Legislative Assembly

Tuesday, 3 June 2003

THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling) took the Chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers. NEW METRORAIL PROJECT, SHORTLIST OF CONSORTIA FOR THE PERTH CITY SECTION Statement by Minister for Planning and Infrastructure MS A.J. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [2.02 pm]: I am pleased to advise the House that two construction teams, both containing companies with significant bore tunnelling experience, have been selected to prepare detailed proposals for design and construction of the Perth city section of the New MetroRail project, worth over $200 million. The contract will be a relationship-based model, enabling more flexibility in scope changes and risk management, which is highly desirable with such a complex project. The project includes tunnels and underground stations within the Perth CBD, to bring the fast direct Mandurah-Perth railway from the Narrows Bridge to the city station. The two consortia have been short-listed from a high-quality field of five contenders made up of local, national and international companies. The two teams are CityConnect, which is comprised of the Clough-McConnell Dowell-Obayashi joint venture. Clough is a major local construction company with a strong national and overseas track record. McConnell Dowell is a large multinational company with extensive project experience, including in underground works. Obayashi is a major Japanese underground construction specialist with extensive tunnelling experience. Leighton-Kumagai Gumi is the second team. Leighton Pty Ltd is a major Australian construction company with extensive local, national and international experience. Kumagai Gumi is another major Japanese underground construction specialist with extensive tunnelling experience. Obayashi and Kumagai Gumi have extensive experience in bored tunnelling for underground metropolitan rail projects including in Singapore, Bangkok and Hong Kong. The teams were selected on the basis of demonstrated capability to successfully carry out the city project works. Applicants were assessed on financial capacity, management systems, resources and experience, understanding of key issues, programming and management of public relations, safety and environment. CityConnect and Leighton-Kumagai Gumi are outstanding teams with extensive local and international experience and proven track records in on-time and on-cost delivery. Under the innovative relationship-based design and construct contract model we have adopted for the city project, the two teams will prepare detailed proposals over a three-month period, leading to selection of a preferred proponent. In recognition of the expertise and expense required for this project, the model provides for payment of a design fee to the unsuccessful proponent in return for rights to intellectual property contained in the bid. This approach will enable the Government to realise the full benefit of the highly specialised design skills required to prepare bids and ensures that the significant commitment required of the proponents is recognised. The relationship-contracting model encourages the contracting parties to work together in the delivery of the work, incorporating risk-sharing mechanisms and rewards for outstanding contractor performance. This approach has been enthusiastically received by industry. It is expected the preferred proponent will be selected by the end of 2003, with construction to commence early in 2004. NEW HEALTH PRACTITIONER LEGISLATION FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA Statement by Minister for Health MR R.C. KUCERA (Yokine - Minister for Health) [2.05 pm]: I take this opportunity to update the House on the progress the Government is making on the health practitioner legislation. In June 2001 the Department of Health published “Key Directions, Review of Western Australian Health Practitioner Legislation”, which stated the Government’s commitment to enacting new health practitioner legislation. Western Australia’s obligations under the Competition Principles Agreement 1995 required further review of practice protection for regulated health practitioner groups and an examination of restriction of clinical practices to particular health professions. In March this year, the discussion paper “National Competition Policy Review of Practice Protection for Regulated Western Australian Health Practitioners” was released. The paper contained information regarding consultation arrangements, national competition policy, current legislation and how the review of practice protection relates to recommendations for new health practitioner legislation for our State. The Government has approved the drafting of replacement legislation for chiropractors, dentists, dental prosthetists, nurses, occupational therapists, optometrists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists and psychologists. A consultation process is in progress to seek the views of the various health professional groups to ensure that their needs are reflected in the provisions of the new legislation. A template Bill, modelled on the current Osteopaths Act, will be available for consultation in a matter of weeks. This will provide a further opportunity for comment on profession-specific issues. However, due to the extensive

8000 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] consultation already undertaken, it is anticipated that the Bill will require only minor amendments to suit each health practitioner profession. In addition to this process, I will also be seeking approval for the preparation of a new Medical Act to implement the outcomes of the extensive consultation undertaken through the Medical Act review. I also draw the House’s attention to pharmacy legislation, which is a matter dear to the member for Ballajura’s heart. The Council of Australian Governments commissioned a national review of restrictions on competition in state, territory and commonwealth pharmacy legislation in 1999. The COAG report “National Competition Policy Review of Pharmacy Legislation”, chaired by Warwick Wilkinson, AM, was released in February 2000. COAG referred the Wilkinson report to a senior official working group, consisting of representatives from the Commonwealth Government, States and Territories, for detailed advice regarding the recommendations. The Prime Minister released the working group’s response to the Wilkinson report in August 2002. The Government has begun consultation with pharmacy groups about the outcomes of the pharmacy review and will consider options for the reform of the industry shortly. In closing, many health practitioner groups and individuals have raised issues regarding health practitioner legislation with my staff and me. The contribution made by the many health practitioners in reviewing the legislation to date is valued. I put on record my thanks to health professionals in this State for their input into the review process. LAKE ARGYLE TOURIST VILLAGE, REDEVELOPMENT Statement by Minister for Planning and Infrastructure MS A.J. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [2.09 pm]: During Cabinet’s recent visit to the East Kimberley, I announced a plan to redevelop a neglected tourist facility on the shores of Lake Argyle to provide a major boost to Kimberley tourism. The Department of Land Administration has called for expressions of interest in redeveloping the Lake Argyle Village, 30 kilometres south of Kununurra by air or 70 kilometres by road. The former construction camp for the Ord Dam could have a new lease of life as a modern, low-impact, tourist destination. Properly developed and marketed, the 10-hectare site could become a major drawcard. It provides unparalleled access to the 55 kilometre-long Ramsar Convention listed lake and the fish and wildlife, including crocodiles, rock wallabies and numerous bird species, living in and alongside it. The village has stunning views of the lake. The selected developer will be offered a 21-year lease, with a subsequent 21-year option, on the 10-hectare site. The site includes a 100-bay caravan park, a camping ground and 24 asbestos motel units which, as part of the arrangement, will need to be removed. Lake Argyle already attracts about 50 000 visitors each year. During the wet season the Lake Argyle spillway claims the title of Australia’s largest white water, boasting up to class-7 rapids. A new successful tourist facility would also generate new opportunities for regional tour operators and other local businesses. Currently two commercial cruise operators are based at the village. The Department of Land Administration has worked hard to ensure the tender document reflects input from local communities, industry, local government and government agencies.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

REVENUE FROM MULTANOVAS 732. Mr C.J. BARNETT to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: I refer to reports in The West Australian on 29 May 2003 that 8 525 speeders were caught by the 10 Multanovas placed on the freeway last week. (1) Can the minister confirm that this nine-and-a-half-hour experiment will net the State Government at least $400 000, which equates to more than $44 000 an hour? (2) Will the minister guarantee to the House that all that speed camera revenue will be directed to specific and genuine road safety projects? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) I thank the Leader of the Opposition for this question. The answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is yes. Not everyone who was caught speeding during that time was given an infringement notice. In fact, the vast majority of people who were speeding did not get an infringement notice. A person needs to travel more than a couple of kilometres over the speed limit to receive an infringement notice. That variation relates to the accuracy of people’s speedometers. I suspect that the figure cited by the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition said on 28 May that it was revenue raising at the expense of road safety and that it was ridiculous to put all the State’s Multanovas along the freeway on one day. The member for Carine said on the same day - The only benefit that I can see from that is that the Government are obviously hell-bent on raising revenue and really not sending the right message to the community in terms of saving lives on our roads.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8001

I convey to the House the very interesting fact that over the long weekend not one life was lost on our roads as a result of speeding. I commend Assistant Commissioner John Standing, who has more than 30 years experience in the Police Service. He has a genuine interest in road safety and in saving lives. Although he is approaching retirement, he is known for taking a very tough approach. I describe his approach to policing as firm but fair. This was his initiative, and I commend him for it. It highlighted to people in the lead-up to the long weekend that the State was tackling speeding. We did not rely on only that method. We put more than the normal number of police vehicles on the road. Mr Speaker, you probably would have noticed it in your electorate. We put seven new highway patrol cars on the roads. Those patrols, which were based in Geraldton, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie, Newman and Northam, were given the task of doing nothing but patrol highways. The freeway operation was a commendable initiative that raised people’s awareness, which is what it was designed to do. The Leader of the Opposition has not done his homework. The vast majority of people detected as speeding were not fined. About one per cent of people were fined.

FATALITIES ON COUNTRY ROADS 733. Mr C.J. BARNETT to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: I have a supplementary question. Any road death is a tragedy. Given that the number of people killed on country roads since January 2000 is 23 times the number of people tragically killed on our freeways over the same period, why has no similar speed camera blitz taken place on country roads? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: It is almost as though the Leader of the Opposition prepared his question earlier. He did not listen to the answer he was given. We have put a special emphasis on country roads. For the first time, over the last long weekend we implemented a series of highway patrols. Seven additional full-time vehicles were on the roads over that long weekend. We have listened to the community. We want to do the right thing for road safety. The community has said it would like to see a greater police presence on those roads. Members might ask why there was ever a decline in that area. It is because of the Delta strategy adopted by the people opposite when they were in government. Under the Delta theory, traffic management and similar issues were devolved to the local districts. This Government has said that that is not enough, and has committed to putting additional, dedicated traffic patrols on country roads.

SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY 734. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth: I am concerned about opposition claims that the reports of oppression, abuse and intimidation at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community are an exaggeration or, worse still, untruthful. Does the minister have further advice on the veracity of those claims? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for Rockingham for the question and for his concern about the situation at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. During the recent Estimates Committee hearings, I reported on 10 further allegations that have been made about the camp in recent months. These serious allegations were referred to the Department for Community Development and involved either domestic violence or children at risk. For the information of members, they painted a very disturbing picture of intimidation and abuse. During the estimates hearings I acknowledged the recognition by the Leader of the Opposition that the situation at the camp was untenable and unacceptable. Unfortunately, his colleagues in the other place did not agree with him. They are completely and very disturbingly wrong. In December 2002, DCD staff had to interview a child about a maltreatment allegation in the open space and in full view of other residents. The department’s workers are subject to ongoing threats and intimidation from people associated with the camp. Staff now do not visit the camp unless they are accompanied by a police officer. As recently as two weeks ago, a departmental officer filed a report stating that the officer had been threatened by Mr Bropho. In that instance, Mr Bropho raced towards the officer waving a heavy stick and shouting in a very threatening manner. That is one further example of the sorts of blockages and intimidation that my staff face in the course of their business. This officer was forced to return to the office and was considerably unnerved by the experience to the extent that the officer has now taken stress leave. Threats of serious physical violence are made against any person who leaves the camp and speaks out against the corporation that controls it. In March 2003 a 17-year-old was picked up by the police and an offer was made to return him to the camp. This young person expressed such strong fears about the camp that it was decided to take the young person to a hostel rather than the camp. In May 2003 a father was unable to enter the camp to encourage his daughter to return home. He was threatened by residents with retribution if he persisted.

8002 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

I reject the offensive suggestions that the department has made up or exaggerated these claims. We are dealing with a very unsafe place and people should support our Government’s aims and legislation to deal with the dreadful situation. ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY 735. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: I refer the minister to the major initiatives for 2003-04 on page 97 of the Budget Statements, which state in part - A new five-year Road Safety Strategy for Western Australia will be implemented . . . following Government endorsement. (1) Will the minister confirm that such a strategy, despite being in her possession for six months, has not yet been before Cabinet? (2) Given that the 2003-04 budget contains no funding for the implementation of such a strategy, will the minister concede that this Government has no intention of implementing the new road safety strategy in the coming financial year? (3) If no to (2), will the minister commit to presenting the new five-year road safety strategy within the next month, and to procuring all additional funding necessary for its implementation? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: Interestingly, we now have an Opposition that wants to give this matter some priority. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition was on the relevant committee when in government and did nothing to progress the road safety strategy. Mr C.J. Barnett: Check your facts! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It is a fact; I have been advised of this by the Office of Road Safety. The Leader of the Opposition has no commitment to road safety, as was illustrated by his absolutely ignorant remarks about the freeway. He did not want a speed camera placed where Ben Holyoake was killed, and where dozens and dozens of people speed. If the Leader of the Opposition does not think speed on the freeway is an issue, he is sadly mistaken. The Opposition would like about six people an hour to be caught for speeding, rather than 60 people an hour; it believes that people should be able to get away with speeding on the freeway. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members opposite are bleeding badly because my answer is hurting them. The simple answers to the questions are as follows. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The ministerial council has been giving consideration to the road safety strategy. Dr Narelle Howarth from the Monash University Accident Research Centre - MUARC - has been across to discuss the strategy. I advise the member for Carine that some elements of the strategy have already been implemented. Those matters are on budget.

DAMPIER TO BUNBURY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, SALE 736. Mrs C.A. MARTIN to the Deputy Premier: I refer to comments by the Leader of the Opposition that the Dampier-Bunbury natural gas pipeline was sold by the former Government in a “very professional way”. Is that statement borne out by the facts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I suppose it depends upon one’s standards. We must remember that the sale was presided over by the same person who thought that the infrastructure for the Windimurra vanadium mine was a good investment of taxpayers’ dollars; the same person who thought Kingstream was such a strong prospect that it was worth spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds on associated infrastructure; and the same person who superintended the western Kimberley power procurement project that ultimately collapsed. This is the same person who has repeatedly called on the Government to breach laws he drafted; namely, to override the independent gas tariff regulator. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition being a little sheepish about the decision of the independent regulator. Questions linger about the sale of the pipeline, as identified by the regulator and canvassed by Mark Drummond in The Weekend Australian Financial Review. Why did Epic Energy pay what most commentators agree was around $600 million too much for the pipeline? Why did government representatives on the Gas Pipeline Sale Steering Committee apparently say that the Government would do the right thing and look after Epic on pipeline tariffs? Did the then Minister for Energy sanction this nudge and wink? Why is it that the minutes of these meetings cannot be located?

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8003

Does the Leader of the Opposition have copies of the minutes of the meetings? We had a money-hungry Government in 1998 desperate to get its hands on the proceeds of the sale to feed its spending habits. Without the stamp duty from that sale, the then Government’s budget would have been deeply in deficit. What about the future expansion of the pipeline and the reliability of supply? We have heard Epic Energy say that any commitment it gave at the time is now null and void. What steps did the previous Government take to bind Epic Energy to future expansion of the pipeline? Why does the contract not provide that the pipeline immediately revert to the State if the pipeline operator refuses to supply gas? Was this just another unfortunate oversight? The central question is this: did a greedy State Government trade away the strategic interests of Western Australia in a sloppy and cavalier fashion with no regard for the long-term interests of the State, including the interests of other companies wanting to shift gas through the monopoly controlled asset? I go further: was it a crude, off-the-book fundraiser effectively taxing an employment-creating industry so that the coalition could have a slush fund for pork-barrelling, instead of using the more conventional method of borrowings to be serviced in a more transparent way? There is every indication that the public servants involved did the best job possible given their riding instructions. The last word on the “professionalism” of the previous Government was evident in the regulator’s decision. He said that he found that statements by the Government at the time formed expectations for users as to the tariff that would apply in the future, and that that was a material consideration. That is a damning indictment of the former Minister for Energy. POLICE, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND ROAD SAFETY BUDGET 737. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: I refer the minister with responsibility for road safety to Assistant Police Commissioner John Standing’s comments on ABC radio on 29 May that the unprecedented use of 10 of Western Australia’s Multanova cameras on the Kwinana and Mitchell Freeways was “one facet of a whole range of road safety enforcement measures”. (1) Will the minister confirm that the Western Australia Police Service underspent its budget for traffic management and road safety by $1 million in 2002-03? (2) Will the minister also confirm that the Western Australia Police Service spent 42 000 fewer hours on traffic management and road safety than was budgeted for in 2002-03? (3) Is the minister aware that in the coming financial year, the Police Service will spend 76 000 fewer hours, with 54 fewer FTEs, on road safety than was the case in the coalition’s last year in government? Mr E.S. Ripper: There’s still a month left. Mrs K. HODSON-THOMAS: Yes, the Treasurer is working hard to try to make it up, but it is a bit slow now. (4) Will the Minister for Police concede that with the absence of police on our roads, Multanovas are the only facet of this Government’s road safety strategy? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) What a nonsense question. The member is wrong in citing the amount of money unspent. In fact, she was wrong in a lot of what she said about road safety. The final part of the question was whether the Government can confirm that Multanovas are the only part of the strategy. Obviously not; I told the member earlier today in question time about the strategy for country roads and highway police out there in special highway vehicles. As the member wants to know about the other facets of the strategy, why not start with the banning of hand- held mobile phones? Why not look at the 50 kilometre an hour limits in local areas? Members opposite do not want to know about those aspects. What about the 40 kilometre an hour zones around schools, and the trials of flashing lights and road markings? Those are also part of the strategy. What about the allocation of an additional $8 million to black spots, which the Government has done? This will take total expenditure on black spots over four years up to $60 million. What about the graduated driver training and the hazard perception tests put in place? In addition, I commenced only last year the implementation of the $1.4 million road aware program, which is a road safety program that will cater for children from infancy through to the pre-driver training years. I launched part of that program last week at Melville Senior High School, where it was incredibly well received. I take the opportunity to thank the school’s staff for their involvement. An excellent teacher will take the program at the school. Several members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members opposite ask “What’s his name?”, but a woman will deliver the program - are opposition members not sexist, Mr Speaker? Members opposite did nothing about road safety. When I came into office with responsibility for road safety and licensing, this Government found out that the previous Government had not even signed off finally on the compulsory photographs on driver licences. I had to sign off on that. And guess what? Members opposite had a silly notion for that as well: it was not going to apply to blokes over a certain age! I gather that was because some of the previous Government’s backbenchers did not like the idea. For several years members opposite talked about introducing a 50 kilometres an hour speed limit. They held many committee discussions and there was lots of talk but nothing was done about it. All we know is that the previous Government had a mixed strategy

8004 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] on the idea. If we take any notice of what their people upstairs say, they are opposed to Multanovas, they are in favour of speeders and they would like the speed limit on country roads to be raised to about 130 kilometres an hour! The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Vasse, Murdoch and Darling Range. SWAN RIVER TRUST, FISH DEATHS 738. Mr B.K. MASTERS to the Premier: I refer to page 613 of the 2003-04 Budget Statements under significant issues and trends, where it is stated in no less than six places that the pressure on the Swan River and its environmental values is increasing. (1) Given that the funding for the Swan River Trust has suffered real cuts in the last three budgets, does the Premier consider the budget allocation for this financial year to be adequate to manage the state of the Swan River in the light of the recent massive fish kills? (2) If so, how does the Government intend to improve the situation to prevent further fish kills in the Swan River? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: I seek the indulgence of the House in congratulating our state-based soccer team, the Perth Glory, on winning the national title. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Western Australians in congratulating the team on its magnificent performance and thank it for the joy it has given soccer supporters in Western Australia in recent years. (1)-(2) I find it somewhat interesting that ever since the state budget has come down, members of the Opposition have said that we are not spending enough money here or enough money there, yet the Leader of the Opposition says we are spending too much money and we should not have revenue measures in the budget. There is a problem with that, Leader of the Opposition. If we have to spend money on all the things that people want to do in the community, we must raise the revenue to do it. This Government does that within the context of a balanced budget, unlike the Opposition when it was in power. The people of Western Australia will judge this Government when it comes time at the election. We will go into that election campaign with a lot of confidence because we know that we are meeting the challenges of our society. We are not complacent, we are not lazy and we are not incompetent. There is a plan in place to deal with the issues relating to the Swan River. Mr C.J. Barnett: Is there a committee? Dr G.I. GALLOP: No, a plan - one of the best in Australia - has been put in place by the Swan River Trust under which technology is being developed to reduce nutrients. We have enhanced this plan through the very successful river-bank restoration program - not so long ago I saw the minister on television talking about that highly successful program. We will continue to work with local communities, whether it be with families in the local neighbourhoods, farmers in the wheatbelt or workers in the industrial areas, to reduce the nutrients that go into the river. We have done a lot so far but, clearly, more is required and we will continue to use the Swan-Canning clean-up program as a blueprint for reducing nutrients into the Swan River. TOURISM, SECURING OF EVENTS 739. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY to the Minister for Tourism: I refer to the State Government’s tourism election commitment to actively pursue more events for Western Australia and ask - (1) Have the Government and EventsCorp been actively pursuing more events to be held in Western Australia? (2) If so, is the minister able to advise the House of any recent progress in securing more events? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1) Yes. (2) I am pleased to inform the House that on 24 May Western Australia was successful in securing the right to hold the Australian Surf Life Saving Association’s annual championship in 2007, 2008 and 2009 - the first years available after the completion of the 10-year contract between the Surf Life Saving Association and the Queensland Government. Other Governments competed for the right to hold the event and it was extremely pleasing that Western Australia was able to succeed with its bid. Conservatively the bid is worth some $25 million to the tourism industry in direct spend, let alone the indirect spend. Interestingly, in terms of the number of competitors and officials, the surf-lifesaving championships that Western Australia will host for three years is second only to the Olympic Games. Therefore, it is a very significant event for Western Australia. It is perhaps unfortunate that not more publicity was given to the fact that Western Australia had some success with its bid. It seems that whenever we might lose an event - we do not lose the right to hold these championships in any event - a lot of publicity is given to that over weeks and weeks, in article after article and by commentator after commentator. However, when the State wins an event it is almost kept a

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8005

secret. It is no wonder that sometimes Western Australians do not have good thoughts about how successful this State is when that information is difficult to get out. I place on record my thanks to David Armstrong, General Manager of Surf Life Saving Western Australia; Mr Doug McGhie, President of the Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club; the Mayor of the City of Stirling, who did an excellent job in the presentations along with EventsCorp staff; and the member for Innaloo, who actively sought this event for Western Australia and lobbied on behalf of the State at the national titles. Finally, I congratulate the EventsCorp staff of the Western Australian Tourism Commission for helping to secure this event for Western Australia. ROAD SAFETY COUNCIL, REGIONAL REPRESENTATION 740. Mr R.A. AINSWORTH to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: Given that the Road Safety Council has carriage of policy development on road safety matters for all Western Australians and will oversee a budget of approximately $10 million in 2003-04, I ask - (1) Does the minister see representation from regional Western Australia on the council as important? (2) If yes, why has the Government not actively sought a representative from regional Western Australia for the council following the expiry of Bencubbin resident Christine Hardwick’s term? (3) Given that the death toll and road trauma on country roads continue to spiral, how will the regional viewpoint be represented on the council? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for Roe for the question. To the best of my knowledge, Christine Hardwick was a local government representative and I am restricted by the legislation in whom I can and cannot appoint to the Road Safety Council. The member for Roe has suggested a worthwhile idea and I am more than happy to discuss with him how we might anticipate increasing country representation on the council. However, my understanding is that the position occupied by Christine Hardwick was a local government or a RoadWise appointment. She was obviously a good contributor to the council. If members have suggestions as to who would make a worthy contribution on the council or how that can be accommodated when making appointments under the legislation, I am more than happy to discuss the matter with them.

NEW METRORAIL PROJECT, COST CLAIMS BY NATIONAL PARTY 741. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: Is the minister aware of the blatantly wrong information about the costings of the New MetroRail project that has been peddled recently by the National Party? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I know many members are aware of the gross exaggeration by the Leader of the National Party about the rail project. The member for Roleystone was able to extract a confession from the Leader of the National Party two weeks ago when he admitted that he made up figures. He said he did not see any reason why he should not tell lies; that it was his entitlement. I was very concerned about a media release that went beyond the normal “Maxi-meter” exaggeration and that was a blatant untruth. The media release was picked up by that esteemed journal, The Gnowangerup Star! The Government has doubled the amount of money to be spent on bridge construction in this year’s Main Roads budget. One of the reasons is the problem with the Ashburton Bridge. Money has been brought forward to deal with that. Without one shred of evidence, the Leader of the National Party and his partner in crime, Hon Murray Criddle, have raced around the countryside claiming that the Government is trying to hide some of the New MetroRail project money in the Main Roads budget. The bridge construction budget has not been doubled to strengthen the Narrows Bridge and the Mount Henry Bridge. The Government made this very clear to the member for Roe, who represented the National Party during the Estimates Committee. The Government set it out for him chapter and verse. The member had clearly been sent with instructions - like finding reds under the bed. The Leader of the National Party has made extravagant claims that the rail project will cost $2 billion. The loyal member for Roe was looking under every bit of paper and every budget estimate to try to find where the Government had hidden money for the MetroRail project. The MetroRail project is a $1.4 million project. That includes the sum total of costs including the rolling stock, bridgework and constructing the tunnels. This goes to the credibility of the National Party. It is prepared to tell a blatant untruth to the public. DEPARTMENT OF INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS, CLOSURE OF REGIONAL OFFICES 742. Ms S.E. WALKER to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: I refer the minister to the Premier’s response to the Gordon inquiry into sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities in which he stated that it was better to spend funds on services in the regions than on offices in Perth.

8006 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(1) Will the minister confirm that as part of the Labor Government’s razor gang, 16 offices of the Department of Indigenous Affairs in regional Western Australia have been closed in areas including Carnarvon, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek and Onslow? (2) Will the minister confirm that more regional offices of the Department of Indigenous Affairs will be closed; and, if so, how many and in which locations? (3) How does the minister reconcile his decision to pull resources from indigenous people in the country with his Government’s claims that country areas are where services are needed? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) There is a fundamental difference between having an office and having resources to address a problem. One of the problems inherited from the previous Government was the model it established to deliver - with the best of intentions - services to Aboriginal people. I have told the House this several times. The previous Government established a model of local area coordination for Aboriginal affairs based on a model used by disability services. The big difference between indigenous affairs and disability services is that being an Aboriginal is not a disability. We do not require one person for every 50 Aboriginal people in the State to try to link them with government services or provide them with fundamental services. That is what other government departments are for. The Government had to decide whether it should continue expending precious resources on single-person offices across the State that were achieving nothing. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The Government had to decide whether it wanted to achieve something with the human resources available in the department. The Government decided to do that; it wants to achieve things. The Government embarked upon the process of closing down single-person offices across Western Australia because they were achieving nothing. One of the first things that the leadership of the Aboriginal community asked me to do as a new minister was to seriously consider shutting down the entire Department of Indigenous Affairs because it was being used as an instrument of oppression rather than of use to Aboriginal people. If members think of the history of the department, they will understand why. The Government has embarked upon the right course. Human resources are now being allocated more effectively. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The human resources are being used in partnership with local government, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and other government departments to deliver the services that Aboriginal people in Western Australia should receive. The Government is doing the right thing. The Government inherited a model that was bound to fail and was failing. The model put in place by the Government is working and will work. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the members for Nedlands and Warren-Blackwood to order. SOCCER, STATE GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE 743. Mr A.P. O’GORMAN to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: I congratulate Perth Glory on its excellent win on Sunday. Will the minister inform the House how the State Government is helping soccer in Western Australia? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Premier, as he always is, was right. Sunday was a marvellous day. The Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Health and the member for Dawesville all attended. It was a great day. People on all sides of politics in Western Australia will join in congratulating Perth Glory on its outstanding landmark achievement. It won the National Soccer League title in a very good game of football. It has elevated soccer, the world game, to the status it deserves in Western Australia. With the possible exception of one or two members opposite - particularly the member for Dawesville who chips away at Perth Glory - all members will agree that Nick Tana deserves special credit because he has done what no other person, as far as I am aware, has done in soccer in Australia. He has created a professional outfit with a strong and loyal following. It is the envy of every club in Australia. He has raised it above the internecine battles and politics that normally bedevil soccer. An interesting sideshow to the game was witnessed by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Premier when the remnants of the soccer old guard were working away trying to drag down Perth Glory. It was a fascinating sociological experience to observe what was happening on Sunday. Just as great leaders are needed in politics, so they are needed in sport. People also do not know the work that Mrs Tana does behind the scene before every game. She has done fantastic things for soccer in Western Australia. Nick Tana and his partner David Rodwell managed to pack 38 000

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8007 people into Subiaco Oval to watch a domestic game of soccer. Ten years ago people would have laughed out loud at a suggestion that such a thing was possible. I also mention the leadership of Bobby Despotovski whom I had great pleasure in hugging with delight after the game; Jamie Harnwell and Damien Mori, who scored the goals; Simon Colosimo, who was regarded as the best player on the ground; and the coach Mich d’Avray. It was a day that had something for everybody. Everybody enjoyed it. One highlight was when a female streaker ran onto the ground. Having had a good look at her, I urge the authorities to fine her heavily! QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 833, 847 AND 861, ANSWER ADVICE 744.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to questions on notice 833, 847 and 861, which are more than three months old? Mr C.M. BROWN (Minister for State Development): Very soon. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 849 AND 863, ANSWER ADVICE 745.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to questions on notice 849 and 863? Ms S.M. McHALE (Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth): I have checked on question 863. I have signed it off, so it is in the system somewhere. I think I have also signed off question 849, but I will check it. QUESTION ON NOTICE 864, ANSWER ADVICE 746.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 864? Mr R.C. KUCERA (Minister for Health): I understand that the answer is in the system and the member should receive it shortly. QUESTION ON NOTICE 862, ANSWER ADVICE 747.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 862? Mr A.J. CARPENTER (Minister for Education and Training): That has been brought to my attention. I congratulate the member for the work she has done, and it is a pity some of her colleagues do not emulate. I will get that answer to her as soon as I can. I thank her for reminding me. QUESTION ON NOTICE 855, ANSWER ADVICE 748.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 855? Mr E.S. RIPPER (Deputy Premier): When that matter has received my full consideration. QUESTION ON NOTICE 857, ANSWER ADVICE 749.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 857? Mr J.C. KOBELKE (Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection): The member obviously does more work than the rest of the Opposition put together. That is reflected in her work in the Chamber and in the number of questions she asks. The question has received a fair deal of attention and an answer is being prepared. However, as the member works very hard asking a lot of questions, these are very detailed answers which also require a lot of work. As soon as the answer is full and complete it will be returned to the member. QUESTION ON NOTICE 858, ANSWER ADVICE 750.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 858, which has been outstanding for more than three months? Dr J.M. EDWARDS (Minister for the Environment and Heritage): As far as I am aware, I have signed off on that answer. I will make further inquiries with my staff and get it to the member as soon as possible. QUESTION ON NOTICE 859, ANSWER ADVICE 751.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 859, which has been outstanding for more than three months? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS (Minister for Police and Emergency Services): I have signed off on the answer to that question, and I understand it has been lodged. If the member does not receive the answer today, she will receive it tomorrow. QUESTION ON NOTICE 860, ANSWER ADVICE 752.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 860? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN (Minister for Planning and Infrastructure): I think I have signed off on that answer, but I will confirm it this afternoon.

8008 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

QUESTION ON NOTICE 856, ANSWER ADVICE 753.L. EDWARDES: This is most surprising, because generally the Attorney General is one of the best in answering questions in a timely way. Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, when can I expect an answer to question on notice 856? Mr J.A. McGINTY (Attorney General): Mea culpa; this one seems to have slipped through the net. My apologies to the member. I will undertake to immediately find out what has happened, and ensure that the answer is provided as quickly as possible.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 838, 865, 866 AND 867, ANSWER ADVICE MRS C.L. EDWARDES: Pursuant to Standing Order No 80, answers are outstanding to questions on notice 838 and 865 to the minister representing the Minister for Housing and Works; question on notice 866 to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and question on notice 867 to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming. I ask the Government to follow up on those questions and see whether they can be answered.

BULK-BILLING Petition Mr B.K. Masters presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 17 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled We the undersigned ask the Legislative Assembly to: • work with the Federal Government to encourage general practitioners to bulk bill their low income patients. At present in Busselton, low income earners must pay an additional amount of at least $7.00, over and above the amount refunded by Medicare. This additional charge is a significant cost that cannot be afforded by most people who are on pensions or unemployed. • Ensure that the State Government’s support for bulk billing is provided in a non-political, bipartisan manner. • Urge the Federal government to make sure Medicare refunds to doctors and patients are made within 30 days. [See petition No 181.]

POLICE STATIONS, WARREN-BLACKWOOD Petition Mr P.D. Omodei presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 17 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. Police Stations - Warren Blackwood The communities of Augusta, Pemberton, Northcliffe and Nannup are alarmed about revelations that a police station may be closed or scaled down in our region. The existence of a secret report containing a list of 22 (twenty-two) police stations that could be potentially closed, in country Western Australian, is yet another reason for us to be deeply concerned that the Government has even considered closing any police stations. Now we ask that the Premier and/or the Minister for Police makes a very clear statement to South West communities as to whether a list of police stations to be possibly closed exists and if so, make a clear and unambiguous announcement that NO police stations in the Warren Blackwood electorate will be closed. [See petition No 182.]

STICKS BOULEVARD AND OLD COAST ROAD, MANDURAH Petition Mr A.D. Marshall presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 1 158 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8009

We the undersigned residents of Bridgewater/Mandurah are very concerned with a major problem of entry/exit at the intersection of Sticks Boulevard and Old Coast Road. Sticks Boulevard is the only access road to this area and because of the • number of homes currently in the area - 800 • number of new residences due for occupancy in the near future - 154 • number of children and elderly people crossing Old Coast Road to schools sporting facilities, shops, medical facilities, service stations etc, none of which are on the Bridgewater side of Old Coast Rd • volume of traffic entering Sticks Boulevard to access the Mandurah Quays Resort and Function Centre and the Halls Head Sport and Recreation Club • 33 traffic accidents at this intersection reported to Mandurah Police Traffic Office in the past 2 years. We now ask the Legislative Assembly to request the Government of Western Australia to have traffic control lights installed immediately at this intersection. [See petition No 183.] MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICE, KALGOORLIE-BOULDER Petition Mr M.J. Birney presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 44 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. PROVISION OF A MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICE IN KALGOORLIE-BOULDER. We, the undersigned concerned residents of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, hereby register our strong complaint that women in the Goldfields currently have no access to a mammography service. If a mammogram is ordered by a GP, Goldfields women are now required to travel to Perth. We call on the Minister for Health to make available funding assistance to X-ray West to enable the purchase of a Mammography unit for Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This would ensure women of the Goldfields would have access to a permanent screening unit. X-Ray West is currently investigating the purchase of a second hand unit for the Goldfields. We urgently request that the Legislative Assembly recognize the importance of, and the need for permanent access to, this vital screening service for Goldfields women, particularly those women who have had Cancer or have a strong family history of Cancer. We also request that the Legislative Assembly recognise the high costs, financial, emotional, and social, faced by women in the Goldfields who have to travel to Perth for these screenings i.e. lost wages, accommodation costs, travel costs, removal of children from school (single mothers), and cultural dislocation (for Aboriginal women). Many women also face a lack of family support in Perth, of significant importance when negative results are received. We acknowledge the service that BreastScreen WA provides with its two yearly visits, however these visits do not meet the needs of women who require this screening/diagnostic service between BreastScreen WA visits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See petition No 184.] AUSTRALIND SERVICE TO YARLOOP Petition Mr J.L. Bradshaw presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 164 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of the Yarloop area, request that the Australind Train continue to stop at the Yarloop Station. For many residents, the Australind Train is the only public transport enabling residents to travel to Perth or Bunbury in one day. Although our numbers may be small, we believe we should receive the same service as other towns and have equal rights as people from larger and adjoining communities. We request the Legislative Assembly ensures that the service of the Australind Train remains accessible for all residents living in country areas.

8010 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Now we ask the Legislative Assembly, and humbly pray, to give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, we will ever pray. [See petition No 185.]

SOUTHERN YARRAGADEE AQUIFER Petition Mr P.D. Omodei presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 11 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. Yarragadee - Water Extraction We the undersigned from the Shires of Nannup, Capel, Augusta, Margaret River, Manjimup, Busselton, Donnybrook and Bunbury are concerned that the State Government is syphoning off water to cater for the needs of the city. We understand that there is an abundance of water in the Yarragadee aquifer under Perth and are at a loss to understand as to why they are taking water from the Southern Yarragadee. We can only surmise that it is more politically expedient to take southwest water than to risk a backlash by metropolitan voters. We are convinced that the process is being ‘rushed’ without any proper analysis and environmental impact on the aquifer in our area. “In the absence of a proper analysis and plan for future water use for the long term future in the south west we call on the Premier of Western Australia, the Hon Geoff Gallop to call a halt to this project - in the public interest. Now we call on the Government to appoint a joint Parliamentary Select Committee of both houses of parliament to conduct a thorough investigation of this issue. The terms of reference to be determined with input from the community. [See petition No 186.]

TOXIC WASTE TREATMENT, KALGOORLIE-BOULDER Petition Mr M.J. Birney presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 55 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. OPPOSITION TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND PROCESSING OF TOXIC WASTE FROM BROOKDALE TO THE TOTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT (WESTERN RESOURCE RECOVERY) KALGOORLIE-BOULDER PLANT We, the undersigned concerned residents of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, hereby register our serious complaint against the continuing odour nuisance and the potential adverse impact to our community’s health, resulting from the importation and processing of industrial toxic waste from the Metropolitan area now being processed at the Total Waste Management (Western Resource Recovery) Plant situated in Celebration Road Boulder. We also register serious complaint against the proposed importation and processing of toxic waste from the Brookdale Waste Plant in Perth. We urgently request that the Legislative Assembly implement procedures to ensure that all toxic wastes are processed in their area of origin and we further request that transportation of these wastes to Kalgoorlie- Boulder cease immediately. We call for the Legislative Assembly to direct the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to engage in ongoing stringent monitoring of the Total Waste Management (Western Resource Recovery) Kalgoorlie- Boulder Plant. This monitoring should include air monitoring and monitoring of discharges into the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder’s effluent ponds, as this water is being recycled for use on the City’s recreational and school ovals and parks. In addition we call on the EPA to provide ongoing public disclosure of the above monitoring activities and to publicise these results in the local newspapers each month. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See petition No 187.]

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8011

SARAH SHURMER Petition Mr J.H.D. Day presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 58 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, bring to your attention the situation of Sarah Shurmer and her family. Sarah is a very frail sixteen year old girl. She lives at home with her parents, who are in their sixties, and her two brothers aged 22 and 20, in the suburb of Forrestfield. Sarah was born with Congenital Myopathy. In layman’s terms, this is a muscle wasting disorder. She was born with dislocated hips and when only five days old was fitted with a brace which she wore for eight months. Sarah has a long history of health problems including asthma, bronchitis and a stress vomiting disorder. She has spent a lot of time in hospitals with an average of four to five admissions per year. Sarah also has a severe intellectual disability. Although Sarah is nearly six foot tall she weighs only THIRTY EIGHT KILO’S. She is unable to chew food so all her food has to be vitamised. She is able to feed her self using a spoon or fingers. Sarah has to be totally supervised with all her personal needs. As she is getting older she is getting weaker and requires more and more help. She is able to say a few words, though she uses gestures rather than speech to communicate. Sarah can follow simple tasks. Sarah attends South Kensington School five days a week. She enjoys music and swimming. When able, she loves to go for walks. Due to her frailty and her need for constant support she has no activities after school. Sarah’s older brother has had learning difficulties during his school years, and has also has needed a lot of support. Sarah’s parents both have health issues. Her father has been on a Disability Support Pension since before Sarah was born. He injured his back at work, and has been unable to work from that day on. Her mother has suffered from depression since Sarah’s birth. She has only this year been able to come off medication. This has made it so much more difficult to cope with the overwhelming pressures confronting this family. Sarah’s younger brother has had to deal with all this in his twenty years. It has taken a huge emotional toll on him. Sarah’s parents are at the stage of life where they need to think about their future and the future of their daughter. Sarah will need accommodation support. Her parents are alarmed at the lack of funding for this. Like most families, they thought that when the time was right for Sarah to leave home the funding would be there for her. They are left with so many questions and not many answers. What will happen to their daughter? Where is the planning? How long will they have to wait for much needed services? Once she leaves school what will be there for her? Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly give urgent attention to: The provision of the accommodation support services needed by the estimated 300 people with disabilities and their families in Western Australia currently unable to access the accommodation support they need. The provision of the respite services needed by the estimated 950 people with disabilities and their families in Western Australia currently unable to access the respite they need. The provision of the “Post School Option” services needed by the estimated 800 people with disabilities in Western Australia currently unable to access the support they need to engage in activities during the day. [See petition No 188.]

DR BRIAN ROBERMAN Petition Mr M.F. Board presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 1 053 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned say we SUPPORT Dr Brian Roberman in his position as Consultant Gynaecologist/Obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEMH). Further, we object to the public declaration of his suspension before any hearing or decision of the Medical Board. Such action is unprecedented and unwarranted.

8012 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Now, we ask that the Legislative Assembly direct the Minister for Health to reinstate Dr Roberman to this former position at KEMH forthwith. [See petition No 189.] LEFROY BROOK, CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION Petition Mr P.D. Omodei presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 19 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. Lefroy Brook Chemical Contamination The people of Pemberton and the many visitors to our wonderful town are concerned about reports in the newspapers about toxic waste ie Pentachlorophenol and Arsenic from the waste pond on ‘Thomson’s Flat’ not being prevented from entering Lefroy Brook. This means that people using the Lefroy Brook downstream of Thomson’s bridge for many years could have come in contact with potentially harmful substances that could cause serious health problems. We want the Parliament to know that until 1991 Thomson’s cattle had access to the waste ponds. Mr Thomson owned two butcher shops in town. Need we say more. We also want to know why the State Government (DEP) and Health Department has not divulged this information to our Parliamentary Representatives and the Manjimup Shire Council. Now we ask that the Premier take direct action to have the toxic waste dump cleaned up to protect the health of people using Lefroy Brook and to restore Lefroy Brook to its pristine state that existed in the past. [See petition No 190.]

GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS Petition Mr E.S. Ripper (Deputy Premier) presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 26 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned residents of Western Australia, respectfully commend to the attention of the House that: • Successive State Governments have promised to fund non-government school students at a minimum of 25% of total real government school per pupil average cost. • The 2002/3 State Budget shows that the total cost of educating 256947 government school students this year will be $2257m. ($8784 each, on average). • The 108624 students in non-government schools will be allocated only $170m. by the State in 2002/3 ($1565 each, on average - i.e., only 17.8% of average government school per pupil cost). • The additional cost in 2002/3 to provide these students with an amount at least equivalent to last year’s allocation, which was 18.3% of government school per pupil cost, would be $4.9m., or an extra $45 each. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Western Australian Parliament will demand that the State urgently provides an additional $4.9m. to the non-government sector in 2002/3, and urgently works towards allocating a further $64m. per year which is needed to meet long-standing State commitments to provide non- government school students with an average level of State funding equivalent to at least 25% of the average real government school per pupil operating cost (i.e., $2196 in 2002/3 - 25% of $8784). And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See petition No 191.] SENIORS AND PENSIONERS, BOTTLED GAS Petition Mr P.D. Omodei presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 27 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, call on the Treasurer to introduce a scheme to provide rebates for seniors and pensioners who rely upon bottled gas for heating and cooking in Western Australia.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8013

The additional costs for gas provide a disincentive for using this clean and environmentally friendly energy source and have a significant impact on the cost of living for seniors and pensioners in areas without access to piped gas. Your petitioners therefore ask that you will give this matter earnest consideration. [See petition No 192.] ROAD SAFETY, RESOURCES Matter of Public Interest THE SPEAKER (Mr F. Riebeling): Today I received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate as a matter of public interest the following motion - That this House calls on the Gallop Labor Government to make road safety an immediate priority, by restoring funding for our roads, endorsing the proposed road safety strategy and ensuring that all available resources are utilised in the fight to save lives on our roads. If sufficient members agree to this motion, I will allow it. [At least five members rose in their places.] The SPEAKER: The matter shall proceed on the usual basis. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe - Leader of the Opposition) [3.17 pm]: I move the motion. From day one the Labor Government has made a mess of road safety. It appointed a minister for transport who just happened to have an appalling record of road safety. The Premier said that the Government could deal with that, and transferred the road safety portfolio to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The Premier said that this could be done without requiring any legislative changes; it was a simple and straightforward move. However, it was anything but. Even today there is confusion about who has responsibility for road safety in a legislative sense. This matter has been fumbled and fumbled. This motion relates to the lack of priority and attention that the Government and the responsible minister have given to road safety. As the motion states, the Government has failed to endorse the road safety strategy. Why has that taken so long? The Government has failed to get on with it. There has been underspending in the police budget. An issue was raised on the weekend. Last week we saw what I still consider to be a farcical exercise of scattering Multanovas along the freeway, which caught some 8 000 motorists for speeding. Despite the minister boasting in the House last year about a reduction in the road toll, the road toll is now higher than it was at this time last year. Mrs M.H. Roberts: It is two higher. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is too high. It was foolish for the minister to boast in the Parliament about how she had lowered the road toll, only for it to then rise. She was also foolish to boast today that, thankfully, there were no deaths over the long weekend. Mrs M.H. Roberts: There were two deaths; neither was due to speeding. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the minister think that will always be the case? Mrs M.H. Roberts: I think that’s a really positive thing. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The minister came in here and boasted in question time - Mrs M.H. Roberts: One would assume that it is really positive that there were no deaths on the road due to speed. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The minister will have a chance to speak in a minute. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Do not try to mislead Parliament. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Do members know what was wrong with the exercise that was conducted on the freeway last week? The vast majority of people drive their cars responsibly and safely. They care for other motorists on the road. They do not need or want law-abiding citizens unnecessarily put into conflict with police. Technically, someone who is two or three kilometres over the speed limit is speeding. I do not make any excuse for speeding. However, it is not appropriate to put Multanovas along a freeway and pull over virtually every motorist for travelling with the flow of traffic, because technically the motorists are above the speed limit. That just puts the vast majority of safe, careful and responsible drivers into conflict with the police. Motorists were angry last week because when they drive at other times of the night, they see car races taking place, drunk and reckless drivers behind the wheel and roads in poor condition, and that makes them wonder why they have been pulled over. They wonder what the Government and the Minister for Police are doing stopping law-abiding citizens from going to and from work. The Government’s statistics show there have been more deaths on country roads than on city roads. The Government has its priorities wrong. It should not harass law-abiding citizens. It should stop people from drink-driving, speeding and driving recklessly on our roads. That is what the police and the cameras

8014 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] should be doing. Why are speed cameras being painted black so that they are hidden, enabling the State to sneak up on our citizens and wave down motorists? That is not the way to get the community to support road safety and improve its level of safety and care on the roads. The Government has it all wrong. As proof of this Government’s lack of attention to road safety, according to the functional review committee, the Government has cut funding for road safety by some $50 million a year. Significant cuts have been made to road funding in the first two budgets of the Labor Government. I probably do more driving on country roads than any member on the government side and most members on this side of the House. When driving on country roads, it is obvious that vehicles are heavier and wider than they used to be. The roads are deteriorating; they have soft, frayed edges. Many young kids are dying on country roads because their cars are hitting the edges of the roads. Salinity is exacerbating the problem in the wheatbelt. The material underneath the roads decays as the salt level rises. The increased damage to the roads can be seen from week to week, yet the Government is cutting road funding. That indicates an extraordinary lack of attention to what really matters. We raise this MPI because we want the Government to give priority to road safety. We want it to restore funding for road programs so that our roads are brought up to scratch. We do not want drivers to lose their lives because they inadvertently hit the edge of the road or are forced to the edge of the road by another vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. In those circumstances, a driver can lose control of his car and it can roll and cause the driver’s death. The Government should direct its attention away from blitzes on the freeway that interfere with, annoy and irritate otherwise law-abiding citizens, and give priority to country areas where young kids are dying on our roads. The Government should improve the condition of our roads and get the Police Service on the roads. Last weekend I saw police cars on country roads. I drive on country roads most weekends, as I did last weekend. I acknowledge that I saw a couple of patrol cars. However, on the vast majority of occasions when I drive on country roads, I do not see police officers. The weekend before last I drove to Kalbarri and back, which is a six-hour journey each way. I saw only one patrol car in 12 hours of driving. At least last weekend the police were out on country roads, which is where they need to be every weekend. MS K. HODSON-THOMAS (Carine) [3.24 pm]: I also support this matter of public interest. In the first instance, I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for recommitting funding for the Australasian Spinal Research Trust. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: It is only for 12 months though. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: At least the minister has committed to that funding, which is very important, and I place that on record. Nevertheless, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition: road funding has been slashed, and there has been massive underspending on our roads. Over the next four years, $200 million will be slashed from road funding, which is not a good policy for road safety initiatives. I will focus on the placement of the 13 Multanovas on the freeway, as did the Leader of the Opposition. I am not at all opposed to Multanovas. They have a place. They send a message to the community that motorists must slow down. The main killers on the roads are speed, driver fatigue, passengers not wearing restraints and drivers driving under the influence of alcohol. Clearly, Multanovas have a place. However, they should not be used in such a way that raising revenue is a priority ahead of saving lives. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government would place 13 Multanovas on a freeway, knowing that 96 000 vehicles will drive past them. We know from media reports that 8 500 motorists were caught speeding in that campaign. We also note that Assistant Commissioner John Standing has said that only between 1 200 and 1 500 of those motorists will be issued with infringement notices. That clearly shows that the exercise was designed to raise somewhere in the vicinity of between $120 000 and $150 000 in one day. That is great! It is fantastic. It builds up the Government’s coffers, but it has done nothing to save lives on our roads. Those 13 Multanovas would have been better placed on country roads. However, the exercise was not about saving lives; it was about raising revenue. I say that because that is what the police have told me. They do not place Multanovas where only a few vehicles drive past; they place them where the greatest number of vehicles will pass them. That sends the message that the Government is not interested in saving lives, but in raising revenue. Frankly, that is not good enough. The minister should take some responsibility and ensure that more police are placed on our roads. During question time today, the minister said that a weekend blitz was conducted. I admit that I saw many police on our roads, which is fantastic. However, it does not excuse the fact that the traffic management and road safety budget has been underspent this year. The Treasurer was kind enough to interject on me today and say that there is one month left to spend the money. Good luck! However, I am sure the Government will not be able to deliver on that. The important issue is to put more police on our roads. Multanovas do not stop people from drink-driving and they do not pick up drivers who do not wear seatbelts or who are under suspension. I have said that Multanovas have a place. We on this side of the Chamber all agree that it is not good to speed. That message must be sent to the community. However, placing 13 Multanovas in one day on a freeway is a joke. It shows the community that the Government is interested only in raising revenue, not in saving lives on our roads. This is a matter on which all members in this place should be able to agree. No member would like to lose a child or a family member due to a road accident. That type of tragedy has impacted on many people. I want to focus on a couple of other issues in relation to this matter, particularly

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8015 the underspending on our country roads. The Leader of the Opposition said that $200 million will come out of the Main Roads budget over the next four years. That is simply not good enough. That is happening because this Government has its priorities all wrong. It wants to spend that money on its railway. Ms A.J. MacTiernan: It is not for the railway. That is completely wrong. You know that. The cost of the railway has not increased. It is quite evident. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The minister and I will debate that on another day. Ms A.J. MacTiernan: The allocations in last year’s budget and this year’s budget are the same. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: I am happy to take the minister’s interjections. Her Government has its priorities wrong. It wants to take money from the Main Roads budget. It does not want to improve roads in the country. It wants to spend that money on its railway. Public transport is as important to us as it is to the Government, but it has got this wrong. This is about trying to save lives on our roads. I know that a police blitz was recently conducted in your electorate, Mr Speaker. I am sure many constituents will come to you and tell you that they were caught speeding or driving without a restraint or under suspension. This is about getting police out on the roads. We have seen the effects of that underspending over the past 12 months. It is interesting. I have discovered that 1 084 full-time employees were employed in traffic management in 2000-01, and that 1 066 FTEs were employed in that area in 2001-02. There is a natural decline. In 2002-03, there were 1 013 full-time employees, and in the next financial year there will be 1 030 full-time employees in traffic management. I return to the minister’s interjection that the cut in spending is not about the railway. The second dot point of significant issues and trends on page 762 of the Main Roads budget states - Main Roads has reflected in this budget the recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce that the level of spending on road programs be reduced by $200 million over the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 to enable the Government to meet its priorities in other core areas of spending. The Government’s other core areas of spending are its railway and the health budget. Ms A.J. MacTiernan: Rubbish. If you go back to last year’s budget, you will see that there is no increase in the allocation for the rail project. We have not had to take that money out to accommodate the rail project. We have taken it out because there has been an increase in the health budget. It is evident. It is exactly the rail project - Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: The minister can stick to that line of thought, but the bottom line is that this is about funding the rail project, which is already $350 million over budget. Believe me, we will debate that on another occasion. The Government’s other core area of spending is health, and so it should be. However, the Government has its priorities wrong. It is not spending enough on maintaining the road system. The Government can do all the spin- doctoring it likes, but more money needs to be spent on the roads in the regions to ensure that no fatalities occur on those roads. I do not understand the view that Multanova placement should be in only the metropolitan area. Multanovas should also be placed in the regional areas - all over the State. That is where the most deaths occur. The Leader of the Opposition alluded to that when he said that there have been 16 tragic deaths on our freeways since January 2000, and 721 deaths - 23 times more - on country roads over that period. That tells us that we should use these resources in the country. Multanova placement should not just be about where the most number of vehicles travel. It is simply not good enough if Multanova placement is all about raising revenue and not saving lives. I really hope that Multanovas never raise any revenue. That would mean that people drive within the speed limit. However, we know that is not the case. We know that drivers speed from time to time. There are many reasons for that. The placement of Multanovas on our roads is interesting. I have talked about that in this place. I have been told about the criteria. Often we see a Multanova at the bottom of a hill or where the speed limit drops from 70 to 60 kilometres an hour or from 80 to 70 kilometres an hour. There are many variables on our roads, and that is a serious problem. The criteria need to be redressed. We need to know that Multanovas are placed in and around locations at which tragedies have occurred to discourage people from speeding. However, we can never, ever take away the role of police on our roads. They are the very mechanism that drives home the message that people cannot drive while under the influence of alcohol - I hope the Government will do something about people driving while under the influence of cannabis - or without a restraint or licence. First and foremost, we need a good road network. The fact that the budget has been slashed in this way is of great concern to us. This Government is hell-bent on raising revenue through Multanova placements. Page 29 of the June-July 2003 issue of the Royal Automobile Club of WA’s Road Patrol focuses on road safety and states - The Budget bottom line is that the State Government is taking more from motorists’ hip pockets and handing back less in the crucial areas of roads and road safety. That comes not from the Opposition but from the RAC. It is critical of this Government. The article continues - It is extremely disappointing that motorists are once again being asked to carry the burden of an increased tax take.

