INTRODUCTION This Is an Interview with Eric Charlton for the Parliament

INTRODUCTION

This is an interview with Eric Charlton for the Parliament of Western Australia Oral History Project and the J.S. Battye Library of West Australian History.

Eric Charlton was born in Cunderdin, Western Australia, on 17 March 1938. He attended Tammin Primary School, Aquinas College and Wyalkatchem Convent. On leaving school Eric was employed on the family farm at Tammin.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Eric expanded his farming interests, purchasing properties at Koorda and Eneabba. He became active in local affairs and was branch secretary and zone delegate to the PIA, later WA Farmers' Federation. He also held almost every position in the Tammin Football Club and was a delegate to the Avon Football Association.

Eric Charlton joined the Country Party in 1964 and subsequently became Tammin Branch President, delegate to the Mount Marshall District Council, and delegate to both the State Council and State Conference. In this interview, Eric provides some valuable insights into the 1975 Country Party's withdrawal from its coalition with the governing Liberal Party and his own part in the reunification of the National Country Party and the National Party following the 1978 split.

In November 1984 Eric Charlton was elected as MLC for Central Province and became the first member elected to State Parliament for the reconstituted National Party of Western Australia.

During the interview Eric comments on several issues which were topical during his time in opposition. These include his thoughts on the divisions between urban and rural communities, fuel costs and tariff protection, electoral reform, Aboriginal funding, and the WA Inc Royal Commission.

Following the election of the Court Government in February 1993 Eric Charlton was appointed Minister for Transport. In the interview he provides insights into his vision for Western Australia's transport system, the decision to close the Midland Railway Workshops, the restructuring of Westrail, the amalgamation of the Department of Transport and the Department of Marine and Harbours, and the implementation of a number of major road and rail infrastructure projects such as the Graham Farmer Freeway and the Perth to Mandurah Railway. He also offers an incisive interpretation of the 1995 and 1998 waterfront disputes.

In June 2006 Eric Charlton was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM) for service to the Western Australian Parliament, particularly through the reformation of the transport system and contributions to the Roadwise project.

The series of interviews were conducted by Ron Chapman between 20 October and 12 November 2010 in digital format and extend over a period of 9 hours and 16 minutes.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Wkive

STATE LIBRARY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Transcript of an interview with

CHARLTON, Eric

b.1938 -

ACCESS OPEN RESEARCH: OPEN PUBLICATION: To be advised of request to publish whole or part thereof until 2022.

STATE LIBRARY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA - ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION DATE OF INTERVIEW: 2010 INTERVIEWER: Ron Chapman TRANSCRIBER: HANSARD-PARLIAMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA DURATION: 9 hours REFERENCE NUMBER: 0H3981 COPYRIGHT: Parliament of Western Australia and Library Board of Western Australia NOTE TO READER

Readers of this oral history memoir should bear in mind that it is a verbatim transcript of the spoken word and reflects the informal, conversational style that is inherent in such historical sources. The Parliament and the State Library are not responsible for the factual accuracy of the memoir, nor for the views expressed therein; these are for the reader to judge.

Bold type face indicates a difference between transcript and tape, as a result of corrections made to the transcript only, usually at the request of the person interviewed.

FULL CAPITALS in the text indicate a word or words emphasised by the person interviewed.

Square brackets [] are used for insertions not in the original tape.

NOTE TO READER

Bold type face indicates a difference between transcript and recording, as a result of corrections made to the transcript only, usually at the request of the person interviewed.

FULL CAPITALS in the text indicate a word or words emphasised by the person interviewed.

Square brackets [ ] are used for insertions not in the original tape.

Page SUMMARY

1 Born 17 Mar 1938 in Cunderdin Hosp Great grandfather settled in Yorke Peninsula SA from England in 1845 2 Grandfather arrived in Kalgoorlie in 1900 in Tammin in 1908 with a family of 6 children. Charlton’s father married Kathleen (Skinner) in 1937n and he was born in 1938. Sister Carmel was born in 1945. She is married but has no children. Carmel has recorded a lot of music and still travels to country music festival in Tamworth NSW and works with schoolchildren in musical presentations. At the time of interview was developing CD for use by Education Dept 3 Early childhood was spent on the family farm and he developed a strong bond with an uncle who lived with the family and encouraged Charlton’s interest in football. His first 3 years of schooling were conducted by correspondence. 4 Remembered, as part of his childhood, riding in the cab of a truck with no doors or running board, helping in the shearing shed, kicking a football amongst the sheep, spending time with other farmers’ children. Initial farm size was 731 acres which was expanded to two and half thousand acres by 1950s. He learnt basic “do and don’ts” from his parents but his father was a reserved man with interest mainly on the farm. 5 Charlton’s parents did not hold strong political views and he was baptized as a Catholic which was the religion of both parents. 6 As Charlton attended the local primary school he spent one week of the school holidays being schooled by nuns of St Joseph convent in Kellerberrin and was very receptive to the principles being taught. During World War II his father attended a Listening Post with a group of volunteers to observe planes and report any unusual activity. 7 Charlton was not particularly close to his father and was more influenced by his mother and uncle. He attended Tammin Primary School at age, the school bus being a converted buttere delivery van funded by (Sir) Henry Cooke. 8 Maths was his favourite subject at primary school which he attended for 4 years. He attended Aquinas in 1950. 9 Although discipline was strict he enjoyed his time as a boarder. 10 Charlton was very homesick at first but made friendships which have lasted a lifetime. He remained in the top group at school but particularly enjoyed football and cricket. He was impressed by many of the brothers on the teaching staff. 11 Charlton left Aquinas in 1952 as his parents wanted him to attend a new convent school in Wyalkatchem with his sister. 12 Charlton would have preferred to remain at Aquinas but established good relations with the Presentation Sister who ran the convent school He was on a member of Aquinas Parent Council and both his sons attended Aquinas. A grandson was a student there. 13 He left school at 15 to work on the farm and maintained a strong interest in football. 14 Charlton started as a 15 yr old with Yorkrakine Football Club and won an award. He began playing regularly with Tammin Football Club a few years later and became involved with the committee at a player level. 15 Encouraged by committee members he helped develop a new grass oval. After ceasing to play he held various positions on the committee, including president for a number of years and coached for a year. He was also an umpire for a year but preferred to a part of the club and local community. His sons played junior football Tammin. He considered his participation as important for his own development as he learned to deal with a variety of people and understanding various aspects of managing an organization. He was made a life member. 16 Between 1964 – 72 the family owned a property at Koorda which was purchased by his father and uncle as a part of the original partnership. Charlton took over his uncle’s half- share after marrying in 1962. In 1966 he was allocated a block of land (with Jim King) south of Eneabba of approximately 5000 acres which they cleared at weekends. 17 Charlton married Evette Monk, a Perth based nurse, in 1962. His wife converted to Catholicism and they wed in St Mary’s Cathedral. 18 Their first child, Tammy, was born 26 October 1962. She is married with three daughters and runs Landmark agency in Mukinbudin. A son, Michael, was born in 1965 and was tragically killed in a car accident in December 1989 after having left university to return to farming. Their youngest child Gavin, born in 1969, was in the same accident but survived uninjured. Neither man was wearing a seatbelt. Michael returned to the farm after completing high school and lives there with his wife and 5 children. 19 At the time of interview Charlton had 8 grandchildren spread between Tammin Primary School and University. He purchased the family farm from his father, who was reluctant to sell, in 1972. The local manager of National Bank agreed to lend the money. 20 Charlton’s parents retired to Perth. He bought, in 1995, a nearby property, he had previously leased. Originally 50% of the property was used for wheat and the other half for raising sheep. In an effort to conserve moisture he concluded stubble should not be burnt which has been the practice on the farm since 1981. He imported a Canadian machine which enabled direct seeding into the cropping so no cultivation was required

21 Operated a bulk fuel depot after the local agency closed. Golden Fleece operated a local roadhouse and was looking to expand its operation. Charlton started with bulk and drum fuel and delivered it to farmers. His philosophy: “things occurred when I saw a problem or a need. Operated Tammin-Yorkrakine mail contract for 7 years when local postmaster advised him it was closing. He bought a vehicle whick was driven by a local woman, Beverley Lippiatt. The service continues today. 22 Local community activities stood him in good stead for a future political career but at the time he considered it as a challenge to be overcome. With a group of people he bought at local service station/mechanical repair business and encouraged Peter James and his family from Perth to operate the business which was successful for many years. The same group also bought the local hotel and leased it for a number of years. The hotel is still operating under different owners. 23 Charlton was Branch Secretary and zone delegate for Primary Industry Association whick later became the WA Farmers Federation. It is the origin of the Country Party which started in 1913. Regular meetings aof the organization dealt with issues such as saleyards, stock to be sold and CBH. It dealt with industry activities and Country Party considered issues of country Australia such as health, transport and education. He joined the Country Party in 1964. 24 Charlton joined that party as like most country people he felt it was the one organization dedicated to improving the lot of country people although it was mainly known as a “farmers” party. Charlton believes the world runs on perception rather than facts; that it’s about presentations, publicity and promotion. 25 He felt Liberal Party was answerable to city dwellers in Perth. As a self-confessed long time critic he did not really become involved until “the split” in 1970s. When he contacted Hendy Cowan he was challenged by Cowan to do something himself. 26 When Charlton joined in 1964 the issues, as previously mentioned, health, education and transport remain the same issues today. At the time of joining he disagreed strongly with the Liberal Party’s stand on probate. 27 He often told colleagues in the Liberal Party: “We can’t promise you success, but we can promise you defeat. Prior to the split he served as Tammin branch president, ensuring the local member met with constituents. He was also a delegate to the district council. After Hendy Cowan’s challenge he joined a small group of people which ultimately broke away from the Country Party. He felt some Country Party MPs were totally aligned with the Liberal Party. 28 Sir David Brand was more conciliatory than his successor Sir Charles Court. The split in 1975 was the death knell of the Country Party. It disappeared by 1980s. Country Party lost seats and certain MPs refused to cooperate with representatives . People were prepared to let the organization disappear rather than cooperate. 29 In 1978 there was a split in National Country Party that caused the formation of the National Party. As a member of the state executive of the new National Party Charlton supported Hendy Cowan and Matt Stephens. As there was no communication at a parliamentary level a lay committee of 2 National Party and 2 Country Party members exchanged ideas and proposals. The presidents of National Party (Jim Fletcher) and Country Party (John Paterson) were both men of integrity. 30 Charlton felt a great deal of time was spent justifying the split. The basic premise was representation for country people and standing up for them and not agreeing with the Liberal Party merely to maintain government Parties reunited in 1985 as National Party of WA. While lay members of both organizations had basically no difference of opinion the issue was with MPs. 31 Charlton was a strong member of a team that required the National Party, Country Party and National Country Party to disband to form National Party of WA. MPs would have no party and would have nominate for endorsement. The endorsement would be conducted by 50 delegates, 25 by the old National Party and 25 by the old National Country Party. 8 sitting members would have to go through the endorsement process. In 1984, when this was set up, a Liberal Party member of the Upper House died approximately 18 months into office, which forced a by-election. Charlton was endorsed by both sides as the candidate. He supported Hendy Cowan in the reunification. He chose not to follow the line of Bert Crane, Peter Jones and Dick Old and cross over to the Liberals. 32 He believed Bart Crane to be a genuine Country Party man but felt Old and Jones were more supportive of the Liberal Party than their own organization. He felt that Hendy Cowan would have preferred to continue with the old breakaway National Party but had become embittered by the Old and Jones situation. Ray McPharlin, having won elections as both a Country Party and National member, wanted to return to the Country Party and wanted Charlton’s support for this move. Charlton felt he couldn’t “jump ship twice”. 33 McPharlin returned to the Country Party and lost the seat to the Liberal Party in 1983. A considerable effort was required behind the scenes to effect a reconciliation as it was unlikely to come from a parliamentary level. At this time the Country Party was in considerable financial difficulty. To recoup losses the Phoenix Programme was established. A long time Country Party supporter, Lockyer, was in regular contact trying to ascertain the situation. 34 Lockyer was prepared to stop donating and fund raising if amalgation was not achieved and agreed to Charlton’s request to be interviewed by ABC TV. After this publicity an agreement was reached. 35 Charlton contested the seat of O’Connor for the National Party in 1980 as a focus for those who supported it but on the understanding he could not win. The Country Party directed its preferences to Liberal Party and Wilson Tuckey was elected. 36 National Party directed its preferences to National Country Party. In 1983 In 1983 Charlton took on lthe responsibility a campaign for the Upper House seat of Central Province. Again, there was a contest between the National and National Country Party. His interest in pursuing a political career was spurred on by his involvement and interest in sorting out the party split. 37 Many people felt that as Charlton had been at the forefront of reuniting the two parties that he should be the first candidate under the new name. He contested the seat a by-election in November 1984. Charlton felt that it was vital that the National Party should win otherwise it would be the end of the Party. His reasoning was that the public would have a choice and he wouldn’t be compromised by party politics. His hope was that this would attract others to the organization. 38 Charlton was not allocated an individual office when elec ted and was prepared to work in the “corridor” rather than share an office with MPs from another party. The main thrust of the campaign was it was a chance to start afresh and give country people an independent voice. The Country Party directed its preferences to the Liberal Party. 39 Having won endorsement his campaign manager was Roma Strahan, the wife of a businessman in Koorda. She efficiently coordinated the advertising, interviews, letter drops and campaign schedule. 40 Charlton felt he received fair media coverage. He was elected on 17 Nov 1984. Having wanted to win this time he was very enthusiastic and believed he was successful because he had put time, commitment and dedication into the campaign. He thought voters believed he “would give it his best shot”. 41 He took some time to get used to the manner in which the business of Parliament was conducted and observed closely the behavior of MPs. He felt he was well received by other Parliamentarians and was pleased to acknowledge that what happened in Parliament was not carried outside. 42 Charlton received support from both sides of Parliament but stayed in close contact with Hendy Cowan as it was important for him to be part of the new National Party as leader. Charlton saw his role as a representative of the people. He had an electoral office in Northam to ensure there was a “shop window” for the new party. From November 1984 until the election in 1986 he was still involved in the lay organization to get people to be endorsed to contest other seats. His electoral office in Northam had a staff of one. 43 As Charlton was the first member of the newly reorganized party to be in Parliament he worked closely with party to ensure unity. 44 To ensure ongoing support Charlton attended every possible function in country WA to help rebuild the organization. He relied heavily on John Paterson, Jamie Ferguson and Jim Fletcher. He established his priorities very quickly in Parliament. The Liberal Party would sometimes vote against the National Party to keep it in line. 45 Charlton chose to remind the Liberal Party it had not won an election in its own right. Charllton had entered parliament during the early years of the Burke Labor government. Burke seemed in total control of his party and parliament but treated everyone well. 46 In his maiden speech in the Legislative Council in February 1985 Charlton moved a motion for the state government to revise its agricultural policy in areas of transport and its associated costs. Technological changes in private enterprise had not transferred to government services. Users were paying too much. Freight in WA was too expensive and inefficient. He felt Australian should be protected. 47 In August 1985 Charlton addressed division between urban and rural communities. He also expressed his admiration for Bjelke-Petersen in this speech. 48 He expressed concern about the proposed Bill of Rights in June 1986 as a diversionary tactic. He regards climate change as “the greatest hoax in the world” but believes good environmental management is essential. 49 Charlton regarded carbon tax as an opportunity to “siphon off some money”. He felt more carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere from one volcano that from Australian activity in the last 200 years. 50 He believed parity pricing was “more about balancing the books than looking after Australians”. Although an exporter of iron ore Australia has no real steel industry of any consequence. Short term economic viability is short sighted. 51 In a speech in November 1986 Charlton suggested school leavers should enter the work force for a period of 1 – 2 years before going to tertiary institutions. He believed that national service or community service would inject discipline and increase individual responsibility. 52 In June 1988 he voiced concern about the growing power minority pressure groups and their increasing influence on society and the media is expounding this problem. Very little progress has been made with the problems of salinity and land degradation. Scarce funds have been directed towards tree planting initiatives. 53 Believed the best way to control salinity is to have multiple croppings and salinity is not the issue it was 20 to 30 years ago. Farm management is now extremely efficient and broadacre farming requires only pass and no further digging up of soil is required. 54 National Party opposed one vote, one value electoral reform citing the fact that in spite of all the economic activity and the size of WA had two votes in Canberra. Also proposed this reform in WA as well believing such a large and isolated area should not use a system designed for heavily populated areas. In November 1989 during a debate a vote on decriminalize homosexuality said National Party regarded this legislation as an attack on the family unit. 55 While believing it is a homosexual’s right to live as he or she wishes it isn’t necessary to make changes to a range of issues affecting a stable society. In May 1990 voiced concern about the Federal Government’s decision on the state economy, particularly deregulation and increased taxes and feels that the situation has worsened. 56 Charlton believed ACT should be part of NSW as it is essentially a public service operation. In June 1990 he opposed an incitement to racial hatred bill as Australia was subject to too many regulations causing a breakdown in individual responsibility. Australia is heading the same way as USA and Europe with no one wishing to help for fear of being sued. 57 Some legislation should be reversed. Setting precedents in a court of law rather than in parliament is dangerous. In October 1990 Charlton introduced a 24 point rural survival package. , identifying fuel pricing and fuel taxes as the major reasons for the industry crisis. Chemical and fertilizer costs also contributed and Competition and Consumer Council had done nothing. 58 Also introduced legislation for a tribunal on banks to be established to assess issues before farm foreclosures took place. No initiatives had been put in place similar to the first home buyers grant. 59 As National Party Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Chairman of select committee for state funding on Aboriginal programs Charlton believes things have worsened since he held those posts. Rural and metropolitan aboriginals have differing needs and little in common. City based aboriginals have the same access to school system as anyone else. 60 Housing needs for remote Aboriginal communities are not being assessed correctly and should be done on an individual bases as, on average, houses are destroyed in 7 years. In some cases only a single room is required and money would be better spent on sealed roads and airstrips. In many cases a large percentage of children are not attending schools in metropolitan areas. 61 Charlton believed attendance at school should be forced in accordance with the law. He was in agreement with the Howard government’s initiatives in the north of WA. Funds provided are not a right but essential in providing needs for survival. He disagreed with the view that being Aboriginal meant lower life expectancy as this would not occur if individuals ate correctly and did not drink to excess. It is right to criticize early treatment of Aboriginals but condemnation of other groups such as the Catholic Church is unfair as these groups were helping to meet basic needs when no one else was assisting. 62 In a speech in March 1992 Charlton proposed the abolition of the Aboriginal Legal Service and believes this still as it marginalizes people. In the same speech he was also critical of the federal government’s allocation of funding. It should be given directly to the state as it was closer to “on the ground” activity and would ensure more efficient disposal of funds. 63 In the same speech said there was a great deal of wastage propelled by a “200 year old guilt complex which motivates many of the do-gooders”. There are white “do-gooders” concentrating on the past instead of being concerned with people who have made their way in society. 64 Conditions have improved for those who have moved away from the “welfare mentality”. Feels that Aboriginal people of inland and remote communities have nothing in common with educated and working Aboriginals. As Aboriginals no longer live as they did 200 years ago there should be a clean up and implementation of basic hygiene and education. Charlton was totally opposed to use of Northam army base as housing for asylum seekers. 65 Charlton believes welfare funds should be used in countries where help is required immediately (e.g. Haiti) and not used to assist illegal immigrants. 66 For Charlton Wa in 1980s was a time of economic expansion and things constantly increasing in value. High interest rates encouraged investment in high risk ventures and borrowed money fuelled enterprises. Brian Burke involved WA government in initiatives never previously undertaken by government. This ended in 1987 67 National Party viewed most of the activities as “risky business”. Little of the involvement came before Parliament. Legislation for the petrochemical plant was only introduced after the deal collapsed. The National Party, as a party, decided that at least it would be under government control. Charlton disagreed with this view. 68 The government had the number in the Lower House but the Liberal Party opposed it. The National Party had the balance of power in the Legislative Council however the National Party approved the legislation in the Legislative Assembly. Charlton intended to seek further amendments in the Legislative Council but as the government the numbers the bill was passed. David Parker, a Labor Minister, sent a solicitor, Peter Wiese, to meet Charlton while the bill was before the Upper House. Further discussion with him that concerned Charlton. 69 Before third reading of the proposed amendments took place Charlton heard Henry Bosch, head of ASIC, discussing the situation on ABC Radio which worried him greatly. He advised Monty House that “we will be absolutely denigrated for taking this irresponsible action that we’ve continued to take in supporting this legislation”. He advised his National Party colleagues that they would not be voting for it. 70 The legislation was rejected and an uproar ensued. The government intended to re- introduce it. Charlton was asked to reconsider . A meeting was arranged between Charlton and senior government bureaucrats. He was accompanied by Party colleagues and put forward a series of prepared questions which were not answered. As far as Charlton was concerned they were unanswerable as the government had acted improperly. He felt by supporting this legislation his party was condoning what had happened previously and allowing legal backing to what could be done in the future without Parliamentary safeguards. 71 Legislation was again rejected. Media formed the view Charlton didn’t know what he was doing. Bevan Lawrence asked him to attend a lunch with a number of business associates. Listening to the Bosch on radio was pivotal in his decision not to support the legislation. Bosch indicated significant action would be taken against individuals in the impending investigation Charlton felt that the proposed legislation was part of the process about to be investigated. 72 The schedule had been altered and the third reading was brought down on the day Charlton heard the broadcast. Charlton had reservations at the time of the introduction of the legislation but the general party consensus was it was better to have legislation than none at all. Charlton responded to Bevan Lawrence’s invitation as a matter of “interest” He was invited to meet Richard Elliot, an American involved in the WA oil and gas industry. 73 Elliot later conducted an in-depth discussion in his office on WA Inc. Elliot mentioned that Holmes a Court requested the Government some terrace properties at inflated prices to compensate for assisting in the Rothwells rescue. Charlton had also invited other National Party members to attend this meeting. 74 Charlton felt these discussions boosted his action in rejecting the legislation. Carmen Lawrence announced a Royal Commission in November 1990. Charlton believed she had no other option. When it was published in late 1992 he felt it never got to the “nitty gritty” of the personalities involved. 75 Charlton believed Committee recommendations were good however felt that governments are now hamstrung in making decisions about business. Government was totally unaccountable during the Burke era but it was the opposite during his time in government. 76 In November 1991 he spoke to a motion calling for the Attorney General Joe Berinson’s resignation. Evidence produced indicated that Berinson was never present during discussions he felt were inappropriate so he could just justify not knowing what was happening. The reason for the motion was to say “if you weren’t there you should’ve been”. Brian Burke came on the scene as Labor’s “great white hope” at a time when the electorate was ready for a change. 77 Charlton got on well with Peter Dowding who operated in a completely fashion to his predecessor. He felt the Coalition could have won 1989 election if both parties had been more business like in their approach. Charlton felt there was nothing particularly good about David Parker but found Julian Grill to be an approachable and sincere man 78 Grill dealt with deputations in a professional manner . He regarded Joe Berinson as a wily politician, with an astute brain, who kept his word. He thought Carmen Lawrence was a fake whose word was worth nothing. 79 A government imposed levy was popular with the electorate. One of the select committees of which Carlton was a member was chaired by Bob Pike who sought support from Charlton. Associates in the business sector who had given him information about WA Inc were called to give evidence. Charlton believed that Labor members of that committee did everything possible to stall proceedings. This was the select committee examining Rothwells, PICL and WA Government Holdings. 80 At this time John Halden introduce4d a petition into Parliament about Penny Easton which Charlton felt served only to denigrate Richard Court. Charlton chaired a committee investigating aboriginal funding. He was given evidence that Carmen Lawrence, as Minister, had involved Mr Easton is a scheme to build housing. He built two houses and arranged for one of his “own people” to live in or own the house. He believed it a project that benefitted only Easton. 81 Between 1987 and 1992 the National Party held the balance of power in the Legislative Council. During that time the National and Liberal Parties were not in coalition and both vying for the conservative vote. From March 1989 Charlton was National Party leader in the Upper House. This meant negotiating with the other parties re: procedures, legislation, priorities. As leader he also negotiated with his counterparts in Legislative Assembly such as Joe Berinson, Norman Moore and George Cash. 82 During his time in opposition Charlton was shadow spokesperson for budget management and transport and a member of a number of standing and select committees investigating the background of range of government and associated activities. It was an opportunity for members of the public to put their case. Annual budget hearings were an occasion for questioning government departments. Between March 1989 and November 1992 Charlton was a member of parliamentary and electoral reform committees, Aboriginal affairs , family land mid west. On electoral reform the National and Labor agreed to change to proportional representation similar to the Senate. 83 While Liberal Party agreed with one vote, one value it would be unpopular in conservative areas and the National Party would win in country areas if that was endorsed. Six regions were set up, three in the country and three in the city with 17 elected from metro and 17 from country. Between November 1992 and February 1993 Charlton was shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and transport and a member of the coalition management team. He felt that 1989 was a “winnable situation” for a Coalition however no plan was in place for that. He worked with Bob Pike, a Liberal member of the Upper House, to present a plan to the prospective parties. 84 This plan was implemented for 1993 election. Portfolio responsibilities were based on numbers of members in Parliament. Charlton had instigated a select committee on Aboriginal affairs to investigate spending of funds. He felt the report had been compromised by Labor members but action was taken to stop the report from being tabled in Parliament as a writ was issued to prevent it. The day after Parliament was wound up for 1993 the injunction was lifted but the report was not tabled as Charlton took on transport. 85 Charlton believed Australia, as the most isolated nation in the world, required an efficient transport system and there was no integration between the various systems. Between 1984 and 1989 was a member of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies.

86 This committee considered financial factors. As Chairman of Select Committee on State Funding of Aboriginal Programs, 1988, and a member of the Select Committee on the Allocation of Funds by Aboriginal Liaison Committee,1886,lhis form of funding was of great interest to Charlton. He derided branding of Aboriginals as a single ethnic unit and believed they should be treated on an individual basis as with any person in the community. He cited the Kickett family from Tammin whom he had known for decades. 87 Charlton believed Aboriginal housing should cater to individual needs not necessarily 4 x 2 norm. He advocated education and health care as the keys to improvement. In August – September 1992 he was a member of the select committee on ALS which had been taken out to prevent a report being tables in Parliament. 88 This was issued on the basis that it was not consititutional for Charlton to be inquiring and reporting to Parliament. In 1988 there was there was a matter of privilege relating to select committee on Burswood Management Ltd. Poker machines were not permitted. Charlton received most satisfaction being on finance, economic and government agency committees. He felt the Labor Government was defeated in 1993 because Carmen Lawrence “lacked accountability and trustworthiness” and Labor Party’s time “had run out”. 89 A coalition government operated under Richard Court and there was the undoubted significance of WA Inc. Charlton was appointed Minister for Transport in February 1993. The National Party threatened withdrawal from the coalition if certain portfolios were not allocated. 90 There was a possibility of Charlton being allocated Aboriginal Affairs but he felt that there was too much Federal input. Charlton had a “game plan” but it was all “in his head”. He decided to pursue his ideas one by one. His first goal was the modernization of Westrail Workshops. He opted to close Midland Workshop after meeting management and union representatives on site. 91 The workshop was losing about $18 million a year. The government decided there would be no forced redundancies but packages were offered. Charlton felt obliged to attend a union meeting called to protest the closure. 92 He addressed the meeting briefly to remind members about the offer of redundancy packages. Charlton believed most former employees were better off in private enterprise and believed media reaction was all negative. 93 Charlton introduced several changes at Westrail for the support of CEO, Jim Gill and management. During his time as Minister employee numbers dripped from 4,500 to 1,500. 30 new locomotives were built and upgrade was undertaken for rolloing stock.. Freight rate on grain movement was reduced and Westrail made its first profit in 1996-97. 94 Charlton determined provision of public transport in Perth was centralized and required greater flexibility. After a tour of facilities he felt MTT was union dominated. After examining other setups in Australia he opted for a private company which employed staff and set schedules but fare structure would be controlled by government. Legislation was required to enable this. 95 All services were under the control of the Public Transport Authority with government owning privately operated buses. Charlton toured Europe to gain deals with manufacturers as part of a 10 year program to buy a new fleet. Savings of $40 million were achieved in one year. When Labor won in 2001 it did not change what Charlton had put in place. = 96 The benefits to the public were buses running on time and more services on busy routes. Cleaner and newer buses came online. Contracting reduced times spent at depots by drivers. 97 In November 1993 Charlton announced the amalgamation of the Departments of Marine and Harbours and Transport. The marine side of transport was being run as an independent agency which had meant separate administration. In September 1994 the Taxi Bill integrated taxis into the transport system ensuring regulation of dispatch services. Charlton felt the spread of Perth metropolitan area required control as did quality control of issue of taxi licenses. A number of drivers were expelled. Cameras in taxis, a world first, were introduced although not universally agreed to. 98 There was a taxi safety summit in April 1996. These initiatives plus adequate record keeping by radio control companies were introduced. In October 1994 a no-confidence motion alleged Charlton misled the House as the view of the Taxi Council of WA and that he failed to adequately consult the industry over the proposed bill. There were a number of pressure groups in the industry and the Taxi Council was a self-appointed body which did not want and independent Chair. 99 It is always difficult to balance demand and supply in the taxi industry but he believed there was an overall improvement with the initiatives introduced. In particular, increasing taxis for disabled passengers and buses capable of accepting wheelchairs. 100 On 24 May 1995 the Opposition alleged the government, during a debate on the waterfront dispute, was trying to break the back of the union movement; having awarded a contract to the Buckeridge company. Charlton believed the waterfront was totally inefficient e.g. Major port containerization in Australia was only moving single units per hour whereas in 20s in other parts of the world. Changes were opposed by the Maritime Union of Australia. 101 Charlton removed all union representatives from boards as renewals came up. He invited skilled individuals onto board vacancies who could understand the need for improvement. Len Buckeridge asked to lease part of North Wharf No 1 berth which was not being used by the Fremantle Port Authority. This was to utilize import and export of his company’s products. Maritime Union of Australia opposed this. 102 It was incorrectly assumed that BGC wanted the contract for stevedoring of State owned ships(there were four). Long term custom had evolved using P & O and Patricks which were now operating on 3 monthly arrangements. MUA wanted long term contracts with lthese companies. When the tendering process began BGC also put in a submission whick was the lowest tender. 103 BGC won the contract and MUA called a strike. Charlton was accused of arranging by “word of mouth” but the previous situation had been the other stevedores were simply informed when contract renewal was required. Complaints were received from other companies affected by the strike so at the behest of Charlton the government response was to sell State Ships thus removing the issue entirely. 104 To prevent MUA from restricting the movement of ships from Fremantle the ships were berthed in Singapore and sold from there. Crews were flown to Singapore until a sale was effected. 105 Charlton felt major inefficiencies at the port included to slowness of container movement. He also felt waterfront maintenance operations could be done more efficiently by outside companies. Live exports of sheep and cattle were hampered by shift changes. 106 Waterfront personnel did not move livestock correctly and irrespective of the stage of movement would halt proceedings at change of shift. He met John Coombs, national secretary of Maritime Union of Australia in his office. 107 Coombs threatened to bring the waterfront to a standstill. Charlton insisted the government not receive a dividend from Fremantle Port Authority as the waterfront should not be used as a revenue raising exercise. Although BGC had been the successful tenderer for the stevedoring contract it was unable to do that as State ships had been sold The company sought and received damages for the breaking of the contract. The company later won contracts in regional ports. 108 In 1998 there was a national struggle between MUA and Patrick Stevedores. Ports were picketed protesting the company’s proposal to use non-union workforce. On 16 Apr 1998 WA police raided the union camp and arrested several protesters. Charlton supported the action of the Federal government and the company. He felt it would not have happened if Chris Corrigan had not been head of Patrick Stevedoring at the time. 109 Although MUA was given the right to represent the waterfront workforce enforced changes ensured efficiency was achieved with a considerably reduced workforce. Experiences undergone in 1995 helped to ensure outcomes achieved in 1998. Regional ports in WA were all changed. 110 Charlton visited regional ports on many encouraging personnel to be involved locally and not be dominated by an eastern states based union. Many changed to work place agreements. As an example Broome port went from a “tourist” port with a few ships coming in to an active livestock exporting port also able to service the oil and gas industry. This was achieved , in part, by appointing board members who were local and business oriented. He cites the achievement of Bryn Martin as CEO for the success of Broome as opposed to Wyndham which failed to capitalize on its improvement. 111 After his retirement in 1998 Charlton was summonsed as a witness in legal action taken by MUA against changes made at Geraldton Port. Approximately 4 union members remained at the port, the rest having taken redundancy packages. All actions were dismissed except one enabling remain MUA members to remain employed. 112 The legal action cost MUA over a million dollars. The remaining union members still employed left shortly after the court case. The thrust of the union case was that action taken to implement changes was designed to remove MUA from the waterfront. Charlton believed the media took a biased view of the disputes which erupted in 1998. 113 He felt media commented on the conflict between government and union and not any changes improving efficiency. Charlton cites a conversation Laurie Brereton, Federal Transport Minister at that time, who was unfazed when told cars were being transhipped to New Zealand because of inefficiencies on the Australian waterfront. He believed that neither big business nor unions should dominate individual choice and both should operate in the interest of the nation. 114 Graham Farmer Freeway was constructed to link the Causeway with Kwinana and Mitchell Freeways. A model was constructed as the best way to demonstrate the proposal . 115 Charlton believed unjust criticism was received from the West Australian and Alannah McTiernan as opposition spokesperson. 116 Tenders were called. One of the successful tenderers was Balderstone Clough. Harold Clough was a member of the Liberal Party and a director of West Australian Newspapers. The newspaper implied favouritism but Clough cited editorial freedom when meeting Charlton. The project went ahead and was completed on budget and ahead of schedule. 117 At a round table discussion with senior staff it was decided to name the tunnel after Graham Farmer. He was chosen as a distinguished person of Aboriginal descent, a famous footballer who had play for both East and West Perth (the areas being linked) 118 As Charlton had already approached Graham Farmer (who had accepted) Cabinet had little choice but to agree to the decision. Farmer worked for Main Roads for a time and conducted some of the tours personally. Interchanges were installed to ensure traffic flow. When road surfaces collapsed Charlton discovered three contractors and Main Roads were involved in construction. 119 No one party would accept responsibility. He introduced the concept of one contract only Main Roads overseeing the project. When advised by the Commissioner, Ken Michael, that $25 million was set aside for head office extensions he diverted this to road repair. Charlton was involved in the Roe Highway extension proposal. 120 Due to opposition and environmental objections this was never extended to Fremantle. The incoming Labor government would not ratify funds set aside. Charlton was also involved in upgrades to country roads. 121 During Charlton’s tenure road funding was increased from $320 million annually to more than $800 million. This was funded by an increase to the stated fuel levy. A new coast road was commenced form Green Head to Cervantes. A major link from Tom Price through to Great Northern Highway through Karijini was completed as was a road link to Kalbarri and Northampton. The Great Central Road from Laverton to WA border was upgraded. 122 In conjunction with Vaughan Johnson, a Qld MP, and NT government a road linking the three northern states envisaged. However, it was not a sealed road. A road linking Lake Grace to Esperance was completed by Main Roads. Charlton also encouraged Main Roads to complete a private road, Anzac Drive, in Kalgoorlie. The road from Kalgoorlie to Wiluna was sealed. Charlton asserts no further country roads were sealed after he left office. 123 State fuel levy was implemented before Federal Government took action to remove it. It reached agreement with the States to substitute an excise. The Grants Commission also allocated federal funds which were all directed to road funding. A number of licence fees were also increased. 124 Charlton believed that the rail extension to Mandurah should be done on an existing alignment through Thomson Lake, Jandakot and Kenwick. He believed using the Freeway was too expensive. The bus freeway lane was dropped, as was the proposed spurline to Rockingham by the incoming Labor government. 125 Charlton places emphasis on successive government atitudes; believing Alannah McTiernan allowed unions to dictate terms which contributed to late completion and cost overruns. 126 Charlton established the Road Safety Council with an independent Chairman – believing road safety to be a community responsibility. The Council was composed of Ministers whose portfolios were affected and part of Dept of Transport Administration. Under Labor government administration was removed for Transport to Police Department which Charlton believed was a conflict of interest. 127 One of the first initiatives of Road Safety Council was to emphasize danger of driver fatigue. Procedures from other countries were closely looked atin an effort to reduce the road toll. Roadwise project was a component involving local government authorities. RSC used WAFL and local league clubs in the road safety campaign. 128 WA Airports fund was established with an annual allocation of $5 million to upgrade some of the airstrips to all weather ones; e.g. Halls Creek, Denham, Shark Bay and Hyden. The state government was indirectly involved with tendering when Perth Airport was privatised. 129 Charlton viewed major legislation achievements while in opposition were defeating petrochemical legislation and, with Bob Pike, partnering a coalition agreement to win government in 1993 and an inquiry into Aboriginal funding. In government, he regarded dealing with the waterfront dispute, building of Graham Farmer Freeway and Northbridge tunnel plus country road upgrades as his main achievements. Charlton was given Transport portfolio during the time he had lost licence. 130 Charlton felt the political cartoonist Alston dealt with the situation more accurately than the West Australian newspaper. He particularly the cut and thrust of question time both in Opposition and Government. 131 Charlton’s closest colleagues during his parliamentary career were; National Party Leader Hendy Cowan whom he regarded as a man of principle, Monty House who was Minister for Agriculture during his tenure as Transport Minister. Charlton felt he made significant changes e.g. the closure of Robb Jetty. He also enjoyed good working relationships with John Caldwell and Bob Wiese. 132 Charlton believed his only real opponent in opposition was Alannah McTiernan He felt she opposed everything he did for the sake of doing so. Tom Stephens was a fierce opponent but he had a good working relationship with most Opposition members. He received significant support from Richard Court. 133 Richard Court was evenhanded when he took over from Barry MacKinnon and succeeded as Premier in spite of constant media comparison with his father. 134 As Minister for Transport Charlton ensured that funds raised from increased state fuel levy, licences and funds from the Federal Government were all used for road upgrade and maintenance. He moved to have MRD oversee all contracted projects. 135 He initiated a 10 year road building program, contracted out Westrail’s operation and maintenance and had private contractors run Government owned buses. He also employed ministerial staff who were enthusiastic and hard working. 136 Charlton felt impeded by some public servants in the Department as he felt they obstructed proposals. His response was to always ask how long it would take to happen. Charlton believed road funding and building were integral to the nation’s economy. An American company invited him to view a machine that incorporated many facets of road building in one operation. 137 This worked in conjunction with a bitumen truck which meant a section of road was completely finished. Charlton was unable to gain approval to import the vehicle. Charlton found electronic media to be accurate and responsible in reporting but felt the West Australian newspaper was neither. 138 As MLC for Agricultural Region Charlton believed positive achievements were; allowing fertilizer to be transported by road, increasing road funding to local government to 25% of total funds. He set aside a small fund of $5 million in Transport folio to allow shires to fund “special projects”. He approved the amalgamation of shires. He left Parliament in 1998. 139 Charlton had given an undertaking to Dexter Davies who was “next on the ticket”. He retired at 60. He bought a caravan and Ford 250 vehicle he imported from USA 140 In retiring midyear he gave Richard Court time to reorganize his Cabinet and also spend more time with his wife and family. He regretted not being able to stand in Parliament to thank staff He held a press conference with Richard Court and Hendy Cowan and stated he would prefer to be judges he wrought and not what was said. 141 Although his wife, Yvette, did not anticipate his move into a political lifestyle she was totally supportive of what he did and he kept her informed on all aspects of his political career. 142 The couple has 8 grandchildren. Charlton did not believe a parliamentary career substantially altered him as he’s still a “bit rough around the edges”. He feels issues now facing Australia are not being dealt with. He felt catalyst for Liberal loss in 2001 was Doug Shave’s portfolio He did not intervene in the investment issues at the time. 143 Charlton’s opinion was Shave should have been stood down over the issue of finance brokers. In addition, Ian Fletcher, Court’s Chief of Staff, also left. Foreshore development had not progressed and Richard Court was “too nice”. 144 In June 2006 Eric Charlton was awarded Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the WA Parliament, in particular reformation of the transport system and contributions to the Roadwise Project. While he was surprised to be nominated he was grateful and appreciative. He believed the award identified the fact he had achieved something. He received from Ken Michael, then Governor of Western Australia. 145 Charlton attended Government House with a farming friend, Robert Uphill, who had most to do with his nomination. Charlton was asked to be chairman of campaign committee when Max Trenorden succeeded Hendy Cowan. He also undertook fundraising for the National Party. He has not involved himself in other party activities. 146 In 2008 National Party won 4 seats, which with 3 Independents, enable Colin Barnett to form government. He believed the introduction of “one vote, one value” would allow National Party to offer a real alternative to Liberal and Labor Parties Royalties for Regions gave focus to the campaign. Brendon Grylls was National Party Leader. 147 Charlton was contacted by senior Liberals claiming Grylls was not responding to them Charlton said Grylls would “not come to the party” unless he was presented with a reasonable proposal. He contacted Richard Elliott who had worked for Liberal and suggested that Elliott tell Liberal Party to “get serious” Charlton total supported Grylls and his line on Royalties for Regions scheme and believes projects undertaken would never have happened without it. 148 Charlton considered National Party was well placed for next election. Commonsense prevailed and the Liberal Party was prepared to deal with the National Party. The Nationals, having the balance of power, did not support a Liberal Party proposal to give police “stop and search” powers. Charlton emphasized National Party was not in coalition. 149 Charlton believed a greater emphasis should be given finding basis of drug activities rather than concentrating on individuals. 150 After retiring Charlton and his wife toured Australia extensively. He also spent time on the farm and with daughter and son in law in their Mukinbudin business. He liaised with Shires of Mukinbudin, Westonia and Uilgarn to pool resources under supervision of Main Roads for sealing of M40 roadway. 151 A sign was constructed at the end of the road acknowledging Charlton’s contribution Charlton considers Greens involvement in the decision making process is more about stopping things from happening rather than concentrating on outcomes. 152 Charlton considers the education system to be failing with principals unable to discipline teachers, let alone students and the emphasis on technology reduces personal communication skills. 153 Federal government has involved itself in national testing programs as the state has failed less literate students. He feels a committee is needed to investigate WA education. Economically believed WA would operate at its current level as long as China remained at its current level. Charlton believed China would eventually move to own mine production outright and WA would suffer when mining was affected. The housing market had become inflated due to mining activity. 154 Charlton believed WA was in a dangerous situation being so heavily committed to China due to mining. He had run ins with public servant in his department but felt, on the whole, the majority were hardworking dedicated people. He was responsible for bringing the first road train into Perth. 155 He acknowledged the Dawesville Cut as a credit to the Labor Party which was completed by the Liberal/National Government. Charlton was a great believer in “getting people round the table” to discuss matter rather than communicate by email. 156 Charlton ascribed to “looking people in the eye”, being “ridgy-didge” about things, “if your word’s your bond and you deliver, then people will reciprocate in the same way”.

