority to pay the expensive medical bills for persons who are no longer sworn police officers With a simple addition to the legislation, the Police (Compensation for Injured Officers) Amendment Bill 2006 will correct that circumstance and acknowledge the vital contribution that police officers make to the stability and quality of the Western Australian lifestyle. Members and former members of the police force will no longer have to demean themselves by begging for assistance with the high financial impost of medical, hospital and pharmaceutical services required to deal with residual illness and injuries suffered in the performance of a police duty or function. Policing is physically and psychologically demanding, and members and former members of the police force are disproportionately represented among workers who retire, resign or otherwise leave their employment with work-related health concerns. By this bill, these champions may be able to pursue a life of dignity without an ever-present worry about the affordability of essential professional support services. The state must accept responsibility for these consequential expenses in balance with the daily exposure to which police put themselves in protecting the community they serve. The bill makes provision for the Commissioner of Police to deny applications when the illness and/or injury arises through the fault or misconduct of a member or former member, and equally provides an avenue of review by the State Administrative Tribunal for an applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Police. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr E.S. Ripper (Deputy Premier). CARDIOTHORACIC SERVICES - FREMANTLE HOSPITAL Motion DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville) [4.25 pm]: I move - That this house calls on the government to reiterate its promise, as made by the Minister for Health in this house on 30 March 2004, to keep cardiothoracic services at Fremantle Hospital until the new Fiona Stanley hospital is complete and operational. In moving this motion, it was obviously my intent to hold the Minister for Health to a certain promise that he made along the way to the cardiothoracic unit at Fremantle Hospital. In discussions with the minister since then, he indicated that he has given that commitment to the hospital. I have to say, though, that I have had some further discussions since then - in fact, today - that cast a degree of doubt on that intention. This issue is all to do with the words of the promise and what will occur. Mr J.A. McGinty: I think it’s got more to do with the 35 000 people in the health industry responding to rumour, hearsay and innuendo. Dr K.D. HAMES: That may be the case, but I have to say that I suspect that some of them have been strong supporters of the minister. He therefore should not be too critical of them without knowing the whos, the whens and other details; I will certainly not give the minister those details. Nevertheless, I will go through the questions that have been raised. I will also go into the reasons the opposition needed to come to this situation in the first place, why it is raising this issue now and why there is any need for it to raise the issue. Frankly, if the minister had not done certain things, which I will detail in a moment, there would not have been any need to raise this issue. I will refer to some documents. I have with me a media statement from the Minister of Health of 20 December 2004 in which he made a commitment to retain services at Fremantle Hospital. However, the main document I want to present is The Harbour Reporter. I am sure the minister will recognise it. Mr J.A. McGinty: A great publication! Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes. The front page has a photograph of the minister’s smiling face flanked by two young doctors, by the looks of it, or a doctor and a nurse. It states - CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY, MRI REMAIN The key quote in that section is - I told Parliament that the cardiothoracic surgery unit at Fremantle . . . will remain operational until a cardiothoracic surgery unit is opened at the new southern tertiary campus. I think that was an excellent commitment. What led us from the minister having made that statement to everybody becoming concerned? The first thing that came to my attention was when the member for Alfred Cove asked a question of the minister in this house regarding the cardiothoracic unit. Her question 418 of 27 June states - In 2004 the minister stated that Fremantle Hospital was our most efficient tertiary hospital. In the same year he stated - . . . the cardiothoracic surgery unit at the Fremantle Hospital will remain operational until a new cardiothoracic surgery unit is opened at the new southern tertiary campus.