8016 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Motorists will pay about five per cent more - or about $13 a year - as a result of increases in compulsory third party insurance premiums and stamp duties. . . . What makes these increases more galling is that, while the government was taking with one hand, it was refusing to give out with the other. At a time when the road toll is higher than last year - and rising - spending on key road safety initiatives was down. The RAC is amazed and extremely disappointed that there is no specific commitment to fund the Road Safety Strategy, I understand that the road safety strategy has been with the minister for some six months. It was supposed to go to Cabinet, but we still have not seen it. I asked the minister during the estimates hearings what was happening with the strategy, and all she could do was give me a glib answer. I take this issue seriously, as I think does everyone in this place. The question was worthy of an answer that explained what was happening with the road safety strategy. It is of major concern to all of us that after six months this minister cannot come up with a signed-off strategy. That RAC article also reads - At a time when the Government should be doing more for road safety, it is actually doing less. That is the clear perception in the community. No wonder people are cynical about Multanova placements. I seriously cannot understand why 13 speed cameras were placed on the freeway in one day. Okay - the aim may have been to catch a driver inadvertently speeding seven or eight kilometres an hour above the speed limit. I do not suggest that speeding is the right thing to do - it is not at all. The police mindset appears to be that people will drive at that speed over the limit, but they will slow down if they see the Multanova. However, once they are past that area, they will start speeding again. Maybe that is the case. However, 13 cameras were located on our freeways in one day. Why were they not in other locations? Why were they not on country roads? What does that tell the community? It states that the Government is more interested in revenue raising than it is in saving people’s lives. It does not matter how the minister tries to dress up the situation, that is the statement made. People are cynical about Governments when Multanovas are placed in that way. Speed cameras should be highly visible. Cameras have a place on our roads, but placing 13 on our freeway in one day is an absolute joke. It is typical of the lip-service this Government pays to road safety. MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin) [3.42 pm]: I support this matter of public interest. The public is greatly interested in this matter because road safety is an imperative for us all. We sometimes forget that we are talking about real people and real lives that are sometimes shattered forever and sometimes lost - we are talking about mums and dads, our children and our grandparents. I am fair dinkum about road safety. I have a background in road safety through my association with the WA Football Commission, and I have worked closely with the Road Safety Council. I am particularly concerned about the number of deaths and injuries occurring on country roads. I today put forward a couple of positive suggestions. During question time, the member for Roe asked the minister about country representation on the Road Safety Council. We heard members speak about the high number, as a percentage of population, of deaths and injuries on country roads when compared with those on metropolitan roads. My association with the Road Safety Council has indicated the importance of bringing issues relating to country WA to that body. The answer provided to the question highlighted the importance of appointing an appropriate person from country Western Australia to the council. I am happy to make suggestions in that regard. That representation is very important. Prevention is far better than trying to cure problems after the event. Correctly targeted programs can reduce accidents. The wearing of seatbelts and drivers in the 17 to 25-year age group are huge issues in country WA. I am happy to work with anyone to improve the situation. Funding for the Road Safety Council is very important - it needs all the money it can get. If we can reduce the road toll and the number of injuries, the cost to the State will be greatly reduced. I now refer to a point raised in question time today. Did the minister say that more police cars are on country roads, or was that the case only during the long weekend? Mrs M.H. Roberts: There are an additional seven cars - that is, over and above the normal number. Mr T.K. WALDRON: That is good. Police numbers are noticed more on the weekend. Double demerit points are a step in the right direction. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I drive on country roads a great deal, as do most National Party members, and police cars are rarely seen on those roads. It would be a positive step to have police cars more visible on our roads. At the same time, I realise that restraints apply. I want greater police vehicle numbers, but not to the detriment of everyday country policing. Surely some of the underspending in the police budget could be directed to the police vehicle visibility effort. This relates to saving people’s lives and the ongoing cost to the State. I now briefly refer to the condition of roads, which has a direct correlation to road safety. Approximately 65 of 110 road projects listed in the budget have been left without funding. Tragically, 56 of those 65 unfunded roads are in

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8017 regional Western Australia. Many of our roads are becoming extremely dangerous places. I will not list them all, but I will refer to a few of the many roads that need attention; namely, the Corrigin to Hyden road, Muirs Highway and the Bridgetown to Donnybrook road. These dangerous roads are major economic and tourist routes used by people of all ages. One of the greatest budget disappointments for the National Party is the slashing of funding for local roads through the local government road group scheme. I refer to local roads shared by school buses, family cars, trucks and road trains. The Government has taken more than $14.6 million from the grants program, which historically has been used by country shires for road maintenance and expansion and improvement projects. It is a critical area. The Government needs to refocus on those grants. I refer to gravel roads used by kids. It is extremely important. I also urge the Road Safety Council and the Government to trial a demerit points buyback scheme. The emphasis appears to have been placed on traffic enforcement by the police. Almost $88 million has been dedicated to the cause - it is a sizeable amount. The National Party believes that repeat offenders who have lost all their demerit points are a high-risk group. I advocate a program to change their habits, not just by using the big stick but perhaps by using the carrot and the stick. Currently, 1 808 drivers are under suspension in WA for having in excess of 12 demerit points, but the Government’s program does not educate those offenders. The National Party’s point-redemption scheme would give repeat offenders the option of undertaking a government-prescribed re-education program. This would not apply to drink or drug-related offenders, who are subject to statutory penalties. We must also teach young drivers that they are not invincible, and make them very much aware of dangers on our roads. I believe the point-redemption plan was endorsed by the Road Safety Council prior to the last election, but it has since been shelved. Mrs M.H. Roberts: That’s not correct. Mr T.K. WALDRON: It is a good program and well worth looking at. Drivers who lose 12 points have a problem. We need to help and re-educate them. If we can help 60 per cent of such drivers, maybe the road toll that we all hate will be reduced. The plan represents a partnership between bad drivers and authority. We must rehabilitate repeat offenders, not alienate them. MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland - Minister for Police and Emergency Services) [3.48 pm]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about road safety in the House because it is an area of specific priority for me and the Government. I will focus on speeding as today the arguments of people opposite have been more lacking in substance than any I have heard in this place before. I was surprised that the Opposition raised this issue in a matter of public interest today, because this Government has done more in two years to improve road safety than the previous Government did in its entire eight years in office. Speeding is not simply something naughty to do: speeding kills about one-third of those killed on our roads every year; speeding is a significant factor on both city and country roads; and speeding is a factor in one-third of all road crashes. Interestingly, people opposite say greater focus must be placed on country roads. My remarks this afternoon will highlight how the Government is more strongly targeting country areas than was the case with the previous Government. I note that fatalities in country areas comprise 60 per cent of the total number of fatalities. That figure has remained fairly constant since those opposite were in government. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the member for Carine has done the necessary homework. They presented very little evidence in the debate. I will highlight some facts and figures that should be placed on the public record. All we seem to hear from the member for Carine and the Leader of the Opposition is that they do not like Multanovas, and that they think people should have a fairer chance not to be caught by them. They also suggested that they do not like Multanovas being black. Maybe they should be multi-coloured, and people should be warned in advance; that is, people should be told when they are about to enter a speed-detection zone so that they slow down within that area. What a nonsense! The message would then be: “It’s okay to speed everywhere else, just don’t speed in the speed- detection zones.” It is quite a nonsense and undermines the Opposition’s argument on road safety. The Opposition thinks that people should be able to get away with speeding and that they should know where the cameras are placed so they do not get caught. The attitude of members opposite is that it is okay to speed and it is particularly okay to speed by a little bit, and people should not get caught or punished for it because members opposite do not like that. We have heard some nonsense from members opposite that the figures for fatalities, critical injuries and so forth this year are way up on those for previous years, when in fact they are not. Our road safety record in terms of the raw statistics compares more than favourably with the record of the previous Government. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member wants to interrupt because she does not want to hear the figures that will embarrass her and the Leader of the Opposition. What a lot of rubbish from the member for Carine. She had her chance in her speech. She repeated the same things about 13 times and had no substance to her debate. She presented no facts and repeated herself inanely. She spoke slowly and rustled documents to find something to quote to fill in time. She presented hopelessly this afternoon; she presented no argument, so how dare she interrupt me when I am about to put the facts on record. The member for Carine presented no argument, no facts and no substance. We have heard nothing

8018 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] of any consequence from her. Here are the facts. I know she does not like them because they show up the previous Government’s record very badly. In 1998 there were 223 fatalities, in 1999 there were 217, in 2000 there were 212, in 2001 there were 165, and in 2002 there were 179. The 165 fatalities recorded in 2001 was the lowest number on record and 47 fewer than the previous year. However, let us not go on the best year of this Government, let us go on the other years. Let us look at the figures for 2002 - Several opposition members interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members opposite do not like me comparing the figures from 2001. Let us have a look at the figures for 2002 and how the number of fatalities last year compares with the figures taken from when members opposite were in government. In 2002 the figure was 33 down on 2000 - the last year of the previous Government. It was 38 fewer fatalities than in 1999 and it was 44 fewer than in 1998 - members opposite were also in government in those years. That alone is a saving of over 120 lives - Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: There is no general trend downwards if we consider the figures from the time of the previous Government. During its eight years in government Western Australia went from being the State with the lowest fatality rate to the State with the highest fatality rate. Talk about people jumping in early and making fools of themselves. Earlier this year members opposite said that after three months the road toll was up by 15 deaths and if that figure were extrapolated over the whole year we would have 60 more deaths and so forth. I always caution people to be careful with statistics because the figures from a few weeks or a month here or there can make a significant difference to the outcome. We now know that as of yesterday we were two deaths up on last year’s figure, which is not good enough. I want to get the road toll figure down to less than that of last year. Being up on last year’s figure is not a good thing. However, there are fluctuations. I am very pleased that although we are two fatalities up on last year, there have been 60 fewer critical injuries than at the same time last year. In 2002 the number of critical injuries up to Monday, 3 June 2002 was 183. This year the figure up to Monday, 2 June is 123, which is a significant decrease - 60 critical injuries fewer than at the same time last year. That is a success. It is obviously not as successful as I would like it to be. I would like there to be no critical injuries and no fatalities, but the fact of the matter is that there has been a huge decrease in the number of critical injuries over the last year; that is, 123 compared with 183. The figure of fatalities at this stage could best be described as relatively static compared with last year, something about which I am not happy. Therefore, we are continuing to put in place more and more strategies to reduce those critical injuries and fatalities. Members opposite have tried to focus on a number of things. They have made allegations in the House that are not true. They have suggested that a million dollars has been underspent in that area from the police budget. They have also suggested that there has been an underspending in a range of other areas of the police budget. However, I have again spoken to the Commissioner of Police about it today and his clear advice is that there is no underspending in those areas. In fact, the budget papers do not reveal what members opposite are saying they reveal. It is quite a nonsense. The Commissioner of Police advises that the budget papers reflect a transfer of $7.4 million from the current funds to capital for the purchase rather than lease of equipment for the computer-aided dispatch and related communications system 1A and 1B. The budget figures reveal that there is no underspending. I caution people opposite to not take any notice of what the member for Kalgoorlie says about the police budget. If they want a briefing from the Commissioner of Police or the finance people from the Police Service, I am more than happy for that to be arranged. However, the member for Kalgoorlie cannot be trusted with budget figures or to represent them fairly. I commend the member for Wagin on his constructive comments about country roads this afternoon. We are now focusing more and more on country deaths. Many people will have seen on the news and, hopefully, many more will have seen on the highways last long weekend the specially marked highway patrol vehicles. They were over and above the regular presence that we would normally have on the roads over a long weekend. People know that a certain number of police cars are routinely deployed on country roads from weekend to weekend. On a long weekend we deploy more vehicles over and above that regularly high number. We have now put in place seven highway patrol vehicles that have been specially painted and signed and are an additional resource to what has existed in country areas previously. As I highlighted in question time, there have been, in my view - I think is it becoming increasingly the view of others - some difficulties with the way the Delta communications and information technology program was implemented in the Police Service and the whole concept of devolution to the local district level in which district superintendents determine their priorities. When I was in opposition I thought it was a nonsense that a district superintendent could determine whether he would have a traffic unit operating out of his district. Some districts had and maintained dedicated traffic units and others did not. That was a choice made at that level. As a consequence, in at least some of the districts a lesser priority was given to road safety. My view is that we are better off with people dedicated to that task because otherwise we run the risk of officers’ time being consumed by other policing duties. As I said at the outset, the Government has given a clear priority to road safety. During question time today I had the opportunity to outline a number of things this Government has done since attaining office. I will take this opportunity to outline more things the Government has done to improve road safety in the State. This is the first Government in

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8019

Western Australia to be totally accountable for road safety spending. I tabled a document in this House last month. When I did so I indicated that the Government intends to spend approximately $76 million in 2002-03 on road safety. That is almost double the revenue received from speed and red-light cameras. Funding for the State’s black spots has been increased by $8 million, bringing it to a total of $60 million over four years. It is designed to reduce fatalities and serious injuries at the worst parts of the State’s road network. This is the type of strategy that will help us further reduce critical injuries and fatalities. A new $2 million community grants program has been introduced for community- based road safety projects in local and regional communities. It will be spread over four years. Mr T.K. Waldron interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Yes. The Government has implemented a road awareness program, which is a $1.4 million comprehensive statewide road safety program for children, young people and their parents as an investment in the future of road safety. It is designed to complement the introduction of the graduated driver training and education system for learner drivers. The Government has introduced a pre-driver training course in high schools to improve the cognitive skills of young people before they seek learners permits. This change, coupled with the new hazard perception test, is the most comprehensive change to driver training undertaken in the past 20 years. I am sure most members of this House had a probationary period of one year when they first obtained their licences. They were not required to keep a logbook of supervised driver training, which is now a requirement for young drivers. The best research available to the Government indicates that longer periods of supervised training in the early years pays dividends in reducing the number of fatalities among that cohort of young people. The Government introduced the urban speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour towards the end of 2001. It is designed to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries on the State’s roads. When in government, the Liberal Party stalled on this initiative for a number of years. It was introduced in part, if not wholly, in other States. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: The Government has simply taken over our initiatives. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member for Carine has not been in Parliament as long as some other members and I. Towards the end of the previous Labor Government, the member for Nollamara chaired a committee that recommended lowering speed limits in suburban areas. The previous Government spent eight years talking about it. Even then, it was looking at introducing it on a piecemeal basis. It was prepared to let various local government authorities across the State opt in or out depending on whether they liked it. I was advised that would incur approximately $6 million in costs for additional signage across the State in zones with a speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour. Upon my recommendation, this Government decided to set a default speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour. It provides for a clear system across the State, not a piecemeal one in which the speed limit would apply in certain urban areas and country towns and not others. A trial of flashing lights at school crossings has also been introduced to try to improve road safety near schools. The double demerit point program has been introduced during holidays and long weekends to curb the road toll at those times. We know those are the times that people who do not normally undertake long country journeys are on the roads. They are at some degree of risk. The Government has also banned the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving in order to improve road safety. I raised that as an issue on the basis of a petition I received from students at Aranmore Catholic Primary School in 1995. I raised it in debate in this House a number of times. Again, the previous Government did nothing to implement the initiative. It was implemented in this Government’s first year. Western Australia was the last State to do so. Why? Because the coalition parties had not introduced it. I have also advocated support for the banning of vehicle advertising that depicts dangerous and illegal acts that may be counterproductive to the State’s road safety messages. Although the State spends a significant amount on road safety advertising, a significantly greater sum is spent by the manufacturers of motor vehicles in promoting their various products. It is important to counter their advertising. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is back in the House because he said he did not know anything about not endorsing the road safety strategy when his party was in government. He screwed up his face as if to ask what it had to do with him. He acted as if he was not the minister responsible for road safety. He was a member of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety. As Minister for Education, he had a role to play. He did nothing at all to advance any strategy for road safety. Mr C.J. Barnett: On what basis do you say that? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: It is fact. Did the Leader of the Opposition not attend any meetings; did he not know what was going on? The House has heard a lot of nonsense today from members opposite who have tried to portray a situation that we are at crisis point on road safety. I have been able to illustrate that this Government’s figures for the number of fatalities and critical injuries compare more than favourably with the figures of the previous Government. The figures are significantly better. I am not talking just about one, two or half a dozen fewer fatalities a year. I am talking about dozens of fewer fatalities a year for the two completed years of this Government. Critical injuries are down by 60 incidents this year when compared with the same period last year. I have cited the figures: 123 compared with 183. It indicates to me that we are going in the right direction. I also outlined to the House this afternoon the huge number of road safety initiatives that this Government has put in place. I am hopeful they will have a continuing benefit,

8020 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] particularly some of the education and training programs for learner drivers. I anticipate that we will see dividends from those initiatives for many years to come. It appears that we are having this debate because the Opposition was offended by Assistant Commissioner John Standing’s decision to place all Multanovas on the freeway last week. The Opposition does not like that strategy. The only sensible thing I heard the member for Carine say in Parliament this afternoon was when she quoted John Standing. Members have raised the issue of country involvement in the Road Safety Council and John Standing’s experience. No-one in the Road Safety Council has more experience than John Standing. He has over 30 years experience in policing. Members opposite will know that he has spent a significant number of those years in country areas. His most recent country appointment was as commander of the northern region. Under the previous Commissioner of Police, he was based in the north of the State and had command responsibility for that area for a number of years. As I said during question time today, he has a very honest approach to his job and to policing. The approach is best described as firm but fair. I do not doubt for a moment that John Standing was totally genuine about increasing the awareness of road safety, reducing the road toll and reducing critical injuries when he embarked upon that program last week. The program was not done in isolation; it was complemented by the new squad of highway patrol cars. It was also complemented by a “gauntlet” approach, as it has been called colloquially by John Standing. It involves a combination of police officers and Multanovas targeting drivers along the same stretch of road so that if offenders are not picked up the first time, they are picked up a bit further along. People who have been through a Multanova think that they can then speed to their hearts’ content because there will not be another one for a long distance, but under this approach there is another one just a short distance along the road. That gauntlet strategy has been employed previously with some success on other roads. The freeway exercise was a new initiative, and I congratulate John Standing for trying something new, and for increasing people’s awareness of road safety. As I said in question time, one thing we know about last weekend’s road toll is that neither of the two deaths that occurred was attributed to speeding. That is a very positive outcome. I am disappointed that members opposite berate the program and say that it was just revenue raising when we can point to such a positive outcome of there not being a single death due to speeding over the past long weekend. About 99 per cent of the motorists on the freeway did not have an issue, because they were not exceeding the speed limit by more than a couple of kilometres an hour, and therefore did not receive a speeding fine. Our commitment to road safety is further underlined by the fact that we double only the demerit points, not the fines, for those offences that are killers on our roads - drink-driving, speeding and failure to wear seatbelts. The member for Wagin raised the issue of seatbelts in country areas. During the Estimates Committee, his colleague the member for Roe represented the National Party on road safety issues. I highlighted to him the “belt-up” campaign that is being run in country areas. My commitment to road safety is such that I am more than happy to travel to regional areas regularly to promote that message. Only a fortnight ago I was in Geraldton promoting the campaign at a local football match. It is a country campaign, with advertising on television and radio that goes only to the country, and advertising in The West Australian that went only into the country editions. In country areas up to 30 per cent of people involved in serious crashes have not been wearing seatbelts, whereas more than 95 per cent of people in the city areas wear seatbelts. We have work to do in country areas. The chances of survival for people involved in crashes who are not wearing seatbelts are reduced by about 90 per cent. There is a significant advantage to wearing a seatbelt, and that is the focus of our current country campaign. MS A.J. MacTIERNAN (Armadale - Minister for Planning and Infrastructure) [4.13 pm]: To set the record absolutely straight, I will add a few points to the comments made by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It is true that we have seen a cut in the road budget. The Government has been very up-front and open about that. The budget papers stated that over the next four years some $200 million will be removed from that budget. However, it is important to understand that this cut has been confined to the road expansion program. Because of the Government’s concerns about safety, it has quarantined two major programs from any expenditure cut. The first of those programs is maintenance. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that maintenance of roads was going backwards, roads were not being maintained and were falling away at the edges. The Government has increased the amount allocated for road maintenance. I will provide some of the key figures. In 2001-02 $378.5 million was allocated to road maintenance. Last year that was increased to $405 million, and in the current budget, it is increased further to $432 million. The second area quarantined against cuts was funding for black spots. As the Minister for Police said, the Government has contributed an extra $8 million to that program, which is targeted specifically to safety issues. I also want to address the notion of the country versus the city, and make it very clear that an increasing proportion of the road budget is being spent in rural Western Australia. The performance of the present Government is much better than that of the previous Government, which was obsessed with the Graham Farmer Freeway and the duplication of the Narrows Bridge. In 2001-02, 48.6 per cent of the budget was spent in the metropolitan area, and 51.4 per cent in rural areas. Last year 48.4 per cent was spent in the metropolitan area and 51.6 per cent in rural areas. In the budget for 2003-04, 46.8 per cent will be spent in the metropolitan area and 53.2 per cent in rural areas. The issues being raised by the Opposition are therefore furphies. The Government in fact is increasing the amount of money being spent on road maintenance and on black spot funding. An increasing proportion of the budget is being spent in country areas. One other step the Government is taking is the accreditation of heavy haulage drivers. Western Australia is the first State in this county to introduce mandatory accreditation for heavy haulage operators, where long vehicles and road

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8021 trains are mixing with other vehicles. We have introduced higher standards for those drivers. In another first for Australia, we have begun a campaign to increase driver awareness of the needs of heavy haulage operators. We are dealing with both sides of the equation - ensuring that heavy haulage operators have higher standards, and that motorists have increased awareness. In addition, the Government has doubled the amount of money it is spending on enforcement of heavy haulage operations. Combining all these things shows that the Government’s focus on road safety has been smarter and bigger than that of the previous Government. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (19)

Mr R.A. Ainsworth Mrs C.L. Edwardes Mr B.K. Masters Mr T.K. Waldron Mr C.J. Barnett Mr J.P.D. Edwards Mr P.D. Omodei Ms S.E. Walker Mr M.J. Birney Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.G. Pendal Dr J.M. Woollard Mr M.F. Board Ms K. Hodson-Thomas Mr R.N. Sweetman Mr J.L. Bradshaw (Teller) Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A.D. Marshall Mr M.W. Trenorden Noes (26)

Mr C.M. Brown Mr R.C. Kucera Mr N.R. Marlborough Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr A.J. Carpenter Mr F.M. Logan Mrs C.A. Martin Mr D.A. Templeman Mr A.J. Dean Ms A.J. MacTiernan Mr M.P. Murray Mr P.B. Watson Dr J.M. Edwards Mr J.A. McGinty Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr M.P. Whitely Dr G.I. Gallop Mr M. McGowan Mr J.R. Quigley Ms M.M. Quirk (Teller) Mr J.N. Hyde Ms S.M. McHale Ms J.A. Radisich Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr A.D. McRae Mr E.S. Ripper

Pairs

Mr R.F. Johnson Mrs D.J. Guise Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan Mr S.R. Hill Mr M.G. House Mr J.B. D'Orazio Independent Pair Dr E. Constable Question thus negatived. BILLS Assent Messages from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following Bills - 1. Juries Amendment Bill 2003. 2. Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 3) 2002. 3. Appropriation (Consolidated Fund) Bill (No. 4) 2002. 4. Acts Amendment (Equality of Status) Bill 2002. 5. Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2002. 6. Censorship Amendment Bill 2002. 7. Public Transport Authority Bill 2003.

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION BILL 2003 Appropriations Message from the Governor received and read recommending appropriations for the purposes of the Bill.

RESERVES (RESERVE 43131) BILL 2003 Returned Bill returned from the Council with amendments. Council’s Amendments - Consideration in Detail The amendments made by the Council were as follows -

8022 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

No. 1 Clause 2, page 2, after line 3 - To insert - “ (2) This Act expires 12 months after it comes into operation. ”. No. 2 Clause 4, page 2, line 27 - To insert before “Management” - “ In addition to the circumstances set out in section 50(2) of the LAA, ”.

No. 3 Clause 4, page 2, line 27 - To delete “is revoked by force of this Act” and insert instead - “ may be amended by the LAA Minister from time to time as the Minister considers appropriate ”.

No. 4 Clause 4, page 2, lines 28 to 30 - To delete the lines. No. 5 Clause 5, page 3, lines 1 to 25 - To delete the clause. No. 6 Clause 6, page 3, lines 26 to 29 - To delete the clause. No. 7 Clause 7, page 4, after line 2 - To insert -

“ (1) The powers conferred by this section may be exercised by the LAA Minister in addition to any other powers that the LAA Minister may exercise. (2) The LAA Minister may in writing appoint the Authority as administrator of the reserve in order to secure compliance with the terms of the management order. ”. No. 8 Clause 7, page 4, after line 4 - To insert -

“ (a) the Authority, and except for the purposes of subsection (2),; ”. No. 9 Clause 8, page 5, lines 27 to 30 - To delete the clause. No. 10 Clause 9, page 6, lines 1 to 8 - To delete the clause. No. 11 Clause 10, page 6, lines 9 to 13 - To delete the clause. No. 12 Clause 11, page 6, lines 14 to 21 - To delete the clause.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8023

No. 13 Clause 12, page 6, after line 28 - To insert -

“ (3) In the event that any - (a) amendment of the management order no. I262262; or (b) appointment of any administrator, is declared invalid, then all acts carried out prior to the declaration shall be deemed to be valid and effectual as if the amendment or appointment had been validly made. ”. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 1 made by the Council be not agreed to and the following amendment substituted - Page 7, after line 5 - To insert the following - “ 13. Expiry of Act This Act expires on the second anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation. ” As members know, the Government was presented with evidence that there were continuing problems in relation to the safety of women and children living at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community and that unacceptable levels of risk are associated with that community. There have been five deaths associated with that community, and two inquiries and one inquest have been held. Another inquest is on the way. We continue to receive serious allegations from that camp about the problems facing the women and children. After the Gordon inquiry, the Government attempted through an alteration of the management order to change the structure of power that existed at the camp, but it was very clear that we could not get proper access to the individuals living at that camp because the people who visit are continually intimidated. That was made even more evident in an answer given today by the Minister for Community Development. Those who run the community made it clear in their approach to this issue and in their attitude that they were not going to change their behaviour. First, there have been continuing allegations and concerns; secondly, there has been no change in the way in which the place is managed; and, thirdly, we believed strongly that the time had come to revoke the management order to take off the site the troublemakers and to work with individual families to provide a new solution and new hope for their lives into the future. That is the background to the issue. The method the Government chose has been controversial; that is, to deal with this issue through the Parliament. We made it clear in the debate in this place not so long ago that the reason for choosing that method is that the other methodologies available to the Government would not have been able to deal with the issue in the decisive manner with which it must be dealt. They created the potential for lengthy, legal disputation and in the meantime we would not have solved the problems that are occurring at the camp. Finally, and very importantly, the Government reached the conclusion that this camp must close in the interests of the women and children who currently live there. The Government proceeded to introduce legislation into the Parliament to revoke the management order and to put in place an administrator, who would be given the power to carry out the tasks that the Government believes are needed. The Government made it clear that it could then work with the women and children in the camp about their future. It also made it clear that it would consult with the Nyoongah community about the future use of that land. The Legislative Council determined that it wanted the Bill to include a sunset clause of 12 months. Although the Government agrees with the principle of including a sunset clause, in its view a sunset clause of 12 months would not be adequate. A two-year sunset clause would be more acceptable than a one-year sunset clause for two reasons. Firstly, the Government must consult with the individual families about their future. That will obviously be done in the context of the troublemakers being taken off the site and not allowed back. That should not take too long. Nevertheless, their needs and interests will be taken into account. Secondly, and very importantly - I urge the Leader of the Opposition to consider this point - the Government wants to engage with the indigenous community about the future use of that land. Those sorts of consultations could take some time. We would hate there to be a situation in which those discussions were not complete and the status of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community was restored to that site. Mr C.J. BARNETT: There has been an extraordinary series of events. I will begin by reading from Hansard from when this matter first came before this Parliament just under three weeks ago. The Premier introduced a Bill to the Parliament without providing any advice to the Opposition or any opportunity for any member on this side of the House to discuss the Bill, let alone read it. I will quote myself, which I do not often do. Members should bear in mind that I made these comments without having read the Bill or having had an opportunity to discuss it with a single colleague from either this or the other House, including the shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I said -

8024 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

I take it on good faith that the reason for the urgency of this Bill is that the Premier has evidence of continuing abuse of children. I assume that the reason this Bill is being put through this Parliament without effective debate is that there is an urgency relating to the protection of children today. I quoted that passage because I meant what I said. I still hold to those words. Subject to much criticism from my colleagues, which I well understand, I allowed a Bill to pass through this House without debate, proper discussion, or any opportunity for members of Parliament on this side of the House to discuss the Bill and all its implications. I did so for one reason: if I interpreted the Premier’s comments correctly, he asserted that children were at risk. When I challenged him, he said that they were at risk at that moment. Mr R.C. Kucera: So they are. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not need interjections from the Minister for Health. I will always put the safety and protection of children ahead of any consideration of party politics or the passage of legislation through either House of this Parliament. In doing so on this occasion, I probably made a mistake. I took the comments of the Premier in good faith. Examples of the abuse of children were leaked to the media and described by various ministers. When those examples were scrutinised, the facts were missing. They did not stand up. There were inconsistencies. Allegations of abuse were made against particular individuals who in some cases were not at the camp at the time of the alleged abuse, or victims suffered injury or abuse outside the camp. That is where I made my mistake. I took in good faith the fact that the Bill was being rushed into the Parliament because of a matter of urgency concerning the protection of particular children at the Swan Valley camp. The examples that came out over the subsequent three weeks did not match the rhetoric. That disappoints me. The next time the Premier comes into the Parliament, looks me in the eye and asks me to put my neck out in good faith, I will not do so. Dr G.I. Gallop: I did not ask you to put your neck out; I asked you to do the right thing. What are you saying about putting your neck out? Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier will have an opportunity to speak. I will not do that again. I thought I was dealing with a crisis situation that affected the safety and security of individual children at that moment. The second point concerns the passage of this Bill, which has broken every rule of parliamentary process. This legislation has got into difficulty simply because of the way in which the Government chose to handle it. The Government introduced the Bill into the Legislative Assembly on a Thursday and it was passed without debate so that it could reach the upper House, where it could at least be subjected to some scrutiny on the following day. We believed that upper House members would at least have the opportunity to read the Bill, discuss it among themselves and enter into a debate. Even then they were rushed. Again, they agreed to do it because they accepted the Premier at face value; that there was a genuine urgency to deal with the Bill. This Bill has essentially become deadlocked between the two Houses. What just under three weeks ago was a matter of absolute priority, and which I cooperated with - Dr G.I. Gallop: No, you did not cooperate. Unfortunately, the upper House knocked it back. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Nearly three weeks have passed. Why did the Government’s Bill become deadlocked? Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: The Leader of the Opposition is in the middle of making his comments. We would like to hear more from him. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Bill became deadlocked. Nearly three weeks have passed. What has happened to the urgency for this Bill? In the intervening period, at my instigation I met with the Premier and some other members to try to resolve this issue. We were offered some legal advice, because the points and amendments made in the upper House were of a legal nature. We sought to resolve it legally. It took repeated calls and correspondence from my office to get the legal advice that had been promised. I can only assume that when the Premier and I met, the legal advice was not available. It took more than a week for it to appear. The longer this went on, the more I felt that we were not being dealt with honestly as members of Parliament. It was little wonder that emotions and tempers became raised over that. We were told that we would be given legal advice. It was not provided. Phone calls were not returned. It arrived a week or so later. Where is the urgency for this Bill? This Parliament met that urgency but the Government squandered it with the way in which it handled the Bill. Further issues were raised in the upper House. This amendment relates to the provision of a sunset clause. Extending a sunset clause from one year to two is probably sensible, because I do not think the issues will be resolved within a year. The Opposition will support the adoption of a sunset clause as recommended by the upper House and with the subsequent change to extend it to two years. Other issues were raised, such as the care and safety of children and their parents, particularly their mothers. Should the camp be closed, where will those people go? What is in place? Details have progressively come out. They were not provided initially. What provision has been made? It was suggested that the Government could already do what it wanted to do. The management order that the Premier talks about was approved by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. She has the ability under the Land Administration Act to revoke that management order on the basis of noncompliance. Why has the Government not chosen to do that? There

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8025 are issues about the future use of the land and future rights. The process put forward by the Government in the legislation would effectively confiscate the land and remove people’s rights over that land. I have no sympathy for those who have abused children and women in that camp. However, if the rights to the land are taken away, the rights of the victims will also be taken away. Did the Government ever discuss the interests of the victims? As dysfunctional as their families and lives might be, their only opportunity for the future might depend on the one piece of stability that they have. That one piece of stability might be the land at Swan Valley. That might be all they have to cling to. Did the Government think about the victims? I have no sympathy for the perpetrators. When I hear accounts - as I did this morning - of two-and-a-half-year-old girls and nine-year-old boys being raped, and of continual endemic abuse, I must repeat what I said in Parliament nearly three weeks ago: I will allow things to happen, even though they breach every rule and standard of this Parliament, if they will protect children. If that means me sticking out my neck, perhaps to the point of having it decapitated, so be it. I will stand up for and protect children. There is a legitimate issue about how to do that. I have not been satisfied that the Government has been able to answer the questions posed. When we consider the amendments moved by the upper House - the Government can use its numbers to remove them - I will seek explanations from the Premier and his ministers. If the Premier wants this Bill to pass, albeit three weeks later, I will seek specific assurances from him and his responsible ministers, who have been very much missing in action on this issue. They are very big on delivering weekend media stunts, but are very weak on the detail of how they will care for and protect those Aboriginal children. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a very disappointing speech from the Leader of the Opposition. The Government has put all the facts about this issue on the table - so much so that we believe Hon Derrick Tomlinson, MLC completely altered his position on it after we gave him the facts about what was happening at the camp. There is no question about the Government putting all the facts on the table. Those facts came to the Government through the heads of various departments. We have been absolutely open and transparent about those facts. Every time the Leader of the Opposition has asked for information on this issue, we have given it to him. We have provided him with the legal advice given to us that indicates that the amendments moved in the Legislative Council by Hon Peter Foss make the legislation completely unworkable and gut it of its implications. We have given all that information to the Leader of the Opposition. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition continues to try to play politics with this issue and treats it as though the Government is trying to deal with the issue in a political way. We are dealing with it in a serious way, which is why we have chosen the course we have. That is why we have introduced our legislation. When the Government introduced this legislation, I explained that we knew it would be controversial. However, we had to adopt that course of action, otherwise this issue would have been locked up in endless litigation and legal argument. The Leader of the Opposition and the community know that, which is why we took this decisive action in the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition’s comments indicate that he does not understand this issue properly. The question of people being at that camp and not being at that camp was the very issue raised at the inquest into the death of Susan Taylor. People come and go from that camp. Unfortunately, when they go there, they are subject to great risk. For all sorts of reasons, there are a lot of transient people at that camp. That is the very point the coroner made about this issue. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition uses that as a criticism of the Government, when we are responding to the very problem that exists at that camp whereby people who come and go from it are subject to risk. That is the difficulty that exists. The coroner and the departments have pointed that out. That is why action must be taken. The time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to treat this issue seriously. He should stop playing politics with it and let us get on with it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will not rise to that bait. If there is one person in this Parliament who has not played politics with this issue, it is I. The Premier might grin, but I have not put out weekend media releases, called press conferences or made outrageous statements on this issue. I have tried to act in the best interests of the children and their mothers at the camp. The Minister for Police may interject. It is a pity she did not get closer to the issue. I give great credit to Hon Derrick Tomlinson because he visited the camp over the past couple of weeks. He spent some time there talking to as many people as he could. It is true that he made some comments on television that attracted some criticism of him from all quarters. However, he listened to and engaged with the people. Dr G.I. Gallop: He was 100 per cent wrong. Mr C.J. BARNETT: He will have an opportunity to speak on this matter when this Bill returns to the upper House. He made a number of comments to me this morning, to which I will refer later. The Premier referred to Hon Peter Foss. During the debate on this Bill in the upper House, Hon Peter Foss pointed to legal issues with this Bill. Effectively, it takes away people’s access to natural justice in the courts. It is significant when a Parliament takes away people’s rights. Surely Parliament and the House of Review should examine that. What is wrong with doing that? As Hon Peter Foss pointed out in the upper House, this Bill will inevitably be seen to be discriminatory. It discriminates against a particular group of people who happen to be Aboriginal indigenous Australians. No matter what the Government might seek to do about natural justice, there will be a legal opportunity to pursue this issue under the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. The Government and this Parliament cannot

8026 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] deny people’s rights to that. They are the types of points Hon Peter Foss pointed out. He suggested some ways in which the Government could proceed without going down that dead-end path, which would end up in all sorts of litigation. As we go through these amendments, I will seek from the Premier and his ministers - if they are able or capable - an explanation of why this should be done, because I am not convinced that it is the right thing to do. Dr G.I. Gallop: We explained that last time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Government has not convinced this Parliament. It is all right for the Premier to sit there and say that he has already explained it. However, the Premier, who has handled this Bill, has not mounted a strong enough case to get it passed in the upper House. The Premier must accept the reality that this Bill failed to get through the Parliament. That is the reality with which the Premier must deal. I will offer the Premier something - why I do it again is beyond me - Dr G.I. Gallop: Are you offering me something on behalf of the Liberal Party or on behalf of the Legislative Assembly? Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier should sit there, listen and show some courtesy, if not to me, to this Parliament. Dr G.I. Gallop: Speak. You have a right to speak, so speak. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Sit and listen. The Premier might learn something. This Bill will go through the Parliament if the Government can provide some assurances. The Premier and his ministers will have an opportunity to do that in this debate. We will seek assurances about the current welfare and long-term safety, security and accommodation of the residents of the Swan Valley camp. We will seek assurances about how they will be dealt with, managed or assisted right now and what their long-term prospects will be. After all, what is this issue about if it is not about the women and children and all the innocent people in that camp? If the Premier provides those assurances, there will be a better than even money chance of getting the Bill through the upper House. Some people will object to it, but the Government must provide those assurances. The Premier must tell Parliament how he will deal with the land issue. Earlier I suggested that this Bill should be split. It should deal with the immediate issue; that is, the safety of the women and children at the camp and the issue of abuse. Then, later, in a more reasoned environment, the Government could deal with people’s entitlements and rights to land. I remind the Premier that, essentially, this reserve was created for the benefit of Aboriginal people. There is a history of people camping on that site. Under the previous Government in 1994, Hon Kevin Prince, as Aboriginal affairs minister, granted this reserve for the benefit of Aboriginal people. People began camping on that site in 1977. In September 1994, a crown land C-class reserve for the use of Aborigines was granted, and so the history continues. The Premier is now asking the Parliament to legislate to take away those rights. Dr G.I. Gallop: It is not a right. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier should tell that to the Aboriginal people who have camped and lived in the Swan Valley. He should tell the kids who were born in that community that they do not have any rights. They have rights, and the Premier cannot deny those rights by legislation, even if they are forced to use the Racial Discrimination Act or whatever else to defend those rights. The Premier is bound to provide an assurance that the welfare, care, safety and protection of those people will be guaranteed. He is bound also to tell us how he will set up a fair and proper process for resolving issues relating to the rights to that land. I have no sympathy or time for Mr Bropho and some of his sons. However, I have time and sympathy for the people, most of whom have been victims at one stage or another, who genuinely consider that camp their home. They have rights. Even if the camp is closed and they never return, they have a legitimate right to be involved. The Premier wants to legislate to take away their rights. I could not imagine anyone legislating to take away the rights of an Anglo-Saxon group within our community. The Premier is asking this Parliament to do an extraordinary thing: confiscate rights on effectively a discriminatory - by race - basis. I will not get hung up on that issue - Dr G.I. Gallop: It is not a correct description. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier may have a different view. That is exactly how the Aboriginal people see it. Dr G.I. Gallop: No, they do not. They support us. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Not the people who have written to me and who have spoken with Hon Derrick Tomlinson. Dr G.I. Gallop: The Aboriginal community supports us in what we are doing. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier will be able to speak. The Premier will get this Bill through Parliament if he can give an assurance about the immediate care, welfare, safety, protection and housing of the people living in that Swan Valley community, both now and in the long term; and - if he has not already done so - if he devises a fair and proper process for giving those people a legitimate say in what happens to that land and their rights. The Premier has my support when he acts in this Parliament to take away the rights of people who commit crimes against young children; however, in this

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8027 case he is also taking away the rights of people who are victims. Why should they suffer any more than they already have? Mr P.G. PENDAL: I am not sure that I understand what we are doing. However, if I do understand correctly, I am not sure that we are going about it the right way. I do not have any problems with sunset clauses. In fact, sunset clauses have a healthy use when the Parliament wants a piece of legislation to have a finite life. As I understand it, the one thing the Government and the Opposition have agreed upon is that the legislation we are being asked to pass today will have a sunset clause attached to it. The Opposition in the upper House said that such a clause should come into effect after one year, and the Premier has indicated to us that the Government can live with a sunset clause, but that it must come into effect after two years. I do not have a worry with sunset clauses, but I am concerned that if we insert into this Bill a sunset clause that provides that in two years the legislation will be a dead letter, we will then be in a position in which the pre-existing law will apply. The Bill before us will revoke management order No I262262, which places the reserve in the hands of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. If the effects of this Bill are removed by virtue of a two- year sunset clause, the revocation of the management order will not have any further effect. Therefore, on this occasion the Government’s resorting to a sunset clause will not only be ineffective but also do the opposite of what is intended. The Government might have been better off with a review clause that provides that the legislation must come back to the Parliament, which then determines whether it wants it to continue. It seems that a sunset clause will do precisely the reverse of what the Government hopes to do. The use of a two-year sunset clause means that we will in effect set aside the revocation of the management order, and that property would under law revert - Dr G.I. Gallop: No, it does not. Mr P.G. PENDAL: Hold on - Dr G.I. Gallop: Don’t you want me to respond? Mr P.G. PENDAL: Yes, I want the Premier to respond, but I do not want him to respond in the way in which he responded to the Leader of the Opposition. Dr G.I. Gallop: I thought it would be good to deal with the issue quickly. It is not a problem because of the Interpretation Act. Mr P.G. PENDAL: Would the Premier please be quiet? We do not want to deal with this quickly because we mucked it up three weeks ago. One of the few contributions I made three weeks ago was that if we did it that way we would muck it up. Dr G.I. Gallop: How have we mucked it up? Mr P.G. PENDAL: We have mucked it up in the sense that, three weeks later, the Government is left with nothing. Dr G.I. Gallop: That is the fault of the upper House. Mr P.G. PENDAL: If the Premier really wants some cooperation, he might take a bit of advice from the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier’s job is to justify the legislation. Not only the Opposition but also other people took the Premier at face value three weeks ago. I happened to be one of them. I supported his Bill. However, many of the things I have seen in the three weeks since make me feel that I should not have supported the Bill. That is why I do not want the Premier to interrupt me while I am speaking. He can use his own five minutes. I have a basic question. I know that sunset clauses are good. However, I think that in this case the use of a two-year sunset clause will return us to the status quo. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: The amendment to the amendment made by the Legislative Council relates to a sunset clause. I will allow the Premier to respond to the member for South Perth about the effectiveness or otherwise of a sunset clause. We raised the issue of intent in this place some three weeks ago. We asked what would happen once the administrator was appointed. The Premier can say this afternoon that he has been open and above board with all the information. However, very little information was given to this House on the afternoon of Thursday, 15 May. That is particularly so when we consider what has been disclosed over the past couple of weeks. Dr G.I. Gallop: Give an example. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I refer to the legal advice and the management plan. When the Premier was asked what would happen to the families - Dr G.I. Gallop: I answered that fully and comprehensively. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: What did he say? Dr G.I. Gallop: I said that we would work with each of those families to find an appropriate place for them. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Yes. The point was whether the camp was to be closed or kept open. Dr G.I. Gallop: It will close.

8028 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: When was it going to close? What was the time frame in which it would close? Contradictory remarks have subsequently been made. We were told that it would happen quickly, and then told that it would happen not so quickly. We support an extension of the sunset clause from 12 months to two years because in the past couple of weeks we have learnt that the departments want time to deal with the families that are left behind. Did the Premier tell us that? Dr G.I. Gallop: That is right. That is what I said. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: No, he did not. Dr G.I. Gallop: Yes, I did. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: He did not tell us anything of the sort. Dr G.I. Gallop: You obviously were not here. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I was here and I asked the Premier the question. Dr G.I. Gallop: You obviously were not listening. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I asked him the question. Dr G.I. Gallop: I answered it. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This Premier is not serious about dealing with this legislation in a bipartisan way. If he were serious about it, on the Monday the Cabinet approved the drafting of the legislation he would have rung the Leader of the Opposition and said that there was a major problem. He would have said that he, or someone in his office, needed to sit down and go through the issue with the Leader of the Opposition. The legislation was still being drafted and the Premier said, “We can’t give it to you. Let’s aim for a briefing time.” The Opposition aimed for that briefing: it was to be at 11.15 on the Thursday morning of the day we were to debate the legislation. Was the legislation available? No. The briefing was cancelled because the legislation was not available. If the Premier had been serious about this matter, he would have dealt with it in a bipartisan manner. He was not serious. He was more interested in improving his public profile and going out and beating the drum. Mr C.J. Barnett: He told the media before the Parliament. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Indeed. The same happened with the legal advice. The media received the legal advice before the Leader of the Opposition. If the Premier were serious about this matter, he would have done more work over the past couple of weeks. He is only interested in a public relations campaign and presenting a good profile. Mr P.B. Watson: You’re making it into a political football! Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: No, I am not. Go back and think about it. Several members interjected. Point of Order Mr P.G. PENDAL: Over the past three months, the Speaker has insisted that there be no cross-fire interjections to the point that members cannot hear debate. I ask for you to rule, Madam Acting Speaker, that members making such interjections desist or leave the Chamber so the rest of us can listen to what is taking place. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms K. Hodson-Thomas): I thank the member for South Perth. I ask members not to interject. We are in consideration in detail on a very important issue. Debate Resumed Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: This is exceptional legislation. It is probably one of the most exceptional matters with which we have had to deal in this Parliament, and we are asked to do so in a short period. Usually with such legislation, ministers bend over backwards to work with the Opposition to get the legislation through. Ministers provide as much information as possible, and any amendments sought are worked through. I have been in this place long enough to know when a minister or a Premier is serious about an issue. That has not happened on this occasion. I suggest that the Premier has been disingenuous in this matter. Child abuse, sexual abuse and domestic violence is happening not only at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I would like to hear more from the member for Kingsley. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: What will the Premier do about all the other allegations involving other Aboriginal communities in Western Australia? Dr G.I. Gallop: Have you read our response to the Gordon report recommendations? Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Yes, I have. Dr G.I. Gallop: There’s my answer.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8029

Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: What is the Premier’s answer? What will he do? Dr G.I. Gallop: I’ll tell you in a minute. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Good. I am not sure the Premier remembers what he will do. He has been interested in public relations and the glossy publications. What about the other incidents in the camps around the metropolitan area and around other parts of Western Australia? I questioned the Attorney General during hearings of the Estimates Committee two weeks ago. Department of Justice officers outlined that $1.4 million is allocated to the Aboriginal reconciliation unit. Mr Alan Piper, the Director General of the Department of Justice, visits Aboriginal communities where issues of concern arise; obviously, I refer to issues of a justice nature - child abuse, sexual abuse, physical violence, domestic violence and other such issues. I asked Alan Piper through the Attorney General whether he had visited the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. His answer was no. He had visited many other communities with serious issues, but he had not visited, or been asked to visit, the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I suggest that the Opposition took this legislation on good faith on 15 May. That good faith was abused in a number of ways. First, the Premier was not entirely honest in dealing with the measure appropriately; otherwise, he would have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition straight after discussions in Cabinet. The Premier rushed through the legislation on the basis that it was urgent. The Opposition took the Premier’s word, and the Bill was sent to the Legislative Council, which had a little more time - although not much more - than that available to members of this House to deal with the legislation. Members of the upper House pointed out some flaws in the Premier’s legislation. Dr G.I. Gallop: Which ones? Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: We will go through each of the amendments one by one, and ask the Premier to satisfy the House that each amendment is not good. Until the Premier comes back to the House in 12 months, the Opposition will remind him every day of every week of every month that every Aboriginal child who is being abused will be the Premier’s problem. If the legislation passes through Parliament, it is the Premier’s legislation and his problem. Dr G.I. Gallop: And you are not going to play politics with the issue! Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: We will allow that to happen because, at the end of the day, the Premier has not been honest with the Opposition and the Parliament. What did the Premier say to Legislative Council members? He said, “If you don’t pass the legislation, the next step is on your head.” That is what the Premier said, through Hon Tom Stephens in the upper House. Dr G.I. Gallop: I thought you said that I said that. Are you going to retract that? Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Is the Premier the Government? That was said to members of the Legislative Council. I take my hat off to members of that place. At least they have pointed out flaws in the legislation. If the Premier were smart, he would look at the matter seriously instead of playing politics with it. However, the Premier suggests that the Legislative Council is playing politics; he says that Chamber has no business or right to question the Government’s legislation: “We are the Government - how dare they question us!” Upper House members have pointed out flaws in this contentious and exceptional legislation. It is the Premier’s responsibility to ensure this matter is dealt with properly, and that the families involved are dealt with with sufficient care to ensure they are looked after and protected. People must be properly consulted over the next period. I do not expect the matter to be dealt with in months. It will take time. Therefore, two years is the appropriate sunset clause, rather than 12 months. This issue must be dealt with sensitively, and not in the way the Premier has dealt with it to date. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I add a brief further comment to those of the member for Kingsley. This measure is about children and women in particular. If the Bill passes, which it may if the Opposition receives the assurances - Dr G.I. Gallop: That’s a pretty strong guarantee from the Opposition. Does that mean you don’t have a position on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier just lacks grace, does he not? We are talking about a two-and-a-half-year-old girl being raped, and we are talking about the potential for children to be murdered - bodies yet to be found. Is that right? Dr G.I. Gallop: That’s right. Mr C.J. BARNETT: We on this side of the House are not playing politics; I assure the Premier of that. Dr G.I. Gallop: You’ll not guarantee to support the Bill. You just told us. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I said a little while ago that the Opposition seeks assurances on the care and protection of those people. Dr G.I. Gallop: You’ll get those. Mr C.J. BARNETT: We are waiting on those. Also, I seek an account of how people’s legitimate rights in respect of that property will be handled. The Premier asks this Parliament to overrule their rights. No other group in society has arbitrarily had rights legislated away. However, that is a secondary issue; the child safety issue, the issue of the safety of individuals, comes first.