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 1

INTERVIEW ONE [track 1] RC My name is Ron Chapman and I am an oral historian. It is Wednesday, the 20th of October 2010 and I’m carrying out an interview with Eric Charlton at his home in Perth, Western Australia. This interview is part of an oral history project which records the recollections of former members of Western Australia’s Parliament.

First of all, Eric, I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview.

CHARLTON Yes, thank you, Ron, it’s my pleasure to be a part of it. Obviously, I possibly won’t have a great deal to offer people who want to read or hear the history about me, but I’m very willing to participate.

RC Thank you, Eric. Just to start, I wonder if you could tell me a few things about, well, first of all, when and where you were born and something about your mother and father’s backgrounds.

CHARLTON Yes, Ron, I was born in Cunderdin Hospital in 1938 on the 17th of March, commonly known as St Patrick’s Day. Obviously, it had a bit of an influence on my life along the way; I’ve always enjoyed that day not only being my birthday but also the fact that it is St Patrick’s Day. I don’t have “Patrick” in my name so my mother and father obviously didn’t think that was an important part at that particular time, but I was always pleased [that] it be the day on which I was born.

My parents, my father was one of six children and went to Tammin in 1908. It was called the Yorkrakine district, which was settled by my grandfather. His name was John Watson Charlton. He came from South Australia from a little place called Paskeville on the Yorke Peninsula. His father, that’s my great-grandfather, went there in 1845; came from England, together with his wife and their family, some of which came with them from England, and others were born in South Australia. My great- grandfather was a blacksmith and he married a lady who was a daughter of a mariner. They came from Durham, in the north of England. Some people say that people that came from that area, being close to the Scottish border, were people that when it was tax collection time in England said that they actually were Scottish, and when it was tax collection time in Scotland, they were the other side of the border in England. I mentioned that a few times during my life and they say, “Eric, not much has changed, obviously, with some of your activities in life.” - a bit on the humorous INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 2

side. My grandfather left South Australia and came to Kalgoorlie as a lot of people did at the turn of the century in 1900 with the gold rush. After that was over he went to work in Fremantle. During that time in the Goldfields and then later in Fremantle he met my grandmother whose name was Ellen Cooney - that’s my father’s mother and father. They had, as I say, six children and then went to Tammin in 1908 when a new allocation of 51 farms was made available to settlers because of the unemployment situation and the opportunity to relocate some people who didn’t have a great deal of future. That was all conditional-purchase land (that’s called CP) for those people who didn’t have any capital. The area of Tammin itself had been settled in the late 1890s and that was with freehold land, which was by people who had the capacity to finance their early development. So that’s where my father and his family were from 1908 till I came along, obviously, and my father married my mother. Her name was Kathleen Enid Skinner. She was from English parents but born in Australia. Her mother was also a Catholic, as my grandmother on my father’s side was, so we had this, sort of, two sides of the Christian faith of, you know, a number of sides there are to it and different denominations. All got on famously well; there was no issues regarding that at all. They got married in 1938, or 1937 to be precise, and I came along. Seven years later I had a sister who was born; her name is Carmel. That’s sort of the early beginnings of our family life in Tammin or, as I say, Yorkrakine as it was specifically known in the early stages because that was the district where the farming allocations were made.

RC So you’ve just got a sister or …

CHARLTON Yes, I just have one sister. She’s married; she doesn’t have any children. She is quite a unique person in her own right regarding her music. She’s recorded a lot of music over the years and still performs today and travels sometimes to Tamworth as part of the country music festival there, but does a lot of music teaching (both piano and guitar and other instruments) and also does a lot of work with schools and schoolchildren in musical presentations. At the moment she’s actually developing a CD for use by the education department for teachers to be able to carry out musical and singing activities within schools in WA.

RC So you’re basically from a farming background, your parents?

CHARLTON Yes, I’m totally from a farming background. My early childhood was on the farm, which is about 30 kilometres north of Tammin on the road to Wyalkatchem. INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 3

My early childhood was, as all kids do that are born and bred on farms, to spend your early years going with your parents round and about the farm. I will say in addition to my father, I had a great experience with my uncle, which is my father’s brother, who was not married but lived on the farm and was part of that family farming partnership. He and I had a famous relationship all my life until he passed away when he was 90 years old. He was just 12 months younger than my father and I had this wonderful association with him and we had a lot of things in common. He was very good mechanically and I was interested in that sort of thing as well. He was a very good footballer and I had a great love of Australian Rules football as a kid, so he kicked the footy with me a lot, whereas my father wasn’t as interested in it. I just spent a lot of time with him [my uncle] doing those additional things in addition to doing the things that you do with your parents.

Also, when I started school, I was on correspondence. That was not School of the Air; it was simply a correspondence school where the education department supplied parents with the relative documentation to carry out the week’s, month’s and year’s work. I did that for three years until I then started to go to school at the Tammin Primary School.

RC So this was a sort of School of the Air, was it?

CHARLTON Well, it was the same as School of the Air but not … you didn’t tune in to School of the Air; you simply had by mail a set of curriculum that you were required to carry out and that was all those things that made up the important things of school education, but pretty much the same as what went on in the school itself. As a matter of fact I always remember that when I went to school I had no problems in settling in, well, for two reasons I suppose: I knew the kids anyway growing up in a locality, but I had a standard of education [such] that I always remember the teachers telling me, “When you came to this school you could write very well but when you left you weren’t so good, so obviously you didn’t keep up the pressure that was applied to you at home.” I think that’s pretty accurate.

RC I’d just like to ask, Eric, what’s your earliest memories of life on the farm and where you were brought up?

CHARLTON Like most people, I guess, you remember little incidental things but certainly [I remember] riding around on a truck. As you can imagine, a truck in those INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 4 days with just a single wheeled, four wheels, and the cab was a very wooden cab that had no doors, so you sat on the side inside the cab, not the running board. Part of the tray at the back actually extended along, almost level with where the doorway was. So, [I was] doing those things helping in a shearing shed and causing trouble I suppose and getting in the way, but being part of that and helping to yard up sheep. Then later on when I got old enough to kick a football, I used to kick the football in amongst the sheep and then chase in amongst them and get it - just doing those sorts of things. They were some of the earliest activities, and then going to other neighbours’ places and spending time with kids my own age because obviously in those days the farms were all fairly small and families all got together on weekends and did those sorts of things.

RC What sort of size was your parents’ farm?

CHARLTON The initial allocation was 731 acres in the old system and that was the average size of those additional farms. By the time I came along that had expanded to be about two and a half thousand acres during the 30s, 40s at least, and 50s. That was by growing the size of the property with other virgin land as it was called; that means land just totally forested with the natural bush. There was no other land bought that had already been cleared, so where I grew up it was all land that had been taken up by Charltons and developed from scratch.

RC You just spoke about the influence of your uncle, I think it was, on your early childhood. I was going to ask you about the influence of your parents when you were growing up. It sounds as though your uncle played just as much, if not more, of a role in your early life than your parents.

CHARLTON Well, he did from the point of view that, I guess, you remember [it]. I guess I learnt what is right and wrong from my parents obviously, and while that is critically important, you don’t think of that at the time. I know that [from] my mother and father, you know, I learnt you don’t do this and you don’t do that and, yes, you should do this and that, so all those important things in life certainly were part of my parents [influence]. I don’t want to underestimate that. Obviously, my mother was a person who was outgoing and very quick in her decision-making and capable of taking responsibilities that ladies did around that time. My father was a different sort of person; he was more reserved, did not get involved in community activities, did not participate in other general activities that went on outside the farm. He was really INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 5

married to the farm and that was his life and he loved it. But I guess when you are growing up as a kid you want to do other things, and I had this great relationship with my uncle to do these other things in life.

RC Your parents’ political beliefs: did they have strong political beliefs at that time?

CHARLTON As I remember, my father didn’t. I wouldn’t say that he was sort of apolitical; he would be more about issues and not so much about who was right and who was wrong. Obviously, they’d come through a very difficult time of the Depression. They, like every other family, had really battled to survive. [Of] all those people that were farming during the 30s, you know, not many came out the other end and so you had to be very committed and not the type who was going to give in easily; otherwise, you walked away. So from a political point of view, they weren’t hard and fast. I always remember them saying they thought that during the tougher times the Labor Party, in fact, was more understanding of their plight than what the newly formed Liberal Party was or Conservative Party. The Country Party, obviously, was around but they didn’t participate in it at all.

RC You mentioned religion briefly in the interview, Eric. What was the position of religion in your family’s life? Was that at the forefront or was that not so prominent?

CHARLTON I think it was to the extent of being baptised, obviously, initially and …

RC Is that in the Anglican [church]?

CHARLTON In the Catholic Church.

RC The Catholic Church.

CHARLTON Yes. My mother was Catholic and my father; they were both Catholics. It was my grandparents that were one of … and the other one Catholic. But both my mother and father were Catholic. My mother had gone to school at St Columba’s in South Perth. She was very much as most mothers I think have more influence on their kids than what fathers do when it comes to that sort of thing. Certainly, she was very, very much to the fore in ensuring that we learnt about God, that we believed in INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 6

those Christian principles and, yes, the influence that had on me can’t be underestimated. As part of that, when the school holidays were on when I was in primary school, the Catholic convent in Kellerberrin run by the St Joseph’s sisters had what they called “bushy” schools. The bushy school was when they took the kids from out of town who didn’t have a chance to learn anything by going to a school full- time went for a week of the school holidays once a year. We got a bit of a rev up from the St Joseph nuns in this case in Kellerberrin. That’s something that I remember vividly. We slept over; we didn’t just go there for a couple hours a day; we stayed there for the week. We participated in all the things that the nuns taught us about God and about the Catholic Church, of course. I was very receptive to that and I have continued to believe strongly in those Christian principles. That doesn’t mean I am a good Christian at all; I’m not the judge of that. That’s for only the good Lord to make that decision, and I am getting closer to that decision now, obviously, Ron, than what I’ve ever been [chuckles]. Every day we’re a bit closer. So, yes, that had a big influence on my upbringing.

RC Your early childhood, Eric, the first few years were during the war years - World War II. Can you recollect anything about the war years - influence on you and the farm and what was happening at that time?

CHARLTON Yes, probably two of the things that I remember most vividly is that during the war my father used to attend what was called the Listening Post. They had a volunteer group of people who went to a central point and spent time to observe and to watch for the incoming activity of planes. Then if they heard anything in the sky, they obviously had to report it, or saw anything untoward. That was something that I always remember. They took it in turns; people around the district gathering at one place on a roster basis. I remember that vividly and also the fact that when vehicles drove around of a night, their headlights were almost totally covered. They had covers over the headlights to ensure that the lights were only shining immediately down in front of the vehicles. The other thing that I always remember is when the war ended, Armistice Day, and the great celebrations that took place.

RC You’ve just spoken about your parents and your uncle, who do you think had the most influence on you in your early childhood? Would it have been your uncle, do you think, or your parents?

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 7

CHARLTON Probably my mother and my uncle, yes. I think the other thing is that, from my father’s point of view, he was very conservative and I guess, without being unkind, very negative in his outlook. That is probably because of his time where he’d come through the Depression and had to work hard and go out and do shearing and do all other things to keep the farm alive financially. He tended to look back a lot. I used to always say, “Well, you can’t do anything about yesterday but you can do something about tomorrow, so you only use yesterday as a basis of looking forward.” Whether that’s fair or unfair or not, that’s just how I was. So my father and I, as you’ve probably guessed, didn’t hit it off too good at all. All through our life he didn’t like the way I played football and he didn’t like some of the other attitudes I had to life which were a bit too robust and forthright.

RC You attended Tammin Primary School. Can you remember: when did you start there?

CHARLTON I started when I was nine years old instead of being six years old in year 1.

RC Yes, you said you were doing correspondence.

CHARLTON I did that for three years and then went to Tammin School on the school bus. The first school bus was a butter delivery van and it was one of the first school buses that were introduced into Western Australia. It was bought either totally or, certainly, partly by a fellow called Henry Cooke who later became Sir Henry Cooke. He had a farm between our place and Tammin and when the school near their property closed in about 1940-odd, they decided they’d have to do something about getting a school bus. It was actually ’43 or ’4 or something like that. It was about the time that I was starting school (I’d just started to go to Tammin school) that they bought this school bus, which was, what, 1947. And they then had a local fellow named George Frearson who had one of the stores in Tammin and he drove this delivery van and so they put a window in each side of it and it had two planks, if you like, inside the delivery van, one on each side, and that’s what we sat on. And so when that started up, it was about eight, 10 kilometres from our place, and so I was taken to that point to catch the bus from that time on.

RC What are your memories of Tammin Primary School, Eric?

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 8

CHARLTON All good.

RC Did you make lots of friends there?

CHARLTON Yes; yes, I did. I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Tammin school, and I, you know, participated in everything. I was never any outstanding scholar or athlete, but I did quite well in all those things at the Tammin Primary School.

RC What were your favourite subjects at that time?

CHARLTON Maths was always my favourite subject, with everything else sort of came second to that. I was never great on English history, which is always very important. I didn’t think it was important at the time. But, yes, no, the maths and those associated social activity studies.

RC How long were you at Tammin school?

CHARLTON Yes, four years.

RC Four years?

CHARLTON That was until 1950, and I won a prize. They used to give out a prize. I’ll always remember it was donated by the Anglican minister, Reverend Pimm. This Catholic kid won it that last year I was there, me, that is.

RC Then you went to Aquinas College.

CHARLTON Yes.

RC So that was when you were 12?

CHARLTON Well, 13; 13 in the March, yes.

RC Was the scholarship to go to Aquinas or just …

CHARLTON No, just went.

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 9

RC I just wondered why Aquinas.

CHARLTON Oh, well, a Catholic school, and there hadn’t been any association before obviously, but it was a Catholic school and our neighbours, the Mackins, had an older boy the same age as me and we went together in the same year, Gerald, Gerald Mackin. So, I guess that was the reason my parents sent me there. I have to say that that first year at Aquinas had the most influence on me for the rest of my life.

RC Why was that?

CHARLTON A whole range of reasons. I guess it’s a very successful school and a great concentration on winning, on being successful, of doing your best, of presenting yourself in a proper manner, and just a whole cultural attitude of success. That didn’t mean that everything went according to plan. I remember very vividly getting six significant reminders of a misdemeanour that I created one evening by having a bit of a wrestle in the dormitory when we were supposed to have been in bed. A friendly one of course, but boys being boys. I remember the brother at the time, Brother Brady, said, “Present yourself outside my room and I’ll deal with you.” But, as I look back, my whole association with the brothers was all good and I had nothing but admiration for the contribution they made as far as my involvement’s concerned at Aquinas.

RC Was the discipline strict at Aquinas?

CHARLTON Well, it was. It was very different, like everything else in life. But, you know, I guess it’s like everything else; you have to take it into context of the given time. So this was 1951. It was strict in the sense that they had very strict rules about what you could do and what you didn’t do, and you couldn’t leave the premises and hop on a bus and go into town unless you had permission obviously. But that was probably pretty much what happened in those families at that time. Your parents always knew where you were - well, not every parent did in every family, but the ones that had a few rules did. So, yes; no, that’s the way it was.

RC How did you feel when you left your home to go to Aquinas, bearing in mind you were from a country area and then you come to Aquinas and you stay there? Was that a traumatic experience or did you settle in easily?

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 10

CHARLTON No; very traumatic, very homesick, had a few cries for a start about it all, but I always used to think of one aspect, and this was the bottom line, and that was: well, it’s not going to kill me, so therefore I’m going to be all right. And I was.

RC In other words, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

CHARLTON Yes, I think so, Ron. And you make friends, obviously, for a lifetime. I had two boys that went to Aquinas as well. Throughout your life, you meet people and you do things with those people that you spent that time with, particularly the boarding aspect of these public schools; it adds another dimension.

RC You mentioned maths was one of your subjects at the Tammin school, one of your favourites. Did this continue on, obviously, at Aquinas and were there other subjects now that just became your favourites?

CHARLTON Besides football and cricket, Ron? [chuckles] No, well, I always did okay at those subjects, and so obviously it did continue on and my reports were always okay and I managed to stay in the top … the years were broken up into various sections, and I was never dux and I was never top of the class or anything, obviously, by a long shot, but I always managed to stick in the first group.

RC You mentioned the name of one brother there. Were there any other teachers there that stick in your mind?

CHARLTON I think at that particular time, if you talk to any student that went to Aquinas, they’ll rattle off a list of names who were all fairly significant people in their own right. One of the youngest brothers who was there (he was probably only in his 20s when I was there) was a brother called Brother Duffy. He coached the first years, as we were called then, in football and cricket. I was never much of a cricketer, but he pointed out a few things to me to ensure that I got in the first in the cricket in that year, and the same with the football. So, yes, he was very influential on me. Also, everyone used to talk about Brother Redmond. He had a saying, because he taught a lot of the subjects as well, that you’re a blessed humbugya. Those words, I think everyone who went to Aquinas in those days … But there were many other brothers there as well and all played their part. There was another brother who took you for the school Army Cadets; and that was another thing obviously that was critically important, too, I think, in bringing you out of yourself, coming from a farm and coming INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 11 to Perth and going to a boarding school. Your days were all fully organised, and so there was something on all the time.

RC What were your early ambitions at Aquinas, Eric?

CHARLTON Never, ever had any ambition other than to be a farmer; never, ever anything else.

RC So, the course of your life was set on farming at that time?

CHARLTON I can even remember in my first year there that when the first rain came in the autumn, I suppose it was April or May or something, the smell of the damp ground made me homesick, because after the summer, you get that first rain; the ground smells different after the first rain than what it does to subsequent rains. And that made me very homesick to think I should be up there.

RC You left Aquinas in 1952, I think, when you were 14.

CHARLTON Yes.

RC I just wondered why did you leave at that early age?

CHARLTON Well, it was the saddest thing that ever happened to me from my education point of view, and that was because the Catholic Church built a convent in Wyalkatchem; and, as I said earlier, we lived between Tammin and Wyalkatchem. My sister, who was seven years younger than me, had done correspondence for one year but instead of going to Tammin to school, my parents decided to send her to Wyalkatchem to this new convent school that was built out there. She was a bit [of a] reluctant starter, so to speak, and did not want to go to school, and so they decided for, I guess, a combination of reasons … I’ve learnt over the years that most significant decisions in life happen not of one reason but a combination of reasons. I don’t know why my parents made that decision, but they made the decision that I should go there to school from then on. I mean, I would never have gone to school at Aquinas for more than the three years, but it would’ve been good if I had’ve.

RC So, after Aquinas, you went to the new convent school.

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 12

CHARLTON Yes.

RC Can you recall what that was?

CHARLTON Wyalkatchem convent, run by the Presentation Sisters. That’s the same group of nuns that run Iona college today in Mosman Park. A very wonderful group of people. As a matter of fact, I still exchange Christmas cards with one of the nuns that was there teaching at that time. We often converse about the fact that I should’ve been still at Aquinas but I went out there. But, you know, I was part of that activity then and having had time at Aquinas before, and obviously I knew a bit what went on in life about standing up for yourself and so forth and taking responsibility, and so they thought I was wonderful, the fact that I went out there, and retained this great friendship with those nuns. And, as I said, one of them is still alive. That’s Sister Thomas, who lives at Mosman Park in the convent down there now. And I see her every year.

RC So, on reflection, you think there was a good move going to the new convent school?

CHARLTON No.

RC You don’t? You’d rather have stayed at Aquinas?

CHARLTON Yes. No, it was a bad decision for me.

RC For you, yes.

CHARLTON Yes. In the end it mightn’t have made any difference whatsoever. Who knows? You can only guess. But I think because I’ve retained this friendship with people who I only spent that very short time with at Aquinas, that obviously got on okay; otherwise, it would’ve been “Eric who?” As a matter of fact, I had one of them the other day say to me. “There’s a morning tea, Eric. Once a month every Friday, we go to Kings Park Tennis Club. You should come with us.” When you have people call you up and say “What about that?”, it’s good. And obviously, as I said earlier, I was on the Aquinas parent council; I was elected to that by parents earlier on before I went into Parliament. Also, having two boys there, I’ve had this long association with the college and now I’ve got a grandson there. INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 13

RC So, you were at the new convent school. When did you leave there? What age were you when you left?

CHARLTON Yes, 15.

RC Fifteen?

CHARLTON Yes, 15.

RC Could you have stayed on there longer, or did you want to go back to the farm?

CHARLTON No. I could’ve stayed on, but it was always my intention … I don’t think my parents ever had any other intention to go past what was commonly known as the junior level.

RC So, after you left there, you then went straight back to the farm and started work on the farm?

CHARLTON Yes, started work on the farm, full of enthusiasm, and I was, probably, I think it was fair to say, even my father said to me (he didn’t give out too many bouquets) that when I first left school, I was really, really good; it was only afterwards that I deteriorated when I wanted to get a vehicle and when I wanted to go out and do a bit more socialising. But when you’re 15 and 16 and you live 30 ks from town, you don’t get the opportunity without a driver’s licence to do too many things. But, yes, I went home to the farm. Obviously, I’ve been driving since I was eight or nine years old, so I could drive a tractor and a truck and whatever else needed to be driven. Yes, I was into it, full on.

RC I know it was early, Eric, but had you formed any sort of political views at that time? Was there a slightest interest in politics?

CHARLTON No, no. I didn’t really have any interest in that. I guess the first [was] very, very early on - not certainly before then. But after I’d been home a little while, and being involved in the football particularly, I was invited that I perhaps would like to be on the committee of the football club. I think that was probably my introduction INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 14 to getting involved in, from an organisational point of view, things to do with the community. It probably started from there. As a consequence of that, the Tammin football club … first of all I started playing, I should say, with Yorkrakine. They still had a team in the Wyalkatchem association.

RC How old were you when you started playing?

CHARLTON Yes, 15.

RC Fifteen?

CHARLTON Yes. I won an award the first year as the best young player (I suppose that was under 17 or something) in the team. But I was playing with blokes who were 35 years old, so [you] grew up pretty quick.

RC From what I've read, the Tammin football club was obviously very important to you and you held several positions, I believe, with the club over the years. Would you like to just, at this stage, talk about the Tammin football club?

CHARLTON Yes, Ron, it was important. As I said, I started with the Yorkrakine football club and then there was a tragedy involving four players after a game, three of whom were killed. It was in a competition that was stretching for numbers, and to take three players out of it at one go …

RC Was this in an accident?

CHARLTON Yes, in a car accident. That was when I was 16. The next year I went to play and I played in Tammin as a 17-year-old, and then the Yorkrakine football club started up again. It went from the Wyalkatchem association to play in the same competition as Tammin was, which was called East Avon, so that was made up of Kellerberrin, Quairading, Cunderdin, Meckering and Tammin, plus Yorkrakine in that next year. But it only lasted for a year and then it went out of operation. So, then I was back to Tammin. Tammin and Yorkrakine obviously are in very close proximity to each other, so those few of us who went back to Yorkrakine all went back then to Tammin to play. It was then that I very soon got involved on the committee, just as a player. We had a roster to water the new oval. That’s the first thing I remember about being involved to a large extent. We had a great stalwart at the club, a fellow called INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 15

Tony Maranich, and another guy who was the president of the football club called Hughie Arnold. Together with a number of leading people, especially blokes like Con Crogan, they were the heart and soul of this football club. And so they encouraged me and others to be involved and to play a part in developing this club to get this new oval. So we got this new grassed oval (one of the first grassed ovals in country Western Australia) on a new location; so it was immediately north of the existing one and so a whole new outfit had to be developed there. So that took place. Then, as the years went by, obviously you’d go from sort of one part of the action to another part, and, after a time, or after many years, when I stopped playing football, I was on the committee during those whole number of years, and then afterwards I took on the job of being president for a number of years, and I also was coach for one year to cut down on the cost of importing players because, being a small town and a small club, we started on a system of importing players from Perth. We had a number of players over the years that either retired from league football (that is, from the WAFL) or they were up and coming players and hadn’t quite made it yet. [interruption for phone call] [track 2] RC Eric, you were just telling me your recollections of your time with the Tammin Football Club.

CHARLTON Yes, Ron. Being a player, when you’re younger you go and you play and you get involved in doing a few other things as time goes by, including not only playing the game, but there is always fund raising you have to do, so carting hay on weekends and doing other fund raising activities. Collecting seconds wheat is one of those things we used to do; that is, the wheat that’s not good enough for farmers to deliver (saleable) so you have a process of collecting that around, and other activities. But then as I got towards the end of playing, I took on being president, then I was secretary for a time and I was coach for a year. I also had the experience of … when I stopped playing, in amongst other things I went umpiring for a year, and I enjoyed that as well. But having done that for a year, the commitment to want to go and be part of a club meant that I didn’t continue on with the umpiring, although I enjoyed it. But being part of a club and being part of the local community and going to the footy every week was important, and of course not long after that I had sons who were starting to play junior football, and so that was important. But the overall thing about the football club is that I consider it to be very important in my own development, if you like, as far as dealing with people, understanding the various aspects of managing an organisation that comes from a whole range of people with INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 16

different expectations and outlooks, and I always like to think … well, I guess the bottom line of it was that I got made a life member early in the piece of my time, and it was something that I do look back on and think it had a big influence on my development to a person who could communicate, could work with people and who could manage to improve the lot of a group of people. So, yes, it was important to me, I think.

RC Between 1964 and ‘72, I believe you owned a property at Koorda.

CHARLTON Yes.

RC Was that linked to the family farm?

CHARLTON Yes, it was. It was purchased by my father and his brother as part of the original partnership. I was married in 1962, and as a consequence of me being newly married and having to spend some time up there, it was also decided at that time by my uncle that he didn’t really want to travel 50 miles to go farming up there, and so he decided to retire and I took over his half-share of the family partnership. We kept that property until 1969 or 1970, then it was leased out for three years, and then it was sold. Also, during that time, a guy who came to Tammin to work in the National Bank, called Jim King, and I were … he came to work for us on the Koorda farm, and he and I, together, applied for a new-land farm, a new-land block of agricultural land that was being opened up south of Eneabba. That was in 1966. We were allocated a block by the Lands Board, which was an organisation that was responsible for new-land allocations that took place through the agricultural areas of WA at that time. Right from Geraldton through to Esperance, various locations were put up for allocation, or application, and so we got that block. So in the middle of doing all these other things, I was then involved in taking on a new-land farm south of Eneabba.

RC The directory said that in 1976 you owned a property at Eneabba: it was earlier than that, was it?

CHARLTON Yes, it was 1966 when it was taken up; when we were allocated it. So then we travelled with Jim King, who was living at the Koorda property. We travelled to Eneabba on weekends and other times during the year, to start the development of that land, clearing it. That was a property of about 5,000 acres; all bush. As a INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 17 matter of fact, it’s on the Brand Highway, and it’s right near the Coorow-Green Head crossroad. So we developed all of that over that period of the late ‘60s through the ‘70s.

RC You mentioned briefly that you were married in 1962; I wonder if you could tell me a little about your wife and your children and your marriage, and how you met your wife?

CHARLTON Yes, well, it is the cause of some mirth when you talk about these things. I was sort of commonly known as a person who, you know, liked to enjoy himself and socialise a fair bit around our country area. On one weekend Evette Monk came, with a nursing friend of hers, to the farm next door to us. She came up with her friend, plus another girl, and we happened to meet them on that weekend they came to Tammin, and from there I developed a keen interest, to the extent that I suggested that if I came to Perth, she should come out with me, which took her a few weeks or months to agree to, but finally she gave in, so we started going out together in 1958, ‘59, and, yes, got married in 1962.

RC That was at St Mary’s Cathedral, I believe.

CHARLTON Yes, we got married at St Mary’s Cathedral. The reason for that was, Evette was a nurse at Royal Perth Hospital, so Evette was not a Catholic, and she decided that she would like to become a Catholic. Before deciding that, she decided she’d go and have a talk with a priest who was associated with Royal Perth Hospital who was based at St Mary’s Cathedral, and his name was Father Walsh, a fine man, and she had a great deal of respect for him. You have to know Evette to appreciate it, but she’s a person who’s very strong, sound in her thinking on everything (apart from the one where she made the decision to marry me, perhaps, but anyway) and she had instructions, followed with Father Walsh, and decided to become a Catholic. There is one thing that … while I had my beliefs, I was never, ever going to suggest to Evette that she should have the same idea about things in life as I did, because I think she’d have soon told me that that wasn’t the way we did business. But, yes, she became a Catholic, and so as a consequence of that we had Father Walsh celebrate our wedding, in association with a priest called Father Sean Sorahan, who was Irish descent, and he was the parish priest in Kellerberrin who looked after the Tammin area. So we had two priests at the wedding, and two phenomenal people, they were.

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 18

RC I believe you have two sons and a daughter, Eric. I wonder if you could tell me a little about your children.

CHARLTON Our first child was Tammy, who was born on 26 October 1962. She is, has always been, everything you’d ever wish in a daughter; a fantastic girl, very, very capable. She went to Tammin Primary School, and then New Norcia for a time, and then to Sacred Heart College as a boarding facility in Sorrento. She’s now married with three daughters, and, together with her husband, Terry Norrish, has the Landmark agency at Mukinbudin. Our next child was Michael; he was born in 1965. Michael was an outstanding individual; very serious about everything in life, a great scholar, full of enthusiasm, loved his sport as well. When he finished school in Tammin he went to Aquinas, and he was there and did his five years of secondary education, came home for a year, and then started at Curtin University doing a business course. He decided, partway through the first year that he didn’t want to continue that, and he phoned me up one day and said, “I’m not staying”, and I said, “That’s fine; it’s your decision.” He said, “Where will you be working?” I said, “I’ll be in such and such a paddock”, and he said, “I’ll see you there.” He got in his car and came home, and stayed home then. He loved the farming and loved the football and everything else that all us good country blokes like, until 2 December 1989, when he got killed in a car accident coming from one farm to the other with our other son, Gavin. Our other son, Gavin, was born in 1969. He went to Tammin Primary School and then to Aquinas and did his five years of secondary schooling, and, unlike Michael, he had no intention of going anywhere else other than home to the farm. He came home, as Michael did, full of enthusiasm. Very, very progressive (they both were) and Gavin is still there today with his wife and five children. [Our sons] were together on this fateful day in December ’89, travelling from one farm to the other, and the car got in an uncontrolled skid and both the boys weren’t wearing seatbelts, and Michael got thrown out of the car and he died that evening. Gavin was not injured, and he ran three and a half kilometres home to get Evette (I wasn’t home on that day, I was in Tammin playing lawn bowls) and, you know, they picked Michael up and we went to Northam Hospital, but he died that evening.

RC Terrible.

CHARLTON Yes, not good, Ron, and you can have all the association with families who suffer tragedy and bereavements, but everyone will tell you, unless you experience it in your own family, you never, ever have any real comprehension of INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 19

what it’s all about. So that had a very profound effect on all of us, especially on Evette. She has been … as she is with everything, she is an unbelievable person to manage to get through that, because, obviously, you know, in 1984 I got into politics and so a decision has to be made whether I left politics in ’89, you know, for the family’s benefit. I always remember the advice, and it’s the same advice that I’d still give today, [which is] don’t make any serious decisions that you don’t have to make for at least 12 months after a tragedy in the family, because you’re not in a position to make a sound judgement.

RC Yes.

CHARLTON But, Ron, yes, that’s our three kids, and we have eight grandchildren, two boys and six girls, and they are between university and Tammin Primary School. [track 3] RC In 1972, Eric, you purchased the family farm, I believe, at Tammin. Could you tell me how that occurred?

CHARLTON As I mentioned before, my father and I, while we respected each other, we certainly didn’t have too much in common when it came to the future way forward. My uncle, having left in about 1966 and me taking his part in the family partnership and buying him out (whereby he took a deposit and then so much a year) from that period on, my father was very unsettled about his brother having got money out of the farm and gone to Perth to live. I suggested to him, almost every time there was a conversation about it, [that] he had a couple of options. He could do the same, he could go to Perth and I could give him an amount a year; or he could sell his part of the farm. He used to say, amongst a lot of other things, “How will you ever be able to buy me out? You won’t succeed; you’ll go broke”, and so forth and so on. Obviously, there was a fair bit of a challenge there in what was going to happen. But, without going into all the sordid detail, the final situation came, and he decided that he wanted out of the farm and that perhaps he should sell it to somebody else who could have the money to buy it. One of the most wonderful things happened; the National Bank, who we banked with during those times and still do today, had a succession, I guess, of people there, particularly people like Max Miller, as a bank manager. They were the good old days when there were managers at the local branch, and they obviously had the capacity to assess people and recommend what ought to happen (people like John Saare and others). To cut a long story short, they said to me, “Eric, if you want to buy the farm, we’ll lend you the money”, and that’s INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 20

what happened. So in 1972 we bought the rest of the family farm; I was also, at that same time, share farming a property down the road owned by the Nottage family. It started off with them share farming one paddock, then two paddocks, then six paddocks, and then it came to leasing that property for six years. Then in about 1995, we bought that place. So, yes, in 1972 I bought out my parents, and they came to Perth and lived in Woodlands.

RC Just out of interest, Eric, what did the farm produce? What was your main production?

CHARLTON It had traditionally been wheat and sheep, and some oats, perhaps, for sheep feed, from a growing point of view. [interruption from mobile phone] Yes, Ron, it was wheat and sheep, with a bit of oats for sheep feed. Pretty much, you cropped, say, half of the land to grain, and the other 50 per cent was grazing. We also ran a few cattle, which was not common throughout the central wheatbelt, but that was the sort of activity that was going on at that time in the ‘70s. As the years went by I was very much aware that we needed to do more to conserve moisture, so I travelled a bit around the state and took an interest in what went on in other places [to find out] the best means to do that. I came to the conclusion that we should not be burning stubble, that’s the residue of the crop that’s left after harvest, so that you can sow into it, because at that time machinery was not capable of passing large volumes of straw or other crop residues in between the tynes, they would block up, so we needed to come up with something different. I bought a Canadian machine called a Morris chisel plough, and I went into direct seeding; that is, no cultivation and simply sowing into where you cropped, crop on crop ,that is, consecutive years, to retain moisture to leave the stubble there. We have not burnt stubble on our place since 1981. As a matter of fact, the ag department did a video interview with Michael, our eldest son, on that issue a year before he got killed in a car accident. So, yes, we’d been on that sort of thing. We progressed from a cropping-sheep rotation in various percentages of allocation of land use, up until the last 10 to 15 years, when Gavan has total control of the farm, to being a 100 per cent cropping operation, and all with minimum tillage; that’s no cultivation whatsoever, just direct drilling, and it’s proven to be very successful.

RC I believe also around this time you operated a bulk fuel depot at Tammin. How did that come about?

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 21

CHARLTON Most things that I’ve got involved in in my life have been because there was a problem associated with the current operation, so someone says to me, “Eric, can you do something about it?” and I say, “I don’t know, but I’ll have a think about it and come up with a bit of an idea.” What happened in this case is all fuel operations were operated by a local reseller, a local agent, and in this case the local agent wanted out but he couldn’t find someone to buy it, and so he just closed the operation down. That was an Ampol operation. Golden Fleece, at that time, had built a roadhouse in Tammin, so they were looking for someone to expand their operation, so I thought: “This will be an opportunity to have someone local to continue to deliver fuel to local farmers.” So I started up the Golden Fleece depot with both bulk and drum fuel as they were in those days, 44 gallons or 200-litre containers, and I carted that from Northam by road and delivered it to farms around. [It was] an operation of about a million litres a year. I never set out to want to [run it] as a business; it was simply providing a service because at that time, obviously, it had to be delivered by someone local and so I decided to do it, and people seemed to be happy to deal with me.

RC You just said that things occurred when you saw a problem or there was a need. Was that the same with the Tammin-Yorkrakine mail contract that you operated for seven years?

CHARLTON It was, Ron. The local postmaster who administered the Tammin- Yorkrakine mail run phoned up one day and he said, “You’re going to lose the mail run. All the people around that Yorkrakine area won’t have a mail delivery”, which was Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and it operated out of Tammin, [delivering] both mail and any other product that came to the town or their requirements that they needed. So he said, “Can you do it?” First of all he asked Evette, my wife, and she said, “I don’t think I can”, so we thought perhaps we might find someone who did. So [we thought] a lady called Beverley Lippiatt, who was formerly Beverley Underwood, a local family girl who had three children, may be interested in doing this. To cut a long story short, I bought a vehicle and she operated the vehicle. She lived in town, so it was very convenient for her, and she did it for those seven years. That mail run is still going today and as people say, “If you hadn’t kept it going then, we’d have lost it.”

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 22

RC It sounds, Eric, as though these community activities such as the mail run and the fuel depot, all this experience stood you in good stead for your future political career. Would that be fair enough?

CHARLTON When you look back, Ron, it probably is. You don’t think of any of those things at the time. You see there’s a task, there’s a challenge, and what can we do about it to fix it? You either come up with some way of overcoming the problem, or get someone involved who can assist. I guess that’s the way it has been with those sorts of things. I never, ever went looking for these things. I was happy doing the farming, but I always seemed to want to stick my neck out, and saw it as a challenge. I guess I got enjoyment out of it, and other people were happy for me to poke my nose into it.

RC Before we go on to talk about your involvement with the Country Party, Eric, were there any other local community activities or business affairs that you became involved in?

CHARLTON There was an issue with the local mechanical repair place, as I remember, and so a few of us got together and bought the premises. We then decided we needed to find a mechanic, so we advertised, and we had a guy who worked for Prosser Toyota in Victoria Park. We came down and saw him and encouraged him to bring his wife and family to Tammin and take on this service station-cum-mechanical repair business, because, again, if it didn’t operate, there would not be a local business there. He was very, very good. His name was Peter James, and I still see him today. As a matter of fact, I have my vehicle serviced by him because, currently, he is the service workshop manager at DVG in Melville. He was a great man of humour [who] fitted in substantially well in the Tammin community and was very successful. Then, we always seemed to be having trouble with the hotel lessees and owners, as in all those small wheatbelt towns, so the same group of people bought the hotel. We then went through a process of leasing it out or having managers in. That went on for a number of years as well till recently it was sold to a family because those who inherited the responsibility of operating those two businesses decided they didn’t need that extra responsibility, so they were both sold. Now, in the case of the service station, it’s now closed; and the hotel has changed hands a few times, but it’s still operating. Yes, those are a couple of other local initiatives we got involved in.

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 23

RC I believe you were also branch secretary and zone delegate for the Primary Industry Association, which was later the WA Farmers Federation. Could you tell me a little about that?

CHARLTON Obviously, the Farmers Federation, as it is now known, was originally called the Farmers Union. It was simply an organisation made up of primary producers. They are a lobby group that have been around for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, it’s the origin of the Country Party. The Country Party started in 1913 for the same reason, because they considered not only did they need a lobby group from an industry point of view, but they needed a political voice as well. So, as part of the day to day interests of farmers, we had that organisation that is now the Farmers Federation. Nearly everyone belonged to it, all voluntary, of course; subscriptions to be a member. I think, unlike today, pretty much everyone was involved, and while there was an interest in being part of it, not too many people lined up to be president or secretary or whatever, and so I did my turn.

RC What did your duties involve as branch secretary and delegate?

CHARLTON You had your regular meetings of the organisation, and it would be dealing with issues, such as saleyard issues: whereabouts you’d take your stock to be sold; issues with quarantine; and, sheep management issues about regulations for earmarking and branding and registrations of various things. There would always be the issues to do with CBH, that’s Co-operative Bulk Handling, about wheat bins and about access and about rules dealing, principally, with government, about what you’re allowed to cart and what you weren’t, if you look back through the minutes of these organisations. Actually, the same goes for political issues. If you look back at why the Country Party was started in 1913, you’d still see the same issues being raised as today; the health issues of country Australia and the education opportunities and so forth. We were dealing with industry activities at the time.

RC I’d like to move on now, Eric, to the Country Party. What prompted you to join the party in 1964?

CHARLTON I can actually remember the exact day, and even where I was standing. I was standing at our shearing shed and a representative of the Country Party came around, and he was looking to sign up members. As I said earlier, my parents had never been members of a political party, and I decided that it was right INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 24

and proper that if I wanted to have a say in anything then I should be a member. So I joined from that time, and that’s all I thought it probably would ever lead to. Like the other things with the Farmers Federation, I just simply went to a meeting when there was one, and certainly went to hear the local members when they came. The local member during my early days was Ray McPharlin, who was the member for Mt Marshall. Then they had upper house members, various people who were members for that area, Norm Baxter and Mick Gayfer, of course. So I went along to those sort of things, but never to the extent of wanting to ever be one, definitely not.

RC Why did you decide on the Country Party and not, for instance, the Liberal Party?

CHARLTON Well, I think it’s probably well known that most country people who joined the Country Party did so because they honestly believed that that was the one organisation that ought to be dedicated to taking responsibility for improving the lot of country people. At that time it was also, unfortunately, known as the farmers’ party. That’s a pretty sad state of affairs, because most of the issues that they ever dealt with weren’t farmers’ [issues]. It is like everything else in life (and I think this is a critical and important point for everything and everyone to acknowledge and understand) and that is the word “perception”. The world runs on perception; the world doesn’t run on fact. Things that people perceive in their mind can change governments; it’s not necessarily the fact. The world does run on perception; it did then, and it still does. I think it’s about presentation and it’s about how you publicise and promote an issue, but, at the end of the day, people (the public) will read something into it as they see [it], and, as they say, people automatically build a picture. I always use the example that... later on, when I was involved in putting before cabinet the plan to build the Graham Farmer Freeway and the Northbridge tunnel I said to Main Roads, “Cabinet will never, ever understand and comprehend what we’re talking about; you’ll have to build a model.” So they built a model, and it was outstanding and very much in detail. I had that set up on another floor of the cabinet centre where cabinet used to meet, and so I took them all there to see it. That’s a good example, I think, of saying you can’t explain a lot of things to people; seeing is believing. It’s a bit like what St Thomas said, didn’t he? “When I put my hand in his side”, and so forth and so on. That’s the way it is. So it was known as the Country Party, and so I thought it was right to do that.

INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 25

The Liberal Party to me, and still is, totally almost, regardless of where their members come from, is for obvious reasons, they are answerable to the city people of Australia, or of Perth in WA. That’s where most of the seats are. WA is the most isolated state in the most isolated nation in the world, and WA has the greatest isolation when it comes to population. It makes no sense for people in country Western Australia … if they want to be involved and they want to make a difference, they should be involved in an organisation that dedicates itself to that. Now that doesn’t mean that the organisation got its priorities right all the time, and that’s another part of the story.

RC When you joined in 1964, Eric, what are your recollections of the state, if you like, of the Country Party at that time?

CHARLTON I thought the Country Party at that time was good. They had people that were dedicated to the task, while I’d never have been happy because, as I commonly admit, I’m a critic. I’m a football critic and a political critic, and I’m a critic of most things in life because, like anyone who has an interest in things, you see more the things that you don’t agree with than the things you do agree with. So it was only when what is commonly referred to as “the split” came in the ‘70s that I really did get involved. I got involved to the extent that I’d never, ever met Hendy Cowan, who was the member for Merredin at that stage, and so I phoned him up and said to him, “Listen, I thought that you had very little influence on what was going on when you were one organisation. I can’t see how you’re going to have any influence now in the current set up.” [He said] words to the effect that while he didn’t disagree with me, there was no future the way it was either. He said, “But if you want to do something about it to change it, why don’t you do something yourself?” [This was] after I’d told him what I thought ought to happen. It’d have been probably better for everyone if he hadn’t have said that, because I probably would have just hung up and stayed farming.

RC I’m going to actually talk to you about the split further on. I’ve got quite a few questions on this split in the party. When you joined the party, what did you see as the aims of the party? You mentioned it was the party for country people, but was there anything more specific than that?

CHARLTON Not for me there wasn’t, because if you’ve grown up in country Western Australia, and that can vary a lot between just an outer urban area or a very INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 26 remote area, the fact is, it is commonly perceived, again … once you get the other side of the Darling Range, there’s a very good saying of country people that “you’re forgotten”. And it still is. I could just go on here for an hour and tell you about all the things that I know that are totally unacceptable that are being allowed to go on in country Western Australia that would never, ever be agreed to or tolerated down here. On the other hand, of course, we do a lot of things in country WA that you’d never get allowed to do down here, and the reason you’re allowed to do them is because nobody cares. The reasons for being involved in the Country Party were simply that.

RC When you joined the party, Eric, in the mid-1960s, what were the main issues at that time?

CHARLTON As I said, if you went back to 1913 and you took them out to what Brendon Grylls was saying at the last election, the issues are very, very similar. The two biggest issues are always health and education, and then the other significant issue is transport. Transport is just a factor of everyday life. It’s getting products in and products out, and the travelling that people have to do, that school buses have to do, is a significant issue. Whether you are going to be able to retain your school, whether you’ve got a high school or whether that is going to cater for the subjects; the list goes on and on. They were the issues, and still are the issues.

RC You mentioned earlier about the Liberal Party; the difference being that the Liberal Party was concerned with Perth, if you like, the urban areas; and the Country Party was concerned with people in the country areas. The question is: how did you see the relationship of the Country Party to the Liberal Party at that time when you joined? Is that how you saw the relationship purely and simply, or was there something else?

CHARLTON Yes, absolutely. Let’s take one very significant issue that was there when I joined but before I ever became a member of Parliament, and that was probate. The issue of probate was an absolutely - I can’t even think of a strong enough word - despicable tax on people. To be taxed while you are alive, and then for the estate to have to pay the equivalent of the tax rate, whatever, when the person who owned that piece of property [died] … The Liberal Party went along with it … instigated it. [They] certainly stated that they would never, ever get rid of it because they couldn’t have nothing to replace it, and so forth and so on. But it was INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 27 the Country Party who said, “We will not form a coalition with you unless you agree to drop it.” I always used to say to my colleagues in the National Party, and to the Liberal Party, “We can’t promise you success, but we can promise you defeat.”

RC That’s very good! [chuckles] The local party organisation where you were, what role did you play? I believe you were Tammin branch president at one stage.

CHARLTON As I said, like with all those other things, I took my turn, but I was just simply there waving the flag, keeping the light on, and arranging for the local member to come by and meet with local people to ensure that they had the opportunity to put their views about what was important to them. Also, then, I became a delegate to the district council, which is the organisation covering each electorate, so I was to the fore in that. Then when this split situation developed, and [after] receiving the challenge from Hendy Cowan to do something about it, I then did get really involved and went along to these district council meetings and demanded that Ray McPharlin, who was the local member, do something about ensuring that he brought these people together. As a consequence of that, I was asked would I form part of a small group of people from within the National Party, who then ultimately broke away from the Country Party, to develop some ideas on how we could reuniform the organisation. So I got involved, and, obviously, as I went along that road I learnt a lot about the background and why it had happened and so forth and so on.

RC That was my next question, Eric. I was going to talk about the split now. Just for the tape, I wonder if you could, first of all, provide a little background, from your perspective, on why the split occurred and your observations on why it happened.

CHARLTON I think it occurred, basically, for one reason, but as I said earlier, there’s always a combination of things that actually, at the end of the day, force people to do a certain thing or cause certain things to happen. I think the underlying problem was simply that some parliamentary members of the Country Party were so totally aligned to the Liberal Party that they should have been Liberals. They were good people, they were capable people, but their only ambition in life was to be a member of Parliament and to have a very cohesive working relationship with the Liberal Party. To bring in the personality situation, when Sir David Brand was the Premier of Western Australia, I think he was a person who was conciliatory, INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 28

understanding, and could see that we had to accommodate both the senior and the junior partners in the coalition. I think when Sir Charles Court took over, because you had these other people that made up the Country Party, some of them were weaker in their commitment to seeing their part of the equation. I put it this way: when you have a partnership of someone holding 75 per cent and the other one 25 per cent, that doesn’t mean that the 75 per cent wins every issue. You must take into account that other 25 per cent at least some of the time, otherwise you might as well not be there. That’s what I saw the issue was. So you had the Liberal Party dominating, and you had part of the Country Party going along with it, simply because they wouldn’t stand up and be counted.

RC What effect do you think that that split in 1975 had on the future of the Country Party?

CHARLTON It was the end of it; it was the death knell of it. They would have, certainly in the ‘80s, disappeared off the scene. It took a very significant and dedicated initiative to rescue it; it was drowning. Like a family, if you’ve got a family that’s at war from within, no-one from the outside wants to have anything to do with that group of people because they don’t want to take sides and they just don’t want to be involved. So you had a period there of a couple of elections [during which] people left voting for the Country Party in droves. Where did most of them go? Most of them went to the Liberal Party, and some went to the Labor Party, so the Country Party lost seats. I thought it would take a year or so to get a few people with a bit of common sense, all members of which had only one fundamental belief, which was we just want to elect people to represent us. The issues haven’t changed, the expectations haven’t changed; it is the personnel. It’s our vehicle that’s broken. The farm is not broken or the business is not broken; it’s the vehicle that is broken. So we then set about [working out] what we needed to do. The immediate reaction was, we just tell these representatives who have been elected, the parliamentary party, in other words, to get their act into gear and get back together again and bury the hatchet and get onto their number one priority, [which] is to represent country people. Each time we made that decision and reinforced that with them, they all said yes, but they wouldn’t work together because the secondary part of what I said, because, in addition to their beliefs, there was a personality problem as well. The feelings were so acute that one person wouldn’t work with the other. In other words, Dick Old would say, “I’ll never have anything to do with Matt Stephens”, and vice versa. They were prepared to allow the whole organisation to disappear, remembering that none of INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 29

them would have ever have been a member of Parliament if they hadn’t have had that organisation to elect them in the first place. What happened then is no different to now. I would think that Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott and so forth and so on, if they’d never got their first chance at politics through the National Party, they would never be members. They’ve never, ever won a seat in their own right as Independents in the first place, but they got their leg up by being part of an organisation. Now, that doesn’t apply to everyone, but it certainly applies to most members of Parliament who go independent; they forget where they came from.

RC In 1978 there was a split within the National Country Party that saw the formation of the National Party. What are your thoughts on that? That’s going along with what you’ve already been saying, really.

CHARLTON Exactly, and that’s when I got involved by saying, “You might believe that you’re sticking to your principles in splitting, but you’re not going to achieve anything because, in my view, you’re too small and you’re still going to have the Country Party out there, so that’s not going to work.” That’s when a few of us got together. I always can say that Hendy Cowan was always supportive. For the record, I was supportive of Hendy Cowan and Matt Stephens and those people who decided to break away. I supported them in their principle; I didn’t support them that that was the way to go. Over the next couple of years I was heavily involved in travelling around the state, at all our own expense, having meetings, sitting down, and going through developing plans of how we could bring these people back together again.

RC What was your position at that time?

CHARLTON Nothing other than a member of probably the state executive of the new National Party organisation; I was elected to represent that in various groups. First of all, there was a group of four, which was two National Party and two Country Party [members], and at least we started up a communication, where there [had been] no communication at all at the parliamentary level, and so we started to have communication at the lay level. The president of the National Party was Jim Fletcher, an outstanding man of high integrity, [who was] absolutely dedicated to the ultimate of having one organisation. John Paterson was the president of the Country Party, whom I had never met, but as time went by I got to know him and respect him for what he believed in. Without going into a kick-by-kick description of it, Ron, we went along in this toing and froing and presenting proposals to get them back together INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 30

again, but while they were split, it was a hopeless situation. We spent all our time trying to justify why there was a split. Hendy would say to me, “Eric, when you explain it to people, they understand why we did what we did, and sooner or later people will acknowledge that and they will come and vote for us.” We were in Esperance one day and he gave this fairly long and precise assessment, and people said, “Yes, now we understand. Thank you very much for that.” He said to me, “See, Eric, I tell you, all you have to do is explain it to them.” I said, “Yes, Hendy, you’ve only got another 79 000 people to see now, and everything will be all right.”

RC It’s hard to do, I know, but just in a few words could you tell me what the explanation was that you were explaining to them?

CHARLTON The explanation was, simply, that we want to represent the people and we want to stand up for country people, and we will not agree with the Liberal Party to maintain government if, as a consequence of that, they won’t agree to these important issues that we as country representatives want, such as, as I mentioned earlier, the probate issue. There was issues with marketing for agricultural products, and there was the issues of transport and that, that were significant issues together, with, of course, education and health. There are always significant issues, from time to time, that governments don’t want to know about, and they were the issues. When you say to people, “It’s no good being a member of Parliament simply to make up the numbers. You elected us to do a job, and when you want us to deliver, if we can’t deliver because the Liberal Party won’t go along with us, then what’s the point of being in it?” They’d say, “Yes, we understand that.”

RC The two parties reunited in 1985 as the National Party of Western Australia. Could you give us insights into how this came about? According to an election brochure, you were instrumental in bringing the two rural parties together. Could you just explain how this occurred?

CHARLTON Yes. When you look back on it, it was fairly significant, Ron. As I said, there had been this dialogue between the two warring groups. While the country people who were involved in both organisations had, basically, no difference of opinion about policy or about philosophy or about coalition or anything else, the issue was simply the members of Parliament. After all this driving around the southern half of WA and [having] meeting after meeting and proposals being put forward and debated and deferred and so forth and so on, and then ultimately rejected by the INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 31 members of Parliament, we finally came up with a plan that said we will form a new organisation; we will require both the National Party and the Country Party, and the National Country Party, to disband, to wind their organisations up, and we will form the new National Party of Western Australia (a fairly radical move) and the members of Parliament simply will have no party and they will have to nominate for endorsement; the endorsement will be carried out by 50 delegates (25 put forward by the old National Party and 25 by the old National Country Party) and they will endorse or not endorse sitting members; and they will have to go through that process and take their chance with everyone else. We had eight members of Parliament who would have to go through that process. That decision was taken. Then there was a meeting of both organisations, and John Paterson, in his own and usual manner, managed to get his group of people to agree to it in about five minutes. He put the motion, he had someone ready to move it and second it. I wasn’t there of course, but I think there was very little debate, and it was agreed to. Next thing, the phone was ringing where the National Party was having their meeting, saying, “Have you made a decision yet? Have you made a decision yet?” They were both held on the same day. It took a little longer to get it through the National Party - a bit more democratic perhaps - but finally it was agreed to, so that's then. Then the most extraordinary thing happened. In 1984, when this was set up, a fellow called Bill Atkinson, who had won the upper house seat at the 1983 election, a Liberal from Dalwallinu, a man in his 40s, had a heart attack and died some 18 months after being elected, which forced a by-election. So the two parties, under their new constituted operation, were required to endorse a candidate, obviously, for that by-election. There were five nominations, and I was one of them. An endorsement meeting was held in Northam, and I was endorsed. I managed to get the endorsement … everyone thought they'll be there for several hours because it will be 25:25 and people will be remembering where they come from, but it didn’t happen that way.

RC I was going to move on to the start of your political career just a little later on. You’ve partly answered this question, but just to clarify: why did you decide to support Hendy Cowan in the reunification and not take the line followed by Albert Crane, Peter Jones and Dick Old, and cross over to the Liberals?

CHARLTON Obviously, it was a no decision for me. I had always believed, from my experience of assessing Dick Old and Peter Jones, unlike Bert Crane; I thought Bert Crane was a genuine Country Party man who pursued all the aspects that a Country Party member of Parliament should. Dick Old and Peter Jones were a INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 32

totally different ilk; they should have been Liberal Party people. Again, I say they were very capable people, outstanding people in fact, they just simply should have been Liberals. They used the Country Party to get where they wanted to get, and, having got there, when the Liberal Party said “Jump”, they said, “How high?” They were absolutely deceitful in what they did, from the point of view of being Country Party people but really having no interest in the Country Party and its history and what it stood for.

RC I’m just going to ask you your impressions of some important players in this situation, Eric. How important was Hendy Cowan’s role in uniting the party and going forward, if you like?

CHARLTON I think Hendy Cowan was always supportive of one organisation; I think that Matt Stephens wasn’t. He would have preferred to have continued on with the old breakaway National Party. I think he had become so bitter with the old Country Party Old and Jones situation that that had totally influenced his belief. He had no trust that the people who were going to take over in the future wouldn’t fall into the same problems that had happened in the past, in other words, people would be influenced by the Liberals and so forth, and he would rather see it die than give it a chance for one new organisation.

RC How about Ray McPharlin?

CHARLTON Ray was a different situation again. Ray joined Hendy Cowan and Matt Stephens, and went to an election and won as the National Party. He then decided, when Sir Charles Court retired and Ray O’Connor took over, that he should go back and be part of the Country Party, because the Country Party would be in the coalition with the Liberal Party again if they won the 1983 election, which Brian Burke won. I was invited by Ray, because I was obviously a supporter of Ray in his electorate, to go with him to meet Ray O’Connor. He wanted me to meet Ray O’Connor, and he wanted me, obviously, to support his pending decision to rejoin the Country Party. So he was Country Party and went National Party and won elections at both, and he wanted to go back to the Country Party. He said Ray O’Connor, who he got along very well with personally, would give him a portfolio, and I didn’t agree with that, obviously. I said, “You can’t do it, Ray. You can’t change ships; you can change once, but you can’t change twice. People out there won’t buy that.” He said, “Eric, I could win this seat as a Communist”. I said, “Ray, you might think that, but I INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 33

don’t think that’s the case.” So I went with him to see Ray O’Connor at Parliament House (this is probably something that not many people know) and Ray O’Connor made his spiel to Ray about what was beneficial to Ray, and Ray was then telling me, “Eric, do you hear that?” and so forth and so on. So I did and I heard it all, and then I went back out and we hopped in the car and he said, “So, Eric, what do you think?” I said, “Ray, it’s not on because there’s nothing in it for country people.” I said that to Ray O’Connor in there, “I’ve heard all about what you’re going to do for Ray McPharlin; you’re going to make him a minister. What have you got for Ray to implement that’s going to be beneficial to country people?” He said, “Eric, I can’t make those sort of promises.” I said, “If you can’t make those sort of promises, then I’m not supporting it.” So Ray was very unhappy, but ultimately he went and joined back to the Country Party and lost the seat to Bill McNee of the Liberal Party.

RC Before we move on to the start of your political career, or your career in Parliament, Eric, is there anything else you would like to express about these various splits within the party that took place?

CHARLTON I think, Ron, the trauma of the activities was so volatile and acute within the parliamentary party that there was never any chance of ever any reconciliation by those six or eight people, depending on which election, so there obviously had to be an enormous amount of activity take place, and the work and the hours and the time that went into that was horrendous. Now, one particular thing happened along the way to bring it to a head that I think is probably worth noting that Evette, my wife, will remember well. As part of all of this, the Country Party were in very significant financial difficulty. They had gone into business; they had gone into retail shopping and they’d appointed a guy to run that for them. They had a significant loss incurred and they were in severe financial problems. As a consequence of that, they decided to embark on what they called the Phoenix Program, which was a fund-raising initiative to get members and supporters to donate money to the Country Party to help it survive. It lost its headquarters; it was in financial difficulty. So, Ron, a significant factor happened in that they were raising funds for what’s called the Phoenix Program, and during this time, of course, all these negotiations were taking place with the two organisations, trying to resurrect them and get them together, and an elderly gentleman by the name of Mr Lockyer was constantly ringing me up (he was a Country Party man, longstanding) saying, “Eric, what’s happening? Are we making any progress?” I’d say, “Yes, we are.” He said, “Now, listen, I promised money to this organisation. What happens if we don’t INTERVIEW ONE CHARLTON 34 get this up?” I said, “Look, it’s like this …”, and he said, “Because if it doesn’t and if they don’t agree to amalgamation with what you wanted to do, I’m going to stop my support and my funding to this fund-raising initiative they’ve got on.” I said to him, “Are you prepared to say that publicly?” He said, “Yes, I am”. So I phoned the ABC 7.30 Report, which was always carrying a story about the split in the Country Party and what was going on and how this was happening and Old said this and Hendy Cowan said that. I rang Bob Pride, as I think I remember the 7.30 Report equivalent was, and I said to him, “Would you go and see Mr Lockyer? (I gave him his address; he lived out in Gosnells) and talk to him, because he’s saying that he doesn’t want to be contributing to a lost cause.” He said, “Yes, I will.” I then phoned Mr Lockyer back and said, “7.30 Report is on their way”, and he said, “Oh, Eric, I don’t know whether I want to do that or not.” I said, “Well, you have to, because we need you to do it and you need to say it, because that’s what everybody believes.” As you can imagine, the story came out that this well-respected Country Party man said, “I’m withdrawing my money if the Country Party don’t agree to this amalgamation proposal”. And within a few minutes of that airing I got a call from John Paterson, who was the president of the Country Party, and he said, “Eric, I need to talk to you.” I said, “Right”, so I got in the car from the farm and down I came to see John Paterson. He said, “Eric, you’re destroying us.” I said, “I’m not. I’m wanting the parties to agree to what the people want; that is, to call these two meetings simultaneously with each other and let’s get the show on the road.” Of course, the Country Party was in a very difficult situation to refuse, and so the agreement went forward. END OF INTERVIEW ONE INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 35

[track 1] RC My name is Ron Chapman. I am continuing my interview with Eric Charlton for the Western Australian Parliamentary Oral History Project. Today is Tuesday, the 26th of October 2010.

Just as a reminder, Eric, last time we met we spoke about the split; the National Party, the Country Party. Now I’d like to ask you about the start of your parliamentary career. You contested the seat of O’Connor for the House of Representatives in 1980, and Central Province in 1983. What motivated you to pursue a career in politics?

CHARLTON Yes. Well, it was certainly not something that I had ever intended or had any ambition to do was to become a member of Parliament. But having got involved with the Nationals as a consequence of the split that took place and my involvement with a number of people, including the executive of the Nationals, and with Hendy Cowan in particular, the issue came forward that having started this breakaway component of the old National Country Party or the old Country Party, it was considered it was important to give those people who had supported the breakaway group in forming that new party that they should have someone to vote for when it came to, first of all, the federal election for the seat of O’Connor. So, having got involved and about wanting to do something to bring about some reconciliation and form or reunite the two warring factions of the Country Party, they asked me would I consider standing for the seat of O’Connor. I said I would consider it on the understanding that they could guarantee me that I couldn’t win, and they said, “Oh no, Eric, you’d have no chance of winning”. And so, I remember quite distinctly, having agreed to do it, I went and met with Jim Fletcher, who was the president of the Nationals, and discussed with him a bit of a plan to contest the seat and to spread myself around the electorate as much as I could in a three-week period prior to that 1980 election, and just to wave the flag for those people who would want to vote in support of what had taken place previously with forming the Nationals. So, I agreed to do that. Then I remember thinking, as I was working on the farm in the ensuing couple of days before I started this massive drive around part of WA, the O’Connor electorate, “Gee whiz, what would happen now if something happened and I happened to win? I have no intention of leaving the farm and my family and going off to Canberra and so forth and so on.” And as it came to pass, the Country Party component directed their preferences towards the Liberal Party, which in fact set up the career of Wilson Tuckey. So that’s when he won the seat for the INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 36

first time, in 1980, on preferences from the Country Party; whereas, even though we were at, obviously, loggerheads with those people in the Country Party, we directed our preferences to the National Country Party because we thought they were, obviously, the group of people that we should be helping, even though we had this very major difference of opinion. So that came and went. Then the same thing happened again when we had the 1983 state election when Ray McPharlin, as I’ve mentioned previously, decided that he would go back to the National Country Party and contest the seat. And so the Nationals again were looking for someone to contest the seat of Mount Marshall and the upper house seat of Central Province. Again, I said that I would take on that responsibility, that task, in running in the upper house contest. And Ron Aitkenhead from Tammin, who lived not far from me and who’d been fairly active, for the same reasons that I had, in the organisation and wanting to see at least a contest, but he also was quite adamant that he had no intention of ever wanting to be a member of Parliament, even though he was a pretty significant student of politics and a very capable person. He went on to be a senior vice president of the reunited National Party, so he stayed involved. He contested the seat, but again the situation came that Ray McPharlin actually directed his preferences to Bill McNee, the Liberal candidate, as the National Country Party did on all occasions when there was a contest between the Nationals and the National Country Party; and it’s for the reasons that I stated last time in my assessment of the National Country Party, that they were being dominated by people who were basically Liberals in Country Party colours. And so, what happened then, contrary to what … Ray McPharlin, that longstanding member for Mount Marshall, lost the seat to the Liberal Party. And so those were the reasons how I came to contest them, and I remember quite vividly stating at a function to wind up that 1983 election, “Well, that’s the end of that and I won’t have to get involved in this any more.” Then, obviously, from that day on we continued to work to try to reunite the organisations and, as it was said, successfully that came about and was then as a consequence of the death of William Atkinson that that happened.

RC Just going back on your reasons for pursuing a career in politics, Eric, we spoke before about your involvement in the split in the party. So is it true to say, then, really it was your involvement and your interest in sorting out, if you like, the split in the party that prompted your interest in politics and your motivation, if you like, to take up a career in politics?

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 37

CHARLTON Yes, absolutely, Ron. I think my role in life has been pretty much I didn’t ever have any ambition to get involved in most things that I’ve done in life if everything was running along sweetly, you know, the farming issues. I remember getting involved in an issue in the Whitlam era when they decided to put a tax on the export of beef because they said beef was bringing too high a price. And I mounted a bit of a campaign and was a critic of that initiative and having something to say at some forum, and the next thing I knew the ABC wanted to come to our farm where we ran some cattle and did some video of a few of us farmers. And so, you know, I guess it’s fair to say, as I’ve openly stated, that I’m a critic when I see something what I consider wrong. Now, what I consider wrong was not what everybody else considers that, but that’s the sort of reasons I got involved. And then having been to the forefront of bringing the two parties back together, as we discussed earlier, then this factor came and people were saying, “Well, look, you’ve spent years making this happen or helping to make it happen; really, you should now contest it and see if you can win the seat and be the first one that’s there under this new united name would be the logical thing for you to do.” And I did go and speak with Ron Aitkenhead, who had run for the seat of Mount Marshall, and said to him, “Do you want to do it; would you like to contest it?”, and he said, “No, but I think you should.”

RC You’ve just mentioned, Eric, it was November 1984. You were the National Party candidate for the seat of Central Province, which had become vacant on the death of William Atkinson. What contribution did you think you could make as a member of state Parliament?

CHARLTON Well the first thing I thought I would do is that it was absolutely critical to win that seat. If we had not have won that seat at that time, it would probably have been the end of the National Party in Western Australia. That was the common belief. It was a test election, and there are a number of people who nominated, most of whom had an ambition to be a member of Parliament. But my ambition was totally and absolutely that we needed to win that seat to demonstrate to the public that yes, they would have a voice; yes, I wouldn’t be compromised by the party politics; I wouldn’t be persuaded to run along with people just for the sake of doing it; and if I could win that seat and start off and set an example that this is what country people wanted, and if I could toe the line and follow that without any compromise, then I thought we could attract other people into that organisation. And I remember, having won the seat, the first thing that happened when I got to Parliament is the Parliament House people said, “Now, whose office are you going to share with, Mr Charlton?” INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 38

and I said, “I’m not sharing with anyone. I happen to be the only one here of the National Party of WA.” And so they said, “Well, we haven’t got an office for you.” I said, “Well, that doesn’t matter. I’ll park my briefcase in the corridor.” And that’s what I did, because it was important from a principle point of view that I not only did the job but was being seen not to be sharing an office with a National Country Party member or a National Party member; because otherwise the first thing would be one mob would be saying, “Well, look, see, there you go, he’s going to side with them.” And the media being what they are (and I’ll have a bit more to say about the media, obviously, Ron) but that’s how I started my time at Parliament House.

RC I’d just like to go back to the campaign itself, Eric. What were the main issues that featured in your campaign?

CHARLTON The main issues were twofold. One was: should there be a National Party? I mean, people were saying, “Well, look, you mob have been fighting and squabbling for six or seven years; this is just going to be more of that. You’re really not worth voting for. We might as well all vote Liberal.” And so the campaign was very much about this is our chance to start again afresh and give a voice to country people that won’t be compromised. So that was the main thrust, and the advertising that I had a say over was on that basis. Now obviously the old National Country Party, most of whom had gone to be with the Liberal Party, put up a candidate and that candidate called himself a Country Party candidate. Now, there was no such thing as a Country Party; there was only one National Party in WA. But he was really running as a blind to siphon off votes, and those preferences were directed and recommended to go to the Liberal candidate, who was Bruce Donaldson. And the Labor Party didn’t run a candidate because, as they often do in by-elections, parties who haven’t got any chance of winning a particular seat. And I always thought that was an issue for us as well, because Labor Party people like to follow a how-to-vote card in most instances. I remember on election day, as we went around, Labor Party people kept saying, “Well, where’s my how-to-vote Labor card?” “Well, there isn’t one”; and the people that were handing them out made the comment about that. So, yes, the whole thrust was not only about the issues that are, as I’ve said before, eternal and go on forever about health and education and transport. Transport is a big issue and still is today. I mean, out there at this particular time in history the issue is whether there’s going to be a railway left to move grain or whether more and more is going to go onto road. They were the issues at that time and will always be.

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 39

RC Just a few words about the campaign itself, Eric, the actual running of the campaign. Have you any comments on how the campaign was run?

CHARLTON Yes, certainly. Having won the endorsement, and I might have mentioned before that I think there were five candidates nominated for the position, the selection committee was made up of 25 people submitted by members of the old National Country Party and 25 by the Nationals of WA. So, we met in Northam and people... I guess not necessarily because I thought I was the best person, but I think they knew one thing about me and that I was committed and dedicated to putting the National Party first. I won the vote on the first ballot and then the campaign started. So, the first thing was after that I got a phone call from a fellow called Ernie Strahan, who was an ex-farmer and businessman in Koorda, WA. He phoned me up and he said, “Eric, have you got a campaign manager?”, and I said, “No.” Obviously I needed to win the endorsement first. He said, “Well, I think my wife Roma would do it for you.” As it’s turned out, Roma didn’t know about this proposal that Ernie had put forward, but Roma Strahan is one of the most outstanding ladies that’s in the community; super efficient; so capable that she just, having then agreed to what her husband had put in front of her, said, “Yes, all right, well, if you’ve committed me, well, perhaps I’ll do it.” So, I said, “Righto.” [interruption for phone call] Did you want to stop?

RC No. Go on.

CHARLTON So, Roma Strahan agreed to do it; and, as I’ve said, she’s a very efficient person. So, we got together and we outlined what we needed to do. First of all, we needed to have a planned visit to all points of the electorate of Central Province and make contact with personnel on the ground there and to coordinate it in such a way that you were moving from one town to the other. While it was a fairly short campaign period, it needed to be efficiently run to ensure that we covered as many areas as possible. So you didn’t want to be one day at one end of the electorate and the other day somewhere else, because you spend all your time driving around; and, as country members of Parliament do, there’s an enormous travelling component in it. As I say, she took it upon herself to coordinate it all. Then there was the advertising to be arranged, which she also did with the local newspapers [and] with the radio stations putting together interviews that I did; and also to have through the post a letter drop that went out to all the electors.

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 40

RC How do you think the media responded to you in the campaign? Were they positive? Did they serve you well, the media, at that time?

CHARLTON Oh yes. I certainly didn’t have any criticism of the media. I got a very fair hearing. I think most of the comment at the time was that this could be the end of the National Party, or the Country Party as such. So, those comments were always made. I think the Liberal Party obviously were trying to reinforce, “Why vote for a small organisation that’s got no power to influence any more, and all that repetitious type of campaigning that always goes on?” And I suppose if I was a Liberal that’s what I’d be saying too. But, again, we managed to convince enough people to be successful. But, no, the media were very fair.

RC On the 17th November 1984, Eric, you were elected as MLC for Central Province. How did you feel when you knew you had been elected?

CHARLTON Well, obviously, I guess not as overwhelmed as I would’ve been if I’d have won one of those previous elections where I had no intention of sort of wanting to be a member of Parliament. Having set out to win in 1984, well then I’d have been pretty devastated if I hadn’t have won because the stakes were so high. Having won it, I then thought to myself, “Well, you know, this is going to be a new experience”; and as my daughter said to me just the other day, “Dad, we could never come to terms with how you were going to move out of black shorts into a black suit, because every time we saw you, we knew you as on the farm and in your shorts and working and/or being involved in other things in life.” Yeah, so, it was something that … but I was full of enthusiasm; I looked forward to it, and I couldn’t wait to get there.

RC What do you think were the key factors that contributed towards your success in the election?

CHARLTON Ron, I guess other people would be, perhaps, better qualified to answer that, but I think two things mainly: the fact that I’d put in so much time and commitment and was dedicated to ensuring that there was going to be an organisation that country people could vote for with confidence that they wouldn’t let them down; and, secondly, that I think that people that knew me, knew that I’d give it my best shot.

RC How did you feel when you first entered state Parliament? INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 41

CHARLTON Well, obviously, the swearing in was something that … it was a new experience. I think, like all members of Parliament, unless they’ve had a very close association with parliamentary procedure, parliamentary operations, the operations of Parliament are nothing like any other forum for where meetings or anything of that nature takes place. The manner in which legislation is introduced, the first reading, second reading, third reading procedures, the committee stages and so forth, you know, was totally foreign to me obviously. While I’d had a fair bit of experience in meeting procedure and chairing meetings and all the rest of it, it’s nothing like what the Parliament is. And then of course you have the activities of members of Parliament; some of them are very, very good and you quickly assess those people with capabilities, and at the bottom end of the spectrum you see other people who are, in my thoughts, totally irresponsible. Some of them had too much to drink before making speeches and went on ad nauseam and I used to despair [that] their leaders wouldn’t go to those people and sit them down or do something about trying to stop the waste of time. There were other members of Parliament who just got up and filibustered for the sake of doing it, which I think is totally unacceptable as well. Of course, there would be plenty of people who’d have comment about some of my activities in the Parliament too, Ron, I’m sure if the question was asked. Later on I’ll make comment about question time, which is always something I looked forward to.

RC When you first entered Parliament, Eric, how were you received by other members?

CHARLTON Oh, extremely well, extremely well. I was certainly accepted for who I was and what I was. And I think that’s one of the great things about the parliamentary system, with all the other shortcomings that there is from time to time, you know, the respect that members of Parliament have for each other, and to leave what happens in the chamber or in the Parliament there, and not carry it on outside, is a wonderful thing in this state and nation, and that appears to still continue on today. So, yes, I was very well received, probably looked upon as bit of a maverick that I managed to win the seat as part of this organisation. But, yes, members of Parliament were very good. And, in addition to members of Parliament, staff, of course, at Parliament House [were] simply outstanding people and always there to give advice and assistance.

RC Who assisted you most, do you think, during your early days in Parliament? Who were your mentors, in other words? Who helped you the most? INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 42

CHARLTON Well, obviously, Mick Gayfer was there as a member of Parliament, but at that particular time he hadn’t made a decision to join the Nationals. He was a National Country Party person and he said, in essence, on a number of occasions that he didn’t change his wife, his religion or his politics! And so, while he was very friendly and supportive of me, he was not one that was going to have too much activity with me because of the situation that he was in. Of course, later on he joined the National Party and I went out and campaigned hard for him to win. As far as the other people of the Parliament, obviously the Liberal Party people, to a person, were all very supportive, and Labor Party people too. I don’t think I could really identify any one person in particular that I dealt with any more than anyone else. Certainly, I still stayed in very close contact with Hendy Cowan in the Assembly, because it was from that time on that they needed to seek endorsement with the National Party as a lead- in to the next election, and it was important for him to be part of the New National Party as leader.

RC When you first entered the Legislative Council, Eric, how did you see your role as a member of that chamber?

CHARLTON I certainly saw my role as a representative of the people. Obviously I had an electorate office that I opened in Northam. I chose Northam for one real particular reason; I wanted to ensure that there was a presence of the new party structure there for people to have a shop window. As we led into the forthcoming state election in 1986, where Max Trenorden had run before for the National Country Party, and I was hoping that he was going to be the candidate again. So, really, the first part of my period in Parliament from the end of ‘84 up until the election in ‘86 was still continuing to be involved in the lay organisation as part of getting people to be endorsed to contest the other seats. As well as obviously I didn’t make my maiden speech until the Parliament resumed the following year, and my maiden speech was on transport, predominantly, and I very soon, obviously, through my activities in the lead-up to the election and having opened the electorate office, the workload was full-on from day one.

RC Just talking about your electoral office, Eric, how many staff were there in that office? What sort of help did you get in that direction?

CHARLTON All electorate offices at that particular time only had one employee, so her name was Linda Dehne, and she was a very efficient operator. She had no INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 43 political experience at all, but that’s pretty common with people, in some cases that come in, particularly in my circumstances. Naturally I didn’t want to have someone that had worked for a different Member of Parliament with a different background and issues that might be continued on. So, she took that position and, you know, had a long working relationship with her. As I say, she was a shop window, and always said to her, “You never, ever knock anyone back; you hear them out, you ensure that you take their particulars, and we always ensure that we go back to them and respond to the issue that they have.”

RC As we said before, Eric, you were the first member elected for the reconstituted National Party of WA. How did you to feel about this?

CHARLTON It was critically important that I carried out this task in a responsible manner, and the proof of the pudding was not only having won the seat, but to be able to go forward from there and consolidate the organisation. Now, when we’d joined the two parties together again and formed the new organisation, we had John Paterson, the previous president of the National Country Party, and Jamie Ferguson, National Party, filling the role of vice president. So we had one for one all the way through the organisation, including endorsement as well as administration. And, you know, not many organisations would work fluently in that background. But having put the organisation together the way it was, with one for one from both of the previous organisations, it was very important that I communicated with them in a very positive manner to ensure that there was a focus on leading up to the next election, and that they could promote the unified organisation, using me as an example that we’d won that seat and now there was the opportunity for various other electorates to return a National member at the next state election. So, I worked very closely with the lay party. I knew them all very, very well. They knew what I’d done when I got to Parliament, that I’d set up an office independently, that I’d not given any reason to anyone to criticise by saying, “Well, I was part of this group or that group” or whatever else.

RC So, when you first entered state Parliament, Eric, what was the influence of the National Party in state Parliament? How did you see its position at that time?

CHARLTON Well, obviously the situation had gone through a bad period whereby Dick Old, Peter Jones and Bert Crane had joined the Liberal Party and so, for the INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 44

most part, I think people thought that this was the end; that, yes, there had been a bit of a lifeline, a bit of a flutter with me winning that seat, but the real test was going to come in 1986. So, I was there in a situation that, perhaps, this might be a one-termer, that the time might prove that we couldn’t go forward from there. And so I left no stone unturned to go to every function that was on around country WA, to put my presence that we could build this organisation again, if we elected the right people from the right backgrounds and so forth and so on. And obviously, working together with John Paterson and Jamie Ferguson, and remembering also, very, very importantly, that Jim Fletcher, who had been a past president of both the organisations previously, agreed that in the best interests of reconciliation that he would step down and not seek to take any position. Now that was a very noble gesture by him. As I’ve said before, he was an outstanding person of the highest integrity and a man who not only led the organisation with great effect, but also was very generous in his financial support to keep that breakaway part of the organisation alive. Otherwise I mean they could all have just left Parliament and gone away and did something else and let the country voice die, as it would have done. So, I continued to move around the electorates we were going to contest to demonstrate to people yes, you’ve elected one member of Parliament; now we can get some more.

RC In your early years in Parliament, Eric, how do you see the relationship of the National Party to the Liberal Party, at that time, when you first entered Parliament?

CHARLTON Oh well obviously I guess they were a bit disappointed that I’d got there, because it would have made their life a fair bit easier from there on in. But, at the same time, you know, I think … it’s like most things in life, that no matter what people think of you; they judge you for what you are. I think it was pretty quick that people knew where I was coming from and that I had a job to do and I’d set myself up with absolute[ly] blatantly obvious what I was about, and they accepted it. Now, that didn’t stop them from doing anything and everything they could about it from an election point of view. For example, one of the things that was always very obvious, especially later on when we had the balance of power after the ‘86 state election in the upper house, the Liberal Party would often vote against something that they had every intention of supporting just to ensure that the Nationals, acting responsibly, would vote for a particular issue in the Parliament, or piece of legislation more particularly, and then go out and tell the electorate as they led into the next election INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 45 that the Nationals on X number of occasions voted with the Labor Party. They didn’t say what the issue was or what the legislation was; it was just, “These people, you can’t trust them, you shouldn’t vote for them, because they vote with the Labor Party.” And that’s something that, it’s politics, but it certainly didn’t impress me. And all that ever did was to make you more determined to give them everything you had, and both barrels, when the opportunity came to do something. And the other thing was that I used to remind the Liberal Party from time to time is that they never, ever won an election in their own right, so I don’t know why they were so obsessed about trying to get rid of the National Party, because their role in life, and it’s no different with Brendon Grylls in the last election, is that if the Liberal Party concentrate on metropolitan WA or Australia, and let the Nationals deal with country and prioritise that, you can have a pretty good working arrangement. But, power is absolute, as they say, and corrupts as a consequence, and so that logic doesn’t always come to the fore.

RC When you entered Parliament, Eric, it was during the early years of the Burke Labor government. This is a rather general question, but what are your recollections of the state of WA politics at that particular time?

CHARLTON Well, obviously, I think you can probably go back one step from there. I think Brian Burke got elected because the previous coalition government had been seen to have been running out of steam, and I think Sir Charles Court probably knew that as well, and that’s why he retired and Ray O Connor took over. I don’t think they were ever going to win the ‘83 election. As a consequence of that, the Labor Party came to the fore with Brian Burke, who was the ultimate politician. He ruled the Labor Party, I guess, in a totally different perspective, but in a similar way to what Charles Court had the Liberal Party in as much as what Brian Burke said, went. As I remember seeing Brian Burke, whether he be in the Parliament or in the corridors or in the dining room, he was looked upon as the great Messiah, if you like, of Western Australia. He was smart, he was smooth, and he was a really, really nice person. He spoke to everyone and treated everyone very nicely. As he moved around the Parliament or the state, he had an aura about him. He was there in full control.

RC So it’s true to say, then, that your impressions at that time of Brian Burke were very positive?

CHARLTON Well I didn’t like his politics, obviously. INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 46

RC As a person.

CHARLTON As a person, you had to say that he was the best person to lead the Labor Party at that time because he was obviously head and shoulders above everyone else.

RC I would now like to go through some of your early speeches. In your first speech in the Legislative Council in February 1985, you moved a motion calling upon the state government to revise its agricultural policy, especially in the areas of transport and associated costs. What prompted you to present this motion?

CHARLTON The whole thrust of what was happening as far as services to country WA was concerned is that the easy way out in all the issues is when something is losing money, the easiest thing to do is to put the charges up. That’s what had come … if you look through the whole of the Australian economy, I suppose, from after the Second World War, things were gradually gathering momentum as costs were low and returns got increasingly better and the standard of living kept going up. Then we come to a period where that started to level out. The changes that had taken place from a technology point of view in private enterprise hadn’t flown on to government services, and so we had antiquated systems in place for doing things and totally over-employment required to run these organisations. Simply, people were paying too much. As an example, with grain prices as they were in that period, let’s say, for example, wheat at $100 a tonne out of Southern Cross and some of those eastern areas, 25 per cent of their gross income was simply on the freight on the Westrail component of getting their grain to Kwinana. In other words, $25 a tonne out of $100 was taken off the top to go straight to a railway operator who was totally inefficient. I’d seen that happening. That’s just one example, obviously, about the way things were done.

RC In that speech, Eric, you stress the issue of tariff protection. Would you like to say a few words about how you saw the impact of tariff protection?