8030 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

The Premier has said that the Bill will be used to close the camp. The Premier or the administrator could close it now; nevertheless, the Premier chooses to act in this way, only because he fears legal action. There will be legal actions in any case - that is certain. I ask the Premier a question. The Premier says he will close the camp. The Opposition hears from officers with agencies involved in this matter. They contact us, sometimes informally and sometimes over the weekend, to outline that their greatest chance to protect the children and women in the camp is to first stabilise that community in the best way they are able. To do that, those professionals are saying that those people will be better off if they are left on the site. We will have more of a chance of dealing with them and providing support, care and assistance if they are left there. If the decision is then made to close the site, we can progressively move them into other accommodation. To move them out and scatter them around the metropolitan area may place those children at even greater risk and in more danger than they are now. That is the sort of legitimate question that members of this Parliament can ask. Has it been decided to close the site immediately or to move the people out gradually? The professionals, the law enforcement agencies and the members, the supporters and the people who have associated with and have a knowledge of the community - both past and present - all have the common message: the kids are at risk and they have been abused, which is totally unacceptable, but it does not allow for a simplistic solution. We are dealing with 35 or 50 people in this camp and the best way of assisting them might be to leave them where they are. I remind members that many of those young children were born at that camp and have grown up there. They might have been abused - probably the majority of them have been - but the camp might be the one piece of stability left in their lives - Mr A.J. Carpenter: What sort of stability is that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Not the sort of stability that anyone in this Chamber would understand. If we scatter those families throughout the metropolitan area, the ability of the Department for Community Development or indeed the Police Service to protect those children and women may be lessened. They may be more at risk in an open community than in a camp from which the potential offenders have been removed. This needs to be thought through logically. It is all very well to say that the camp will be closed - that sounds good and gets a good media run - but will it actually help the people or will it put some of them at greater risk? It may well do the latter. Ms S.M. McHALE: In response to the member for Kingsley, I will comment on what we are doing about domestic violence and child abuse. By now a report should be on the web site that provides an update on the status of the implementation of those recommendations six months post the Gordon inquiry report. If it has not yet been released on the web site, I will personally give the member for Kingsley - who is interested in these matters - a copy of it so that she and members of the Opposition can see the progress and where the implementation is at. This year we will construct three multi-function police stations in remote Aboriginal communities, one of which will be the Kalumburu Aboriginal community. We will appoint an Aboriginal support worker who will work closely with Aboriginal communities throughout the State. We will work intensively with families who we know are at risk and are dysfunctional, and they will be supported by about 11 additional intensive family support workers. We will also provide additional safe houses in the metropolitan area and regional Western Australia. The Government is implementing the recommendations of the Gordon inquiry in a significant way. In 2003-04 we will see a dramatic improvement in the quality of services on the ground. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Have you actually been to the Swan Valley site? Ms S.M. McHALE: No, I have not, but my staff have. In relation to the accusations made against the Premier, he has been absolutely passionate about and committed to dealing with child sexual abuse, particularly in Aboriginal communities. He had the foresight to set up the Gordon inquiry. We knew at the time that it was not going to be easy, because when an inquiry like that is set up, it highlights the problems and deficiencies in the system. We also knew that we would have to respond significantly. Mr C.J. Barnett: Have you met with people from the camp? Ms S.M. McHALE: Yes, I have. Mr C.J. Barnett: How long ago? Ms S.M. McHALE: I have communicated with them in the past 12 months or so. My staff meet with them and they are at the camp on a regular basis. I will also comment on the process of managing the families, in particular the women and children. Once the Parliament approves the decision to close the camp, the agencies involved - primarily the Department of Housing and Works, the Department for Community Development, the Department of Health, the Department of Indigenous Affairs and the Police Service - will act. They are on stand-by with designated staff who will work with the women and children. Our approach to this issue is that, essentially, we need to engage the families from the camp and involve them in the decisions made about their lives. Clearly, the decision to close the camp is the decision we want. The decision then to work with the women and children will be the priority. The staff are ready to go and they will work and engage with the women in determining what is the best environment for them in which to feel safe and protected. Those people do not see the camp as being a safe and secure environment.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8031

The Premier raised an issue that needs reaffirming. We are particularly concerned about the children who come and go from the camp, because their safety is particularly at risk. They usually live elsewhere but have runaway from home and gone to the camp - they do not live there permanently. We have a strategy to manage the rehousing, relocation and safety of these women and children. It will be a concerted approach by all the agencies involved, including the Police Service. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Three weeks ago when this Bill came to this House I asked the Premier what other options had been considered and what arrangements had been made about accommodation. The Premier stated there were other legal options and that they would be time consuming. I was given to believe by one of the ministers that if the Bill did not go through on that day, there could be another death in the camp to which I would have contributed. Dr G.I. Gallop: Rubbish! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: It is no good the Premier sitting there and saying “rubbish”. The Premier should ask the Leader of the House - he is not here at the moment - because he told me there could be another death if I did not support the Bill and asked whether I wanted to live with that on my conscience. Emotional blackmail was used here three weeks ago when this Bill was passed. The Bill should have sat on the Table - like any other Bill - and it should have come back to this House after members had had the opportunity to look into the issues. The Minister for Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth just said what a wonderful job the Premier did with the Gordon inquiry. What happened to the recommendations of the Gordon inquiry? I have been told that soon after the inquiry finished a member of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community wrote to the Government to develop one of the recommendations from the Gordon inquiry; that is, a memorandum of understanding. Where is that memorandum of understanding? It is not here, Premier, yet someone from that community wrote to the Government soon after the Gordon inquiry finished to ask about that. What are the other options? The Premier has said that this is a select community that must be dealt with. He has said that abuse has been happening there for a while and that he wants to protect the women and children. What other options has he considered? Has he talked to members of that community in the past? Has he had someone say to them, “I have heard there are problems here. Would you like accommodation elsewhere? Can we give you assistance elsewhere?” Has the Premier asked for an Aboriginal trial to be held by the Aboriginal elders to sort out the problems? No, nothing like that was put to that community. I have been told that the Friday before this Bill came to Parliament the Premier had a meeting with the Ministers for Health, for Community Development and for Indigenous Affairs, and Mr Mick Gooda from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The Friday before it came to this House! That was one week beforehand. The Liberal Party was given notice only the day before. There was no time that day to consult with the Aboriginal community. Since then, I have consulted with the Aboriginal community. Members of that community have admitted that there may be some problems and that they would like to see the problems resolved. However, they do not want them to be resolved in the way in which this Government has moved. Other Aboriginal communities have problems as well. They have asked why their community is being targeted. What is the hidden agenda? I believe that in 1995 the coalition Government offered to give the land freehold to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The community thought that, as the land was part of a reserve, it was safeguarded. I have been advised that the adjoining land is owned by the Disability Services Commission and that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community was meant to have first option on purchasing it. I have also been advised that the Government has pegged the adjacent land in order to sell it. If the Government gets the community off the reserve, it will receive a much higher price for the adjacent land. Members of the Aboriginal community are very concerned about the hidden agenda. Mr P.B. Watson: The community knows you are right behind them! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: I advise the member for Albany that members of that Aboriginal community have told me there are problems in various areas. The land involved is possibly quite valuable. What will happen to the land in 12 months or two years? I have been told that the land will not be used for accommodating the Aboriginal community. Ms S.E. WALKER: I am pleased that the Premier has taken up my suggestion to insert a sunset clause in the Bill. The Premier is nodding his head now but he did not at the time; he argued with me about eight times over the point. I will go over my argument for the sunset clause. I have difficulty with the denial of natural justice and other rights that will be taken from people as a result of this Bill. Page 7908 of Hansard shows the discourse between the Premier and me when the reserves Bill came on a few weeks ago. I asked whether the clauses of the Bill denying natural justice applied only to the removal of the 25 persons or whether they would apply indefinitely, as that would create a different situation. Bearing in mind that other people will be allowed on the reserve, I asked how long the denial of natural justice would be enforced with sections of the Aboriginal community. The Premier would not back down, no matter how many times I raised the point that the powers would be given indefinitely. That was my concern. I asked that a review or sunset clause be included in the legislation. I am pleased that such a clause has been put in the Bill. I thank the members of the upper House for pursuing the issue and for the Premier coming to his senses. To take away such rights from people indefinitely is draconian. The Leader of the Opposition and the members for Kingsley and Alfred Cove have raised the issue of the haste with which this Bill was brought on. It reminded me of children who approach their parents. When they want something,

8032 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] everything is urgent. As a consequence, the parents come to believe it is urgent. They say, “I need $10 - if I do not get it, X will happen.” It is the same situation. The Opposition took this issue on in good faith. Since my time in Parliament I have seen a lot of dodgy things go on. I am very serious about child sexual abuse. I was a crown prosecutor and have taken victims through the criminal justice system. I have seen what it can do to people. I have seen the dreadful things that can happen to children. It is why I voted with the Government on the Bill. I now wonder about the Premier’s seriousness. I hope that the Government will follow through on what it says about Aboriginal people. I have seen a lot of window-dressing by the Government and a lot of quick-fix solutions. It is not providing long-term solutions. As an example, I refer to a situation in Onslow that shows a failure to implement the recommendations of the Gordon inquiry. Police in the town are concerned about the endemic child abuse. No Department for Community Development officer is permanently appointed in the town to assist with the problem. In the town today, 19 children aged between seven and 14 years wandered about when they should have been at school. Since the start of the year, 40 Aboriginal juveniles have been charged with offences including breaking and entering, stealing and wilful damage. One case allegedly involves an 11-year-old who broke into a hotel to steal alcohol. A nine-year-old girl has been wandering from house to house in the town since Easter looking for food while the police try to locate her family. Will the Premier ask his minister to do something about this? Will he do something about it? Last week in Onslow, a 12-year-old girl and a 14-year-old girl, who were also homeless, had to get assistance from the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army had to find a family to take the children. They had been left alone in the town. The Salvation Army had to step in because the Department for Community Development could not come up with any money. Is this Government serious? That is why I asked a question of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs during question time today. Will the Premier look into this and show how serious he is? I will ask a question later this week to see whether the Premier has moved on this matter. I will find out from the people in Onslow. I want to see long-term solutions to child sexual abuse. I do not believe the Government is seriously committed to providing those solutions. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier, this legislation is taking away basic human rights. It is not constitutional and the community is within its rights to take this matter to the federal Government to challenge what the State Government is doing. I know that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community is very concerned at the way in which the Government has brought this Bill before the House. It may ask the federal Government to conduct a royal commission into the State Government’s actions. The community does not trust the State Government’s motives in singling it out. The Leader of the Opposition said that health and safety are the first priorities. He also asked what would happen to the land. Many people are very interested in what the Government is planning to do with the land and the adjoining land. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms K. Hodson-Thomas): Order, members! I am finding it very difficult to hear the member. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In introducing this Bill, is the Premier trying to isolate some of the functions that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community performs? The larger picture of urban Aboriginal issues is discussed at meetings on the Swan Valley site. Aboriginal elders from the metropolitan area meet at the site to discuss heritage issues throughout Perth. We know that the Government had a change of policy. The Premier said there was a change of policy in selling off community assets. What about Aboriginal heritage? Some members of that Swan Valley Nyungah Community have caused difficulties for this Government on Aboriginal heritage issues. As well as looking for accommodation, will the Government also provide a place where Aboriginal elders can come together and discuss heritage issues? The community is very concerned, and is wondering what the Government’s hidden agenda is. Everyone accepts the issues of the health and safety of members of that community, but as members of the Opposition have pointed out, those issues are not confined to the problems at the Swan Valley camp. We are not in this House to legislate to take away rights. If there are problems, we should be legislating to assist those people. It was said in the upper House that if those people were not moved out into the community, there would be a death. Will the Premier give an assurance that, when these people are moved out of this community, there will be no deaths? He cannot give that assurance; no-one can give that assurance. People may die in the compound, but Aboriginals also die outside the compound. I have been told that there is a tavern in Belmont where firing practice takes place, and seven people have died in the past few years. We have not seen legislation about that. Why are we legislating to take away basic human rights rather than putting resources into that community? Maybe some money can be given to the Law Reform Commission to assist that community to look at its own methods of justice; to deal with the problems within the community rather than imposing what this Government feels is wanted. Ms S.E. WALKER: I will respond to the assertion of the Minister for Community Development that the Premier is passionate and genuine about dealing with child sexual abuse in this State. She said, once again, that there would be three multi-function police stations and some Aboriginal support workers. We have also heard that the budget will provide for child protection workers, some of whom will be posted in the regions. There are 800 people in Onslow, 400 of whom are Aboriginal. I understand that 18-month-old children are wandering around in nappies, without their parents. I am not exaggerating. I want the Premier to look at this.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8033

Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA: On two occasions I have listened to the member for Nedlands talk about something that has no relevance to the legislation. What happens in Onslow is not a matter to be dealt with by this Bill. It is time the member returned to what we are discussing today. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms K. Hodson-Thomas): The minister is quite correct. We are in consideration in detail, and debate must be relevant to the amendment before the House. We are dealing with amendment No 1, which states - Clause 2, page 2, after line 3 - To insert - (2) This Act expires 12 months after it comes into operation. I remind the member to keep her comments relevant to the question before the House. Debate Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER: The Minister for Community Development spoke on that issue, and I am responding to what the minister said about child protection workers. No child protection workers in the new batch are going to Onslow. They are going to Karratha. Point of Order Mr A.J. DEAN: Again, it is a question of relevance. Just because the minister probably broke the standing orders does not make it legitimate for the member for Nedlands to do so. I request the Acting Speaker to direct the member to be relevant. The ACTING SPEAKER: I remind members to keep their comments relevant. The member has been on her feet for only a short time since I ruled on the last point of order. I now provide her with the opportunity to speak to the amendment before the House. Debate Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER: I refer to the Premier taking up my suggestion to insert a sunset clause into this Bill when the matter was last before the House. I commend him for that because, when we were debating this legislation, I talked about some of the problems with the Bill, and the general problem of child sexual abuse. I am talking about the Gordon inquiry and its recommendations, which are all bound up in this issue. The sunset clause is proposed by the minister and the Premier to implement, in some way, the recommendations of the Gordon inquiry. I am querying whether that is the genuine purpose of the sunset clause. The Premier says that the sunset clause will give the Government time to remove the perpetrators from the community and deal with the abuse of women and children in the community. I question the sincerity of that intention, based on the failure of the Government to send any child protection workers to Onslow. Tom Price will get one for five hours a week. Mr A.J. Dean: That is drawing a long bow. Ms S.E. WALKER: The member for Bunbury does not want to hear about it, but he will hear about it. There will be another worker at Roebourne, which is three hours away, where there is endemic child abuse - Mr A.J. Dean interjected. Ms S.E. WALKER: If the member for Bunbury cares about this issue, he should be a man and get to his feet and talk about it. I ask the Premier to ensure that a child worker goes to Onslow. He can find the funds for one vote, one value, but can he find the funds to send a child protection worker to Onslow and show that he is, as the Minister for Community Development said, passionate and genuine? I do not see that coming from the minister. She cannot even find the time to go to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to look at an issue within her own portfolio. She has a chauffeur-driven car, and she cannot even go there to look at what is going on. She says that this Government is passionate and committed. I do not think it is. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Can the Premier enlighten me as to what section of the Bill tells us that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community will actually close down once the legislation has been passed? It is a very genuine question. I have just read through the Bill and I cannot see it clearly. Dr G.I. Gallop: We will deal with that matter when we discuss the amendment about the revocation. We are dealing with the sunset clause at the moment. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: It is up to the Premier, but it was a genuine question. Dr G.I. Gallop: I know it is, but we will deal with that issue when we come to that heading. I am quite happy to answer the question then. The member should look at his amendments, and raise his question when that matter is reached. I will respond then. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will respond to some of the points that have been made. If it makes the members of the Opposition feel good to say that the Government is insincere, and that I am insincere on this matter, then so be it. I hope it makes

8034 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] them feel good to say that. If it makes the Opposition feel good to say that there is some sort of hidden agenda, then so be it. The Government is serious about this issue, and it has demonstrated its credentials. I advise the member for South Perth that the pre-existing management order that is currently with the Swan Valley Nyungah Community would not come back. He can be assured that, should the sunset clause come into operation after two years, ownership and control would not revert to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. Mr P.G. Pendal: What is the basis for saying that? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Interpretation Act. I will be quite happy to go through that with the member. I am advised that, under the Interpretation Act, that would be the situation. It would not revert to the previous arrangement. Mr P.G. Pendal: Does that refer to section 37? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Yes; the member is spot on. To the Leader of the Opposition, who is seeking commitments on the care of the women and children, the Government gives that assurance. I did that when the legislation was introduced. I went through the details with him at the meeting we had. The Minister for Community Development also backed that up with her comments. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Government will consult with the indigenous community on the future use of that land. There is no hidden agenda. The land will be reserved for Aboriginal purposes, which will be worked out in consultation with the community. I will correct the Leader of the Opposition on one point. I am advised by my staff that the Leader of the Opposition received the legal advice midday on Wednesday together with an offer to receive a further briefing. The media received the advice late on Thursday for Friday’s media. The notion that the media received that advice before the Leader of the Opposition is not true. The Government is committed to the Gordon inquiry. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have 190 per cent faith in the Minister for Community Development in the discharge of her duties. I work with her within the Government. I know what she does. I know what she says on this issue. I have absolute faith in her ability to advise the Cabinet on these matters. The Government instigated the Gordon inquiry and has responded to it. It has provided $75 million over four years, 25 new child protection workers, 15 new Aboriginal liaison officers, domestic violence police liaison officers in each region - Ms S.E. Walker: Window-dressing. Are you sending any to Onslow? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Oh! The Government has also provided nine new multifunctional facilities in remote locations. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms K. Hodson-Thomas): Order, members! I will have no hesitation in formally calling to order any member, on either side. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Government is also providing up to $20 million over four years for flexible funding, which is being negotiated with the indigenous community. They are some of the initiatives. The Government will work with those communities. This problem will obviously not go away tomorrow. I am sure that opposition members will come into this Parliament over the next couple of years with some examples of issues. The Government will have to respond to those questions when they arise. The Opposition is playing a silly game with this legislation. The Opposition obviously has problems in its ranks on this issue; there is deep division and it is having difficulty sorting it out. That is fair enough; we understand that. However, we should get down to the nitty-gritty of this issue. The fundamental problem has not been solved, because this legislation has not passed through the Parliament. I hope we can solve it. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Government will look after the interests of the women and children at that camp. I explained that to him in our meeting. The Minister for Community Development explained that in the Parliament. The Government will work with each family to deal with that issue. Some services will be provided for them. The Government is working on the expectation that the word hope might come back into their lives rather than the devastation that they currently face. We should treat this issue free of the normal toing-and-froing of this Parliament. The Government has offered advice to, and consulted with, the Opposition. The Opposition has been given the Crown Solicitor’s legal advice on this matter. We never received that courtesy when the Opposition was in government. There is no insincerity or hidden agenda. The Parliament of Western Australia is being given the opportunity to do something for a change about child abuse, domestic violence and the denial of human rights, which occur in our community. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. The ACTING SPEAKER: The question now is that the substituted amendment, to insert new clause 13, be agreed to. Mr P.G. PENDAL: Firstly, I thank the Premier for the explanation he gave on why a sunset clause would not do what I feared it would do in relation to the Interpretation Act. I would like an answer to a second question. Why is the Government agreeing to a sunset clause if it will not affect either the management orders that are issued by the minister under the Land Administration Act or the revocation of those management orders? What is the purpose of providing a

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8035 two-year sunset clause if it will not apply and restore those revocation orders, which is the point about which I was previously concerned? There is presumably another reason for introducing the sunset clause. For example, does it relate to the issue of natural justice, which we will deal with later, or the question of appeals? I want the Premier to put on the record why the Government has agreed not only to a sunset clause but also to double the length of the sunset clause proposed by the other House. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The answer to that question relates to the dialogue that occurred between the member for Nedlands and I when we first discussed this Bill. This legislation proposes to give the administrator extraordinary powers in relation to this piece of land. When this Bill was first debated in this House, the member for Nedlands asked how long those powers would continue. I said that they would continue indefinitely. By introducing a sunset clause, the administrator’s powers and his relationship with this block of land would not be indefinite. The Legislative Council put forward a reasonable proposition; however, the Government would like it to be a two-year sunset clause rather than a one-year sunset clause. Amendment put and passed. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 2 made by the Council be not agreed to. This amendment relates to clause 4 of the Bill. If agreed to, the management order would not be revoked. That is a basic problem for the Government. The member for Kalgoorlie will have a chance to speak on this issue. Clause 4 provides for the revocation of the current management order under which the Swan Valley Nyungah Community Aboriginal Corporation is the management body. The amendment proposed by the Legislative Council would mean that the management order would not be revoked but could be amended from time to time by the minister responsible for the Land Administration Act. This would mean that legal uncertainty would continue. In fact, there would be greater uncertainly than currently exists under the Land Administration Act. That is why the Government proposed this legislation in the first place. This amendment is not acceptable. The Government does not understand the reasoning behind the Legislative Council’s going down this track. Revocation is the way to go because it provides for certainty on this issue. It would allow the Government to put in place an administrator, who would be in control and would have the power to remove troublemakers from the site. We could then work with individual families about their future. From the Government’s point of view, this amendment would mean that the legal uncertainty would continue or increase. Therefore, it cannot support the amendment. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I am a little confused. When this Bill spilt over into the public arena, the debate that ensued commented on the Government’s wish to close the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I have had a relatively good look through the Bill but cannot find anything that provides for the closure of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The Premier indicated that clause 4 would provide for the closure of the community. However, clause 4 takes the management of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community away from the current managers and places it with the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority. Therefore, it follows that this Bill does not necessarily have a provision to close the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. Rather, it confers powers upon the administrator, as the Premier just said, that would permit him or her to remove troublemakers from the community. I wonder whether the Premier might tell us specifically where the closure of the community is provided for in the Bill. I can see only a provision in it for the transfer of the management of the community. I am sure I am wrong, but I am interested to know how and why the community can be closed. Dr G.I. GALLOP: This land is currently in the control of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community through its corporation. As the member knows, the previous Government put in place that management order. The precondition for closing down the camp is to gain control over the camp. The way that can be done is through the revocation of the management order and putting in place an administrator, who, as we have indicated, can then remove the troublemakers and deal with the future of individual families. The answer to the member’s question is that the legislation provides the framework to facilitate that. From our point of view, it is the only way in which we can realise that objective. The member is right: the legislation does not have that element in it, because it deals with the legal situation that would allow it to be done. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I thank the Premier for that explanation. Will the administrator be directly responsible to the Government and, if so, through which minister? Will the Government give instructions to the administrator to close down the Swan Valley Nyungah Community? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I explained this the last time we debated the issue when some members raised concerns about the role of the administrator. I said then that the administrator would be under the direction of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs because that minister is the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority. That administrator would be accountable to the minister and the minister would be accountable to the people through this Parliament. Some concerns were raised about the administrator. The administrator is subject to that accountability. Mr M.J. Birney: Will the administrator be subject to directions from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? Dr G.I. GALLOP: We will put the administrator in place to do the job that we require, which is to take the troublemakers off the site and create a situation whereby we can deal with the future of the women and children of the

8036 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] camp and to close down the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. I point out to members opposite who say we are not sincere - which is fair enough; that is party politics - that we have been talking to potential administrators about planning to this end. One of the points the potential administrators make is that, because they have had experience in dealing with these issues, unless they have the types of powers that this legislation would give them, they will not take on the job. An administrator in the eastern States spent all his time in court. He could not do anything because legal action was taken against him. It is important that the administrator is provided with the appropriate powers. In answer to the member for Kalgoorlie, the administrator will be accountable through the minister. The minister is the ultimate authority and will set up an arrangement with the administrator about what must be done. We aim to close down the community and to have that land used for Aboriginal purposes other than the purposes for which the Swan Valley Nyungah Community currently uses it. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: By interjection, will the Premier tell me whether the administrator will be subject to direction from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? If so, will the Minister for Indigenous Affairs direct the administrator to close down the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Obviously, we want the administrator to enter into a contract to do a job. That contract would need to clearly outline the nature of the job. We would expect the administrator to administer the land in the same way a statutory authority is administered. Ultimately, if the administrator does not act according to the contract, the minister could take action. It is not intended that the minister would operate the day-to-day affairs. If that were our intention, we would not have included the administrator in the legislation. The idea is to devolve that power to the administrator to carry out that function. Mr J.H.D. DAY: This debate is primarily about protecting children, women and other vulnerable people in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The only debate is about how that can best be done. There is no argument that it is not necessary. Many people in the community and in the Opposition have raised serious concerns about whether that will be best achieved by breaking up the community and dispersing it elsewhere as opposed to removing the alleged offenders from the site. The Government must consider a range of issues, which I hope it has thought about. A constituent, who has detailed knowledge of the site, has asked me to raise the issue of what will happen to the animals that belong to the families on the site. I understand that about 20 or 25 dogs live on the site. I am advised that they are well looked after and have been sterilised and so on. What assurance will the Premier give that the animals, particularly the dogs present on the site and which are part of the overall community, will be provided for? Will they be provided with appropriate accommodation or will they be able to remain with the families they are used to being a part of? Will the Premier give an assurance that they will be properly looked after? Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the member have any Homeswest units in his electorate. Mr J.H.D. Day: A few. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member knows that the housing authorities deal with those issues daily. The matter would be dealt with under that basis. Also, the Dog Act regulates the responsibilities people have for their dogs. A mixture of the Dog Act plus the usual processes of dealing with family pets is the basis upon which this issue will be dealt. Mr J.H.D. DAY: That does not reassure me. Those provisions are in place. However, in effect, the Premier is saying that people will be removed from the site and will most likely be placed in Homeswest accommodation, in which they do not currently live. Therefore, the Premier is implying that they will not be able to continue to keep their dogs. No- one has suggested that somebody should live in a Homeswest residence and be allowed to own five dogs or whatever. However, some appropriate, compassionate, decent and humane arrangements must be put in place to look after the animals properly but which also take into account the sensitivities and needs of the families in which the animals have been housed and have grown up. The Premier should not dismiss the issue in the way he just did. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I am not being dismissive. My point is that the State Government’s housing authorities and private tenancies deal with this issue daily. The matter will be dealt with sensitively. That is the point I was making. The member must acknowledge that the issue of who owns each animal and how they are dealt with is very particular. I can tell the member only that the matter will be dealt with sensitively, as it is every day of the week. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I do not want to labour this point; however, the Premier said he intended to close down the Swan Valley Nyungah Community after the passage of this legislation under powers of the administrator. The powers of the administrator are clearly set out in clause 7. Dr G.I. Gallop: We are revoking the management order. Therefore, the Swan Valley Nyungah Community will no longer have control over that land. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: That is right; the administrator will have control over it. It is the Premier’s view that the administrator will close down the community under his direction. The powers of the administrator are clear. They are set out in clause 7 and refer to the authority of the administrator to direct a person not to enter the reserve. It also refers to the removal of people from the reserve and those sorts of things. The clause does not say that the administrator has the power to close down the reserve. Clause 5(1) states -

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8037

The care, control and management of the reserve are, by force of this Act, placed with the Authority for the same purpose as that for which the relevant Crown land is reserved . . . I cannot see how the Premier can close down the community. The administrator’s role is set out clearly and does not include a provision for closing down the community. Clause 5 says that the land must be kept for the same purposes of the current reserve. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.00 pm Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Before the dinner suspension the Premier was about to respond to the issue raised by the member for Kalgoorlie with regard to the management order and any direction that the administrator may or may not receive about the closure of the camp. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I was simply making the point to the member for Kalgoorlie that the Swan Valley Nyungah Community exists because of the management order that has been made. Our legislation seeks to revoke that management order. However, as a result of the amendments that were made by the Legislative Council, that situation has been changed. We find that unacceptable. If we are to close down the Swan Valley Nyungah Community we have to take away the legal authority that exists for people to be on that land, and of course that is provided by the management order. That is precisely why we intend to revoke the management order. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: To some extent we are dealing also with amendment No 3, because amendments Nos 2 and 3 are linked, so I will deal with them together, if I may. The Premier has indicated that according to the legal advice that has been received in respect of amendments Nos 2 and 3, we will have greater uncertainty if we go down this path as opposed to using the current power of the minister to revoke the legislation. As Hon Peter Foss said in the Legislative Council, because the minister currently has the power to revoke the management order, the Government does not need to enact legislation; and that is, in fact, the effect of this amendment. Why will there be greater uncertainty because of these amendments, when all that these amendments will do is put the Government back into the same position that it would be in if we did not have clause 4 in any event? The reason that the Premier has given for going down the path of legislation and revocation is that the Government does not want to have that challenged in the courts. What would have been the basis for challenging the revocation of an order made under the Land Administration Act if the minister had proceeded down that path? Dr G.I. GALLOP: As I think I indicated when we first debated this matter, the Government could have proceed down the path provided by the Land Administration Act. We could have argued that the management order is not being carried out properly, or alternatively we could have argued that the revocation is in the public interest. Although we believe there are sound arguments for both of those propositions, those propositions could have been challenged and we could then have gotten into a situation of lengthy legal argument. We acknowledge that we have chosen an extraordinary method to achieve this end, but we believe it is based on a good understanding of the realities of the situation and of what we need to do to deal with situations in which tyranny prevails in a particular organisation. That is basically the reason that we have chosen the legislative route as opposed to the alternative. We acknowledge that this is extraordinary and is not something that we would do in the Parliament every day of the week in respect of management orders over blocks of land in Western Australia. However, in this case we believe it is the right way to go. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: For what reasons did the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure not want to go down the path of revocation without legislative backing? Was it because the management order that was in place from September-October last year had not been given sufficient time to be worked through? Was it because the draft management plan that was submitted and that was agreed to by the departmental heads was not sufficient to meet the needs that were outlined in the Gordon inquiry? Was it because the departments felt that they could not work with the leaders at the camp to put in place a proper management plan? Was it because the Government did not think it could go back to the Aboriginal community and say this plan is no good and it wants it to do this, that and the other? As the Premier acknowledged on the last occasion that we debated this matter, none of the agencies has actually raised with the Aboriginal community the concerns that the departmental heads have raised with him. My concern is that the Premier has not given sufficient natural justice to this Aboriginal community at this time. Therefore, I want to know for which of those reasons was it decided not to go down that path. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The answer is twofold. First, the attitude that was being expressed by the Swan Valley Nyungah Community leadership was hostile, and that meant that regardless of what the rules were - and of course they had changed as a result of the actions of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure - the spirit of those rules would not have been taken into account in respect of individual presentations of government officers at that site. That was a very important consideration. Secondly, we had to deal with the ongoing complaints that were coming forward. I have mentioned that there have been 10 complaints. Each of those complaints related to people who gave this camp as their address. We had to deal with that issue as well. The attitude that the community was showing and the ongoing concerns that we had meant that revocation was the way forward. If we had had revocation without legislation, experience indicates that that could have been a very lengthy and complex process and would not have delivered the results that we wanted; or even if it could have delivered the results that we wanted it would have taken a long time to do it.

8038 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Ms S.E. WALKER: I understand what the Premier means about the attitude being hostile. He said that there were ongoing complaints and that there were 10 complaints. That is more information than the Premier gave us last time. I am not trying to catch out the Premier. What sorts of complaints were they? Will the Premier give us some detail of those complaints? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will deal with what happened post-Gordon inquiry. In December 2002, the Department for Community Development visited the camp. It was allowed to enter, but controls were put in place about where a child was to be interviewed and who would be present. The child was interviewed in an open space. That was a most inadequate situation in terms of privacy and getting out the truth. In March 2003, the Crisis Care Unit was contacted by the camp about a domestic violence incident. In April 2003, the police picked up a young person. They were concerned about returning that person to the camp. There was a suspected problem of drug taking. In April 2003, a 13- year-old female was removed from the camp. Allegations regarding safety were involved. In April 2003, a young person sought help to escape from the camp. In March 2003, two people indicated concern for their safety. In March 2003, allegations of substance abuse were presented to the department. In March 2003, the police reported young persons sleeping in the parks, and substance abuse was an aspect of it. In March 2003, there were allegations of domestic violence, and the police removed a person. In November 2002, a family was subjected to abuse, and again in November a similar allegation was brought forward. They are the sorts of allegations that were coming forward. As the member knows, there will soon be an inquest in the Coroner’s Court into the death of one of the former residents of that camp. I believe the member would have read in the media of the case of the young woman who is currently being protected because of the intimidation that emanates from people at that camp. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Do the complaints that the Premier has received about the camp apply to both sexes, because in the House today we have heard only about complaints in relation to the women and the girls; we have not heard anything about the boys? Dr G.I. GALLOP: As I am advised, the complaints relate to young people, be they young men, young women or children, and they also relate to women. Young men and young women have been subjected to abuse, and allegations have come forward following that. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Before I ask my question, I want to correct a name I mentioned. Earlier I referred to a member in the other place making a comment to Hon Norman Moore. I said it was Hon Tom Stephens when in fact it was Hon Kim Chance. I checked the Hansard, and I apologise to Hon Tom Stephens. Issues were raised in the Legislative Council about the flaws in the legislation that had been identified in a legal sense, and a number of matters were referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. Has the Premier sought legal advice about whether these clauses, if not the Bill as a whole, contravene the federal discrimination legislation? Dr G.I. GALLOP: That issue has been raised, and we have sought advice on it. Of course, we can never say that someone will not submit such a claim to the courts. However, the judgment of the Government is that this legislation is not racially discriminatory. As the member knows, we are dealing with the interests of women and children. We are preserving the land for Aboriginal purposes. In no way, shape or form does our legislation affect any native title right that may or may not exist in respect of the land. Therefore, from our point of view, nothing could lead to a claim of racial discrimination. However, we cannot guarantee that someone would not bring forward such a case. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not think it is a point of native title; it is to do with the Racial Discrimination Act - federal law. It is nothing to do with native title at all. Dr G.I. Gallop: As you would know only too well, given that you were in a Government that passed racially discriminatory legislation, the native title approach of your Government, when you were in power, was challenged in the courts and found to be racially discriminatory by the High Court. This does not affect native title. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, so why did the Premier raise native title? Dr G.I. Gallop: Because it is a racial issue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, there is a thing called the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. Dr G.I. Gallop: That is right. If someone were discriminated against on the basis of his right to land, that person would be subject to the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. However, we are not doing that in this legislation. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Hang on. The Government is passing legislation that specifically takes away people’s rights in respect of that land, and the criterion is one of race. I am not saying that is the intent. Dr G.I. Gallop: It is not the intent. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier can listen. I am not saying that is the intent. The people in that community happen to be Aboriginal; they have dark skins. They will have lost their rights. The application of this is racially based. There are many other examples of abuse of children, often within the one family. If, for example, the Premier were made aware of a case in which a white father was abusing, say, his daughter, would he confiscate the property? No. The Premier should not shake his head.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8039

Dr G.I. Gallop: You are missing the point. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, I am not missing the point at all. The problem the Premier faces under the Racial Discrimination Act is that he has legislated in this way in relation to an Aboriginal community, and on any test of consistency he will not find a precedent or an example anywhere of similar legislation against anyone else who is guilty or accused of the same offences. Dr G.I. Gallop: Can I interject? Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, the Premier cannot. As horrendous as the abuse of and the crimes against children are - there is no dispute about that - in this case legislation against an Aboriginal community is to be put in place that has not been put in place against other individuals, institutions or organisations, when again there have been examples of abuse of children. Dr G.I. Gallop: You are inconsistent. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier can get up in a minute. Dr G.I. Gallop: I like a bit of debate. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier can get up and debate it in a minute. I am not arguing the point. My point is simply that this action against the abuse of children has one thing that distinguishes it from any other action against the abuse of children, and that is a racial connotation, because it happens to be an Aboriginal community. The Premier cannot produce examples of similar action being taken against any other institution or individual. The point I am making - I am not arguing it - is that that is why the Premier is prone to attack under the Racial Discrimination Act, and that is the flaw in the legal process he has gone through. That is the point. Dr G.I. GALLOP: No, the Leader of the Opposition is totally wrong in his argument. He came into this Parliament earlier and asked why I did not go down the path of seeking to revoke the order itself, without resorting to legislation. By the Leader of the Opposition’s logic, that would be a racially discriminatory thing to do. By his logic, every time an Aboriginal person is evicted from a home because of bad behaviour, that would be racially discriminatory. I believe the Leader of the Opposition’s argument is flawed. Mr C.J. Barnett: You revoke the order because it is not complied with. That is not discriminatory. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition’s argument is flawed. We are dealing with the rights and interests of women and children. It is a complete red herring for people to raise the issue of racial discrimination in respect of what we are trying to do. It is like someone raising that issue when Homeswest, according to its own rules, evicts someone who has behaved badly and does not fit the requirements of the tenancy he has. It can occur in many different situations in our society. It is a complete red herring to raise the issue of racial discrimination. We are protecting the interests of the women and children. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is not what the members of the community are saying. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will respond to that interjection. That is not the case. We have strong support from the community. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has made it very clear that it does not see this as a racial issue. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I am sure the Premier recognises that some Aboriginal members of the community support this legislation. There are also some members of the Aboriginal community outside the Swan Valley community who do not support this legislation. Therefore, there are very mixed views within the Aboriginal community itself. Dr G.I. Gallop: Overwhelming support. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I do not think the Premier can say that unless he has taken a referendum of them. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.D. McRae): I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. It is absolutely okay in the course of consideration in detail for members to have some interaction with their comments and the intent that they are pursuing. However, it is not okay to have a four-way slanging match, such as that which has just erupted. If members manage the debate themselves, I will not have to get to my feet. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: Earlier I raised the issue of whether legal advice had been sought about whether this amendment and/or the legislation itself might infringe the federal Racial Discrimination Act. In response, the Premier said that it does not deal with native title and that Homeswest does it every day. If that argument were followed, it also would be discriminatory if the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure had revoked the management order under the Land Administration Act. That is simply not the case. There are certain circumstances under which the management order can be revoked under section 50 of the Land Administration Act. The reason the Government has brought forward this legislation is that it does not want to go back to the court and have it challenged; that is, for noncompliance with the management order, no consent or the various other provisions within section 50. Therefore, there would be an

8040 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] opportunity to challenge the revocation order in the court. That is the reason the Government has brought this forward. It could be interpreted then as discrimination; that is, it does not give that Aboriginal community the opportunity to question or even challenge the Government on that revocation order. If we add to that the fact that the Government appointed an administrator who could toss people off the land without question, without the opportunity for natural justice and without the opportunity of judicial review, in its entirety we might find a totally different scenario. That is a totally different issue from Homeswest evicting people on a daily basis. People have an opportunity to question eviction orders. We are putting forward an entirely different scenario in this legislation. I am not arguing that this legislation is or is not contrary to the federal Racial Discrimination Act. I am saying, though, that members in the Legislative Council have identified some very serious flaws in this legislation. One of the flaws may very well be that it infringes the federal Racial Discrimination Act. The question I asked was whether the Government has sought legal advice on whether this Bill infringes the federal Racial Discrimination Act. Dr G.I. GALLOP: As I said, we discussed this matter with our legal advisers and their view was that the legislation would not be subject to a successful case on racial discrimination grounds. We cannot say that someone will not come forward and do such a thing. However, I will take members back to the issue. The issue is: will we or will we not deal with this issue; and, if we will, what course of action will we take? Either we want to close down the camp or we do not. If we want to close down the camp, we must look at all the implications of that, we will have to make a judgment about the sort of people we are dealing with and we either have to be serious or not. Members opposite can argue these points. I suppose it is the role of the Opposition to argue these points. I strongly urge members - Mr P.G. Pendal: What do you mean you “suppose” it is? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I think that it is also the role of Parliament to protect women and children, but I suppose I am a bit silly thinking that! Some members of the Opposition, the Greens (WA) and some Liberal members in the Legislative Council have acted in a way that has given tremendous support to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. It has legitimised that community. It has made it harder for us to deal with this issue. That is their choice; that is their decision. They can do that. However, I come back to the reality - either we are serious or we are not. Members opposite can argue the legal niceties. We cannot guarantee that no-one will take up a case. We will never know how a case will go in the courts. However, this legislation is not motivated by racial prejudice. This legislation is motivated by - Mr C.J. Barnett: I never said that it was. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Why, then, is the Leader of the Opposition raising the issue? Mr C.J. Barnett: We pointed out the fallibility of the legislation and that it may fall foul of the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. We are asking you whether you took that into account in drafting it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have said that we did take it into account. Of course we took it into account. Mr C.J. Barnett: You just implied that you did not, because if you had, you would not have drafted the Bill in this way. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is the sort of comment we might expect from the Leader of the Opposition. We know exactly why we drafted the Bill in this way - to deal with the issue. We need to deal with this issue once and for all as a community. Unless we do, we will be letting down a lot of people. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In relation to this clause and the length of time, the Premier has stated in the House today that there is no hidden agenda behind this Bill. When this Bill was put on the Table three weeks ago, it had the support of the House because it was seen to address the concern for the women and children in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. People believe there is a hidden agenda, but I do not see where the Bill states that the land will be retained by the Aboriginal community. Although the Premier has stated that in the House, where is that guarantee provided within the Bill? I know that in the past what has been said during debate has not necessarily applied after an Act has come into operation. I would appreciate it if the Premier could assure me that the land will be retained by the Aboriginal community. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Even though that does not come under this clause, I refer the member for Alfred Cove to clause 5(1), which states - The care, control and management of the reserve are, by force of this Act, placed with the Authority for the same purpose as that for which the relevant Crown land is reserved and for purposes ancillary or beneficial to that purpose. Those purposes are Aboriginal purposes. The member can be assured that that is not just our aim; it is preserved by the legislation that that land will be used for Aboriginal purposes. Mr C.J. BARNETT: This amendment effectively relates to the revocation of the management order. I am curious about the process that has taken place within government. Neither the Minister for Indigenous Affairs nor the Minister for Community Development has visited the camp. That is a fact. Dr G.I. Gallop: It is neither here nor there.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8041

Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier might say that, but I think it is relevant. I expect that the minister with prime responsibility for Aboriginal affairs - Dr G.I. Gallop: Do you think the Minister for Police should visit the Coffin Cheaters? Get real! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think the minister with carriage of indigenous affairs in this State should have visited the community - Mr A.J. Carpenter: Why - to legitimise the criminal activity that is going on there? Mr C.J. BARNETT: No. Mr A.J. Carpenter interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is about doing the job. Mr A.J. Carpenter: The Leader of the Opposition would not know because he has never actually done it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Some parts of the job are easy and joyful and some parts are hard. The job of a minister is to get involved - whether it be pleasant or unpleasant - and deal with the issue. The Minister for Community Development has particular responsibility for the protection of children in this State. If the issue is the horrendous abuse of children, the Minister for Community Development should have found the time to visit the community and talk to people. Mr A.J. Carpenter: You have no idea what you are talking about. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The minister may say that. I put on record that we did not expect the answers we received today. I did not expect to hear that neither the Minister for Indigenous Affairs nor the Minister for Community Development had visited or talked to the community over a 12-month period. Although they are the two ministers with prime responsibility for these issues, there is a third minister. It is the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Mr A.J. Carpenter: Why not the Attorney General or the Ministers for Police or Health? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am talking about the issue in this Bill. The issue in this Bill relates to a management order. Mr A.J. Carpenter interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.D. McRae): Minister for Indigenous Affairs! Mr P.G. Pendal: We cannot hear you, Mr Acting Speaker. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If the member for South Perth wishes to make a point of order, he should stand up and draw my attention and I will listen to him. He must not interject and suggest sotto voce that I should be taking some action. Mr P.G. Pendal interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for South Perth to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Under the structure of the reserve it is a fact that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure agreed to the management order that applies to the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. She did so as recently as October 2002. In agreeing to the management order, did the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure consult with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for Community Development or the Premier? It was not very long ago; it was only six months ago. A senior minister of the Government agreed to the terms of the management order. I do not necessarily criticise that decision but I do criticise the fact that we have this Bill before the Parliament to revoke the management order agreed to by a senior minister six months ago. I pose the question: why did the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure not revoke the management order, for which she had the power? If there was concern about the legality of that and court challenges, why did the Government not do that first and, if necessary, introduce a Bill to confirm those actions? Why did the Government leave it up to the Parliament to do something that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for Community Development and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure were not prepared to do in their ministerial roles? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition must have missed the initial debate because I explained that the Gordon inquiry recommended a new memorandum of understanding with the community. The Government took on board that recommendation. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure had the responsibility to carry it through. In fact, she visited the camp at the time to try to put the management order in place. Does the Leader of the Opposition know what happened? It became very obvious to us that our best efforts made absolutely no difference to the attitude of the people at the camp. It made no difference to the potential risk to the women and children at the camp. That is when the Government decided to go down this route. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure should have revoked the order first. Why did she not accept her responsibility as a minister to revoke it? Three ministers have dodged their responsibilities, refused to act as ministers, and, to coin the expression of one of my upper House colleagues, left it to the Parliament to do the dirty work the ministers would not do themselves.

8042 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Dr G.I. Gallop: That is ridiculous. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier might say that but ministers get paid a lot of money to do a job. Some of the job is hard. If the Government formed the decision that the camp had to be closed and the management order had to be revoked, the ministers and the Premier had a clear responsibility to act as ministers and revoke the management order. If there was an issue of legal challenge, they would have been on far firmer ground to bring a Bill before the Parliament to confirm the action instead of taking action ahead of any action by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Where is the minister? She is missing in action. The Premier may laugh and snigger. It is all he does. He does not answer the question. He has two ministers with prime responsibility who have not visited the camp. Mr R.C. Kucera interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Health! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier has another minister who, almost tangentially to her ministerial responsibility - Mr A.J. Carpenter interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure happens - almost tangentially - to administer the reserve. It is not her policy role; she does not have one in indigenous affairs or in the abuse of children. Because of the way the Land Administration Act is structured, responsibility falls to her. I would have thought she would have sought advice. If the view in government was that certain conduct and behaviour was unacceptable and the management order should be revoked, she should have done that at a minimum. She should not have shirked her ministerial responsibility. If there was further legal doubt, she should have run the gauntlet of bringing it to Parliament to confirm her actions. She failed to act. I do not criticise her personally for that. I criticise the two ministers sitting opposite for failing as ministers within Cabinet to act. It is all very well for the Premier to sit back, throw the matter to Parliament, and cry foul when it runs foul. That is what has happened. The Premier has effectively handed over the administration of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to the Opposition in the upper House for three weeks. It may have been resurrected today, but by no means has the Government received any credit by its actions. Dr G.I. GALLOP: When my Government decided to go to the Parliament rather than pursue the revocation of the management order through the administrative processes of the Land Administration Act, it made the assumption that there would be some goodwill from the other side on this major issue of public policy. Despite all the argy-bargy in the Parliament let us hope that it will remain a valid assumption. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: When this Bill was first introduced, the Premier stated that the Government had done so in consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Will the Premier elaborate on how ATSIC sees this Bill being used to assist it and the Government in other areas that may be subject to similar complaints? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I believe the member for Ningaloo raised this in the debate last time. The Swan Valley Nyungah Community has been the subject of a lot of controversy for a long time. Five deaths are associated with the camp. There have been two inquiries and one inquest. Another inquest is on the way. This legislation deals with that camp. I explained what the Government is doing in response to the Gordon inquiry in other parts of the State. I had a very good meeting last week in Kalumburu with the local community. We discussed the police presence that will go to that location under my Government. It will allow people in that community to deal with some of these issues. This is being done throughout Western Australia. Communities are telling the Government that they want a police presence to deal with their law and order problems. It is a bit rich for the Opposition to criticise the Government on this issue. The Government consulted with ATSIC. The Leader of the Opposition would have heard the comments of its representatives in Western Australia. They go like this: firstly, they will now stand up and fight against child abuse and violence against women in Aboriginal communities. They have joined with the Government to that end. Secondly, they made it clear that they did not view this legislation as being racially motivated, but rather as defending the rights of women and children. Thirdly, they went to the Liberal Party and the Greens (WA) and made it clear that they supported this measure. They have been very vocal, and it is wonderful that this sea change of opinion has occurred in the Western Australian Aboriginal leadership, to fight against these issues rather than accept them. In the past, whenever anyone raised them, they were accused of racism, but now the Aboriginal community is saying that it is not about race, but about protecting people. There are some excellent leaders out there now willing to accept their responsibilities, and they have come in behind the Government on this matter. We consulted with them, because we thought it was important that they knew what we were doing. Mr P.D. Omodei: Did you consult with them while you were in Malaysia? Why did you not call Parliament back? Dr G.I. GALLOP: That was a very poor interjection, and I am very disappointed the member for Warren-Blackwood made it. Last week I was proud to open a lecture theatre at a Western Australian university’s campus at Miri in Sarawak. I named the lecture theatre after Harry Perkins. When the deputy chief minister spoke about Harry Perkins, he had a tear in his eye. I was proud to be there to recognise a great Western Australian. That was a very poor interjection by the member for Warren-Blackwood.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8043

Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: This is my final question to the Premier on this Bill. Although this Bill identifies and deals with a problem in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, if there are problems in other areas, will the Parliament go through similar debates to this one in six or 12 weeks for other areas? Did the Government and ATSIC consider that issue? I would have thought it more appropriate to have more general legislation if there is a problem that is not applicable to just one community. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Government has begun a very long and complex process of dealing with child abuse in Aboriginal communities. It has committed $75 million over four years. It is working with each community. Each community has a different range of problems. We are trying to get safe houses in place and we are upgrading the violence unit at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, which refers victims and their families. We are working with indigenous communities to come up with new ways of dealing with some of the causes of these problems. This year at the public sector management awards, the Premier’s award for the best public sector initiative was won by the Department of Indigenous Affairs, for preparing a video to educate indigenous people about these issues, in a style and a language the community would understand. This will be a long and complex process, but the Government is going through it systematically and putting the money in place to do it. The concept of a right cannot be considered independently of the concept of a responsibility. It makes no sense to give anyone a right unless it is accompanied by responsibility. We cannot expect people to be responsible if we do not give them rights, and at the same time we cannot confer rights without responsibilities. The previous Government allowed the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to manage this land, but it was not an open-ended offer. Responsibilities went with it, to make sure that a proper management structure was in place, and that the women and children there could realise their full potential. Five deaths have occurred, which is extraordinary. The Leader of the Opposition shares the concern about that. It was a State Government decision to allocate the management of a particular piece of land to a group. The group was given that land on the basis that it would care for it properly, and care for the people who lived there. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has said that it has been a failed experiment. The Government must come to grips with that and move on. Mr J.H.D. DAY: No-one seriously challenges the desire of the Premier or the Government to protect women and children at the Swan Valley community, or anywhere else for that matter. Equally, no-one on the government side should question the desire of the Opposition to do exactly the same. The only debate is about how best to do it. The Government has made a decision for reasons that are not fully explained. I seek an explanation of why it is necessary to move everybody out of that camp - both the suspected offenders and the women and children. There is no debate that the suspected wrongdoers should be removed. The Opposition has agreed with that all along. That was the effect of the Legislative Council’s amendments, and would still be able to be achieved. However, we have not had a good explanation so far of the reasons it is necessary also to remove, in a short space of time, all the other residents of the site. It is a crucial issue. As I understand it, police and Department for Community Development staff have concerns about the community being broken up, and the fact that stability will not be provided for families if they are all moved out in the near future. Further, as I understand it, the police and Department for Community Development staff would prefer to have the ability to investigate suspected allegations of criminality with the innocent people still in their home environment. The Government has made a decision that everybody will be moved out, and seems to threaten the ability of the police and DCD staff to adequately investigate serious matters. Can the Premier provide a good explanation of why it is necessary to move everybody out in a short space of time? It seems to be counter to their best interests, based on much of the information we have been given. Dr G.I. GALLOP: First, on no occasion has the Government used the term “in a short space of time”. We have said that we will be sensitive to the needs of the people concerned. A sunset clause that limits the legislation to two years has already been passed. We will be working with the individual families to meet their needs. I made this point last time: the Government will not push people out on the street. We will work with those families, but the troublemakers will be removed from the site. The Government has made that very clear. The assumption of the member for Darling Range about the time frame is wrong. Mr J.H.D. Day: What is the Government’s time frame? Dr G.I. GALLOP: It will be as long as it takes to deal with the interests of those people. We cannot put time frames around this issue in a way that treats people in an arbitrary fashion. They should be treated according to their needs and interests. I found the member’s second point a bit strange. I thought he might have been saying - I hope he was not - that it is much better to have all these people on the one site because it would be easier for us to police the problem. Mr J.H.D. Day: I was not saying that. Dr G.I. GALLOP: What was the member saying? Mr J.H.D. Day: I was saying that no-one doubts that the wrongdoers should be removed forthwith, but there is an argument that the other people - women and children in particular - should be able to stay on the site for a longer time, so that they can be stabilised with the assistance of DCD employees and police, and so that serious concerns can be properly investigated.

8044 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is exactly what I said in the first part of my answer to the member’s question. As to the second point, we do need to close the camp. It has failed; let us be honest about that. It is a failed social experiment; it cannot deliver. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have answered that question. Mr M.J. Birney: What was the answer? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The answer was that we are going to work with all of the communities throughout Western Australia. I was in Kalumburu last week and I have explained that the community will see a police presence for the first time and that police presence will be available to assist in dealing with law and order problems. We will work with communities all over the State, according to their needs and interests. This issue has been on the agenda for a long time. It is not as though we have suddenly come into the Parliament and said there is a problem at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. This issue has been around for a long time; there have been two inquiries, one inquest and another inquest is on the way. It has not emerged all of a sudden. Our view is that it is in the interests of the people of Western Australia to break up the power structure at that community. We make no apology for that; that is what we are doing. We are doing it because it is in the interests of the people. Sometimes those things must be done. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I thank the Premier for his response. It raises the question about how similar problems at other locations will be dealt with, whether at Cullacabardee Village community or at other communities around the State. If this is a problem at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community - there may be a bigger problem there than elsewhere, but nevertheless there is a strong and informed view that the problem exists to a greater or lesser extent at other sites in Western Australia - how does the Government propose to deal with similar problems elsewhere? Does it propose to close similar communities? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The fundamental difference is that the women and also the leaders of Aboriginal communities throughout Western Australia today want to work with us to solve this problem. What response did we get at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community? Totally the opposite. Not only did that community not want to work with us to solve this problem, but also it was hostile towards our efforts to get to the truth of what has been going on. That is the fundamental difference between this community and others. During my visit to Kalumburu we sat around the table with the leadership and talked about how to deal with the endemic problems they have as a community. They have a law and order problem and a problem with their young people and substance abuse, but they are very keen to work on those issues. That is the difference between the Swan Valley community and other Aboriginal communities throughout the State. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The Government will work with each community and will target the problems within each community. When the Government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission work together with these communities, it will be able to use this Bill - Dr G.I. Gallop: No. This Bill is just to do with the Swan Valley Nyungah land. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Would ATSIC and the Government not be able to say that if there were a problem in this community - Dr G.I. Gallop: It just deals with reserve No 43131. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: This Bill specifically identifies reserve No 43131, but if problems arose in other parts of the State the Government and ATSIC could say that the communities will work with the Government and ATSIC to resolve the problem or another Bill will be presented to Parliament, although it need not be an identical Bill. Dr G.I. Gallop: I made this point very clear on some of the radio interviews that I gave. This Bill is not intended to be a threat to Aboriginal communities in Western Australia; it deals with a specific issue at a specific location. We are very confident we can work with Aboriginal communities. This is extraordinary legislation - we know it is - and that is why we have agreed with the concept of the sunset clause, but it deals specifically with this issue. We are very keen to work with Aboriginal communities throughout the State to solve this issue. We believe we need more policing - to use that expression - either by child protection workers or the police, but there is a different attitude in other communities. In the Swan Valley community we just have hostility and we have seen the evidence of all of the problems I have referred to. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Has the Government been advised either by the Department for Community Development or the Department of Indigenous Affairs that of the approximately 40 such Aboriginal communities, at least 10 have comparable problems of abuse and violence with children? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I could go back to the Gordon inquiry and check. The Gordon inquiry found there were problems throughout Western Australia; that is why we initiated that inquiry. As I said, the response we are getting throughout Western Australia to the Gordon inquiry is very positive, and this has allowed us to proceed to introduce the measures we are talking about to deal with the problems in those communities in different ways. There is no doubt that there will

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8045 be extra policing and extra work for the child protection workers; we must have more safe houses for people and all of those sorts of things. However, the real difference with the Swan Valley Nyungah Community has been the attitude of the people there, the power structure, the way that has led to the sort of intimidation we have seen, the threats that exist to individuals and, to come back to it, the overpowering evidence of continuing abuse which we as a Government and a Parliament have to deal with. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The next two amendments deal with exactly the same issues. I do not know whether members wish to raise any questions, but perhaps we could move those two amendments together. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The agreement was to deal with them individually. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.D. McRae): Leave is not granted. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 3 made by the Council be not agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 4 made by the Council be not agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 5 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Amendment No 5 relates to a new clause 5. Clause 5 of the Bill places the care, control and management of the reserve with the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority and sets out how the reserve may be dealt with. The effect of clause 5 of the Bill, as it was, is that the reserve can be dealt with under the Land Administration Act in the same way as any other reserve or management order created in the normal way. The amendment in the upper House was to delete that clause on the basis that it would deny normal rights to apply and, if the amendments to clause 4 moved in the upper House were agreed to, it would become superfluous. While this Bill will be passed, I am still not convinced that we as a Parliament are doing the right thing. I wonder who will have the most egg on his face if this Bill is ultimately thrown out by the High Court - whether it will be me or the Premier. If this Bill is eventually ruled out of order by some process in the High Court - maybe because it contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act, which is probably the most likely outcome - it will be a very poor day for this Parliament and a very poor reflection on the Premier’s ability to manage a difficult social issue. At no stage has anyone in either House of Parliament belittled or demeaned the extent of the issue. Dr G.I. Gallop: That is not true. In the upper House there were certainly members who said that the Government was not telling the truth about the problems at this camp and that we did not need to do what we were doing. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier will find that some upper House members, and probably the Greens (WA) in particular, raised the issue of the examples of more recent abuse that were given that just did not stack up. I will not refer to them because they would divulge the names of individuals. I do not deny that the most horrendous abuse of children has taken place in that camp and that the abuse has happened recently. We do not always know of these occurrences because a veil of secrecy and fear surrounds that community. However, some examples of abuse that were given did not measure up. That is why some members in the upper House became very wary of the Government’s bona fides with this Bill and the examples of abuse it gave, which simply did not stack up. Dr G.I. Gallop: Which ones? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will not comment on an individual child and the abuse that the child faced - as if I would comment on a child! Examples were given that did not measure up when they were checked by Hon Derrick Tomlinson in speaking to the people involved, including people in authority. It may be in the scheme of things that the point I make is minor, but the examples that the Government brought forward to vindicate the actions to be taken under this Bill were not found to be solid. As I said, clearly horrendous cases of abuse have occurred - that issue can be put to one side - but part of the reason that the Government fumbled the passage of this Bill lies in the examples of abuse it provided that did not stand up to scrutiny. The Government should have been open and candid with the Parliament and, if need be, spoken in confidence with members of the Opposition. The Government has had difficulty with this Bill simply because of the way it has handled it. It has broken almost every rule in the book. It has not been genuine. It has been disingenuous; there is no doubt about that. Dr G.I. Gallop: There is a helluva lot of doubt about it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: From the outset I knocked on the Premier’s door but nobody was home.

8046 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Dr G.I. Gallop: You weren’t there. I then met the member for Murdoch. The members for Murray-Wellington and Hillarys were there and I had a good chat with them. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: Whereabouts? Dr G.I. Gallop: Outside in the corridor. An opposition member: You could have sat down with the Leader of the Opposition on all of this. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier did not do that. He released details to the media. Even in the last day or so he has done that again. The Premier wants this Parliament to treat this issue seriously. He wants members to give the Government extraordinary powers that will apply equally to the perpetrators of violence as they will to the victims of violence, yet in every step in this process the Premier has run around calling media conferences, releasing information to the media and making public statements. He has not been genuine. Dr G.I. Gallop: The media are very interested in this issue; they ask me about it every day. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am sure they are; they ask me about it every day. Dr G.I. Gallop: So what are you on about then? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not comment on it every day. Dr G.I. Gallop: I see, you don’t comment on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do not comment on it. The Premier has failed in every parliamentary sense. For someone who was a student of politics, he has failed in every step of this process. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: We are dealing with an amendment to clause 5 of the Bill, which states - . . . places the care, control and management of the reserve . . . with the Authority for the same purpose as that for which the relevant Crown land is reserved. Presumably whatever the administrator chooses to do, he or she will be required to use that facility, namely the Swan Valley Nyungah Community camp, for the same purposes as that which it is currently required to be used for. The Premier has said that he will close down that facility. I am interested to know what he plans to do with the facility when he has closed it, particularly in the light of clause 5, which requires him to do pretty much exactly what was designed to be done there; that is, I imagine, to house Aboriginal people. What does the Premier plan to do with the reserve after he has closed it? Dr G.I. GALLOP: It is in the definitions. The reserve is to be reserved under section 41 of the Land Administration Act for the use and benefit of Aboriginal inhabitants. It is therefore a general clause. We have made it clear that the reserve will be utilised for the use and benefit of Aboriginal inhabitants; that does not necessarily mean it will have a housing option. We will explore other options with the indigenous Swan Valley Nyungah Community on future uses of the site. I do not believe the member has read clause 5 properly. He is implying that we cannot do what we are saying we want to do. That does not follow. We can do what we want to do and there are two things we want to do: in the short term we want to close down the Swan Valley Nyungah Community within the time frame that we can do that, and we want to look to the Aboriginal community on the future uses of the site. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I believe the site consists of a number of pieces of accommodation. I am not sure what else the Premier would do with a site that consists of pretty much purely and simply accommodation. I presume he would accommodate people there. Given that clause 5 requires the facility to be used for the same purpose for which it is currently reserved - I accept the Premier’s statement that it will be reserved for Aboriginal purposes - and given that it is an accommodation complex and is required to be used for Aboriginal purposes, it follows that after its closure it could be used only for Aboriginal accommodation. Dr G.I. Gallop: That does not follow. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: It does because the Premier used the phrase “Aboriginal purposes”. It is an accommodation facility; it is currently used for accommodation; it was designed and built as an accommodation facility. Given that clause 5 states that it must be used for Aboriginal purposes, it follows that it must be used as accommodation for Aboriginals. I do not know what else it could be used for. I am very interested to know the Premier’s thoughts on that subject; perhaps he could share them with us. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Some discussions have occurred but they have been very preliminary discussions about what might happen on the site and it is something that we will have to work through. It is far too early to say at this stage, but we have made a clear commitment that its use will be related to the welfare and benefit of Aboriginal people. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The more I examine this issue, the more I believe the Premier does not intend to close down this site. Dr G.I. Gallop: Come on!

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8047

Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The Premier has said that the administrator will go onto the site and close it down. He has said that the revocation of the management order will effect the closure of the camp. In fact, all the Premier is doing is transferring the management from the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to the administrator, who will be responsible to the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority. There will be a new management. The Premier has not said anything about closing the camp, yet there will be a new management. Dr G.I. Gallop: That equates to closing it. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The new management, being the administrator according to the Bill, can exclude people from living there. If he likes, he can exclude everybody from living there for no good reason, because the natural justice provisions in the Bill have been knocked out. The administrator can tell everybody that they must go. The reality is that ultimately he will be left with an accommodation complex that clause 5 tells us must be used for the same purposes for which it is currently used or reserved; that is, for Aboriginal purposes. Once the administrator excludes everybody from the camp, as he is allowed to do, he will be left with an accommodation complex that must be used for Aboriginal purposes. For the life of me, I cannot see under which authority the Premier will close the camp. If he were serious about closing the camp, this Bill would be about the closure of the camp, not the transfer of management from the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to the administrator through the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority. The Premier would talk explicitly about the closure of the camp if, in fact, he wanted to close the camp. We have seen him on TV spitting out all of his rhetoric about closing down the camp, yet on my scrutiny of the Bill I cannot see how and when he will close the camp. He cannot tell us what he will do with the camp if and when it does close. He has no clear answer to the proposition that it is an accommodation facility and that after the camp is closed it must continue to be used for Aboriginal purposes. It strikes me that the Premier has got himself into a bit of a tangle on this issue. Ms S.M. McHALE: The essential question is whether members opposite support or do not support the current model. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he does not support the current model. I know that Hon Derrick Tomlinson now does not support the current model. He has spoken to me and has indicated that we have got it right and he was wrong. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did he say that? Ms S.M. McHALE: Last week. Hon Derrick Tomlinson is a man of integrity and a man who tells us what he thinks. I know that he believes we have got it right. Mr P.G. Pendal: That is not what he told me tonight. Ms S.M. McHALE: In that case he has changed his mind, but last week, after a briefing with independent people in the community and a further briefing with the Department for Community Development, he reaffirmed that he believes the camp should close. If he has changed his mind, that is his prerogative, but it is a bit hard to work out the Opposition’s position if that is the case. It might help the member for Kalgoorlie to know that the future use of that land will be determined in accordance with discussions with ATSIC and the Aboriginal community. Mr M.J. Birney: Do you have any ideas about what you might use that land for? Ms S.M. McHALE: We have ideas, but we will not be prescribing the use of the land, because - Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE: If the member for Kalgoorlie is interested he will listen to the answer. There are a range of options. The Minister for Health could use the land, or it could be used for other facilities. Mr M.J. Birney: It has to be used to accommodate Aboriginal people. Ms S.M. McHALE: If the member for Kalgoorlie looks at page 2 of the Bill he will see that the land has to be reserved “for the use and benefit of Aboriginal inhabitants”. That is not a term that I would use, but that is quite a broad application for the use of that land. We will work in consultation with Aboriginal communities, ATSIC and others to find out the best use for that land. The notion that we have a hidden agenda is absolutely absurd and offensive. Our agenda is very clear. It stems from Alistair Hope’s report on the death of Susan Taylor. That death was horrific, and members should read that report and see what happened. Our agenda stems from the Gordon inquiry and from the Government’s implementation program on that inquiry. I assure the member that we have no agenda other than working in the best interests of women and children. Alistair Hope’s report states that if organisations such as the one that I administer - the Department for Community Development - or such as the ones that are administered by the Minister for Police or the Minister for Health are excluded from Aboriginal communities, it is the women and children who will suffer. As I told the House earlier, my department is inhibited from carrying out its duties at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. That is not the sort of behaviour that we encounter in any other Aboriginal community. That is the difference. We are being thwarted in being able to carry out our legitimate duties free from threats and intimidation. That is not an environment that this Government is prepared to countenance. There is no hidden agenda. The agenda is very clear. This is solely about the protection of women and children. It is about closing a camp because we do not believe the current model is the correct one. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to.

8048 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 6 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr J.H.D. DAY: This amendment will delete clause 6, which refers to the Registrar of Titles being required to take such measures as are necessary to record the effects of sections 4(1) and 5(1) in the register as defined in the Transfer of Land Act 1893. We need some explanation from the Premier about why this amendment is not agreed to. I am also mindful of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would like to make some additional comments, but he has had to leave the Chamber for a short time. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Clause 6 provides that the Registrar of Titles is to take such measures as are necessary to record on the land register the revocation of the management order in favour of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community Aboriginal Corporation and the appointment of the authority as the management body of the reserve. This will ensure that the land register will be consistent with the effect of the Bill. Clause 6 is proposed to be deleted as a consequence of the changes to clause 4 and the deletion of clause 5, because that means there is no need to register the revocation. From our point of view, this amendment is no longer needed, because we have already disagreed with those two earlier amendments. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 7 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Amendment No 7 is interesting. It strikes me that it is very similar to the current situation that the Government is promoting, particularly proposed new subclause (2), which states that the Land Administration Act minister may in writing appoint the authority - which I take it is the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority - as administrator of the reserve in order to secure compliance with the terms of the management order. Why is the Premier opposed to that amendment? It is very similar to the proposition that he is putting forward; namely that an administrator take control of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community in order to put things right. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Clause 7 of the Bill gives additional powers with regard to the care, control and management of the land comprised in the reserve. The Legislative Council has chosen to change that clause as follows: first, it has put in a new subclause (1), which provides that the powers conferred on the Land Administration Act minister under clause 7 are in addition to any other powers that the Land Administration Act minister may exercise. There is probably no harm in including that subclause. However, it duplicates the provisions already covered in subclause (8) of clause 7. Secondly, proposed new subclause (2) permits the Land Administration Act minister to appoint the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority as administrator of the reserve in order to secure compliance with the terms of the management order. This is an important point about the complicated nature of the amendments moved by the Legislative Council. It is questionable whether the change will add anything to what the Land Administration Act minister or her delegates could probably already do under the Land Administration Act; that is, monitor whether the terms of the management order are being complied with. The changes to the clause, when read with the changes to clause 4 and the deletion of clause 5, will mean that the corporation will remain the management body that has the care, control and management of the reserve; that is, the Swan Valley Nyungah Community Aboriginal Corporation. Mr M.J. Birney: That is not true. Dr G.I. GALLOP: It certainly is. They will mean also that another body, as administrator, whether it be the authority or a person it appoints, will have the direction powers as set out in clause 7(3). If the changes made by the Legislative Council were to go through, the clause would have a different number, of course, but those changes will not be going through. The changes to the clause will mean also that the Land Administration Act minister, in the absence of an administrator, will be able to exercise the direction powers set out in clause 7(3). As I said, if the Legislative Council amendments were accepted, that clause would have another number. The administrator would not have any other function, except to give directions. He would not have any powers to go onto the reserve or carry out any management of it. This creates a conceptual problem, and, practically, it is difficult to envisage how it would work. For example, how does the authority ensure compliance with the management order or the administrator exercise the direction powers under clause 7(3)? Certainly, this was not an issue with the Government’s original Bill, because the authority was the management body. It is also unlikely that the administrator would be able to direct a person who is part of the corporation, while it is the management body, to leave the reserve pursuant to clause 7(3). It is assumed that this was intended by the changes proposed. However, there would be this problem. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The management is still with the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. The administrator is supposed to direct according to the management order. That creates a very complicated situation. If the Opposition’s intention is to close down the camp - that appears to be its intention - this would be a very complicated situation. The Government does not see any necessity for these amendments. If the Opposition is committed to revoking the management order,

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8049 putting in the minister and the minister putting in the administrator, there is no need to do any of those things. It is much better to follow the course that we have chosen. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I am not sure that I agree entirely with what the Premier has just said. This amendment from the upper House provides for the appointment of an administrator. After the administrator has been appointed, the current management committee will be set aside. As I read this amendment, the current management committee has no management rights while the minister is administering the affairs of the camp. The minister may appoint the administrator in order that the people in that camp comply with the terms of the management order. Dr G.I. Gallop: Why would you want to do all this? Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The Government is doing exactly that. Let us think about this. Dr G.I. Gallop: No, why would you want to do what the Legislative Council has done? Let us have a proper debate. You justify what the Legislative Council has done, and I will respond. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The Government is doing exactly that, because it has introduced clause 7 into the Bill, which provides for the appointment of an administrator. Dr G.I. Gallop: Yes, but you have revoked the management order. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The amendment from the upper House simply states that the Land Administration Act minister may appoint the authority as the administrator. Therefore, the minister may appoint this fellow opposite, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, as the administrator. That is how I read that amendment. Presumably, once an administrator had been appointed, he would be subject to all those things contained in clause 7 that are being promoted by the Government. I have a bit of difficulty following the Premier’s argument about why he is opposing this amendment, because it is similar to his own position. Dr G.I. Gallop: I will interject and say that I believe the member is treating this issue in abstraction from the rest of our Bill. We are revoking the management order. That is fundamental. The Legislative Council does not want to revoke the management order. That is the difference. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: When an administrator is appointed, the management order is set aside in terms of the current management of the operation. The Swan Valley Nyungah management committee will no longer be capable of managing the place when the administrator is appointed. The administrator will become the manager, and he will then be subject to all the conditions imposed upon him under clause 7. It is pretty much the same thing as the Premier is promoting, and I do not think he can put together a coherent argument for opposing this amendment. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Further to what the member for Kalgoorlie said, the Premier could have had this administrator appointed two weeks ago. If it had been so urgent and if children are directly at risk, the Premier could have brought the Bill back to the lower House and accepted the amendment, and the administrator could have been appointed two weeks ago. That is what I cannot understand. What happened to the urgency? The administrator would have the power to remove any individual from that camp, and if the administrator so wished, he could remove every single person - every man, woman and child - from that camp. That, by any definition, would close the camp. He could remove every person from the camp. The Government had the powers to appoint the administrator. Mr A.J. Carpenter: Subject to legal challenge. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Maybe subject to legal challenge - big deal! In six months there might be a legal challenge. The whole point is that the Government did not cry the urgency of this legislation because of a legal challenge in six months. The reason it cried urgency was because it implied to this House that children are at risk right now. That is why it received the courtesy of this House in allowing the legislation to go through. That is why I am flabbergasted that the Government did not take the opportunity to appoint the administrator to evict the offending males and, if he so chose, to evict everyone from the place and lock the gate. Dr G.I. Gallop: He would not. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Government could have done it. If it had been genuine about protecting children at risk as of three weeks ago, it would have accepted this, appointed the administrator, moved everyone out and shut the gate. If there was a challenge in three or six months, it could be dealt with in the courts, or the legislation could be tidied up in some way. Dr G.I. Gallop: Have you heard of injunctions? Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, it is nothing to do with injunctions. The administrator could have gone in and removed every single person from that camp. Point of Order Mr P.G. PENDAL: I have raised this issue before. The Speaker has laid down a rule that members are not to shout over others to the detriment of people who are trying to listen to the debate. I am asking you, Mr Acting Speaker (Mr A.P. O’Gorman), to enforce that on both sides of the House.

8050 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

The ACTING SPEAKER: I call on the Minister for Health and ask him to sit down. Debate Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT: Everyone else has been named, but I appreciate that the Acting Speaker is a very fair chairman. Dr G.I. Gallop: You are showing contempt for the Chair. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is just an observation. Why did the Premier not appoint the administrator when he had the opportunity to act on what he portrayed to this Parliament to be a matter of urgency? Suddenly it is about legal challenges or injunctions down the track. Dr G.I. Gallop: It always was. That was always our argument. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, it was not. Dr G.I. Gallop: Yes, it was. That is why we are doing it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, it was not. When the Premier brought the legislation into this place, he called for the support of this Parliament to protect children, and he portrayed an image that they were then at risk. That is why he got that support. Now the argument is that the Government could not appoint the administrator because of injunctions or court cases down the track. That is absolute rubbish. The Government has not been genuine in this exercise. Throughout, the Premier has not been genuine in his commitment. This has been more about media stunts and press releases than about being genuine. Even today, the same old trick is being played by this Premier. When the Premier has received the courtesy of this Parliament, he has not reciprocated in one measure at all. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I refer to the legal advice that was given to the Government and the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, two weeks after the Bill was introduced; it was not even prepared prior to its introduction. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Hang on. This is legal advice about the Opposition’s amendments in the Legislative Council. The advice deals with clause 4, which we have already covered, and with the administrator. This is about the Legislative Council amendments that we are debating. Mr C.J. Barnett: When we met with you two and a half weeks ago, you told us that you had legal advice. We sought that legal advice. I wrote to your office requesting it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: And the Leader of the Opposition got it. Mr C.J. Barnett: No. When it came, it was legal advice on the Council’s amendments. You told me in your office that you had legal advice at the time you introduced this Bill. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Of course we did. That is why we did it.. Mr C.J. Barnett: Despite your promises, you did not forward that advice to the Opposition. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice states that it appears incompatible for there to be both a management body having a care, control and management function and an administrator having a particular direction power. A major barrier to the exercise of the Land Administration Act minister’s powers is section 12 of the Land Administration Act, which requires the consent of the management body - the corporation - to the exercise of clause 4 powers. No protection is given to prevent legal proceedings being instituted to challenge revocation outside or under the new Act, or to challenge directions under the new Act. That is the legal view of the Opposition’s amendments, and that is why the Government opposes them. Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: Legal advice is like a lot of things. The results one gets depend on whom one goes to and who is paying the bill. Dr G.I. Gallop: I will tell you what: I would not go to Peter Foss for legal advice. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier is clearly reflecting on a member of the other House and I ask him to withdraw. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I do not think it takes much to dismiss that as not being a point of order. It was about a matter of legal advice, and reflecting on whether one goes to a particular Queen’s Counsel is simply a statement about whom one might go to for advice. It does not in any way contravene the standing orders. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): There is no point of order. Debate Resumed Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: I am sure that if the Government had brought in these amendments, its legal opinion would have been that those amendments were okay. I have a bit of a problem with some of the legal advice that is thrown around these days. The advice people receive depends on which side they are on and whom they go to for the advice.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8051

In this case it seems that the Government has sought legal advice that opposes the Opposition’s amendments. I remember back in the 1980s when I introduced a private member’s Bill and the then member for Mitchell - Dr G.I. Gallop: David Smith. Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: I think he was then Minister for Justice. He got legal advice from Kevin Hammond who, I think, was the Solicitor General - Dr G.I. Gallop: Parker. Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: The legal advice was that my Bill would put every statutory marketing authority at risk. Obviously, David Smith did not like the idea of my introducing a private member’s Bill and getting a bit of kudos for it, so he tried to kill it however he could. My Bill was withdrawn because I had a bit of a problem with the National Party at the time. Later in the year, David Smith, the then Minister for Justice, introduced the same Bill. The only variation was that the minister had to approve how the money would be spent. It was to do with meat inspection fees and the Harvey and Waroona Shire Councils. David Smith introduced the same Bill with one change. I rang Kevin Parker - Dr G.I. Gallop: He is now a Supreme Court judge, appointed by your side. Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: I am not sure why. Dr G.I. Gallop: They appointed him! Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: I did not appoint him! Dr G.I. Gallop: Your Government did. Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: Do not blame me. When I rang Kevin Parker, I asked him why the Government’s Bill was all right. He said that there were subtle differences in it. What a load of rubbish! It was the same Bill except for one clause. In that case, it suited the Minister for Justice to get legal advice from a lawyer to reject my Bill, but when the same Bill was introduced later, it had subtle differences in it. I do not think much of the Government’s legal advice anyway. Dr G.I. Gallop: What is it about the legal advice that you do not like? Mr J.L. BRADSHAW: If the amendments had been made by the Government, the legal advice would probably be that they are all right. Lawyers seem to have a way with words to support whatever people want. That is what I am trying to say, so I would not take any notice of that advice. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Further to the comments of the member for Murray-Wellington, I observed the Premier reading from that legal advice as though he was reading from the Bible and it was gospel. I simply point out that in every court case in every court in the land there are two lawyers, both with opposing views, and only one of them is ever right. Dr G.I. GALLOP: First of all, I will correct the Leader of the Opposition. When the Legislative Council members were briefed on the Government’s legislation, they were given the legal advice about all the matters in the Bill. Hon Norman Moore was given not only a verbal briefing but also a package. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong when he says that we did not brief the Opposition on the legal advice attached to our Bill. Of course, then the Opposition came up with its amendments and we needed more legal advice on those amendments. I appreciate the views held by the member for Murray-Wellington on the question of legal advice. However, the legal advice we have on this matter is important, because it deals with the impracticality of what the Opposition proposed in the Legislative Council. That was very sound advice to us, particularly given our objective, which is to have a fairly uncomplicated way to deal with a major social problem in our community. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 8 made by the Council be not agreed to. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 9 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Amendment No 9 deletes clause 8, which, as the Bill was originally drafted, would have excluded or denied access to natural justice. That is an extraordinary thing to do. It is extraordinary to pick out one group in the community and legislate through Parliament to create a statute to specifically deny that group the right to be heard and the right to access the justice system and the courts. That is an absolutely extraordinary thing to do, particularly when it is being done to a group so clearly defined by its race and residence. Again, it is the Swan Valley Nyungah Aboriginal Community. Dr G.I. Gallop: If a non-Aboriginal community were doing the same things, we would be acting in the same way. That is hypothetical. However, the point I am making is that it has nothing to do with race, and you know it hasn’t.

8052 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Mr C.J. BARNETT: I did not say that it was racially motivated. I have been quite careful. Mr R.C. Kucera: That is what you implied. Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, I did not. I do not need to be diverted by such a poor performing minister as the Minister for Health. I am trying to deal with this issue sensibly. The issue is that this group is defined by residence and by race. I do not ascribe a racial motive in doing it, but they are defined by race. They happen to be the Swan Valley Nyungah Community; therefore, immediately the Government runs into the danger or risk of being overruled in higher courts under the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. There are plenty of examples, unfortunately, of abuse against children in all communities in all walks and levels of society. Yet this particular group is denied any rights to natural justice. What offends me about this clause is that the victims are denied their rights to natural justice. Why should they be denied those rights? Some of the victims are concerned about the land, about their homes and about that place. Despite the horrors and the abuse that may have happened there, as I said before, it is their only home. Yet this Bill denies them any right to pursue the matter at law. That is an extraordinary thing for a Parliament to be asked to do. I do not agree with this clause. Dr G.I. Gallop: Is that a Liberal Party position or what? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Just grow up! Dr G.I. Gallop: Come on! It is a legitimate question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the Premier not understand that Liberal Party members have an opportunity to think and speak according to their conscience on Bills? I will defend their right to do so. Our members - Dr G.I. Gallop: So, there is no union in the Liberal Party on this? Your leadership has failed. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Our members can speak on matters of importance. I have noticed that not one member on the back bench has stood to speak in support of indigenous Australians on any aspect in any part of this debate. I do not defend the actions of Bropho and his sons at all. I deplore what he does. However, I note for the record that not one of these do-gooding members who talks about the plight of Aboriginal people has had the courage or the conviction to stand and say a single thing about Aboriginal people in Western Australia, who, by any standard, have appalling levels of education and health and suffer appalling levels of abuse. The reasons are complex and long. Despite all the rhetoric of the speeches that carry on about reconciliation, not one member opposite has criticised this Bill. Where is reconciliation in this legislation? It denies Aboriginal people the right of natural justice. Where does the Premier stand on reconciliation? Why raise the Aboriginal flag outside this Parliament when the Premier brings in a Bill that specifically denies Aboriginal people any right of natural justice? It is absolute garbage for the Premier to talk about reconciliation when he denies one group any right of natural justice on the basis of its race. That is how it is defined. The Premier should not go around putting out glossy brochures and talk about how he cares for Aboriginal people. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: It is an interesting point of view. From time to time we hear Labor Party members in this place talk about Aboriginal people and their rights. I have heard many of them purport to champion Aboriginal issues in this place. The Premier is one of those people. I have heard the member for Riverton speak often about Aboriginal people and how he purports to champion their rights. The Deputy Premier goes on ad nauseam about Aboriginal people, their rights, and native title. We even have a Minister for Indigenous Affairs. One would think he would purport to champion the rights of Aboriginal people. The clause strikes me as being quite extraordinary. One would have to read a lot of legislation - The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Order, members! There is a lot of audible conversation at the back of the Chamber. It is hard for Hansard to hear the member for Kalgoorlie. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: A person would have to trawl through a lot of legislation to find a clause titled “Exclusion of rules of natural justice”. This is the name of the Government’s own clause. Given that it is an extraordinary thing to do it is fair to ask why that would happen. I can assume only that the Government is of the view that a lot of underhand and possibly criminal activity is taking place at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, but it cannot prove it. It thinks these things are going on. I think they are going on as well, but it is only from anecdotal evidence. The Government cannot prove that these things are occurring so its next step is to exclude the rules of natural justice. The clause relates to clause 7 and the powers conferred upon the administrator, who is permitted to direct a person not to enter the reserve and who can direct a person to leave the reserve. Presumably, individuals would be directed to leave the reserve if they were not complying with the management order. If they were playing up or doing something untoward they would be directed to leave. Why would they not be afforded natural justice in the process? We must be sure that something untoward is happening. We must be certain that any individual about to be evicted from the camp was doing something untoward, engaging in criminal activity or circumventing the original management order. Why would that not be done? I can assume only that the Government is guessing that the activity is happening. It is a very dangerous game for a duly elected Government to play. It is guessing that something is happening and denying people natural justice in order to deal with the perceived problem. That is extraordinary in anyone’s book.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8053

Mr C.J. BARNETT: As the member for Kalgoorlie said, it is extraordinary. How many times have members on this side of the House heard speeches from Labor members? How many times have they heard the Premier talk about antiracism at multicultural events in the past two years? I have heard the speeches. How many times have we heard Labor Party members talk about their commitment to reconciliation and what they will do for indigenous people? Dozens of times. Mr P.B. Watson: Will the Leader of the Opposition take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT: In a moment. We are currently in Parliament. The member for Albany may surprise me but I have listened to members opposite. The member for Perth has just left the House. He will stand and take on the cause of all sorts of minority and what he perceives to be oppressed groups in the community. I have not heard him stand up for Aboriginal people on this Bill. Not one member opposite has done so. The member for Girrawheen understands the legal issues. Ms M.M. Quirk: I have been approached by Aboriginal people in support of this Bill. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am sure the member has been approached by members of the Aboriginal community, the legal community and officers within the various agencies. Not one Labor member has stood. That is the point. Labor members are the ones who present themselves as great reformers for social equality and people’s rights. Not one of them has had the courage to stand in the Parliament and voice concern. I am not saying they have to vote against the Government. Not one of them has said he or she has a problem with denying this group of Aboriginal people the right to use the State’s court system and the right to natural justice. None has done that. They should never expect me or other members to take them seriously when they make speeches about racism or social equality and justice for Aboriginal people, or when they talk about the Nyoongah flag and reconciliation - all those fine-sounding things. The record will show that when it came to the crunch on standing up for the rights of indigenous people, in particular the most basic right of Aboriginal people to pursue their legal and constitutional rights in the courts, the Government has failed. The Aboriginal people should have the right to use the courts, whether they win or lose. Why does the Government deny them that right? I will give a hypothetical example. The camp contains innocent women and children. Many of them have been abused. Who knows what will happen to the land? After the perpetrators are hopefully dealt with and removed and the women and children feel more secure, they may wish to use the courts to try to gain and protect the land for the people who live there. Where do they go? They cannot go to the courts. They cannot use our justice system. Who has denied them that fundamental democratic right? It is Dr Geoff Gallop, the Premier of Western Australia. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I know why the Government wants to exclude the rules of natural justice for the residents of the camp in relation to clause 7, which provides for the eviction of people. It is because the Government wants to throw everyone out, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong. If the Government attempted to throw out someone who had done nothing wrong, the rules of natural justice would apply and the individual could not be evicted. The clause is to ensure that everyone can be thrown out and no-one can have any legal redress. Let us be clear about that. If that is the case - I am sure it is - why has the Premier not mentioned in this Bill that he wants to throw everyone out and close the camp? The more I look into the process and the more I follow the Premier’s rhetoric the more I see this is becoming a smelly exercise. The Premier talks about the need to close the camp but he will not put it in print. It may be because he does not want the people of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community to understand exactly what he wants to do following the passage of this legislation. He wants to close the camp. He wants to throw everyone out of the camp and relocate them. However, he will not put it in print. The Bill has odd little causes like clause 8, which denies people the rules of natural justice. It is presumably to throw out someone who has done nothing wrong. It is an odd little, smelly process. It is one that is becoming reminiscent of this Premier. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We have had all the rhetoric from the other side. In the past couple of years there have been many challenges in our community. There has been the challenge of organised crime, and some very tough legislation has gone through this Parliament to deal with it. “Civil libertarians” have attacked the Government because the traditional rights of organised criminals in our community have been taken away. We do that because we do not want organised criminals with a foothold in our community terrorising people. The Minister for Police is not here, but I say to her Police Service, well done for putting huge pressure on organised criminals, and using our legislation to help do it. We have been criticised by civil libertarians, but the rights and freedoms of people to live in a safe community are very important. Secondly, we have had to deal with the threat of terrorism. Every one of the Labor Premiers has worked with the current Commonwealth Government to change the laws of Australia to make it possible for Governments to deal with this new type of threat. Mr C.J. Barnett: The only information the Opposition has received has come from the Commonwealth Government. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition really has difficulty with this. We have fully cooperated with the Commonwealth Government to make sure that the Parliaments of Australia have the powers to deal with these things. Now we come across another issue - community-based oppression. We have had community-based oppression within some institutions set up in the past that is now all being revealed. Some of these institutions have been run by the Government. Young people were abused and maltreated over many years, but according to the laws we had at the time,

8054 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] nothing could be done about that, and it was all covered up. We have reached the point now at which community-based oppression, organised crime and international terrorism will be tackled by Governments. The Government will take these things seriously. We make no apologies for the fact that this is tough legislation. We know how Mr Bropho works. We have observed how he uses the system to defend the oppression that exists in his community. He has now come across a Government that wants to do something about it. Sometimes, it must be done. Some people will complain. The member for South Perth, Hon Peter Foss, Hon Derrick Tomlinson, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kalgoorlie are all complaining about it. Mr M.J. Birney: What did I say? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The member said it was undesirable just a few second ago. Let us return to the tintacks of this matter. We must face threats in our community from terrorism, organised crime and community oppression. We must look at ways of dealing with those threats. We must be careful, and limit the effects. The Government agrees with a sunset clause in this Bill. However, if we run away from this challenge on the basis of the arguments being put up by the Opposition tonight, we will be letting down the women and children at this site. The course of action being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would tie us up in lengthy litigation, injunction and argument. Ask the Minister for Indigenous Affairs about the difficulty he had removing the classroom from that site. Ask the Attorney General about the issues posed about the protection of our heritage at the Swan Brewery site. Look at the coroner’s inquiry into the death of Susan Taylor. All these arguments can go on, but we must return to the reality of what we are trying to do. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 10 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr C.J. BARNETT: This amendment relates to the discretion that can be used by the administrator. It gives him absolute powers. Again, it is an issue of justice and fairness. Dr G.I. Gallop: What is the point of all these arguments if the Opposition is voting with the Government? I cannot understand where the Opposition is coming from. Mr C.J. BARNETT: We are not voting with the Government. Has the Premier not noticed that we have not voted with the Government? Dr G.I. Gallop: That is not what the record will show. Mr C.J. BARNETT: As I said in this Parliament about four hours ago - Mr R.C. Kucera: It is base politics; the Leader of the Opposition is trying to save face. We are talking about the lives of innocent people. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Minister for Health should stand up for Aboriginal people in his electorate. He will not stand up for them. I am not even interested in his views. He so lacks honour that it is not worth talking to him. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I said to the Premier three or four hours ago that the Liberal Party will allow the passage of this legislation. He should not think for one minute that that confirms, condones or supports this legislation, which is deficient in so many areas. Dr G.I. Gallop: So you are saying - Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will say what I say, not what the Premier wants to say that I say. I am saying that we are allowing the passage of this legislation. People in good conscience do not support that previous clause, the removal of natural justice. The member for Perth has come into the Chamber. I apologise for referring to him in his absence. He has taken up many causes. Will he now stand up and say anything on behalf of Aboriginal people, or about the denial of their rights to natural justice? Not one of his colleagues on the back bench has had the courage to open his or her mouth. I am not asking them to oppose this Bill or this clause. I am just asking if one of them will stand up as an individual and say anything. The Premier likes to make points about the Liberal Party disagreeing. Mr J.N. Hyde: We would never vote for a Bill and then stand up and waste time with arguments. Either vote against the Bill or sit down. Mr C.J. BARNETT: This is a Parliament, which is about speaking. It is about debating, canvassing and scrutinising legislation. Not one member of the Labor Party has been willing, in this debate, to stand up and raise one issue on behalf of Aboriginal people or one concern about the precedents this Bill will create for racial harmony and the rights of a particular group - in this case a group of black, indigenous Australians living at Swan Valley. Not one government member has stood up. I just want that on the record. Next time I go along to an indigenous function and hear the Premier make speeches about racial harmony and reconciliation, I will look him in the eye and tell him he is the first Premier in this land, since federation, to use a statute to deny Aboriginal people access to natural justice.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8055

Dr G.I. Gallop interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Can the Premier give me a precedent anywhere in Australia since federation? He will not find it. The Premier will stand in history as the Premier who removed natural justice from a group of indigenous Australians. Like it or not, that will be his mark on the history of indigenous affairs. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I accept my responsibilities as the Leader of the Labor Party and Premier of Western Australia to do something about the many problems we have as a community. We could run away from these problems and hope they go away. I was interested in what the member for Ningaloo had to say when we last debated this issue. I do not want to embarrass the member, but he said something that I thought was quite important. He said he took these issues to the then Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the former member for Yokine, and he did not want to look at them. When these issues came up, my Minister for Indigenous Affairs, my Minister for Community Development, my Minister for Health and my Minister for Police were very keen to make sure we did something about them. That is the difference between the two sides on this issue. On this legislation we will stand; on this legislation we will be judged; on this legislation we will act! The Leader of the Opposition made a very interesting comment just then. He said that our role in this Parliament is to talk. As one of the great parliamentarians of all times said - Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: There is no doubt about it - LBJ! The member for Perth is absolutely spot on. A new volume has come out on Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the greatest legislators ever to go through a democratically elected Parliament. He would sidle up to his colleagues when they were talking at length and say, “Son, we are not in here to talk; we are in here to legislate and vote.” That is what we are in this Parliament for - to vote! When members vote they express themselves; when members vote they put their stamp on how the State will be run. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that the role of members is to speak tells us an enormous amount. Their role is to speak and then to vote. We on this side of the House are expressing ourselves. We know what our expression is on this issue: it is to vote for those women and children and to look after them into the future. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier always resorts to history, and I do not deny that he has a very good knowledge of history, but he chose Lyndon Baines Johnson! Lyndon Baines Johnson would be most remembered in American history for civil rights in respect of the oppression of black people in the southern United States of America. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Are you saying this is oppressing black people? Come on! We are liberating them. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It could not be less appropriate for the Premier to use Lyndon Baines Johnson as an example in what he is doing in this Bill to deny Aboriginal people their rights to natural justice. Does he think Lyndon Baines Johnson would ever have stood in the Legislature on Capitol Hill and denied black Americans their rights? There is no way he would have done that. The Premier’s example is totally inappropriate, but I am glad he raised it. Lyndon Baines Johnson will go down in American history as the greatest modern campaigner for the rights of black Americans, and the Premier chooses to use him when the Premier is taking away the rights of a group of people in the Swan Valley who just happen to be Aboriginal. Next time the Premier resorts to history for an example he should think before he opens his mouth. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will respond to that point. Wherein lies the racial prejudice? I will tell the Leader of the Opposition where it lies: when people who are concerned about the oppression of individual men and women go to the Government of the day and tell it that this problem exists, and it sweeps it under the carpet. That is how I define racial prejudice; that is how I define racism. Do members know what those opposite are actually saying? Mr A.J. Carpenter interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.P.D. Edwards): Members! Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of the Opposition! The Premier has the floor. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Do members know what I suspect? When these things were swept under the carpet, they thought in the back of their minds that it did not really matter because they were just Aborigines. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am very concerned at the insinuations and even the direct suggestions from some members of the Government that action could have been taken by the previous Government in relation to this problem but was not. Dr G.I. Gallop: The member for Ningaloo said he took it up with the Government and it was ignored. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I would like the Government to provide any evidence that clear information was provided to the previous Government that would have justified this sort of action. Mr R.C. Kucera interjected.

8056 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Mr J.H.D. DAY: Would the Minister for Health like to comment? I was Minister for Police from January 1997 through to July 1998. This is not necessarily the sort of issue that would have been brought to the attention of a Minister for Police. If there were matters of concern about criminality, assaults, rapes, murders or whatever, they are the sorts of issues one would expect police officers to deal with. It may well have been that police officers had concerns, but I have no recollection of anything being put before me, or to my knowledge before any other member of the Government, that would have justified this sort of action being taken. Who in their right mind in government would not take strong action to try to deal with the problem if they were made aware of the serious concerns that have now been expressed? Mr J.N. Hyde: So we are right to act, then? The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Perth! Mr J.H.D. DAY: The point I am making is that information is now available, which has become available - as the Premier himself has said - since the coronial inquiry into the death of Susan Taylor and following the Gordon inquiry. Those two events have occurred in the past two years. I find the suggestions by the Government - the Premier and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs - that the previous Government could have taken this sort of action but failed to and swept things under the carpet absolutely offensive. Dr G.I. Gallop: You certainly did it as police minister; there is no doubt about that. Why didn’t you have a royal commission? Mr J.H.D. DAY: Does the Premier want the whole debate to be about this? Is he talking about this issue or about more general issues? Dr G.I. Gallop: The police; the same form. Mr J.H.D. DAY: What information was put before me - Dr G.I. Gallop: The Liberals in Western Australian history have always been complacent. Mr J.H.D. DAY: There is no credibility in what the Premier says. He is putting a political point of view. Mr R.C. Kucera interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Health! Mr J.H.D. DAY: At the time we are talking about, the Minister for Health was an assistant commissioner of police. Can he tell me what information was put before me or my predecessor, Bob Wiese, or my successor, Kevin Prince - Mr R.C. Kucera: I do not breach confidences, and you know that. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am inviting the minister to tell me what information was put before any former Minister for Police, members of the former coalition Government - all three of them - that would have justified this sort of action. Mr R.C. Kucera: You were the minister. Are you saying this is not justified after five deaths, after the evidence that has come out about alleged child rape, after evidence that has come out about - The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Health and the member for Darling Range. I remind members that they are supposed to speak through the Chair. We are not here to have a discussion across the Chamber. Will members please address their remarks through the Chair. Mr J.H.D. DAY: Mr Acting Speaker, I accept that advice. The Government has been seeking to create the impression and directly assert that information was put before the previous Government that would have justified this sort of strong action but the previous Government ignored it. I would like the Government to produce evidence of that if it can do so, but I do not believe it can. No decent person and no person who was doing his job properly would ignore this sort of problem if made aware of it. The reality is that this information has come out since the coronial inquiry and since the Gordon inquiry, which has been in the past two years. The claims by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Premier, the Minister for Health and others on this issue simply do not hold up. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: I agree with the comments of the member for Darling Range. The Premier indicated that the previous Government knew about all of this so-called illegal activity that was happening there and “swept it under the carpet”. The reality is that even today in this current environment there is a severe lack of the evidence that the Premier talked about. That is why we have not seen a raft of people from the Swan Valley Nyungah Community lined up at the courts charged with criminal offences. That is why the Premier is using clauses such as clause 8, relating to the denial of natural justice, to kick out of the camp people who he thinks have engaged in illegal activity. He does not have the hard core proof of evidence that would stand up in court; therefore, he is using this legislation to kick people out of the place because he thinks they are doing illegal things. That is the crux of this legislation. It is absolutely scurrilous of the Premier to say that the former Government knew of this illegal activity and did nothing about it, because the evidence is still not clear today. That is why the Premier is using this odd little Bill to throw people out of the place when he is not even sure that they have done anything wrong.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8057

Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 11 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Again, this amendment will give extraordinary powers to the administrator and deny any due and proper process. It will allow the administrator to give a direction with no accountability provision and no requirement to give reasons. The administrator should be expected to give an explanation for any decision made. If I were the administrator I would want to give the reasons for the decisions I took; I would not hide behind a statute. However, as with the clause on the denial of natural justice, this clause is a denial of basic accountability for decisions made. Why should we expect anything else from this Government, given the way it has handled this Bill? Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Clause 10 supports what I was just saying. If the administrator were to follow the rules of natural justice and evict somebody from the community under clause 7, he would say, “You are hereby evicted because you have engaged in criminal activity; we caught you stealing.” However, instead, the administrator will say, “You are hereby evicted from this community because we think you have done something illegal.” This clause is about the absence of proof. It has been inserted in the Bill so that the administrator can evict somebody on the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence. It is a very odd clause and it supports what I have just said: there continues to be a lack of firm evidence that illegal activity is happening in that community, which is why clause 10 has been inserted in this Bill. Dr G.I. Gallop: Just say that again? Mr M.J. BIRNEY: For the record I say that it is my genuine belief that illegal activity is happening in that community but I do not have the hard evidence to back up that belief. However, clause 10 is an extraordinary clause. It basically allows the administrator to say, “You’re gone because we think you have done something wrong, even though we can’t prove it.” Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 12 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr C.J. BARNETT: This is exactly the same thing - a denial of natural justice and no accountability or explanation to the community. In effect, an individual, whether an offender or a victim, will be given no reason for the decision that has been made. This clause again takes away the entire judicial process. The Premier, because of the way he is handling this Bill, should never again talk to me about rights and freedoms of those people. I speak not for the perpetrators of abuse but rather for the victims. Frankly, no-one on the other side of the Chamber has been prepared to do so. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I move - That amendment No 13 made by the Council be not agreed to. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: It strikes me that this amendment strengthens the Government’s position. If members read this Bill closely, they will note that throughout the Bill the Government has attempted to cover its backside in the event that it is sued or that some legal action arises after the passage of the Bill or the carrying out of some of its powers. Amendment No 13 basically states that in the event of a challenge to the appointment of the administrator or the amendment to the management order, all decisions made up to that point will be declared valid. If the Premier were to vote against this amendment, I would be interested to hear his reasons, because, as I said, the amendment strengthens both the Government’s position and the Bill. It is remarkably similar to some of the provisions that the Government has already inserted in the Bill to ensure that it will not be the subject of successful legal action. I am interested to hear the Premier’s view on that. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The proposed amendment to add new subclause (3) to clause 12 provides that if an amendment to the management order or the appointment of an administrator is declared invalid, then any acts that were carried out prior to that declaration are deemed to be valid. The proposed new subclause does not appear to add any legal benefit to the Bill and we see no reason for having it in the legislation. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: The amendment effectively says that if the administrator has been operating for a period of time and has made decisions that have impacted upon the community, those decisions will remain valid in the event that the appointment of the administrator is found to be invalid. Members could imagine the chaos that would follow from the revocation of the appointment of the administrator. I could think of a number of situations that could arise in which chaos would erupt if all the decisions that the administrator had made up to that point were found to be invalid. It strikes me that this amendment is a good one. I am at a loss to understand why the Premier would put forward the view that it has no legal advantages.

8058 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Dr G.I. GALLOP: It might have made sense if the House had accepted all the other amendments made by the Legislative Council. However, it has not and it therefore no longer fits within the structure of the Bill. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: It may well be that in the future somebody will challenge the appointment of the administrator. It may well be that the Bill’s drafters got it wrong. It may well be that there is a loophole in the legislation that allows a challenge to the appointment of the administrator, and if that were to happen, all the decisions made by the administrator up to that point would be declared invalid and the Bill turned on its head. This clause is not linked to the other amendments made in the other place. This amendment can stand on its own two feet. It strikes me that it is a very good amendment. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member for Kalgoorlie is correct: this amendment in a bizarre way adds strength to the administrator. I am sure that it is only through stubbornness that the Government will not accept it. This amendment relates to the last clause; therefore, this debate is drawing to an end. I remind the Premier that when he brought this Bill into Parliament three weeks ago he received support for it to pass through this Chamber. There has been debate on the Bill and I do not deny that this has been a difficult issue for the Liberal Party. However, I am proud to say that the Liberal, Independent and Greens (WA) members were the only members of both Houses of Parliament who were prepared to debate the issue and speak out for the rights of individuals, and in this case the rights of a particular group of indigenous Australians. I want to put on record that neither the Minister for Community Development nor the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has participated in this debate. Dr G.I. Gallop: That is not true! Get your facts straight! Mr C.J. BARNETT: They did not participate. When challenged repeatedly on issues raised in this debate, the Minister for Community Development did not participate and join in the debate. Not one member of the Labor Party spoke - Mr J.C. Kobelke: You go from poor to pathetic! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The minister was not even here. Not one single member of the Labor Party - not one frontbencher and not one backbencher - spoke about the rights of Aboriginal people. Mr A.J. Carpenter interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: If anyone should have a responsibility to speak on how this Bill will affect the rights of Aboriginal people both now and in the future, it is the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. However, all the minister can do is make smart alec interjections. I regret that I have to say this, but the Premier will be known in history as the Premier who introduced a heavy-handed piece of legislation to deal with a complex social issue. The Premier has sought a legislative solution for something that the Ministers for Indigenous Affairs and Community Development, and indirectly also the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure through her role as minister for lands, have failed to properly address and resolve. The Premier will be left with a mark on his record, because he will be remembered as the Premier who used a statute to deny Aboriginal people their right to natural justice. That will be the Premier’s place in history. No matter how many speeches the Premier makes on racism and reconciliation, and no matter how many times the Premier hoists the Aboriginal flag, the Premier’s place in history will be as the Premier who used a heavy-handed piece of legislation and failed to listen to the compassion put forward by Hon Derrick Tomlinson. Hon Derrick Tomlinson is the only member in either House who spoke compassionately about Aboriginal people. Not one single person on the other side of the House did that. Dr G.I. Gallop: Come on! Mr C.J. BARNETT: Not one single person on the other side spoke with compassion about the issues of Aboriginal welfare. Hon Peter Foss took the time to go through the Bill in detail and point out some of the legal deficiencies. I am not a lawyer. I am not saying that Hon Peter Foss got every point right. However, he is the only person in this Parliament who has spent hours and hours going through the legislation. Members opposite have treated Hon Peter Foss with disdain and they continue to treat him with disdain. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am now being subjected to a lot of mindless interjections from people who have failed to stand up for social and legal justice for Aboriginal people and for their rights and freedoms under our constitutional and legal framework. Not one member opposite has done that. That is their record, and that will be the Premier’s place in history on indigenous affairs. Dr G.I. GALLOP: If I can project myself into the future, I think the record will read something like this. The record will say that after continual allegations of abuse in the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, the Labor Government took decisive action in 2003, despite the objections by the Opposition in the Parliament at the time, to protect the interests of the women and children at that camp. I think the history books will record also that the coalition Government introduced legislation into the Parliament of Western Australia to deny Aboriginal people their right to native title as established by the High Court of Australia, but that the good sense of the High Court prevailed and in a 6-0 decision it ruled that racist legislation invalid. That is what the history books will show in a number of years.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8059

Mr D.A. Templeman: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT: There is a significant Aboriginal population in Mandurah. Mr D.A. Templeman: Yes, there is. I have been talking to them, and they support the Government. That is what they are saying. Mr C.J. BARNETT: At last a backbencher has bowled into the debate! The member for Mandurah is the first one to open his mouth in this debate! Congratulations! The Premier may remember that when this issue was first raised nearly three weeks ago, the Premier came into this Parliament and talked about the urgency to act. I remind the Premier of what I said at the time. I had not had the opportunity to see the Bill and study it in detail, I had not had the opportunity to speak to my colleagues the members for Kingsley and Nedlands, who are lawyers, and I had not even had the opportunity to speak to anyone in the Liberal Party. However, I gave the Premier support for the passage of this Bill. What we have had since - Dr G.I. Gallop: Is upper House obstruction. Mr R.C. Kucera: And base politics. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.P.D. Edwards) Order! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Minister for Health does not have a genuine or sincere bone in his body. I took the Premier to be speaking the truth and to be acting in good faith and sincerity. To the criticism of my colleagues, including those in this House - and I well understand that; I would feel the same - I put the Liberal Party in the position of supporting not the Bill but the passage of the Bill - Mr R.C. Kucera interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The minister should dry up and try to allow the Parliament to have a serious discussion. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I do not want to have to call the Minister for Health to order, but I will if he continues. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am not addressing my comments to the Minister for Health; I am addressing my comments to the Premier. I am trying to conclude the debate. When the Premier brought in this Bill, I stuck my neck out. I do not regret doing that for one moment; I never have. I offered the Premier support for the passage of the legislation. I said at the time that I had not read or studied the Bill, but I gave the Premier support for the Bill to pass through this House so that there would be the opportunity for the upper House to also pass the Bill. I did that for one reason. As I said, I have read, seen and heard enough to be convinced many times over of the abuse of children and women in that Aboriginal community. The abuse of women and children is not confined to that Aboriginal community, but that is the community that we are dealing with in this instance. On that basis I gave the Premier support for the passage of the Bill through this Parliament. However, what I have had in return is continual criticism from him, continual heckling in the media and continual attempts to try to score, I presume, some points out of it. I do not know whether the Premier has scored some points, but he has won no respect from me in the way he has handled this Bill in the Parliament. Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat to the Parliament the background that led to the introduction of this Bill. That background was concern raised with the Government about continuing problems at the Swan Valley Nyungah Community, advice from the directors general of the relevant departments that there were unacceptable levels of risk at that community, a serious discussion by Cabinet about the means by which we could address this issue, and a solemn decision to use legislation rather than the powers under the Land Administration Act to deal with the problem. I underline the word “solemn”. We explored these matters very carefully. We then brought the Bill into the Parliament. I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition expressed his support at that time, but the difficulty was that when the Bill got into the other Chamber all sorts of other processes started up. The truth of the matter about Western Australian politics today is that when we have to deal with the Liberal Party, we do not know who we are dealing with. When we were in opposition, the then Premier, Richard Court, would come to me and say he wanted something done, and he would know that he would get it done in both Houses of the Parliament. That is what we did. We cooperated on a lot of legislation. We had to make some very tough decisions on issues such as workers compensation, and on smoking regulations and legislation. However, we were capable of making them, and everyone in the Labor Party voted with the Government on those occasions because we had made an agreement to do so. Mr M.J. Birney: That’s because they don’t have a brain; they can’t think for themselves. Dr G.I. GALLOP: If the message that the Opposition wants to send to the community is that its members can do whatever they like on any issue, only one message will go out; that is, if the Opposition is not capable of running its own show, it is not capable of running the State. That is the message that the Opposition will send out, and that is the situation that exists. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: If the Leader of the Opposition wants a definition of arrogance, he should look at all his contributions to this parliamentary debate and his performances in the media. That is the definition of arrogance.

8060 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Mr C.J. Barnett: You don’t listen to a thing. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We are listening all the time and looking for something from the Opposition that indicates it has, first, commonsense and, second, is capable of thinking beyond its born-to-rule mentality. However, we never see it. The Opposition’s born-to-rule mentality leads it to be complacent about social issues, because it does not matter to the Opposition. Opposition members do not have the passion and the commitment that exist on this side of the House to fix things. It is all very easy for the Opposition. Some opposition members have supported the Government on this issue. I thank those members opposite who have given us good support for this legislation. However, there is too much complacency on the Liberal side, and always has been throughout Western Australian history. It is born-to-rule complacency. Unless the Opposition gets rid of that attitude, it will be sitting on the other side of the House for a long time to come. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will make a final comment. I offered the Premier, someone I have known since university days, an olive branch. His response is now recorded in history. I offered him an olive branch three weeks ago and again today in a genuine attempt to help get a piece of legislation, which I do not think is good legislation - Dr G.I. Gallop: It’s a funny olive branch. You accused us of acting in a racially prejudiced way and of undermining the rule of law. That’s pretty good. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.P.D. Edwards): Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I offered the Premier unprecedented access to the processes of this Parliament. I offered it again today. I do not deny for a moment the difficulties that this has presented, because the Liberal Party operates differently from the Labor Party. That is one of the major differences between the parties. I will not respond to the Premier’s attack. He has concluded this debate with an attack on me and on the Liberal Party. The Premier should not expect to ever get the generosity that he has had in this debate - Dr G.I. Gallop: Generosity! Goodness gracious, that is a funny definition of it. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier has abused it. Despite what the Premier says, at no stage has he expressed sincere gratitude for what a few people in the Liberal Party Opposition have done to assist him to get this legislation through the Parliament. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That last comment is not true. I just thanked the members opposite who have given us good support for this measure. I believe I said that, did I not? Just before I sat down, I thanked members opposite for what they have done on this issue, and I raised an issue. I have an obligation to raise this issue; that is, that there is a problem in Western Australian politics today with the relationship between members of the Liberal Party in the Legislative Assembly and their colleagues in the Legislative Council. I make that observation, and it is revealed - Mr J.H.D. Day: They have brains, and they can think for themselves. That is quite right. The Legislative Council is a House of Review. It is not dictated to by - Dr G.I. GALLOP: In other words, the member is acknowledging the point. Why would I have gone to the Leader of the Opposition on this issue? There is no point in it. Mr P.G. Pendal: But you didn’t. Dr G.I. GALLOP: We did. Okay; they are the rules now. We will go to Peter Foss when it comes to issues that go to the Legislative Council. Mr A.J. Carpenter interjected. Dr G.I. GALLOP: That is obviously what is going on, and it represents a major problem. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: One of the greatest underlying values that a modern-day political party can have is the ability of its members to vote according to their conscience or the best interests of their electorate. If a person happens to be unfortunate enough to be a Labor Party member of Parliament, do you know what the Labor Party does to that person, Mr Acting Speaker? It sticks a nose ring in his nose, drags him around, makes an absolute fool of him and makes him support the party line. The ACTING SPEAKER: I do not want to start calling members to my right to order, but I will. I know it is late and there is a fair bit of humour around the Chamber. However, I want to hear what the member for Kalgoorlie is saying, as no doubt does Hansard. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: It is not actually that funny. I was saying that if a person is unfortunate enough to be a Labor Party member of Parliament, the Labor Party whacks a nose ring in his nose, drags him around by the nose and does not give him an opportunity to think for himself. The Labor Party does not give a member the opportunity to stand up for his electorate or to appease his own conscience. The only thing that a member of the Labor Party is required to appease is in fact the Labor Party. That is what it is all about. People should ask the Labor Party about its preselection rules for somebody who crosses the floor and votes against the Labor Party. What happens to that person at preselection? We all know, do we not? That person gets the chop. If that person votes in favour of his electorate, against his political

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8061 party, being the Labor Party, he becomes ineligible for preselection the next time around; he gets the chop. It is as simple as that. We on this side of the House have some values and integrity, and we believe that we have been put in this place to represent our electorate first and our political party second. We on this side of the House in the Liberal Party have a conscience, and we are committed to exercising that conscience in discharging our parliamentary duties. That is the major difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Labor Party members cannot think for themselves; they cannot do anything for themselves, whereas we can vote according to our conscience and our electorate. I am proud to be in a political party that has a diversity of views and allows its members to express those views according to their own conscience. I would be absolutely and utterly ashamed to be a member of that lot opposite, whereby members cannot think for themselves but are simply a number. They are those people who stick their hand in the air when the Premier turns around and tells them to do it. That is not the case on this side of the House. Question put and passed; the Council’s amendment not agreed to. The Council acquainted accordingly.

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION BILL 2003 Declaration as Urgent MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Attorney General) [9.38 pm]: In accordance with Standing Order No 168(2), I move - That the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill 2003 be considered an urgent Bill. I believe members are aware that this Bill was introduced a little less than three weeks ago. We are working to a time frame to try to achieve the passage of this Bill. I would certainly appreciate the cooperation of members opposite in ensuring the expeditious passage of this Bill. Question put and passed. Second Reading Resumed from 15 May. MRS C.L. EDWARDES (Kingsley) [9.39 pm]: I support this legislation and also acknowledge the Attorney General’s work and that of the Opposition, particularly given the fact that the Government wants to deal with this as an urgent Bill. The Government is under a time constraint. I understand that the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers will hand down its final report by 1 August. There will then be the serious issue of handing over documents and continuing investigations to ensure a smooth transition. Unfortunately for the Government, it also told the staff of the Anti-Corruption Commission that their services would no longer be required from 1 August. Perhaps that was a bit premature when the legislation has not as yet passed through this Parliament. Mr J.A. McGinty: It is 31 August. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: I thank the Attorney General for that piece of information. The idea of a new commission to replace the ACC has been around for some time. The fact that a new model needed to be put in place was recognised by the previous Government. It was also recognised by the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission under both the previous Government and the current Government. There are a number of reports that members should take the opportunity to read in order to gain a full understanding of the concerns that have arisen; namely, report No 3 of the thirty-sixth Parliament in 2003, the fifth report of the thirty-fifth Parliament in 1998, the third report of the thirty-fifth Parliament in June 1998, the fourth report of the thirty-fifth Parliament in 1998 and report No 2 of the thirty-sixth Parliament in 2002. They are just a few reports that I bring to the Parliament’s attention in an endeavour to save the time of members so that they can get a bit of an understanding about the views. Similarly, the ACC had some concerns about the limitation on its functions. It saw some of those limitations as: the inability to respond publicly when it felt it was required to do so, the inability to hold public hearings and the inability to have someone investigate complaints about the commission. The only option it had was to carry out a separate review or appoint a separate investigator, which happened on a couple of occasions. That was not satisfactory for either the ACC or the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission for several reasons. It also was not satisfactory for members of the public. The ACC lost some confidence within the community. Some of that loss of confidence within the community was due to a targeted attack. I say with some sincerity, but also with no delight, that that targeted attack came from the Western Australian Police Union and the then Police Union solicitor, the current member for Innaloo. They did it for their own reasons in representing their constituency and their clients. They did a particularly effective job, because they seriously undermined the integrity and the functions of the ACC. I think that anyone who judges the success or otherwise of any anticorruption commission by the number of successful prosecutions or otherwise is a little naive. That does not properly reflect the functions of a commission.