CHARLTON Tariff protection is a two-way thing. I guess we can all go back to old “Black Jack” McEwen, as the name that most people in Australia who are old enough to remember, was someone who said we have to protect Australian industry first. Well as far as I was concerned, and I still think the same today, if you said everything INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 47

should have a tariff, they’d say, “You’re way behind the times because as free trade, that’s what it’s all about.” There was tariff protection on some goods and not on others. So we just simply had an unfair set of circumstances that prevailed at that time. I guess if you go out there today, as I said earlier, the same issues are still there.

RC In August 1985 you spoke about the divisions between urban and rural communities. In your speech you said, “We should put this nation right and not have an attitude of country versus city or on one side of the house versus the other side. We should consider the main issues which obviously are for the benefit of all of us and the nation as a whole.” Just going back to your last comment, do you think that what you said then still applies today?

CHARLTON Absolutely. I despair when from the first day I got there to think that people were playing politics with serious issues. If I was back in the Parliament today I’d be even despairing more. I don’t know whether it’s because I’m getting older and old or not, but some of the things that I see happening to this nation now as I saw then … and as a matter of fact I’ve had a couple of people say to me recently, “Eric, you did suggest a few things that were going to happen and we thought ‘don’t think that will ever be’, but they’ve come to pass.” So, yes, I think there was a wonderful opportunity, and still is obviously, but I think the ship has gone a long way off course now to turn it around compared to what could have happened then.

RC In this speech you also stated your admiration at that time for Sir Joh BjelkePetersen. What did you admire about Sir Joh?

CHARLTON He got things done. While there was always the critics and the media, of course, who had a terrible attitude towards him, I suppose it was similar in return, but I met Sir Joh BjelkePetersen on a few occasions. When you look back in Queensland to see what was happening in that period of the progress that was being made … now people say, “Yes, but you can’t have progress at any price.” I agree with that, but it’s better than having no progress at all. Anyone who never made a mistake never ever did anything. We’ve got a lot of people in this nation who’ve never made a mistake, and they never did anything either. What I liked about Sir Joh BjelkePetersen, well, one, he was a National, I suppose; that was a pretty good start. The second thing was that when the initiative needed to be taken to encourage people to develop activities in businesses in Queensland, that’s where they were all INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 48

going because he would cut the red tape and short-circuit the system and say, “Well, if you’ve got a good idea, let’s talk about it and let’s see what we can do to help you make it happen.” Governments are not there to tell people and initiate things. It usually comes from the population, who initiate things. Governments are there to ensure that there’s a procedure in place, but the biggest thing and the bottom line is to ensure that it can happen. We seem to have gone through a process, and I’ll come to it a bit later, is that we want to stop people from doing things rather than find a way to help them do it.

RC In June 1986, Eric, during a debate about a proposed bill of rights, you voiced your concerns about what is not in the bill. What are your views on an Australian bill of rights?

CHARLTON Well, I think that’s exactly it. When you’re going to put something in, it’s what you leave out. I’ve always come to believe that if you’re an Australian citizen, you’ve got your rights. We’ve got the Constitution; so what else do we need? When you know that some of the people who are behind the bill of rights are probably the same thinking type of people that are behind some of the current initiatives like climate change, carbon tax, all these things. Some of the key players are not genuine; they’ve got an ulterior motive about how they’re going to get control of somebody else’s activity or they’re going to make some money out of it. I think you need to be wary. The population, with all due respect, are followers. There’s only a few people upfront and then the rest will follow in behind, for all good reasons initially, until they find out they’re going down the wrong road. Then there’s a reaction and people say, “Well, you’ve led us up the garden path.” As far as the bill of rights, I think it’s nothing more than a bit of a diversion to get people’s mind off their other day-to-day activities.

RC You just mentioned climate change and carbon tax. At this point, could I just ask you: what are your thoughts on those two issues?

CHARLTON They’re very strong. As far as climate change is concerned, I think it’s the greatest hoax that’s now beset the world. Climate change is a natural phenomenon of changing weather patterns that take place and we shouldn’t get confused between climate change and environmental management. Good environmental management is an absolute must. We shouldn’t be degrading our river systems and our waterways and the land use; the list goes on and on. They’re basic INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 49 management decisions of simply good practice, not to be confused with climate change. Any worthwhile scientist out there is stating the history of climate change, particularly people with a geological background, who I’ve had a fair bit to do with over recent years and take a lot of notice and put a lot of credence on. I’m totally unqualified to comment about anything from a scientific point of view but I think I know enough and have associated myself with enough people over my lifetime to see that when we’ve had these enormous changes in weather; and if you look at a weather pattern on any day in the world and see the enormous influences and variations that take place on a daily basis, you will see how a little place... I mean Western Australia is big compared to a lot of other nations around the world from a mass area, but to see the influences on currents, on wind patterns and so forth that the creation of low pressure systems and high pressure systems and so forth and about rainfall. I’ve been a farmer. Even as part of being a member of Parliament, I still retained my farming activity. No-one watches and understands the weather more acutely than farmers, because they have to. This business we’re confronted with now about climate change, now nobody’s talked about the current floods that are taking place across eastern Australia. It was going to get drier and drier and drier. Now they’re having the wettest for 100 years and I haven’t heard one word out of the media or one word out of the people who were saying, “We’re just in a dry, dry period and it’s going to get worse and worse” to explain why it’s currently raining, not just raining for a few weeks but it’s been going on now for 12 months pretty much all across central Australia. When it comes to carbon tax, now if you’re going to put a tax on those people who are releasing emissions into the air and put a tax on carbon, is that the ultimate aim to clean up the environment or is it another opportunity to siphon off some money along the way, a bit like superannuation that now a lot of people don’t know where it’s ended up and now we’re still going to have the problems associated with old age and people being looked after? I think it’s critically important that a few people realise that climate change has been enormous over the hundreds and the thousands of years. We came out of an ice age. Why did that happen? Look what happened when there’s a volcano. More carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere out of one volcano than what Australia’s put in in its total 200- years history. That’s how ludicrous it is.

RC Thanks Eric. Also in June 1986, this is during your time in opposition, you spoke about the rural crisis and argued that farmers had suffered largely because of bad decisions made by various federal governments in areas such as excise, import parity pricing and on fuel charges. In several of your speeches you INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 50

called for a revision of the nation’s taxation and social security systems. In what ways do you think these systems should be revised?

CHARLTON Some of those things have taken place now with the changes that have taken place in tariffs and import duties and so forth and so on. Most of them have gone. But for a nation that had parity pricing simply when we were producing a component of our own energy needs but we needed to put a tax on them so that we didn’t sell it to Australians cheaper than the cost of importing it, seems a ludicrous situation to me. They said, “Oh, well, we got to do that because we need to encourage the oil search and so forth and so on.” But again, I think we all need to be wary, and I was at that time. I think it was more about balancing the books than it was about looking after Australians.

RC You partially answered that in your last answer. I was going to ask: has any real progress been made in these areas since the late 1980s?

CHARLTON There has been some progress. Obviously, I suppose the floating of the dollar and the situation with some of the trading aspects with tariffs and such where we have taken off tariffs to allow some of the importation of machinery and that sort of thing into Australia. At the same time I can’t believe how we can be, as of today, you know, this phenomenal exporter of iron ore and yet we don’t really have a steel industry in Australia of any consequence. You would have thought the logical thing to do would have been to say, “Well, look, let’s as part of this operation, a percentage of this iron ore must be turned into steel locally.” Now I know, because I’ve had discussions with BHP and Rio Tinto personnel back in the last period of my time in Parliament, which is 10 or 12 years ago now, and they say, “Well, it doesn’t stack up. It’s not economically viable.” Well if everything was based upon being economically viable, there’s a lot of things we wouldn’t do in this nation. There’s a lot of services around; that’s why we pay taxes. I think that we’ve allowed a lot of things to simply deteriorate. Our water supplies, for example, probably the most crucial thing, because governments haven’t involved themselves to ensure that companies contribute to infrastructure … it’s all one-way traffic. You know, if you want to look after the interests of the nation and its people, then there’s a few things you have to do along the way that mightn’t be economically viable in the short term but if you haven’t got a base there, then you’re never going to have it.

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 51

[track 2] RC Eric, in a speech in November 1986, you suggested that on leaving school and before entering tertiary institutions, young people should enter the workforce for a year or two in order to learn something of the real world. Do you still hold these views?

CHARLTON Yes, I do. I guess there is an opportunity for some people, as part of their last years of secondary education, to do some additional technical activity in metalwork, woodwork or [the] community or whatever. But even for the other brightest people of our community, you know, it’s a very difficult thing to get a proper perspective on life in general, and all the issues that we as people come across during our lives, if we haven’t ever been out there and witnessed and seen what happens in those sort of circumstances. And for a young person, when you’re 18 is really when you know everything that you need to know. Some people say that’s when people should become the Prime Minister of Australia, when they’re at that age, because that’s when they do know everything; or when we do know everything at that age. But I think it would be a great benefit if for one year, or even a half a year, people went out and got a job doing something totally different to what their life calling was going to be on.

RC What’s your opinion on national service or some sort of community service? Do you think that would be beneficial today?

CHARLTON Absolutely. I think it’s no question that people… and it doesn’t have to be, obviously, in the armed services, but in some form. It does need to have a discipline to it. It’s no good people being invited to front up and maybe they’ll come and maybe they’ll not, and don’t have to perform. There shouldn’t be any place for lackadaisical non-performance by anybody in our society, because there’s too many Australians … and Australia is going down the gurgler in my view. That terminology means that we’re going backwards in so many ways because we’ve become too inward looking, too narrow in our attitude towards each other; and every time something goes wrong now, it’s someone else’s fault. It’s never the individual taking responsibility. We keep changing laws to protect people from themselves to the extent that insurance is so extravagant, so costly now, for small community organisations, particularly in country areas, and it gets back to this stupid attitude that we’ve got that we need to protect everybody from each other and from themselves.

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 52

RC My next question actually, to a certain extent, runs on from what you have just said. In June 1988, in a speech, you voiced your concerns about the growing power of minority pressure groups and their influences on society and the family. Do you still see these groups as a threat to society?

CHARLTON Yes; I think it’s worse today. It has got worse year by year. And I think these small groups have too much airplay. There’s no doubt to me that the media need to be held responsible for a great deal of this. It is so easy in this day and age, with the communication system that we’ve got, for one individual, some extremist, to get their point of view across while the other 90 per cent, who generally agree about what’s right and wrong, have no say at all because they don’t get the response through the media. We’ve got local government, for example, which is the organisation that’s closest to the people we are all told, is basically run by single- issue people. They get elected because they have an issue. It’s a negative thing that they’ve got a beef about, and so we respond to that and elect those single-issue people. They don’t want to work as a team. They’re not there for the benefit of their community as a whole. They’re just pushing a barrow, and in some cases it’s their own.

RC In a speech in April 1989 you referred to the problems of salinity and land degradation, more specifically to a lack of coordination to tackle these problems. Do you think any progress has been made on these issues?

CHARLTON Very little. There’s been an absolute fortune wasted by governments and, again, by pressure groups who’ve formed themselves into land care groups and other environmental groups to the extent that scarce government funds have been directed for these people, mainly into tree planting initiatives. Now, those people who know anything about salinity will know that the clearing of the land, particularly in Western Australia, has had a direct negative effect and caused salinity to expand. We all know that. We know that the Yilgarn plate, which is that area of land say east of Northam through to the Western Goldfields—commonly known, as I said, as the Yilgarn Plate—is historically old. It’s some of the oldest landmass in the world and it had rivers and systems through it. It had a bit of climate change back in years gone by when there was a lot more rain there than what there’s been in the last thousands of years, and this left that salt in the earth, principally down about two metres. Now without going into detail about it, while it’s about two metres below the surface, it has very little impact. But when it comes to being in saturation point with the topsoil, INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 53

remembering that Western Australian topsoil is some of the most fragile, poor performing land types for agriculture in the world, and when we’ve cleared the land and when we had better rainfall years, these low-lying areas, to cut a long story short, become waterlogged. That waterlogged area that makes contact after a period with the saline that is stored below, that area then dies because it becomes too infiltrated with salt. Now that’s the fact of life; that’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. Now what should we do about it? Well, we should try and ensure that there is something growing on that land. We’re not going to have trees across it all unless we do away with agriculture altogether. So one of the best things that we can do to control salinity is to have multiple cropping; that is, crops on that land every year. I would say today, without fear of contradiction, that salinity is not the issue that it was 20 or 30 years ago.

RC Why is that? Through better farm practices?

CHARLTON Through better farm practices. We had the old system of cultivation. We didn’t have chemicals. I mean for those people, the environmental lobby again, who oppose the use of chemicals, chemicals are a saviour of land in broad-acre farming because they enable control of weeds to take place by chemical application so that you can just have one pass now. Almost 100 per cent of broad-acre farming is done with one pass; that is, one machine sows the crop, and that’s the only cultivation, the only disturbance of the soil, that takes place every year. Whereas before, it was ploughed up, it was cultivated back to kill weeds and perhaps cultivated back again and then seeded; so at least three or four times. The soil becomes very fragile because it is worked and it becomes very fine; it makes it subject to wind erosion, and so it goes on; one thing compounds the other. Whereas today, there’s new farming techniques and new technology. What’s happening in farming out there today? We all know in this year of 2010, it’s a very low rainfall year. It’s happened before. Even in the last 100 years it’s happened before. A hundred years in 4 500 million, is what the world has been, so the scientists tell us, is not a very long time, obviously. But the situation now is that farm management is extremely efficient.

RC During your time in opposition, Eric, you were the National Party’s shadow spokesperson for parliamentary and electoral reform. During that time, you said in one of your speeches that the National Party would oppose one vote, one INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 54 value legislation, quote, “as hard and as vigorously as is humanly possible for us to do”. Why was the National Party so opposed to one vote, one value electoral reform?

CHARLTON Look no further than the current situation. You have the state of Western Australia, from a federal point of view, has the seats where all the iron ore is produced, which currently everyone agrees is bankrolling Australia, has one vote in Canberra, that’s the seat of Durack; and the seat of Kalgoorlie with the gold and which takes in the balance of the agricultural areas, the seat of O’Connor, has one vote. So all the economic activity of basically Western Australia, and therefore three- quarters of Australia, has two votes in Canberra. Now if that’s democracy I think that is an indictment on so-called one vote, one value. I mean, it is a mistruth in the wording itself. It’s more, as I put it, one vote and no value, because the people that live in those areas certainly have very little influence on the outcomes of what takes place from a federal point of view. From a state point of view, we had a vote- weighted system. Now, like all those things, you need to have balance. You can have too much vote weighting and it’s unfair and unjust. I thought that we in the National Party were prepared to change, but we never agreed to one vote, one value. And as if I was there today, I’d vigorously oppose it today as well, for that reason, because Western Australia is not like a lot of other parts of the world. In WA, we live in the most isolated state in the most isolated nation in the world. We shouldn’t be bound or subjected to have to have a voting system that happens in some highly populated [country] of Europe or Asia or somewhere else. And the other thing that is important to note is that there are not many places in the world that have one vote, one value. A lot of nations have vote-weighted systems.

RC So it is the geographical aspect of Western Australia that’s the key as far as you’re concerned?

CHARLTON Absolutely. I think that if you’ve got one member of Parliament that starts in Kununurra and comes as far south as the Great Eastern Highway, how can any one person properly represent those interests of all those people in that widespread area? Whereas as I used to say, down here I could walk across some of these electorates in one day.

RC During a debate in November 1989, Eric, on a bill to decriminalise homosexuality, you said that the National Party, quote, “regard this legislation as an attack on the family”. In what way was that the bill a threat to the family unit? INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 55

CHARLTON Well, I feel as strongly about that today. I’m interested to hear you quote some of the things that I’ve said, Ron. I’m waiting for the surprise to come along and think, “Gee, did I say that? I wish I hadn’t have said that.” But so far you haven’t floored me. Because, you know, I think for people who have a belief and want to live a lifestyle in a homosexual relationship, or whether the person is simply that way and wants to live on their own, that’s their right and that’s their responsibility. I don’t think a nation and society has to change laws to identify and make appropriate changes to a whole range of other social fabric to enable those people to do that. That’s their decision and that’s their right to go and do it. But why [do] we have to fall over ourselves to make these changes? It goes on and on. To me, it’s always an attack on a stable situation. Now, why do we have a police force? We have a police force because some people break the law. If everybody stuck to the rules of what’s right and wrong, and you don’t steal and you don’t break-in and you don’t cause trouble, you wouldn’t need to have a police force. You wouldn’t even need to have any rules. But, you know, we live in a society that basically is based on the 10 commandments. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Christian or whether you believe in God or whatever your attitude to life is, no-one can really argue with all of those things that are stated there, because that’s the basis of our society. You know, we are seeing more and more people getting broken into and the violence that takes place. Every time that you break down a bit of some of society’s standards you see attacks on your fellow people come to the fore more and more.

RC In May 1990, you voiced your concerns in Parliament about the impact of federal government decisions on Western Australia’s economy, particularly the effects of deregulation and increased taxes and charges. Do you still have those concerns?

CHARLTON Yes, and I think it gets worse by the day. I think, for example, the latest issue over Western Australia being the only state not to conform with the federal government’s health plan is a typical example. As a matter of fact, I made comment to someone this morning when we talked about this issue that I think there’s one ultimate aim of all federal governments (I’m probably being a bit broad in saying “all” and perhaps some of them don’t have that view) is to do away with state governments. It was there in my time. They want to control all of Australia from Canberra. As for the latest opinion that was voiced by Comsec, I think it was, that said yesterday that Western Australia and the ACT are the two fastest growing states INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 56

and territories in Australia. I mean, how can Canberra be a fast-growing economy when the only reason it is, is because Kevin Rudd and Co have increased the public service since he came to government, and of course building licence approvals are going to be on the increase significantly. In my view, there should not be an ACT; there should not be an ACT government; it should be part of New South Wales or it should be part of the federal government’s administration. We don’t need a separate parliament in Canberra. It’s a total joke to think that you appoint a group of people to manage what is ultimately only a public service operation and associated service infrastructure around Canberra itself.

RC In June 1990 in a speech in the Legislative Council, Eric, you opposed the incitement to racial hatred bill, and you stated, quote, “If we do not take care, this nation will have so many rules and regulations that a person will not be able to look sideways at any other person.” You briefly mentioned this point a few minutes ago in this interview. I’m just interested: what are your views on the balance between government regulation and personal freedom?

CHARLTON Well, again, I think it gets back to the common law. We all know what’s right and wrong, and… well, some people mightn’t in this day and age, because they’ve grown up in a period where, as I said earlier, it’s always someone else’s fault that I did this and this; you know, “The doctor gave me the wrong medication”, or, “The road construction plan caused me to have the accident and drive off the road”, or whatever else. As I said before, it’s just simply that there are too many rules, and we’ve lost sight of the fact of giving incentive. We’ve taken the incentive away of people to look after themselves [and] to be responsible for their own actions, and, as a consequence of that, this nation is heading in the same way as Europe and the United States have gone, and to the extent … have a look at them now. You’ll see, in 20 years’ time here, that this nation that we’ve been so proud about, about a fair go, “Come on, look after your mate”, people will now by-pass someone on the side of the road and not stop and help them because they don’t want to get involved. That’s a consequence of a number of things, but, certainly partly, because we have all these rules and regulations about if you go and help someone, and then you find out that you caused some problem in attempting to provide assistance, you can then get sued. So, you know, the end result is, nobody wants to do anything.

RC So what you’re saying is, everyone’s sensitive to litigation? INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 57

CHARLTON Absolutely; yes.

RC What, then, do you think, if we’re heading down this way; you said the same way as America and Europe, is necessary to turn things around?

CHARLTON Well, simply to reverse some of the legislation that we’ve got in place that enables this to happen. I can’t believe how we can have a Constitution of Australia where the courts, to a large extent, decide what is law, rather than the Parliaments of Australia. We should get back to saying, “That’s the law, that’s the legislation; if there’s something wrong, well then there’s an opportunity to fix it.” But setting these precedents in a court of law, and then society and governments responding to it, is a dangerous precedent that we’ve gone down in the past, and we need to have a good look at ourselves about how we want to see Australia in the next 20 years.

RC In October 1990 you moved a motion calling on the government to implement, without delay, a 24–point rural survival package. Why did you identify fuel pricing and fuel taxes as the two main reasons for the rural industry crisis?

CHARLTON Well obviously from a farming point of view, there are three main ingredients that contribute to the costs of operation: one is fuel; the other is chemicals; and the other is fertiliser. We had a situation, and we’ve still got it today … I remember very clearly Kevin Rudd saying, in the lead-up to the previous federal election, that fuel costs in Australia were far too high [chuckles]; and everyone agreed with him, and he didn’t do anything about it. It’s applied all the way along. We have a system in Australia… I think that the Competition and Consumer Council is a total white elephant. I think that it’s played no part in chasing after people who are involved in controlling the prices to the consumer, done very little in regard to any of that; and at that particular time, that’s the situation. We were producing some of our own fuel, we had a government tax on it, and, I mean, excise on fuel for agriculture. There has been a rebate system, but as the increase in excise has gone on, fuel has got dearer, and that’s one of the key components of costs of production to rural industry. That’s why I said that then, and it goes the same now.

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 58

RC The 24–point rural survival package, I’m just interested in why it was necessary at that particular point in time. Had the rural sector reached such a crisis point that these measures were necessary?

CHARLTON Well, there was also another situation that we had. I also introduced a piece of legislation into the Parliament, requiring the banks to set up a tribunal … well, not them to set it up, but for one to be set up, whereby before any foreclosure took place, a tribunal would assess the situation and make some recommendations about some alternative form of dealing with it. Now, you know, that’s in 1990; well, out there today, in 2010, it’s on again because of this current drought. Now, what happens in agriculture, I guess it happens the same in a whole range of other things, [is that] you have these highs and lows of profitability, or pressure on sustainability. And if you want to keep an industry going … and I’m not in favour of handouts; I’m in favour of governments intervening and managing a situation to lessen impacts or effect on them. I don’t care whether it’s the farming industry or whether it’s the manufacturing industry or it’s the housing industry. We see it done in the housing industry all the time. We have the first home-buyers grant and we’ll have a subsidy on interest rates for the first home-buyer. We have all these initiatives that are taken and intervening, and everyone accepts that and says, “Well, that’s the right and proper thing to do.” But when it comes to agriculture or some other industry, “Oh well, it’s a bailout”, or, “It’s a handout”, or it’s something else. What I was trying to do is take out some of the extremes. If you just let market forces take their place and let them rule uninterrupted you just have massive turmoil and then people lose confidence. As I look back over the rural crises that have come along, say about every 10 years or 15 years there will be two or three years of tough economic activity. What happens then, things change, market prices vary, seasonal conditions change, and if the moneylenders had have known that that was going to happen, they wouldn’t have got nervous; they wouldn’t have foreclosed; they wouldn’t have done certain things. I must say that foreclosures, now, are an exception, because people have learnt we need to keep this operation going. Now, that doesn’t mean keeping inefficient people going and encouraging them to get further and further into debt, it means getting involved. Now, during that time I got involved with a lot of people who came to me and said, “Look, we’re under pressure; will you come? Will you help us?” I would know, as I drove up that the farmer’s drive, whether he was a good farmer or not, and if I thought that they’ve got into financial difficulty because they’ve bought extra land … now, it mightn’t have been a good economic decision, but it didn’t mean they weren’t a good operator. So there’s a difference between INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 59 people who are lazy and non-performers, and people who are energetic and efficient, but their timing … I mean, life’s all about timing. It’s not a matter of what you do so much as about when you do it. I thought a few people needed to take a deep breath and have a look and see what consequences they were causing further down the track for some of those decisions.

RC As National Party shadow spokesperson for Aboriginal affairs and chairman of a select committee on the state funding of Aboriginal programmes, you were critical of government in several areas, such as waste and misappropriation of funding; inadequate provision of health and education facilities; and school truancy. How do you think these problems should be solved? It’s a very big question, Eric.

CHARLTON Do you know, nothing’s changed.

RC That was another question I was going to ask on that: do you think things have changed?

CHARLTON No, I think they’ve got worse, in fact.

RC Yes.

CHARLTON Now, I can say this: I was very interested in the Aboriginal shadow ministry responsibility, and I was also very interested, obviously, in Aboriginal people, and I still am today. I’m acutely and enthusiastically concerned about the current situation, and I’m wondering, first of all, who’s going to stand up and apologise to Aboriginal people for the stupid and irresponsible mismanagement that’s taking place in Aboriginal communities now right across Australia, not all of them, not all of them, but most of them. Now there are two types of situations with Aboriginals, or basically three: there’s remote Aboriginal people; there’s rural Aboriginal groups of people; and there’s metropolitan Aboriginal people. Now they all have different sets of circumstances, and there is less in common with a lot of Aboriginal people than there is between Aboriginal people and the rest of the community. I mean, the extremes of those Aboriginal people and their background that live out in those remote communities have got nothing in common with Aboriginal people that live in the metropolitan area and have got access to go to school in a public school with everybody else. We’ve got a system in place that has done nothing, and continues … the waste is horrendous. It is an indictment on this state and nation that we allow INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 60

governments to continue to waste money on housing. Now I was told, and I don’t know whether this is accurate or not, that the average life of a house in an Aboriginal community is seven years. Now, we hear about the federal government patting itself on the back, saying, “We’re going to build another 100 houses here and another 100 houses here.” They don’t tell you that the 100 they built seven years ago are now not liveable. The rest of society doesn’t destroy a house in seven years, and nor should anyone else. Now, if the houses that we built are wrong, and they are totally wrong, totally the wrong type for the expectations and the capability of those people living in it, now if you stand up and say that you’re called a racist, and I was then, but who were my greatest supporters when I had that inquiry? Aboriginal people. They flocked in their hundreds to see me when I carried out that inquiry. I took a group of members of Parliament, as part of that committee, to places like Kalgoorlie, Roebourne, Alice Springs, and people came and gave their opinion quite openly and with complete honesty, telling me of the Aboriginal people that they knew who were bleeding the system. There’s nothing like an Aboriginal group of people to take advantage of another group of Aboriginal people. When one family group get in control of the money stream, they’ll get it all and the others will miss out. That’s still going on today, and people turn a blind eye to it. What should happen is that housing needs should be assessed on the needs and the capability of the individuals who are going to live in that house. In some cases in remote areas it should be one single room, and that’s what they want. I’m not telling them what I think; I’m saying, “This is what Aboriginal people told me then, and tell me today”, because I still go through these Aboriginal communities and talk to the local people as I travel around, because I’ve got a vital interest in it. I also had an interest in it later on in life in my parliamentary activities because, as transport minister, I was about giving them better road conditions in and around their communities to suppress the dust and give them sealed roads and put in airstrips so that they could get serviced in the time of flood and other situations. So, yes, I could talk for a long time on what I think ought to be done. When it comes to education, you know, there is absolutely no excuse for Aboriginal children not to go to school. Now, what do we hear about in the dim dark ages of the early Australia? How they were denied education and they were denied health. Now we’ve got a situation where a big percentage of Aboriginal kids are not going to school. As a matter of fact, there’s a lot of them who can’t read or write or speak English. Now, if you think anyone is going to get a fair go in Australia in the 2000s if you don’t practice two things: if you haven’t got basic hygiene capability and you haven’t got a basic education, you’ve got no hope; no chance whatsoever. Therefore, anyone who’s in education or health who doesn’t acknowledge that we INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 61

[should] not ask kids to go to school, but they should be forced to go school, because that’s the law. Any other responsible family knows that and will do anything that they can to ensure their kids get an education. Here we are: there’s no issue now with money; there’s no issue now with transport, but they’re still not going to school, in greater proportions today than ever before.

RC I have got a few more questions on Aboriginal affairs, Eric. One that immediately springs to mind from what you just said is, I’d be interested on your views on the Howard government’s intervention in the north of Western Australia some years ago. What are your thoughts on that?

CHARLTON Oh, I totally agree with it, because if you can’t encourage people to do the right thing by their kids, then what you allow to happen is for this deterioration to continue to gather momentum, and that’s what’s happened. So the money, or the living allowances, whatever we give to people whether they’re Aboriginal or they’re unemployed or whatever, it’s not a right to get that money, it’s there because there’s an absolute need, for their survival, to get it; to give them the opportunity to have reasonable housing and to be able to send their kids to get educated. So that’s what the money’s for. It’s not to be used to their total detriment, as we see. I just saw a show on TV last night about a young Aboriginal person who is an outstanding entertainer, and saying, as an Aboriginal, he’s got a very low life expectancy. Well, no he hasn’t; he’s got a full life expectancy like everybody else if you don’t drink too much and you eat the right food. Now, we’ve got a situation where Aboriginal people, like a lot of other increasing percentages in our society, spend their money eating rubbish. I mean, if we allow that to continue on, then we’re irresponsible, and, as I said earlier, who’s going to say sorry, in 2030, to the Aboriginal young people of today because we, as a government and as a society, allowed and encouraged people to go on living and carrying on like they currently are? It was right to criticise what happened in the early part of white settlement in Australia; it was totally unacceptable; it was Barbarian the way some people were treated, not all; it is another thing to be critical of the Catholic church and other groups of people who came around and the way they treated the Aboriginals. Well, why did they get involved? They got involved because they saw them living out there, trying to survive on chasing down animals and without a roof over their head. Why did the Aboriginal people go to those communities? Because they provided those basic needs. Some of the great leaders of Aboriginal people that have come along since are the ones that got their first taste of education, and they became the leaders of the Aboriginal INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 62

people as the years have gone by. That doesn’t mean everything was done right, and there was always people not treated properly, but to be critical of it as a way and something that should never have happened is not acceptable, in my view. And I think the people who are running Aboriginal affairs today have got a lot more stain on their hands than most of the people who’ve gone before them, for the way they’ve allowed this current policy situation to continue to develop the way it has.

RC In a speech in March 1992, Eric, you proposed that the Aboriginal Legal Service should be abolished. Would you care to comment on why you thought that should happen?

CHARLTON Yes, for the same reason that I still think that. You know, if we ever want Aboriginal people to take their rightful place in our society, and that shouldn’t be confused with saying that I don’t care, or this, that or the other, or some of these other stupid comments that are made by people, it means that as soon as you start picking winners and losers in a group of people … I mean, did we have a legal service for the immigrants who came into Australia? Are we going to have a system for the illegal immigrants that we’ve currently got now, picking them out? You know, it is wrong. We talk about reconciliation and we talk about being sorry for the wrongs that have been done in the past. If we want to provide a legal service for any disadvantaged group of people, then that’s what we should do. But having particular Aboriginal–identified groups, whether it be a legal service or even an Aboriginal health service, is wrong. All we’re doing is festering away a group of people, out of mainstream Australia.

RC In the speech in March ’92 you were also critical of the federal government’s allocation of funding to Aborigines, and you suggested that the funds should be allocated directly to Western Australia from Canberra.

CHARLTON Yes.

RC What are your comments on that?

CHARLTON Well, that was for one simple reason: that the closer you can get it to on-the-ground activity, the better chance of ensuring that those funds are spent efficiently. Now, I used to have a saying also along the lines of: I could just about run the government on what’s wasted. And when I see the waste that goes on in all INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 63

forms of government agencies, nothing’s worse than Aboriginal affairs. The wastage is horrendous. A lot of people say, quite rightly, it’s not an Aboriginal service, it’s an Aboriginal industry. People simply get rich on being involved in supplying services to Aboriginals.

RC You did mention in that speech as well, and I’ll quote again, you referred to “the 200-year-old guilt complex which motivates many of the do-gooders.” Is that what you mean?

CHARLTON Exactly, and every time you hear a comment through the media now … it’s not right to say every time, but quite often the majority of times, it seems to be living in the past. And there’s another thing that I think is detrimental to Aboriginal people as well and it’s this: every time I see an Aboriginal group of people performing at some function to identify Aboriginal culture, we see them doing a dance in their loincloth or some scantily [clad] people wearing apparel like they were 200 years ago, promoting the well-being or promoting Aboriginal people.

RC As they did at the Commonwealth Games a few days ago.

CHARLTON Exactly. Absolutely. And when we talk about Australia, do we dress people up in the fashions they wore when they first arrived on the first boat, or have a chain around their neck like the convicts did when we first came to Australia? Of course we don’t. So, why do we keep … and it’s not Aboriginal people that are initiating this. These are these white do-gooders that I talk about that seem to think the only thing Aboriginal people have got to offer is to dress them up the way they were 200 years ago and put them on a stage in front of people, rather than pick out the Aboriginal people who’ve made their way in society and are a tremendous example of what Aboriginal people want to be setting their sights on. Now, of course, I’d be criticised if I stood up in public and said, you know, “Forget about this past.” I’m not forgetting about it but I think you only look at yesterday to give you experience about what you should do tomorrow.

RC You’ve partially answered this question, Eric, and I probably know what you’re going to say but I’ll ask you: do you think the situation of Aborigines has improved since you were in Parliament? You tended to indicate that you thought you probably hadn’t.

INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 64

CHARLTON I think it’s improved for those who’ve been able to initiate the move out of the welfare mentality. For those who’ve taken up the opportunity in some of the professions and so forth, they’ve made their way. But again I re-emphasise, what’s Aboriginal? You know, when I see the Aboriginal people of inland and remote Australia, they’ve got nothing in common with the Aboriginal people who are going to university or having an opportunity in the workforce or in the professions, and they’ve made it. My concern is about the families and the kids who are living in remote communities. Now, can I just add that I think remote Aboriginal communities are a total disaster. They are an absolute … it’s like being in jail because they’ve got no prospect of any employment; they’re not going to school to reach an education that they need to; and even if they went to school every day in that Aboriginal community, what are they going to do when they leave school, because there’s nothing there? And 90 per cent of them have got rubbish and a total state of despair, of unused food wrappings and cans and tins and bottles and so forth and so on strewn all around those communities. Now I’m told that the comment about that [is], “Well, Aboriginal people don’t see that as important; it’s just packaging. Their culture was about they left all that behind when they caught an animal.” Well, yes, they did but that was 200 years ago. They don’t catch animals and live like that anymore; they now live out of what comes through the supermarket. And the first thing I would do is I’d have the greatest rubbish bin, you know, the type that goes on the back of a pick-up truck, a rubbish collection truck, and place it at strategic points. And that’d be one of the additional things I’d ensure: that all rubbish had to be placed in those things. Now, people say, “So what? What’s that got to do with educating Aboriginals?” Well, very little, except that if you live in a decent and clean environment, then it’s the first step towards that yourself. And, as I said before, there are two things that will ensure that you’ve got no future in society; and that is, if you don’t practise basic hygiene and if you haven’t got a basic education, you’ve got no chance in Australia in the foreseeable future.

RC You did touch on this briefly in a few words, Eric, but I’d just like to ask you concerning Northam. There’s a proposal at the moment for asylum seekers to be housed at Northam in an army barracks. What are your views on that?

CHARLTON I am totally opposed to it; not so much to build it in Northam. I’m just certainly totally opposed to building any of that type of infrastructure anywhere. Because I think what Australia ought to be doing, if there are people in the world … and I know there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who are destitute, INTERVIEW TWO CHARLTON 65 who’ve got no prospect of even one meal a day, I think it’s about 700 million people sort of generally assessed that don’t get one meal a day. If we look at where we’ve had the major catastrophes of floods and earthquakes in the last 12 months, there are millions of people in those towns and cities and areas all around the world that are in absolute diabolical need and are dying by the hundreds every day. Now, if we were truly interested in the well-being of people, we would be increasing our intake of immigrants from 3 000, or whatever it is today, to 10 000. And I’d be in favour of that, to bring some of those people to Australia and give them a chance; or for Australia to send some money to improve their lot in their country. I’m totally opposed to these so-called refugees that go through two or three or four countries before they get on a boat and pay their way to get here; and particularly those from Afghanistan when we’ve got people over there supposedly defending their right to try and form a democracy, and we’ve got the same people leaving that area and coming here, and then we’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, I think it’s $160 million, to upgrade Northam army barracks. Now, that $160 million would be a wonderful help for those people in Haiti or somewhere like that or any other part of the world where they’ve suffered these absolute disasters. I think it’s totally immoral. It is an indictment on this nation and on any governments associated with it to allow people to come here under these totally false pretences. They’re not refugees; they’re illegal immigrants. And if we want to bring people here, then let’s increase it twofold, or whatever, and get genuine people and give them a home and give them a new start in life, but not this system. I can’t believe that we as Australians tolerate these sort of goings-on. If we were a caring nation … and you hear those do-gooders again talking about these poor people that have come from Afghanistan or wherever else, and they may be. I’m not saying they don’t have serious problems, but their problems are as different between them and the rest of Australia as what it is between them and those people of Haiti, as an example. END OF INTERVIEW TWO INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 66

[track 1] RC My name is Ron Chapman; today is the 1st of November 2010. I am continuing my series of interviews with Eric Charlton at his home in Perth. This interview is part of a series of interviews for the parliamentary oral history project of Western Australia.

As a reminder, Eric, we finished the last interview talking about Aboriginal affairs and your views on that. I would like to now move on to ask about some of your views on the WA Inc years. The late 1980s, as you are aware, was a time of political unrest in Western Australia, and the period has been termed the “WA Inc” years, when a succession of state governments colluded in major corporate dealings with private businessmen, which, ultimately, resulted in a considerable loss of public money, which has been estimated at a minimum of $600 million. I wonder if you could, first of all, give me some of your personal observations on this important yet notorious period of Western Australia’s parliamentary history.

CHARLTON Yes, Ron, well the whole thrust of that period was simply based upon, I guess, the economic conditions that prevailed at the time, where you had a series of years where everything was increasing in value. It didn’t matter to some people how much they borrowed, because the value was increasing consistently, and, as a consequence of that, while there were high interest rates being paid to encourage people to invest in higher-risk ventures, it didn’t seem to matter because the value of those of those investments continued to increase. So it was simply very easy for entrepreneurial people to get involved in major initiatives around the state and the nation, and that was the period, obviously, of people like Laurie Connell and Dallas Dempster, and Skase on the eastern seaboard, and that type of people. In addition to that, we had Robert Holmes à Court, who was always looked upon as different to the other people in the way he did business, but, again, was operating, obviously, on a lot of borrowed funds that people involved themselves in. While it was all going upwards and appreciating, then there was never an issue come to the fore, to the extent that Brian Burke as Premier of WA involved the government in initiatives that no government, probably in history, had got associated with. So you had this very close working alliance between the Burke Government and these entrepreneurs that had come out of nowhere and were multimillionaire operators and high-flyers in that period. So, while it was all going okay, then everybody looked upon them with awe and said, “Every time they do a deal, it seems to turn to gold”, but the time came, INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 67

obviously in '87, when the collapse, from the world point of view, took place, and all of a sudden all these people were in trouble.

RC I wonder if you could tell me what the National Party’s approach was to WA Inc.