8062 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Another problem that had been identified was that the ACC needed to have an educative and advisory role, particularly to other public statutory authorities. Without such a role, there can be no change in the long term in the culture of corruption and/or ethics, and ethics are synonymous with anticorruption. The parliamentary inspector, as proposed in this Bill, will be a particularly valuable tool, so that when complaints are made, such as those levelled against the Anti- Corruption Commission by the Police Union and by members opposite when they were in opposition, those complaints can be investigated. The Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission had no role to play in operational matters, and nor should it. I do not believe that any member of Parliament should have a role in the operational matters of an anticorruption body, whatever form it takes. However, there was always a view that a body was needed to oversee the ACC, so that complaints from members of the public who had been the subject of investigations or otherwise could be investigated. As the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission also receives many complaints from members of the public, and given that it does not have an operational role, it is important to have someone to whom it can refer those matters. It will have an opportunity to refer those matters to the parliamentary inspector. As the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission, we are just one body. I say “we” because I have the pleasure of being a member of that standing committee at this time. We have the opportunity to refer those matters and seek advice not about the operational side but at least about what the ACC did or did not do on a particular matter, and refer it to any one of the other public sector agencies that also have a complaints or an investigative role. They include the Ombudsman; the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards; the Auditor General, who also has a particular role in the matters that can be referred to him; the police, if the matters are of such a nature; or, in some circumstances, the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sure that all members of Parliament know that some people in the community, for some reason or another, are not satisfied that their complaints have been investigated properly. Many of them carry that burden with them for many years and it eats away at them. All that happens is that they go from one public sector oversight body to another. It just goes around in a circle. There seems to be a view that there needs to be a better way to deal with these complaints. Although the Parliamentary Inspector of the Corruption and Crime Commission will deal with some of the problems that the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and members of the public have faced, it will not be an answer to the many concerns of members of the public who believe that their complaints have not been properly investigated. One of the issues that the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission discussed was whether its role and function should take in more than just the Corruption and Crime Commission and whether it should have a broader and wider role in terms of integrity in the public sector and, therefore, in other public sector bodies. Although those other bodies were regularly invited to attend the JSCACC, no prescription was provided. There is no prescription for the standing committee in this legislation either. It is left to the standing orders of this House. I hope that the Attorney General can give us some very strong views about what he believes should be put in place. At the moment the legislation provides that it can be a standing committee of either House or a joint standing committee. That is under the ACC legislation. The Corruption and Crime Commission will report to a standing committee. No other description is given. I believe the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission has been an effective committee of this Parliament as an oversight body. It is because it was a joint standing committee of both Houses. It has also been fairly bipartisan. If the new standing committee is to have credibility as an oversight committee of such a very important commission, I would like the Attorney General’s views of the role of the committee. It is interesting that the legislation provides for a review after five years. The reason is that Hon Derrick Tomlinson is on record as saying that these bodies, around the world and in Australia, have a life expectancy of only four to five years. Community surveys and attitudes conducted by the Independent Commission against Corruption in New South Wales show after about five years whether such commissions are effective. The more effective a commission is in creating public debate and referrals to such bodies as the ICAC, the more the community sees there is corruption. As such, the community becomes more concerned about corruption. It becomes cyclic as to whether a commission is effective in uncovering corruption and exposing it. In exposing corruption there is a high level of corruption that is recognised by the community. All the anticorruption bodies in Australia and around the world change their processes and format every four to five years. The Corruption and Crime Commission started its life in 1989 as the Official Corruption Commission. The Act was No 52 of 1988. The OCC was a very small organisation. Its Act has only 14 sections. It was established by the then Labor Government. The Act had limited powers and very few resources. The OCC Act was amended in 1991 and 1994, when I was the Attorney General. It was also amended in 1996. The 1991 amendments committed the commission to report to Parliament. The 1994 amendments were more extensive and the 1996 amendments created the Anti-Corruption Commission, which was a more extensive body. Nonetheless, there was continuity between the OCC and the ACC. Although the ACC was a much larger and more powerful body than the OCC, the 1996 amendments built on the earlier changes, in particular, the 1994 amendments. There was not a major structural change. To some extent, it is the same with the Corruption and Crime Commission. Although there is a change from three commissioners sitting as a body to one commissioner, it has addressed some of the more serious concerns raised by members of the public, the ACC and the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission. In particular, the process of investigation, the lack of public hearings, the parliamentary inspector and the lack of powers of the

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8063 commission were the main concerns. More powers were needed to fight corruption properly within the community. More particularly, an educative role was needed for the long term. In 1992 a Legislative Assembly select committee on the OCC Act recommended substantial changes to the Act. Those changes were put in place in 1994. They expanded the jurisdiction of the commission. As I indicated, the ACC was established in 1996. It is interesting to look at the names of commissions in Australia and around the world. Some identify corruption up-front and some are anticorruption. Some refer to public sector integrity, police integrity or the like. However, the important thing is not necessarily the name of the body but the confidence established in the body. I suggest that we need a few amendments when establishing confidence in the new body. Some deal with the individual commissioner, who will be a very important person. It is particularly true given the powers that will be given under the Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Act 2002. The exceptional powers legislation, otherwise known as the bikie legislation, was passed by this Parliament with a great deal of scrutiny and support. It was also passed with some concerns about the necessary safeguards put in place when the Commissioner of Police sought exceptional powers. The safeguard was given on the basis that the Commissioner of Police needed to seek the authority from a judge of either the Supreme Court or the District Court. The Act will be repealed and incorporated in the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill 2003 for two reasons. The first is that, cynically, it could well be that a serving judge will always perform that role. That was identified at the time of the debate on the Bill. Secondly, the interim report of the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers recommended that a crime function be carried out. It is carried out by other structures around Australia. For instance, the Queensland anticorruption body has a close working relationship with that State’s Police Service. Members of that Police Service move in and out of the organisation as needed. It could be argued that because the State has a small population, it is one of the economies of scale that has been achieved through that body. It is also argued that it gives a level of expertise in investigating matters in which it has knowledge. Although I do not believe there is a problem in seconding members of a Police Service, it is not something that has always been encouraged in Western Australia. The practice in this State has been to encourage the appointment of investigators from the eastern States. I believe that the limitation on the appointment of the commissioner not being a police officer is an important one. It is because it supports the integrity of the commissioner, who must be independent. A level of confidence by the community must be maintained in the commission. One of the important issues is the number of police who will be prepared to come forward to the Corruption and Crime Commission. That has not been significant in Western Australia, and going to the Anti-Corruption Commission has actually been discouraged by the informal network within the Police Service. I am pleased that this is now being actively discouraged, and the member for Kalgoorlie will enlarge on this. Police officers are now being actively encouraged to inform on matters of misconduct or corruption within their purview. That is to be supported. The Police Service has a particularly good role model for the protection of whistleblowers. I have raised this before, in debate on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. That model is provided by the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards, once the whistleblowers legislation is brought into being. The status of the commissioner is of importance for the confidence of the community. The exceptional power should go to a judge, which would give some level of comfort that there is a proper check and balance to the Commissioner of Police seeking exceptional powers. If the appointment does not have the status of a judge, it would, perhaps, not necessarily undermine confidence in the office, because an individual can always influence that, but it might create concern in the community that could lead to the undermining of that individual, and therefore of the commission in its early stages. That will be a critical element. If the person appointed was not only qualified to be a judge, but was actually a serving judge, the commission would be set on a very strong footing to begin with. The parliamentary inspector, as I have indicated, has a very important role. However, under the legislation that person has no qualifications. The office has a very important function to carry out. The tenure of the office is for only two years, whereas that of the commissioner is for four years. If the parliamentary inspector has an oversight role, and the Government is really serious about accountability and the fight against corruption, the parliamentary inspector should not have a shorter tenure than the commissioner. I will be putting forward an amendment to extend the tenure of the parliamentary inspector, and also to increase the status of the office. At the moment the Bill provides no qualifications for the parliamentary inspector, although he has the oversight role. The functions of the inspector are outlined in clause 192(1), which reads - The Parliamentary Inspector has the following functions - (a) to audit the operations of the Commission for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the laws of the State; (b) to deal with matters of misconduct on the part of the Commission, officers of the Commission and officers of the Parliamentary Inspector; (c) to assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Commission’s procedures; (d) to report and make recommendations to the Commission; (e) to report and make recommendations to Parliament and Standing Committees;

8064 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(f) to perform any other function given to the Parliamentary Inspector under this or another Act. Clause 192(2) reads - The functions of the Parliamentary Inspector may be performed - (a) on the Parliamentary Inspector’s own initiative; (b) at the request of the Minister; (c) in response to a complaint made to the Parliamentary Inspector; or (d) in response to a reference by Parliament, a Standing Committee or the Commission. This seems to provide some level of imbalance. If a commissioner has the role of granting exceptional powers to the Commissioner of Police, and has qualifications equal to eight years of legal practice or those of a judge, then the parliamentary inspector, who has a very important oversight role, should not be of a lesser status or qualification, or serve a lesser term. It appears to me that this legislation would say to the community, as well as to the commissioner and the parliamentary inspector, that the inspector has a lesser role than that of the commissioner. However, this inspector has a particularly valuable and important role in ensuring the confidence and the integrity of the commission. I am sure this is where the Government wishes to go, and I will be bringing forward an amendment about the qualifications of the parliamentary inspector. To remove some of the unworkable provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the new commission is to be given powers that are not presently available to the Anti-Corruption Commission. These relate to integrity testing and control operations. In fact, the Corruption and Crime Commission will have all the powers of the police royal commission, including integrity testing and control operations, assumed identities and the like. That is very important in combating corruption. Some will say that these practices will breach the privacy of the individual, and that they are going over the top. Those arguments have always been around; they are always around whenever these extra powers are given to these bodies. The balance to this is that the public sector, overseen by a corruption commission, will have the confidence of the community in Western Australia and Australia, and of those who wish to come and invest in Western Australia. It is significant that, in all of the conferences around the world, corruption is seen as having an impact on the economics of a country. Which countries do Western Australian businesses prefer to deal with? Generally they prefer those countries which have some stability and integrity in their public sector. Countries like Singapore have a very strong zero tolerance policy towards corruption. That country has turned around to a remarkable degree in 20 years, and it is a model that is being looked at by other Asian countries that face a constant battle dealing with corruption in their public services. I will turn to some of the other aspects of this legislation. Misconduct is defined in clause 4, which reads - Misconduct occurs if - (a) a public officer corruptly acts or corruptly fails to act in the performance of the functions of the public officer’s office or employment; (b) a public officer corruptly takes advantage of the public officer’s office or employment as a public officer to obtain a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; (c) a public officer whilst acting or purporting to act in his or her official capacity, commits an offence punishable by 2 or more years’ imprisonment; (d) a public officer engages in conduct that - (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public body or public officer; (ii) constitutes or involves the performance of his or her functions in a manner that is not honest or impartial; (iii) constitutes or involves a breach of the trust placed in the public officer by reason of his or her office or employment as a public officer; or (iv) involves the misuse of information or material that the public officer has acquired in connection with his or her functions as a public officer, whether the misuse is for the benefit of the public officer or another person, Other reviewable actions follow. The investigations that have taken place by the Anti-Corruption Commission indicate the sorts of conduct involved. The report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission, No 4 of 2003, includes cases reported by the ACC outlining some of its operations. It states that the cases reported to the ACC from 1 July to 31 December 2002 alleging serious misconduct in public office were as follows: police, 119; government departments, 84; local government, 40; and other public authorities, 14. That makes a total of 257.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8065

The Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers highlighted some of the issues that have been uncovered as misconduct and allegations of corruption. Some may say that the police would be one of the main areas for the focus of attention, yet the statistics for only a six-month period show that police comprise less than half; if the Department of Justice is included it goes over half. It may well be that a functional role within the police and the Department of Justice tends to uncover those types of allegations and acts, excluding other departments and agencies. The other government agencies and local government are of particular interest to me, because those organisations have received the least attention. A change of culture is absolutely essential in an educative and advisory role. I will refer to some of the aspects that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has highlighted as corrupt conduct. Some of the examples include - A public official uses (or misuses) public resources for their personal benefit Examples: A public official uses a work computer and work time to develop projects for private clients. A public official claims travel allowances for trips not taken or claims expenses not incurred. A public official uses an agency’s earthmoving equipment to improve the value of his own home or does landscaping for his friends. A public official claims overtime for periods when he is playing golf. . . . A council employee asks for money in return for a guarantee of being awarded a contract. A public official awards a government tender to a company in which they have a pecuniary interest. A public official forges an approval on official letterhead to help out a business friend. A public official takes financial advantage of a client in their care who may be elderly, a person with a disability, or from a non-English speaking background. . . . A public official looks up driver licence information in response to a request from a friend who is a private investigator. A public official (or former public official) provides confidential information to a company bidding for government work. . . . A company that wants to do business with a government agency offers a public official money or a gift to choose that company for the job. Representatives of a private company regulated by a government agency take a government inspector to expensive lunches and social functions - One could even add sporting functions. and give the inspectors’ children gifts with a view to guaranteeing preferential treatment. A business pays a salary to a public official’s wife (even though she is not in their employ) in return for expedited approvals. It is a very serious issue in terms of the matters that can be brought forward, as identified by the matters that have come before the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The information provided on the ICAC web site is very interesting. In particular, it contains a regular newsletter which identifies reports that are published on a regular basis on the matters before and in relation to the public hearings that are conducted. Once a public hearing is conducted, that information is made public. Some people may identify that they do not wish to have a public hearing. It may not be in their interest. However, the commissioner can decide that if it is in the public interest to do so, a public hearing can be held. I refer to the legislation before us and who is covered by it. A public officer is defined under section 1 of the Criminal Code as - (a) a police officer; (aa) a Minister of the Crown; (ab) a Parliamentary Secretary . . . ;

8066 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(ac) a member of . . . Parliament; (b) a person authorised under a written law to execute or serve any process of a court or tribunal; (c) a public service officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Sector Management Act 1994; (ca) a person who holds a permit to do high-level security work as defined in the Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999; (cb) a person who holds a permit to do high-level security work as defined in the Prisons Act 1981; Does this definition cover contractors who carry out work, for example, under the AIMS Corporation contract? Mr J.A. McGinty: Only some at the higher level. It is not the bulk of them. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: It is those who do high-level security work. Therefore, not all those employed under the Prisons Act would be covered. I ask the Attorney General to identify that in his response. Under section 1 of the Criminal Code the definition of public officer relates to persons who hold a permit to do high-level security work as defined in the Prisons Act and the Court Security and Custodial Services Act. Who it does not include is very important, particularly with some of the issues that are coming forward from the Department of Justice. The definition continues - (d) a member, officer or employee of any authority, board, corporation, commission, local government, council of a local government, council or committee or similar body established under a written law; or (e) any other person holding office under, or employed by, the State of Western Australia, whether for remuneration or not; The issue with contracting out relates not just to the areas of prisons, custodial services and the like. The issue is how wide the definition is and whom it will cover under the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill. I refer to some issues relating to how corruption is dealt with. I mentioned earlier community attitudes to corruption. In 1997 ICAC published the report “Community Attitudes to Corruption and the ICAC 1996”, which is very interesting in terms of the chicken and the egg situation I identified earlier. Respondents regarded workplace behaviour in the public sector more stringently than workplace behaviour in private business. That is very important because, firstly, it deals with the higher regard in which members of the community hold the public sector and the reason that confidence should not be lost. Respondents indicated that corruption was not mitigated by the number of people involved or whether it involved personal gain; it was still a corrupt activity. Respondents indicated that the public sector was and should be more accountable than the private sector because greater accountability and probity should apply with the spending of public money and that the public sector should set an example. Some of the perceptions from respondents on the effects of corruption were also very important. One comment in the report stated - We don’t get a fair go, say with jobs, like the jobs for the boys thing. Another comment was that ethical values that are promoted in the community should be demonstrated in the conduct of the public sector. Another comment relating to disillusionment, loss of confidence and loss of trust stated - It’s unfair, you put trust in the government and there are shonky people running things at the top. This disadvantages me and my family. Those comments are very enlightening for any Government considering the establishment of a corruption and crime commission agency. What is corruption? The misconduct defined in the Bill is quite broad. I have also identified examples of the forms and causes of corruption, such as the abuse of office, fraud, bribery etc. The consequences of corruption are a loss of confidence by the community, by investors in the State and generally within government itself. There is not just one solution to combat corruption, such as the establishment of the Corruption and Crime Commission. The Parliament has a very strong role to play in fighting corruption, particularly in terms of accountability. The WA Inc royal commission report clearly highlighted the role of Parliament. The index of that report covers issues such as open government, accountability, integrity in government, standards of conduct for public officials and whistleblowing. It covers also issues for the Parliament itself such as questions on notice, questions without notice, the role of standing and select committees and other matters. It deals also with issues such as political appointments, appointments of ministerial staff and the role and operation of the Government Media Office. To some extent some of those concerns are being raised again. I implore members opposite to take time to read the report, if they have not already read it, of the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters. That report cost this State a lot of money and we do not want repeated the same issues again and again. We want to prevent and detect corrupt activity in the public sector. Strategies can be used for intervention to ensure a level of credibility and integrity. There is a legal framework and the rule of law. I suppose one issue in the debate on the previous Reserves (Reserve 43131) Bill was the rule of law and the

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8067 legal framework. There must be exceptional reasons for taking away individuals’ rights to natural justice and judicial review. Those reasons must always be explained to this House and not pooh-poohed as taking up time. It is very important. There is also the issue of financial discipline and management of public sector finances. The State’s AAA credit rating is being kept on the basis of the community paying for it through increased taxes. The public is paying for the Government’s surplus, but it is yet to be understood by the community. When it does, it will judge the Government on it. Another strategy for intervention is procurement, which is the awarding of government contracts. Proper checks and balances must be put in place and the process must be transparent. That concern was raised recently when Hon Tom Stephens put forward a new policy. He identified a new Department of Housing and Works policy on 6 May to improve risk management and best practice. They are just words. Under the policy, the minister has the ability to exempt particular contracts from the policy to ensure cost effectiveness and risk management. Why would a minister put himself or herself into that position whereby that exemption was not made transparent? The Government has put in place a policy, with which I do not agree, that no builder is to hold more than five contracts valued at more than $1.5 million at any time. If there is a solid reason for providing an exemption, the minister should be able to argue for and debate that reason. However, it defies all imagination that a minister would put himself in a position in which there is no transparency to the fact that he can exempt particular contracts through a policy. That defies accountability in government and does not lend itself to being ethical or anticorruption. I have identified public education awareness, the sensitivity of citizens’ rights and public sector reform. Public sector reform is very important, particularly with regard to its change of culture. Earlier, I indicated that the Police Service has at least started to move down that path. That is not necessarily so for the rest of the public sector. Given the increasing number of complaints against local government, I suggest it is not necessarily so for local governments either. I have consistently raised my concerns in this place regarding whistleblower legislation and the protection of those whistleblowers. The Government will not have effective whistleblower legislation if it does not change the culture of the public sector. The Government will not change the public sector culture and create an environment for whistleblowers to come forward on corrupt activity and allegations of serious misconduct, the likes of which the Government wants referred to the Corruption and Crime Commission, if it does not demonstrate that it will protect whistleblowers. I again raise the issue of Chris Read, who is a proven whistleblower. His life has been absolutely and totally destroyed. His family has been absolutely and totally destroyed. Why would anybody else in the public sector come forward and make complaints which, to all intents and purposes were proven, if they will not be looked after? The Government says that will happen in the future. I am telling you, Mr Speaker, that in the future no-one will have confidence in going through that process because whistleblowers are not being looked after. The Government has not demonstrated that it will protect whistleblowers. If this Government were serious about identifying and combating corruption, it would hold Chris Read up to the public sector as an example to it that its culture will change. That would provide the public sector with an example that the Government will protect whistleblowers not just in the future when the legislation comes into force from 1 July 2003, but from today. If the Government were serious, it would do that. However, it is bound by the Public Sector Management Act in a way that is unbelievable, because the public sector will always protect its own. When a person writes a letter of complaint to the minister, that letter goes to the person who has the most knowledge, and that person is often the very person against whom the complaint has been made. That person then writes a letter to the minister, and the minister signs it off, and the letter goes around and around in a circle. It is no wonder that we as members of Parliament get complaints that have gone from the Auditor General to the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards, the Ombudsman, the Commissioner of Police and the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission, because the person has been getting no satisfaction whatsoever. I also raise the issue of Shane Houston, a former public servant in the Western Australian Department of Health. An allegation was made some three years ago about an activity that he had undertaken. The department started an investigation into the allegation but then dropped it. The Director of Public Prosecutions then picked it up, but it also dropped it because the department had restarted its own investigation. The Minister for Health confirmed to me earlier this year that that investigation is still under way, three years later. How on earth will we ever combat corruption if we do not make the changes in the public sector that need to be made to deal with complaints effectively, and when the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards says that she can do nothing about it because until the investigation has been completed, she has no power to act? That provides a prime opportunity for a department or agency not to do anything. It can start an investigation and then lose it. That is not fighting corruption. Local government is another example. The City of South Perth had a whistleblower. Mr P.G. Pendal: He was very badly treated. Mrs C.L. EDWARDES: He was extremely badly treated. I understand that even today he does not have a job. That is absolutely disgraceful. I know that the Attorney General is serious about the whistleblower legislation. However, I implore him to recognise that this legislation will do nothing to improve integrity in the public sector if we do not change the culture of the public sector. We cannot change the culture of the public sector if we do not protect whistleblowers. Irrespective of the legislation that will come in on 1 July, whistleblowers will not come forward because they have seen what has been done to the likes of Chris Read and the person at the City of South Perth. They

8068 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] are just two recent examples of people who have had their actions confirmed. Those two people need to be put on a pedestal for coming forward. This legislation is all about combating corruption. If people who have the ability to detect corruption within the public sector do not come forward, then this legislation will come to nought. We have some issues with the legislation. These sorts of independent corruption agencies have been around for some time in the world and in Australia, and since 1989 in Western Australia. They are there to ensure the integrity of public administration and public institutions in this State. The integrity and accountability of public administration is absolutely essential to democracy. I have identified a number of concerns and issues that will seriously undermine this legislation for the Government of the day, not the least of which is the lack of support for whistleblowers in the whistleblower legislation. The awarding of contracts - the Hon Tom Stephens example - is another important issue and one that the Government should be taking seriously. It is absolutely essential if we are to prevent corruption in the future to have a level of transparency in the awarding of government contracts. The educative function of the commission is critical and will need to be resourced. That educative function is not being carried out effectively in this State, and it needs to be. I believe that most States and countries that have established independent corruption agencies have found that the educator function and advisory role have been far more important than the investigative function. There is a need to ensure that a very strong resourcing role is identified for that particular function. We support the legislation. I thank the Attorney General for working with us in a constructive way and for agreeing to many of our amendments to date. I have identified a further couple of amendments that we will bring forward. I look forward to the rest of this House’s contribution towards what I believe is a very important function; that is, maintaining the integrity of the public sector within Western Australia. DR E. CONSTABLE (Churchlands) [10.36 pm]: This is the second time in seven years that this Parliament has been asked to debate anticorruption agency legislation. I hope we get it right this time. As we all now recognise, the Anti- Corruption Commission Act has many failings. The inadequacies of the Anti-Corruption Commission have been well aired in the media over the past few years; certainly since 1996. We have seen challenges to the authority of the Anti- Corruption Commission in the courts and in the media. In particular, over the past few years we have seen challenges to the authority of the Anti-Corruption Commission by the Western Australian Police Union. I offer the observation that there have been inordinate delays in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to briefs received from the ACC. I am sure that on occasions that has been a great hindrance to the work of the Anti-Corruption Commission. From a number of angles, the ACC has had a difficult time, not the least of which has been the result of some inadequacies in the legislation. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission since its inception in 1996, I found it a great disappointment that the previous Government, which set up the ACC, did not take the advice of the committee on any occasion whatsoever. The committee worked very diligently and reported on many occasions with suggestions for improvements to the legislation. Many of those suggestions are contained in the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill before us today. I am pleased with that. In the chairman’s foreword to the committee’s second report of this Parliament, tabled in both Houses on Tuesday, 19 December 2002, Hon Derrick Tomlinson wrote - In the first five years of its operation, the ACC failed to win the confidence of many serving police officers, has been in conflict with the Police Union, has been the subject of adverse media comment, and has had its authority challenged successfully in the Supreme Court. All of these things have detracted from the important role the ACC has played in pursuing improper conduct within the public sector, and in particular, within the Police Service. I welcomed this Government’s announcement of the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. Royal commissions have two basic purposes: firstly, to uncover any wrongdoing in the area they are looking into; and, secondly and very importantly, to restore the confidence of the community in the issues under investigation. Often one hears comments in the media, particularly on talkback radio, from people complaining about the cost of royal commissions. They often cost a lot of money, but they are set up to investigate important problems or issues in the community. For that reason alone, I believe that most of the time they are justifiable, as is their cost. If this royal commission, which is costing millions of taxpayers’ dollars, restores the community’s confidence in the Police Service, and also in a new anti-corruption commission, it will have done its job. The royal commission has made recommendations to this Government that new legislation be set up to improve the anti-corruption agency that we have. Let us hope that this will help restore confidence in the Police Service itself. The Corruption and Crime Commission Bill 2003 seeks to remedy the inadequacies of the existing legislation that governs the Anti-Corruption Commission. In doing so, it creates a new anti-corruption agency with much greater powers than the ACC has had. In a number of reports to this Parliament, the joint standing committee recognised that the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 1988 was flawed. Indeed, in eight of the 11 reports in the last Parliament, the joint standing committee recommended amendments to the Act. As I said a moment ago, I am greatly disappointed that the Court Government did not see fit to look closely enough at those recommendations and act on at least some of them. The current Government is now implementing at least some of the recommendations. I draw special attention to the inclusion of a parliamentary inspector in the new legislation. It is a very welcome addition and will add a new dimension of accountability in this complex area. It will add a dimension of accountability

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8069 to the Corruption and Crime Commission. I hope it will give those people who have complaints about the CCC - there have certainly been complaints against the ACC by individuals - a place to which to go, and hopefully they will have confidence that their complaints will be examined with proper scrutiny. The inclusion of a parliamentary inspector should give all stakeholders much-needed confidence in the new anti-corruption agency. I sincerely hope that is the case. Perhaps people will ask why we need an anti-corruption agency anyway. I believe that in a democracy it is imperative that citizens have confidence in their public officers, particularly in their Police Service. I do not believe that it is possible in this day and age for a Police Service to investigate itself. It is not generally accepted that it can do so. It is much better to have a separate authority investigating these issues in the community. I recognise the important role that police officers play in this community and the difficult and dangerous job they must often do. However, I also recognise that police officers have powers and privileges well beyond those of all other citizens. For instance, they can carry guns and act in ways in which the rest of us cannot act. Therefore, they have enormous responsibility as well. It is important that they carry out their duties with honesty and integrity. I hasten to add that I am confident that the majority of police officers carry out their duties in a fair and honest way. However, I believe that a separate authority is needed to investigate corruption and improper behaviour in the public sector, and particularly in the Police Service. In the next few days it will be important for this legislation to be scrutinised carefully by this Parliament to ensure that sufficient checks and balances are in the structures presented before us for this new anti-corruption agency. This Bill affords the CCC extraordinary powers. The CCC will have the powers of the ACC and of the royal commission. Together, that makes a pretty hefty package of powers that can be exercised by the CCC. I repeat what the Attorney General pointed out in his second reading speech. The Bill’s powers will allow the Corruption and Crime Commission to examine people on oath both in public and in private. Examination in public will be a new power that should be exercised with great caution. Secondly, it will give powers to use assumed identities and surveillance devices. It will also give power to conduct covert activities, such as integrity testing of police officers. Integrity testing is an accepted method of uncovering corrupt and criminal behaviour, but it must be exercised with great caution. The new legislation will replace the three part-time commissioners of the Anti-Corruption Commission with one full- time commissioner. I am not sure it is wise to put all that power with one commissioner. Nevertheless, this aspect will unfold through explanation by the Attorney General during consideration in detail. I am comforted by the fact that the legislation will also establish a position of parliamentary inspector, which will be a check and balance on the powers to be given to the one commissioner. The parliamentary inspector will have access to all records of the CCC, and will be able to investigate complaints against the commission. A great frustration of the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission has been the fact that individual citizens with complaints about the actions of the ACC had no place to which to take their complaints. On many occasions, the committee and individual members of the committee received complaints from individuals with grievances about their treatment by the ACC. I am not here to judge whether they were legitimate complaints, but every citizen should have a place to go to have complaints considered. The parliamentary inspector will have that role - it will be a very important part of the inspector’s work. However, the Bill is silent on the qualifications of the parliamentary inspector. A very experienced person in the manner of a judge or retired judge should be appointed. I understand that requirement is included in an amendment to be incorporated into the legislation. Mr J.A. McGinty: Some people are of the view that given the commissioner should be a judicial-type person, in order to provide a counterbalance, somebody who is not a lawyer would be appropriate as the parliamentary inspector. You are very much going for the legal model, from what you say. Dr E. CONSTABLE: Absolutely. That is what I have seen in other jurisdictions, and it works. We should flesh that aspect out in consideration in detail to ensure we are comfortable with the direction in which we are headed. We certainly must talk about the level of experience of the person in investigative work, reporting and other such matters. I would urge a safety net in appointing someone with experience as a judge. In only two clauses does the Bill refer to a standing committee - namely, clauses 92 and 198 - and no detail is provided about the committee itself. When Parliament provides extraordinary powers to an agency or individual, it is important that Parliament retains a constant watching brief on that agency. The joint standing committee has had that brief in the ACC legislation since 1996. A joint standing committee scrutinised, as far as possible, the Anti-Corruption Commission. However, this Bill before the Chamber is silent on the form and role of the standing committee. This issue must be fleshed out in consideration in detail. However, I offer this comment at this stage: from my experience on the joint standing committee over the last six years, it is very important that a dedicated standing committee develop expertise in this area. The wording of the Bill could be misconstrued. I understand a dedicated standing committee will be appointed to oversee the CCC. I hope that the current structure of the committee is maintained; that is, a joint standing committee that comprises an equal number of members of both Houses. It should be a balanced committee so that it conducts its work in the spirit of bipartisanship. It should never be the case that one point of view has a majority of votes on such a committee. I believe very strongly

8070 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] that the committee has worked well up till now and I would not like to see a change to that make-up. I hope that the Attorney General takes note of those comments based on my experience. Another point I raise is the educative and preventive role of the Corruption and Crime Commission. This is a new and very welcome role for the anticorruption agency. There are a couple of models in other parts of Australia, particularly the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has a role in education and prevention. I do not think there is much use in spending millions of dollars just investigating corruption without learning some lessons from it and ensuring that those lessons are absorbed into the public service and are taken note of. Education is one way of doing that. In the visits that the joint standing committee made to the eastern States and overseas, one of the areas that we looked at in some detail was the educative role of such agencies. However, we also looked at the initial training of police officers and integrity and ethics training. This is one area in which the CCC could play a role. Also, there is a role in the continuing professional development of public officers. This is a very important role in which the CCC could very quickly learn a lot from what ICAC has done and in the materials that ICAC has produced in its educative role. I note also that in the Attorney General’s second reading speech, he commented on the budget of the CCC and said that it will be greatly increased. The amount mentioned was $21 million in the current budget. Is that correct? Mr J.A. McGinty: Yes. Dr E. CONSTABLE: Tonight, just to check up on the Attorney General, I looked at the previous budgets of the Anti- Corruption Commission and it is a considerable increase. In order to do its job of education, it needs to be properly funded; it cannot just be paid lip-service. I will be interested in watching the development of that area of the CCC. The consideration in detail stage of this Bill will be very important. We need to understand the implications of the extraordinary powers that will be given to the commissioner and to the officers of the CCC. I do not agree that there is a need to hurry this Bill along, although there seems to be quite a lot of urgency from the Government’s point of view. There are 82 amendments on the Notice Paper. That points to the fact that the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill may well have been put together in a bit of a hurry. That sets off an alarm bell in my mind that we must go through this Bill step by step and be very sure that we know what we are doing. It has to work this time because the last time it did not work. It is very important that we get it right. On that note, I support the legislation and I look forward to the consideration in detail stage. Adjournment of Debate MR J.A. McGINTY (Fremantle - Attorney General) [10.53 pm]: In the light of the appropriate way in which this matter has been progressed, I move - That the debate be adjourned. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 10.53 pm ______

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8071

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

CRIME, SAFER WA PROGRAM, DOWNGRADING 710. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Premier I refer to the Office of Crime Prevention report entitled ‘New Structures for Crime Prevention in Western Australia’ dated October 2002 and ask: - (a) does the Minister agree that the report downgrades the Safer WA program to the point where it will have little, if any, impact; (b) if so, does the Minister support this direction; (c) if so, on what grounds; (d) if not, what action does the Minister propose to ensure the continued operation of the Safer WA program; (e) does the Minister agree that the Safer WA name is recognised within the community; (f) does the Minister agree that the proposed new structure effectively limits community input to the bottom; (g) if so, does the Minister agree with such limited community input; (h) if so, why; (i) if not, what steps does the Minister propose to ensure that the opportunity for real community consultation is retained; (j) does the Minister agree that the proposed new structure effectively places control in the hands of the bureaucracy; (k) if so, does the Minister support this proposition; (l) if so, why; (m) if not, what steps does the Minister propose to broaden the operation of the proposed new structure; and (n) when will the Minister detail the Government’s response to the proposal? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (a)-(d) No, the report's recommendations seek to build on the strengths of SAFER W.A., address limitations identified during the extensive consultations by SAFER W.A. members and implement the Government's policies to enhance the State's efforts to prevent and reduce crime. (e) No, the feedback during the extensive consultations indicated that the name SAFER W.A. had poor and ambiguous recognition in the wider community. (f)-(j) No, the proposed structure seeks to take a whole of Government approach and to enhance 'grassroots' community involvement at the local level and make it more meaningful. In fact it seeks to ensure that there is community involvement at all levels. (k) Best practice models for crime prevention, which are recognised nationally and internationally, adopt whole of Government and whole of community approaches. (l) See (k). (m) See (k). (n) When the consultative process has been finalised. RAILWAY STATIONS, VEHICLE THEFT FROM CAR PARKS 711. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the Minister’s announcement that more than 200 vehicles were stolen from train car parks in the past financial year and ask - (a) how many of these were from - (i) Whitfords; and (ii) Warwick;

8072 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(b) how many vehicles currently park at - (i) Whitfords; and (ii) Warwick, on a daily or weekly basis; and (c) what are the current costs of parking at - (i) Whitfords; and (ii) Warwick? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) (i) Whitfords: 22 vehicles stolen. (ii) Warwick: 31 vehicles stolen. (b) (i) Whitfords has 730 bays. (ii) Warwick has 973 bays. Both carparks are at full capacity on weekdays. (c) (i) At Whitfords no fee is charged for parking. (ii) Warwick has a secure parking area where a fee is charged. That fee is currently $1.65 per day or part thereof.

MAYLANDS BOATYARD PTY LTD, LEASE 714. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer the Minister to the Maylands Boat Yard Lease and ask - (a) have the terms and conditions of this lease been varied since February 2001; (b) in what way have these terms and conditions been varied; (c) was a ‘Variation of Lease’ signed; (d) who instigated the changes; (e) was a report compiled to investigate the changes to the terms and conditions; (f) if yes to (e), who compiled this report; (g) if no to (e), why was a report not compiled to investigate the effect of any changes to the terms and conditions; (h) will the Minister table copies of all reports, notes, contacts and reasons for the changes to the terms and conditions to the Midland Boat Yard Lease; (i) if not, why not; (j) will the Minister table the changes to the terms and conditions and if yes to (c), a copy of the Variation of Lease, of the Midland Boat Yard Lease; (k) if not, why not; and (l) was the lessee consulted about the changes to the terms and conditions of the lease? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) No. (b)-(l) Not applicable, however, a review of the lease is currently in progress which will be finalised shortly and is the subject of consultation with the lessee, the boat yard licensee and the Maylands Amateur Boat Owners Association.

SOUTHERN RAIL LINK, AMENDMENT TO METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME 715. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the WA Planning Commission's (WAPC) proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme to allow construction of a railway within lands reserved for roads without a requirement for public or Parliamentary approval and ask - (a) what action does the Minister propose to ensure that she meets her undertaking to Parliament that all aspects of development of the southern rail link will be brought to Parliament for approval;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8073

(b) since my question on notice No. 112 of Thursday, 12 September 2002, has the Minister had an opportunity to study the map laid on the table of the House; (c) if so, does the Minister now agree that the WAPC amendment would allow the Government to construct railways or light rail along any major arterial road specifically highlighted on this map, without the need for development approval; (d) if the Minister has not yet studied the map, why not; (e) if the Minister has not yet studied it, will she do so and provide a response; (f) does the Minister agree that any declaration of a 'minor' amendment effectively removes any requirement for public and Parliamentary scrutiny; (g) if so, how does the Minister reconcile this with the Government's declared policy of community consultation and accountability; and (h) if not, what action will the Minister take to ensure that public and Parliamentary scrutiny remain priorities for the Government? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) All new railways whether in Railways or Road reserves under the Metropolitan Region Scheme will continue to require a Railways Enabling Act. Such legislation is always supported by reports about how the development of the railway is intended to occur and is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Also, all new reserves for Railways and associated infrastructure will be made by way of Major Amendments under Section 33 of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act. The Act requires that these amendments are laid before both Houses of Parliament. Such amendments are always accompanied by explanatory reports on the results of the consultation processes required under the Act. Revisions to the reserve alignment in the MRS for the South West Metropolitan transit route are currently proceeding by way of a major amendment to the MRS (No. 1032/33). (b) Yes (Note: it is assumed that this is a map of Regional Roads in the MRS). (c) No. Any new railway would need a Railways Enabling Act which would require Parliamentary approval. If amendment 1060/33A (which is the amendment referred to in the question) proceeds to finalisation then the approval of the WAPC will not be required for the construction of rail track work and related infrastructure within the Regional Road reservation. Development approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme has never been a function of Parliament and nothing changes as far as Parliament is concerned with this amendment. (d) Refer (b). (e) Refer (b) (f) No. If the WAPC decides that an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme should proceed by way of the minor process under s33A Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act, the amendment takes effect following final approval by the Minister. The amendment is not required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as is the case with a major amendment. A minor amendment, however, is subject to public scrutiny by way of notification of affected landowners, public advertising and the opportunity to lodge submissions. In order to broaden the opportunities for public consultation and comment, at my request, the Commission is also establishing hearing committees to hear submissions on minor amendments. (g) The Government remains committed to maintaining and enhancing public and Parliamentary scrutiny for major rail projects. (h) Refer (g).

POLICE, LOST TIME DUE TO CHANGES IN COURT TIMES AND CANCELLATION OF CASES 720. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services I refer the Minister to the answer to question on notice No. 538 and ask - (a) is the Minister aware that Police regard lost time, due to changes in court appearance times as a major drain on Police time and resources; (b) is the Minister aware that Police Services in other countries log lost time as a result of changes to court times and cancelled court cases;

8074 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(c) is the Minister aware that there is a cost to the taxpayer for the lost man-hours involved in changes to court times and cancelled court cases; (d) will the Minister implement a review of Police man-hours lost as a result of changes to court times and cancelled court cases; and (e) will the Minister acknowledge that lost Police man-hours, as a result of changes to court times and cancelled court cases, result in less hours of actual Policing work? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (a)-(e) An Early Brief Allocation process has been implemented to identify when charges will not be proceeding, and to have the hearing date vacated accordingly. Unfortunately, both the Court and the Police Service Prosecutors are reliant on Defence Counsel receiving instructions from their client in sufficient time prior to the hearing date. This has been a long-standing issue and, in recognising this situation, the Department of Justice over-list the hearing courts at the Perth Court of Petty Sessions by one third to ensure the effective use of available resources. The Police Service is not aware of the overseas practice. Importantly, however, all attempts are made to ensure lost man-hours are kept to a minimum. SHIRE OF MURRAY TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO 4, AMENDMENT NO 157 723. Mr J.L. Bradshaw to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Does the Minister have Amendment No 157 of the Shire of Murray Town Planning Scheme No 4 before her? (2) How long has this amendment been on her desk? (3) When will a decision be made with regard to this amendment? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1) No (2) The Amendment is not on my desk. (3) My decision to approve the amendment subject to modifications was made on 3 December 2002. My office has referred a request from the Shire of Murray for clarification of some requirements to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure for advice and I will respond when this is received. I understand this is imminent. SHIRE OF BROOME, CLINIC DEVELOPMENT IN RESIDENTIAL AREA 726. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer the Minister to the recent decision by the Shire of Broome not to allow a clinic development in a residential area, because it did not comply with the Town Planning Scheme and ask: - (a) has an appeal been lodged against the Council’s decision; (b) if yes, who lodged the appeal, on what date and on whose behalf; and (c) when will the appeal be determined? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) Yes (b) Planning Consultancy 'Rural Urban Planning & Design' has lodged the appeal on behalf of the Department of Housing and Works, on 31 January, 2003; (c) I am advised that the Shire of Broome reconsidered its previous refusal and has now decided to grant conditional approval to the proposed renal dialysis outpatient hostel. Accordingly, I expect that the appeal will be either withdrawn or used to negotiate over conditions imposed on the approval. I am yet to be advised on this matter. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE, ENFORCEMENT OF LEASE CONDITIONS 727. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer the Minister to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s responsibility for enforcement of lease conditions and ask: - (a) how many leases, in the metropolitan area, is the Department for Planning and Infrastructure the lessor for; (b) on how many occasions has the Office of the Ombudsman investigated the enforcement of lease conditions by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and to which leases do these investigations refer;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8075

(c) what was the reason for each investigation; (d) what was the outcome of each investigation; and (e) have any changes been recommended in the way the Department of Planning and Infrastructure deals with and enforces lease conditions? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: The breadth of the information being sought by the Member would take considerable resources to collate. I am not prepared to reallocate agency resources to meet this request. If there is a specific lease that the Member is concerned with, the Member is requested to ask a question on that particular lease. LICENSING CENTRES, METROPOLITAN, STAFF, FUNDING AND PRACTICAL TESTS FOR NEW DRIVERS LICENCES 728. Dr E. Constable to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) How many full time equivalent staff did each metropolitan licensing centre employ in each of the following financial years - (a) 1999/2000; (b) 2000/2001; (c) 2001/2002; and (d) 2002/2003? (2) How much funding did each metropolitan licensing centre receive in each of the following financial years - (a) 1999/2000; (b) 2000/2001; (c) 2001/2002; and (d) 2002/2003? (3) How many practical tests for new drivers’ licences were conducted in each of the following financial years - (a) 1999/2000; (b) 2000/2001; (c) 2001/2002; and (d) 2002/2003? (4) At each metropolitan licensing centre, what is the average number of days wait for an appointment time to undertake the practical test component of a new driver’s licence? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: 1 (a) 13 Centres, 162 FTE (b) 13 Centres, 162 FTE (c) 13 Centres, 164 FTE (d) 14 Centres, 166 FTE 2 (a) $5,567,692 (b) $5,675,314 (c) $5,993,974 (d) $6,387,522 3 (a) 45,725 (b) 51,499 (c) 54,852 (d) 36,606 to 28 February 2003 4 In the last eight months the average waiting time to obtain a practical driving assessment in the metropolitan area has been 7 weeks. In cases of extreme hardship, emergency and medical or legal requirements a test time is made available at short notice. I have asked the Department for Planning and Infrastructure to explore a number of options that should reduce waiting times. BUS DRIVERS, NUMBER AND STRESS LEAVE 742. Dr E. Constable to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) How many bus drivers were employed by the State Government in each of the following years

8076 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(a) 1998; (b) 1999; (c) 2000; (d) 2001; and (e) 2002? (2) How many of the bus drivers in (1) took stress leave in each of the following years - (a) 1998; (b) 1999; (c) 2000; (d) 2001; and (e) 2002? (3) What was the total number of working days missed by bus drivers on stress leave in each of the following years - (a) 1998; (b) 1999; (c) 2000; (d) 2001; and (e) 2002? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: The only bus drivers employed by the State Government were those employed by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission (1) (a) 30 (b) 28 (c) 27 (d) 27 (e) 30 (2) None. (3) Not applicable MOTOR VEHICLE BREAK INS, NUMBER 745. Dr E. Constable to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) How many motor vehicle break ins were reported in the WA Police Service’s Central Metropolitan District in 2001/2002? (2) How many of the reported motor vehicle break ins in (1) involved property theft other than the vehicle itself? (3) In how many cases of the reported motor vehicle break ins identified in (2) was an offender charged? (4) How many of the reported property thefts in (2) occurred in the vicinity of Lake Monger? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: The WA Police Service advise: (1)-(2) ‘Motor vehicle break-ins’ and ‘motor vehicle theft’ are identified as two separate offences. There were 5928 motor vehicle break-ins’ and 1429 ‘motor vehicle thefts’ in 2001/02. (3) In 186 incidents at least one offender was arrested, summonsed, formally cautioned or referred to a Juvenile Justice Team. A further 301 incidents were satisfactorily resolved by other means. (4) Of the 5928 reported motor vehicle break-ins (excluding motor vehicle theft): 47 occurred within the vicinity of ‘Lake Monger’ 331, although occurring within the Central Metropolitan Police District, were unable to be precisely geographically placed. CRIME, STATISTICS 746. Dr E. Constable to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) What were the total numbers of criminal offences recorded in each category of offence listed below for both 2001 and 2002 - (a) homicide;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8077

(b) rape; (c) robbery; (d) assault; (e) abduction; (f) house burglary; (g) vehicle theft; and (h) drug offences? (2) How many of the offences recorded for each category and each year in (1) were committed in rural Western Australia? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1) Please see Attachment A. [See paper No 1149.] OLD COURT HOUSE COMPLEX, BUSSELTON 752. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Is the Department of Land Administration currently negotiating with the Shire of Busselton for renewal of the lease of the Sargent’s Quarters within the Old Court House Complex in the Busselton townsite? (2) Is the Department supportive of the subject land and property being re-vested in the Shire and for a purpose consistent with ‘community arts and cultural purposes’? (3) When are negotiations between the Department and the Shire expected to be concluded, recognising that the Busselton Art Society Inc is concerned about their on-going use of the site? (4) Is the Department aware of any reasons why the past lease of the site to the Shire has not been up to expectations or aware of any possible impediments to the vesting being renewed? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1) The Department of Land Administration (DOLA) and the Shire of Busselton (Shire) are working together to rationalise land tenure over the Old Court House complex, so that all the property will be under the direct management of the Shire. (2) Yes. (3) DOLA and the Shire are mindful of the current arrangements with the Busselton Arts Council Inc. A proposal to enable this matter to be progressed is currently with the Shire for consideration. (4) No. CRIME, STATISTICS 768. Mr J.L. Bradshaw to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services I refer to the bureau of Statistics figures to the 30 June 2001 indicating that the areas of greatest crime in Western Australia are the Perth CBD, the Fremantle CBD, Belmont, Victoria Park and South Perth districts and ask - (a) what were the rates of all different types of crime in the Belmont, Victoria Park and South Perth districts for the 10 years from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2002; and (b) what were the rates of all different types of crime in the Perth CBD and the Fremantle CBD in that 10 year period? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (a)-(b) The Western Australia Police Service advise that the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Statistical Indicators December 2002, (catalogue No 1367.5) reported the number and rate per 1,000 persons at Local Government Area (LGA) on selected crime offences in Western Australia. Given the changes to reporting practices and offence classifications, comparable data is only available from 1998. Statistics are provided at Attachment A. [See paper No 1150.] LGA boundaries do not precisely align with Police boundaries. The data provided relates to Police Service Sub-Districts. See Attachment B for suburbs covered by each Police Sub-District. [See paper No 1150.]

MOTOR VEHICLES, NOISY AND SMOKY VEHICLES 772. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer the Minister to her media statement of 3 October 2002 entitled ‘New Rules Target Noisy, Smoky Vehicles’ and ask -

8078 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(a) how many warnings, notices and improvement orders have been issued since the new policy came into force; (b) what type of vehicles have been issued with warnings, notices and improvement orders; (c) will the Minister explain the difference between a 4-wheel drive vehicle, used for commercial purposes, with excessive black exhaust gasses and a 4-wheel drive in private use; and (d) if no warnings, notices and improvement orders have been issued, what policies does the Minister intend to put in place to fight air pollution? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) The new Rules referred to in my media statement of 3 October took effect on 1 November 2002. These Rules are known as the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 2002. Work orders are not categorised according to the faults and therefore the number issued specifically for emission offences is not known. (b) For the reasons mentioned previously, the type of vehicle issued with warnings is not known. (c) There is no difference between four wheel drive vehicles used for commercial purposes and those used privately in terms of any obligation to keep the vehicles in good running order. Both vehicle categories are treated equally in terms of penalties with respect to non-compliance. (d) The Department for Planing and Infrastructure (DPI), Main Roads WA and the Police Service are currently in the process of jointly preparing compliance notices and other documentation to take into account the provisions of the newly introduced Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002 and the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 2002. Once these are completed, the agencies mentioned above will finalise the draft enforcement strategy in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Protection. Fundamentally the policies to fight air pollution will be based on the strategies contained in the Vehicle Emissions Management section of the Perth Air Quality Management Plan. Both DPI and Main Roads WA have been working with the Transport industry in an endeavour to raise awareness with respect to air pollution and DPI has been consulting with the motor vehicle repair industry to provide support in repairing defected vehicles. A brochure entitled 'Clear the Air – New exhaust emission requirements for Western Australian vehicles' has recently been published and is currently being disseminated to all industry sectors and to user groups, such as the RAC.

COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, MOBILE TELEPHONES, PAGERS, VEHICLES AND CREDIT CARDS 790. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Will the Minister advise whether any member or chairperson of Government committees or boards, other than ex-officio members, within the Minister’s portfolio have been provided with the following - (a) mobile telephones; (b) pagers; (c) vehicles; and (d) credit cards? (2) If yes, will the Minister provide the name of the committee or board and the name of the member or chairperson to each committee and board? (3) If a credit card has been issued, what is the credit limit for each card? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: The following persons have been provided with a mobile phone: Albany Port Authority Board Chairperson, Mr T Enright The following persons have been provided with a vehicle: Western Australian Planning Commission Chairperson, Mr Terrance Martin The following persons have been provided with credit cards (limits in brackets): Western Australian Planning Commission Chairperson, Mr Terrance Martin ($5,000) Fremantle Port Authority Board Chairperson, Mr R Aitkenhead ($10,000) Geraldton Port Authority Chairperson, Mr Ian King ($20,000)

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8079

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CREDITORS, PAYMENT OF INVOICES 800. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West For each department and agency within the Attorney General’s portfolio since 1 May 2001, will the Attorney General provide the following - (a) the number of creditors for each month; (b) the number of creditors paid within 30 days, 45 days, 60 days and 90 days or more of the receipt of the invoice; (c) for invoices paid after 60 days, what was the value of each invoice; and (d) for invoices paid after 90 days or more, what was the value of each invoice? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The following answer has required considerable allocation of time and resources, especially within the Department of Justice. While I am committed to openness and transparency, unless the Member is more specific in parliamentary questions, I am unable to agree that agencies within my portfolio commit time and resources to questions, which are so general and wide ranging in nature. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW REFORM COMMISSION See attached document. [See paper No 1152.] ELECTORAL COMMISSION See attached document. [See paper No 1153.] EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION See attached document. [See paper No 1154.] OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a) May 01: 12 June 01: 16 July 01: 7 August 01: 15 September 01: 11 October 01: 16 November 01: 12 December 01: 12 January 02: 14 February 02: 10 March 02: 14 April 02: 12 May 02: 11 June 02: 15 July 02: 8 August 02: 11 September 02: 8 October 02: 11 November 02: 8 December 02: 12 January 03: 14 February 03: 9 (b) 30 days – 1,339; 45 days – 139; 60 days – 5; and 90 days – 20. (c) $594.75; $1387.76; $148.78; $885.32; $347.15; $157.34; $300.04. (d) $1.98; $7061.67; $3686.61; $3026.43; $1386.77; $594.33; $440.00; $16.50; $38.50; $4.62; $8602.09; $7928.69; $3595.02; $3398.01; $1318.24; $564.96; $3152.60; $53.90; $23.10; $8388.38. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES (a) 2001/5 66 2001/6 105

8080 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

2001/7 50 2001/8 49 2001/9 57 2001/10 44 2001/11 73 2001/12 54 2002/1 53 2002/2 60 2002/3 43 2002/4 82 2002/5 54 2002/6 56 2002/7 59 2002/8 57 2002/9 65 2002/10 42 2002/11 48 2002/12 71 2003/1 56 2003/2 54 2003/3 49 (b) Within 30 days 1175 Within 45 days 96 Within 60 days 25 Within 90 days 16 After 90 days 35 (c) Invoices paid after 60 days, the amounts:- $11 $50 $56 $75 $86 $94 $109 $136 $150 $548 $712 $739 $973 $1,214 $1,258 $19,132 (d) Invoices paid after 90 days, the amounts:- $10 $11 $27 $40 $46 $50 $52 $78 $94 $95 $120 $132 $139 $198 $230 $271

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8081

$287 $308 $312 $428 $573 $694 $780 $832 $876 $1,380 $1,974 $5,022 $8,975 $9,042 $9,343 $20,426 $21,975 $22,287 $29,479 PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) May 2001 78 Jun 2001 56 Jul 2001 45 Aug 2001 63 Sep 2001 45 Oct 2001 64 Nov 2001 65 Dec 2001 53 Jan 2002 63 Feb 2002 54 Mar 2002 45 Apr 2002 60 May 2002 65 Jun 2002 59 Jul 2002 39 Aug 2002 50 Sep 2002 46 Oct 2002 44 Nov 2002 61 Dec 2002 36 Jan 2003 56 Feb 2003 52 (b) This information is not to hand; however, it is Peel Development Commission policy to pay undisputed accounts within 30 days of receipt. It is acknowledged that there are/will be minor exceptions. (c) Not available. (d) Not available. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) 2001: i. May 2001 188 ii. June 2001 121 iii. July 2001 31 iv. August 2001 42 v. September 2001 118 vi. October 2001 119 vii. November 2001 100 viii. December 2001 127

8082 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

2002: i. January 2002 96 ii. February 2002 75 iii. March 2002 97 iv. April 2002 85 v. May 2002 105 vi. June 2002 114 vii. July 2002 53 viii. August 2002 106 ix. September 2002 64 x. October 2002 60 xi. November 2002 60 xii. December 2002 57 2003: i. January 2003 101 ii. February 2003 72 (b) Month Within 30 days Within 45 days Within 60 days Within 90 days or more May 2001 188 Statistics were not collected prior to July 2001 June 2001 121 Statistics were not collected prior to July 2001 July 2001 24 7 0 0 August 2001 40 2 0 0 September 2001 105 13 0 0 October 2001 112 7 0 0 November 2001 96 0 3 1 December 2001 114 10 2 1 January 2002 85 5 0 6 February 2002 72 2 0 1 March 2002 91 4 1 1 April 2002 77 5 1 2 May 2002 100 2 1 2 June 2002 107 7 0 0 July 2002 52 1 0 0 August 2002 106 0 0 0 September 2002 64 0 0 0 October 2002 60 0 0 0 November 2002 55 5 0 0 December 2002 57 0 0 0 January 2003 94 2 3 2 February 2003 69 1 2 0 (c) November 2001 $66.50 November 2001 $497.65 November 2001 $3 520.00 December 2001 $1 191.50 December 2001 $22 000.00 March 2002 $18 760.50 April 2002 $46.75 May 2002 $715.00 January 2003 $896.07 January 2003 $39.94 January 2003 $495.00 February 2003 $154.20 February 2003 $630.00 (d) November 2001 $37.00 December 2001 $11 275.00 January 2002 $22.00 January 2002 $1 003.00 January 2002 $600.00 January 2002 $132.00 January 2002 $99.83

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8083

January 2002 $412.50 February 2002 $193.30 March 2002 $1 657.34 April 2002 $42 476.50 April 2002 $352.12 May 2002 $83.10 May 2002 $6.51 January 2003 $218.00 January 2003 $21 939.92

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS 818. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) How many employment contracts have been entered into under the Minister’s portfolio since the election of the Labor Government? (2) What was the dollar amount and duration of each contract? (3) What is the name of the person/entity with whom the contract has been entered into? (4) What is the nature of the work or services required by the contract? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) The information being sought by the member is not readily available. I would advise that information systems used in agencies are designed to address operational and statutory requirements and don't necessarily facilitate the ready provision of information being sought by the member. However, if the member has a particular issue of concern, I would be pleased to consider arranging for the agency to provide information on that specific issue.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SALE OF ASSETS VALUED AT OVER $500 000 832. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Will the Minister provide the following information for all Government-owned assets, sold since the election of the Labor Government, which had a sale price of $500,000 or greater - (a) the name and nature of the asset; (b) the date of sale; (c) the nature of the sale and name of the buyer; (d) any associated revenue from the sale, such as stamp duty; (e) the application of the funds received; and (f) any associated costs incurred in the process of the sale? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: Fremantle Port Authority: (a) Water Reticulation excluding Shipping Water (b) 28 June 2002 (c) By agreement with the Water Corporation (d) Nil (e) Fremantle Ports cash management resources (f) $27,519 Western Australian Planning Commission: (a)-(d),(f)[See paper No 1155.] (e) The proceeds received from the sale are receipted to the Metropolitan Region Improvement Fund Trust Account which enables the moneys to be used to implement the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Department for Planning and Infrastructure: (a) Lots 303 and 401 Pilbara Street, Welshpool (ex Maintenance Depot) (b) 31 December 2001. (c) The property was sold via Contract of Sale to the West Australian Land Authority (LandCorp) along with the improvements for $6,070,000 plus $607,000 GST. (d) None.

8084 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(e) The funds received were credited to Main Roads revenue and utilised for planned road projects. (f) Valuation fees of $900 . Main Roads WA: (a) (i) Lot 1 Plackett Way, Busselton (ex Main Roads Depot) (ii) Lot 3 and 5 Duffy Road, Carine (b) (i) 30 March 2001. (ii) 4 January 2002 (c) (i) Sold by auction to KD Power Pastoral Company Pty Ltd for $480,000 plus $48,000 GST. (ii) Sold by auction to Peci Properties Pty Ltd for $1,350,000 plus $19,000 GST (d) (i) The buyer paid $18,145 stamp duty. (ii) The buyer paid $61,202 stamp duty. (e) (i) The funds received were credited to Main Roads revenue and utilised for planned road projects. (ii) The funds received were credited to Main Roads revenue and utilised for planned road projects. (f) The costs incurred in the process of the sale were: (i) Valuation Fees $1,520 plus GST Advertising Costs $2,434 plus GST Sales agent's commission $9,600 plus GST (ii) Valuation Fees $1,540 plus GST Town planning advice $1,750 plus GST Surveying $900 plus GST Advertising costs $6,353 plus GST Sales agent's commission $8,438 plus GST Site cleanup $276 plus GST DOLA: (a) (i) Pine Plantation at Baldivis, formerly State Forest No.70 (ii) Reserve for the Supervision of Offenders, Land and Improvements (iii) Jean Beadle Community Centre, Land and Improvements (iv) Mental Health Clinic, Land and Improvements (v) Stoneville Research Station, Land and Improvements (vi) Land (vii) Land and Improvements (viii) Pedestrian Access Way (ix) Wokalup Research Station, Farm land and Improvements (x) Scarborough Senior High School, Land (xi) Former Building Management Authority depot, Land and Improvements (xii) Land (xiii) Bushland (xiv) Albany Primary School, Land and Improvements (xv) Port Reserve, Land and Improvements (b) (i) 19 March 2001 (ii) 9 April 2001 (iii) 15 June 2001 (iv) 5 July 2001 (v) 5 July 2001 (vi) 24 September 2001 (vii) 22 November 2001 (viii) 5 December 2001 (ix) 19 February 2002 (x) 26 March 2002 (xi) 3 April 2002 (xii) 11 April 2002 (xiii) 24 May 2002 (xiv) 23 July 2002 (xv) 3 September 2002

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8085

(c) (i) Sale on behalf of Conservation and Land Management Authority, HWE Land Pty Ltd (ii) Sale on behalf of the Department of Justice, Swan Cottage Homes Inc. (iii) Sale on behalf of the Department of Justice, Anglican Schools Commission Inc. (iv) Sale on behalf of the Disability Services Commission, Pivot Projects Pty Ltd (v) Sale on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Hillbrook Corporation Pty Ltd (vi) Sale to LandCorp (vii) Sale on behalf of the Department of Health, Hamersley Road Joint Venture Pty Ltd (viii) Sale of government owned land to HC and JM Stephen (ix) Sale on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and Training (x) Sale on behalf of the Department of Education and Training, LandCorp (xi) Sale on behalf of the Department of Housing and Works, Carlisle Projects Pty Ltd (xii) Sale of government owned land to the Department of Housing and Works (xiii) Sale of government owned land to the Waters and Rivers Commission (xiv) Sale on behalf of the Department of Education and Training, Perpetual Trustees Ltd (as custodian for Macquarie Countrywide Management Ltd) (xv) Sale of government owned land to the Fremantle Port Authority (d) (i) Sale price of $8,500,000.00 over 10 years, with interest of $4,200,000.00 over 10 years (ii) Sale price of $842,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $240.00. (iii) Sale price of $860,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $135.00. (iv) Sale price of $1,530,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $385.00. (v) Sale price of $828,722.73, with fees to DOLA of $265.00. (vi) Sale price of $540,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $185.00. (vii) Sale price of $4,550,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $1,005.00. (viii) Sale price of $503,181.82, with fees to DOLA of $185.00. (ix) Sale price of $5,400,000.00. (x) Sale price of $14,701,363.64, with fees to DOLA of $3,045.00. (xi) Sale price of $2,781,818.82, with fees to DOLA of $625.00. (xii) Sale price of $1,985,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $495.00. (xiii) Sale price of $501,000.00. (xiv) Sale price of $3,520,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $795.00. (xv) Sale price of $5,820,000.00, with fees to DOLA of $1,415.00. Stamp Duty is collected by the Office of State Revenue. (e) All sale price proceeds were paid into the Consolidated Fund. All fees paid to DOLA were paid into the DOLA controlled part of the Public Bank Account to cover the cost of providing land title registration and other services. (f) It has not been possible to identify particular costs associated with the sale of any of the properties. Most sale costs were incurred by the agencies on whose behalf DOLA sold the property. LandCorp: LandCorp's primary business is the development and sale of land, frequently for a sale price of greater than $500,00. In essence these transactions are of the nature of trading stock rather than disposal of assets. LandCorp has not disposed of any non-trading assets of a value greater than $500,00 since the election of the Labor Government. Western Australian Government Railways: (a) (i) Forrestfield Marshalling Yards – Swan location 13565 (3.9501 ha) (ii) Forrestfield Marshalling Yards – Swan location 13563 (32.3697 ha) (iii) Forrestfield Marshalling Yards - Swan locations 13569 (35.6417 ha), 13570 (6.1526 ha), 13694 (18.6047 ha) and 13696 (1.2594 ha) (b) (i) 17/10/01 (ii) 6/6/02 (iii) 17/3/01 (location 13569), 12/3/01 (locations 13570, 13694, 13696) (c) (i) Joe White Maltings Ltd (ii) Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd (iii) Western Australian Land Authority (LandCorp) (d) Revenue from the sales is as follows: (i) $1,461,500. (ii) $7,000,000

8086 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(iii) $17,324,258. There is no associated revenue other than stamp duty, which is directly payable by the purchaser. WAGR is not party to this transaction. (e) Proceeds from the sales were used to reduce borrowings. (f) (i) $798,600 (ii) 4,918,500 (iii) 10,672,900

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PAYMENT OF CLUB/ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS 845. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) Will the Minister advise if any Government department or agency within the Minister’s portfolio paid for membership to a club/association for a member of staff since February 2001? (2) If so, will the Minister provide - (a) the name of the staff member; (b) the name of the club/association; and (c) the amount paid? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: Western Australia Police Service The WA Police Service advise: (1) Yes (2) (a-c) B E Matthews International Association of Chiefs of Police $379.48 T J Atherton International Association of Chiefs of Police $581.12 G Trew Security Agents Institute $154.00 Australian Security Industry Association Ltd $224.65 J Jasper The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia $630.00 M Alder WA Law Society $170.50 Ballistics Section Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners $100 (US) F Gere International Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators association $330.00 I Calderwood Joondalup Business Association $192.50 I Wray The Institute for Information Management Ltd. $340.00 J Layton The Institute for Information Management $170.00 A Davies Australian Library and Information Association $242.00 D E Balchin Qantas Corporate Card (2001) $203.50 B J Brennan “ “ $203.50 J Frame “ “ $203.50 M C Hay “ “ $203.50 K J Porter “ “ $203.50 G T Power “ “ $203.50 J R Standing “ “ $203.50 Snr Const Kinnear Civil Aviation Authority Renewal $75.00 T Kriening “ $75.00 T J Atherton Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Inc $270.00 D E Balchin Qantas Corporate Card (2002) $203.50 B J Brennan “ “ $203.50 J Frame “ “ $203.50 M C Hay “ “ $203.50 K J Porter “ “ $203.50 J R Standing “ “ $203.50 Canine Section WA Canine Association $89.75 Sgt D Hawkins Equine Federation of Australia $145.00 Snr Const Carey “ $145.00 Snr Const Plunkett “ $145.00 These staff form the Training Cell of the Mounted Section which requires this accreditation for the purpose of specialised training. § Manager Records Branch Records Management Association $456.50 § Finance Division “ “ § Senior Records Officer “ “

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8087

§ Records Project Officer Records Management Association § No individual has been nominated for these memberships the position receives the membership. Note - Some of these amounts may be made up of more than one payment over this period of time. Fire and Emergency Services Authority The Fire and Emergency Services Authority advise: (1) Yes. (2) (a)-(c) P Kimber Australian Yachting Federation $33 G Kennedy WorkSafe WA $59 Corporate Institute of Public Administration $618 Corporate Institute of Fire Engineers $1200 Corporate Australian National Road Accident Rescue Association $500 S McKechnie Australian Health Promotion Association $165 E Logan Australian Health Promotion Association $165 E Logan Australian Health Promotion Association $132 Corporate Fire Protection Association Australia $330 A Nibbs Association of Fire Investigators (NSW) $40 S Rooney Golden Wings $190 B Forbes Golden Wings $190 G Hall Golden Wings $190 B Hamilton Golden Wings $302 G Gifford Qantas Club $355 B Hewitt Qantas Club $560 K Darbyshire Qantas Club $560 B Mitchell Qantas Club $320 G Gifford Qantas Club $180 N Divine Qantas Club $560 B Hewitt Qantas Club $320 K Darbyshire Qantas Club $320 Note - Some of these amounts may be made up of more than one payment over this period of time. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PAYMENT OF CLUB/ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS 846. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) Will the Minister advise if any Government department or agency within the Minister’s portfolio paid for membership to a club/association for a member of staff since February 2001? (2) If so, will the Minister provide - (a) the name of the staff member; (b) the name of the club/association; and (c) the amount paid? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) Yes, For the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, DOLA and the Fremantle, Bunbury, Geraldton, Albany and Port Headland Port Authorities see paper No 1146. For Main Roads WA see paper No 1146 LandCorp's staff health program provides a one-off contribution of $100 to the initial cost of joining a gymnasium. LandCorp also pays professional membership fees for staff where maintenance of professional accreditation is beneficial to LandCorp's interests, see tabled papers GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PAYMENT OF CLUB/ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS 850. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Health (1) Will the Minister advise if any Government department or agency within the Minister’s portfolio paid for membership to a club/association for a member of staff since February 2001? (2) If so, will the Minister provide - (a) the name of the staff member;

8088 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(b) the name of the club/association; and (c) the amount paid? Mr R.C. KUCERA replied: Department of Health 1. Yes 2. (a) Allan Quigley (b) Qantas Club Membership (2002-2004) (c) $486.20 (a) Allan Quigley (b) Royal Australasian College of Medical Administration (2002) (c) $343.90 (a) Allan Quigley (b) Australian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs (2001) (c) $170.50 (a) Steve Allsop (b) Australian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs (2001) (c) $170.50 (a) Steve Allsop (b) Australian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs (2002) (c) $170.50 (a) Steve Allsop (b) Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2002) (c) $128.00 (a) Myra Browne (b) Australian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs (2001) (c) $170.50 (a) Sue Leivers (b) WA Health Promoting Schools Association (2002) (c) $60.00 (a) Gary Kirby (b) Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2003) (c) $190.00 (a) David Neesham (b) Qantas Club (c) $374.00 (a) Mark Scully (b) Australasian Association for Quality in Health Care (c) $270.00 (a) Dorothy Jones (b) International Society for Quality In Health Care (c) $184.00 (a) Dorothy Jones (b) Australasian Association for Quality In Health Care (c) $100.00 (a) Sally Skevington (b) Australasian Association for Quality in Health Care (c) $100.00 (a) Phillip Della (b) Qantas Club (c) $203.50 (a) Phillip Della (b) Ansett Golden Wing (c) $189.23

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8089

(a) Gayle Nelson (b) Health Services Liaison (c) $20.00 (a) Beth Martino (b) Metabolic Dietary Disorders (c) $30.00 (a) Susy Battalis (b) Speak Easy Association of WA (c) $35.00 (a) Patricia Tibbett (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $374.00 (a) John Love (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $374.00 (a) Frank Gaglio (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $374.00 (a) Philip Montgomery (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $374.00 (a) Geoffrey Leech (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $374.00 (a) Beress Brooks (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $361.14 (a) Gareth Goodier (b) Qantas Club Corporate Membership (c) $374.00 (a) Sandra Thompson (b) Australasian Society for HIV Medicine (ASHM) (2001) (c) $110.00 (a) Sandra Thompson (b) Australasian Society for HIV Medicine (ASHM) (2002) (c) $110.00 (a) Maryrose Baker (b) School Health Coalition of WA (c) $60.00 (a) Maryrose Baker (b) WA Health Promoting Schools Association (WAHPSA) formerly School Health Coalition) (c) $60.00 (a) Judith Bevan (b) Western Australian Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies (c) $165.00 (a) Cathy Campbell (b) Australian Health Promotion Assoc (c) $330.00 (a) Denise Ferrier (b) School Health Coalition of WA Inc (c) $60.00 (a) Meg Berry (b) Public Relations Institute of Australia WA (c) $275.00

8090 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(a) Martin Matisons (b) Qantas Club (c) $185.00 (a) Peter DiMarco (b) Ansett Gold Wishes Club (c) $172.00 (a) Brian Devine (b) Qantas Club (c) $951.00 (a) Merran Smith (b) Golden Wing Ansett (c) $189.00 (a) Merran Smith (b) Qantas Club (c) $764.00 (a) Merran Smith (b) Health Informatics Society of Australia (c) $264.00 (a) Tim Threlfall (b) International Association of Cancer Registries (c) (US) $360.00 (a) Sandy Webb (b) Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash (c) $195.00 (a) Sandy Webb (b) Plunkett Centre for Ethics (c) $120.00 (a) Sandy Webb (b) Southern Cross Bioethics Centre (c) $99.00 (a) Sandy Webb (b) British Infertility Counsellors Assoc (c) (UK)£120.00 (a) Sandy Webb (b) Hastings Centre for Ethics (c) (US) $282.00 (a) Mark Platell (b) Royal Australian College of Medical Administrators (c) $710.00 (a) Mark Platell (b) Royal Australian College of Physicians (c) $635.00 (a) Mark Platell (b) Medical Board of WA (c) $180.00 (a) John Burns (b) Qantas Club (c) $572.00 (a) Gillian Tulloch (b) Ansett Golden Wing Club (c) $303.00 (a) David Naughton (b) Centre for Mental Health Service Research (c) $240.00

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8091

(a) Lyn Smith (b) Injury Control Council (c) $143.00 (a) Lyn Smith (b) Kidsafe (c) $165.00 (a) Raquel Willis (b) WA Substance Users Association (c) $150.00 (a) Raquel Willis (b) Alcohol Advisory Council (c) $330.00 ($110.00 per annum) (a) Ian Smith (b) Qantas Club (c) $594.00 (a) Ian Smith (b) Golden Wings (c) $189.23 (a) Shane Matthews (b) Qantas Club (c) $189.23 (a) Shane Matthews (b) Golden Wings (c) $189.23 (a) Christine O'Farrell (b) Qantas Club (c) $594.00 (a) Christine O'Farrell (b) Golden Wings (c) $189.23 (a) Gordon Stacey (b) Qantas Club (c) $594.00 (a) Gordon Stacey (b) Golden Wings (c) $189.23 (a) Tim Shackleton (b) Qantas Club (c) $390.50 (a) Dianne McCavanagh (b) Qantas Club (c) $203.50 (a) Theresa Williams (b) Qantas Club (c) $203.50 (a) Sioux Brooks (b) Qantas Club (c) $407.00 (a) Andrew Chuk (b) Qantas Club (c) $203.50 (a) Andrew Holton (b) Association of Health Industries Auditors (c) $303.96

8092 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(a) Steve Jensen (b) Association of Health Industries Auditors (c) $379.59 (a) Steve Jensen (b) Institute of Internal Auditors (c) $284.86 (a) Andrew Holton (b) Institute of Internal Auditors (c) $284.86 (a) Andrew Holton (b) Information Systems Audit Control Association (c) $303.96 Healthway 1. Yes 2. (a) Addy Carroll (b) Public Health Association of Australia (c) $605 Office of Health Review 1. No 2. Not applicable PROSTITUTES, NUMBER AND OFFENCES 871. Dr E. Constable to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services (1) How many prostitutes were estimated to be working in Western Australia at 13 February 2003? (2) How many of the people estimated in (1) are female? (3) How many offences were recorded under section 191 of the Criminal Code which relates to procuring a person to be a prostitute in each of following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (4) How many offences were recorded under section 192 of the Criminal Code which relates to procuring a person to have unlawful carnal knowledge by threats, fraud or administering drugs in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (5) How many offences have been recorded under section 5 of the Prostitution Act 2000 which relates to seeking a prostitute in or in view or within hearing of a public place in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (6) How many offences have been recorded under section 6 of the Prostitution Act 2000 which relates to seeking a client in or in view or within hearing of a public place in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (7) How many offences have been recorded under section 7 of the Prostitution Act 2000 which relates to seeking to induce a person to act as a prostitute in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8093

(c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (8) How many offences have been recorded under section 8 of the Prostitution Act 2000 which relates to the offence of not using a prophylactic in an act of prostitution each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (9) How many offences have been recorded under section 9 of the Prostitution Act 2000 which relates to the promotion of employment in the prostitution industry in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (10) How many offences have been recorded under section 10 which relates to prohibition of certain sponsorship of prostitution under the Prostitution Act 2000 in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (11) How many offences have been recorded under section 11 of the Prostitution Act 2000 which relates to hindering a police officer in the performance of any function under the Act in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (12) How many offences have been recorded under section 12 of the Prostitution Act 2000, which relates to contravening a direction by police to move on, in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (13) How many offences have been recorded under section 14 of the Prostitution Act 2000, which relates to child prostitution, in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (14) How many offences have been recorded under section 16 of the Prostitution Act 2000, which relates to causing, permitting or seeking to induce a child to act as a prostitute, in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (15) How many offences have been recorded under section 17 of the Prostitution Act 2000, which relates to obtaining payment for prostitution by a child in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (16) How many offences have been recorded under section 20 of the Prostitution Act 2000, which relates to prostitution at a place where a child is present, in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001;

8094 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (17) How many offences have been recorded under section 21 of the Prostitution Act 2000, which relates to allowing a child to be at a place involving prostitution, in each of the following years- (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? (18) How many convictions were recorded for the offences recorded in questions (1) to (17) in each of the following years - (a) 2000; (b) 2001; (c) 2002; and (d) so far in 2003? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(2) Due to the transient nature of employment in the prostitution industry and problems in identifying self- employed prostitutes, it is difficult to arrive at an accurate estimate of the number of prostitutes. Estimates range from over 1200 to 3500 prostitutes. (3)-(17) The Police Service advises that it does not keep any centralised, readily accessible record of offences in relation to the specific provisions of the Prostitution Act 2000. Any attempt to extract the data manually within the time frame may not be sufficiently accurate and would divert considerable time and police resources away from front-line duties. The Police Service advises that from August 2000 to the end of March 2003, 579 charges were preferred, and 1574 move on notices and 14 restraining orders were issued under the provisions of the Prostitution Act 2000. (18) The Police Service advises that it does not maintain systematic records of convictions correlated to specific offences.

WATER EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES, CONSUMPTION LEVELS 872. Dr E. Constable to the Premier I refer to the water efficiency incentives announced by the Premier on 10 February 2003 and ask: - (a) what percentage of the total amount of scheme water consumed in Western Australia was consumed by householders over each of the following years - (i) 1998; (ii) 1999; (iii) 2000; (iv) 2001; and (v) 2002; (b) what percentage of the total amount of scheme water consumed in Western Australia was consumed by businesses over each of the following years - (i) 1998; (ii) 1999; (iii) 2000; (iv) 2001; and (v) 2002; (c) what kinds of businesses in (b) used the most scheme water in Western Australia over each of the years in (b) and what were the amounts of scheme water in kilolitres that those businesses consumed; (d) what percentage of the total amount of scheme water consumed in Western Australia was consumed by agricultural activities over each of the following years - (i) 1998; (ii) 1999; (iii) 2000; (iv) 2001; and (v) 2002;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8095

(e) what kinds of agricultural activity in (d) used the most scheme water in Western Australia over each of the years in (d) and what were the amounts of scheme water in kilolitres that those categories of activity consumed; (f) what Government incentives, if any, apply to the business and agricultural sectors to reduce the amount of scheme water they consume; and (g) what kinds of initiatives, if any, have the business and agricultural sectors put in place to reduce the amount of scheme water they consume? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: The Premier has provided the following response: (a) The figures below are for the Water Corporation only and do not include consumption from other water providers (e.g. Busselton Water, Aqwest, Hamersley Iron). 1998 70% 1999 70% 2000 70% 2001 71% 2002 68% (b) The figures below are for the Water Corporation only. 1998 19% 1999 19% 2000 18% 2001 18% 2002 20% (c) For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not possible to disclose consumptions of individual companies. However, the top 10 Water Corporation consumers are engaged in the following activities: Co-generation Pigment production Brewing Petroleum refining Paper products Nickel production Dairy Weaving Airports The total consumption for this group of companies is as below: 1998 not available 1999 7.7 gigalitres 2000 9.9 gigalitres 2001 8.0 gigalitres 2002 8.5 gigalitres (d) The figures below are for the Water Corporation only. 1998 2% 1999 2% 2000 2% 2001 2% 2002 2% (e) The Water Corporation supplies water under a 'Farmland' classification. There is no further breakdown in this category. The amount consumed over the past 5 years is: 1998 6.4 gigalitres 1999 5.6 gigalitres 2000 5.5 gigalitres 2001 5.6 gigalitres 2002 6.0 gigalitres These figures do not include bulkwater for irrigation, which is not considered to be scheme water.

8096 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(f) Under the State Water Strategy, the Government is introducing a number of measures to increase water efficiency and water conservation by business and agriculture, including – - Water Conservation Plans which will be required before a water allocation plan is issued or renewed. The plan will outline water efficiency objectives and timeframes. Licence conditions will require implementation of the plan to an agreed schedule; - A whole of Government review of irrigation activities throughout the State; - Develop a package drawing on the experiences of the NSW Waterwise on the Farm initiative. In addition, the price of water is a major incentive for business to conserve water. Water supplied to business is priced to reflect the true economic cost. The Government continues to support the Farm Water Assistance Scheme, which encourages the development of on-farm water supplies. (g) The Government is not privy to water saving initiatives of individual companies. However, it is aware that many companies undertake process reviews to improve water efficiency, others have invested in technology to reuse wastewater and others have developed alternative supplies to scheme water. For example, the Government is building a $20 million water recycling plant in Kwinana which will initially be capable of processing five gigalitres (five million kilolitres) of treated municipal wastewater each year to a quality suitable for use by major Kwinana industrial customers. Customers committed to receiving the reclaimed water are Rio Tinto for its HIsmelt pig iron plant currently under construction, Edison Mission, CSBP and BP. Farmers are continually investing in their on-farm supplies in an attempt to reduce reliance on scheme water. Under the State Water Strategy the Government will look at opportunities to enhance the self- sufficiency of rural water supplies. Those farmers connected to the scheme will, however, be heavily reliant on the scheme in times of drought.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING, EXPENDITURE 882. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West Will the Attorney General provide a detailed account of all expenditure on advertising, public relations and community information programs in respect of each agency and statutory body that comes under the Attorney General’s jurisdiction from 19 February 2001 to 17 February 2002, including - (a) the purpose of each such program or activity; (b) the business or organisation chosen to undertake or coordinate it; (c) the cost and source of funding; and (d) the date(s) each one was undertaken? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Purpose Business or Organisation Cost $ Source of Date of Funds Office of the Public Trustee Community information- brochure MJB Advertising 3,596 Recurrent Feb, 01 Community information – pamphlet MJB Advertising 950 Recurrent Mar, 01 Community information – booklet MJB Advertising 9,989 Recurrent May, 01 Community information – brochure MJB Advertising 3,596 Recurrent Jun, 01 Advertising – radio advertisements MJB Advertising 1,306 Recurrent Jun, 01 Advertising - newspaper advertisements MJB Advertising 2,768 Recurrent Jun, 01 Community information – brochure MJB Advertising 675 Recurrent Jun, 01 Community information – brochure MJB Advertising 91 Recurrent Jul, 01 Advertising – radio advertisements MJB Advertising 1,086 Recurrent Jul, 01 Advertising – magazine advertisements Media Decisions WA 2,022 Recurrent Jul, 01 Advertising – newspaper advertisements Media Decisions WA 14,794 Recurrent Jul, 01 Advertising – radio advertisements Media Decisions WA 25,155 Recurrent Jul, 01 Community information – brochure MJB Advertising 161 Recurrent Nov, 01 Community information – booklet Advance Press P/L 9,615 Recurrent Dec, 01 Aboriginal Policy and Services Advertising Telstra 686 Recurrent May, 01 Advertising Telstra 298 Recurrent May, 01 Advertising Colortype Press 860 Recurrent May, 01 Advertising Telstra 2,077 Recurrent May, 01

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8097

Advertising Pacific Access 219 Recurrent July, 01 Advertising Pacific Access 182 Recurrent July, 01 Advertising Colortype Press 580 Recurrent July, 01 Advertising Colortype Press 660 Recurrent July, 01 Advertising Telstra 182 Recurrent Aug, 01 Advertising Telstra 713 Recurrent Aug, 01 Advertising Albany Advertiser 301 Recurrent Sep, 01 Advertising Department of Premier & Cabinet 252 Recurrent Dec, 01 Advertising Worldwide Online Printing 470 Recurrent Dec, 01 Community Justice Services Launch & promotion of Victim Co-ordinated in-house 6,834 Recurrent Oct, 01 Notification Register Community info./Public Relations Brochures Scots4Printing 6,502 Recurrent Feb,01-02 Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages Annual Directory Entry – (part payment) Telstra Country White Pages 1,554 Recurrent Feb, 01 Metropolitan White Pages 2,135 Recurrent Feb, 01 Annual Directory Entry – Yellow Pages Pacific Access 989 Recurrent Apr, 01 Annual Directory Entry – (final payment) Telstra 4,663 Recurrent May, 01 Country White Pages Annual Directory Entry Telstra 2,097 Recurrent Aug, 01 Promotion of Registry Marriages WA Newspapers Wedding Guide 1,159 Recurrent Dec, 01 Corporate Services Annual Directory Entry – Country White Pages Telstra 983 Recurrent May, 01 Metropolitan White Pages Telstra 940 Recurrent Aug, 01 Annual Directory Entry Telstra 182 Recurrent Nov, 01 Public Affairs Street Signage to direct visitors to the Co-ordinated in-house 3,708 Recurrent Feb-Jun,01 Department’s head office Community consultation and awareness- Mills Wilson media consultants 18,761 Recurrent Apr-Oct,01 Raising for the State-wide prisoners Work camps program New Internet site – public information Co-ordinated in-house 58 Recurrent Oct, 01 advertising International year of volunteers – to raise Mills Wilson Media Consultants 7,420 Recurrent May-Jul,01 Awareness and recognise the efforts of Volunteers within the DoJ and those who Volunteer to the DoJ. Opening of Bell Spring Juvenile Bail Facility Co-ordinated in-house 2,633 Recurrent Jun-Jul,01 - To raise awareness of the new facility at Bell Springs. Court Services Education purposes through the staging of a Francis Burt Law Education Centre 15,000 Recurrent Mar- Dec, 01 mock trial competition Law Week Supreme Court of WA 145 Recurrent May, 01 The Law Reform Commission Annual Directory Entry - Telstra 1,240 Recurrent Feb, 01 Metropolitan and Country White Pages Advertising Terms of Reference and Request Marketforce 11,491 Recurrent Mar, 01 for Tender on all country and regional newspapers Advertising for Law Reform Commission National Web Directory Pty Ltd 540 Recurrent Sep, 01 details on the Australian Government Directory Prison Services Letterbox drop to Bentley/East Victoria Park Southside Distributors 466 Recurrent Sep, 01 Residents advising them about Nyandi Prison Expansion plans Office of the Public Advocate Newspaper advertising to engage a contractor South West Printing & Publishing Co. 121 Recurrent May, 01 Community information Brochures and Pamphlets OPA Newsletter Pilpel Print 2,005 Recurrent Feb, 01 Grievance, Protecting the Rights Group Acumen 1,480 Recurrent Mar, 01 G & A Brochures 1, 2, & 4 Group Acumen 3,712 Recurrent Mar, 01 Practical Guide to EPA in WA Group Acumen 320 Recurrent May, 01 (Covers, dividers pdf) EPA Kits Group Acumen 307 Recurrent May, 01 EPA Kits Group Acumen 205 Recurrent Jul, 01 EPA Osborne Graphics CTP 35 Recurrent Sep, 01 TAS Cards, OPA, G & A Brochures Group Acumen 2,805 Recurrent Oct, 01 1,2,4 Group

8098 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

OPA Folders Group Acumen 740 Recurrent Oct, 01 PDF file – Annual Report Curtin University of Technology - 1,961 Recurrent Jan, 02 Printing Services Making a Decision Leaflet Group Acumen 903 Recurrent Jan, 02 Letterheads Optima Press 791 Recurrent Feb, 02 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not incur expenditure on public relations and community information programs during the period 19 February 2001 to 17 February 2002. The only advertising expenditure was to meet the cost of advertising employment positions. (a)-(d) not applicable; ELECTORAL COMMISSION (a) (b) (c) (d) Local Government Postal Elections JDA $151,989 consolidated fund * Feb/May 2001 ** $11,044 consolidated fund * Feb/Mar 2003 and continuing State General Election JDA $543,928 consolidated fund Feb 2001 ** Distribution of Electoral Boundaries JDA $10,940 consolidated fund Commenced Feb 2003 and continuing * Costs initially met from Consolidated fund but subsequently recouped from local government. ** These are not the full costs as some expenditure was incurred prior to this period. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Purpose of program/activity Organisation engaged Cost Date Publications - promotion of equal opportunity issues The Graphic Design Group $574.00 03-Apr-2001 Advertise job vacancy Ministry Premier & Cabinet $234.00 20-Apr-2001 Advertise job vacancy Marketforce Productions $124.00 27-Apr-2001 Job vacancy Marketforce Productions $1,138.70 02-May-2001 Job vacancy Marketforce Productions $93.60 18-May-2001 Publications - promotion of equal opportunity issues Percival Print $765.00 27-Jun-2001 Publications - promotion of equal opportunity issues Acorn Design and Crea Design $1,565.00 01-Aug-2001 White Pages advertising Telstra $181.50 30-Aug-2001 Publications - promotion of equal opportunity issues Advance Press $9,265.00 12-Sep-2001 Job vacancy Dept of the Premier and Cabinet $441.10 14-Sep-2001 Job vacancy Dept of the Premier and Cabinet $283.80 21-Sep-2001 Job vacancy Marketforce Productions $1,146.25 25-Sep-2001 Job vacancy Marketforce Productions $143.21 15-Oct-2001 Publications - promotion of equal opportunity issues Percival Print $3,950.00 15& 24-Oct-2001 Publications - promotion of equal opportunity issues Key 2 Design $2,920.00 31-Oct-2001 Advertisement promoting equal opportunity and Marketforce Productions $185.10 26-Oct-2001 ‘Outreach’ training sessions in the Mid-West Times Job vacancy Marketforce Productions $1,539.48 12-Dec-2001 Job vacancy Dept of the Premier and Cabinet $301.40 14-Dec-2001 Advertisement regarding equal opportunity and Albany Advertiser $130.50 24-Jan-2002 disability awareness week White Pages advertising Telstra $368.38 OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a)-(d) Nil OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES Advertising: $6,752.47 – advertising of staff positions Public Relations: Nil Community Information Programs (see below) Development of Office Website a) To provide access to the Office by the general public b) The Creative Page c) $14,100.64 paid from General Revenue d) May 2001, ongoing Community Consultative Council a) To provide information to community groups on prisons b) N/A c) Only costs is the provision of light refreshments at meetings = 6 @ $130/meeting = $780 d) Ongoing program

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8099

LEGAL AID WA BUSINESS PURPOSE COSTS * DATE/S North West Telegraph Promote Legal Aid services in South Hedland $2680 (total costs) Monthly Kimberley Echo Promote Legal Aid Services in Broome & surrounding areas $2295 (total costs) Monthly Hocking & Com Promote Legal Services in Goldfields $120 March 2001 John Fairfax Publishers Promoting new Migration Agent $820 May 2001 ACAS P/L Promoting Legal Aid Services $311 August 2001 The Modern Unionist Promoting Legal Aid Services $385 November 2001 MarketForce Productions Staff Recruitment $26,269 Feb 2001-Feb 2002 Seek Communications Staff Recruitment $180 Mar & April 2001 Dept Premier & Cabinet Staff Recruitment $1759 March – Aug 2001 Price Advertising & Consulting Staff Recruitment $263 August 2001 CJP Consulting Staff Recruitment $1400 August 2001 Broome Advertiser Staff Recruitment $115 August 2001 WorldWide Printing Heresay Newsletters $2408 April & June 2001 Lesbian & Gay Pride Pty Promote Legal Aid Services $136 October 2001 TOTAL: 39,141 PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PURPOSE BUSINESS OR ORGANISATION COST & SOURCE DATE UNDERTAKEN OF FUNDING Promoting Ecommunity and Edirect/ Pinjarra Tourist Centre PDC - $50.00 1 March 2001 Carriers to Present Broadband Telecommunications Support for Chamber of Commerce/ Rural Press Regional Media PDC - $291.00 14 March 2001 Promoting Peel Ecommunity & Peel Direct Peel Horse Industry Council AGM West Australian PDC - $49.20 17 March 2001 Peel Horse Industry Council AGM West Australian PDC - $49.20 23 March 2001 Broadband Telecommunications Marketforce Production PDC - $1,429.80 12 April 2001 Tenders for Office Cleaning Marketforce Production PDC - $243.64 12 April 2001 Peel Horse Industry Council AGM West Australian PDC - $49.20 20 April 2001 The Great Debate West Coast Radio PDC - $180.00 16 May 2001 Sea to Scarp Newsletter Shire of Waroona PDC - $48.00 16 May 2001 Peel SportRec Net Public Meetings Pinjarra Tourist Centre PDC - $30.00 16 May 2001 Peel ECommunity Upgrade Pinjarra Tourist Centre PDC - $30.00 16 May 2001 Peel ECommunity Upgrade/ Peel SportRec Net Rural Press Regional Media PDC - $1,080.00 16 May 2001 Peel SportRec Net Public Meetings Weekend Examiner PDC - $160.00 16 May 2001 Peel Ecommunity Upgrade Weekend Examiner PDC - $160.00 16 May 2001 Water Project Funding Marketforce Production PDC - $1,063.98 13 June 2001 Upgrade of Portal Rural Press Regional Media PDC - $350.00 20 June 2001 Wizard Training Weekend Examiner PDC - $350.00 2 August 2001 Peel Area Cultural Tourism Exhibition Program Smallprint PDC - $1,387.80 9 August 2001 Wine Appreciation Course Southwest Printing & Publishing PDC - $486.00 15 August 2001 Ecommunity Events Shire of Boddington PDC - $24.00 23 August 2001 Wine Appreciation Course Rural Press Regional Media PDC - $240.00 5 September 2001 Mandurah Ocean Marina Promotion Southwest Printing & Publishing PDC - $409.09 20 September 2001 Free Email Sessions Rural Press Regional Media PDC - $240.00 4 October 2001 Free Email Day Pinjarra Tourist Centre PDC - $60.00 1 November 2001 Free Email Sessions Shire of Boddington PDC - $24.00 1 November 2001 Ecommunity Portal Shire of Boddington PDC - $48.00 1 November 2001 Free Email Day Weekend Examiner PDC - $150.00 1 November 2001 Wine Appreciation Course Southwest Printing & Publishing PDC - $225.00 8 November 2001 Waroona Show Southwest Printing & Publishing PDC - $283.64 8 November 2001 Mandurah Fishing Show Media Decisions WA PDC - $3,160.00 8 November 2001 Who Dares Wins City of Mandurah PDC - $1,000.00 21 November 2001 Wine Appreciation Course Rural Press Regional Media PDC - $119.40 21 November 2001 Resource Expo Shire of Waroona PDC - $44.00 6 December 2001 Free Email Sessions Pinjarra Tourist Centre PDC - $60.00 6 December 2001 Notice of Incorporation Marketforce Production PDC - $92.50 13 December 2001 Employment for Funds Facilitator Marketforce Production PDC - $1079.66 13 December 2001 Regional Development Scheme Grants Marketforce Production PDC - $366.98 13 December 2001 Resource Expo Marketforce Production PDC - $76.36 20 December 2001 Peel Harvey Catchment Council Officer Southwest Printing & Publishing PDC - $132.00 20 December 2001 Peel Harvey Catchment Council Officer West Australian PDC - $1,059.20 27 December 2001 Resource Expo Southwest Printing & Publishing PDC - $290.91 10 January 2002 Regional Development Scheme Grant Presentations Weekend Examiner PDC - $138.48 15 February 2002 SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PURPOSE BUSINESS OR ORGANISATION COST & SOURCE DATE UNDERTAKEN OF FUNDING Recruitment Advertising Marketforce $5779.7 - SWDC February 2001 – February 2002 Recruitment Advertising Intersector $154.00 – SWDC 25 January 2002 Recruitment Advertising South West Printing & Publishing Co Ltd $577.37 – SWDC 8 February 2001, 1 March 2001 Regional Infrastructure Rural Press $653.44 – SWDC 1-7 March 2001

8100 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Regional Infrastructure South West Printing & Publishing Co Ltd $796.36 – SWDC 1-7 March 2001 Rocky Point/John Boyle O’Reilly Rural Press $328 – SWDC 14 February 2001 Interpretive Site Rocky Point/John Boyle O’Reilly South West Printing & Ltd Publishing Co $453.64 – SWDC 15 February 2001 Interpretive Site Buy Local Policy Rural Press $260.70 – SWDC 8-21 March 2001 Buy Local Policy Marketforce $639.60 – SWDC 17 April 2001, 9-31 May 2001 Buy Local Policy South West Printing & Publishing Co Ltd $304.09 – SWDC March 2001, 4 April 2001 Community Builders Rural Press $236.47 -Community 22 March 2001 Builders funds managed by SWDC Community Builders South West Printing & Publishing Co Ltd $447.09 -Community 21-22 March 2001 Builders funds managed by SWDC Tender for Feasibility Study & Business Marketforce $650.55 -SWDC 31 March 2001 Plan-Centre of Timber Excellence in Manjimup Rocky Point Parkland Proposal Marketforce $153.30 – SWDC 5 April 2001 Rivers of Wine Channel 7 $5000 – SWDC 19 May 2001 South West Cultural Events Grants Marketforce $825.96 – SWDC 13-19 September 2001 Community Nominations -Warren Marketforce $410.96 – SWDC 18-20 September 2001 Blackwood Marketing Reference Group Regional Development Scheme Grants Marketforce $1456.13 – SWDC 6-8 November 2001 Community Nominations -Wellington Marketforce $413.85 – SWDC 15 November 2001 Forest Advisory Committee South West Events Calender Marketforce $680.22 – SWDC 13-20 November 2001 Commerce & Trade Index Commerce & Trade Index $1081.82 – SWDC March-April 2001, Nov. 2001 Collie Directory & Ind. Inc Collie Chamber of Commerce $262 – SWDC November 2001 Western Five Lake Project - Tender Marketforce $504.90 – SWDC 5-10 January 2002 Collie Entrance Tourism Precinct -Tender Marketforce $441.54 – SWDC 5-10 January 2001

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CREDIT CARDS 895. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Deputy Premier; Treasurer; Minister for Energy Will the Deputy Premier provide - (a) a list of all officers (employed in agencies under the jurisdiction of his/her office) issued with, or with access to, credit cards for official use, from 19 February 2001 until 31 December 2002; (b) full details of all such transactions in regard to each such card, including the purpose of each credit card purchase by each officer, the cost and the date; (c) a list of all officers (employed in his/her office) issued with, or with access to, credit cards for official use, from 19 February 2001 until 31 December 2002; (d) full details of all such transactions in regard to each such card, including the purpose of each credit card purchase by each officer, the cost and the date; (e) a list of all the Deputy Premier’s purchases using official credit cards from 19 February 2001 until 31 December 2002; and (f) full details of all such transactions, including the purpose of each credit card purchase, the cost and the date? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Member is entitled to follow the usual process under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 to access the information. Alternatively, the Member may wish to read the West Australian newspaper of 22 March 2003 which reported on the information provided in response to an FOI application.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CREDIT CARDS 896. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West Will the Attorney General provide - (a) a list of all officers (employed in agencies under the jurisdiction of his/her office) issued with, or with access to, credit cards for official use, from 19 February 2001 until 31 December 2002; (b) full details of all such transactions in regard to each such card, including the purpose of each credit card purchase by each officer, the cost and the date; (c) a list of all officers (employed in his/her office) issued with, or with access to, credit cards for official use, from 19 February 2001 until 31 December 2002;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8101

(d) full details of all such transactions in regard to each such card, including the purpose of each credit card purchase by each officer, the cost and the date; (e) a list of all the Attorney General’s purchases using official credit cards from 19 February 2001 until 31 December 2002; and (f) full details of all such transactions, including the purpose of each credit card purchase, the cost and the date? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (a) See attached document. [See paper No 1151.] DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (a) Mr R Cock QC Director Mr J Plunkett Executive Officer Mr V Guarino Records Manager Ms S Peatey Administrator to Director Ms C Gordon Finance and Projects Officer Ms M Thompson Administrative Assistant Mr M Rakich Senior Managing Law Clerk ELECTORAL COMMISSION (a) Lyn Auld, Electoral Commissioner Fiona Colbeck, Deputy Electoral Commissioner Susan Armstrong, Executive Assistant to Electoral Commissioner Peter McDonagh, Budget and Finance Officer Douglas Ancill, Stores Officer Nigel Bushby, Senior Education Officer EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (a) Ms June Williams Mr Stephen Goodall Ms June Clarke Ms Loryn Green LEGAL AID WA (a) George Turnbull Bevan Warner Domenico Patino Murray Cribb Leslie Zappara Jeffrey Drew OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a) Ms Bronwyn Keighley-Gerardy, Information Commissioner Mr Bruce Denham, Executive Director; Mr Kim Bracknell, Information Services Manager. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES (a) Professor Richard Harding Robert Stacey Lynn Atkinson Jocelyn Jones Peter Upton-Davis Natalie Gibson Andy Fitzgerald Jodie Contessi Diane Broadby Kerri Bishop Angela Rabbit (no longer with the Office and card has been cancelled) Gareth Morris (no longer with the Office and card has been cancelled)

8102 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) Director (CEO) Finance and Administration Officer. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) James Oliver, Manager, Corporate Services (b) Information systems employed in agencies within my portfolio are designed to address operational and statutory requirements. The systems do not facilitate the ready provision of information being sought by the Member. However, if the Member has a particular issue of concern, I would arrange for the agency or my Office to provide information on that specific issue. (c) Danny Cloghan Chieng Yii (February 2001 – March 2001) Frank Gannaway (March 2001 – November 2001) Michele Grumont Samantha Doran-Bryce (card issued and destroyed February 2003) (d)-(f) See (b) above. GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS POWERED 966. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West Will the Attorney provide - (a) full details of all Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) powered vehicles within each agency and statutory body that come under your ministerial jurisdiction; (b) the percentage of the vehicles within the fleet of each agency and statutory body that come under your jurisdiction that are LPG powered; (c) advice whether each agency and statutory body that comes under your ministerial jurisdiction has met the Premier’s election commitment regarding the use of LPG powered vehicles used by Government departments and agencies; and (d) if not, which agencies have not met the Premier’s commitment in this respect? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (a) Business Group Registration Vehicle Description Fuel Type* Aboriginal Policy & Services 1QAR476 Holden Commodore Executive B Aboriginal Policy & Services 1QAR485 Holden Commodore Executive B Corporate Services 1AXL396 Ford Falcon Forte G Corporate Services 1QAP504 Ford Falcon Forte G Court Services 1BCW241 Ford Falcon Forte G Court Services 1BHS642 Ford Falcon XT G Guardianship Board 1QAR481 Holden Commodore Executive B Magistrates Courts 1QAP302 Ford Falcon Forte G Magistrates Courts 1BFD223 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAN096 Ford Falcon Forte G Offender Management 1AYS139 Ford Falcon Forte G Offender Management 1QAO446 Ford Falcon Forte G Offender Management 1QAP600 Ford Falcon Forte G Offender Management 1QAI844 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAP602 Ford Falcon Forte G Offender Management 1QAO352 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAM287 Mitsubishi Magna Executive B Offender Management 1QAT350 Ford Falcon Forte B Offender Management 1QAO374 Holden Commodore Acclaim B Offender Management 1QAR477 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAO695 Ford Falcon Forte B Offender Management 1QAO126 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAO353 Holden Commodore Executive B

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8103

Offender Management 1QAP593 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1BEH373 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAP586 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAP581 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAH763 Toyota Camry CSi B Offender Management 1QAT275 Mitsubishi Magna Executive B Offender Management 1QAP522 Ford Falcon Forte G Offender Management 1QAP513 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1BHA970 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1BGE461 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAR502 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAR501 Holden Commodore Acclaim B Offender Management 1BHT350 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1QAP514 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1QAS730 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1QAS144 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1BHO416 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1BGW314 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1QAR494 Holden Commodore Executive B Offender Management 1BHB247 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1QAU154 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1BHT367 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Offender Management 1QAS734 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Prison Services 1QAN708 Holden Commodore Acclaim B Prison Services 1QAO213 Ford Falcon Forte G Prison Services 1QAP601 Ford Falcon Forte G Prison Services 1AZZ081 Holden Berlina B Prison Services 1QAO351 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAN502 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAP303 Ford Falcon Forte G Prison Services 1QAR224 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAP607 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1BDC239 Ford Falcon Forte G Prison Services 1QAP987 Ford Falcon Forte G Prison Services 1BCX356 Mitsubishi Magna Advance B Prison Services 1QAO354 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1BDU074 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAR487 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1BFY367 Toyota Avalon Conquest B Prison Services 1QAR508 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAR390 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAR514 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAP524 Ford Falcon XT G Prison Services 1QAS725 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Prison Services 1BHP731 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Prison Services 1BGP309 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1BHT373 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Prison Services 1QAR496 Holden Commodore Executive B Prison Services 1QAS726 Ford Falcon XT (LPG) G Victim Services 1BBG193 Mitsubishi Magna Executive B *B = Dual fuel vehicles (petrol and gas) G = Gas vehicles (b) 21.7%. (c) Yes, as progressive vehicle replacements will enable achievement of the 25% LPG target. (d) Not applicable. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (a) None. (b) Nil. (c) No.

8104 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(d) However it is currently reviewing its replacement schedule with the aim of meeting the LPG replacement target in 2003. ELECTORAL COMMISSION (a) Yes. (b) 25%. (c) Yes. (d) Not applicable. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (a) The Commissioner for Equal Opportunity has no vehicles powered by liquid petroleum gas (LPG). The Commissioner’s vehicle fleet consists of one leased vehicle. (b) Nil. (c) The Commissioner has only one vehicle, which makes the achievement of the Premier’s election commitment dependent on the disposal of this vehicle. (d) Commissioner for Equal Opportunity. LEGAL AID WA (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) No. (d) However, it is currently reviewing its replacement schedule with the aim to meet 25% of the target in 2003/04 and 2004/05. OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a) Nil (b)-(d) Not applicable. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES (a) Nil (b)-(d) Not applicable. PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) No. (d) Peel Development Commission. The Commission's fleet currently includes four six cylinder vehicles. The next acquisition will have an LPG facility. This will bring the Commission into line with State Government requirements. SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (SWDC) (a) The SWDC has one Holden Commodore Acclaim which is dual fuel. (b) This represents 10% of the SWDC’s fleet based on nine vehicles. The Commission has increased its fleet in 2003 by one additional vehicle. (c) No. (d) The SWDC is in the process of complying. Delays have occurred due to long manufacturing supply times requiring the Commission to purchase non-LPG vehicles to avoid penalties. GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, HOME GARAGING 980. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West Will the Attorney General provide - (a) details of all officers (including their respective classification level), within all agencies and statutory bodies that come under your ministerial jurisdiction, who home garage Government plated vehicles as at 31 January 2003;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8105

(b) the reason why each officer has the privilege of home garaging a Government plated vehicle; and (c) the details of the annual leasing, hiring or purchase costs applicable to each of these vehicles? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (a) The attached schedule contains details of government vehicles which are home garaged either periodically or on a regular basis. (b) Home garaging is due to a number of factors: - rostered, after-hours and weekend call out where the officer is required to travel to various locations - predominantly Community and Juvenile Justice and Prison staff; - where the officer is required to travel to various work locations and normally travels direct from place of residence to the work location; and - vehicle home garaged due to lack of secure garaging facilities. A number of Justice facilities in metropolitan and country locations do not have secured parking. (c) See attached schedule. [See paper No 1147.] DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (a) One. Crown Prosecutor, Class 1; (b) The officer has the privilege of home garaging due to significant out of hours travel connected to the position. (c) Annual leasing costs is approximately $7,048, payable to State Fleet. ELECTORAL COMMISSION (a) Gary Harrington, Manager Corporate Services, Level 7 Desmond Chenik, Manager Information Systems, Level 7 Warren Richardson, Secretary to Electoral Dist. Commissioners, Acting Level 8 Jennie Anderton, Acting Manager Enrolment and Community Awareness Acting Level 7 These four officers share 3 vehicles. (b) Home garaging of government plated vehicles is provided as officers can be required to work extended hours, including weekends, due to operational demands associated with elections. (c) Vehicle Rental costs Operating costs Commodore station wagon $4,888pa $2,748pa Falcon station wagon $4,948pa $2,190pa Corolla hatch $4,380pa $2,415pa EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (a) Nil. (b)-(c) Not applicable. LEGAL AID WA (a) Officers who home garage Government plated vehicles: Lee Mather - Level 9 Del Zimmermann - Level 9 (b) Vehicle is home garaged by Del Zimmerman as there is no secure parking available. Vehicle is home garaged by Lee Mather as he is a senior solicitor who may be required to attend to legal matters out of normal office hours. (c) All vehicles are purchased outright. The total costs at purchase were as follows: Toyota Corolla Sedan (2000) - $18,028 Toyota Corolla Sedan (2002) - $22,044 TOTAL $40,072 OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a) Nil. (b)-(c) Not applicable.

8106 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES (a) Peter Upton Davis – Senior Inspections Officer (Level 7). Lynn Atkinson - Manager Research and Publications (Level 7). (b) The Office vehicles are home garaged by the two most senior officers in the Office of Inspector of Custodial Services as the officers are required to travel to various work locations and normally travel direct from place of residence to the work location. (c) Peter Upton Davis – Senior Inspections Officer (Level 7) - Ford Falcon Wagon. Annual lease and charges $5531.80 (including GST). Lynn Atkinson - Manager Research and Publications (Level 7) - Toyota Corolla Sedan. Annual lease and charges $4830.40 (including GST). PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) (1) Manager Corporate Services (PSA - L6) (2) PEDU Business Development Manager (PSA - L4) (3) Regional Community Development Coordinator (PSA - L4) (b) (1) Secure parking not available, officer provides secure parking for this pool vehicle. (2) Secure parking not available. Significant amount of out of hours travel connected to the position. (3) Secure parking not available. Position and vehicle externally funded. (c) (1) $3,818.52 (2) $3,747.12 (3) $7,328.52 SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) (i) Manager, Regional Services – Level 7 (ii) Manager, Information and Marketing Services – Level 7 (iii) Manager, Corporate Services – Level 6 (iv) Senior Projects Officer – Capital Works – Level 6 (v) TradeStart Adviser – Level 6 (vi) Regional Co-ordinator – Vasse – Level 5 (vii) Regional Co-ordinator – Bunbury Wellington – Level 5 (viii) Regional Co-ordinator – Warren Blackwood – Level 5 (b) (i)-(iv) Significant out of hours work and travel connected with the position (c) (v)-(viii) Undertakes extensive travel within the region (d) (i) $5 535.24 (ii) $5 439.96 (iii) $6 578.88 (iv) $5 451.96 (v) $5 451.96 (vi) $5 451.96 (vii) $5 451.96 (viii) $7 511.40

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS, COST 1008. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West Will the Attorney General provide - (a) the full details, including total cost, since 19 February 2001, expended by each agency and statutory body that comes under your ministerial jurisdiction of officers attending conferences or seminars that were not conducted by each respective agency or statutory body; (b) the total costs, since 19 February 2001, expended by each agency and statutory body that comes under your ministerial jurisdiction in conducting ‘in-house’ conferences and seminars; (c) the details, including costs, of officers and contractors specifically employed since 19 February 2001 to conduct ‘in-house’ conferences and seminars; and (d) the specific reasons why it was necessary to employ officers and contractors to perform this task?