CHARLTON Well, obviously, initially it didn’t matter who it was, people seemed to think: “Well, everything is appreciating in value”. So then how can you stand back and criticise them for this sort of thing happening? But, obviously, from the National Party’s point of view, they … I guess, like any group of people, you have conservative people and you have others who are a bit more venturesome in their assessment of how it goes. As an organisation we obviously discussed this on a regular basis, and I guess it’s fair to say that most of these things, while we had a view that this was risky, risky business, high-risk roller-coaster activities, most of this thing, practically all of it, never, ever came to the Parliament. That’s pretty consistent, I guess, with a lot of activities that governments get involved in, is most of it is government decisions that are taken on policy, or their association with business, in approving things. At the end of the day, not many of these things, unless it’s a major development project that needs a state agreement, and then that has to come to the Parliament, but the involvement in the WA Inc years certainly was not things that involved the Parliament, except, of course, when legislation was brought forward regarding the petrochemical proposed plant. Now, that’s a pretty good example of where things had gone wrong; there had been no involvement with the Parliament whatsoever. The government had made commitments and been involved in the workings of Dempster and Connell with this petrochemical plant, involving dealings and transactions taking place. Like so many other things, it never, ever came near the Parliament. It only came to the Parliament when it collapsed. So we had a series of things that all happened at once. First of all it was Rothwells, and while I can’t be absolutely certain on the sequence of events, as I recall it Rothwells got into trouble. Now, when this legislation came to Parliament about the petrochemical plant, it was something that I never, ever agreed to the proposed legislation. But the National Party as a party took a view that the government has done what it’s done; what we’re doing now is putting a guarantee, if you like, in place that anything else will now come under this piece of government legislation, and approving of what the government had done in the past. Well from my point of view, I didn’t agree with that, and I pressurised and coerced and argued and debated that, one, we didn’t know everything that had gone on, and by approving this legislation, we were condoning INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 68 what had taken place. Secondly, and more importantly, we were then committing the government and the Parliament and the people, then, of WA to any ongoing consequences of this initiative, this proposal of this petrochemical plant. No-one disagreed with setting up a new industry for the obvious benefits it was going to bring, but when you have a piece of significant technology based upon the activities of a couple of questionable entrepreneurs, then I thought we needed to be very careful about where we were going. Now, as part of that, the government introduced this legislation, naturally, they had the numbers in the Legislative Assembly, and the National Party took the view that, “Well, if we don’t support it, they’re going to continue to do what they’ve been doing beforehand, so we should agree to put … at least we’ll have some piece of legislation in place to oversee the future.” You couldn’t argue with that. The fact is, the Liberal Party opposed it. Often the Liberal Party opposed things, and this is part of politics and I don’t criticise anyone for doing this, for the sake of opposing it and to try to make some political mileage out of it at the time, and then when they get into government, you often see the same sort of things being agreed to. So the National Party, because it had the balance of power in that period in the upper house, you know, we did have a responsibility to take things more seriously. However, the National Party approved this legislation in the Legislative Assembly. I demanded that when it got to the upper house, I was going to seek further amendments to the legislation. The government was not interested in the amendments in the Assembly because they didn’t need them; they had the numbers, so it went through. To cut a long story short , if that’s possible, Ron, because this was a very significant piece of activity as far as I was concerned, I, as I said, wanted to see further amendments to the legislation, and so David Parker, who was the minister handling that piece of legislation, agreed that he would send a solicitor called Peter Wiese, who was from Robinson Cox, and he would meet me at Parliament House while the legislation was in the Legislative Council, have a listen to my concerns, and then, if it was possible from the government’s point of view, if they agreed, they would word the amendments to put in additional safeguards to satisfy my concerns. That meeting took place with Peter Wiese, and this issue raised its head a few times later on. But, first of all, having had that meeting with him and agreeing on some wording, which he was to take back and formulate into legislative amendments, I asked him, or invited him, would he like to have a cup of morning tea after having this discussion, which he agreed to. During the course of that conversation I said to him, “Now, tell me, Peter, what really is going on with all this activity with this legislation and the petrochemical plant?” He made some comments and my concerns were now even greater. However, I’d agreed to put amendments in INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 69

place, and so I proceeded with those amendments. Now, the way the system works, as everyone knows, is that a piece of legislation is introduced to the Parliament, and that’s called the first reading, then you have a second reading debate, and then you have the committee stages. I moved these amendments, and they were agreed to, obviously, by the government, and then, having been read a second time, it was then simply a situation when the government then decides when it will have the third reading of the piece of legislation, and then it becomes agreed to or rejected. Now, as I understand it, no legislation had ever been, and I stand corrected on this, disallowed or voted against on a third reading; if it’s going to be defeated, it will be at the second reading when the full debate takes place. But between the second reading debate and the committee stages having been debated in the Parliament I was driving into Parliament on the next morning after this debate had taken place, and I was listening to AM, the ABC program. Henry Bosch, who was the chief of ASIC, which is the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, was talking about the issue, about the petrochemical legislation and about all the players involved, and said, amongst other things, that there was going to be significant activity taking place with bringing to justice a whole range of these inappropriate dealings that had taken place. Well, that sent shivers up my spine, and so when I reached the Parliament I went into the corridors to see if there were any National Party members around the Parliament, other than the ones who were in the upper house, because the party, obviously having agreed to the legislation and then me saying I would agree to it as well if the appropriate amendments were put in place, and having had the amendments agreed to and put in place, I thought then that it doesn’t look too good if I start now knocking back this legislation. As I said, we had the balance of power; the Liberal Party were opposing it, and we were intending that we would be supporting it. Hendy Cowan had gone to the country, as the Assembly was not sitting, but Monty House, another National Party member of Parliament, later to be a minister, I met him in the corridor and I said to him, “Monty, we will be absolutely denigrated for this irresponsible action that we’ve continued to take in supporting this legislation.” I said, “I just don’t think we should ever, ever have supported it.” He said, “Eric, you do what you have to do.” I said, “That’s it, Monty, I’ll be doing that, and I’ll never agree to it, anyway.” So by this time, the first item on the day’s legislative program was the third reading of this particular legislation. I walked into the Parliament, the bells were ringing, and I beckoned to my other National Party colleagues and said … they’re all standing there, on the same side as the Labor Party to vote for the third reading, and I said, “We’re not voting for it; come with me.” They didn’t have time to say, “Why Eric?” or, “What’s happening? What’s going on?” INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 70

because there was no time for that. So I took them to the other side of the chamber, and pandemonium broke loose. Hon Joe Berinson was standing in the middle of the chamber saying words to the effect, “Eric, what are you doing? Eric, do you know what you’re doing? Why are you doing this to us? You can’t do this to us, Eric.” I just said, “Well, I am.” Of course the media were in a frenzy; they thought that this dill from the Wheatbelt didn’t know which side of the Parliament to be standing on and didn’t understand what the legislation was, which is fairly typical of some of the people in the media. They’re always looking for a scapegoat to denigrate and criticise people, rather than investigate about what’s going on. However, that’s what happened, and the vote was taken. At one particular stage, when Joe Berinson was standing in the middle of the chamber cajoling me, the Liberals were calling for him to be counted as voting against it as well because he happened to be more on our side of the chamber than he was on the Labor Party side. It was absolute pandemonium. However, the legislation was rejected. Now, the media continued to question me and why I’d done this and so forth and so on. I immediately contacted Hendy to tell him what I’d done and why I had done so, and the next thing there was a move, after a day or two and the dust had settled, that the government, Peter Dowding, would introduce the [legislation] back in again and attempt to have it reconsidered, because there were issues that he considered that made it possible for it to be considered under parliamentary procedure. So that was agreed to, to bring the legislation back in again, and would I reconsider? I said I’d reconsider, like any legislation, if safeguards and answers were given. There was an appointment made for me to go to the Capita building, to the Premier’s office, and meet with the Under Treasurer, with the Crown solicitor, with a number of people, senior government bureaucrats, to discuss these issues that I had always considered were a problem with the legislation, [such as] that they hadn’t been accountable and so forth. So I prepared, from memory, 24 questions that I wanted answered. So I took those questions down, with other National Party colleagues who came too, and I started putting that series of questions to all these senior people and the government, and they weren’t interested. None of them were answered. They couldn’t answer them because they were simply … the problem was that the government had acted totally improperly and it was never in a position to be able to substantiate the actions that they’d taken in the past. The bottom line of it is that I had always said the issue is that by agreeing to this legislation we’re doing two things: we’re condoning what’s happened in the past, but, worse than that, we’re now putting in place a legislative backing to what can go on and be done in the future, without the Parliament having any control over it, because we’re not the government. So the legislation was brought back into the Parliament INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 71 and voted out a second time. And that’s why some people in the government remember me for that piece of activity. But what also happened after that, and this was a pretty interesting time, apart from the media having the view that I didn’t know what I was doing and taking that line, there were a number of people in the business world of WA that did know that I had made the decision based on facts and my investigations over the while. And so Carmen Lawrence’s brother, Bevan, who had initiated People for Fair and Open Government, asked me would I attend lunch at Kings Park Tennis Club with a number of business associates to discuss some of the WA Inc issues, which I agreed to do. Shall I continue?

RC Before you continue, Eric, I would just like to go back to what you’ve been saying. You said initially you were on the way to Parliament and you were listening to a radio broadcast.

CHARLTON Yes.

RC Was that sort of a turning point that convinced you to vote against this legislation?

CHARLTON Absolutely. It confirmed what I had been saying all the time, that we don’t know what we’re committing Western Australia to in agreeing to this legislation. We think we know what’s happened in the past, but by now giving a vehicle to the government to continue to go on in a legal, if you like, manner, then we don’t know where this is taking us. And we don’t know all the story of the past either. That’s why I was having amendments that I’d wanted to put in, which had been agreed to, were to basically put some safeguards in to put limits on, not only financial limits, but some road blocks, if you like, some hurdles in the way, to try to safeguard the state of WA. But that morning’s program was absolutely influential on me, because when Henry Bosch said words to the effect that there’s going to be significant action taken against these people in the investigations that need to take place, I thought, “Here we are agreeing to this legislation and here’s an organisation that’s given the responsibility on a national basis to investigate, and here we are at the same time approving this legislation in the Parliament”. So that’s why I probably could have got caught for speeding that morning again, because I went fairly fast and furious to Parliament House. I was not even expecting that legislation, in fact, because it wasn’t scheduled to be brought up that morning for the third reading. But the government of the day obviously have the right to rearrange their legislative procedure and timetable, and INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 72

quite often it’s normal for them to say that item number three will now be taken, become item number one and so forth and so on. That’s what happened that day. Perhaps they’d listened to the AM program as well!

RC Is it fair to say then, do you think, that before you heard that radio broadcast, you had reservations anyway? Did you have reservations anyway about this?

CHARLTON I’d had reservations from day one, before it ever even came to the Parliament. When it came, I argued against the National Party agreeing to it, but at the same time I did not want to be … I mean, I am a part of a team, and I did my best to ensure that everyone understood that there were issues with it. And they all agreed with that. I mean, there wasn’t anyone in the National Party who didn’t agree that there were some very significant risks involved in agreeing to the legislation. But at the same time, as I said, they considered - well some of them considered; I wasn’t the only one who didn’t agree with it - was that it’s better to have some legislation than none. And that was a fair argument.

RC You were talking about Carmen Lawrence’s brother and People for Fair and Open Government and you said there was a meeting arranged with him at Kings Park. Did you want to talk further about that?

CHARLTON Yes. It was an interesting thing. In my life, I have obviously been able to communicate, and people have confidence in me and me in them, to discuss some important issues. As a consequence of that, every time, any time, that anyone ever offered their time to me, I always took advantage of that and hear people out, what they have to say. At the end of the day, every individual, all of us, have to make a judgement in the end, whether we agree with it or not, but if you don’t listen to anyone, then you’re not going to learn anything. So I had nothing to lose by going and hearing what Bevan Lawrence and his business associates were doing. I always thought it was an unbelievable situation that you had the brother of a senior Labor person and ultimately the Premier of WA saying to me, and to others of course, “What’s gone on is unforgivable,” and so forth and so on. I guess that was an extra incentive for me to go and hear what he had to say. So I did that, and having got to Kings Park and met him, he said to me, “There’s Richard Elliot coming off having a game of tennis.” Richard Elliot is an American citizen who had spent some time in Australia. He came to Australia as part of the oil and gas industry and he [Bevan INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 73

Lawrence] said, “He is very, very well informed about WA Inc and everything that’s gone on.” He said, “I think you should meet him.” I said, “Fine.” And so he called Richard Elliot to come and meet me and, again to cut a long story short, he then stayed for lunch as well and I sat next to him. He went through step by step with me or gave me a bit of an outline in discussions as part of this luncheon discussion with Bevan Lawrence. In addition to that, he invited me to go down and spend some time in his office to have a chat about his assessment of where all this … how it had all started and what had happened. The bottom line of that was really about Rothwells getting into difficulty, about the action that took place to save Rothwells - the rescue package, about Holmes à Court putting in his contribution, then Holmes à Court getting into financial trouble as well and he then goes to the government, to Brian Burke, and says, “Well I helped you save Rothwells, now you have to save me and therefore I’ve got the terrace properties”, which is what they were commonly known as, “and I need to sell them.” So the government buys them at a totally inflated value and, hence, the government gets left with what was commonly termed a billion-dollar black hole that we inherited when we came into government. In addition to hearing what Richard Elliot had to say and Bevan Lawrence and others, I also took National Party members or I invited them to come with me and go through this step-by-step series of events about Laurie Connell and Dempster and petrochemical and WA Inc and Holmes à Court and Brian Burke, and so forth and so on. I think it’s fair to say that I had probably as good an understanding as most people of the series of events that took place. Now it’s not exciting listening having me rabbit on about it, but it’s important. It was always important for me, as I went along in my political years, to know the background to all of these things. It’s also interesting, to digress a bit, that when I retired, I got two letters from members of Parliament. One was from Sir Charles Court congratulating me on my time as Minister for Transport, and one from Joe Berinson, who I had the highest regard for, Hon Joe Berinson. In the activities of some of the select committees I was involved in, it was always an interesting observation that Joe Berinson was always outside when the discussions were taking place on a whole range of these issues. He was never present and therefore could not be held responsible for a lot of those decisions that took place. But as I say, I had the highest regard for him, and he treated me with great respect, to the extent that, as I said, he wrote to me thanking me for my involvement in the Parliament and my contribution.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 74

RC So the meeting you had at Kings Park was really most significant in briefing you on what was happening, basically - making you aware of what was going on.

CHARLTON It had more to do with saying to me, “What you did in the Parliament was absolutely right and it’s just as well you did it, because if you hadn’t have, I don’t know where this would have all led to and what the government would have continued to do in pursuing or trying to bail out this initiative that they’d got themselves into.” I always remember Peter Dowding. Obviously, he had the issue to deal with with Alan Bond, who I haven't mentioned, obviously, which was all part of this, so I should have mentioned his name earlier because he was central to all of this. He [Peter Dowding] was trying to sort out what had happened with the government and WA Inc and Alan Bond and everyone else. I said to him one day a bit facetiously, “Premier, how are you getting on with Alan Bond these days?” and he said to me, “Eric, if Alan Bond was on the top storey and was standing at the window ready to jump, he’d still be wanting to do a deal on the way down.” I think that probably sums up the Bond era and WA Inc.

RC Yes. In November 1990, Premier Carmen Lawrence announced her government’s intention to hold a royal commission into WA Inc after initially refusing calls to do so. Why do you think Carmen Lawrence changed her mind?

CHARLTON I don’t think she had any option. The pressure was on, and it’s like most things in life, it’s better to front up than it is to hide. And they couldn’t hide because of what had happened economically. She could have continued to stall. I don’t think it made any difference one way or the other.

RC In late 1992, Eric, the WA Inc royal commission report was published. Just a general question: what are your views on its findings?

CHARLTON Well, I think royal commissions never ever … it’s probably wrong to say never ever, but in a lot of times, never ever get down to the nitty-gritty of the personalities and what took place behind the scenes. So while it was commonly acknowledged the broad base of what happened, it’s the personal intricate aspects that take place that people never really get to know - the full facts - I don’t think.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 75

RC Yes. I was more thinking along in terms of its recommendations. What did you think of its recommendations?

CHARLTON Well I think the recommendations were fine. I think they were good. When those things happen, it’s a big wake-up call for people to not act in these irresponsible manners. Now, having acknowledged that, there’s also another aspect to it that I think, currently, we’re living in a period now where governments are totally hamstrung from showing some initiative in making decisions about allowing business to get on and do things. In other words, I think there’s too much now about the process and not enough about outcomes. We’ve got a lot of people in this state. I thought that in our time in government, in that 1993-2001 period, that earlier on the government made some decisions about doing things, remembering it was in a time when we had inherited this significant deficit. But from the time the Geoff Gallop government came to be, I think right through to now, I think we have got too much process putting limitations on what government is doing. I know that the business sector and people in general are totally frustrated with the fact that they can’t get to see a minister, they can’t get to know what the government intends to do on certain issues, and it’s just a fair bit of frustration simply because … it’s not a matter of agreeing to things, it’s about making a decision, yes or no.

RC One of the things that came out of WA Inc as far as public perception seems to go is the matter of government accountability. What are your views on that? Or the lack of government accountability?

CHARLTON I think that the government was totally unaccountable, obviously, in the Burke era. As I said earlier, while it was all going okay, it didn’t matter what you did or what you spent your money on because it was appreciating in value. And if you look at what’s happened in America with the housing situation over there, with the mortgage structure that they agreed to, it’s the same story. While it was all appreciating, no-one was losing anything, but when it started going the other way, everybody gets burnt. So that’s the situation here. Now, the accountability of government in my time, and I can only really speak for then, I thought, it was totally accountable. Look, it’s like everything else; the world runs on people, and the people that are in a given place at a given time will determine how things operate. In Richard Court, from the time he took over as leader of the Liberal Party and in his time as Premier, he was absolutely and totally accountable and honest and full of integrity and, as a consequence of that, that’s how people operated. Now that didn’t mean INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 76

that there isn’t a few people who wanted to take some shortcuts. That happens from time to time, or they allow the politics to get in the road of making decisions. But I thought that as a consequence of the WA Inc years, the next government was very accountable.

RC In November 1992, Eric, you spoke on a motion calling for the resignation of Attorney General Berenson. The motion was regarding charges of negligence and misleading the house over matters pertaining to WA Inc. Why did you think he should have resigned?

CHARLTON I think, as I said earlier, it came out that every time … as Attorney General, you do have a responsibility. Obviously, if there’s something untoward going on from a legal point of view, from an accountable point of view, the first person that’s there to have an eye on things would be the Attorney General. It came forward again and again that Mr Berenson was called out to a phone call or Mr Berenson had to leave the meeting for a period and so forth and so on, so there was never ever the opportunity to say, “Well, you were there at that time in that meeting”. This is on the evidence of the royal commission and other investigations that he could be held responsible. So it’s one thing to say “I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they discussed.” Well, and this is where the politics come in, obviously perhaps (and I don’t know that) he didn’t agree with what was going on, so he excused himself. And so the reason for moving that motion was simply to say, “Well, if you weren’t there, you should’ve been.”

RC You mentioned about personalities regarding WA Inc. I would just like to ask your views on personalities, regarding various prominent figures to do with WA Inc. What did you think of Brian Burke?

CHARLTON Well, as I said before, Brian Burke obviously came in at a time when the Liberal Party and the coalition had been dominated by Sir Charles Court. The Labor Party were looked upon as non-performers. Then I think the mood of the electorate was for change, and Brian Burke came on the scene. He was a smooth operator. He was a great orator. He had a presence about him. So you had the Labor Party see him as their great white hope, almost I suppose the same as you could say about Kevin Rudd last time. I think John Howard was always going to lose that election because he’d simply been there too long, and he should have gone at least 12 months before. Now when Sir Charles Court retired and Ray O’Connor took over, INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 77

and I had a bit of an involvement with him because of the activities of Ray McPharlin, I don’t think Ray O’Connor was ever going to win that next election, but Brian Burke made sure that the Labor Party did. And, having won it, he involved around him a whole range of people that did it his way, but he was the boss.

RC How about Peter Dowding?

CHARLTON Peter Dowding and … I’ve had a bit to do with Brian Burke over the years in having a few chats to him, and him and I always seemed to hit it off, to be able to have a conversation about things in general. He tells the story (these are his words) that when he retired, it was him that ensured that Peter Dowding became the leader, and I have no doubt about that, because he considered Peter Dowding to be capable of winning the next election for the Labor Party, which he did. Peter Dowding was a totally different operator to Brian Burke, of course, to the extent that Carmen Lawrence and others did what they did in deposing him. But, again, I always found Peter Dowding a pretty reachable person; again, obviously, didn’t agree with a fair bit of what he was on about, but he is a Labor Party man and that’s how he operated. Of course we were in a period of destabilised activity, with the National Party and the Liberal Party under Bill Hassell not being able to agree on coalition, and arguing as we led into the ’89 election, which we should have won, and we would have won if there had been a business-like approach between the Liberal Party and the National Party; but there wasn’t. As I said before, it’s like a warring family: nobody wants to get involved with those sorts of people, particularly voting for them to elect a government.

RC How about David Parker?

CHARLTON I didn’t know David Parker very well at all. The only bit I had to do with him, really, was indirect through the petrochemical legislation. But I think the bit I knew about him wasn’t good.

RC Julian Grill?

CHARLTON Julian Grill I think is a really nice man. I’ve always had a fair bit to do with Julian. He was Minister for Transport for a period when I was in opposition; he was Minister for Agriculture for a period. I’ve always found Julian Grill to be 100 per cent approachable and sincere. I think anyone who’s had anything to do with Julian INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 78

Grill would say the same thing. In his actions, I had deputations to him, which he always received and dealt with in a professional manner.

RC You mentioned Joe Berinson. What were your views of Joe Berinson? You seem to speak quite well of him, apart from …[laughter]

CHARLTON Apart from the fact he didn’t intervene with the WA Inc activities and put a stop to it. If he’d have done that, he’d probably have been a martyr to the cause, but he’d have been a hero perhaps later on. But, as I said, I found him a really, really first-class man to deal with, very honourable; kept his word 100 per cent. He was crafty in his activities in the Parliament. He certainly was very astute. He had a great mind, and he was a wily character, so you’d have to get up early in the morning to put something over Joe Berinson.

RC Did you meet Laurie Connell at all?

CHARLTON No, I didn’t. No. No, I never, ever met Laurie Connell. I didn’t meet any of those players personally.

RC What did you think of Carmen Lawrence as Premier?

CHARLTON I thought Carmen Lawrence was a fake. I think she didn’t have very much going for her at all. I don’t think her word was worth anything. She would do and say anything for the occasion. I think that was proven pretty much as the years went by. At one stage when she went federal she was going to be the first Australian female Prime Minister, but that didn’t eventuate for a number of reasons obviously. No, I don’t think Carmen Lawrence had a lot going for her.

RC What impact do you think WA Inc has had on public perceptions of Parliament or the integrity of Parliament and the political process in Western Australia?

CHARLTON I think WA Inc was a period when immediately after you have the public … and as we’ve said before, the world runs on perception, it doesn’t run on fact, but in this case it was both fact and perception … one of the big issues was, “Well, where’s the money gone? It must have gone somewhere. It was there. How come these losses?” Of course, when we came into government, one of the issues INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 79

we had was that third party insurance, through the SGIC, was broke, and therefore didn’t have any funds to pay claims. So we put on a levy. We put on a levy to demonstrate to the public the government lost this money; this is why we’re doing it; we’re not doing it because we’re putting up a government charge. But the public didn’t accept that. They were very critical of us in applying a levy, because if you say you’re going to do something in government, then they expect you to do it, and if you don’t, don’t use excuses about what’s gone on before. You can only play that game for a certain time about blaming the previous government. As far as how that’s affected the people, it happened, and people were aware of it. But that’s an era that came to an end, certainly in the ’93 election, and I think people said, “That’s part of history; we’ve been there. We’re looking forward now and we expect you to do something about it.”

RC Unless you have any further comments on WA Inc, Eric, I’d just like to ask a few questions now about getting towards the end of your time in opposition. Have you any further comments on WA Inc?

CHARLTON Obviously, [that] is part of some of the select committees that I was involved in. One of the select committees I was involved [in] was chaired by Bob Pike. He was ruthless in his pursuit of WA Inc. Obviously, I was someone he always came to to seek support and involvement. Of course, the fact that I had had my association with a number of people around the business sector who had given me their information, it was a pretty interesting time in calling some of the people to give evidence and so forth. They were interesting times. In addition to that, of course the Labor Party members on that select committee did everything in their power to stall. They’d oppose the minutes of the previous meeting being a true and correct record, that that wording wasn’t right. So they’d stall for time. It’s a pretty good learning experience about how the system works. I had the privilege, if you like, of being involved in a whole range of these activities that most members of Parliament would never have had.

RC The select committee you’re talking about, is that the one into Rothwells, PICL and WA Government Holdings?

CHARLTON Yes.

RC PICL, that was the petrochemical? INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 80

CHARLTON Yes, that was it. It was all of those things together. That was long going; it went on for quite a period. Of course, we had a situation along that time as well when John Halden introduced a petition into the Parliament about Penny Easton, which was a deplorable and disgraceful initiative, simply to try and denigrate Richard Court.

RC Yes. I was going to ask your views on that particular … it came to be known as the Penny Easton affair. Would you like to give a few of your views on that?

CHARLTON As I said, I thought it was a deplorable act. It was an act of real gutter politics at best. It was there simply to denigrate Richard Court, and without any foundation. That’s why I say about Carmen Lawrence, she didn’t stand for anything to do with principles; otherwise she’d never have allowed that to happen. In addition to that, I also instigated and chaired a committee that investigated Aboriginal funding to do with state and federal scenes. And, as part of that, I had evidence given to me that Carmen Lawrence as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had involved Mr Easton as part of starting up an initiative to build Aboriginal houses. He bought the equipment, he built two houses, and then arranged for one of his own people to live in the house, or to own the house.

RC This is Penny Easton’s husband, is it? His name was … I’m just thinking of his first name.

CHARLTON I’m trying to think of it too.

RC Graham?

CHARLTON No, it wasn’t that. We’ll find that out. [Brian] I tried to pursue that issue to find out why or how … because government funds were used as her initiative as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to set that up, and it was to employ Aboriginals, to train them in home carpentry and building activities. It was another government total failure, but it seemed to be, from the evidence that we got and my time involved, that it was a benefit for Easton and to nobody else. These were the sort of things … another example of what was going on at that time.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 81

RC Between 1987 and 1992, Eric, the National Party held the balance of power in the Legislative Council. What effect did this have? How do you see that particular period?

CHARLTON Obviously, when you’ve got the balance of power, it’s all not one way in having a great benefit. It means not only have you [got] the responsibility that when you make a decision, where if you get the two major parties disagreeing, that your vote is going to count. It’s a bit like the situation now with the hung Parliament or with the state situation with the Nationals having the balance of power in both houses. In those times, in opposition, we weren’t in coalition, so we had a free hand, if you like, to do it. Sometimes, as I’ve said before, I think the Liberal Party would say, “This is probably a good piece of legislation and we need to agree to this or this motion or whatever, whatever. The Nationals will support it; so we’ll vote against it.” Then they could use that from a political point of view to spell out to the electorate that on X amount of occasions the Nationals voted with the Labor Party. Coming from conservative areas, particularly at that time … not so much now, because people don’t care too much about whether it’s Labor, Liberal or whatever it is, as long as you respond to their issues … but in that period it was more the Liberal Party and the National Party were vying for the same vote; that was the conservative vote. So, it was a time, I’m not saying it was hard or difficult or anything like that, but it was more than interesting because it meant we had to do our homework and you had to perform.

RC From March 1989, you were Leader of the National Party of [Western] Australia in the Legislative Council. What did this entail?

CHARLTON Obviously, as a political party, everyone appoints a leader whether it be the Democrats, the Greens or whatever else, you have a leader. That responsibility is simply on behalf of your organisation. You have the responsibility to negotiate with the other parties about procedures, about legislation, about priorities, about the workings of the Parliament; all those sort of things take place. When it comes to anything to do with what’s going on in the Assembly and in the relationship with the upper house, it’s given to the respective leaders to meet and to work out. Or if there’s a problem with some procedure or individual or whatever else, the leaders would get together, whether it be Joe Berinson in the case of the Labor Party, and Norman Moore and George Cash and me, or whatever. So they were the sort of INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 82 actions you took; and telling other members of Parliament to cross the floor and vote accordingly on one occasion. [track 2] RC Eric, I’d just like to move on now to during your time in opposition when you were appointed to several committees. There’s quite a list of these so what I propose to do is just to name them and if you’d like to make a comment after each one, if that’s okay.

CHARLTON Fine, Ron.

RC Shadow spokesperson for budget management, transport and PA shadow spokesperson for budget management, transport.

CHARLTON These committees had a very significant role in the upper house because at that time, and I guess previously and today, there’s a number of standing committees and a number of select committees that come along during the term of a government that involve themselves in investigating the background to a whole range of both government and associated activities. These committees have a number of witnesses come and give evidence and it’s an opportunity for people in the public to seek an opportunity to put their case and to alert the government or the Parliament to issues that they rightfully have an opportunity to bring to the attention of members of Parliament. That one was something that was all to do with the budget. We have budget hearings every year. As you lead up into all those realms of financial activities that take place throughout government, if you think there’s something untoward there, you have the opportunity to question members of the government and department people about the operation of that particular department.

RC Thank you. Between March 1989 to November 1992 you were a member of the parliamentary and electoral reform committee, Aboriginal affairs, the family and mid west.

CHARLTON Yes. In the parliamentary and electoral reform, obviously that is something that did have a significant role. When I first went to the Parliament, we had a provincial system as far as the upper house was concerned. It had significant vote weighting in the upper house provinces. We changed from there to what is called proportional representation on a Senate-style operation. That was something that the National Party agreed to with the Labor Party or, should I more accurately say, the INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 83

National Party drove to ensure that if there was going to be electoral reform, then it should be based on a system that gave vote weighting to country electorates. Now there was always a push from the Liberal Party to go to one vote, one value and there was always the push by the Labor Party obviously for one vote, one value. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party could have always got together but the Liberals knew that if they did that, the Nationals would burn them at the stake when it came to the next election as far as country electorates are concerned, and be pretty critical of them agreeing to do those things. We believed that there had to be reform electorally, but it should be on the basis that you still gave an opportunity for a system to be in the upper house that was different to what it was in the Assembly and, to cut a long story short, should be based similar to the Australian federal Parliament in as much as the House of Representatives and the Senate be based in that case on states whereas this would be based on regions. We set up the six regions - three in the metropolitan area, three in the country, 17 elected from the metro and 17 from country WA. That was a significant electoral reform that took place as a consequence of our involvement.

RC Between November 1992 and February 1993 the coalition shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and transport and member of the coalition management team.

CHARLTON Yes, well, there’s sort of three bits to that. To start back at the finish, the management team was a group of National Party people that had the responsibility to negotiate with the Liberal Party in forming a coalition. As I mentioned earlier, I think there was a very winnable situation back in ’89 for the coalition, National Party and Liberals, to win that election. I think the time was right. People were ready for a change of government. It didn’t happen because we didn’t have a plan to put to the people in a coordinated manner. Bob Pike, who was an upper house member of the Liberal Party that I’d worked with on the select committee and Rothwells and PICL and so forth and so on, we often talked about the need to have a coalition agreement that should be based upon a plan that we could take to the people as a coalition agreement and, secondly, that if we won, that that plan would be there to be implemented to form government, so you wouldn’t have a situation after the election where we are going to spend the whole time arguing and in disagreement about how that was going to happen. We worked together and he and I came up with a plan that we put to the respective parties. He took the plan to the Liberal Party and I took it to the Nationals. I always remember putting it in front of INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 84

Hendy Cowan and saying, “What do you think of it? Do you think this is a workable and acceptable and binding agreement?” He had a look at it and after a bit of due consideration said, “Yes, but the Liberals will never agree to that.” I said, “Hendy, it’s not a matter of whether the Liberals agree to it or not; do you agree with it?” He said, “Yes I agree with it, but I don’t think they will.” I said, “Don’t worry about them. If we agree to it, we can go ahead based on our agreement.” It was agreed to and that’s what we took to the ’93 election. Having done that, when the numbers fell the way they did, it was basically based upon the number of seats that we collectively won, and so the split, when it came to portfolio responsibilities, was based upon the numbers of the members of Parliament we had. There was a formula in place for that to happen. As far as those other committees are concerned, the Aboriginal one, I had instigated a select committee of the Parliament because I’ve long held the view that there should be an investigation and an assessment about where money is spent. Obviously, most of the money when it comes to Aboriginal affairs comes from federal governments, but there was also some state involvement. I thought, and I know we’ve touched on this previously, but the interesting thing about this investigation is that having got a report which was a unanimous report, which was compromised a bit from my point of view at the end because the Labor members on it were not as strong or determined in their attitude to reform the way things ought to be done as far as my opinions are concerned with Aboriginal funding, but there was action taken to stop that report being tabled in the Parliament. A writ was issued to stop me from tabling that report. That laid in the court; that injunction was there. The day after the Parliament was wound up to go to the next election (it was the ’93 election) the court made the decision that the injunction should be lifted. However, because the Parliament no longer was in process because of the pending election, that report never ever got tabled. I have always felt very, very unhappy about that. It was a genuine attempt to get out into the public arena the comments and contributions that people made to the changes that I thought ought to happen. Obviously, if I’d have been minister for Aboriginal affairs, which Richard Court wanted me to take when we did get into government, but I didn’t agree to take it because I saw transport as a priority, but I would have loved to have had the opportunity to pursue and implement some of those recommendations that was in that select committee report.

RC The other part of that shadow ministry was for transport as well.

CHARLTON Well, of course transport was, has always been and will always be an issue in country Australia because, as I’ve said before, we live in the most isolated INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 85 state in the most isolated nation in the world. If you don’t get transport right, you don’t get anything else right. That’s an economic fact; it’s not an Eric-biased belief. It’s a bit like the comment that’s always made about Thailand and Bangkok. Bangkok really should have been the real hub of international transport, but because it was never planned properly, it wasn’t, isn’t and never will be. When it comes to the transport issues, the list just went on and on. As shadow Minister for Transport and having witnessed and lived all my life in country WA and travelled a fair bit in my other activities before I got into Parliament, then with the trucking side of things with the transport of goods and so forth … there was the roads - the system regarding our road funding was disgraceful, the lack of real works taking place, the mismanagement and waste that took place, railways being totally inefficient and wastage, the ports having all about running the port and not about how to get the products across in a most efficient manner, and so the list went on and on.

RC Between 1984 and 1989, Eric, you were a member of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies.

CHARLTON Yes, that again was similar, as I say, in all those standing committees because you had that opportunity to look at government agencies and to see how they were operating. I used to have a bit of a wild saying that I thought I could run the government on what was wasted. That’s probably a bit over the top, but you saw so many things that were all about bureaucracy. I don’t mean to be critical of government employees or bureaucrats as such, it’s just the system is too top heavy and, again, it’s about process and not about outcomes.

RC You were a member of the Joint House Committee, September 1989 to January 1993.

CHARLTON That was simply the operations of the Parliament itself and Parliament House and how to cater for the needs and the well-being of the smooth running, efficient running, of the Parliament. That again was another interesting activity or involvement that I had.

RC Chairman of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, July 1990 to March 1992.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 86

CHARLTON Again, it was looking at all those financial factors that took place. As I’ve said before, I’ve always been interested in the financial side of things. While I’m obviously no qualified person, accountant or anything else, my usual one-line statement was, “How do I know about this; I’m only a farmer?” That was a bit of tongue in cheek, Ron, because I’ve usually been able to work out which way is up when it comes to these financial matters. I did chair that and I enjoyed that time. It gave me another dimension, if you like, to how the whole system operated and some of the things that needed to be done.

RC We have spoken earlier in this interview, Eric, about Aboriginal affairs and Aboriginal funding programs. You were chairman of the Select Committee on the State Funding of Aboriginal Programs, 1988, and a member of the Select Committee on the Allocation of Funds by the Aboriginal Liaison Committee, 1986. It seems that Aboriginal funding was a great interest of yours.

CHARLTON It was and still is today. I made some comments earlier in this interview about how I despair at the waste. I despair at the way the whole operation of Aboriginal funding and programs are implemented. I don’t know when people are ever going to wake up to trying to deal with this issue. I see it every day. I was talking to some Aboriginal people just last weekend that I’ve known for 40 years, I suppose. They’re wonderful people, the Kicketts from Tammin, who I’ve grown up and went to school with and so forth and so on. Some of these members of this family have been very successful and they don’t need any help or handout or anything. They’re doing what they have wanted to do and they’ve educated their kids and done it well. That goes for a whole group of families of Aboriginal descent. When we talk about Aboriginals, we always do it in the form of branding them all as one. They’re no more one than what the rest of us are. There’s people in our society, whether they be the bikies or the druggies or the homosexuals or whatever. We don’t brand every one as one of those groups of people any more than we do the rest of society, but when it comes to Aboriginals, we put them all in the one barrel. That is wrong for a start. By getting it wrong in the identification of a group of people as simply referring to them as Aboriginals, it’s like when there’s a theft of a car, its an Aboriginal. That shouldn’t be said. It’s an individual who stole the car. If it’s an Aboriginal who broke into a home, it’s a person who broke into a home; it’s not an Aboriginal who broke in. We don’t say it’s an ex-Irishman who broke into a home or an Englishman or whatever. When are we going to get this right to get back to the responsibilities of individuals? When it comes to Aboriginal housing, for example, which is one of the big issues, has INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 87 been and will always be, we need to build a house, if we’re going to spend taxpayers’ money on a house, for a particular family - and that’s what we’ve got to get down to, or a particular group of people in a given area - then build the house that they can handle and that they want and not a four-bedroom, two-bathroom this, that and the other thing. I had a report the other day from a community whereby the house that the Aboriginal family are living in, in the lounge room hanging from the ceiling is a kangaroo that’s just been caught. Some people will be flabbergasted to hear that statement, but that goes on all the time. For that Aboriginal family, it suits them to live that way. So they don’t need a four-bedroom home, they need a one-room open area where they can live their lifestyle if that’s what they choose to do. But that’s not the sort of house that we’ll build for other people. The same should be said for the rest of society as well. We put people into, pigeon-hole them into categories and then try to make them fit and it’s wrong, dead wrong, and it’s a total waste of money. It’s taxpayers’ hard-earned money that’s going into these things. Then along comes another group of people, white people, who are going to maintain and do maintenance on these places and make a fortune out of it, because whatever they do this week, they’ve got to come back next week and do again, and so it goes on and on. It’s an indictment on Australia. As I’ve said before, we’ve had an apology and we’ve said sorry and we’ve done all these things for the past, but we always seem to be living in the past and we’re not living and concentrating on the future. I don’t know who in 20 years’ time is going to stand up and say, “I’m sorry for the disgraceful mistakes we made in the years 2000 for the way we wasted money and did what we’ve done to Aboriginal people because we didn’t make them go to school, we’ve given them no education, they haven’t got proper health standards because of the way they’ve lived and so their life expectancy is still 20 years behind the rest of the nation.” And I’ll guarantee you in 20–30 years’ time, that’ll be the case, and it’s because we’ve continued to pursue failed and unsatisfactory polices that are just doomed to failure.

RC Continuing on the topic of Aboriginal people and government attitudes to Aboriginal people, in August-September 1992, Eric, you were a member of the select committee on Aboriginal Legal Service writ of summons. Do you recall that committee?

CHARLTON Yes, I do. I referred to that a minute ago by saying that having had that report, the Aboriginal Affairs legal service people associated with Aboriginals took out this writ to stop that report being tabled in the Parliament. INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 88

RC This is the report you were talking about earlier?

CHARLTON Yes, that’s the report. It was an initiative orchestrated by whoever on the basis that it wasn’t constitutional for me to be inquiring into that and therefore I shouldn’t be reporting to the Parliament. It was nothing more than an attempt to stop me from highlighting the issues that I was talking about then that I’ve just referred to now.

RC Finally, Eric, 1988, regarding a matter of privilege relating to the select committee on Burswood Management Limited?

CHARLTON Oh, yes. That was to do with the restrictions and the licensing conditions of the agreement that the state had entered into with Burswood. That was about, as I remember, to do with the casino activities and gambling, so not something of significant consequence. Well, it would have been, if we had allowed pokies into Western Australia, but that didn’t happen and hasn’t happened since.

RC Out of all your committee work, Eric, which of those committees gave you the most satisfaction?

CHARLTON I think the finance and economic government agencies one. Certainly, the select committee on Aboriginal affairs to do with Aboriginal funding that I’ve referred to, and obviously the PICL and Rothwells.

RC I now propose to move on to your political career, 1993 to 1998. By “political career”, I mean your time in government as opposed to opposition. Why do you think the Lawrence Labor Government was defeated in 1993?

CHARLTON Well, a couple of reasons: one, she had demonstrated, I think, that she lacked accountability and trustworthiness to govern the state. I think the Labor Party’s time had run out. I think Peter Dowding won the previous election for two reasons: one, he was a very presentable leader. As Brian Burke had quite rightly identified, he was the best one the Labor Party had to win what was probably a difficult election. I think they won that one because with him as leader and the fact that the Liberal and National Parties didn’t get their act together, so I think it was inevitable that she was going to lose and they’d run their race. The other thing, of INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 89 course, is that under Richard Court, who had received a very, very difficult time from the Western Australian media being seen to be simply operating in his father’s shadow, which was totally wrong, but that’s the media for you. I mean our media is a very negative group of people. Their whole attitude to everything is negative; it’s about conflict and controversy; and the people accordingly are then cynics of what goes on. But he overcame that together with the coalition agreement that we had in place, and I think that’s why we won.

RC To what extent do you think WA Inc had an outcome on that election?

CHARLTON Very much; very significant. Obviously, the state was in serious financial difficulty. It had a serious deficit. It’s one of the things that continually happens with Labor governments. They seem to have a capacity to overspend and create debt, all in the name of social philosophy and don’t match it with financial management.

RC In February 1993, Eric, following the Court Liberal Government’s victory, you were appointed Minister for Transport. How did you feel about this appointment?

CHARLTON Well, I was very ecstatic, obviously. It wasn’t a simple process. I think we debated with meetings going well into the night for two or three days after the election to work out the distribution. Even though there was a coalition agreement on the numbers, it was about which portfolios we were going to have. We were set how many we were going to get, but the argument or the debate was about which ones. It was probably easily identified that Hendy would get Trade and Regional Development and so forth, but when it came to Monty House and Bob Wiese and myself, the attitude of the Liberal Party was that they had their eye on some of those portfolios as well. Certainly, the one with Transport was a bit of a challenge, and they probably didn’t think I would be able to handle it. Perhaps they thought they’d better give it to someone with a bit more capacity than me. Anyway, as I said, there was a fair bit of debate went on, but the National Party, with Hendy as a hard negotiator, stood our ground and it was either agree to this or there won’t be a coalition. There was a few threats from time to time, “Well, we’ll slip down and tell the Governor that we can’t form a government.” But that didn’t happen. It’s a bit like the situation in Canberra recently; when you’ve got the numbers to form a government, nobody is going to walk away from it. INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 90

RC You mentioned earlier about Aboriginal Affairs. There was a possibility that you may have had Aboriginal Affairs?

CHARLTON I think I could have been given Aboriginal Affairs. There’s not many people queue up for that portfolio, and I would have liked it. The issue was, though, that most of the decision making and the funding for it all comes from Federal Government, so I’d have been pretty frustrated and unhappy with being told by Federal Government, “Well, you can’t change that and you can’t redirect that money and you can’t do this, that and the other thing”, and I’d have been at war in about five minutes flat with my federal counterparts, remembering at that time it was a Federal Labor Government that was still in power. So, in the name of pursuing something that I could have an influence on because of state activities, transport is pretty much all state responsibility.

RC After you were appointed Minister for Transport, Eric, what was your overall vision at that time for Western Australia’s transport system? What did you see as the main priorities?