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8107

Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Date Seminar/Conference Cost Nov, 2001 ICPA International Corrections & Prisons Association 250.00 7-9 May, 2002 Second Australasian Conference on Drugs Strategy 465.00 May, 2002 Legislative Seminar 120.00 4-7 Oct, 2002 IIPE Biennial Conference, Brisbane 2,016.81 Relation Between Bail Decision Making and Legal Representation 1,827.16 July, 2002 Crime Prevention 445.00 March, 2003 Evaluation in Crime & Justice 280.00 Nov, 2002 Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators Conference (AJJA) 1,663.41 May, 2002 Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators Conference (AJJA) 1,454.40 Oct, 2001 Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators Conference (AJJA) 1,494.77 May, 2001 Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators Conference (AJJA) 1,357.95 March, 2003 Women and Girls - Custody and Its Alternatives 2,041.20 Feb, 2001 Exploring Issues on Women in Justice, Melbourne 1,765.30 Sep, 2002 Probation and Community Correction Conference 825.00 Sep, 2002 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Seminar 834.00 Oct, 2001 AJJA Centre Managers Conference, Brisbane 1,925.48 Sep, 2002 Australian Institute of Criminology, Perth 10,043.42 Sep, 2001 Parole and Community Corrections Officer Association Conference, Adelaide 6,060.75 Sep, 2002 Parole and Community Corrections Officer Association Conference, Perth 1,600.00 Aug, 2001 Australian Institute of Criminology Conference, Crime Prevention in Regional Areas, Bundaberg, Queensland 1,136.00 2001 Australian Social Work Association of Western Australia Conference, Perth 1,198.18 May, 2002 Victims of Crime Association of Queensland, Brisbane 1,340.25 July, 2002 Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice sponsored by Australian Social Work Association, Perth 65.00 Mar, 2003 University of Western Australia, Women and Girls in Custody 1,787.00 Nov, 2002 International Community Corrections Association Conference Boston, USA (Accommodation only) 1,643.27 Oct, 2002 Womens Refuge Group of WA Conference, Perth 1,205.00 Mar, 2002 New South Wales Drug Court Conference, Sydney 500.00 14-17 May, 2001 Corrective Services Administrator’s Conference, Canberra 1,610.00 June, 2001 Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference – Canberra 1,688.00 Oct, 2001 International Corrections and Prisons Association, Perth 1,150.00 6-7 Mar, 2002 Cost Effective Correctional Facilities Management Conference, Sydney 1,141.00 21 May, 2002 Corrective Services Administrator’s Conference , Darwin 1,645.00 15 July, 2002 Corrective Services Minister’s Conference , Darwin 800.00 20-25 Oct, 2002 International Corrections and Prisons Association, Netherlands 4,515.00 Mar, 2001 Institute of Internal Auditors 3 Day National Conference 1,318.00 Aug, 2001 Information Systems & Audit Control Association Conference 550.00 Nov, 2001 CPA Australia (3 day Conference) 860.00 Jan, 2002 Institute of Internal Auditors WA Conference 450.00 Mar, 2002 Institute of Internal Auditors National 3 day Conference 2,970.00 Aug, 2002 CPA Australia Corporate Governance Day 429.00 Mar, 2003 Australian Government Solicitors Seminar 88.00 31 May, 2002 Work Camps Conference, Melbourne 401.82 29 July, 2002 Public Relations Institute of Australia, Boardroom Briefing 54.50 7 Oct, 2002 Public Relations Institute of Australia, Boardroom Briefing 10.00 25 Oct, 2002 Curtin University, Candy Tymson Seminar 163.65 17 Dec, 2002 Government Public Affairs Group, Riley Mathewson Seminar 50.00 19 Nov, 2002 Curtin University, Candy Tymson Seminar 136.36 12 Nov, 2001 Disability Services Commission, Web Creating Seminar 31.82 8 Nov, 2001 Public Relations Institute of Australia National Conference 2,509.12 6 Feb, 2002 Public Relations Institute of Australia, Boardroom Briefing 40.00 8 Mar, 2002 Public Relations Institute of Australia, Boardroom Briefing 10.00 6 Mar, 2002 Public Relations Institute of Australia, Boardroom Briefing 16.36 26 Feb, 2001 Australian Customer Services Seminar 80.00 24 May, 2001 Public Relations Institute of Australia, Work Camp BoardroomBriefing 10.00 29 May, 2001 Project Management Conference 400.00 3 July, 2001 Management Development Seminar 200.00 July, 2001 Australian Institute of Administrative Law, National Conference Canberra 1,827.00 Aug, 2001 Ngaarra Law Forum, Gulkula, Arnhem Land, NT 6,212.00 Aug, 2001 International Society for Reform of Criminal Law Conference, Canberra 2,746.00 June, 2002 Australian Law Reform Conference, Darwin 7,074.00 Oct, 2001 Guardianship and Administration National Conference 290.00 Oct, 2001 Guardianship and Administration National Conference 290.00 Oct, 2001 Guardianship and Administration National Conference 290.00 Aug, 2001 Women in Leadership 120.00 Aug, 2001 National Conference of Australasian Registrars of Births, Deaths & Marriages, Darwin 2,053.00 June, 2002 National Australasian Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages Officers Conference, Darwin 1,777.00 Oct, 2002 National Conference of Australasian Registrars of Births, Deaths & Marriages, Adelaide 1,415.00 23 May, 2001 Northern Territory Aboriginal Organisation 454.55 2 Aug, 2001 Moving Forward 340.91 4 Sept, 2002 Australian Institute of Criminology 495.00 Jun, 2002 Murdoch University 900.00 Apr, 2001 AIM – Wim Prof. Liz Harman Cocktails 30.00

8108 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Feb, 2003 Director General Executive Seminary Series 02/03 – DPC 45.45 May, 2001 Director General Breakfast – Dept. Education 22.73 Mar, 2001 PA Breakfast Public Sector Development Seminar 79.00 Mar, 2003 PA Breakfast Public Sector Development Seminar 79.00 Dec, 2002 Future Fantastic P/L Workshop 120.00 Jun, 2001 MoJ Policy & Legislation Public Sector Development 39.50 May, 2001 CPA Congress 432.00 Oct, 2001 CPA Congress 440.00 Oct, 2001 CPA Congress 165.00 Oct, 2001 CPA Congress 440.00 Oct, 2001 CPA Congress 83.00 Mar, 2002 CPA Congress 430.00 Nov, 2002 WA Business Economics Forum 50.00 Nov, 2002 WA Business Economics Forum 50.00 Dec, 2002 CPA Congress 220.00 May, 2001 A Practical Guide to Effective Contract Management 1,381.00 Aug, 2001 Information systems Audit & Control Association Annual Seminar 330.00 Aug, 2001 Risk Management Seminar 220.00 Aug, 2001 Negotiation It, Security & Telecoms Contracts & Service Level Agreement 825.00 Aug, 2001 IPAA – WS Lonnie Award Presentations 825.00 Nov, 2001 CPA Week 2001 700.00 Nov, 2001 Current Issues in Accountability – IpAA 200.00 Nov, 2001 HR – The Diversity Conference 2001 450.00 Nov, 2001 HR – Concept User Group Conference 450.00 Apr, 2002 CPA Congress 2002 465.00 May, 2002 Strategic Risk Management 1,595.00 Jun, 2002 Thinking and Planning Strategically, AIM-WA 795.00 Jul, 2002 Public Management Seminar 720.00 Aug, 2002 Government Management Conference 335.00 Aug. 2002 Excellent Interviews and Impressions Management 209.00 Aug, 2002 AHRI State Conference 2002 385.00 Sept, 2002 Law Libraries Symposium 2002 385.00 Sept, 2002 Public Sector Development -Measuring Australian’s Seminar 787.00 Oct, 2002 3rd AIJA Technology for Justice Conf. Executive Summary 995.00 Oct, 2002 CPA Week 2002 1,275.00 Nov, 2002 IPAA Breakfast Seminar 95.00 Dec, 2002 Excellent Interviews and Impressions Management Seminar 209.00 Dec, 2002 Social Capital Seminar – IPAA 75.00 Dec, 2002 Australian Government Solicitor Executive Breakfast 358.00 Dec, 2002 Module 3 Project Management Seminar 450.00 Dec, 2002 John Kotter Seminar 1,309.00 May, 2001 Corrective Services Administration Conference - Canberra 1,610.00 Jun, 2001 Corrective Services Ministers Conference – Canberra 1,688.00 May, 2002 Corrective Services Administration Conference – Darwin 1,645.00 Jul, 2002 Corrective Services Ministers Conference – Darwin 800.00 Oct, 2002 International Corrections and Prisons Association – Netherlands 4,515.00 May, 2002 Australasian Conference on Drugs Strategy, Perth 150.00 Jun, 2002 Suicide Prevention Conference - Sydney 2,800.00 Dec, 2002 Australian Institute of Criminology Conference – Canberra 1,478.00 Dec, 2002 Seminar on Indigenous Community Based Programs – Canberra 1,301.00 Apr, 2003 Public Health Association Conference – Brisbane 6,535.00 Nov, 2002 International Forensic Nursing Conference – Adelaide 500.00 May, 2001 Hepatitis C Indian Ocean Conference – Trade Winds Hotel Nil May, 2001 Equal Opportunity Commission – Perth EEO 128.00 Apr, 2001 Dept. Training and Employment – Perth “Spotlight on Provider” 910.00 Aug, 2001 WA Dept of Training – Perth ‘Assessment Forum 2001’ 454.00 Nov, 2001 Int. Forum on Eduction in correctional Systems – Sydney 1,793.00 Nov, 2002 11th International Women in Leadership Conference – ECU Perth 268.00 May, 2002 Dept of Training – Perth ‘Training Forum 2002’ 2,600.00 Aug, 2002 NSW Dept. of Education – NSW ‘Networking 2002’ (on-line) 90.00 Mar, 2001 Mercer Promotion – Drug Planning Session 1,485.00 Mar, 2001 Verbal Judo Australia – Seminar 8,000.00 Aug, 2001 Next Step Specialist Drug & Alcohol Service Symposium 200.00 Aug, 2001 Mercer Promotion 1,947.00 Sept, 2001 Nations Centre for State Courts – Planning Seminar 11,230.00 Sept, 2001 Law Society – Prosecuting Under A Microscope Conference 450.00 Nov, 2001 Mercer Promotion – Planning Seminar 1,155.00 Feb, 2002 Australian Institute of Family Studies – Conference 2,206.00 Feb, 2002 Law Society of WA – Seminar 85.00 May, 2002 Regional Managers Conference – Perth 7,083.00 Jun, 2002 Indigenous Cultural Awareness Conference 2,044.00 Jun, 2002 Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Conference-Melbourne 4,747.00 Jun, 2002 Administrative Law Forum Seminar 200.00 Jul, 2002 Australian Institute of Judicial Administration – Conference 1,700.00 Aug, 2002 Playboard Theatre – Strategic Seminar 1,485.00 Aug, 2002 Insurance Commission of Western Australia – Risk Management 709.00 Aug, 2002 Australian Computer Society – Luncheon Seminar 164.00

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8109

Aug, 2002 Family Law Council – Conference 1,945.00 Aug, 2002 Australian Computer Society – Luncheon Seminar 164.00 Aug, 2002 Insurance Commission of WA – Government Risk Management 709.00 Oct, 2002 Australian Institute of Judicial Administration – Sydney Conference 6,937.00 Oct, 2002 Youth and Family XVI – World Congress 4,761.00 Nov, 202 Regional Managers Conference – Perth 11,804.00 TOTAL COST $215,375.12 (b) $110,777.42 (c) Nil. (d) Not applicable. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (a) the DPP has expended approximately $20,000 since 19 February 2001 on officers attending conferences and seminars (excluding training and development courses) conducted externally; (b)-(d) not applicable; ELECTORAL COMMISSION (a) The W.A. Electoral Commission has expended $6,701on officers attending conferences or seminars. (b) $3,455 – for conduct of post election conference (c) Not applicable (d) Not applicable EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (a) Date Conference Destination Total Cost 16th to 19th Mar 2003 National Indigenous Educator’s Conference Melbourne $1,305.00 16th to 21st Mar 2003 National Educator’s Conference Melbourne $2,003.00 18th to 21st Mar 2003 National Educator’s Conference Melbourne $1,305.00 8th to 14th March 2002 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Sydney $2,031.22 Commission National Conference on Racism 21st to 24th Nov 2001 National Legal Officers Conference Hobart $1,788.67 25th to 29th Jul 2001 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Sydney $1,805.94 Commission seminar 17th to 20th Jul 2001 National Community Educator’s Conference Sydney $1,425.32 (b)-(d) Not applicable OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (a) May 2001 - Premier and Cabinet Forum “Women in Leadership” - $70.00. June 2001 - IPAA presentation “Machinery of Government – A CEO’s Perspective” - $60.00. July 2001 - IPAA presentation – “The MOG Task Force Report” - $75.00. December 2001 - IPAA presentation “Current Issues in Accountability” - $140.00. Premier and Cabinet Forum “Women in Leadership” - $60.00. March 2002 - Office of the Privacy Commissioner (New Zealand) Forum “3rd Asia Pacific Forum on Privacy and Data Protection” - $378.90. July 2002 - AIAL Forum “2002 National Administrative Law Forum” - $522.50. Total Cost: $1306.40. (b)-(d) Not applicable OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES (a) From the period of 19 February 2001 to 19 February 2002 the following conferences/seminars were attended by this Office. Ms Lynn Atkinson November 2001 Women in Prison Conference – paper delivered. $1912.64 Ms Jocelyn Jones November 2001 Women in Prison Conference – paper delivered. $1737.64 (b) The Office of Inspector of Custodial Services conducted an Independent Visitors Scheme Conference and Training Development Day on 16 November 2001. Total cost of the day was $3308.00. (c)-(d) Not applicable

8110 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

LEGAL AID WA Business providing service Name of conference/seminar Total Costs Date/s Legal Aid NSW Best Practice Conference $3600 April 2001 Contract & Management Services (CAMS) Security – E-Government $132 17 May 2001 CPA Australia CPA Conference $1375 April 2001 CPA Australia CPA Congress $374 May 2001 Dept of Justice Aust & NZ Assoc of Psychology & Law $105 2 May 2001 Family Law Practitioners Assoc FLPA Annual Conference $1934 7-9 Sept 2001 National Conference of CLCs Debrette’s Conference $3482 Sept 2002 CAMS Professional Dev, – Lease or Buy $121 13 June 2001 Law Society Appellate Advocacy $1876 November ’01 Napcan Child Protection $60 4 Sept 2001 RiskCover Govt Risk Management $330 Aug 2001 Aust Ass for Infant Mental Health Domestic Violence & Child Custody $660 29 Aug 2001 Govt Entities Marketing Assoc Maximizing Benefits on Online Strategy $55 27 July 2001 University of WA Healing Potential of the Law $168 7 August 2001 Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Annual Conference $275 3 Nov 2001 AIJA Legal XML & Electronic Filing Conf $195 25 Nov 2001 Law Society Out of the mouths of babes $220 31 Oct 2001 Drug Court of NSW Drug Court Conference $425 8 Feb 2002 Law Society Financial Backing of Litigation $94 17 April 2002 Skillpath Seminars Designing Attention Grabbing Brochures $199 28 Mar 2002 WACOSS WACOSS Conference $308 8 April 2002 Kessels Goddard Community Legal Education Seminar $275 May 2002 WA Police Service 2nd Australasian Conf on Drug Strategy $440 25 Mar 2002 Skillpath Seminars Conflict Management Seminar $498 20 June 2002 Dept of Premier & Cabinet Executive Seminar Series $50 2 Oct 2002 Aust Institute of Admin Law 2002 National Admin Law Forum $600 4 & 5 July ‘02 Griffith University Law School Changing the Face of Practice $50 5 Sept 2002 & Relationships Aust UWA DNA Conference $50 31Aug-5 Sept 02 Womens Refuge Group WA Inc Domestic Violence, Making the issue visible $20 11 Dec 2002 FLPA FLPA Annual Conference $440 16 Nov 2002 RiskCover RiskCover Management $195 August 2002 Womens Refuge Group WA Inc Womens Refuge Group Conference $1540 October 2002 Emerging Leaders Leading Change – What Leaders really do $620 Feb 2003 (b)-(d) Not applicable. PEEL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) The State LandCare Conference – Mandurah, September 2001 Who Dares Wins Conference – Mandurah, September 2001 Regional Chambers of Commerce Conference – Mandurah, August 2002 State Water Symposium – Perth, October 2002 WA State Sustainability Seminar – Fairbridge, December 2002 WACOSS “Employing Right” Seminar – Perth, February 2003 Women in Agriculture GMO Seminar – Perth, February 2003 WALGA Rural Summit – Pinjarra, February 2003 Records Management Seminar: Countdown to 2004 – Perth, March 2003 Place Management Seminar – Mandurah, March 2003 GMO Seminar - Fairbridge, March 2003 IPAA Breakfast Seminar: Future Directions in Public Sector Corporate Governance – Perth, April 2003 Department of Premier and Cabinet: Making Excellence Happen Forum - Perth, April 2003 Estimated total cost for staff hours, travel, accommodation and registration is $5,000. (b)-(d) Not applicable SOUTH WEST DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (a) 2001 i. Social Entrepreneurship Conference – Jane Manning - $350.00 ii. South West Young Achievers – Kate Gould - $165.000 iii. Enhancing Trade and Investment – Ashley Clements - $36.36 iv. The Australian Dairy Sector – Changes and Challenges in a World Perspective – Maaike van der Zon - $25.00 v. The South African Millennium – Maaike van der Zon - $44.00 vi. Forum Advocating Cultural Eco Tourism Inc – Richard Gill - $12.00 vii. Seed Potato Seminar – Jeremy Threlfall - $22.00 viii. “Who Dares Wins” – Economic Development Conference – Ashley Clements - $649.00

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8111

ix. Revitalising Rural Communities – Jon Birch - $77.00 x. Revitalising Rural Communities – Alan Cross - $77.00 xi. E-commerce for Exporting – Maaike van der Zon - $25.00 xii. E-commerce for Exporting – Ashley Clements - $25.00 xiii. WA State Coastal Conference on the Edge – Michael Barrett - $305.00 xiv. “Plugging the Leaks” Forum – Jon Birch - $33.00 xv. Public Relations Institute of Australia National Conference – Rachelle Fenton - $890.00 xvi. The First Australian Dairy Conference – Maike van der Zon - $350.00 xvii. “Plugging the Leaks” Forum – Richard Gill - $66.00 xviii. Ecotourism Association of Australian National Conference – Jon Birch - $1 310.00 Total Cost: $4 461.36 2002 i. Global Markets – Maaike van der Zon - $55.00 ii. Surviving the Global Recession – Maaike van der Zon - $33.00 iii. Bibbulmun Track Familiarisation – Richard Gill - $200.00 iv. Community Foundation Workshop – Anne Jennings - $99.00 v. “Where to Now – The Future” – Marilyn Morgan - $60.00 vi. Indispensable Assistant – Geraldine Wilson - $199.00 vii. COMET Seminar – Maaike van der Zon - $22.00 viii. WA Sustainable Industry Group – Matthew Monisse - $40.00 ix. E-framework for Joined Up Government – Ashley Clements - $340.00 x. Australian Government Solicitor Executive Breakfast – Gayle Gray - $48.40 xi. Inspiring Regional Australia – SWDC Group Ticket - $990.00 xii. Showcasing International Best Practice in Regional Economic Development – Anne Jennings - $78.00 xiii. Showcasing International Best Practise in Regional Economic Development – Maaike van der Zon - $78.00 xiv. Executive Seminar Series – James Oliver - $220.00 xv. Executive Seminar Series – Don Punch - $220.00 Total Cost: $2 682.40 2003 i. Service Excellence Awards – Geraldine Wilson - $40.00 ii. Michael Workman Seminar – Maaike van der Zon - $20.00 iii. Michael Workman Seminar – Tristram Travers - $20.00 iv. WA Sustainable Industry Group – Matthew Monisse - $40.00 v. “The Promise and Threat of Co-operation” – Vanessa Lewis - $48.40 vi. Renewable Energy – Richard Gill - $59.00 vii. Building Smarter Communities – Ashley Clements - $49.00 Total Cost: $276.40 (b) The South West Development Commission has not conducted any “in-house” conferences and seminars since 19 February 2001. (c) Not applicable. (d) Not applicable. ROAD PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1047. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recently announced upcoming improvements to Brookton Highway near Hyden, and I ask- (a) how much of the proposed $2.3million is to be spent on similar programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) Nil. The $2.3 million provided for road improvement to Brookton Highway near Hyden has been funded from the $1.3 million allocated to the Highway in Main Roads' current year's Program and an

8112 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

additional $1 million from surplus 2001/02 funds identified by Main Roads. These funds have been allocated after consideration of Statewide road network needs and in response to local community concerns. An allocation of $0.7 million from surplus 2001/02 funds has also been re-directed towards the ongoing sealing of the Marble Bar Road. (b)-(d) Not applicable. COUNTRY PATHWAYS SCHEME, NORTH WEST 1048. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recent announcement that cycling facilities in the Wheatbelt area would be improved, following the allocation of more than $100,000 in State Government funding, allocated from the State Government's Country Pathways scheme, and I ask - (a) after the 2002-03 allocation of Country Pathways funding, how much of the proposed $4.75million over the past seven years has been, or will be spent, on programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities were, or will the funds, be spent; (c) who was, or will be, responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when did, or when will, the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: a) At the completion of projects in the 2002-03 funding round of the Country Pathways Grant Scheme, funds spent on the North West of the State over the past 7 years have amounted to approximately $680,000.00. b) Broome, Derby, Carnarvon, Exmouth, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Karratha, Kununurra, Roebourne, South Hedland, Tom Price, and the Shire of East Pilbara. c) The Country Pathways Grant Scheme is administered by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. Prior to 2002 the former Department of Transport administered the Scheme. Project Construction is administered by Local Government which is required to match Country Pathways funding on a dollar for dollar basis. d) 1) Projects in Broome, Halls Creek, Tom Price, Port Hedland, Roebourne Carnarvon and Exmouth and the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley, have been be funded in 2002/2003. Commencement of construction is dependent on Local Government arrangements. 2) Projects in Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, South Hedland, Karratha, Kununurra, Carnarvon and Exmouth were constructed in 2001/02. 3) Projects in Broome, Derby, Halls Creek, Karratha and Carnarvon were constructed in 2000/01. 4) Projects in Broome, Derby and Halls Creek were constructed in 1999/00 5) Information not available for projects constructed in 1998/99 6) Projects in Broome, Carnarvon, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing and the Shire of East Pilbara were constructed in 1997/98. CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1049. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recent announcement that dedicated cycle bays at traffic intersections is the latest development in road safety for cyclists and is part of a $38million investment by the Government in cycling infrastructure, and I ask - (a) how much of the proposed $38million for cycling infrastructure is to be spent on programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: a). Of the $38,000,000 investment in cycling infrastructure approximately $2,788,835 was spent in the North West of Western Australia. b). Broome, Carnarvon, Exmouth, Halls Creek, Tom Price, Port Hedland, Roebourne and the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley. c). The Department for Planning and Infrastructure administers the Country Pathways funding. Project construction is administered by the Local Government Authority. Other projects are directly funded and administered by Main Roads WA.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8113 d). Projects in Broome, Halls Creek, Tom Price, Port Hedland, Roebourne Carnarvon and Exmouth and the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley, have been funded in 2002/2003. Commencement of construction is dependent on Local Government arrangements. Projects in Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, South Hedland, Karratha, Kununurra, Carnarvon, Exmouth were constructed in 2001/02. MARINA PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1051. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recently announced $19.9million civil works contract for the second and final stage of Mandurah Ocean Marina, and I ask - (a) how much is to be spent on similar programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(d) LandCorp is pursuing residential and light industrial land releases under its Townsite Development Program in the following North West localities: · Karratha · Port Hedland; · Derby; · Fitzroy Crossing; · Kununurra · Denham; · Broome. Currently the timing and extent of these projects is unknown due to the need to secure Native Title clearances and in the case of Karratha townsite the full extent of development required to accommodate the needs of the Burrup industry proponents remains uncertain. In the 2003/2004 financial year, LandCorp has also programmed to develop an infrastructure corridor on the Burrup Peninsula, near Karratha, to link industrial sites to the Port of Dampier for the export of gas products. The cost of construction of the Corridor is subject to the outcome of a tendering process currently being conducted but may be in the order of $15 million. It is anticipated that works will commence in July 2003. LandCorp in November 2002 also awarded a $10.6 million contract for civil works to create the Exmouth Marina Village in Exmouth. This is the main contractual component of some $15.6 million of funds to be spent on the Exmouth Marina Village Project. LandCorp has recently completed the first stage of the Carnarvon NorthWater development at a cost to date of $6 million. ROAD PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1052. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recent announcement that Main Roads WA had identified $1.2million in surplus funds, which would be used to widen 8.2km of the existing single lane sealed section between Nyamup and Strachan to two lanes, and I ask - (a) how much of the proposed $1.2million is to be spent on programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) Nil. The $1.2 million provided for Muirs Highway has been funded from surplus 2001/02 funds identified by Main Roads. The allocation of these funds to Muirs Highway has been determined after consideration of Statewide road network needs and in response to local community concerns. An allocation of $0.7 million from this surplus was also directed towards the on-going sealing of the Marble Bar Road.

8114 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(b)-(d) Not applicable. RIVER FORESHORE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1055. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Peel and the South West I refer to the recent announcement that the State Government had given the Eaton River foreshore a major funding boost with the presentation of a cheque for $10,000 to the Dardanup Shire President, and I ask: - (a) how much is to be spent on similar programs in the North West of the State; and (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Please refer to answer provided to Parliamentary Question No 1054. CHILD AND FAMILY SEXUAL ABUSE COUNSELLING, PROGRAMS IN NORTH WEST 1058. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth I refer to the recently announced additional counselling, treatment and support to be made available for Aboriginal children who have been sexually abused and that Yorgum Aboriginal Corporation would receive an additional $100,000 a year over three years to expand its child and family sexual abuse counselling and support service currently operating for the metropolitan area, and I ask - (a) how much of the proposed $100,000 is to be spent on additional counselling programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: a) In the 2002-2003 budget the Department for Community Development received an allocation of $1.6 million over 4 years ($400,000 per annum) specifically for the delivery of Child Sexual Abuse Treatment (CSAT) services to Aboriginal communities. The Department allocated $100,000 per annum over four years to Yorgum Aboriginal Corporation to deliver CSAT services in Aboriginal communities in the Metropolitan and near metropolitan areas and $300,000 per annum over four years for rural and remote areas. b) The $300,000 will provide three new CSAT services for Aboriginal communities in the North West of the state at Derby ($90,000), Roebourne ($90,000), and Carnarvon ($120,000.00). c) The Department is responsible for the administration of the child sexual abuse treatment services funds. The Department provides funds as outlined above to local service providers in the designated towns to deliver the CSAT services. d) The Department's local office is working with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the local District offices in Derby, Roebourne, and Carnarvon to ensure the CSAT services are implemented appropriately. No set time line is in place for the commencement of services in Derby, Roebourne, and Carnarvon. TOODYAY BYPASS, ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY 1072. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the matter of the Toodyay bypass, funding for which the Minister assured the local council was protected, but held back pending an environmental survey and ask will the Minister advise - (a) whether the environmental survey has been completed; (b) if the environmental survey has not yet been completed, what are the reasons for the delay, and when is it anticipated the survey will be completed; (c) if the environmental survey has been completed, what was the recommendation concerning the go- ahead for the Toodyay bypass; (d) if the environmental survey bypass recommends that the bypass proceeds, when is this scheduled for, and when will the local authority receive advice from the Minister on this matter; and

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8115

(e) if the environmental survey bypass does not recommend that the bypass proceeds, what steps will the Minister and the Department take to resolve the transport and relocation issues affecting the Toodyay community? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(e) Main Roads is proceeding with the finalisation of the design, land acquisition and accommodation works for the Toodyay Bypass Stage 1. It is necessary to complete the design prior to finalising the environmental clearance process as aspects of the design can impact on environmental considerations. The design is in the final review stage and will be completed during 2003. Following this, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will be asked to set the level of assessment for the project. Funding for the Toodyay Bypass is being assessed in conjunction with many other important projects across the state as part of the 2003 State Budgetary process. When the State Budgetary process is complete the resourcing needs of the Toodyay Bypass will be reassessed and progressed on an appropriate timetable.

TAXIS, MULTIPURPOSE TAXI CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARTER 1073. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to a previous publication produced by the Government concerning multipurpose taxis and ask will the Minister advise - (a) is the publication ‘Multipurpose Taxi Customer Service Charter’ still being printed; (b) if not, why not; (c) is it produced in any format other than that of a standard printed brochure; and (d) if not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(d) The charter was developed over 5 years ago and distributed to both drivers and users of Multi-Purpose Taxis as part of a rights and responsibilities awareness campaign. The distribution of this charter has met its objective and there has not been a need identified so as to require the reprinting of this brochure. While it has not subsequently been re-printed the principles contained in the charter continue to be taught to new MPT drivers.

ROAD SAFETY, DUNCRAIG 1074. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services In the light of growing community concerns with local road safety issues on Readshaw Road, Lilburne Road and Hilarion Road, Duncraig, will the Minister advise - (a) how much money has the City of Joondalup received from the Office of Road Safety in the last two financial years (1/7/2000 – 30/6/2001 and 1/7/2001 to 30/6/2002) to allow the City to implement road safety measures; (b) how many infringements of the Road Traffic Act 1971 have taken place during the last two financial years (1/7/2000 – 30/6/2001 and 1/7/2001 to 30/6/2002) on Readshaw Road, Lilburne Road, Barker Drive and Hilarion Road, Duncraig; and (c) how much revenue was collected from the above infringements? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (a) The Office of Road Safety provides funding for the WA Local Government (WALGA) RoadWise Program, which works with local communities to implement road safety initiatives. Funding to improve the safety of roads is provided on a priority needs basis through the Black Spot Program, administered by Main Roads WA. Main Roads advise that they provided $240 000 in 2000/01 and $620 000 in 2001/02 to the City of Joondalup through the Black Spot Program. The Office of Road Safety is only one of a number of sources available to the City of Joondalup to fund road safety measures. Apart from Council's own funding sources, Main Roads provided $894 407 in 2000/01 and $2 778 089 in 2001/02 for road improvement works within the City of Joondalup. Council also has access to road improvement funding through the Federal Roads to Recovery Programme.

8116 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(b)-(c) The WA Police Service advise that statistics are not maintained for individual streets in the suburb of Duncraig. SOUTHERN RAIL LINK, SUPPORT FOR CHANGED ROUTE, SURVEY 1075. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to a press release dated 26 December 2002, where the Minister made a series of claims about alleged support for the Gallop Government’s change of route for the South West Metropolitan Railway and ask will the Minister advise - (a) how much did the independent survey of metropolitan residents the Minister refers to cost; (b) what questions were asked to demonstrate this alleged ‘massive support’; (c) in what part of the metropolitan area do the 300 people that were interviewed reside; (d) where do the 65 per cent of people who would use the train ‘at least once a year’ reside; (e) does the Minister consider that the views of this 65 per cent of respondents, who use the train extremely infrequently, justify being presented as a majority point of view; (f) where did the 10 per cent of people who would use the train ‘at least once a week’ reside; and (g) how many of that 10 per cent of respondents (ie 30 people) who would use the train at least once a week were in favour of the changed route? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) The survey cost $3,100. (b) The questions asked to determine support were: Do you support or oppose the establishment of a major rail link between Perth and Mandurah in this way? Overall do you think it is a positive or negative development for the City of Perth? For Rockingham? For Mandurah? (c) In the survey, 139 interviews were conducted with people who live south of the river, 160 were conducted with people who live north of the river and of the total, 110 people live in the suburbs that are immediately adjacent to the railway line (either north or south). (d) Of the 65 per cent of people who would use the train 'at least once a year'; 52% live south of the river 42% live north of the river. (e) When taken in context with the overall survey results, it is justified as being the majority view. (f) Of the 10 per cent of people who said they would use the train 'at least once a week': 72% live south of the river 28% live north of the river 100% live in affected suburbs. (g) All but one of the respondents who indicated that they would use the railway at least once a week supported the new direct rail route. RAILWAYS, LEVEL CROSSING AT QUINNS ROAD 1076. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the report released by the Perth Urban Rail Development (PURD) Project concerning the rail crossing at Quinns Road, and the recommendation to install a railway level crossing at this site and ask will the Minister advise - (a) did either PURD or the Department of Planning and Infrastructure prepare a costing on installing a grade separation at the Quinns Road rail crossing; (b) if so, what was the cost of: - (i) installing a grade separation; and (ii) installing a level crossing including the associated warning signals, boom gates, flashing lights and bells; (c) if no comparative costing was prepared, how could PURD and the Minister make such a decision without this information; (d) how does the Minister respond to the community’s clear demand that the standards for safety levels at rail crossings need to be lifted beyond that afforded by a level crossing, and that all new rail crossings should be built with grade separations; and

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8117

(e) how does the Minister answer criticism that in section 3.3 of the report (Vehicle visibility requirements for flashing lights) PURD does not consider the fact that Quinns Road runs east-west, and therefore visibility during peak hour traffic is significantly reduced by sun glare and is a major safety hazard that flashing lights would not overcome? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(e) As the member is aware, originally, it was intended to install a level crossing at the junction where the railway extension will cross Quinns Road at Neerabup. While a level crossing at this location was considered a safe and viable option, the Government was mindful of the range of concerns expressed by the community. As a result, an arrangement was negotiated with the City of Wanneroo whereby the cost of providing a bridge at the crossing location will be shared with the City. Under the arrangement, the Government is contributing funds to the value of a level crossing, and the City of Wanneroo will provide the balance required for construction of a road bridge. When the railway is extended to Butler, the City of Wanneroo's contribution will be reimbursed. This is an outstanding example of where a process of public consultation and co-operation with the local authority has resulted in an outcome that meets the expectations of the community. RAILWAYS, CURRAMBINE LINE, LENGTHENING OF PLATFORMS 1077. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the new railcars for the Currambine line, scheduled for delivery in 2004 and ask will the Minister advise when will the platforms along this line be lengthened, in order to accommodate the new three-car set configuration? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: The existing station platforms on the Northern Suburbs Railway are 100 metres in length to accommodate four-car trains. In the original planning of the Northern Suburbs Railway in 1989, the stations were designed in the knowledge that the platforms would eventually be extended to 150 metres in length to accommodate six-car trains. Public tenders were called on 15 March 2003 for the platform extensions. Tenders close in mid-April and the contract for the works will be awarded in June. Construction works will commence in July this year and will be complete by August 2004. ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 2000 AND OWNER-ONUS LEGISLATION, PROCLAMATION 1078. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services I refer to The Owner-Onus legislation and the Road Traffic Act 2000, neither of which have yet been proclaimed and ask will the Minister advise - (a) if the police have been able to implement the technology to include a photograph of the driver of a vehicle on infringement notices forwarded by the relevant Government Agency to the registered owner; (b) if not, when is it anticipated that this technology will be available and the above procedure implemented; (c) when is it proposed that this legislation will be proclaimed; and (d) how many drivers are still escaping prosecution, given that this legislation has still not yet been proclaimed? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (a)-(b) It is important to note that the technology required to implement owner onus legislation was unfunded by the previous Government and that the CAP:Speed project team was dispersed in May 2000 because funding was not available. Work only recommenced after this Government allocated new funding. The Government has allocated $7 million to the Police Service to implement the necessary technology. The Police Service advises that work towards its implementation is well under way, with full delivery of the project anticipated by July 2004. Owner onus legislation and image on infringements will significantly reduce the avoidance of fines that occurs due to the inability to prove driver identity. Other benefits from this project will include an improved ability to positively influence driver behaviour and the capacity to more efficiently process infringements. (c) The Owner Onus Legislation will be proclaimed to coincide with the introduction of the new technology. (d) The Police service advise that for the period January to December 2002 inclusive, the number of drivers who were unable to be identified was:

8118 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Speeding 17,184 Red Light 1,964

PERTH URBAN RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF NAME TO NEW METRORAIL 1079. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure In a recent contact with Perth Urban Railway Development (PURD), I was informed that PURD had changed its title, and was now known as ‘New Metro Rail’ and ask will the Minister advise - (a) who made the decision to authorise this name change; (b) what was the purpose of this name change; (c) what costs were associated with this name change; (d) how have the community, affiliated organisations and professional bodies been informed of this name change; (e) in view of the controversy surrounding the South West Metropolitan Railway and other issues that PURD/New Metro Rail are associated with, how would the Minister respond to claims that this name change is a blatant attempt to ensure that the general public are deflected from contact with this agency; and (f) how does this name change fall within the Gallop Government’s promise to constrain public sector costs by avoiding unnecessary restructures and the associated costs? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) The decision to change the name of the combined former Perth Urban Rail Development Project (PURD) and City Rail Development Project was made by the A/Commissioner of Railways in consultation with the project directors and myself. (b) The purpose of the change of name was to provide a common and easily recognised name for works associated with the expansion of the urban passenger network to assist in public and stakeholder communications. One of the key catalysts for the change was to establish a name for the project information centre that was opened in William Street in March 2003. (c) The costs associated with the design of the new logo, typeface and name came to $3150 (inclusive of GST). This did not include any creative costs for the development of the name and project slogan, as these were developed within WAGR. The cost of updating the design of the former PURD website (previously at www.purd.transperth.wa.gov.au, now at www.newmetrorail.wa.gov.au) was $2300. (d) The community, affiliated organisations and professional bodies have been advised of this change via letter, distributed with a copy of the first of a regular series of 'On Track' newsletters, which will provide a regular update to the public and stakeholders of project developments. (e) The decision to rename the project was to bring two major projects – PURD and City Rail Development – together under one name. This decision coincided with the relocation of the PURD office to WAGR's premises at the Westrail Centre, where City Rail was already based. The primary reason for the change of name was to create a project name that would assist in the communication of the project to the community and stakeholders. It also marks the change of the project from a planning phase to design and construction. (f) The change of name has been achieved with minimal cost as it coincided with the relocation of the PURD office to the Westrail Centre, a move that required new stationery. There have been no costs associated with the design of new corporate stationery or business cards, as New MetroRail staff are using standard WAGR business cards, as per the Government style guide, and WAGR stationery is being used for all general correspondence.

KWINANA FREEWAY, EMERGENCY SERVICES 1080. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure As the Minister would be aware many motorists were held up in traffic for an extended period of time on the Kwinana Freeway recently after a motor vehicle accident spread diesel and machinery across the road and as this occurred out of peak hours, this delay seemed inexplicable, and I ask will the Minister advise - (a) what emergency measures are being prepared by your department to ensure traffic is not brought to a standstill, should a similar accident occur; (b) will the Minister provide a copy of these emergency measures;

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8119

(c) do these measures consider that once the busway is removed as part of the construction of the South West Metropolitan Railway line, emergency service vehicles will no longer have clear access along the busway; (d) if not, why not; (e) is the Government examining expanding the Perth Transit Control System by utilising the latest computer technology similar to that used in other parts of Australia and overseas to ensure a speedy and efficient response to traffic accidents and emergency situations; and (f) if not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) Under existing legislation the Lead Agency with respect to the response to traffic crashes is the Western Australian Police Service. Main Roads does undertake a Support Agency role for such incidents by undertaking repairs to road assets, providing road maintenance equipment and or material upon request and advising the travelling public of major traffic incidents through radio stations variable message signs on the road network. Main Roads continually monitors the freeway system through the use of fixed cameras and a team of Highway Emergency Response Officers (HEROS). This level of monitoring is considered appropriate for Perth’s current traffic conditions. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. (d) Not applicable. (e)-(f) The current utilisation of cameras and variable message signs is considered appropriate for the existing freeway network. TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES, COST 1082. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the subsidy paid by the Government to support the provision of transport (rail, bus, ferry, taxi and air services) in Western Australia and ask will the Minister advise - (a) what was the total subsidy paid to support metropolitan passenger rail services in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; (b) what was the total subsidy paid to support rural passenger rail services in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; (c) what was the total subsidy paid to support metropolitan passenger bus services in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; (d) what was the total subsidy paid to support rural passenger bus services in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; (e) what was the total subsidy paid to support metropolitan passenger ferry services in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; (f) what was the total subsidy paid to support metropolitan passenger taxi services (ie taxi user subsidy scheme) in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; (g) what was the subsidy paid to support rural passenger taxi services (ie taxi user subsidy scheme) in the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003; and (h) what proportion of the annual budget of the Department of Transport does this subsidy represent for the financial year 2001/2002 and that budgeted for the current financial year 2002/2003? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: The answers to the above questions should be read in conjunction with the tabled paper. [See paper No 1156.] (a) 2001/02 $90,124m. 2002/03 $84,462m. The reduction to rail services relates to the cessation of rail car operating leases ($5,080m). (b) 2001/02 $10,077m. 2002/03 $11,000m. (c) Transperth Services 2001/02 $128,113m. 2002/03 $129,801m. School Bus Services 2001/02 $12,742m. 2002/03 $13,146m. (d) WAGR Coach Services 2001/02 $55,005m. 2002/03 $58,921m. Regional Town Bus Services 2001/02 $6,345m 2002/03 $6,345m

8120 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(e) 2001/02 $0.179m. 2002/03 $0.049m (f) The total subsidy expenditure for the Taxi Users Subsidy Scheme for 2001/02 was $6.347 million. The budgeted subsidy expenditure for 2002/03 is $6.441 million. (g) See (f) (h) It is unclear what subsidy the Member is trying to measure. The proportion of subsidy as set out on the attached schedule is the Total Cost Subsidy as a proportion of the Total Cost of Service 2001/02 79.93% 2002/03 79.05% TAXIS, MULTIPURPOSE, SEATBELTS 1083. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the issue of wearing of seatbelts in a multipurpose taxi (MPT) and ask will the Minister advise - (a) does the driver of a MPT have the right to refuse a fare, if the passenger refuses to wear a seatbelt; and (b) in the case of an accident who would assume legal responsibility for any failure to wear a seatbelt (the driver or the passenger)? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: a) Where the passenger involved is under the age of 16 years, the driver has an obligation under the Road Code 2000 to ensure the passenger is wearing a seat belt and in those circumstances the driver would have the right to refuse the hiring if the passenger failed to comply. If the passenger is over the age of 16 no such obligation is placed on the driver under the Road Traffic Code and the driver would be required to take the fare unless one of the circumstances set out in regulation 13 of the Taxi Regulations existed. b) The exposure of the driver to civil litigation would be dependant on the particular circumstances surrounding the incident and it would be inappropriate to comment. SOUTHERN RAIL LINK, TRANSIT GUARDS 1084. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the issue of transit guards on the South West Metropolitan Railway (SWMR) line and ask will the Minister advise - (a) how many extra transit guards will be employed when this line is operational; and (b) when will the costs required to employ these extra guards become part of the departmental budget? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) An additional 144 transit guards will be employed for passenger railway services between Perth and Mandurah. (b) The majority of the funds required to employ these extra guards will be part of the 2006/07 budget, as Rockingham station is scheduled to open in December 2006. The remainder will be part of the 2007/08 budget, as Mandurah station is scheduled to open in December 2007. SOUTHERN RAIL LINK, RAILCARS, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PASSENGERS 1085. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the issue of railcars for the South West Metropolitan Railway (SWMR) line and ask will the Minister advise - (a) what is the maximum passenger carrying capacity for railcars; (b) in a three-car carriage on the SWMR line, what is the maximum number of passengers each car could carry; and (c) in a two-car carriage on the SWMR line, what is the maximum number of passengers each car could carry? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) To service the South West Metropolitan Railway (SWMR), 21 three-car sets are required. The maximum passenger carrying capacity of these railcars on the SWMR is 12,054. (b) Each three-car train on the SWMR has a driving motor car at either end with a trailer car in between. The train capacity is 574 with each driving car having capacity for 174 people and 226 in the trailer car. Each three-car train has 12 spaces set aside for wheelchairs.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8121

(c) Some of the older two-car electric trains will operate on the SWMR as four-car trains between Whitfords and Thomsons Lake. The capacity of the older two-car trains is 312 people with 156 in each car.

SOUTHERN RAIL LINK, BROCHURES, NUMBER, COST AND DISTRIBUTION 1087. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to three colour publications produced by the Perth Urban Rail Development (PURD), that outline details about the South West Metropolitan Railway (SWMR), with each publication dealing with a different section of the track (Perth City, Perth to Thomsons Lake, Thomsons Lake to Mandurah) and ask will the Minister advise - (a) why was it considered necessary to publish these brochures; (b) what was the cost of producing these three brochures; (c) what numbers of each publication were produced; (d) how were these brochures distributed; (e) to what areas where these brochures distributed, and what numbers were distributed in each area; and (f) what was the cost of preparing, printing and distributing these three brochures? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: a) The brochures were printed as an update on the New MetroRail project. They included information such as descriptions of the route alignment, details about station design and function, services and construction timelines and deadlines. Three brochures were produced to provide timely and pertinent information to those communities that will be affected by the project. b) The cost of producing these three brochures: Printing = $8,537.00 Graphic design, layout, print management etc = $12,993.75. c) 5,000 of each publication were printed. d) The brochures were distributed (and continue to be distributed) by a combination of couriers, mail and personal contact. e) The brochures were distributed as follows: pre-arranged quantities (as requested by a representative of each council) were sent to local councils on the route for distribution to their libraries: City of Melville – 650 of Perth to Thomsons Lake, City of Cockburn – 650 Perth City and 650 Thomsons Lake to Mandurah, City of Rockingham – 650 Perth City, 650 Perth to Thomsons Lake and 1950 Thomsons Lake to Mandurah, Town of Kwinana – 650 Perth to Thomsons Lake, 150 Perth City and 150 Thomsons Lake to Mandurah, City of Mandurah – 650 Thomsons Lake to Mandurah, City of Gosnells – 650 of each, City of Perth – 100 of Perth City, City of South Perth – 350 Perth City and 350 Perth to Thomsons Lake copies were sent to a number of local members of Parliament copies were sent to project stakeholders and to those people that request information on the South West Metropolitan Railway or are interested in the project copies are available in the New MetroRail (NMR) Information Centre at 124 William Street, Perth and at the NMR Project head office at Westrail Centre In addition, copies of the brochures are located on the NMR website f) The cost of preparing and printing the three brochures was $21,530.75. The cost of distributing the three brochures was assessed to be in the order of $200.

RAILWAY CROSSINGS, RUMBLE STRIPS, INSTALLATION 1088. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer both to the Coroner’s Report into the tragic deaths of Christian Jensen, Jessica-Lea Broad and Hilary Smith and the Minister’s subsequent interview on Radio 6PR on Thursday, 13 February 2003, when she stated that rumble strips have been introduced on 2 or 3 rail crossings across the State and ask will the Minister advise -

8122 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(a) which Western Australian local authorities have implemented this safety precaution; (b) which Western Australian local authorities are still to do so; (c) State-wide, how many rail crossings have rumble strips placed at railway crossings; (d) State-wide, how many rail crossings have yet to have rumble strips placed at railway crossings; (e) has the Department of Transport established a time-line to install rumble strips at all railway crossings; and (f) if so, when will this project be completed? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(b) Main Roads Western Australian is the responsible authority for the installation of signs and road markings in our State, including rumble strips. (c)-(f) Main Roads is currently undertaking a trial of the effectiveness of rumble strips on the approaches to railway crossings. As part of this trial, rumble strips are being installed at 16 passively controlled (ie not signal controlled) crossings on high speed rural roads in the Wheatbelt North and South, and Goldfields – Esperance Regions. To date, rumble strips have been installed at 11 crossings, with the remaining five expected to be completed by 30 June 2003. The outcomes of the trial, which involves before and after traffic studies, will assist in determining the effectiveness of the treatment and its potential application at other sites across the State.

RAILWAYS, CURRAMBINE LINE, RAILCARS 1089. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the issue of railcars for the Currambine line, scheduled for delivery in 2004 and ask will the Minister advise - (a) how many railcars of the $437 million railcar contract awarded to EDI (Rail Bombardier Transportation Pty Ltd Joint Venture) have been earmarked for the Currambine line; (b) is the September 2004 scheduled date for delivery still valid; (c) if the delivery date has altered, what is the new delivery date; (d) how will these new railcars improve the carrying capacity of the Currambine line; and (e) since your office has already acknowledged that railcars on the Currambine line are ‘fully utilised during the morning and afternoon peak period’ (Ministerial correspondence, your ref 025292), can the Minister still defend her decision to delay the delivery of extra railcars until 2004, especially in view of the current overcrowding on the Currambine line? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) The supply contract with EDI Rail Bombardier Transportation (EDIRBT) Pty Ltd is for the supply of 31 three-car trains. The value of the supply contract is $239 million. Twelve cars are required for the extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway (NSR) to Clarkson, to service the new station at Greenwood and to accommodate growth on the NSR up to 2006. (b) The time for commencement of train services on the extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway (NSR) to Clarkson is September 2004. In order to achieve this, the railcars are to be delivered and commissioned progressively between March 2004 and August 2004. (c) The delivery dates have not changed from the dates at the time of award of the contract. (d) Existing capacity is provided on the NSR by 22 two-car sets with total capacity of 6,864 places. The additional 12 railcars being supplied in the contract with EDIRBT are to be made up of new three-car trains with a total capacity of 2,296 places. The increase in capacity over the existing provided by the new trains is 33.4%. (e) The time for the introduction of the new railcars on the Northern Suburbs Railway to service the extension to Clarkson and the new station at Greenwood is the first possible time at which they can become available after the award of the contract in May 2002.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, MANAGEMENT INITIATED REDUNDANCY AGREEMENTS, BAR ON CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT 1099. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the article in The West Australian of 17 February 2003, entitled ‘Axe golden gags, say Ministers’ and ask -

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8123

(a) is the Minister aware that Management Initiated Redundancy agreements contain a clause barring criticism of the Government or the Minister; (b) if yes, on what date did the Minister become aware; (c) does the Minister support the clause in Management Initiated Redundancy agreements, which bars criticism of the Government; (d) if yes, why; and (e) if not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) Yes. (b) This issue has been public knowledge since it was addressed by the Nevill Committee during the life of the last Government. (c)-(d) I support the Government's policy which is that such clauses should only apply for a limited period of time. (e) Not applicable. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND NAUTICAL CHARTS, NORTH WEST, FUNDING 1126. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recent announcement that new navigational aids and the production of new nautical charts were part of a State Government program managed by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, and $300,000 was spent on a project for the Easter Group part of the Abrolhos Islands, and I ask - (a) how much is to be spent on programs for new navigational aids and the production of new nautical charts in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) From now until June 2004 it is estimated that approximately $80,000 will be spent on new navigation aids and $25,000 on new nautical charts in the North West of the State. (b) The navigation aids will be installed to improve the approaches to the boat harbour at John's Creek. The new nautical charts will cover areas in the vicinity of the southern section of the Ningaloo Reef, Bill's Bay and Coral Bay. (c) The Department for Planning and Infrastructure is responsible for administering the funds. (d) Preliminary investigations, design and data collection has already commenced for all projects and local consultation takes place regularly through the Maritime Advisory Committees in each coastal township. GROYNE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1128. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure I refer to the recent announcement that the State Government will provide $1million to be used to build three groynes at Quinns Beach, and I ask - (a) how much is to be spent on similar programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(d) The project at Quinns Beach is to counter a serious coastal erosion problem. No North West local government authorities are currently seeking assistance with managing coastal erosion. HOUSING, NORTH WEST, FUNDING 1131. Mr L. Graham to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Works I refer to the recent announcement that the Department of Housing and Works was spending nearly $14million on transforming the massive Fremantle Cold Stores site into a showcase precinct, a total of 101 units, constructed in two,

8124 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] three and four-storey buildings, a mix of seniors and family accommodation, one-bedroom units and units for people with disabilities, and I ask - (a) how much is to be spent on similar accommodation programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a)-(c) See paper No 1148. (d) The commencement date for each project will depend on a range of issues, including – acquisition or location of suitable land; for projects dependent on redevelopment of an existing property, the relocation of the current resident/s will have an impact; and the process of gaining approval to develop from local government, and the issue of a building licence, will affect actual commencement. The Member is welcome to contact my office for further information on any specific project.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MEDIA LIAISON SECTIONS 1150. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) How many people are employed in the public affairs, public relations and media liaison sections of each Department answerable to the Minister? (2) What was the total wages bill for each of these sections in 2001/2002? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: The answers for each agency are as follows: Western Australian Government Railways Commission: (1) Six (2) $176 783.65 Department for Planning and Infrastructure: (1) 16 (2) $689 319.72 Fremantle Port Authority: (1) 3.4 FTEs (2) $211 619.00 LandCorp: (1) Two (2) $127 000pa Main Roads WA: (1) Four (2) $252 607.00 DOLA: (1) 3 permanent full-time staff and 1 consultant, working two days per week. (2) $297 973.66 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MEDIA LIAISON SECTIONS 1152. Mr M.J. Birney to the Minister for Education and Training; Sport and Recreation; Indigenous Affairs (1) How many people are employed in the public affairs, public relations and media liaison sections of each Department answerable to the Minister?

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8125

(2) What was the total wages bill for each of these sections in 2001/2002? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: Department of Indigenous Affairs (1) Two (2) $119,873 Sport and Recreation: Department of Sport and Recreation (1) 3 (2) $131,428.50 Western Australian Sport Centre Trust 1. The WA Sports Centre Trust does not have a section which employs people specifically involved in public affairs, public relations or media liaison. These areas form part of the job description of the Marketing Manager and the Centre Managers of each of the venues managed by the Trust. 2. N/a Western Australian Institute of Sport (1) 2 (2) $53,600 Education and Training: Department of Education and Training (1) Current Department of Education and Training 23.9 FTE TAFE Colleges 13.7 FTE (2) 2001-2002 Department of Education and Training $1 284 981 TAFE Colleges $722 869 Department of Education Services & Curriculum Council (1) 1 (0.7 FTE) (2) $40 051.00 TEACHERS, NUMBER AND RESIGNATIONS 1167. Mr C.J. Barnett to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many secondary school teachers were employed by the Education Department in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? (2) How many secondary school teachers were employed by the Education Department as at – (a) 1 January 2000; (b) 1 January 2001; (c) 1 January 2002; and (d) 1 January 2003? (3) How many secondary school teachers left the employ of the Education Department in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) The number of teachers employed by the Department of Education Western Australia varies throughout the course of the year, depending on school requirements.

8126 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(a) At 30 June 2000 (1999/2000) 7 452 (b) At 30 June 2001 (2000/2001) 7 275 (c) At 30 June 2002 (2001/2002) 7 599 (2) (a) At 1 January 2000 7 398 (b) At 1 January 2001 7 260 (c) At 1 January 2002 7 476 (d) At 1 January 2003 7 583 (3) (a) 1999-2000 187 (b) 2000-2001 219 (c) 2001-2002 169

TEACHERS, NUMBER AND RESIGNATIONS 1168. Mr C.J. Barnett to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many primary school teachers were employed by the Education Department in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? (2) How many primary school teachers were employed by the Education Department as at – (a) 1 January 2000; (b) 1 January 2001; (c) 1 January 2002; and (d) 1 January 2003? (3) How many primary school teachers left the employ of the Education Department in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) The number of teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training Western Australia varies throughout the course of the year, depending on school requirements. (a) At 30 June 2000 (1999/2000) 11 019 (b) At 30 June 2001 (2000/2001) 10 833 (c) At 30 June 2002 (2001/2002) 10 991 (2) (a) At 1 January 2000 10 879 (b) At 1 January 2001 10 615 (c) At 1 January 2002 11 256 (d) At 1 January 2003 11 226 (3) (a) 1999-2000 192 (b) 2000-2001 203 (c) 2001-2002 186

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION, IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS 1192. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection I refer the Minister to reports of the impact of his Industrial Relations Laws on small businesses and ask - (a) what action will the Minister take to compensate the part time employees of small tourist related businesses that no longer open on Sunday because of the high costs of the award; and (b) what action will the Minister take to compensate the families of the part time employees of small tourist related businesses that no longer open on Sunday because of the high costs of the award? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (a)-(b) There are many cost pressures on small business not the least being the Liberal Government’s Goods and Services Tax (GST). The State government cannot be expected to compensate people or businesses for the GST or other changes that may impact on them.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8127

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE AGREEMENTS, NUMBER REGISTERED 1193. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection I refer the Minister to the registration of Employer Employee Agreements (EEA) and ask - (a) how many EEAs were registered for the months ending December 31, 2002; (b) how many EEAs were registered for the month ending January 31, 2003; and (c) how many EEAs were registered for the month ending February 28, 2003? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (a) One (b) None (c) One VACSWIM PROGRAM, COST AND NUMBER ENROLLED 1201. Mr C.J. Barnett to the Minister for Education and Training (1) What was the total cost to the Department of Education of running the VacSwim program in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? (2) How many students enrolled in the VacSwim program in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? (3) How many students completed the VacSwim program in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) (a) 1999-2000 $434 000 (contracted cash cost) (b) 2000-2001 $479 000 (contracted cash cost) (c) 2001-2002 $439 800 (cash cost, does not include corporate services) (2) (a) 1999-2000 57 100 (negotiated figure based on estimates provided by contractor) (b) 2000-2001 53 520 (negotiated figure based on estimates provided by contractor) (c) 2001-2002 52 300 (actual number of applicants processed) (3) (a)-(c) Not known. The only data kept is the number of students paid to enrol into the program and the number of awards attained in the program (ie not all participants gain an award).