CHARLTON Because I’d been in opposition for so long, anyone who’s spent seven or eight years in opposition, if you haven’t got a game plan when you get to government, then there’s something wrong, and I had a game plan for everything in transport. I suppose, in a word, it was to modernise it and make it efficient. That meant a number of significant decisions had to be taken. But I didn’t have it in a folder of 14 pages or 500 pages or anything; it was all in my head. So I just decided to pursue them one by one. The first thing that happened is that a policy of coalition going into that election was to modernise the Westrail Workshops. I went out …

RC Funnily enough, that was my next question. One of your first actions was the closure of the Midland Workshops. Why was this necessary? [laughter]

CHARLTON Yes! I went out to the Midland Workshops as part of implementing the changes that were required, and I met the manager and the union representative on site, and I could not believe such a deplorable and disgusting set of circumstances. Midland Workshops had been totally neglected by a succession of governments, but they wouldn’t make the decision to close it for political reasons. They didn’t want the uproar and the industrial activity that was obviously going to take place, and so they INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 91

did nothing. There were earthen floors in the workshop building. When the siren went for the workers to return after lunch, they dribbled back in, “dribbled” meaning they came in one by one, very slowly, without any enthusiasm. There was obviously no culture of work ethic in the place, and I was being told as I walked through with the union guy at my side how we need this and need that and so forth and so on. To cut a long story short, I came to the conclusion immediately there was no future for this place, and the best thing that could be done is to be closed, remembering that it was losing about $18 million a year onto the total Westrail deficit. Westrail operated at a loss from its inception. It had never, ever made a profit. It meant that every year, the interest bill on the capital outgoings and repayments of Westrail was being carried by the users of Westrail. That was reflected in freight rates. As I have said before, that was one of the main issues that I talked about when I first went to Parliament was about the cost of freight on rail. So that was the first thing. I had prepared a cabinet minute, which is the process to take a decision of government to cabinet for approval, to close Westrail [chuckles]. I always remember my cabinet colleagues around the table sitting there a bit dumbfounded that we’d only been in government a few weeks and I was going to close the Midland Workshops, which were a pretty historic piece of infrastructure. So cabinet agreed to it wholeheartedly and sort of said, I think, without saying it in as many words, “Well, best of luck, Eric. This will be interesting”, and it was. So the decision was announced. And also we made a decision, obviously as a whole of government, that there’d be no forced redundancies. Anyone whose job was taken away would still be employed by the government, but they would be offered a redundancy package based upon their number of years’ work and a payout. And so the employees were told about that. They called a public meeting in the Midland Town Hall, and I decided I would go and front up. My advisers from my office said, “Minister, you don’t go to these sorts of things. Keep away from there. You’ll only incite them and they’ll be calling for your head”, and so forth and so on. I said, “Look, I made the decision. I need to go and front them up.” So I went out to the Midland Town Hall, and there was about 300 railway workers and other people there. I got the usual welcome that you’d expect, shouting and jeering and so forth and so on, and calling motions being moved and seconded and agreed to with a rousing applause that I should be sacked and that Richard Court should do away with me forthwith and so forth and so on. Just to finish off on that, I always remember that Fred McKenzie, a Labor member of Parliament and an ex-Westrail man, was chairing the meeting. I was invited to sit up at the table on the stage, and he said, “You’re not allowed to say anything, Eric. You’re not allowed to speak.” I said, “That’s fair enough, but I think it’s fair that if you’re going to have all these things said about me, I INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 92 should have a couple of minutes.” So after a fair bit of persuading, he agreed to let me stand up and say a couple of words. All I said was, because I knew I wasn’t going to convince anybody anything different from what they already had agreed to, I said, “I’ve noted that you have called for my dismissal, but unlike you I’ve offered you a redundancy package; you haven’t recommended that the Premier give me anything.” There was a bit of a chuckle and a few more boos and that was the end of it. But after the meeting, I had all these people coming up to me and say, “Thanks for coming. Where do we stand and how can you help us? What are we going to do?”, and so forth and so on. Obviously, in most of these things, it’s the fear of the unknown that worries people. They all knew that Westrail Workshops were no good and had no future. As a matter of fact, after that, those people who had their qualifications went off and worked for other companies doing Westrail’s maintenance, and some of them even went and started their own business. In fact, I went and opened, at his invitation, an electroplating business that he started himself with the support of his family, and became a very successful businessman in his own right. I still see him regularly today.

RC You mentioned the media earlier, Eric, about various things. What was the media take on the closure of the Midland Workshops?

CHARLTON The same as they are on everything that you try to implement. They’re not interested in the facts and go through it all and say, “Well, look, this is costing the taxpayers money, and is there an upside to this? Will this benefit those workers, or where are they going to get a job?”, or do any investigative activity to look at the positives as well as the negatives. It’s always just the negatives. It’s pretty frustrating when you’re trying to do something. That doesn’t mean the media should agree to what you are doing, but they should attempt to at least get a balanced view of it. As I used to say to them, “I don’t care what you say about me, but surely if there is something being done for the benefit of other people, then don’t you have a responsibility to say what those people’s view is?” So I had all these people that saw the benefit of $18 million being saved out of loss making, and still everyone getting a job that left Westrail. Surely, that was worth a comment? But never, never would you have ever seen anything written about that. I can go on and tell you about the changes that took place in public transport; same story.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 93

RC You probably pre-empted my next question again, actually. We’re just going onto that, but that’s fine. I’m just interested in how the media reacted to the closure.

CHARLTON Totally negative, obviously; it was an icon and it was this, that and the other thing, and how many people had been trained in their trade; which was all true. But the fact was that it was a derelict, uncared for instrumentality.

RC Besides the closure of the Midland Workshops, you also implemented many other changes to Westrail. I wonder if you can explain what the main changes were and why they were necessary.

CHARLTON The whole operation of Westrail, like any transport operation, simply because it’s government doesn’t mean it has a licence to be inefficient over... what’s the word, to have more employees than it needs, and to be run inefficiently, because it is an operating business. As an operating business, now you can’t expect a hospital or a school to run at a profit, because that’s a government service, but in the case of an agency like Westrail, it had been put in there for the benefit to develop Western Australia, but then as the years had gone by it had simply been allowed to go on in a mismanaged and inefficient manner. Having made the decision to close the workshops, I said to the CEO of Westrail, Jim Gill, who was totally in favour of the decision, as Westrail Management were, I said “As long as you understand that it’s not going to end there, because I’m going to go right through Westrail now and do what needs to be done to make it efficient, and that means head office as well.” At the end of the day there were three floors, I think, in Westrail's head office that were empty, because … well, put it this way: when I took over being minister there were 4,500 Westrail employees, and when I left there was about 1,500. In that same period we built 30 new locomotives; 19 for the standard gauge and 11 for the narrow gauge. There’d not been a new locomotive built in Western Australia for 20 or 30 years. They had a lot of rolling stock but most of it was in a bad state of repair, and so there was a massive move to upgrade that. The same went for the railway lines, so we contracted out the railway line maintenance; one contract for standard gauge, another one for the narrow gauge. Part of the building of the new locomotives was done at Forrestfield, in assembling them there. The whole changes that took place meant that in a period of those few years, we reduced the freight rate on grain, for example, and the same went for other products as well, by about $5 a tonne. In about 1996–97, Westrail made its first profit in its 117 years of history. That’s not a INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 94

comment by me, that’s a documented statement that was prepared when Westrail was put up for sale. As some people said to me, Westrail would never have been able to have been sold anywhere near the price that it was when it was sold by the government if it had been in its loss-making operation condition, as it was when we came to government. I should also say that Julian Grill as Minister for Transport had made significant changes to Westrail before I got there, but he’d started when it was obviously totally over-staffed and had got it down to 4,500, but it demonstrated how much more could have been taken off, as I have just mentioned with those figures. So after three or four years we had it down to a situation where there was less staff and [it] moved more freight [and] more people, and ran at a profit.

RC In a statement in Parliament in September 1993, Eric, on the future of Perth’s public transport, you said, “The current planning and provision of public transport in Perth is centralised, and has not been sufficiently flexible or responsible to meet changing demand.” What was your vision for the future of public transport at that time?

CHARLTON When I did a tour, obviously, of all the transport operations in the state, it was pretty obvious that the MTT, as it was known then, was a union- dominated, inflexible operation. In other words, it was run and managed for the operator, not for the travelling public. There was a very restrictive system in place where the depots were located and operated to satisfy the needs of employees, not the passengers. So what I decided to do, having had a look at other operations around Australia, is that what we ought to do is bring that flexibility that the road transport industry had, inasmuch that they be managed in a way that the private operator would employ the staff and set the schedules for their staff operations and management, but the good things of our government public transport bus operations be retained. That is, the fare structure would be totally controlled by government; that the services would be controlled by government, that is, the minimum service could not be reduced by the operator; he could increase them but he could not reduce them; that we had a system whereby if you got on one bus operation, your same ticket was applicable to go the whole system, the way that it was under the one government operator. Obviously that required a change of legislation, so I had to get legislation through the Parliament to make these changes, which obviously created a fair bit of dissension from the Labor Party because they opposed everything. Then, because they kept talking about how it was going back to the bad old days and how the fares would go up. This is where the media, again, became evident of their INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 95 irresponsibility, saying that this would result in additional fares, which was never going to happen; so they printed things that were totally wrong. [The legislation meant that] the government would still retain the fares, as they do today, and the scheduling and all services would still be operated by what is now the Public Transport Authority. So the legislation was put in place, and we called tenders progressively, small tenders for a start, to encourage private operators in, and, at the end of the day, we allocated the bus operations to run the buses and to maintain them; again, the government retained ownership of the buses. Nowhere else in Australia where you have private operators do government own the buses; the private operators own them. You then do not get continuity of vehicle types. As a consequence of that, the government owned the buses and the new operators leased them, and that meant that we also needed to put in place a bus replacement program. To enable that to happen I travelled to Europe and had discussions with the major operators of Volvo and Scania and Mercedes and Renault, to tell them that we had a 10-year plan to purchase a new fleet of buses over that period as a replacement program, again, just simply in line with what the private sector does with trucking operations. You don't go and buy 100 trucks one year and then none for another four or five years; you have a rolling program.

As a consequence of that, we got a very significant discount, obviously, in the supplier knowing that he was going to sell 1,000 buses over 10 years, so they could factor in that benefit, and also the financing of it as well. As a matter of fact, I think in the first year the saving to the operations of the bus service in Perth was $40 million in one year. That simply was because the staffing levels changed, and you didn’t need to have the people employed for the hours that they did previously under the government operation, that you had a number of casual drivers, you had a number of people who just come on and drove for two or three hours. I always remember going to one depot and saying to the guy, “How many hours a day do you operate?”, and he said to me, “Oh, about three or four.” I said to him, “Never mind, you’ll probably get a few more hours as time goes by.” He said, “I don’t want any more hours; this suits me fine. I can go and do the other things that I need to do, but this gives me an opportunity to do that.” So it was a big initiative, and I think the fact that when the government changed in 2001, the Labor government did nothing to change any of what had been put in place.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 96

RC These changes you’ve just mentioned, Eric, to public transport and particularly the bus services, the rail, what benefits then were there to the travelling public?

CHARLTON The benefit to the travelling public, as far as the buses were concerned, is that, for a start, buses ran on time. I always remember one of the first issues that came in the form of a complaint is that we had all these people ringing up saying, “I missed the bus. I missed the bus.” We couldn't believe it, and we were saying, “What's going on here?” Then we found out that the buses were actually running to the timetable, whereas, before that, “Oh, no, they never used to get there until about 10 minutes after that scheduled timeslot.” Then there was criticism that the new bus operators were going down the wrong street the wrong way, and they were all true because with some new drivers on, there were a few of those sort of things that happened initially. But as far as the public was concerned, they got increased services on the busy routes because the operator tendered on the basis of the deficit between fares and what the government subsidy was, and if they could see the opportunity to run more services, then they’d increase their income. The public had cleaner buses and they had new buses as the new replacement program came into being. It was all just an upside.

RC You were attacked by the Labor opposition over the supposed economic benefits of contracting out bus services. Why do you think contracting out was the right decision?

CHARLTON The Labor Party only attacked the decision simply because of the effect it had on the union; the union obviously controlled bus operations. In fact the depots themselves, about three-quarters of the area where the bus depots were administered was taken up with socialising or where people spent their time between shifts. Because the system that was in place was so inefficient, the drivers were spending more time at the depot than they were in their own home. You had these great Taj Mahals and areas of entertainment and table tennis tables and pool tables and areas for drivers to spend their time. Naturally, the Labor Party saw that as a negative, but as I say, when they got the chance to change it, they didn’t do anything; they didn’t change any of it. Obviously the bottom line was, it was successful and effective.

INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 97

RC In November 1993, speaking on the second reading of the Department of Transport bill, you said the government had decided to amalgamate the Department of Marine and Harbours and the Department of Transport. Why was this necessary?

CHARLTON Because, again, you had an area where you had this overlap of the marine side of transport being run as an independent agency, and it simply provided a separate administrative operation that was unnecessary, and, therefore, overheads that it didn’t require.

RC In September 1994, Eric, you spoke in support of the taxi bill. Taxis seem to have occupied quite a bit of your time as Minister for Transport. The taxi bill legislated to integrate taxes into the public transport system and to regulate the provision of taxi dispatch services. Why did you think this bill was necessary?

CHARLTON It has always been an issue and still seems to be today: you either have a controlled operation or you have a totally deregulated system where it is just basically run then by supply and demand. There is a fair bit to be said for the deregulation. That did take place in New Zealand, where they deregulated, and I think they did, to a fairly large extent, in Victoria as well. I considered that Perth, being spread out as we are, the city has some long hauls whereby you can’t justify having that totally deregulated set up, or I didn’t think you could then, meant that the operations of the taxis did need some more coordination and control. Amongst all of those things, two key components came out of that. One is that we needed to deal with the operations of drivers, whereby there was a lot of people who had got into the taxi industry that were definitely not qualified to be in there because of their police records, and simply because they’d come from overseas or interstate they’d managed to get through the system. We had a clean-up of that, and a number of drivers were expelled out of the industry. If you remember then, it was at about the same time that the Claremont murders took place, and if we hadn’t have done that, I think there would have been even more issues to deal with because it was thought at that time that maybe a taxi was involved. If you’d have gone through the taxi industry then and found out all these people with records that were part of the industry, it would have reflected badly on the industry, so we had a clean-up of that. Then there was always the issue of violence towards taxi drivers. We implemented the cameras in taxis, which was a first in the world in fact, and so that was pretty revolutionary. Not everyone agreed to it, obviously, at the time, and it’s like most things in life: INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 98

people are conservative by nature and resist change. But it was something I pursued vigorously and, at the end of the day, convinced or cajoled people into agreeing to it. We also made sure that we got a good system in place, because it’s not only about trying to put in place technology, but, like a lot of other things in life, bad technology is worse than nothing. I think everyone acknowledges that the cameras in the taxis have been a wonderful benefit to the industry.

RC There was a taxi safety summit in April 1996. What did that summit produce? Some of the things you’ve already mentioned, did they come out of that summit?

CHARLTON Yes, they did, and other things, such as the requirement for the radio control companies to be able to keep records to ensure that they worked in with police and the government instrumentalities on safety factors and the safety of drivers and all that sort of thing. Taxidrivers are a bit like farmers and fishermen: it is very difficult to get consensus amongst them about what is good. The reason that they have differing views, often, is that they spend a fair bit of time on taxi ranks where they have the opportunity to talk to each other about their problems, and often that situation gets a bit out of hand. I know that I was not their most popular member of Parliament or minister at the time, but having had a few taxi rides after I left and Hon Alannah MacTiernan took over and there were a few initiatives then to make other changes, they made the comment on more than one occasion, “Well, you weren't too good, but you were a bloody sight better than that current one we’ve got.” [laughs]

RC Just going on from that, Eric: in October 1994 a no-confidence motion alleged that you misled the house as to the view of the Taxi Council of Western Australia, and that you failed to adequately consult with the taxi industry over the taxi bill. How do you see your relations with the Taxi Council at that time?

CHARLTON The taxi industry had a number of pressure groups, and the Taxi Council was a self-appointed group from within the taxi industry that didn’t, obviously, support the initiative to put in place an independent chairman to operate the taxi businesses in WA. Naturally, they’d had an opportunity in the past to have a fairly strong voice in what went on, and when you take somebody's right away I suppose they are naturally going to be unhappy. But I think at the end of the day it all settled INTERVIEW THREE CHARLTON 99 down and, as I said, while they’ve never been happy 100 per cent and still aren’t, it did operate pretty smoothly from there on in.

RC Just finally a final question springs to mind on taxis. We seem to see recently that there is a cry that there are not enough taxis in Perth and people are always queuing for taxis. How do you feel about those observations? Was it like that in your time as Minister for Transport? How do you see it compared to today?

CHARLTON Yes, it was. As I said, you’ve got a Perth metropolitan area that covers a wide geographical area, so you’re trying to meet a situation of providing an economic return to taxi owners and taxi drivers, and to balance that with the demands of the public. When people want a taxi, they want it now, so at the busy times there’s never enough taxis, and for the rest of the day and the week there is too many. There is never, ever going to be a situation where everybody is happy, but that goes with everything else in life, too, I suppose. It’s a matter of trying to get a balance. In addition to the taxi industry, we had the disabled element of taxi services. Well, that needed to be catered for, so we did increase the number of vehicles that were wheelchair-assisting operations. We also did that, too, with the buses as well, where we had what we call “kneeling buses”. It was another one of the other benefits of the new system, where they were more friendly for people with disabilities, and we did that as well with the taxi industry. There were all those conflicting and competing issues in the taxi industry that’s always difficult to manage, but, as I said, I think while never everyone is happy, there was an improvement. I think the three things are: we cleaned up the eligibility of taxi drivers; we put in place the cameras in the taxis to protect the taxi drivers; and we put in place an independent taxi authority to oversee and coordinate the taxi industry. [END OF INTERVIEW THREE] INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 100

[track 1] RC My name is Ron Chapman; I am continuing my interview with Eric Charlton for the Western Australia Parliamentary Oral History Project. Today is Monday, 8 November 2010.

Eric, I’d like to go on now to talk about the waterfront dispute. During a debate on 24 May 1995 about the Fremantle waterfront dispute, it was alleged by the opposition that, “The government is running some kind of holy campaign to finally break the back of the union movement.” This was in response to the awarding of a contract to the Buckeridge company. Just a general question to start with, Eric. What are your recollections of that dispute?

CHARLTON They are very specific. Obviously the whole issue of the waterfront was based upon a total inefficiency that existed on the waterfront in Australia, right across every port, particularly the major ports, including Fremantle, and to a lesser extent, simply because there was no containerisation at regional ports. But in the case of Fremantle and other major ports, the movement of containers by the stevedoring companies was appalling and really a third-world type lack of efficiency. Where other places were doing in the 20s of movements per hour, we had a situation in Australia where it was in single figures. So, it was a disgrace; it was a national disgrace, and it was something that unions collectively … and particularly the Maritime Union of Australia, which had just come into being at that time because there had been an amalgamation of the Seamen’s Union and the Waterside Workers Union, formed in one organisation called the MUA. So, there was always an issue there that had been very much to the fore of my drive for efficiency in every facet of transport. My involvement in seeking some changes on the waterfront was no different to the rest of the transport portfolio, whether it be rail or roads or as far as airports were concerned; it was to make changes that were blatantly obvious and needed to be done. I guess before we go on into the activities on the waterfront, from my point of view, I’d come from a background where everything I did, I did with my money, and so I was driven by seeing blatant inefficiencies and thinking, “This is other people’s money that is being lost here in these exercises. If I owned this business, how would I want to run it myself?” So, I was driven by seeing what was plainly very obvious to everyone, and so were the people working there. They knew that these things were totally inefficient, but they did not care about the national interest, and really, in my view, didn’t even care about their own pride in what they were doing. INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 101

One of the first things I did was to remove Maritime Union representatives off all the boards. Now, that wasn’t an attack on the union, that was simply putting people on each board, as their renewals came up, who I thought would have the interests of the state at heart and try and make changes on that particular operation to make it more efficient. To do that, you simply can’t have people on a board who have a vested interest in not allowing change to take place. So any time anyone on a board would move, or even in the case of the organisation or the agency itself, in the case of the Fremantle Port, if they decided that there should be some change made, the union would then discuss it, and if they didn’t agree with that, they would threaten industrial action. There is nothing worse that can happen to an operation than to have that threat hanging over their head. They were hamstrung and could not make the changes that, in a lot of cases, they obviously wanted to make. That was my first action, to put people on the board, not only to make changes to the ones from the MUA, but also other people who I thought didn’t have the interests of the agency at heart and were just simply there to go along for the ride. So I put people on, invited people to participate as board members of the Fremantle Port and the regional ports, who came from a background of being successful in their own right, who were not necessarily hard-nosed, but were business people who could see the opportunities that were being missed by the lack of efficiency, and to put them on. So that was some of the background to my attitude.

Then we had a situation, to get to the point, of the industrial action that took place in ‘95. I had Len Buckeridge come to see me and request an opportunity to lease part of the port on North Wharf, No. 1 berth, which was not being utilised because it was not in a condition to operate, as far as the Fremantle Port was concerned. He sought the opportunity to lease that particular berth. The reason he wanted it was to involve some of his own activity in importing and exporting products, obviously, from his own company’s operations. He has many facets to his business, and as a consequence of that he thought that he could get those products in and out of that port in a more efficient manner if he was to have access to a berth himself. That is the same with anyone who wants to do business; they have that opportunity. That was discussed with the CEO of the port, Kerry Sanderson; an agreement was made for Buckeridge to do that task. What happened as a consequence of that was that the MUA, being very single-minded in their total control of the port, decided that he shouldn’t have that, but there was nothing they could do about it at that time.

INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 102

Very soon afterwards, I got notice from the port that the stevedores had decided that they wanted a long-term contract to stevedore State Ships. Western Australia had four State Ships, three of which they owned and one that we had on charter. Two of those ships used to do a north-west run and two of them did a South East Asia run. As a consequence of that, over a number of years they’d had contracts with P&O and Patrick’s, as we know them today, those two stevedores, and it had come to a position where, evidently, there was no long-term contract in place and they were simply operating on a three month by three month arrangement to stevedore those. Being small ships, it was no big deal. However, because BGC had taken over a berth at Fremantle, alarm bells started to ring with the MUA to say, “This government and Charlton are going to involve Buckeridge in stevedoring State Ships, and that is why he has taken on that berth”, which was totally and absolutely incorrect. They made a judgement and they got it totally wrong. As a consequence of what they thought was happening, they decided that the stevedores, the two stevedores that they controlled, should get a long-term contract with State Ships to stop Buckeridge getting involved in that task.

So, the message went out. The first thing that happened was that I inquired, “How do we advertise and call tenders for this stevedoring contract? What is the process?” I asked the department and State Ships and they said, “Oh well, there are only two stevedores; we just call them up and tell them what the situation is, the terms and conditions and the number of years, and get them to put in a tender.” I said, “That’s fine, do that; if that’s what you’ve done in the past, do the same again.” Then the word got around that this was on. As you can imagine, news travels fast; all of a sudden, the MUA wants a long-term contract for stevedoring because they think Buckeridge is going to get involved. Well, Buckeridge got to hear about it; I don’t know how, and it doesn’t matter, and he said, “So there is an opportunity, is there, to tender for the stevedoring of these four ships? Well yes, I’d be interested in that, seeing now that I’ve got this berth down there, which I’ve had for my own use, so I’d like to tender for that.” So I said to State Ships, “Well, you need to advise him, as well as the other two stevedores, about expressions of interest and a tender, and he should be invited to tender as well.” So, three tenders came forth, and surprise, surprise, Buckeridge was the lowest tenderer. Why was he the lowest tenderer? One, he obviously saw it as a great opportunity to get involved; and secondly, the other stevedores naturally thought that no-one else had ever entered into their area of stevedoring, so it would pretty much be the status quo. To cut a long story short, the contract came to me to say that BGC was the lowest tenderer and I said, “Well, then, INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 103

you give the contract to BGC. They’re the lowest tenderer; that’s how we ought to do it.” There’s got to be very good reason, as I have said, consistently right across government, particularly when we talk about Main Roads; I’ll mention the situation that happened along the way there as well. So, BGC got the contract.

The MUA immediately decided that they would not allow the ships to operate unless we took that contract off BGC, and I said, “He won it fair and square.” I was immediately accused of doing this contract and arranging it all by word of mouth; “You look after me, I’ll look after you”. That type of accusation was made against me, and of course it created a lot of media that this was some cowboy outfit, as far as letting tenders go, and calling tenders. That was totally incorrect; I sought information from State Ships about what they’d done in the past and they said that there were only two tenderers, two stevedores, and that that was why they just phoned them up and advised them or sent an email, or something to that effect. There’s no calling officially in the newspapers or anything else. Of course, that didn’t stop the accusations going on for some time about the so-called underhanded way that I had operated. The bottom line was that I said that BGC had won the contract in a fair and equitable manner with the other two tenderers, and that I would not take it off him. Secondly, I said that if he continued to operate and they didn’t allow State Ships to carry out their task, then it would be something that the government would need to deal with.

During all this time of course, because the strike was on and was affecting a whole range of other businesses, there were other major exporters out of Fremantle that were very unhappy. They were complaining, quite rightly, to the government, saying, “You are holding all of us to ransom by the action that you are taking.” My response to that was that I had acted totally in accordance with allowing someone to tender who has every right to tender and that there was no restriction on who can stevedore ships, provided they comply with the rules of the current workplace of the time, and that I was not going to interfere with the tender process simply because the MUA was acting totally illegally. It all came to a head, finally, because the MUA was not going to accept it and I said to the government, “There is only one way that I will ensure that this doesn’t proceed and that is by selling the ships, so that if there are no ships to stevedore then not only will BGC not stevedore them, no-one else will as well.” As a consequence of that, the government accepted that recommendation of mine, and this was because it was a totally inefficient operation, State Ships that is, it is like a lot of other things, its use-by date had long gone. I had attempted prior to this to get INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 104 some of the waste and the inefficiencies out of the State Ships’ operation by appointing a new CEO to operate State Ships. I had Price-Waterhouse inquire into its procedures and business operation and they made a number of recommendations, which we were in the process of implementing, but when you have got small ships carrying cargoes, and travelling where they were, to South East Asia and the north west in that manner, it was really only the task of one ship, if we did want to involve the state. And so I recommended the government that that service be discontinued. As a consequence of that I also knew that if we sold the three State Ships and handed back the contract regarding the chartered vessel, that the MUA, being the organisation that they are, would not allow any new owner to sail them out of Fremantle. So, I said to State Ships, “You will take the ships to Singapore; you will berth them outside Singapore harbour, and we will negotiate the sale of them from there.”

Of course, you can imagine the MUA’s reaction to that, however, that stopped them from carrying on their bastardry that they always managed to implement by interfering in the proper efficiency of how people try to go about their business. I had witnessed their interference with trucking operators stopping them from going about their business. I witnessed their actions in closing off the streets of Rouse Head in not allowing other people to genuinely go about their daily operations while that strike was on. As a matter of fact, I advised the police commissioner that I thought he was weak, in as much as he didn’t involve the police in stopping people who were acting illegally by setting up roadblocks that were totally unauthorised and totally illegal, but they sat idly by and allowed it to happen.

So, what happened then is that the ships were in Singapore and as the time came for the replacement of the next crew change, one crew would be flown back to Perth and another crew flown up to sit on the ships outside the harbour of Singapore, and this went on for some months until the ships were sold. And they were sold and they freely sailed away to their new destination. Of course, you can imagine the MUA didn’t like Eric Charlton too much! But, you know, I was not going to be one that was going to cower down and be dominated and dictated to by people who just had self interest.

RC Just from what you’ve just been saying, Eric, there are just a couple of things I would like to clear up for at the tape. You were talking about BGC, is that the same as BAAC Pty Ltd? INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 105

CHARLTON No.

RC It is just that in Hansard I have BAAC Pty Ltd. and it says in Hansard of course that BAAC is Mr Len Buckeridge’s company, so I just thought …

CHARLTON Oh well, not unless they had formed … I can’t recall that, so I can’t clarify that. Maybe that was another identification of that task for the waterfront. I know for a period he did call it Fremantle Stevedores as well, but there was only one, and that was BGC. So, yes, it probably came under another name for that exercise.

RC So, BGC is Buckeridge Group of Companies is it?

CHARLTON Yes it is the Buckeridge Group of Companies, but as I said, it may well have been called something else, and I can’t remember off the top of my head what that stood for, but there was only one.

RC You mentioned during your reply just now about inefficiencies with the MUA and how the Fremantle wharves were actually working. I just wondered if you could summarise some of those inefficiencies; what were the major ones?

CHARLTON Well, the major inefficiencies were, as far as containers, simply a determination to move containers slowly. It wasn’t about how to get as many movements as you could in a shift; it was all about go slow because the slower you go, the more people you can have around, and the more employees you’ve got, the more members the MUA had. Just one action compounds the next. So you had that inefficiency in the containers. You had issues regarding maintenance operations on the waterfront. There were employees involved in that. Fremantle Port Authority employed people to do maintenance when there are companies out there that specialise in maintenance operations who were capable of coming in and doing the work in a very much more efficient manner. There were issues regarding bulk cargo.

The same sort of story took place; where they had a change of shifts and everything stopped while there was a change of shift. Take livestock, regarding the live sheep and cattle exports, a very major operation out of Western Australia - several million livestock a year being exported. The livestock were being loaded by waterside INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 106

workers who knew nothing about handling livestock. When you’re loading a ship and you’ve got the old story about one sheep follows another, which is a very true fact of life, and having had a bit to do with them over the years, I knew a bit about it. And when I had the reports from the live shipping people saying it is an intolerable situation where we were unloading trucks and the change of shift will come or there will be smoko or there will be all these actions that take place to stop work, then you have to start the system all up again where you have to get sheep running all the way out of a truck or through a race up through another race operation, up onto a ship and then down the various corridors of the of the ship into the pens. If you’ve got some continuity and continuous operation, you will certainly move a lot more livestock in a given time than if you stop-start. You had waterside workers standing on the side of the yard and the race with a piece of poly pipe, black plastic pipe, tap- tapping there and it was just a matter of them putting in an appearance and they were making a contribution. In fact, they were causing problems by encouraging the livestock not to keep running and so the longer it took, the better it was for them. So you had those totally bad situations. Then a truck would be almost unloaded and they would say, “It’s time to stop”, even to the extent there’s a handful of sheep left on a truck, and so a semi-trailer has to stand there and wait for the next shift to start or after smoko or whatever. These things were just rampant on the waterfront.

Each time there was any move to make changes, the one line that the MUA always had in their defence, or their attack on any change, was, “You’d like to have us down in the holds of ships in the dust and the sweat and the dangers of falling freight and product and so forth where men got killed,” and so forth and so on. Those sorts of statements were made openly and of course for members of the union who didn’t know any better and say, “Well, we don’t want to go back to that sort of thing.” It was holding this frightening attitude over the top of the employees and, as we all know, that sort of thing had long gone and never to reappear. The same thing had gone on in the mines where people worked in a totally intolerable sort of conditions, but all that had gone, and as part of efficiency, if nothing else, those sorts of things are not going to return in that particular time in history. That was the sort of attitude that was always raised and so there was no logic in … you could not have a sensible debate with the MUA. I also received a visit, which is fairly important, I think, to remember, from John Coombs who was the secretary of the MUA of Australia. He arrived in Perth one night, late, and he demanded that he talk to me to tell me how the waterfront needed to operate. So I had a meeting late into the evening with him in my office in Dumas INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 107

House in Havelock Street and he took out his mobile phone. He said to me, “You see this mobile phone, Eric?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “With this mobile phone I run the waterfront of Australia. When I tell people to respond, they respond, because they know the other option is I’ll bring the waterfront to a standstill,” and he said, “Do you understand?” I said, “No, I don’t. That’s the way you might operate, but I don’t operate like that and I’ll continue to pursue and do what I think is right and just for the people of Western Australia.”

In addition to that, I also insisted in the government that we did not seek a dividend from the Port of Fremantle. In other words, some of the government agencies, as in the case of the Water Corporation or Western Power, their charges were such that they paid back to the government a dividend as part of a tax-raising regime. Of course, the state does need income to run its hospitals and its schools and do all the other things that are required, but I always maintained that the waterfront should not be used as a revenue-raising agency for government. The waterfront was a place where products went in and out of the state and the nation and that should be run super efficiently and that should be done at cost. In other words, any capital investment, yes, should be paid by the users of the port, but the charges shouldn’t be in excess of what it costs to run and maintain and operate any of the ports around WA. In my time there was no dividend paid into government Treasury funds for that reason. And so the end of the exercise came when we sold the state’s ships and they sailed away over the horizon and the waterfront went back to normal. Well, not quite to normal, but back to operating again.

RC So Buckeridge Group of Companies, they were successful in that tendering.

CHARLTON Well, they were successful in winning the tender. They never ever got to stevedore a ship. As a consequence of them winning the tender, they sought damages then from the government for breaking the contract of which they were paid a fee or damages and according to the law of a government breaking any contract. It certainly wasn’t a contract that they wanted to break. They were geared up and in fact went on to stevedore a number of operations at the regional ports. Dampier, they operated. They also operated at some of the other ports as well in general cargo and in livestock. They did continue to have a stevedoring operation very successfully and did so in an efficient manner.

INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 108

RC By 1998, Eric, the waterfront dispute had escalated into a nationwide struggle between the Maritime Union of Australia and Patrick Stevedores, who the union believed was in league with the federal Liberal government to remove union domination of the Australian waterfront. In April that year, ports around Australia were picketed by unions as a protest against Patrick’s proposed sacking of 1,400 union workers who were to be replaced by a non-union workforce. On 16 April 1998, Western Australian police raided a union protest camp at the Fremantle wharfs and arrested several of the protesters. I just wonder, as transport minister at that time, what was your stance on the dispute and the arrests in Fremantle?

CHARLTON I totally supported the action taken by the federal government in encouraging Patrick’s to take the action that they did. I think history tells the story now that Patrick’s made a very significant contribution to the changes that ultimately took place on the waterfront. It would’ve never ever happened if you hadn’t had someone like Chris Corrigan, who was leading Patrick’s at that time. I think the documentation that’s come since tells what a difficult job he had, because the same old story happens. You have the extremes of the union activity trying to protect their patch on one side and then you have the banks and the other users of the port who keep on claiming and demanding that there be changes, but at the same time when the opportunity comes to make those changes, they’re all pretty weak and they all want to run a mile and not stand up and be counted. As I said to livestock exporters during the previous activities at Fremantle, if you want some gain, you need to suffer the pain as well, because without that you can’t make changes. If you think it’s all going to happen in a nice easy [way] without any struggle or any contribution from your part, well, you’ll never see any change. So, obviously, the actions by Peter Reith as the industrial relations minister at that time, I totally supported.

As I’ve said previously, the situation with the police, as I stated to the commissioner, if I was to put a roadblock up out the front of my house here in Riverton Drive, I reckon there wouldn’t be half an hour go by when someone would be coming along and laying a complaint and then action being taken against me to remove that to allow people to go about their business. I said, “If that applies, if I am right in saying that, why doesn’t the same apply to these people who were acting improperly and illegally on the waterfront?” I think that is a fair and accurate assessment that we all ought to operate. Obviously things have even got worse today. Some people seem to be able to be allowed to thumb their nose at the law and then you will see other INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 109 things happen over petty issues where people are apprehended and action taken against them.

The great thing about that particular time in 1998 is that … one other thing happened at the end of it and that is the union claimed when they overcame the new uncontracted waterside workers that came on the scene, that at the end of the day when they all got their jobs back or, should I say more correctly, when the MUA was given the right to represent the workforce on the waterfront, the numbers and the changes that took place were all the things that Patrick’s and everyone else on the waterfront wanted to see happen. Of course, the MUA never ever acknowledged that they compromised to the extent and agreed in order to maintain some presence on the waterfront to publicly acknowledge the changes that were made, but I have. Everyone can get the final outcome of that decision by which the workforce was reduced to the extent that it was at that time, by thousands across the waterfront around Australia, and the container movements went up to world-class. So that’s the proof of it; the efficiencies soared and was done with half as many people. That proved the point of what they had for so long looked upon as sacred ground that no- one else must ever interfere with.

RC Could you say then that the struggles that took place on the waterfront in Fremantle in 1995 and in 1998 nationwide, can we say that they were necessary in order to produce a better working waterfront organisation?

CHARLTON Absolutely. I suppose the only thing you can say about them is it should have happened 10, 15 years sooner. There is no doubt that the actions and the activities of ’95... and these are Peter Reith’s words to me who wrote to me thanking me for my support of his initiatives and of Patrick’s initiatives, that it probably wouldn’t have got off the ground, certainly with the same enthusiasm, if we hadn’t had the experience of dealing with them as we did in 1995. They’re not my words; they are his. So that sort of thing at least demonstrated that there was opportunity to take action and get a result. What we had done around with all the regional ports ... all the regional ports in WA were changed.

I went to every regional port and I said to the employees on a number of occasions, for example, in Esperance, “You are Esperance people. Your homes, your families, your jobs are in Esperance. You should not be answerable to the MUA dictating to you what you should do and how you should operate. If you’ve got an interest in your INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 110 job and you’ve got an interest in your port, you would want to be working for your port authority. You would want people on that port authority who you could sit down with and talk about the issues. You don’t need to be in a situation where you would phone up the MUA in Melbourne or Sydney or Fremantle and take directions about what you should or shouldn’t do.” Certainly initially they didn’t trust me, but I kept going back and talking to them and all of those ports made enormous changes to the extent that many of them changed over onto workplace agreements.

Ports like Broome, for example … you know, I was told by the department of transport when I became the minister in ’93 that the Broome port was a white elephant, it really had no use, that we should mothball it and just leave it be. I went to every port on a number of occasions. As part of appointing people to the boards who were both local and business-minded people, the Broome port (and every other port, but in particular Broome) changed from being what might have been called a tourist port with a few boats coming in, to a highly active, livestock exporting port and also, as time went by, servicing the oil and gas industry. Because people wouldn’t go there; operators, shipping people wouldn’t go there because of the total inefficiency and lack of management in that particular port. But a fellow called Bryn Martin went over and took over as CEO of the port and did an outstanding job in conjunction with the local board. I mean, when you’ve got a facility sitting there not being utilised, it’s an indictment to have state funds having been expended on it and then nothing taking place. The same thing could’ve and should’ve happened in Wyndham but because of a lack of commitment by some of the local people, the same sort of improvements didn’t take place in Wyndham. In fact, Wyndham lost a lot of throughput simply because they were then getting left behind by Broome.

RC Eric, unless you have anything further to say about the waterfront or waterfront disputes, I propose now to ask about some of the major contributions you made to roads infrastructure in Western Australia. Do you have anything further to comment on the waterfront issue?

CHARLTON We could go on talking about the waterfront for the whole generation of this exercise because the waterfront is something that has been notoriously inefficient over the years up until that time. The other thing that happened, and I want to re-emphasise that I never ever had an ambition to interfere with any union or any business or any organisation. All I ever wanted to do was to see people who were INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 111

involved in a particular operation to do their best to make it the best operation that you could ever see.

I always remember the Esperance Port Authority saying to me, “Eric, the changes that [you] have made in Geraldton port are now attracting some of the freight out of the Mid West.” That’s that area north of Kalgoorlie where they have the opportunity to go west to Geraldton or south to Esperance. “Don’t make them any more efficient because that will cause us to lose business.” I’d say, “Well, you just get a bit better than Geraldton and then you’ll get it back again.” That’s how it should be.

The other thing that happened of course is that after I retired in ’98, I was then involved in legal action that the MUA took through the Geraldton port against the state government in alleging that the changes that were made in the Geraldton port, and I guess they were simply using Geraldton as an example of what had taken place everywhere else, was simply an attack on the union and not about making efficiencies, changes, management changes. Of course, having been involved, I was one of the people that was summoned to appear to respond to that court action by the MUA. I think I spent something like, I don’t know, a couple of days in the witness box being questioned by two QCs from Sydney representing the MUA.

What had taken place in Geraldton was that there was about three or four of the union workforce that remained on the payroll; the rest had taken a redundancy. The waterfront was no different to every other government agency during the Court government inasmuch that when any changes were made, people were offered a redundancy. They didn’t have to take it; it wasn’t a forced redundancy. Most of these people had taken the redundancy in Geraldton but I think the union was keen, for a bit of a test case, to send a message to the government now that I’d retired that this was a new opportunity to make sure that the government didn’t continue down the same line that I had, so this action was taken. There were three or four members of the MUA still employed by the Geraldton Port Authority who were members of the MUA.

What happened again at the conclusion of that court case, every aspect of their action was dismissed, except one, and that was that the Geraldton port should not force those remaining MUA members to resign from the port, that they should keep them, give them the opportunity to stay employed. The MUA, as they always do at the end of any action, always get the attention of the media to claim that they’d had a INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 112 significant win. It was a nothing win. It was a total loss. It cost them over $1 million, as I understand, in court costs and legal costs, legal costs in particular, that their members should have also demanded should never have taken place. It was a nothing action but it caused a lot of commitment from the Geraldton Port Authority, from its CEO, who was an outstanding person and was there for the benefit of the people of Geraldton and the port and the users of the port. That was another exercise that I didn’t think that I’d be involved in and be called upon to make a commitment to spend some time after I’d retired, but I did it and I enjoyed it because I don’t ever run away from an action where I consider I’ve done the right thing.

RC You say, Eric, that there was one action that the MUA actually won. What was the substance of the ones that they lost? What were the ones that they lost?

CHARLTON The others related to them saying that the action taken in all the reforms was to get rid of the MUA off the waterfront. That was all related to the industrial side of those changes. They were dismissed. In other words, the action and the real thrust of all their legal representation and action on the basis that all the changes in the waterfront were made simply to do away with union membership were dismissed. That is what it was about. Really, as I believe, and this is a personal opinion, they did the exercise to send a message to the government and subsequent governments, “Do not get involved in taking us on again because we’ll take action against you.” As I said, all of that was dismissed. The only thing was that those three or four employees were given an undertaking from the court, a decision was taken by the court, that their employment should be continued. Very soon after they left the port, so that demonstrated what the exercise was all about.

RC You mentioned the media briefly in talking about this action, Eric. I am just wondering, looking back over the whole of the disputes, the 1995 and the 1998 dispute, what was the media’s attitude to the dispute? Were they pro-union or do you think they gave an unbiased commentary of it?

CHARLTON I never ever thought that the media were capable of giving a balanced assessment on most issues, and I still see that today. The media seem to have a culture that they are interested in conflict. If it is a conflict and if they can encourage a conflict, then that helps get the result of, I suppose, to use an old terminology, sell more papers and create more ongoing disputation instead of looking at the facts and INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 113

saying, “How do we compare with the rest of the world? Should we make changes here in Australia? Are we a bit of a laughing stock of the way business is done?” Never that type of activity. The same as I’ve mentioned before in the public transport changes, it wasn’t about what the benefits were or what the inefficiencies were in the system; it’s about the conflict between the government of the day and the union of the day and the opposition says this and the opposition says that on the floor of Parliament. What people say seems to be the most important thing, not what the facts are. As I repeatedly used to say to media representatives, “Well, you go and find out about what’s going on and you tell me what you think should happen.” “We can’t do that, Eric; that’s not the way it operates.” Then you go out and get a comment from someone and of course who do they go to? They go to someone, in this case the union, and get an extreme opinion and that becomes central to the report, and then of course you’ve got other people who won’t say anything because they don’t want to be victimised by being boycotted or their business being put in jeopardy. They’re the sort of things that should be exposed, but in the case of the waterfront activity, I think what Chris Corrigan went through was a totally unjust and totally unacceptable situation [that] no one person, no one company should have been subjected to in Australia. They should have had the total support of everyone.

I remember early in my time, when Laurie Brereton was the federal transport minister, being at a transport ministers’ conference and saying to him that product from Australia, in this case motor vehicles, were being sent via New Zealand to be transhipped simply because of the inefficiency of the Australian waterfront. His response to me was a smile and said, “So what?” When you’ve got a federal minister who knows the absolute facts and the truth but because they’re associated and aligned with the union movement, nothing is allowed to change, and it is that head in the sand or being dictated to by the union movement that Australians should always be very, very wary of. Just the same as we should never be subject to the domination of big business. I am not blind enough to say big business is good and unions are bad; I think they are both un-Australian the way at times they carry on. Every individual employee should have the opportunity to be represented by an organisation and their responsibility should be to act in the best interests of the employee and the nation, but so many times they’re not.

RC Thank you, Eric. As I said before, unless you have anything further on the waterfront dispute, I propose now to move on to the major contributions you made to roads infrastructure in Western Australia. What I propose to do is, like your INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 114

committee work, if I run some names past you of various projects, if you just care to comment on those. Is that all right?

CHARLTON That’s fine.

RC First of all, I’ll just start with the Graham Farmer Freeway.

CHARLTON That’s a good place to start, I guess, Ron. It’s a long story and I don’t know how long you want me to take, but it’s pretty interesting. I’d like to take people’s minds back to what used to happen prior to the tunnel and the Graham Farmer Freeway. We had a situation in Perth where we had the Narrows Bridge and we had the Kwinana Freeway, Mitchell Freeway, and we had Albany Highway and the Causeway. If you wanted to get from the Causeway to link up with Kwinana or Mitchell Freeway, you had to go along Riverside Drive or up St Georges Terrace or down Hay Street or Wellington Street or find your way around through Northbridge or Vincent Street or somewhere like that. You had a series of minor arteries to link the two major pieces of infrastructure together and they all meant you went basically through the city. Of course most of it went along Riverside Drive so you had the Causeway being choked up, you had Riverside Drive being choked up. So I said to Main Roads, “What’s the plan?” They said, “Well, there’s several options. We can upgrade Vincent Street and link Lord Street into that. We can have a one-way through Aberdeen Street and one-way in the other direction down Newcastle Street or we can do something such as putting an underpass under that particular area, under Aberdeen and Newcastle Street.”

I said, “Well, there’s only one option obviously because the local people wouldn’t want to use Aberdeen and Newcastle Street. That would create enormous interference there and the people in North Perth through Vincent Street, the major artery there, would not be efficient either.” I said, “What we need to do is you need to make a model of the tunnel and how it links in with the Mitchell Freeway right across to how it’s going to come out the other side and link up with Great Eastern Highway.” So they made the model. When I took the proposal to cabinet, we had the model set up on a floor above the cabinet meeting room. Having explained it to the members of cabinet that I had a plan to go ahead and build a tunnel, interconnecting roads complimentary to the tunnel, the question is, when you point something out to people or try to explain something to people, it is natural and human for everyone to get a picture in their head of how this is going to be. If you’ve got 10 people, there’s INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 115 probably 10 different perceptions that people have. I said, “Before you ask any questions or before you form any opinion about how this is going to be, come with me and I’ll show you the model of how it’s all set up.” While there was a lot of question marks and concerns about how this would happen and what it would do to Northbridge and what it would do to businesses in the vicinity and so forth and so on, the long and the short of it is, after a fair bit of encouragement, I managed to convince cabinet that we should proceed.

That was how it all started. I simply had a point of view that I used to put to people when they queried about whether this was a good idea or not. I said, “Well, just imagine this: we’ve got it and we’ve got the traffic that’s linking Great Eastern Highway and the Causeway through to the Mitchell Freeway and it’s going through this artery. And you decided that we’re going to close it down and we’re going to send them all through the city and along Riverside Drive. Which one do you think’s going to be the hardest to enact; send them all back into the city, or take them from the city out to this new option?” While not everybody was always convinced by some of my argument, in this particular case after some time cabinet agreed to it. It was done in three contracts that were called to do the tunnel and then other components of the interconnecting roads.

Again, we had the usual negativity and criticism, aided and abetted by The West Australian newspaper about how all these businesses are going to be affected and so forth and the criticism of Alannah MacTiernan about how it will never work and how bad it will be and there’s going to be a disaster and people will get killed in it and people will be gassed in it and the fumes and the environment will be affected and so it goes on, and every one of those accusations is a story in the newspaper. You have some of the best engineers in the world and some of the best technology in the world was part of putting that proposal together, and yet this consistent, pathetic criticism of this development. As I used to say to people, “You travel the world and you have a look at some of the road infrastructure around the United States and Europe and Japan and so forth and so on and what we were talking about doing was like kindergarten stuff compared to what’s done around the rest of the world with some of the projects there.” But you have these small-minded, inward-looking negative people who constitute our newspaper and some of the political irresponsibility that pursued these issues for all the wrong reasons.

INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 116

However, the situation continued on and we called tenders. One of the things that happened... when one of the successful tenderers for one of the contracts was a company made up of a joint venture called Balderstone Clough. The Clough component was Harold Clough, who happened to be a member of the Liberal Party and also a director of West Australian Newspapers. One of the irresponsible statements by The West Australian newspaper is that I, as Minister for Transport, had shown favouritism to Clough because he was a member of the Liberal Party and therefore he had inside running on getting awarded this tender. That’s the sort of disgraceful, irresponsible and despicable reporting that continually took place in my time. So you’re subject to that activity when you’re trying to do something in the interests of the state. I called Harold Clough and I said to him, “Obviously you’ve won this tender because your joint venture has been assessed by the engineers and Main Roads, who are the responsible agency for making these recommendations, and I have agreed to it and you as a director of West Australian Newspapers have now been accused of getting this contract for these reasons.” I said, “I’d like to talk to you about it.” He came up to my office and I said to him what you’d expect, “How come an organisation like WA Newspapers can write absolute dishonest and inaccurate trash like that when you [are] there as a director of this company; how can you allow that to happen?” He said, “Well, that’s the freedom of the editorial, minister; I can’t interfere.” I said, “I think you’re as weak as water.” He said, “That’s what my wife tells me every morning!” That’s the sort of activity that goes on. We could spend the whole day talking about my activity with the media. As much as you criticise the media, and I’ve watched this happen since I retired and I saw it very much happening at the last election with Alan Carpenter and his government being very critical of The West Australian during his time for their actions against him. I can understand that, because when they’re on an errand and there seems to be pretty much it’s always the situation where, as they say, oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them. That’s the situation.

Anyhow, the various contracts for that particular project went ahead and it was completed on budget and ahead of schedule. Not many pieces of infrastructure end up that way. I’ll talk about one of them a little later.

[track 2] RC Eric, you were just telling me about the Graham Farmer Freeway project. Could you tell me how it came to be named the Graham Farmer Freeway? INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 117

CHARLTON All of the major roads in Western Australia obviously have a name given to them, such as the Mitchell Freeway and the Leach Highway and Roe Highway, and so forth and so on. It was brought to my attention that this major piece of infrastructure, with the Northbridge tunnel and the associated roads, would need to be given a name, so it was suggested that we would call for expressions of interest and possibly identify someone in history who had made a contribution to Western Australia, and to give that name to this road. Having been advised about this situation, I decided I would discuss it around the table, as I did with many things with my senior staff. My senior staff , I don’t know whether I’ve mentioned them before, were made up of Brent Higgins, who was the Main Roads senior policy officer, Graham Harman, who looked after the public transport side of things, Greg Trenberth, who was rail infrastructure, and Steve Imms, who was the chief of staff in my office. They were the four key people, along with Dean Roberts who went on to be seconded down to Main Roads; he was my press secretary. We used to discuss a few things just in generalisation, as you do, about keeping in touch with what the thinking is in the community. So we decided that rather than go down through this other process that is the usual practice, we had a chat about who might be a person to recommend that this be named after.

At that time, and of course as it has continued on today, the issue of Aboriginal people and their significance in the past and the future, I suggested in this conversation that we ought to consider an Aboriginal person or person of Aboriginal descent because most of the things regarding Aboriginals is negative and we ought to do something about someone who’s a positive and that people could look up to and say, “Well, that’s what you can do if you achieve a level in the community and make a contribution.” So, to cut a long story short, we came up with Graham Farmer. Now, the logic of Graham Farmer’s name coming to the fore, along with Barry Cable and a number of other Aboriginal people, was that in Graham Farmer’s case he started off at East Perth and became a household word with East Perth; he then went to Geelong in the VFL and was hailed as the best ruckman ever to play the game in Australia, and then came back and played for West Perth and was captain-coach of West Perth and won a premiership. So here we had a person of Aboriginal descent who had reached the highest level in his field, and his links were between East Perth and West Perth. Where was the Graham Farmer Freeway as we know it today? It was connecting West Perth and East Perth. It seemed like a pretty logical conclusion.

INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 118

I took the recommendation to cabinet, and cabinet said, “Yes, oh yes, very interesting”, and so forth and so on, and said, “But we should probably now go out and seek other expressions of interest from other organisations about a name.” I said, “Yes, well, that’s a really good idea, except I’ve made an inquiry with Graham Farmer himself, and he has accepted my invitation to have the road named after him, and so I think it’s a bit late to be asking anybody else.” So cabinet reluctantly agreed with me again, and I was allowed to proceed. Graham Farmer then had a situation where the business he was involved in was facing some trouble and he needed some assistance along the way, and so he then moved in to the top floor of the Main Roads building in East Perth, and he then worked for Main Roads for a period doing tours through the construction site of the Graham Farmer Freeway. So not only was it named after him, but he then was involved with Main Roads during its construction, and of course he was a hit, with all the tours that went there knowing him and seeing him and meeting him and him explaining about it, as the model was out there in an office associated with the project. So, that’s a story in itself about how the Graham Farmer Freeway came to be named.

RC Yes, thank you for that insight, Eric; very interesting. The next one I have is the Kwinana Freeway extension. Could you just tell me a little about your involvement in that?

CHARLTON Obviously the Kwinana Freeway, when we came into government in ’93, the first section was a freeway. The second component was a very stop-start affair because it had … if people will remember, all of a sudden you came to a sign that said “End of Freeway”, and then you came to a set of traffic lights, and then you went on into the freeway again. So it was a pretty stop-start affair. One of the first and significant changes we made was to put in the interchanges to make it truly a freeway; they were about $7 million each, so they’re very significant pieces of road infrastructure. Then later, of course, we continued the freeway down to Safety Bay Road, so that was done. I should also mention that one of the other first issues I had to deal with was that the extension that had been done by the previous government had resulted in a failure in the pavement, in the bitumen. I found out then that the road surface itself had collapsed. When I said to Main Roads, “What’s the situation?” they said, “Oh, well, we’ve got a legal dispute now because the contractor who did the road says that he simply abided by what the design contract required.” There was also a third contract for another engineering company who oversaw the implementation of it. So you had three contracts, plus Main Roads, and all of them INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 119

took a position, obviously, that they weren’t responsible for the failure. One of the first changes that I implemented was, from now on there will be one contract, it will be a design and construct, and you, Main Roads, you are engineers; you will oversee it; it is your road. When I build a house I expect to ensure that the builder builds to the specifications that are laid down, and it is my job to make sure he meets them. That’s a bit of the background on the Kwinana extension, and also the significant changes we made to the way contracts were let.

RC You’ve just brought that up about contracts; I was actually going to ask something about contracts and tendering later on. Did you want to talk about that at this point?

CHARLTON Well, I thought that one of the shortcomings in the Main Roads operation is that Main Roads had been an organisation that had been very much free of government interference. They had been a group of professional people, as they were and are, of mainly engineers, obviously, to oversee the road network of WA; some 170,000 kilometres, I think there is, of roads in Western Australia. But the issue when I first took over was that I said to the commissioner, who was Ken Michael, “You tell me what the plans are for Main Roads over the next couple of years about the major roadworks that need to take place.” Now, while he explained them to me, I also had a bit of a game plan in my mind about the major roads that I thought needed attention. As a matter of fact one of the things he said to me was, “Well, the first thing, minister, I’d like to do is make some extensions to head office.” He said, “The cost of that will be about $25 million and we have the funds to do it, minister.” My reaction was, “That’s all really good, but I know of a fair few roads around Western Australia that need some attention and I think that $25 million needs to be spent on them.” I didn’t say that in those sort of words, but that’s what my response was. So those extensions to head office never, ever took place, and still haven’t.

RC You were also involved in the extension of the Roe Highway. Could you tell me something about that?

CHARLTON Well, obviously what had happened in Perth... under the Stephenson plan... and this demonstrates what a significant contribution planning makes to a whole range of infrastructure; if you don’t plan a long way ahead, then it’s very difficult to implement major infrastructure initiatives later on; the Stephenson plan had identified a ring-road network around Perth, and if you see it, it is Reid Highway INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 120 in the north and Roe Highway in the east coming down and linking in with the Kwinana Freeway, and so it was obvious that Roe Highway should be extended. The first part of that initiative was put in place and done in stages, obviously, because you cannot do it all at one time. But I’m disappointed that what should have happened, and still should happen, is that Roe Highway should go as far west to link in with Fremantle port and the continuation of Stirling Highway, right through to Kwinana.

Because of the attitude of the opposition and some environmental pressure groups in talking about the problems associated with building a major piece of infrastructure through wetland, that final component has never been built and is unlikely to be built. I think that’s a tragedy because Fremantle port is outgrowing itself and there needs to be further infrastructure development in the Kwinana area. We’re going to always have this impediment of an inefficient road connection between where Stirling Highway ends on Leach Highway and a link between Leach Highway and Kwinana. There was an alignment put in place in my time, and what should have happened is that a contract should have been let to build that, but it didn’t happen. One main reason was the Treasury principles of accounting that if you let a contract, even though funds could be identified to match that on an annual basis as work would take place, it is recorded as a debt; that is, money owing by the state. Without going into the detail of it, that was the reason that one contract wasn’t let for the completion of that whole thing. Not to be finished any sooner than what it needed to be, but simply to ensure that it would be done. So along came the Labor government and decided that we didn’t need roads anymore of that type, and so they took away that amendment for that reservation that had been put in place.

RC Eric, you were also involved in major upgrades and extensions to numerous country roads in Western Australia. Could you tell me about some of the more significant of those?

CHARLTON Yes, Ron. The first thing, obviously, we had to do was to find additional funds if we wanted to not only upgrade a number of new roads and implement them, but also their maintenance had not been forthcoming, or not been maintained to keep roads up to a standard of a whole range of the network around Western Australia. In that time, in the early ‘90s, a lot of the roads were in desperate need of major maintenance. There had been neglect for a number of years and the road usage had increased with the amount of products that Western Australia was producing, so they needed more funding. When I first entered the scene in ’93, I think INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 121 it was about $320-odd million a year was the total amount of funds allocated for road funding in WA. When I left I think it was certainly in excess of $800 million a year. That increase took place by an increase in the state fuel levy. That obviously, again, was a major piece of controversy, again the media attacking it as a tax on motorists, and I’m defending the decision by saying, “These dollars, every cent, will be spent on roads”, and the media and the opposition saying, “Well, you can never trust a member of Parliament”, and, “You don’t trust politicians”, and, “Yes, we’ve heard all that before.” Here we’re talking about 3c a litre; now you see fuel prices fluctuating 10c a litre on a daily basis, and yet you take the media activity in that time. Again, while I’m not complaining, I’m just stating a fact, action was being taken and irresponsible statements were being made about how everybody was being ripped off by this government collecting all this money.

What happened was, we had the Northbridge tunnel done, we had the Roe Highway, the Kwinana Freeway, the Mitchell Freeway, we had changes to make the upgrades of Great Eastern Highway as it came into the city, and we had the new coast road started that went from Green Head to Jurien to Cervantes, which was finally completed many years later. It should have been completed 10 years ago but for the procrastination that took place in the meantime. We put through the major link from Tom Price through to the Great Northern Highway through Karijini, which is now one of the top tourist destinations and drives in the state. We had a new road put in to link Kalbarri along the coast from Northampton. We had major upgrades to the roads in the Kimberley. We had $20 million spent on the Gibb River Road, which is one of the great, again, tourist drives; not a bitumen road, but a tourist-acceptable road. We also upgraded the Great Central Road from Laverton to the Western Australian border at Docker River, which is now also a great drive. I did that upgrade in conjunction with the minister from Queensland at that time [who] was also a National Party member of Parliament. We’ve also maintained a great friendship after I retired because of the similar thoughts we had about inland Australia.

RC Can you just tell me, out of curiosity, what was his name? Can you recall his name?

CHARLTON Yes, I can; I’ll think of it in a moment. Anyway, we had a plan that we would link Winton in western Queensland, coming right through the border into the Northern Territory, through the Haast pass section of the Northern Territory, then down to Alice Springs along the Stuart Highway, and then out from Ayers Rock to INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 122

meet up with this particular road at Docker River. Now, his name in Queensland was Vaughan Johnson. He’s still a member of Parliament in Queensland but obviously hasn’t had the opportunity to be back in government ever since. We also involved of course the Northern Territory government. But that road, in my opinion, should be a sealed road. We should not be relying on those people who want to do business, or tourists, if they want to go from side of the Australia to the other, either they have to go across the Nullarbor or around through Katherine. It is an indictment on this nation that we spend all this money on so many things, and the waste that takes place being what it is, and yet we can’t seal another road through the centre of Australia; and it would be one of the great drives. So there was the upgrade of that road. It is a fantastic gravel road at this stage, but of course if it doesn’t get sealed and it doesn’t get maintained, then those hard-earned funds will be wasted because the foundation of the road will deteriorate over the years.

Other roads - there was a road linking Lake Grace through to Esperance that local people had cleared and partly formed. I encouraged Main Roads to complete that road. We had what is called Anzac Drive in Kalgoorlie, which was another rebel road that Main Roads took a very negative view about. I suggested to them that they bury their opposition to it and we go up and complete that road, which we did, which now is one of the major bypasses of central Kalgoorlie. We also took the bitumen right through from Kalgoorlie through to Wiluna and we also linked Leinster through to Mt Magnet with a sealed road, which is a fantastic drive. Everywhere I drive around Western Australia in the last 10 or so years since I retired I have the great satisfaction of talking to local people who were involved in those times with the major upgrades that took place. Now it is also fair to say that basically nothing has happened in the 10 years since as far as sealing roads in regional WA. That’s because, as Alannah MacTiernan so often said, “That mob have had their turn; they’re not getting any more.”

RC Just from what you’re saying, Eric, it is obvious that road (and also I’m coming on to rail) infrastructure was certainly a high priority of the Court Government at that time. You mentioned getting revenue from petrol tax. I just wondered: how did you manage to get all the revenue, because Murray Criddle said in a speech in June 2006 (he was talking about you) that your biggest contribution was to road funding. I was just interested how you managed to get all this road funding.

INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 123

CHARLTON Through a fair bit of cajoling and activity. The first thing of course is we did have the increase in the state fuel levy. The federal government took action against the states having the authority to raise revenue with the state fuel tax, and so that tax was taken away. But fortunately, because we had already implemented that increase, the federal government then came to an agreement with all the states that it would maintain the levy in the form of the excise and return that component to WA. In addition to that, the Grants Commission, which is a federal government system of allocating funds to the state, took into account transport requirements in road funding. As a consequence of that, WA also got an allocation through that stream, and I ensured that that was not spent on anything else; that in fact had to go to road funding. Now I know that before, that did not happen, and since, that also does not happen. So I was able to convince my colleagues that if that money was allocated to WA based upon road funding needs, then that is where it ought to go; and it did. So if you stand up strong enough and hard enough and you’ve got right on your side, you usually win. So they were the main sources of the road funding, in addition to licences of course. We did have an increase in licences, both from an increase in charges but also obviously as the number of vehicles grew. That is one of the fair ways. There is no fairer way than through fuel tax. That is one of the tragedies of the federal government. They use fuel tax excise as a revenue taxing regime when really a significant amount of that money should be allocated back into road funding, because it is road users who pay it. This argument that road users and heavy haulage should pay more, I totally disagree with, because road transport is an absolute critical link of the economy of the nation. Every item that every consumer consumes on a daily basis spends part of its life on a truck, not because people want it to; there is no other way of getting at there. You can cart it from A to B on a train, but before it gets on a train it has to be on a truck, and before it gets to the retailer it has to go on the truck again. That is why efficient road transport is so critical to the end cost of what people pay for every product they consume.

RC Unless you had anything further to say on roads, Eric, I was now going to ask you about your involvement in planning for the Mandurah railway. Would you like to tell me something about the railway?

CHARLTON Obviously the Mandurah railway first got an airing from the Carmen Lawrence government by Carmen Lawrence on the eve of her election that the Labor government lost. I think obviously grappling at straws in trying to give a reason why people should vote for her, she came up with this idea, totally unfunded; no planning INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 124 involved whatsoever, that there should be a railway to Mandurah. We took that comment, because it generated some expectation, and then set about designing the railway to define an alignment to service not only Mandurah but Rockingham and all points in between. As part of that, in servicing Rockingham, we considered that we would need to run the line into Rockingham because of that growing population there. Then the decision had to be taken whether it went via Kenwick or it went up the freeway. As Richard Court said to me on more than one occasion, “Eric, why can’t we bring it up the freeway?”. Mr response was … remembering at that particular time in history the government was not flushed with funds; it was still in the process of paying off that billion-dollar debt that we inherited through the Burke and Dowding and Lawrence years. Every initiative that the government took had to be balanced out by the cost that was involved. My response to him was, “Well, you can take it where you like at a cost, but it’s going to be significantly increased cost”; and we went back and did a second assessment to satisfy that question about the additional cost to bring it up the freeway. Also, there was an indication that there would be less patronage, because from, say, South Street to the city you’ve got pretty much the river on one side and the existing services from Fremantle catering for the western side. You had a whole series of localities where there would be very little patronage. And so from a cost point of view, the decision was taken to recommend that the railway line follow an existing rail alignment that went through Thomsons Lake, Jandakot and through to Kenwick, commonly known as the Kenwick Link. That was what the plan was, and that was the plan that we proceeded on to the time that I retired from my position.

RC So you were convinced that the Kenwick option was the one to go for?

CHARLTON It was, based from an economic point of view. Now as I said, if you’ve got additional funds then obviously, as I said, you can do anything. Then the other way, I think today the Mandurah railway line is a significant operation. It’s fantastic; going up the freeway into the city the way it does, is tremendous. But if you think back to that time, we had just put in a bus freeway lane going both ways, so we had a freeway option for the buses. That has now disappeared. So all the buses that go into the city now have to mix in with the other traffic. Secondly, Alannah MacTiernan as minister when she took it to cabinet, I do not think she gave cabinet the full facts. As a matter of fact, I’m absolutely certain she didn’t, well, not publicly, anyway, because she discontinued the spur into Rockingham, so that was taken off it. The point I’m making is she said it was going to be the same cost to take it into the city INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 125

this way as it would’ve going through Kenwick. I think that that is simply not a fact. From the engineering reports and comments that I’ve seen and the ultimate cost that it finished up, that while she said at the time that that was going to be no additional cost, we all know that the end result was a blow-out. I think the blow-out was partly due to her inability to manage the contract. Secondly, the fact was that the extra costs in going up the freeway were there. Again, I emphasise I’m not opposed to that option, but it was simply untrue to say that there was no additional cost in going up the freeway and into the city. The other thing that’s happened is, because that area is now taken up, it has taken away the opportunity for any expansion on the freeway from the road users’ point of view in that area, because you’ve got constraints by the river on one side, and major infrastructure would need to be put in place to widen the road going the other side. That’s an issue for future generations to deal with; but, again, the railway is there and it’s a great thing.

The final thing I would say about that is that I think it just demonstrates the difference between my time in government and Alannah MacTiernan in her time as Minister for Transport, where she allowed the unions to dictate the terms, and a whole range of other infrastructure could have taken place with what she wasted or what she allowed to be wasted. If you remember, her continual statement was, “It’s a fixed- price contract.” You can’t have a fixed-price contract if you’re going to allow unions to cause disputation on the project. Strikes took place and, as we all know, the project was, I don’t know, somewhere around about 12 months late; it might have been more. If you’re going to be that late in completing the project, then obviously it’s with a significant additional cost. Now, with that extra funds that were totally and absolutely wasted, we could have had interchanges on the road network or we could have had another station, say at the Zoo, or we could have had another station further south. All these extra things should have been done with that money that simply disappeared down the black hole as a consequence of her inability, and others; and the government as a whole, to manage the contract. If you’re going to allow people to disrupt … that’s the sort of activity that used to take place on the waterfront and in other areas of government operations that meant so many other things didn’t get done.

RC I would like to ask you, Eric, about the Road Safety Council. Could you tell me how that was established?

INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 126

CHARLTON The whole thrust of road safety to me was with police. The focus was not on road safety initiatives; the focus was under the control of police. My view of the police is that they’re there to enact the law and to apprehend people who don’t abide by the law. But road safety should be significantly more than that. For example, the effect on the health issues; the consequences of hospitalisation. The need for the education side of road safety to be enacted meant the education department should be to the fore in having some programs that involve our schools. While it is right and proper for police to be involved, it is certainly important that local government, because of the number of fatalities and injuries that happen in country Western Australia, and therefore the Department of Transport and Main Roads and all those associated with the effects of road safety should have a voice.

As a consequence of that, I decided we should have a Road Safety Council and that that council be made up of the ministers representing those other areas of government and that we meet as a council and form policy, and we should have an independent chairman. That independent chairman should be someone out of the community who can reflect and respond to the issues of the day and to ensure that the focus is on road safety and not simply on the police aspect of it. That was a view I took, and so the government implemented that initiative. Grant Dorrington was the first chairman of it, and I think he did an excellent job. But of course again, what happened after having it set up and having it part of the Department of Transport administration, which is to do with all aspects of the road network, the transport department (or Transport WA) was the ideal agency to administer it. But because she [Alannah MacTiernan] had her driving problems, the government, almost immediately on her taking office, transport lost responsibility for road safety, and it went back into the Premier’s office and then obviously back into the police operations more than what it had been in the past. I think that was a bad decision. Regardless of what she had done in the past, I think it should have stayed under the administration of Transport.

RC Back under the responsibility of the police department, would you say that there is somewhat of a conflict between the police’s law enforcement role and road safety now? Is there a conflict now that you see?

CHARLTON Absolutely; I think there is too much focus on the police repetition of coming out and saying, “Don’t drink and don’t speed.” We all know that they are absolutely central, but we also know that repeating that over and over again doesn’t INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 127 save lives. What happened from the time of the implementation of the Road Safety Council - the statistics speak for themselves, and I think they’re worth everyone having a look at, if you’re interested in road safety - that we immediately saw, while there was an increase in the number of vehicles on the road, we had a continuous decrease in the number of fatalities and injuries on the network. I mean, one is too many and I know from our own family’s experience the tragedy of losing a member of a family with our son losing his life in a road crash, but again so many things come into it. I know one of the first initiatives that the Road Safety Council took was to put the emphasis on fatigue. Now, police never ever in their history of administering road safety talked about fatigue. They called it driver error. We all know that fatigue has been a significant cause. Of course, it is driver error; every crash is and there is no such thing as an accident, I agree. It is caused by human factor. But what we do need to do is to continue to look at ways to improve … and one of the many things we did was to look at what took place in other countries around the world and to see where those countries had reduced road fatalities to implement some of those changes here.

RC You were also involved in the RoadWise project. Could you tell me a little about that as well?

CHARLTON Well that was simply an extension, if you like, of the Road Safety Council’s initiative whereby RoadWise was a component where local government got involved. We had the support of local government because of the amount of kilometres that are totally under the care and control of local government authorities across Western Australia and in local communities. If you have got local communities involved in identifying those issues associated with road trauma, then again that was going to complement what was being done. So you often drive around country Western Australia now and you will see a sign as you enter a town that says, “Welcome to Tammin (or welcome to wherever), this is a RoadWise Shire.” So that was a component of it. The other initiative that came to be, which was pretty important at the time, was that the Road Safety Council involved the Western Australian Football Commission and the nine league clubs of WA to promote road safety, including the wearing of seatbelts, which is a very significant issue, particularly in country fatalities. In return for each football club promoting road safety with their players, inviting people from the road safety action group to come and speak and convince their young members about the need to promote road safety, the Road Safety Council then sponsored the Western Australian grand final. So that was INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 128 a big opportunity to promote the initiative and I think it was a very successful one as well.

RC We have spoken about major infrastructure, road projects and also the Mandurah railway. I wonder, Eric, can you tell me what you consider to be the main achievements regarding Western Australia’s airports?

CHARLTON Well the airport situation was a varied one. We had the situation in country and pretty much the remote areas of WA where when you get the cyclones and the large rain events in remote areas and in the north of WA, you would have these people being cut off and isolated and all sorts of actions being taken using helicopters to get supplies into these places. So we decided that we should create a fund to upgrade regional airports. So the Western Australian airports fund was initiated and with the support of cabinet and an annual allocation of $5 million was put into that fund and then various initiatives were considered to have some capital investments put on the upgrades of some of those airstrips to make them all-weather strips. That means then you could have an ordinary fixed-wing plane coming in and servicing those areas where, you know, with 20 mills or 10 mills of rain those airstrips became unusable in those times. For example, I can start at the top, I suppose, you had places like Halls Creek, Fitzroy Crossing, Denham and the Shark Bay area, right out to Wiluna and down through the Wheatbelt and Busselton and a whole range of other ... Hyden, in fact, for the tourist activity that took place there. We had these allocations of significant funds out of that airports fund every year to upgrade those airports. They had never ever received any substantial funding out of government prior to that.

The other thing we got involved with too, but not from a funding point of view, was when the federal government privatised major airports around Australia. We had a fair bit of input with those that were tendering for Perth Airport. As I said, we weren’t involved directly, but only from the point of view of ensuring that they understood the needs and expectations of WA and so we involved ourselves in that process as well.

RC Just reflecting back over your time in Parliament, I suppose in opposition and in government, Eric, what do you consider to have been the most important issues that you debated in Parliament?

CHARLTON Well, that’s pretty interesting ... INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 129

RC There’s some quite large ones, I know. I wonder if there were any that actually stuck out in your mind as being really important to you.

CHARLTON Well, I suppose the consequences of the petrochemical legislation in opposition was something that created a fair bit of activity and as a consequence of the decision one will never know what may have happened if that legislation hadn’t been defeated. There might have been a bit more debt ticked up and that we had to deal with when we came into government. I think the other thing was being involved with Bob Pike in putting together that coalition agreement that led to the arrangements by which we formed government in 1993. I think that was significant. It was something that, obviously, I didn’t have to do, but I took the opportunity because I believed that we needed to act in a business-like manner to attempt to make it happen or to allow it to happen. Obviously then the inquiry into Aboriginal funding was significant and the actions that were taken to try to stop me from tabling it was something to be a reason for it. In government, naturally, the waterfront dispute was significant, but you just put all those things together. I think the Graham Farmer Freeway and Northbridge Tunnel was probably one of the most significant pieces of infrastructure as well as all those country roads, which we talked about.

I didn’t have a favourite component of the transport portfolio. I loved it all and I was interested in it all and I lived it all. I breathed it day and night and it is something that I got a lot of enjoyment out of. Of course, along the way, I don’t know whether I’ve mentioned that having got into government I found myself without any points to drive and ... I don’t think I’ve mentioned this, have I?

RC Not on tape.

CHARLTON Not on tape. So that was a bit of a difficult situation. Then three months went by and I got my licence back and I thought, “I’ve done pretty well,” knowing about the media I referred to earlier, “that they didn’t get to hear about it.” But one day outside the Parliament a microphone was put in front of me on a particular issue and then he said, “By the way, we understand you’ve just got your licence back.” And I said, “Yes.” And he said, “Well, how do you justify having lost your licence and you are the minister for road safety?” I don’t know how I came up with this response, but I was reminded of it the other day when I attended a function INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 130 at Parliament House in which John McGrath, the current member for South Perth, produced a written report and he quoted me saying words to this effect, “Well, it is pretty difficult not to speed if you are always in a hurry,” followed by, “Well, I have this theory about going fast and road safety and that is the faster you go, the less time you are on the road, the safer it ought to be.” Obviously not everybody agreed with that, but that stands in black and white to haunt me, if you like, or for people to have a bit of a laugh about as the years have rolled by. But I was commonly known, and I think The West Australian in amongst all their other things ... I spent a bit of time saying how I didn’t agree with the way some of their reporting was unbalanced, but there was one component of The West Australian that I did think reported very accurately about the current state of affairs and that was Alston, the man responsible for the cartoons in The West Australian on a daily basis and still there in 2010 giving people a laugh on his assessment of what has taken place from a cartoon point of view. Obviously he had a field day with me and I never ever met him and I still haven’t but I thought he recorded and reported the activities of the day more accurately than any journalist did and made people laugh at the same time, including me.

RC I believe also, Eric, you wanted to say something about question time in Parliament. I believe you have a few things to say about that.

CHARLTON Well, obviously question time is a time of great expectation regarding some of the members of Parliament. They see an opportunity to put a bit of pressure on the minister of the day. I certainly viewed it that way when I was in opposition and I loved to get the opportunity to question a minister about an issue and the same thing, obviously, went in my time when I was on the receiving end of questions.

Now, some people used to say to me, “Oh, Eric, we never hardly get a question.” My response to that was, “Well, perhaps you haven’t done anything to generate a question.” I certainly copped questions on all those issues that I have referred to earlier today and many, many more of course. But I looked forward to question time. It was one of the highlights of the day for me, not necessarily for those sitting around me probably listening to me rabbiting on in response, but I enjoyed the cut and thrust of question time and I would love to go back there now and ask a few questions about some of the things that I see happening around me today or the lack of things that are happening. But yes, I did enjoy question time. As came out in the recent INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 131

federal election, question time is abused and I think dorothy dixers are totally unacceptable. Dorothy dixers, meaning a set-up question by the government to a minister to give them an opportunity to expand on something that the rest of everybody is not interested in, is probably overdone.

RC Who do you regard as having been your closest colleagues in Parliament? I’m talking about over the years, over your parliamentary career.

CHARLTON Well, my closest colleagues obviously were in the National Party. From Hendy Cowan, who was the leader all of my time and who was very supportive of me in getting elected in the first place, travelled around with me during those weeks prior to that by-election and his forthright and single-minded attitude. I always remember some of the things that he always said to me such as, “You never say ‘never’, because there is always the chance that this may or may not happen.” That was very good advice. He had a lot of other good advice about what is right. I think Hendy was a man of principle. He always stuck to what he said he would do. He’s obviously a person I discussed a whole range of things with. He and I naturally had a few disagreements along the line but for every disagreement we would have had a hundred where we agreed on the action being taken.

Monty House was also a colleague that … obviously very different personality to me in many ways; I guess most people are. They’ll tell you they would not want to be like me. But he’s someone I admired for his decisions he took in government in the reforms that he made. He did a lot of similar things, I thought, in his portfolio that I did in the changes that he made to how the agriculture industry was operating regarding the closure of Robb Jetty and the changes he made to the Department of Agriculture and fisheries and so forth. I had a lot of respect for him and worked well with him. They were the two main people.

Obviously, from an upper house point of view I had a lot to do with John Caldwell, who lost his life suddenly after he retired and didn’t get the opportunity to enjoy his retirement like I have. They were the main two and of course the other one was Bob Wiese, who was originally the first Minister for Police in the coalition government. But all the other members, without going through all their names, obviously I had a good working relationship. Max Trenorden, who won the seat of Avon, was someone that I shared a fair bit of activity with because of his electorate being very close and my office being in Northam as well. INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 132

RC On the other side of the coin, Eric, who do you consider to have been your fiercest opponents? I mean, you have mentioned Alannah MacTiernan. Would she fall in that category?

CHARLTON Well, she was, because from my point of view she simply opposed everything that I put forward and I think she opposed it just to be typical of an opposition’s spokesman. She not only opposed things, she was always vitriolic and irresponsible in my view. I know I have a lot of people say to me, “But she was the only one in the Labor Party that got anything done,” and I say to them, “Yes, well, in her case she didn’t have much to beat because pretty much history tells you that the rest of them in that government did not do anything and, secondly, everything she did, she did in a way that there was always a blow-out in the budget allocation to do the task and nothing ever finished on time or on budget. But, yes, she always opposed everything and got a fair bit of media, as she continued to do after I retired. I enjoyed the cut and thrust of her opposition. I just would like people to, at the same time, look back and say who was right and who was wrong. I think that’s the comment I made the day I retired; that I would like to be judged by what has happened, not by what someone else said about me.

RC Were there any others who you regarded as fierce opponents that you could put in that category?

CHARLTON Not really. I can’t even think of anyone who generated much activity. I mean, a person who I used to see get pretty excitable at times was Tom Stephens who was in the upper house at that time, a Labor member for the mining and pastoral area. Tom would go pretty vitriolic as he did with most members of Parliament from time to time. So, no, I didn’t see anyone else as fierce in their opposition. I think in most of the cases people from the opposition would come to me and say they wanted something done in their electorate and I had a pretty good working relationship with those people. When I was at war with the waterfront obviously they were clambering to have a bit of a dabble, but I didn’t see that as much of an opposition.

I think I said before, from the other point of view, I received absolutely phenomenal support from Richard Court. He was a truly honourable and significant factor in me being able to do some of the things that I was able to carry out in the government, INTERVIEW FOUR CHARLTON 133

because he was supportive of me and trusted me to do the things that I said I was going to do. It obviously caused them a lot of pain at times from a political point of view but it was always interesting to see that when governments did from time to time take the initiative to have polling done on issues affecting the government, that the issues that were written about with rare abandon by the media were not the issues that came to the fore in criticism of the government when it came to transport. So it was always a nice feeling to get those poll results and see when it came to public transport or, you know, road funding or whatever, they were not the issues that were affecting the popularity of the government the most.

RC You anticipated my next question, Eric, which was about Richard Court. You mentioned him during the interview. I just wondered if you could summarise your views on Richard Court as an opposition leader and then Premier of Western Australia.

CHARLTON I probably can’t say much more than I have already said in as much as that when he took over from Barry MacKinnon, Barry MacKinnon always tried to please everyone and if you go down that path, you finish up not pleasing many people. I think his greatest contribution to making a point was the day when he lost the leadership and I thought if he had taken that sort of stronger independent view earlier, he may not have lost the leadership when he did. Immediately Richard Court took over, he demonstrated an even-handed approach, he was conciliatory and he was very fair-minded in his dealings in opposition with the National Party from my point of view and, as I have said before, in putting together that coalition agreement he was very supportive and demonstrated that not only from that point of view, but also his single-minded commitment to lead the coalition to government at the election in 1993. Now he, like me, received a fair bit of criticism from the media. He was portrayed by the media as not up to it, living in his father’s shadow; he’s only there because of his name and so forth and so on. I think again history says they were wrong but, of course, they would never admit to that. A lot of people should lay awake at night, if they have got a conscience, and have a bit of a think about some of the things they said about Richard Court and others. That was done totally and purely to create conflict. [END OF INTERVIEW FOUR] INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 134

[track 1] RC My name is Ron Chapman. I am continuing my interviews with Eric Charlton at his home in Perth. This interview is for the Parliament of Western Australia oral history project. Today is the 12th of November 2010. Eric, we’re moving on towards the time that you left the Western Australian Parliament. I would just like to ask you what you consider to have been your main achievements as Minister for Transport.

CHARLTON Well obviously transport was something that was very dear to me. I lived the portfolio, I think it’s fair to say from my perspective, in as much that my maiden speech in the Parliament, even though I’d come out of an agricultural background, I was really concerned about the inefficiencies in transport. Having got that portfolio, I could see the just unending list of inefficiencies and lack of capital spending on infrastructure that had been allowed to happen, not only in country Western Australia, but specifically in that area. I always remember the Great Northern Highway, which is part of the national highway responsibility of federal governments, being in an absolutely disgraceful standard of repair, with large potholes, trucks dodging potholes and so forth and so on. The changes to the road system, with the significant additional funding which I’ve talked about before through the increase in the state fuel levy initially and then increases in licences, all of which, one hundred per cent, went into actual road funding. Now every time you went to make an increase, the criticism would be, “Oh, yeah, well, we don’t trust you. It’ll go into internal revenue; it’ll go into Treasury; it’ll be lost along the way.” My response always was, yes, of course you’re going to believe that, because that’s what’s happened in the past, but I can guarantee you while I’m the Minister for Transport, every cent raised out of licences and fuel tax… both the state fuel levy and then the refunds that came through the federal government after the changes over there to the revenue raising system on fuel excise… every dollar was spent on the road network. That enabled that significant increase. To ensure then that that money was spent efficiently, you couldn’t have, in my view, a group of Main Roads operations scattered around the state with inadequate machinery and an inadequate capacity to move in and do jobs quickly, and so jobs went on for a long period. It was my next move then to ensure that as part of all of that we contracted these projects out; and it was Main Roads’ responsibility to oversee them, as I’ve said before, design and construct, with Main Roads overseeing the operations. I think that pretty much still happens today. So that is one of the great changes that took place. INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 135

I also put in place a 10-year road building program, which was also unheard of, because what had happened is that governments would come and people would clamour, through their electorates, for projects to be done, and the response always was, “Yes, we’re going to do that project, yes, your project is all planned for; it is just subject to funding.” Meaning, they had no intention of doing that particular project because it’s way down the list. It’s 57 in a list of 60, for example. So, I said what we need to do is to be honest with the population. It won’t be politically popular, but we’ll have a 10-year road building program and then people can see whether your project is going to get done next year or in five years or in 10 years. That’s a rolling program, so every year you get ticked off, you bring in another set of projects for the years ahead. I think that was fairly significant. Also, the contracting out of Westrail’s operation and maintenance on the same basis, we did that, and the changes to the public transport system by bringing in the private operators; not privatising it, which was the catcall at the time, but having private operators running a public transport system, owned and managed … the vehicles and the services totally directed and controlled by government.

They are some of the things. As I said, I enjoyed them all and every morning I woke up and I looked forward to another day of making some decisions. I know that the staff I had used to say, “It’s exciting because there’s going to be something happening today. We don’t just sit around here waiting for some decision to be made; it’s all go.” This is what used to be said to me - these are not my words, but other people - that we had the happiest and most enthusiastic minister’s office in the coalition government. The reason was just that. First of all, I chose people to work for me and with me, and I was part of them and we sat down at the end of the day and had a beer, like all good country people do, and talked about the day’s activity and what we had planned for tomorrow.

I suppose the other sort of final thing was the waterfront; naturally, that was significant. With John Coombs, as I’ve mentioned before, coming across and demanding what I do on the waterfront and thumping the table and me responding to him, “Well, you might do that everywhere else in Australia, but you’re not going to do it here.” So, yes, it was fairly exciting times. They are just a few of the bits and pieces that happened along the way.

RC On the other side of the coin, Eric, what did you find to be your greatest disappointments and perhaps frustrations? INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 136

CHARLTON Well, earlier on in my time as minister, obviously some departmental people … and I say “some” because there are some very capable, dedicated, committed people in the public service; they are professional people and they are there to do a job, but you always get a few who’ve got some other agenda, and that’s the same as in any workplace … they would be taking the line of the typical Yes, Minister series, which we used to see on TV and have a laugh about. The only thing about it was it wasn’t funny because it’s true. You would say, “We want to do this,” and they’d say, “Yes, minister,” or, “That’ll be pretty courageous,” like closing down the Midland workshops or something, and, “Yes, yes, yes.” But, on some occasions, weeks and then months would go by and nothing on that particular issue had progressed, and I’d say, “What’s going on?”, and they’d say, “Oh, well, we had to consult with local government and we had to consult with another department” and so forth and so on. And so I learnt fairly quickly, I think, along the way, that when we had an agreement to do a project or implement some new initiative, I would always end the discussion with, “So how long’s that going to take to happen?” The other thing was, “Don’t give me nine reasons about why this can’t be done; just give me one; that’s what we’re all paid for,” or, “How are we going to do it?” I think that generated a fair bit of positives.

One of the slogans that came out over the changes to road funding and road building was “Fix Australia; fix the roads”. Because I had a belief that every dollar you spent on the road network, you’ve helped the Australian economy, because if you can’t operate the trucking industry efficiently … remembering that every item that’s consumed by all the population on every day of the year spends part of its life on a truck … so the whole thrust of it should be to keep trucks moving in an efficient manner and not standing at intersections or at the waterfront or being loaded or whatever else. That actually gathered a bit of widespread notice as far as the United States, because a company came out here and saw what we were doing with road funding and invited me to go over and look at a machine that they had developed in America, and I went and saw that operating along the main highway right near Niagara Falls and on another road out in the state of New Mexico. This particular piece of machinery was a train, if you like. It was a series of machines. The first machine came along, dug up the existing bitumen road and processed that into an aggregate material suitable for laying back down on the road. If, during that picking up and processing it was assessed to need additional aggregate in it to stabilise and make the base a higher grade, a higher standard, then that was added because that INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 137 was also in a container following along behind it, so that was fed automatically in. Then, as it went along, it laid the new material down, and the very last piece of machinery was a bitumen truck, which sealed it. So you had this one outfit going along, digging up the road, which is a road that is obviously in poor condition, potholed and worn out, and at the end of the day you’ve got a section of road that’s totally completed, whereas here we come in and dig a section up, as you see when you travel along our highways, and then they re-aggregate it with the material to form a new base. Then, after they’ve worked it up and down with graders and rollers and all that jazz, they then come along and seal it, whereas this was the one pass. What I wanted to do was to bring one of these machines into Western Australia and have Main Roads import it, pay for it, and then we would have leased it out, hired it out, to the contractors to do it. That’s one of the disappointments, if you like, that that didn’t happen. Now it wouldn’t have been without its trials and tribulations. It mightn’t have worked as efficiently in WA as it did in the United States, but I thought it was worth an opportunity to pursue it and to do it.

When I took a couple of Main Roads people on that trip around America, they had never seen the roadworks being constructed to the extent like they are over there compared with here … spaghetti junctions as you’ll see in Houston and, well, every capital city of every state of America and many others. We drove along the causeway as we went down into New Orleans down the bayou. We talk about our causeway, and here you’ve got about 20 miles of it. Just to see the things done on a big scale, to get it in perspective, some of the contracts we were doing here were really kindergarten stuff compared to what happens in other places around the world. Therefore, there should have been no debate about what we were doing because they were simple tasks and it was a matter of getting on and doing it. But, of course, we have a political system where most of the time is spent on being negative, as I’ve said before, and aided and abetted by an irresponsible media.

I just want to clarify too on the media, I always found the electronic media, that’s radio and television, to be very accurate and very responsible because it’s live and you at least get the chance to put your point of view, and so do the other people who have a different point of view, so I think that’s fair. It was The West Australian newspaper at that time that, in my view, was nothing more than a rag, and I know a lot of people still say the same thing today.

INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 138

RC As the MLC for the Agricultural Region, Eric, what are your feelings about … on reflection, what did you achieve for your electorate?

CHARLTON The things I’ve mentioned before were all positives for out there. The changes to the rail operations, we took away this requirement for fertiliser to be transported by rail and allowed that to be done by road transport. Again, that caused some criticism, but it was the only efficient way to do it. It was being subsidised by the operations of grain freight. The changes to some of the towns themselves with local government. I ensured that all local government got 25 per cent of the total amount of road funding. That was never, ever done before. They were down to 17 and 18 per cent. I said, “We’ll guarantee you 25 per cent of the total funds.” At the same time, I think local government then, and I think they are probably worse today, were not efficient. I think that the changes that the current government is talking about with amalgamation of local government authorities will do absolutely nothing. In fact, I think that big inefficient operations are worse than small inefficient operations, by the amalgamation of shires. There were some fantastic shires around, none better than Bruce Rock. It had a president named Ted McCarthy and a CEO named John Murphy. They were a fantastic combination. They are not the only ones, but I just use them as an example of my experience around in dealing with them, seeing progress made with those country towns, because I just love to go to places and see shires doing things for the benefit of their own community. I had a fund, some people referred to it as “Eric’s slush fund”, whereby I put $5 million aside every year out of the road funding budget, and that was for special little projects. It might be a town entrance statement or it might be realigning through that country town. Those sorts of things that were all there to enhance what was done. I guess you could say it’s a bit similar to what’s happened under royalties for regions, which we’ll come to a bit later. But it was just being done through the transport portfolio; it wasn’t done through the other portfolios or regional development at that time.

RC You left Parliament in mid-1998, Eric. Could you tell me about the circumstances of why you left?

CHARLTON Yes. I had always intended to leave when I was around the 60 years old mark. I’d seen too many people … I had been there 14 years by this time. Now, it is fair to say that I would have liked to have stayed until the end of that parliamentary term, through to 2001, but I had also indicated to Dexter Davies (he was the next one on the ticket and a former president of the National Party) that it’s probable that I may INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 139

retire during the term. So I’d given him an undertaking. That’s the system and how it works in the Western Australian upper house. The next one on the ticket of the party replaces them. It doesn’t cause a by-election. It’s the same system that applies in the federal Senate. If it’s done in an Assembly seat or the House of Representatives, obviously it causes a by-election. I would have never done that. I did indicate to him, and only him, and Evette, of course, we discussed it, that by the time I got to 60, who knows how much longer I’ve got from a healthy lifestyle? Obviously there were a lot of other things I wanted to do. One of them was spend more time at the farm with my son, Gavin, and his family, and also with Evette, who’d gone through a lot of heartache and everything that goes with being [the wife of] a member of Parliament; the same that goes with a lot of other jobs and positions as well. That was the reason I decided that when I turned 60, which I did in the March of ’98, so it was then in the forefront that I may do it during that year if the situation developed. Now, Richard Court said … I spoke with him about that. He had no indication for me to rush into that decision; but, if you remember at that time there were a few issues going on in the government and they needed to make a few changes portfolio-wise, and he said he was going to have a reshuffle. Now, for me not to have gone then would’ve meant that he’d had his reshuffle then, and then in another year or two, or whatever, down the track, if I was going to go prior to the next election, he would have had to have had another replacement. I thought, well, you should give the other person (Murray Criddle in this case) a couple of years at least to get into the job as they run into the next election. In hindsight, I probably would have stayed a bit longer, but it’s not a decision I regretted, obviously. I certainly didn’t lose any sleep about it. I did see some of the projects that I’d started start to flounder and other interference take place with some of the road contracts being let not being given to the lowest tenderer, which caused some trouble. I’m sure that if I’d been there with the people that I had with me, we always ensured that whoever was the lowest tenderer, unless there’s some reason that they’re not up to carrying the project out, would get the job. So, there were a few frustrating moments when you feel like grabbing hold of and shaking a few people and banging a few heads together, but you have to keep your head down and get out because you’ve left the scene.

So, that was the reason I retired when I did. I bought a caravan and had a Ford F250 vehicle that I’d imported from the United States. When I’d gone over there on a couple of occasions, I saw untold numbers of these vehicles around (the F250 four- wheel-drive, a large sort of a ute if you like) and I decided I needed one of them to put my caravan on and drive up and down the farm, so I imported one because, Ford INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 140 didn’t bring them into Australia at that time, but they did again later on. Afterwards I swapped it for one of the ones that were being imported by Ford themselves. I had that from that time through until last year, and I’ve now changed to a smaller vehicle. Everybody used to make comment about Eric driving this half-sized tank around, but I enjoyed it.

RC On the day you actually left Parliament, when you left the last time, what were your feelings at that time?

CHARLTON They were pretty emotional. As part of that I had one regret, that I didn’t get the chance to stand up in the Parliament and thank a number of people who had been very loyal and good to me. Parliamentary staff - I don’t know whether I said it before in this interview, but Parliamentary staff are the most professional and dedicated group of people that you could ever find, from the telephonists, Cathy and Betty, two ladies there, Marilyn as I remember, to the Hansard staff, to the other senior people like Laurie Marquet and the various other staff down the line. I found them very, very professional people. I go back there today, and I think it gives you some sort of an example of how I got on with people. I’m met at the door with a great smile and a handshake, “Good to see you Eric. When are you going to come back again?” And so forth and so on. You know, that’s one of the really great things in life, and that’s not restricted, obviously, to Parliament House, but it’s a very important component of it all. So that was pretty emotional that I didn’t get that chance. We had a press conference with Richard Court, our Premier; Hendy Cowan, the leader of the Nationals, and myself. That was one day when the media were nice to me, I suppose you could say! What transpired that day, and I do remember these words, I haven’t read a transcript of it, but I do remember saying … they’d asked the question, “So, how do you value and how do you look at what you’ve achieved?” And I said, “Well, I’ll be very, very happy to be judged on the outcome of the changes I’ve made and the things that I’ve done. And I’ll be judged on that, not [from] what I say, but [how] other people view them.” As I said, and this is not some sort of a grandiose statement from me, where I drive now, whether it’s in Kununurra, Broome or anywhere in WA, people say “Yeah, we remember when you were here and we did this project”, and so forth and how good it was and how good it’s been since. That's pretty exciting to be involved in that sort of thing with so many people in the community.

INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 141

RC You mentioned briefly the impact of your parliamentary career on your wife. I was going to ask, overall, what do you think the effect of your career has been on family life?

CHARLTON Obviously, I don’t think there is a family who gets involved in politics or public life who is going to come out the other end the same. Now, I know that there are some couples who really are excited by the opportunity to be a member of Parliament or a member of Parliament’s spouse, and they look forward to the action and the activities and the social events and so forth and so on, and that’s great. But in our case, number one, I never set out to be a member of Parliament, remember, I was a critic of football and umpires and members of Parliament and political parties and governments, and still am today. I didn’t go in with a game plan in mind of ever being one and I think my daughter said she could never believe how somebody in a pair of black shorts seven days a week could finish up wearing a suit and how he’d cope with that. That was the background. Now, of course, from Evette’s, my wife’s point of view … She was a nurse, she trained at Royal Perth Hospital. Her and I met, and after two or three years, we got married in 1962 and we had three wonderful children, Tammy, Michael and Gavin. Of course, I’m sure she never ever thought … While she married me, I suppose, not so much for what I was doing, that she was going to go to Tammin and out to Yorkrakine on the farm and I was going to pack up and come back down here. That’s got to be a pretty horrendous impact on her life. But, Evette is special … we shouldn’t say ‘but’ … the fact is that she’s always been very supportive of me and I haven’t been as supportive of her because I’ve been too obsessed with what I was doing to give proper attention to her, to family and other things. I know that, and it has always been a tendency of mine to go in over the top. Obviously, when you do that, there are other people who are going to pay the consequences of being neglected from the [lack of] quality of time you spend with them. I would always be late coming home, notoriously late, even on the day that I had my 60th birthday. I decided I still wanted to change the world and got caught up in something at my office and didn’t get back here until late. People were arriving and we had a function here at our house in Shelley. So the impact on my wife was significant, but she always was there, not only to support me, but she is very special … I mean, I shared everything with Evette, all those decisions that I was taking and involvement and the people and the frustrations; she knew all about all of them because I shared all them with her. She’s always been strong, sound, intelligent and full of advice about how you deal with this particular situation. I never, ever had a worry from the point of view that I wondered about how things were going at home. INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 142

Of course, I was concerned about how things were going, but she’s such a capable person. Wherever Evette went with me, people just loved her, because she could get into conversations with them and talk sense. She was more than my wife; she was a partner in the exercise, as she has been in everything else, and without her I could not have done any of this. We have eight grandchildren, and with Tammy and Terry and Gavin and Gemma we are blessed.

RC How about your own life Eric? How has your time in Parliament affected you personally?

CHARLTON Well, it was a privilege, obviously. I think it’s fair to say that I don’t think I changed too much from being a bit rough around the edges and a bit hard to get on with, a bit single-minded in all, and all that caper. But obviously, it’s given me another dimension on my understanding and knowledge of what goes on in the state and the nation, in fact in the world. There is no substitute, as they say, for experience, and the life experience you get by being a member of Parliament is enormous. It does give you an opportunity to make an assessment of things that are happening, and also enables you to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, if you like, and some ideas about where you think the state and the nation are heading. I might say I think it is pretty much downhill. I don’t say that just because I think I’m old, but I think some of the issues that confront Australia at the moment are horrendous and we’re not dealing with them. I think I’m a more informed person than I would have been if I hadn’t had the privilege of being a member of Parliament.

RC I know you were out of Parliament at that time Eric, but why do you think the Liberals lost the 2001 election?

CHARLTON I’ve got very specific ideas about that! You never, ever say that an issue is caused by one particular issue, but it is usually one particular issue that is the catalyst and then you have a series of other things. Now, I thought the greatest, most significant issue was the portfolio of Doug Shave, with the investment issues that were associated with what was going on in WA at that time, and the fact that he did not intervene. One thing people will not tolerate: they mightn’t agree with what you do sometimes, or a lot of the time, but they certainly won’t accept you doing nothing. I thought [it was] that issue over the finance brokers; those issues to do with that (that mightn’t be the correct terminology incidentally, but I’ll check on that). It was his portfolio. I thought what should have happened is that Doug Shave should have INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 143 stood down or Richard Court should have stood him down and said, “We’ll sort this out”, and he could have come back after the next election if they’d won. I think that would have sent a message to the population that action was being taken.

The other thing that happened: a gentleman called Ian Fletcher, who was the principal private secretary (again, that might be the right terminology), he was the chief of staff anyway or that form of manager, in the Premier’s office, and I thought Ian Fletcher was an outstanding person, and he left about the same time as I left. I know from my own perspective that if I had had two or three of my senior people leave … You can’t replace quality people. I think those couple of issues set the ball rolling. And then of course the media being what they are, as I mentioned before.

Then we had the bell tower. Now, the bell tower is a nothing. An issue about building a bell tower shouldn’t even raise the middle page of the paper, but people get hyped up over small things. There’s an old story that Hendy Cowan used to talk about, that when we bring an agreement into the Parliament to start Woodside or the North West Shelf or Hamersley Iron or something like that, that’ll go through the Parliament in about five minutes; there’ll be about three speakers and everyone agrees to it. But if you want to change the Dog Act about how many dogs you’re allowed to keep, that’ll go on in the Parliament for two or three days. That’s the sort of example of how stupidity reigns supreme in some of these things. You drive by there today, and whether you like the bell tower or not, in the context of everything, what we needed to have done, and I was very supportive of that particular area of Perth, and we’re still talking about it, what's this, another 12 years since I left, about development along the river’s foreshore there. We should bring the Swan River in and around where some of the areas on the esplanade are there, with board-walks like they’ve got in Melbourne or Southbank or in Brisbane, where they’ve created fantastic play areas for the community; restaurants and a whole range of things. Here we are in WA with all this wealth that we’ve let slip through our fingers over the years and we’ve done nothing about the foreshore. I think it’s an indictment. We should have had the water coming in with Riverside Drive going over the top of that, and little boats and things coming into that area running right up to the bottom of, basically Barrack Street, so you’d link the city down with that whole foreshore section. That’s getting away from the point that you’ve raised. I thought that they were two or three things that we weren’t on top of and that allowed … I mean, not even the Labor Party thought they could win that election, right up until the day before. It didn’t need much to sort out the issues, but I thought that perhaps it’s because Richard Court’s too nice a man, INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 144 and, if he’d been a bit harder, he might have jumped on me a few more times, so perhaps it’s just as well he wasn’t from that point of view!

RC In June 2006, Eric, you were awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the Western Australian Parliament, particularly through the reformation of the transport system and contributions to the RoadWise project. How did you feel when you heard you had received the award?

CHARLTON A bit stunned! Mainly, because like I said, I’ve been a critic of a few people who get those sorts of awards and I think, “So, what’s that person done to deserve that?” A letter arrived one day, and it said, “You have been identified to receive this award and would you please advise if you will not accept it.” I went in and I didn’t say anything, but I handed the letter across to my wife Evette and I said, “There’s a letter here for you to read”, and she burst out laughing as if to say, “You can’t possibly accept this after some of the things you’ve said about notable people who have been identified as receiving this award!” We had a bit of talk about it and a bit of a chuckle, and then I did have a bit of a think about it. The people who put these awards forward have to do a lot of work, and it takes a lot of input, and a lot of assessment goes on. I thought well, “Whether I’m a just receiver or not, and being a critic of some of these things, at least I should do the honourable thing by the people who have nominated me.” Because I didn’t have a clue at that stage who had nominated me, I do know now, and I am very appreciative and very thankful, and I do cherish that award with a great deal of respect.

RC I was going to ask you but you’ve partly answered; what does the award mean to you?

CHARLTON I guess, in all of these sorts of things like winning the fairest and best at the footy or the kids’ sports or whatever else, it’s just that you’ve been identified that you’ve achieved. So, that’s how I look at it: some people at least believe I did a good job and I stepped outside the square and tried a bit harder to do some good things. RoadWise was about road safety and involved local government, and with transport in general, the reforms that we’ve talked about over the last few interviews, obviously there are people out there who appreciated what went on. So, yes, I responded to it and I went to Government House and was presented with it by the Governor, Ken Michael, who had been working with me as Commissioner of Main Roads in times gone by. As a matter of fact, I went into Government House on a INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 145

public open day with a person who had the most to do with the nomination, a friend of mine called Robert Uphill, an ex-farmer from Tammin, who’s one of our caravanning friends who travel around, and one of the things of course as we travel around, people would be saying, “Eric, you did this and you did that”, and he thought, “Strewth, this bloke did a bit more than I thought he did, perhaps!” I think it was his then connections with people in local government and so forth who decided to put this award forward. But, we went in, a couple weeks ago now, it was an open day that they have on regular occasions in Government House, and we walked into the main entrance to the ballroom and there’s some easel up there with about 10 photos of social gatherings at Government House, and there’s one of Evette and I with Julie and Ken Michael and there’s another one of Ken Michael with all of our family. So, you know, that was pretty significant. [We] didn’t have a clue, obviously, when we walked in to expect to see that there. But, yes, so it does give you a good feeling of good times from the past.

RC After you left Parliament, Eric, were you still involved with the National Party?

CHARLTON Well, I didn’t intend to be, but they called me up when Max Trenorden took over leadership from Hendy Cowan as they went into the next election after that time, and asked me would I chair the campaign committee for that election - that was when Max Trenorden was leader of the Nationals and Colin Barnett was leader of the Liberal Party. They said, “It’s in a bit of disarray, and it just needs pulling into line a bit, can you come and give us a hand?” I did that for a few weeks and I also did a fair bit of fund-raising for the National Party from people who I made contact with over the years and for their support of the Nationals, because there was a lot of people in our community who said, “The Nationals add a touch of realism to a coalition government”, and I think we’ve seen that in recent times. So yes, I have been involved on and off in various initiatives with the Nationals as they’ve invited me to, but I haven’t been making myself available to get involved in other party activities, because I didn’t think it was good when I was there to have past members of Parliament come along telling me what to do, and therefore I don’t think I should [do that] either. That hasn’t stopped me a few times from calling Brendon Grylls up and having a word with him and a couple of others from time to time, but I think they are like me; they’d rather I didn’t ring them up.

INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 146

RJ In the 2008 state election, the National Party won four seats, which, together with three Independents, enabled the Liberals, led by Colin Barnett, to form a governing agreement. What are your views on that?

CHARLTON I think it was a fantastic result because the National Party, because of the changes to the electoral system on the one vote, one value, were being predicted by the media again, my friends in the media, they come to the fore almost every second election, saying, “This election will see the end of the National Party. This election will see the National Party wiped out.” They’ve been around for over 100 years. It is uninformed, superficial people in the media who make those sort of statements for one reason, just to generate a bit of controversy. What seems to always happen with the Nationals, just about when things are on the bottom rung, out comes somebody who’s got a refreshed new idea and enthusiasm to say, “This is what we’ll do.” When the one vote, one value came in, I did say to Brendon Grylls, for what it’s worth, “This could be the best thing that’s ever happened to the National Party because now you can go out there, instead of being protected by having more seats and having a chance to win seats across country WA, you can go out there to the people now and say, ‘You’ve got a choice now; you’re going to be dominated out of St Georges Terrace by Labor and Liberal or you can vote for the Nationals’ because now there’s not going to be many of them and there’s only a handful of seats, as we saw, left in regional WA from the south coast to the Kimberley. Therefore, you can specialise in those people and give them a choice.” He picked up, of course, on the most important component of all, where he said the royalties for regions. That gave an easy to understand position to hang the National Party flag to. It was the vehicle. Like all things in life, you can attempt to do a whole range of things but if you don’t have the vehicle to go from A to B, well, you’re not going to get there. In this case, the royalties for regions that obviously he came forward with was simply an outstanding move. He started advertising a couple of years before the election and said, “This is what we’re going to do. We’re going to ensure that 25 per cent is going to go back into regional WA”.

Then after the election and uninformed people like Julie Bishop, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, saying on the night of the election, “The Nationals will form a coalition government to the Liberals, of course” or words to that effect. Obviously [she] had never taken into account the fact that Brendon Grylls had been saying for two years, “We’re not going to do that. We will join with whoever’s going to deliver us the result that we want for country people, for the people in the regions.” Even a day INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 147

or two later people are still saying that. I was in Queensland at the time of the election, the snap election called by Alan Carpenter, and I had Richard Court and Richard Lewis and a number of other Liberal people calling me up saying, “Eric, you need to talk to Brendon because he is not responding to us.” I said, “So what have you offered him?” “Oh, well, you know he couldn’t go with them.” I said, “He will if you don’t put a business proposal in front of him because he’s been telling you that for the last two years and he’s told the people in the regions of WA that. What do you think he is? He’s not going to go back on his word because he’d be finished.”

I made contact with a friend of mind called Richard Elliott, who I’ve mentioned before, who worked for the Liberal Party during my time and with the coalition government. I said to him, “If there’s anything you can do to influence the Liberals to get out of their warm, cosy, comfort position and get serious about putting a proposal in front of him that he can’t refuse, then [do so] otherwise there’ll be no Liberal-National government.” Now, whether I had any influence on it or not doesn’t matter; the important thing was they were the facts and ultimately it happened. I was very pleased. I had never been happy about a deal with the Labor Party and I suggested that to a few people over the years because, you know, the Labor Party is run by the unions and people can say what they like. There’s a lot of good people in Labor politics but at the end of the day they basically have to take their directions and get endorsement by the union movement. We have a sprinkling of other free-thinking people but they usually don’t have any influence on what goes on. I think we’ve seen that in recent times with what’s happened in Canberra, that Rudd wasn’t a union man but he was the great white hope of the Labor Party because they were down and out. He won an election but when he wasn’t acting according to the union movement, then we all know what happened.

RJ What do you think of Brendon Grylls as leader of the Nationals and the line he took over the royalties for regions scheme?

CHARLTON I totally agree with it.

RJ Do you think it was a winner?

CHARLTON Absolutely. No question. It was a fantastic initiative. The projects that we’ve seen take place through the regions would never, never ever have happened. What an indictment on Western Australia for the last 40, 50 years that we’ve had INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 148

significant mining operations. Even places like Karratha and Port Hedland have never had the money spent in them that they should have had, along with the rest of country WA. We’ve been just pouring money into feel-good things in the metropolitan area. It was an absolutely outstanding initiative on his part and I think he’s certainly put it in place as he goes into the next state election and of course we saw what happened in the federal election in the seat of O’Connor.

RJ I was just going to ask about that, about how you see the state of the National Party at the moment, bearing in mind what we’ve just spoken about with Brendon Grylls and the 2008 election and federally what’s happened recently as well. How do you see the Nationals now?

CHARLTON I think they’re very well placed to go into the next state election. I think people in the regions have seen it happen on the ground and I’m sure they’ll be voting in increased proportions. I did do an ABC interview prior to the last state election, as I said, when I was in Queensland in the lead-up. I had people saying to me, “Well, look, he’s out there saying that he’ll do a deal with anyone after the election. What do you think?” They said, “He’ll lose a lot of conservative voters.” I suggested that, for every one he loses, he’ll gain two or three other voters because they’ve seen nothing happen over the previous years when it comes to some of the facilities that they believe they should deservedly get. I think that came to pass. That doesn’t mean that people would have been too happy if he’d have gone with the Labor Party. If you’re in the business of governing, there shouldn’t be any major difference in what you offer a partner to form a government from either side of politics. At the end of the day, it’s a judgement of where you best serve. If the Liberal Party were bloody-minded about it and said, “Well, you come with us or you’re going with the Labor Party”, then you’ve got no option but to do that. I think commonsense pretty much often does prevail at the end of the day when they should have the capacity to do a deal.

RJ In the Western Australian Parliament this week, Eric, the Liberal Party was attempting to push through a controversial law giving the police special stop and search powers. This was defeated because the Nationals would not support the bill. Do you think this is an indication of the coming power of the Nationals?

CHARLTON Well, they’ve got the balance of power. Therefore, it’s not a matter of using it but that’s the fact of life. They are not in a coalition; they’ve got an agreement INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 149

with the Liberal Party to govern but if they disagree with the proposal, then that’s what they should do. The other thing that ought to be noted, I guarantee you but I don’t know of course that I would guess that there’d be plenty of Liberal Party people pretty unhappy about this particular legislation as well. I don’t know enough about it to know this. I do know a bit about the police department and I know that there are a lot of shortcomings in the police, as we see from day to day. I know they have an unenviable job to try to maintain law and order when you’ve got a society that’s deteriorating day by day with its own standards. If a policeman intervenes with someone, the police are then attacked, police are then set upon. That sort of thing didn’t happen in societies or doesn’t happen in societies where there’s a bit of respect. We’ve lost respect for each other and we’ve lost respect for ourselves. Getting back to that decision, as I said to someone the other day in commenting about it, my view is stop and search is just playing a bit at the edges. If we want to get serious about law and order and some of these places like Northbridge and others, we really do need to go in there and find the basis of the drug activities and all that sort of thing rather than getting the police to the forefront, picking on someone and then creating a brawl and putting them offside with the rest of society. I can see very well why the Nationals did oppose it. I would certainly want to see the government get involved in toughening Western Australia up with some more rules and regulations that give a bit more response to it. We’ve seen things lately in this last year where kids are belting teachers and then they go to court and they’re let off on good behaviour, counselling and so forth and so on. These people come from homes where there’s no rules and they’re free range, so we’re just encouraging that sort of thing to happen. It’s a big question, it’s a big issue and I think the way we’re going in Australia, we’ve got a couple of things that are to the fore. One is if there’s a problem, it’s always caused by somebody else. That’s what we say. “It was that other person that caused me to do that.” The other thing is we have to then blame some family background of why I was in that situation at the time. Until we get back to individual people being responsible for their own actions, then we’re going to have this mess that we are continually parading and encouraging to happen.

RJ We are approaching the end of this series of interviews now, Eric. I just wonder if you could tell me something about life after Parliament, how you’ve been spending your time after you left Parliament.

CHARLTON As I said before, Ron, I had a bit of catching up to do as far as family was concerned, so that’s all been good, with Evette and I doing a few trips. First of INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 150

all, we went and saw an AFL grand final in Melbourne. We’d never been to one before. We went to the Melbourne Cup and did that. I never even had time to go to the local races before. Always something popped up at the last minute and I decided I needed to be somewhere. Those initiatives, and with the caravan travelling around Australia, we very soon did a trip up the Gibb River Road, which is one of my highlight spots. I spent some time there during my time as Minister for Transport. The Gibb River Road and that surrounding area of the Kimberley is some of the most fantastic scenery you would ever have the opportunity to see. We drove that. Yvette said, “How far is this rough Gibb River Road?” I said, “About 640 kilometres.” She said, “I suppose I can put up with it then.” So off we went and when we came out on the bitumen at the other end, we’d done 2 500 because we did all the side tracks that take you up to Kalumburu and out to Mitchell Falls and down to Mornington on the old Mornington Station on the Fitzroy River and out to Mt Hart and all these other places along the way. It’s just about a must for everybody who ever wants to go to the Kimberley to take a drive along there and take enough time to appreciate it, and that’s been the difference since I retired. We have had time to go and do things properly and absorb and appreciate the surroundings. In addition to that, we’ve had two or three trips to Queensland and the surrounds and right up the top to Cape York and all down the east coast, of course, and in through central Australia and across the Great Central Road from Laverton to Ayers Rock and across from Alice Springs to Queensland through the highway there, not really a highway but we call it a central highway. We’ve done a lot of those things. In addition to that, had some quality time with the family and spent a bit of time doing a few bits and pieces with them at the farm and with Tammy and Terry at their operation in Mukinbudin. Our daughter and her husband, Terry Norrish, have a Landmark business in Mukinbudin. They’ve been there about 14, 15 years. Mukinbudin is a fantastic town. It’s modern, it’s progressive and it is very community orientated. It’s the last Wheatbelt town in the north east of the Wheatbelt. You’d think you’re on the edge of the farming area, pastoral area. There wouldn’t be much there but they have a wonderful social activity and I always have great pleasure in going there. As a matter of fact, I don’t know whether I mentioned it before but one of the road projects we did was called the M40. You'd think you were talking about something in Europe but it’s the road linking Mukinbudin to Bullfinch then on into Southern Cross. That was a gravel road. They were promised it some 40 years ago when they took the railway line out but no government ever honoured their commitment. I said when I got there, “I’ll build this; I’ll get the funds for you.” The three shires of Mukinbudin, Westonia and Yilgarn pooled their resources together under the supervision of Main Roads and INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 151

constructed that road and sealed it. It’s a fantastic piece of highway. As a matter of fact, when I said we were going to build it, one of the farmers along the way said, “Eric, I’ve heard it all before; it will never happen.” I said, “Well, I’ll bet you an 18- gallon keg it does.” He said, “If you’ll do it, I’ll put on the beer.” We didn’t have an 18- gallon keg [of the sort] we used to talk about in those days but he put on a function with drinks supplied for all the people that turned out for the official opening, cutting of the ribbon for that road. His involvement obviously created a bit of interest. His name was Darryl Shreeve. I see him from time to time now and it’s one of those good news stories about how we did it.

The other thing that the local community did is they built a big sign at the end of the road which I couldn’t believe and I was embarrassed about. They had a sign which was probably about at least three metres wide and about two metres deep on two big poles at both ends of the road. It says words to this effect, “This road is made possible by Eric Charlton, the Minister for Transport”. [chuckles] I said, “Gee whiz, you’ll get me into trouble doing things like that.” As a matter of fact, I think that sign is still around. It was taken down and put in a hall for future generations to look back on, if you like. [track 2]

RC As I said earlier, Eric, we are coming towards the end of the questions that I have for you; I have just a couple of more. I would be interested how you see the state of the Western Australian Parliament today and any ideas that you have about parliamentary reform that you would like to see happen.

CHARLTON I think the greatest issue confronting parliaments across Australia— perhaps to a lesser extent here – I think places like Tasmania, where you have this large Green influence. And the Greens, in my view, while there are a lot of genuine people concerned about the environment, it seems to me that when the Greens get into a place of decision making, they are about stopping things from happening. You never hear of them putting forward anything that will benefit the community. That is an issue for the Parliament of Western Australia; that they don't get bogged down in the negativity that goes with stalling tactics. There is too much emphasis on process and not enough on outcomes in my view. And I think this current government has had a lot of criticism from the community [about] failing to make some of the blatantly obvious decisions that they should make in dealing with the issues of the day.

INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 152

Now, when it comes to the future of water, where WA is concerned, you would think that any responsible state and federal government would look at the population increase and say, “Well, this is what we’ve got to do and we must do it.” And all this hoo-ha that goes on with it by the Water Corporation planning one particular initiative and government and environmentalists opposing it and so forth—you can't run a state and cater for the needs of the people. And that is only one example; I could go on and give a few more about some of the other activities that go on. A lot of good things have happened, obviously, and we see all that. I think the education system needs an absolute bomb in it. I think what we have done with education in WA and Australia is—we have so many people involved in delivering the education package—and again, it's all about the process and not about outcomes. I could sit here for two hours and tell you about experiences that I had when I was involved and since where schools are just blatantly inefficient and teachers are not performing and are not answerable to anyone. It is an absolute indictment where you've got a principal at a school that can't tell a particular teacher about what they need to do or not to do. Because there is no curriculum as such in this day and age, as we understood it from before, where a child starts at the beginning of the year and attempts to reach a certain level by the end of the year. It is all about them finding it at their own level [because] not everyone is the same. We all know that. That is why, coming out the other end now, we have a percentage of the population that can't read or write at all. Have a look at them when they hold a pencil. You cannot spend all your life sitting on a computer; sometimes you have to communicate with people in some other way and there is no better way to communicate with people than to look people in the face; look people in the eye and say this, this and this. We have people now who cannot communicate at all. They can put it on an email, but they cannot go down the road and talk to people about this issue and sort it out and deal with it. We are sending emails backwards and forwards. They are a wonderful thing and a great initiative and they are fantastic and we could not operate without them, but, of course, like everything else in life you have to have a balance and I think we have lost it. So as far as the Parliament is concerned, I think we, the Parliament, should be insisting on a few things. I know as far as education is concerned that it is a holy grail that you must not interfere where you must not interfere, you must not criticise or put forward ideas. I think the current Minister for Education has failed dismally in as much as she simply allows the union movement and the system to dictate the terms. I know hell would break loose if you went and intervened and said, “We are going to go through a number of schools and we are going to see what the situation is and do some assessments.” That is why the federal government has INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 153

involved itself in these national testing programs—only for one reason—because people are going through the system and being, you know—the bright ones will always be all right, but the bottom 25 per cent are going to struggle and we should be doing something about them. I think they are a few issues that governments and therefore the parliaments should get serious about and what we ought to be having is a few more select committees or committees of the Parliament should get their teeth into some of these real issues instead of some of these superficial minor pieces of activity that take up a lot of people’s time. Some of the committees that I was on were meaningful committees—about WA Inc and about Aboriginal funding and so forth and so on. There are obviously some committees now. But just imagine if you had one in to do an assessment of the education system in WA [and] Aboriginal attendances at school and get down to the bottom of it instead of all this flowery superficial small talk that goes on to make people feel good.

RC On a broader scale then, Eric, how do you see the future for Western Australia?

CHARLTON Well, if China continues to operate at its current level of increased activity, then everything will be all right. But I think we are plying a very dangerous game. I can see that Western Australia is going to come back with a thud. Can you imagine what will happen when, finally, the iron ore prices start to go the other way? China has been in the world trading business for thousands of years and they're not going to sit idly by, in my view, and see people being paid $100,000 plus a year driving a truck or overseeing machinery and their own people, in China, being paid what they are paid in comparison and be taking the iron ore over there to process. I think the day—they must be looking and they are not in a hurry. They don't do things in a hurry. But they obviously would be saying to themselves “Now, sooner or later, we’ll edge away at this and we’ll get it to a situation where, one, we won’t be paying that sort of money and secondly we will be owning the mines.” It will not happen overnight, obviously, but it will happen gradually. Every time a little bit is nipped away at the edges, Western Australia will suffer economically. We are living in a very false sense of security. I think that the average Western Australian now is not as well off as they were from an income compared to cost point of view. It is the people who are associated directly and indirectly with the mining industry [who] are, but there is a lot of people out there [who are] not. The whole housing market is what it is because of overseas people coming in here buying houses and land. What that does is make it sound good if you own a house and it is going up every year—or has done. It is a INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 154 very sound sense of feeling about your investment or your assets, but for the people who want to buy one, it has just put them out of the market. So that is not going to go on like that for Australians. It will go on with overseas people. I have real estate people saying to me that it is hard to deal with Chinese people. It is a very hard business to try to do a deal, for the reasons I have just said. They have been around. They do not throw their money around for nothing. And they want to get a good result out of it. So, I think we are in a dangerous situation whereby we have so many eggs in the one basket; we are so aligned and committed for our mining industry to China. Yes, there is Korea. And yes, there is Japan. And yes there are the others. But if China decided one day we will not take any iron ore for a couple of months, could you imagine what would happen to this place? And I can see that day being sooner rather than later.

RC Eric, I have just about come to the end of the questions that I have for you. I would just like to give you the opportunity, if there is anything further you would like to say or any other comments you would like to make.

CHARLTON I think whoever is having to go through all this, Ron, and decipher it all will say, “For goodness sake, I hope he doesn’t say any more.” It has been a great opportunity to talk to you and to relate some of my experiences; that is, the experiences according to me. I will look forward to being able to have a read of it and probably think to myself, “Goodness gracious; did I say that?” Because that happens from time to time. But it has been a great experience. I hope it does something for a few people who have been involved. Obviously, I haven’t mentioned a whole range of people that I have been associated with over the years, except those that were in my office. There were those in the departments who, I think, I don’t know whether I mentioned it before, but Richard Court used to say to me, “Eric, does your department agree with this?” and I would say, “Well, Richard, we are the ones who got elected; not them. It is what we need to do; it is not whether the department agrees with it or not. If we think it is right, then that is what we should be doing.” I guess as a consequence of that attitude, I used to run into a few roadblocks along the way with some of the departmental people, but as I said before, the great, great majority are fantastically hard-working, dedicated people. It was a great experience working with all those people that I had the opportunity to do. Also, the other people out of the community; for example, when I brought the first road train into Perth, which is an issue that we haven’t talked about. To say road trains could come all the way to their destination, because prior to that they use to break up at what was called INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 155

Apple Street, which is up in the Swan Valley, and then they would unhook them at all hours of the day and night and bring one trailer in and then they would go back with the prime mover and pick up the other trailer and bring it back in. To me, that was just a ludicrous and inefficient system. It is still happening from Northam, and it shouldn’t be, because when the Northam bypass went in that was the reason, that there was an impediment at that stage. So Frank Marley of Marley’s Transport out of Merredin originally, who started with absolutely nothing, was one of the first people who said—of course, you can imagine road train operators with the media. They did not want to have something go wrong and wearing the adverse media comments of doing something like that. So there was all these firsts that happened: the first privately operated bus, with the new system in place. I drove a bus from Mandurah up to Perth. I said, “I had better not be driving this,” and they said, “No; you’ll be right. You can drive a bus, can’t you?” and I said, “Oh, yeah.” So there was all those sorts of things. The other one that I haven’t mentioned, that was also pretty interesting is when we completed the Dawesville Cut. I went down to do the opening and the operator said to me, “Do you want to hop up on the excavator?” I said, “Oh, yeah.” And he said, “You can drive an excavator, can’t you?” I said, “I suppose I can.” So he said, “There you go; dig out the last scoop of material”. That allowed the water to come in from the ocean to the estuary at Dawesville. And so that happened. I always remember that we took that over from the Labor Party; it was one of the Labor Party’s great initiatives. I give them credit for that. They were the ones who got it started. Can you imagine that Dawesville Cut going in today? The opposition to it would be enormous and it probably would never happen—just like we haven’t done Roe Highway that I have talked about before. So they had it pretty much to the completion stage. But when we came into government there was a dispute and one of my first jobs was to get all the players around the table. I was a big believer in getting people around a table. Like I said before, don’t send emails to each other. Let’s get together and you tell me why you can’t complete this job. The other one can tell me why they have a problem with you and so forth and so on—or—with government. So we did that, and as a consequence of working with the main contractor, it finished on time and on budget. Again, simply because you brought people together and made it happen. I guess that pretty much covers it all. But there were so many people that I had so much to do with over those times. I’d just get in the car and say let’s go and see this operator. Let’s go and see this trucking guy. Or let’s go and see BHP or Hamersley or whatever else and talk about it. I would get in an aeroplane and fly somewhere. That is what we did. And people always respond if INTERVIEW FIVE CHARLTON 156

you look them in the eye and if you are ridgy-didge about things. If your word's your bond and you deliver, then people will reciprocate in the same way.

RC Thank you, Eric. If there is nothing further, on behalf of the parliamentary oral history project, I’d like to thank you for donating your time for this series of interviews.

CHARLTON Thank you, Ron. It has been my pleasure. I hope it is of some value in the future.

END OF INTERVIEW FIVE