HIGH SCHOOLS, BANK ACCOUNT BALANCES 1202. Mr C.J. Barnett to the Minister for Education and Training For each Western Australian Senior High School or District High School, will the Minister advise what was the balance of the bank accounts of each school in the following financial years – (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-2001; and (c) 2001-2002? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (a)-(c) The information requested is not readily available on a financial year basis and would take significant resources to extract. Balances are available at the end of the school year and are attached for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Code School Name Bank 31/12/2000 Bank 31/12/2001 Bank 31/12/2002 4001 ALBANY SHS 441,642.00 554,414.21 445,215.86 4002 APPLECROSS SHS 386,978.27 486,633.19 635,322.69 4003 ARMADALE SHS 213,474.43 208,056.60 244,178.97

8128 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

4004 BALCATTA SHS 190,558.36 233,771.39 295,213.84 4005 BELMONT SHS 354,660.72 368,995.78 473,215.15 4007 BRIDGETOWN HS 93,195.85 93,421.55 104,993.92 4008 BUNBURY SHS 177,639.00 228,066.36 366,967.04 4009 BUSSELTON SHS 40,948.19 22,208.34 74,354.87 4010 CANNINGTON SHS 335,714.31 0.00 0.00 4011 CARNARVON SHS 273,239.99 251,709.87 196,632.63 4012 CHURCHLANDS SHS 496,007.10 367,671.12 894,804.13 4013 CITY BEACH SHS 184,593.81 202,481.17 216,834.57 4014 COLLIE SHS 397,889.06 386,997.67 392,717.91 4015 CYRIL JACKSON SNR CAMPUS 591,419.72 736,132.84 825,032.78 4016 EASTERN GOLDFIELDS SHS 271,020.29 184,687.55 131,066.69 4017 EASTERN HILLS SHS 224,738.83 195,320.35 252,794.50 4018 ESPERANCE SHS 516,306.47 540,578.94 571,597.06 4020 GOVERNOR STIRLING SHS 322,704.12 389,259.57 406,800.17 4021 HAMILTON SHS 528,129.37 594,176.43 755,061.72 4022 HAMPTON SHS 473,547.09 590,390.02 768,815.87 4023 HARVEY HS 107,318.54 86,249.60 140,042.38 4024 HOLLYWOOD SHS 43,446.40 0.00 0.00 4025 JOHN CURTIN SHS 365,561.90 381,393.94 346,777.90 4026 JOHN FORREST SHS 568,955.32 546,289.83 582,065.09 4027 KALAMUNDA SHS 124,116.04 160,519.49 336,518.87 4028 KATANNING SHS 286,445.65 317,067.71 256,386.94 4029 KENT STREET SHS 220,132.16 287,820.70 386,377.25 4031 KWINANA SHS 20,951.44 66,329.18 85,906.93 4032 MANJIMUP SHS 188,767.62 220,049.31 229,106.56 4033 MARGARET RIVER SHS 95,944.86 169,381.91 237,344.18 4034 MELVILLE SHS 406,038.01 440,110.28 620,137.41 4035 MERREDIN SHS 47,612.79 66,761.64 90,937.73 4036 MIRRABOOKA SHS 426,191.58 576,442.23 607,040.11 4037 MOUNT BARKER SHS 128,798.47 85,097.99 142,878.79 4038 MOUNT LAWLEY SHS 742,131.82 665,734.10 1,078,773.40 4039 NARROGIN SHS 491,592.05 399,384.08 402,229.28 4040 NEWTON MOORE SHS 262,910.02 282,427.32 346,530.75 4041 NORTHAM SHS 366,523.85 270,570.59 225,205.90 4042 PERTH MODERN SHS 915,260.63 1,383,569.63 1,275,902.97 4043 PINJARRA SHS 205,370.13 316,496.74 333,170.29 4045 SOUTH FREMANTLE SHS 392,503.75 356,751.47 544,120.62 4046 SWANBOURNE SHS 9,616.50 0.00 0.00 4048 ROSSMOYNE SHS 555,083.42 534,646.31 795,276.85 4049 COMO SHS 210,536.65 225,936.43 196,378.28 4050 BALGA SHS 393,309.00 367,672.47 124,168.41 4051 MORLEY SHS 324,723.66 356,038.09 384,502.09 4052 CENTRAL MIDLANDS SHS 184,857.65 211,901.17 246,577.96 4053 HEDLAND SHS 518,795.21 505,163.25 473,651.10 4054 ROCKINGHAM SHS 230,432.20 208,320.31 267,945.43 4055 THORNLIE SHS 298,962.40 194,693.15 300,765.06 4056 KARRATHA SHS 64,157.77 175,315.82 180,294.13 4057 CARINE SHS 632,850.40 698,041.78 500,068.05 4058 KELMSCOTT SHS 203,575.29 102,824.80 437,295.58 4059 NORTH LAKE SNR CAMPUS 353,428.81 389,091.18 342,186.62 4060 BEVERLEY DHS 46,333.93 44,038.49 16,673.66 4061 BODDINGTON DHS 220,453.55 258,299.25 175,884.86 4062 BOYUP BROOK DHS 146,748.03 141,028.70 104,782.73 4063 BROOKTON DHS 52,798.23 62,587.26 51,457.87 4064 BROOME SHS 210,290.44 151,919.05 90,918.80 4065 BRUCE ROCK DHS 36,508.39 37,415.89 45,987.13 4066 BULLSBROOK DHS 131,001.40 114,090.51 157,149.37 4067 CARNAMAH DHS 124,508.66 98,606.66 108,315.44 4068 CORRIGIN DHS 66,418.25 85,279.04 69,885.69 4069 CUNDERDIN DHS 21,808.27 30,098.60 48,069.86 4070 DALWALLINU DHS 18,236.59 52,483.18 48,311.95 4071 DARKAN DHS 42,652.40 54,664.15 74,775.72 4072 DENMARK HS 211,043.90 158,821.80 162,225.65 4073 DERBY DHS 158,795.91 190,038.57 149,836.70 4074 DONNYBROOK DHS 100,988.81 57,661.53 67,685.34 4075 DOWERIN DHS 70,584.94 66,790.95 158,925.81 4077 EXMOUTH DHS 224,861.88 229,158.62 202,776.52 4078 GNOWANGERUP DHS 62,108.21 57,862.39 63,936.36 4080 JERRAMUNGUP DHS 56,345.91 86,513.74 113,171.26 4081 KELLERBERRIN DHS 16,878.86 78,268.39 67,222.48 4082 KOJONUP DHS 157,997.72 145,266.28 195,148.32 4083 KULIN DHS 65,134.91 72,493.32 62,210.97 4084 LAKE GRACE DHS 95,754.17 116,515.96 119,072.77 4085 MEEKATHARRA DHS 144,051.02 138,553.85 173,180.49 4086 MORAWA DHS 109,555.34 111,137.55 130,535.26 4087 MUKINBUDIN DHS 40,973.46 35,925.26 52,642.54

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8129

4088 MULLEWA DHS 101,657.82 144,134.29 127,447.38 4089 NANNUP DHS 45,977.51 52,674.44 69,830.61 4090 NAREMBEEN DHS 17,392.26 27,829.49 47,339.61 4092 NORSEMAN DHS 242,402.33 217,596.27 194,763.46 4093 NORTHAMPTON DHS 62,194.41 58,344.72 89,623.11 4094 NORTHCLIFFE DHS 12,523.72 12,064.43 22,148.11 4095 PEMBERTON DHS 97,170.67 124,204.99 184,911.85 4096 PINGELLY DHS 53,561.09 60,343.16 74,259.78 4097 QUAIRADING DHS 35,214.89 39,647.88 69,151.46 4098 RAVENSTHORPE DHS 77,205.59 50,287.56 64,635.49 4099 SOUTHERN CROSS DHS 31,743.12 19,857.13 26,506.71 4100 TOM PRICE SHS 155,904.77 146,493.35 248,170.36 4101 TOODYAY DHS 60,074.47 70,530.03 95,915.87 4102 WAGIN DHS 29,018.36 58,227.81 92,405.91 4103 WAROONA DHS 56,063.41 86,432.92 101,024.32 4105 WONGAN HILLS DHS 51,174.92 73,000.85 76,632.12 4107 WYALKATCHEM DHS 30,419.97 64,771.90 94,568.54 4108 WYNDHAM DHS 245,647.11 326,541.00 321,942.95 4109 YORK DHS 59,500.53 48,385.05 71,758.64 4110 GIRRAWHEEN SHS 221,601.36 143,290.11 71,049.77 4111 KAMBALDA WEST DHS 216,170.18 193,098.83 125,490.02 4112 LOCKRIDGE SHS 305,616.77 358,208.09 556,135.52 4113 LYNWOOD SHS 399,362.63 545,040.86 510,359.50 4114 NEWMAN SHS 274,945.10 339,886.36 456,135.54 4116 FORRESTFIELD SHS 225,971.47 237,099.26 282,767.59 4118 SWAN VIEW SHS 159,225.82 216,740.18 396,939.70 4119 PARABURDOO DHS 136,863.34 0.00 0.00 4120 CRAIGIE SHS 355,964.38 306,588.15 374,351.53 4121 GOSNELLS SHS 328,989.00 428,195.72 604,282.13 4122 GREENWOOD SHS 336,987.15 362,473.38 347,654.02 4123 KUNUNURRA DHS 340,368.18 234,443.65 189,614.91 4125 WANNEROO SHS 104,623.10 61,270.75 104,319.36 4126 WILLETTON SHS 354,860.03 301,186.53 483,121.39 4127 YULE BROOK COLLEGE 303,427.12 303,850.58 255,516.33 4128 SAFETY BAY SHS 366,372.10 322,551.92 285,048.58 4129 DUNCRAIG SHS 113,746.96 137,844.02 161,332.77 4130 MANDURAH SHS 476,818.50 396,186.52 327,900.41 4131 DONGARA DHS 39,763.37 62,142.44 70,595.10 4132 CECIL ANDREWS SHS 186,494.43 201,494.10 210,712.76 4133 LESMURDIE SHS 245,211.72 339,611.40 622,426.20 4134 WARWICK SHS 327,643.63 382,727.30 348,927.20 4135 GINGIN DHS 28,766.29 51,346.27 90,573.22 4136 YANCHEP DHS 107,248.68 139,082.64 125,071.93 4137 NORTH ALBANY SHS 405,082.25 544,377.65 606,213.95 4138 ROLEYSTONE DHS 100,803.55 77,305.81 94,552.07 4140 OCEAN REEF SHS 413,070.21 274,333.40 431,606.17 4141 SCHOOL OF ISOLATED&DISTANCE ED 263,769.37 354,424.00 862,455.64 4142 MOUNT MAGNET DHS 109,016.00 121,486.15 100,715.44 4143 LEEMING SHS 336,763.31 415,325.80 573,094.62 4144 WOODVALE SHS 686,105.41 928,932.78 1,096,669.94 4145 HALLS CREEK DHS 151,023.08 305,295.29 320,142.78 4146 AUSTRALIND SHS 405,201.60 260,321.74 493,004.03 4147 PADBURY SHS 273,016.89 181,394.79 315,284.91 4148 COODANUP COMMUNITY COLLEGE 363,756.33 214,845.35 187,326.87 4149 FITZROY CROSSING DHS 127,025.49 166,892.06 11,193.96 4150 LAKELAND SHS 385,030.01 486,741.65 392,412.13 4151 LEONORA DHS 55,500.69 60,489.85 105,598.59 4152 CHRISTMAS ISLAND DHS 227,183.69 194,517.34 219,023.43 4153 BELRIDGE SHS 572,445.19 445,505.73 574,517.59 4155 JURIEN DHS 69,918.54 62,850.36 92,351.94 4157 COCOS ISLAND DHS 194,598.06 150,648.83 204,381.56 4158 BALLAJURA COMMUNITY COLL 476,292.51 689,276.90 980,369.84 4159 WARNBRO COMMUNITY HS 627,480.55 663,057.52 814,811.67 4160 CLARKSON COMMUNITY HS 671,500.87 714,851.50 706,364.28 4161 EATON COMMUNITY COLLEGE 0.00 0.00 5 95,782.66 4163 GERALDTON SECONDARY COLLEGE 501,341.13 622,000.54 901,723.63 4164 LOOMA DHS 87,093.81 34,520.82 36,145.05 4165 SEVENOAKS SENIOR COLLEGE 672,542.39 226,700.22 215,516.70 4166 HALLS HEAD COMMUNITY COLLEGE 620,129.92 280,165.86 302,044.89 4167 MANDURAH SENIOR COLLEGE 765,582.27 597,480.17 527,725.24 4168 SHENTON COLLEGE 978,660.73 1,173,774.13 1,408,767.31 4169 CANNING COMMUNITY COLLEGE 0.00 310,186.95 322,861.71 4171 MINDARIE SENIOR COLLEGE 0.00 0.00 693,049.62 4172 KINROSS COLLEGE 0.00 633,496.82 472,536.71 4173 KALBARRI DHS 0.00 109,551.94 98,103.96 4200 NARROGIN AG COLLEGE 11,330.09 85,642.77 312,458.77 4201 CUNDERDIN AG COLLEGE 188,895.68 221,058.37 101,959.90

8130 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

4202 DENMARK AG COLLEGE 18,881.27 109,122.04 347,821.72 4203 MORAWA AG COLLEGE 178,555.64 17,574.05 104,346.40 4204 HARVEY AG COLLEGE 145,491.39 242,052.41 26,278.73 4301 GNOWANGERUP AG SCH 268,998.91 291,031.84 350,406.90 4500 CANNING COLLEGE 1,439,172.16 1,944,333.07 2,371,413.52 4505 TUART COLLEGE 2,149,733.66 2,045,642.00 1,696,528.13 4966 GERALDTON CAMP SCH 87,226.48 93,285.47 97,764.32 4968 BRIDGETOWN CAMP SCH 39,036.26 32,402.88 9,683.27 4969 PEMBERTON CAMP SCH 53,418.62 56,540.21 65,462.78 4970 GOLDFIELDS CAMP SCH 33,572.77 14,927.32 91,447.91 4972 POINT PERON CAMP SCH 133,695.33 159,727.58 163,084.14 4973 BROOME CAMP SCHOOL 114,781.78 31,247.98 135,727.54 4974 PILBARA CAMP SCHOOL 95,817.94 65,412.49 119,632.60 42,454,572.24 44,815,063.20 53,102,694.11 TEACHERS, LEVEL 3, APPOINTMENT 1211. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training With reference to the appointment of Level 3 teachers - (a) when was the last round of appointments; (b) how many applicants were there; (c) how many applicants were successful; and (d) is there a maximum number who can be appointed, and if so, what was the maximum? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (a) The last selection round was conducted in 2002 with appointments effective from 1 January 2003 (b) 285 (c) 112 (d) Provision for 100 appointments was made, however, because of the quality of the applicant pool 112 were deemed successful ALBANY RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE, ALLOCATION 1212. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training With reference to the capital works allocation to the Albany Residential College (p 1045 of Budget Paper No 2) - (a) will the allocation of $25 000 be expended this financial year; (b) if not, why not; (c) will the allocation of $45 000 for hot water system replacement be expended this financial year; and (d) if not, why not.? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (a) Yes. It was spent on a report completed in November 2002 which includes a costed master plan and concept design for the redevelopment of the Albany Residential College. (b) Not applicable. (c) Yes. The hot water system has been replaced. (d) Not applicable. HIGH SCHOOLS, PAINTING AND FLOOR COVERING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 1213. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training I refer to the Minister’s announcement on 14 December 2002 of the $6 million painting and floor covering replacement program in Government high schools and ask - (a) how much of the $6 million cost is derived from ‘better budget management’ and how much from ‘reductions in damage and vandalism to schools’; (b) precisely what changes occurred to produce savings from ‘better budget management’? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (a)-(b) The program was funded from better budget management of information technology delivery and efficiencies gained from improved risk management programs. SCHOOLS, MAINTENANCE AND REFURBISHMENT COSTS 1215. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training For each Government school in the State, what is the estimated value of maintenance and refurbishment which needs to be undertaken?

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8131

Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: The maintenance condition of all government schools is assessed on a regular basis through the Building Condition Assessment (BCA) process. The next round of inspections is expected to commence in July this year. The BCA process identifies, prioritises and provides an indicative cost of the maintenance work which may be required in the short and medium term at each school. In essence, it is a tool which provides a basis for the allocation of funds and for assisting in the planning of future maintenance programs. Based on the current BCA data, the estimated total cost of maintenance work, ranked priority 1 to 6, in schools is almost $60m. The priority ranking is based on a risk analysis of not undertaking the work. Refurbishment of schools is considered within the context of the Department of Education and Training's capital works program. The estimated total cost of the refurbishment needs on a school by school basis is not readily available. TEACHERS, PRIMARY, MALE/FEMALE RATIO 1216. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many teachers are employed in Department of Education primary schools? (2) How many of these are male and how many are female? (3) For each of the following years 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 will the Minister advise - (a) how many new teachers were appointed to Department of Education primary schools; and (b) how many of these were male and how many were female? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) The number of teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training varies throughout the course of the year, depending on school requirements. At 17 March 2003 11 258 (2) 9 170 female 2 088 male (3) (a) 2003 1320 2002 1179 2001 855 2000 936 (b) 2003 1 182 female 138 male 2002 1 061 female 118 male 2001 767 female 88 male 2000 832 female 104 male TEACHERS, SECONDARY, MALE/ FEMALE RATIO 1217. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How many teachers are employed in Department of Education secondary schools? (2) How many of these are male and how many are female? (3) For each of the following years 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 will the Minister advise - (a) how many new teachers were appointed to Department of Education secondary schools; (b) how many of these were male and how many were female? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) The number of teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training varies throughout the course of the year, depending on school requirements. At 17 March 2003 7442. (2) 3980 female 3462 male (3) (a) 2003 773 2002 904 2001 642 2000 674 (b) 2003 537 female 236 male 2002 604 female 300 male 2001 445 female 197 male 2000 440 female 234 male

8132 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

SCHOOLS, YEAR 10 STUDENTS 1218. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Education and Training For each Government high school in the State what was the proportion of students who were in Year 10 in 2000 - (a) who completed year 11; and (b) who completed year 12? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (a)-(b) The number of Year 11 students in Semester 2, 2001 and Year 12 students in Semester 2, 2002, as a proportion of the number of Year 10 students at the school in Semester 2, 2000 is presented in the following table. District high schools, senior colleges/campuses (with the exception of North Lake Senior Campus which does enrol Year 10s), agricultural colleges and schools, education support centres and high schools, are not included. Proportion of Year 11 and 12 Government Secondary Students based on Year 10 Students as at 2000 Proportion of Cohort Year 10 (2000) School Name Category Year 11 (2001) Year 12 (2002) Albany SHS Senior High School 108.7 86 Applecross SHS Senior High School 99 87 Armadale SHS Senior High School 67.7 38.2 Australind SHS Senior High School 78.7 57.5 Balcatta SHS Senior High School 85.6 66.1 Balga SHS Senior High School 60 43.8 Belmont City College Senior High School 93.9 60.2 Belridge SHS Senior High School 79.6 54.2 Broome SHS Senior High School 82.4 42.6 Bunbury SHS Senior High School 96.1 74.6 Busselton SHS Senior High School 102.1 76.9 Carine SHS Senior High School 93.8 82.7 Carnarvon SHS Senior High School 46.7 25 Cecil Andrews SHS Senior High School 67.5 40.9 Central Midlands SHS Senior High School 86.5 67.3 Churchlands SHS Senior High School 114.3 115.2 Clarkson Community HS Senior High School 82.8 59.2 Collie SHS Senior High School 84.7 53.5 Como Secondary College Senior High School 88.4 71.5 Craigie SHS Senior High School 82.8 59.7 Duncraig SHS Senior High School 87.5 81.8 Eastern Goldfields SHS Senior High School 74.3 46 Eastern Hills SHS Senior High School 79 58.1 Esperance SHS Senior High School 75.1 55.8 Forrestfield SHS Senior High School 81.2 56.9 Geraldton Secondary College Senior High School 77.1 56.6 Girrawheen SHS Senior High School 67 47.6 Gosnells SHS Senior High School 57.2 36.5 Governor Stirling SHS Senior High School 76.1 56.1 Greenwood SHS Senior High School 90.8 70.6 Hamilton SHS Senior High School 80 52.4 Hampton SHS Senior High School 79.3 62.1 Harvey SHS High School 59 26.2 Hedland SHS Senior High School 81.4 42.1 John Curtin COTA Senior High School 96 80.2 John Forrest SHS Senior High School 77.3 66 Kalamunda SHS Senior High School 81 65.2 Karratha SHS Senior High School 78.2 53.6 Katanning SHS Senior High School 84 68.1 Kelmscott SHS Senior High School 97 71 Kent Street SHS Senior High School 94.4 69.9 Kwinana SHS Senior High School 78.9 47.9 Lakeland SHS Senior High School 69.7 52 Leeming SHS Senior High School 95.1 88.5

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8133

Lesmurdie SHS Senior High School 92 74.3 Lockridge SHS Senior High School 72.5 51.8 Lynwood SHS Senior High School 92 78.6 Manjimup SHS Senior High School 135.2 105.7 Margaret River SHS Senior High School 72.5 58.3 Melville SHS Senior High School 86.4 75.1 Merredin SHS Senior High School 108.8 69.1 Mirrabooka SHS Senior High School 80.8 58.9 Morley SHS Senior High School 92.8 72.7 Mt Barker SHS Senior High School 86.8 48.7 Mt Lawley SHS Senior High School 89.7 76.2 North Albany SHS Senior High School 86.1 60.7 Narrogin SHS Senior High School 115.3 90.2 Newman SHS Senior High School 92.7 85.4 Newton Moore SHS Senior High School 73.2 48.5 North Lake Senior Campus Senior Campus 63.8 111.4 Northam SHS Senior High School 136.9 105.4 Ocean Reef SHS Senior High School 80.8 61.6 Padbury SHS Senior High School 72.6 61.8 Perth Modern SHS Senior High School 116.7 79.6 Pinjarra SHS Senior High School 102.4 63.6 Rockingham SHS Senior High School 85.5 57 Rossmoyne SHS Senior High School 98.1 94.8 South Fremantle SHS Senior High School 70.4 54.6 Safety Bay SHS Senior High School 80.6 41.9 Schools of Isolated and Distance Education Distance Education 115.7 56.6 Shenton College Senior High School 124.7 110.8 Swan View SHS Senior High School 71.8 56.4 Thornlie SHS Senior High School 80.6 61.1 Tom Price SHS Senior High School 81.1 62.2 Wanneroo SHS Senior High School 76.4 59.5 Warnbro Com HS Senior High School 91 59.6 Warwick SHS Senior High School 87.9 66.5 Willetton SHS Senior High School 94.5 89.2 Woodvale SHS Senior High School 85.5 73.1 NB: Shenton College consists of student numbers from Hollywood SHS and Swanbourne SHS, both closed 20/12/2000. Source: Information Services, Department of Education and Training 19/03/2003

YOUTH DEVELOPMENT HOLIDAY PROGRAM, UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS 1219. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth (1) Will the Minister list all individuals, groups and organisations that were rejected for funding under the latest round of the Youth Development Holiday Program for the April 2003 school holidays? (2) Will the Minister provide full details in respect of each unsuccessful application, including the purpose of the funding application and the amount sought? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) The unsuccessful applicants may not wish information about their applications to be published and funding policies and guidelines do not require this. The Government's Funding and Purchasing Community Services policy and the State Supply Commission policy and guidelines on Open and Effective Competition and Ethical Standards require the Department to release information regarding services and organisations funded. (2) The Department can provide numbers of successful and unsuccessful applicants for the Youth Development Holiday Program grants. The Department received 60 applications for the Youth Development Holiday Program in relation to the April 2003 school holidays. 45 of these were successful. Should the member have a question regarding a specific application for a Youth Development Holiday Program, the Department will seek the permission of the organisation to provide the information sought.

8134 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

EDUCATION, HEARING IMPAIRED CHILDREN, FUNDING 1220. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Minister for Education and Training (1) How is the effectiveness of education services at all levels evaluated in respect of deaf impaired school children? (2) What specific policies and programs exist to ensure that the very best in education, education support, provision of aides and interpreting services for deaf impaired children at Government schools? (3) Will the Minister provide extensive details of each such policy or program? (4) What funding is provided by the State Government specifically to assist in the education of deaf impaired school children? (5) How are deaf students in Western Australian State schools evaluated to attain the educational standards? (6) How do these standards of achievement compare with comparable results in other States and overseas? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) All students who are Deaf or hard of hearing in government schools have individualised Student Communication Development Profiles which are submitted to the WA Institute for Deaf Education (WAIDE) in March and November of each year. This Profile highlights each individual child’s progress in the development of spoken and/or sign language and the information is used for state-wide accountability. (2) Services and programs for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing are underpinned by the Department of Education and Training legislative and policy initiatives such as the School Education Act 1999, the Enrolment Policy, Students at Educational Risk policy and Building Inclusive Schools, which promote early identification and intervention, inclusive schooling and ensure that the needs of each student are addressed. (3) The range of schools, facilities and services available through the Institute include: The Early Intervention Centre which provides playgroup and kindergarten programs for children aged three months of age to five years of age. The Bilingual Bicultural playgroup provides a sign language program on-site at WAIDE for children aged three months to three years of age. Cottesloe School for Deaf and Hearing Impaired Children is a Primary level school providing a specialist spoken language program. Mosman Park School for Deaf Children co-located on the same site as a mainstream school has a co-enrolment Auslan sign language focus. At secondary level, students are able to access support at Shenton College Deaf Education Centre (Spoken and Sign Language Programs); Belmont City College Units (Spoken and Sign Language Programs); John Forrest Senior High School Unit (Spoken Language Program); and Melville Senior High School Unit (Spoken Language Program). The Visiting Teacher of the Deaf Service provides statewide services to students and their families. WAIDE provides an educational audiological service for students from the age of diagnosis through to school leaving age. A full management program for children with cochlear implants. Psychological Services for students and their families. Sign Language Support. Sign Language Classes in AUSLAN for children, parents and community members. An on-site Teacher of the Deaf training program (4) Funding is provided according to Department guidelines. In addition to the recurrent contingency funding of $193,000 allocated to WAIDE, each school is staffed and resources according to each student’s needs. (5) Students are profiled to ensure that they receive an appropriate educational program. Teachers of the Deaf work with each student’s teacher to specifically monitor and evaluate the student’s communicative competencies. These achievements are reported at the end of each semester. (6) While no comparative data is available to compare the learning outcomes of Deaf and hard of hearing students, WAIDE has been recognised both within Australia and internationally for the extent and quality of service provided to Deaf and hard of hearing students in Western Australia. There has been an increase in the number of Deaf and hard of hearing students remaining at school until the end of Year 12, combined with an increasing number who are enrolling in tertiary and further education courses.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8135

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, LESCHENAULT ESTUARY, MANAGEMENT 1237. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Deputy Premier; Treasurer; Minister for Energy (1) Do any departments or agencies within your portfolios have responsibility, sole or part, for the management, maintenance, conservation, rehabilitation, safety, funding or administration of any facility, policy, program or any other aspect whatsoever regarding - (a) the Leschenault Estuary or any land surrounding it; (b) the Leschenault Peninsula; (c) the Leschenault Inlet or any land surrounding it; (d) the area known as ‘the Cut’, being the channel linking the Leschenault Estuary and Koombana Bay; (e) the area known as ‘the Plug’, being the channel linking the Leschenault Inlet and Koombana Bay; (f) the Collie River in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary; (g) the Preston River in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary; (h) navigation channels in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary and Inlet; (i) dredging in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary and Inlet; and (j) boat ramps in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary and Inlet? (2) If so, will the Deputy Premier provide full details? (3) Have any departments or agencies within your portfolios conducted, funded, coordinated, initiated or participated in any studies concerning the re-routing of substantial volumes of water from the Wellington Dam to Perth, in terms of the impact on the Brunswick, Collie and Preston Rivers and the Leschenault Estuary? (4) If so, will the Deputy Premier provide full details, including a copy of any relevant written reports. Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: International Centre for the Application of Solar Energy (1) The International Centre for the Application of Solar Energy has no responsibility for any of the areas or facilities defined. (2) Not applicable (3) Not applicable (4) Not applicable WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a)-(j) No (2) Not applicable (3) No (4) Not applicable Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) No (2) Not applicable (3) No (4) Not applicable Office of Energy (1)-(4) The Office has no responsibility for the Leschenault Estuary or any land surrounding it. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable (3) No (4) Not applicable Western Power (1) (a)-(j) No (2) Not applicable

8136 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(3) No (4) Not applicable Office of Native Title (1) The State is a respondent in native title claims for this area (ie areas a - j) in particular by the Gnaala Karla Booja applicant group. (2) Full details of this claim are available on the National Native Title Tribunal website at www.nntt.gov.au (3) No. (4) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) No (2) Not applicable (3) No (4) Not applicable

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, LESCHENAULT ESTUARY, MANAGEMENT 1246. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan to the Minister for Health (1) Do any departments or agencies within your portfolios have responsibility, sole or part, for the management, maintenance, conservation, rehabilitation, safety, funding or administration of any facility, policy, program or any other aspect whatsoever regarding - (a) the Leschenault Estuary or any land surrounding it; (b) the Leschenault Peninsula; (c) the Leschenault Inlet or any land surrounding it; (d) the area known as ‘the Cut’, being the channel linking the Leschenault Estuary and Koombana Bay; (e) the area known as ‘the Plug’, being the channel linking the Leschenault Inlet and Koombana Bay; (f) the Collie River in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary; (g) the Preston River in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary; (h) navigation channels in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary and Inlet; (i) dredging in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary and Inlet; and (j) boat ramps in the vicinity of the Leschenault Estuary and Inlet? (2) If so, will the Minister provide full details? (3) Have any departments or agencies within your portfolios conducted, funded, coordinated, initiated or participated in any studies concerning the re-routing of substantial volumes of water from the Wellington Dam to Perth, in terms of the impact on the Brunswick, Collie and Preston Rivers and the Leschenault Estuary? (4) If so, will the Minister provide full details, including a copy of any relevant written reports. Mr R.C. KUCERA replied: 1. (a)-(j) inclusive The Department of Health provides advice and partial funding for the mosquito management program being undertaken by the Leschenault Contiguous Local Authority Group (CLAG). This includes areas of saltmarsh surrounding the Leschenault Estuary and the lower reaches of the Collie River. The Department funds the University of Western Australia to provide a surveillance program for Ross River virus vector mosquitoes that includes monitoring adult mosquitoes in the Leschenault region. The Department has also recently provided advice to officers of the Department of Conservation and Land Management in relation to management of saltmarsh and freshwater mosquitoes at the new Leschenault Peninsula tourist development. 2. Funding provided to the Leschenault CLAG is provided for mosquito larvicides on a 1:1 basis (approximately $4000.00 per year). In addition, DOH funds the use of a helicopter for occasional large scale larviciding requirements which may include the Leschenault area. The cost this year is about $2,000.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8137

3. No 4. N/A

RAILWAYS, WARWICK STATION, PARKING BAYS 1261. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (1) How many car parking bays are currently provided at Warwick Train Station? (2) Are they fully utilised? (3) Have any surveys been carried out to ascertain whether additional car parking is needed at Warwick Train Station? (4) If so, what were the results? (5) If not, will the Minister consider such a survey? (6) If not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1) 994 (2) Yes (3) No (4) Not applicable (5)-(6) The Government has recently announced the construction of Greenwood Station. This is expected to relieve the parking pressure on Warwick Train Station by providing 660 new car bays. The Development of a multi-storey car park at Warwick was examined in the past and 420 car bays could be created. However, there would likely be a strong local opposition from residents and significant disruption to the current parking areas during construction.

TWO ROCKS MARINA, SOIL AND GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 1284. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Is the Minister aware of complaints about soil and groundwater contamination at the Two Rocks Marina and claims that guidelines regarding community consultation have not been followed? (2) Has the Department of Environmental Protection been involved in this issue? (3) If so, to what extent? (4) What is the precise nature and extent of the contamination? (5) Has contaminated waste been removed from the site? (6) What was the method of disposal used for disposal of this waste? (7) Who approved this method? (8) Where was the waste deposited? (9) Who approved this site? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1) Yes, I am aware of the complaints about soil and groundwater contamination at the Two Rocks Marina. In late 2002, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had some concerns with the approach being taken by Yanchep Sun City and Caltex to community consultation. The DEP subsequently requested that Yanchep Sun City and Caltex improve their consultation with the local community to ensure that they are fully aware of any developments at the site. The DEP has also requested that the report outlining the proposed Remediation Plan for the site include a strategy for informing the Two Rocks community of the proposed remediation at the site. (2) Yes. (3) The DEP has been working with Yanchep Sun City and Caltex to ensure that remediation occurs at the site as soon as possible. There has been regular contact with Yanchep Sun City and Caltex to ensure that they continue to inform the local community of the contamination status at the site. The DEP is also in contact with members of the local community group. The DEP had requested that the proposed remediation action plan for the site be finalised and submitted for assessment and this plan was received on 28 March 2003 together with

8138 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

remediation timelines. The DEP endorsed this plan on 9 April 2003 and I am advised that remediation works has already commenced on this site. (4) There is approximately 2700 cubic metres of hydrocarbon contaminated soil at the site which needs to be excavated. The contamination is primarily characterised by total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) C6-C9, C10- C14, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene and naphthalene above the DEP’s prescribed Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL’s)*. The groundwater at the site exhibited elevated TPH, benzene and naphthalene above Marine Ecosystem Protection Guidelines*. (*Reference: December 2001, Draft Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water, DEP Contaminated Sites Management Series Guideline) (5) As of 15 May 2003, approximately 420 cubic metres of contaminated soil has been transported to the Flynn Drive Landfill. The material is being stockpiled on-site whilst awaiting further sampling prior to final disposal. (6) Landfill disposal is the proposed disposal method. (7) The DEP approved the remediation action plan on 9 April 2003. (8) Answered by (5). (9) The Flynn Drive Landfill is licensed by the DEP under an Environmental Protection Act 1986 Licence.

NARROGIN ELECTRICITY GENERATION STATION, OIL MALLEE WASTE 1303. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister for Energy (1) What progress is being made on Western Power’s proposed electricity generation station at Narrogin which will operate using waste from the harvesting of oil mallees? (2) When is the plant due to commence operation? (3) Over the next 5 years, what is its range of expected feed stocks and in what volumes? (4) What is the expected cost of producing electricity from this plant and how does this cost compare with other electricity generating plants within the South West Interconnected Grid? (5) Will any producers of oil mallee be able to provide their waste materials for use as feed into this plant? (6) Have any contracts been entered into, or are any being negotiated or likely to be negotiated, between Western Power and companies and/or individuals involved in the growing of oil mallees and/or the production of eucalyptus oil from oil mallees? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1) The Narrogin Integrated Wood Processing (IWP) Demonstration Plant is 80% constructed with completion due in June 2003. The plant will use chipped mallee tree, leaf and wood (rather than waste from the harvesting of oil mallees), for processing to renewable energy, activated carbon and eucalyptus oil. (2) The plant will be commissioned from June 2003. Key technology will take time to optimise, and full production is expected after a year of optimisation. (3) At full production, the plant will use 20,000 tonnes per annum of mallee feedstock (mixed leaf and wood). Any shortage of mallee feed will be compensated for by the use of other plantation-based timber that complies with the strict provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and Regulations. (4) As an integrated plant, the cost of electricity production is linked to the market value of the other products. One of the functions of the Demonstration Plant is to put values on these products. (5) Yes if it is an acceptable standard. However distance from the plant, as it determines transport and harvesting costs etc., may be a limiting factor. (6) Temple Farm Trading has a contract to manage mallee research on the small farm which forms the IWP buffer zone at Narrogin. Negotiations are underway between Oil Mallee Company of Australia and Western Power for non-exclusive supply of biomass to the Narrogin Demonstration plant. There will likely be sales contracts negotiated with eucalyptus oil wholesalers, as commercial conditions dictate. The major wholesalers in Australia have commercial links to growers. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT CONSULTATION PAPER 1327. Mr M.G. House to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage I refer to the Biodiversity Conservation Act Consultation Paper, which proposes changes to the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 currently in place, and ask -

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8139

(a) will the Minister make the unedited version of the respondents’ comments on the Consultation Paper accessible, in addition to the edited version, which will be made available by the Department of Conservation and Land Management; (b) regarding the identification of ‘key threatening processes’ and the Minister’s subsequent power to ‘make orders for the eradication, reduction or containment of environmental weeds and pests’ - (i) considering the diversity of Western Australia’s regions and their varying environmental factors, will the Minister guarantee that any such decision will be made with thorough consideration of the specific environment in question; and (ii) will the decisions of the Minister override the decisions of the Shire Councils, who may be more familiar with the needs and vulnerability’s of their regions than the Minister; and (c) will the Minister indicate the extent to which the economic realities faced by farmers will be compromised by the commitment to the protection of biodiversity? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (a) Yes, except where respondents have requested their comments be confidential. (b) (i)-(iii) These are matters to be considered in the development of the proposed legislation. I will take into account public input and the practicalities of enforcing any proposed requirements in the development of the legislation. (c) The legislation will have its focus of protecting biodiversity in a sustainably managed landscape, taking account of land uses including farming, fishing, mining and tourism. TWO ROCKS MARINA, CONTAMINATION AT FORMER FUELLING SITE, REPORT 1328. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Now that the Minister has tabled the confidential report by CSBP on the ground water contamination (3 April 2003), will the Minister now table the confidential report by Yanchep Sun City (Toku) on the contamination at the former fuelling site at the Two Rocks Marina? (2) If not, why not? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1) A copy of the Detailed Site Investigation (Phase II) Report has been made available in the Two Rocks/Yanchep Public Library (Phil Renkin Library) for public review since late 2002. This report details the environmental investigations undertaken at the site, confirms the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination and provides the recommendations for the clean-up and management of the contamination. In addition, an update sheet prepared and distributed to the local community via letter drop by Creating Communities, on behalf of Caltex and Yanchep Sun City, in mid April 2003 provided an update on the remediation works, and reiterated that a copy of the report is available in the library and provided the number of the toll free project information line. An advert has also been placed in the local newspaper to advise of the proposed remediation works at the site. (2) Answered by (1). GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, STAFF SECONDED FROM UNIONS WA OR INDIVIDUAL UNIONS 1345. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Attorney General; Minister for Justice and Legal Affairs; Electoral Affairs; Peel and the South West Since the election of the Labor Government in 2001, for each department and agency under the Attorney General’s responsibility - (a) how many members of your ministerial staff or persons working in your ministerial office have been seconded from Unions WA or an individual Union; (b) what are the names of these persons, positions held and duties these persons perform; and (c) are these persons paid directly by the Government or are their wages subsidised to the union? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (a) Nil. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable.

8140 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH HEDLAND, PROJECT OFFICER 1377. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth I refer to the Media Statement made by the Minister on 19 March 2003 with regard to South Hedland and ask - (a) on what date did/will the project officer commence work; (b) is this position a new position; (c) if the answer to (b) is no - (i) what duties was the person filling prior to taking up the position as project officer; and (ii) who is/will be performing the duties previously carried out by the person acting as project officer; (d) if the answer to (b) is yes - (i) what is the total cost of the placement of the project officer; (ii) how much of that total cost is being met by the Department; (iii) how much of that total cost is being met by other parties; (iv) which other parties are contributing to that total cost; and (v) what is the source of the departmental funds; (e) what is the role of the project officer; (f) in what way will the project officer be involved with the HYPE program; (g) how will the operations of the project officer be funded; (h) as the Minister would ‘like to assure residents of South Hedland that staff from the Department for Community Development are working very hard to implement solutions that will deliver results’ how will the success or failure of the role of the project officer be assessed; (i) specifically what are the ‘specific projects from a range of solutions that are being pursued’; (j) what is the budget for each ‘specific project’ that is being pursued; (k) how much of the budget referred to in (j) is being funded by the Department; (l) if funding sources external to the Department are being used in the budget referred to in (j), what are those sources and how much is each source contributing; (m) specifically what are ‘these issues’ that affect South Hedland; (n) specifically what is the work that is underway to ‘alleviate these issues’ in South Hedland; (o) specifically what is the budget for the work referred to in (n); (p) has funding been reduced or altered in any other area of the Department’s operations to fund any part of the initiatives contained in the Minister’s announcement; (q) if the answer to (p) is no, what is the source of the new funds; and (r) if the answer to (p) is yes, where were the reductions/alterations made? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (a) The process for filling the position has commenced and as soon as the selection is completed the officer will be appointed and a commencement date towards the end of May 2003 will be negotiated. (b) No. (c) The position has not been filled recently, and has existed as a support role for service delivery on an as needs basis. The position was last used to develop the local emergency management procedures. (d) Not applicable. (e) The role will be to work intensively with young people and families identified through the HYPE program in a case work capacity. (f) The role will provide support to the project, ensuring that there is a coordinated across agency approach to those individuals and families identified through the HYPE project. It will work to develop responses, which address the underlying issues impacting on young people and their families. (g) Funding is provided through the Pilbara District operational budget. (h) The assessment of the outcomes achieved by the project officer will be directly linked to the outcomes of the HYPE project and the other initiatives from this collaborative approach.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8141

(i) The specific projects being pursued which the Department is seeking to strengthen, develop and support are the HYPE project, the Project Worker position, Safe House Model and Youth Referral Groups. The focus is to increase collaboration and coordination across government to ensure solutions to issues for young people, families and the community. (j) The base salary for a Level 4 Project Officer is $40,199.00, which does not include costs of admin support, accommodation, vehicle expenses etc, provided through the Pilbara operational budget. The cost of the HYPE project is approximately $94,000.00. This cost will be shared between key stakeholders. Negotiations are underway with Pilbara Development Commission and other key stakeholders. However the Department for Community Development has committed $5,000.00 to enable the project to get underway. In addition the Department will provide training, supervision for workers on this program and will coordinate the program. Other projects and strategies are met through the operational budgets of government agencies and their funded services. (k) Refer to answer (j). (l) Refer to answer (j). (m) As stated in the Media Statement these issues affecting South Hedland are 'children roaming the streets, youth anti-social behaviour and the law and order issue of general crime'. (n) The development of the HYPE program, employment of a Project Worker, interagency working groups with other Departments, funded agencies and other stakeholders, and ongoing Departmental operational programs. (o) Refer to answer (j) (p) No. (q) The new Departmental operational budget provides flexibility in areas such as the Project Officer position to focus on key contemporary issues in local communities. (r) Not applicable.

CHILDREN IN NEED OF CARE AND PROTECTION, SOUTH HEDLAND 1379. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth (1) How many children in need of care and protection has the Department of Community Development identified in South Hedland since 1 January 2000? (2) What action has the Department for Community Development taken in each case? (3) Is the Department satisfied that there are no further cases of children in need of care and protection in South Hedland? (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, how has the Department satisfied itself of this? (5) If the answer to (4) is no - (a) what action/s has/have the department taken to fulfil its responsibilities under the Act; (b) what is the total operational budget for the Department to attend to these matters in South Hedland; and (c) who has responsibility for the operational budget for these matters in South Hedland? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) There have been 11 applications made for Care and Protection. (2) Of the 11 applications for care and protection, 5 have been withdrawn and the children returned to family following the development and implementation of case plans to address the issues of concern. One application is currently adjourned with the child remaining with the mother, whilst supports are engaged to support the family address the issues. The other five applications have been granted, with four children currently in department kinship/extended family care arrangements and one child being returned to family following a period of extended family care. (3) No. The process of receiving referrals and investigating allegations of child maltreatment is an ongoing process. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Department continues to receive referrals from the community with concerns for children, and assesses and investigates these referrals as appropriate.

8142 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(6) The Pilbara District has a total operational budget of $4,662,656. The District covers the areas in and around Onslow, Karratha, Roebourne, Tom Price, Newman, Port Hedland, South Hedland, Marble Bar, and out to the boarder community of Kiwirrkurra. There is no specific allotment. (7) The Pilbara District Manager. MURDOCH UNIVERSITY, PILBARA, STUDY FUNDING 1381. Mr L. Graham to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development I refer to the media release by the Minister on 31 March 2003 regarding funding to Murdoch University and I ask - (a) how was the amount of $100,000 arrived at; (b) on what date did the matter receive the endorsement of the Pilbara Development Commission; (c) in what way did the Pilbara Development Commission support the matter; (d) specifically, who proposed that such a study be conducted; (e) what are the terms of reference for the study; (f) who wrote the terms of reference for the study; (g) to whom does the study report; (h) what experience does the study team have in the Pilbara region of the State; (i) is it the intent of the study group to use university students as part of the study resource; (j) specifically how does this project ‘put Western Australia at the forefront of the regional application of sustainability concepts internationally’; (k) specifically how does this project create ‘long term benefit for communities and businesses’ in the Pilbara; (l) how will those benefits referred to in (k) be assessed; (m) does the Government have a contract with Murdoch University to perform this work; (n) if the answer to (m) is no, why not; (o) if the answer to (m) is yes, will the Minister provide a copy of the contract; (p) in what way does this work comply with the State Supply Commission Guidelines and policies; (q) on what date, and in which publications was/were the opportunities to tender for this work published; (r) how many Pilbara based consultancies were invited to contract for this work; (s) in what way does this work comply with the Government Buy Local purchasing initiatives announced by the Minister on 5 June 2002; (t) how many similar studies does the Government intend to have carried out; and (u) what is the total amount of funding available for future studies? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: a) Assessed from the budget and application for a Western Australian Regional Initiatives Scheme (WARIS) grant submitted by the applicant (Murdoch University). b) The WARIS application was discussed with Pilbara Development Commission staff during the assessment phase. It was agreed that preconditions for release of WARIS grant funding required the negotiation of the project’s Terms of Reference, budget expenditure and scope of work prior to the final endorsement of the study by the Pilbara Development Commission Board. The Commission and the applicant are still in the negotiation phase. c) See above. d) The applicant. e) Murdoch University and the Pilbara Development Commission are currently working towards establishing the Terms of Reference and scope of work for the project. f) Not applicable. g) Subject to agreement on the Terms of Reference and the study proceeding, the Board of the Pilbara Development Commission. Final acquittal of the WARIS grant funding is to be managed through the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8143 h) Terms of Reference and scope of work will determine composition of the study team. i) Students may be used as part of the study team, subject to needs identified by the scope of work. j) Application of sustainability concepts at a regional level are relatively uncommon, though there is international recognition of their value to long term planning. k) Subject to agreement on the Terms of Reference, the strategy will identify sustainability objectives for the region and its communities relating to economic viability, social well being, and the maintenance of environmental integrity. The strategy will identify gaps in service or infrastructure delivery and propose solutions for communities to aid planning and prioritisation of resources. l) The impacts can be benchmarked against the published Indicators of Regional Development in Western Australia. m) No. Subject to Pilbara Development Commission negotiating and the Board endorsing the project’s Terms of Reference, a Financial Assistance Agreement will be prepared. n) See above. o) Not applicable. p) Funds are provided through the WARIS grant program. The Financial Assistance Agreement will include a requirement that the recipient agrees to use local products and services for the project, wherever possible, using an open and competitive process. q) Project not funded through a public tender process. Application for WARIS grant was made under the WARIS scheme, advertised in The West Australian on Saturday, 24 August 2002 and in the regional press 21 – 28 August 2002. r) Not applicable. s) See point (p). t) Unknown, although the study may provide a framework for the development of sustainability strategies for other regions. u) Unknown.

CHILDREN IN NEED OF CARE AND PROTECTION, HALLS CREEK 1383. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth (1) How many children in need of care and protection has the Department of Community Development identified in Halls Creek since 1 January 2000? (2) What action has the Department of Community Development taken in each case? (3) Is the Department satisfied that there are no further cases of children in need of care and protection in Halls Creek? (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, how has the Department satisfied itself of this? (5) If the answer to (4) is no - (a) what action/s has/have the department taken to fulfil its responsibilities under the Act; (b) what is the total operational budget for the Department to attend to these matters in Halls Creek; and (c) who has responsibility for the operational budget for these matters in Halls Creek? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) There have been two applications made for Care and Protection. (2) The Department apprehended these two children and they are currently in Departmental care. (3) No, the process of receiving referrals and investigating allegations of child maltreatment is an ongoing process. (4) Not applicable. (5) (a) The Department continues to receive referrals from the community with concerns for children, and assesses and investigates these referrals as appropriate. (b) The operational budget for Halls Creek/Fitzroy Crossing is $748,038. (c) The District Manager of the Kimberley region is responsible for the operational budget in Halls Creek.

8144 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HALLS CREEK, STAFF AND PROGRAMS 1385. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Community Development, Women's Interests, Seniors and Youth (1) How many staff does the Department have in Halls Creek? (2) What are the classifications of those staff? (3) What programs are currently being funded in Halls Creek? (4) What is the purpose of each program referred to in (3)? (5) How much funding is each program referred to in (3) receiving from the Department? (6) If the amount referred to in (5) is not the total funding for the program how much is being contributed by which other organisations? (7) How is the effectiveness of each program assessed? (8) When is the effectiveness of each program assessed? (9) Where can a report on the effectiveness of each program be accessed? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Eight (2) The Department's Halls Creek office currently employs four full time field staff including: · Senior Field Officer (Officer in Charge) – Level 5 (Contract) · Children's Services Officer / Community Development and Funding Officer – Level 5 · Field Officer – Level 2/4 · Customer Service Officer / Financial Assistance Officer – Level 2. · There is one Field officer (Level 2/4) position which is currently vacant, however this has been advertised and the selection process almost complete. · Yarg-Man-Taam-Puuru (the Placement Support Unit) employs one Level 3 Hostel Co-ordinator and three full-time Level 1 Hostel assistants. District Manager, Team Leaders, Senior Practice Development Officer, Senior Officer Aboriginal Services and other Kimberley support staff provide complementary and supervisory services. (3) The following programs are currently being funded in Halls Creek: Ngaringga Ngurra Safehouse $317,192.29 Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Plus Children's Services in refuges $25,000.00 Ngaringga Ngurra Financial Counselling $30,989.83 Ngaringga Ngurra Family Support Service $61,812.19 Shire of Halls Creek Youth Service $25,802.27 Wirrimanu Family Safety Project $48,394.25 (4) The purpose of each program is outlined in their funding agreement and is as follows for each of the services: Ngaringga Ngurra Safehouse The Department for Community Development funds Ngaringga Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation to provide a Safe House. This Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Service is located in Halls Creek and is funded to provide safe accommodation and support for women, with or without children, who are escaping family violence and/or are in crisis. The service operates 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Ngaringga Ngurra Financial Counselling Service The Department for Community Development funds Ngaringga Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation to provide a Financial Counselling Service to the Town of Halls Creek. The purpose of the service is to assist individuals and families to maximise income and rationalise expenditure, to make informed decisions about their financial related problems and to act on these decisions, through providing information, identifying and clarifying options, improving skills and supporting clients through the negotiation process. The service may also offer support to individuals and families experiencing difficulties or crises that contribute to their financial difficulties. This support may be in the form of practical assistance, informal counselling or

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8145

advice and linking to other available community resources and support networks. The service is aimed at financially disadvantaged people in the community, in particular Aboriginal people. Ngaringga Ngurra Family Support Program The Department for Community Development funds Ngaringga Ngurra Aboriginal Corporation to provide a Family Support Service to the Town of Halls Creek. The Department has recently suspended the funding due to not receiving their Audit for 2002. The Service has also failed to submit an acceptable Preferred Service Provider package to the Department. The Department is working with the organisation to reinstate their funding that will see them operate for a further three years. The Family Support Program receives funds to provide family support services, with a focus on enhancing and developing family relationships and parenting issues within the family context. The program is to deliver programs for families combining with other Service Providers, including the Department for Community Development. The programs developed by the service will include community based family activities that promote positive family relationships. Halls Creek Youth Services The Department for Community Development funds the Shire of Halls Creek Youth Services to provide coordination of organised activities and programs to young people, in particular Aboriginal young people within the township of Halls Creek. This includes supporting and complementing existing and new services involved with young people. Core hours are after school hours and on weekends for a minimum of 38 hours per week with flexibility for specific activities. Wirrimanu Family Safety Project The Wirrimanu Family Safety Project operates within Wirrimanu Community, located approximately three hours drive by road south of Halls Creek, on the southern border of the Great Sandy Desert. The Service aims to strengthen and maintain traditional culture to provide direction towards protecting, strengthening and supporting families against community social problems, violence and dysfunction. (5) See Question (3). (6) The funding of the Department as specified above are the only funds for each program to meet the agreed objectives. However, the service provider of each program may receive funds from other sources to complement these programs. (7) Each funded program has a 3-year Service Agreement with the Department for Community Development. The Service Agreement outlines service specifications, reporting requirements and contractual obligations of both parties. It is a condition of this Service Agreement that a progress report is submitted twice yearly. The report must address each outcome objective for that service, specifying success in achieving each outcome objective. The service must also report on any factors that had limited the ability of the funded service to achieve each objective or of any difficulties encountered. Additionally, the Service Agreement outlines that a service review is to be conducted twice within the period of the agreement, that is, approximately every 18 months. A service review is the more formal process for assessing how well the funded service is meeting the agreed outcome objectives. Service reviews are also a forum for the service provider to raise any issues with the Department. (8) See above (9) The reports on the effectiveness of each program are the joint property of the service provider and the Department as per the conditions of the Service Agreement. For these reports to be released, negotiation would need to occur with these parties.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AND MINISTERIAL STAFF, MEETINGS WITH MR BRIAN BURKE AND MR JULIAN GRILL 1401. Mr C.J. Barnett to the Minister for Education and Training; Sport and Recreation; Indigenous Affairs (1) Has the Minister met with Brian Burke or Julian Grill in his official capacity since 10 February 2001? (2) If so, to discuss what issues? (3) Has any senior member of the Minister’s Ministerial staff met with Brian Burke or Julian Grill in an official capacity since 10 February 2001? (4) If so, to discuss what issues?

8146 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) No (2) Not applicable (3) No (4) Not applicable MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AND MINISTERIAL STAFF, MEETINGS WITH MR BRIAN BURKE AND MR JULIAN GRILL 1406. Mr C.J. Barnett to the Minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming; Government Enterprises; Goldfields-Esperance (1) Has the Minister met with Brian Burke or Julian Grill in his official capacity since 10 February 2001? (2) If so, to discuss what issues? (3) Has any senior member of the Minister’s Ministerial staff met with Brian Burke or Julian Grill in an official capacity since 10 February 2001? (4) If so, to discuss what issues? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1) Yes to Mr Julian Grill. No to Mr Brian Burke (2) Anglican Nursing Home in Kalgoorlie United Utilities Tourism in the Goldfields Portman Mining (2) Yes to Mr Julian Grill No to Mr Brian Burke (3) Mr Jos Mensink Policy Officer - Water Corporation United Utilities Griffin Coal Mr John Theodorsen Policy Officer - Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission Anglican Nursing Home in Kalgoorlie Portman Mining United Utilities DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND WORKS, ALBANY, SECURITY DOORS 1411. Mr P.B. Watson to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Works (1) Is the Minister aware that the outer screen security doors in the Ministry of Housing Dwellings in Albany have only a centre locking device fitted making it easier for people to break in? (2) Are there any plans for these doors to have locks of the three locking points type installed? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1) The Department of Housing and Works supplies barrier doors to its rental dwellings. The barrier doors are manufactured with approved 7mm security grill welded or riveted to the frame. The extruded aluminium frame is fabricated with corner joints and reinforced by aluminium stakes. There are 2 hinges with anti tamper or steel fixed pin hinges. Hinges are welded to the frame and concealed when the door is closed. There is a latch set with lever handles and a double cylinder deadbolt mortice fitting lock. Although the barrier door is not a full security door it does provide the tenants with a strongly built and significant visual deterrent to burglars etc. When the tenant is at home with the barrier door locked it provides the tenant with security and comfort against an attempt at forced entry. (2) There are no immediate plans to have doors fitted with locks of the three locking points type (as per the full security doors) as the barrier doors normally provide an adequate alternative. WELLINGTON DISCOVERY FOREST, LOGGING AND STUDIES 1417. Mr M.P. Murray to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (1) Will the Wellington Discovery Forest be incorporated into the boundaries of the Wellington National Park? (2) Will the Wellington Discovery Forest be logged in the future?

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8147

(3) What studies are being conducted within the Wellington Discovery Forest? (4) How many students visited the Wellington Discovery Forest in the last two years? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1) The boundaries of the proposed Wellington National Park are yet to be finalised. Public comments received as part of recent community consultation undertaken on boundaries for the park included representation for the Wellington Discovery Forest area to remain as State forest and representation for the area to be within the national park. The Wellington National Park Community Advisory Committee discussed these comments at their April meeting and will further consider the issue at their next meeting before making a recommendation. (2) The Wellington Discovery Forest aims to raise community awareness of the conservation values and management of multiple use jarrah forest. Flora, fauna, fire, recreation, silviculture and logging are all components of sustainable, multiple use forest management. Logging however, is not permitted in national parks. Therefore, if the Discovery Forest is included in the Wellington National Park silviculture or logging demonstrations will not be permitted in the area. However, should the Discovery Forest remain State forest, small areas may be harvested with the aim of demonstrating current silvicultural and logging practice. (3) There are no research studies being conducted in the Wellington Discovery Forest. There is a successful education program being run by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. The program focuses on promoting an awareness of and involvement in biodiversity conservation. It includes professional development opportunities for teachers and student teachers of all school years as well as providing a destination for excursion activities for students from early childhood to Year 12, all of which have been developed to fulfil curriculum outcomes mostly in science, society and environment learning areas. (4) Since its inception in August 2001, 4,688 students and teachers have visited the Discovery Forest to participate in the education programs. WA MUSEUM SITE, FUTURE 1419. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister for Culture and the Arts (1) Has a consultant been appointed to prepare a report for the Ministerial Steering Committee referred to in the answer to question on notice No. 1166 on the future of the Francis Street WA Museum site? (2) If yes to (1), who is the consultant and what cost has been allocated for the production of his/her report? (3) Will the consultant investigate not just the cost of asbestos removal and building demolition but also the cost, technical feasibility and overall desirability of reusing the building once the asbestos has been removed? (4) What sites other than the Francis Street site will be investigated as possible future homes for the WA Museum? (5) Are negotiations underway or have they been held with parties who own or control land and/or buildings of possible interest as a new site for the Museum and, if yes, what are these possible sites? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) No (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4)-(5) A number of sites are under consideration. WATER RESOURCES, CHLORINATION, CHANGES TO OVARIAN FUNCTION 1421. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Enterprises (1) Is the Minister aware of new research published online on 25 March 2003, in Environmental Health Perspectives (Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) by Gayle C. Windham et al entitled ‘Chlorination by-Products in Drinking Water and the Menstrual Cycle Function’? (2) Is the Minister aware that this research showed changes to ovarian function as a result of exposure to trihalomethanes (THM) produced as a result of the chlorination of domestic drinking water supplies? (3) What is the range and average of THM concentrations in chlorinated water supplies provided by the Water Corporation? (4) How do these concentrations compare with the 60 ug/L THM (TTHM) level reported in the above research paper as being responsible for changes to ovarian function? (5) If analysis of THM levels are not being routinely determined by the Water Corporation, why is this the case?

8148 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(6) Will the Minister direct the Water Corporation to undertake such analyses if they are currently not being undertaken and, if not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Water Corporation advises that; (1) The research referred to exists (2) The authors of the report only claim "these findings suggest that THM exceedence may affect ovarian function and should be confirmed in other studies". Animal studies have found an association between high concentrations of THMs and cancer. Such a link has not been established for humans, but most health authorities around the world have taken a precautionary approach and adopted a maximum recommended concentration for THMs. In Australia, the 1996 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), prepared by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommend that average THM concentrations should not exceed 250 ug/L although occasional results up to 1000 ug/L are acceptable. (3) In the 12 months to 30 April 2003, the average THM concentration in Water Corporation supplies was 85 ug/L. The range was 1 ug/L to 417 ug/L. (4) See (3). (5) THM concentrations are routinely determined for all Water Corporation water supplies. (6) Not applicable.

FUEL TANKER TRUCKS, ROLLOVER ACCIDENTS 1424. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for State Development I refer the Minister to rollover accidents in the metropolitan area involving fuel tanker trucks and ask - (a) how many tanker trailer rollovers or serious incidents, at roundabouts and/or intersections, have been reported to WorkSafe, since February 2001 and will the Minister list all reported accidents; (b) have these accidents been investigated by WorkSafe; (c) for each of these accidents occurring at a roundabout, was an inspection carried out of the baffling of the tanker trailer; (d) if not, what inspections were carried out; (e) was any tilt testing carried out on the tanker trailers to assess their stability and road safety; (f) were these tests conducted with the tanker trailer full or empty; (g) if no tests were conducted, why not; (h) was any measurement taken of the load displacement of the tanker trailers involved in the rollover accidents; (i) was any stability testing conducted with similar tanker trailers and similar load displacements; and (j) what action is WorkSafe taking to reduce the likelihood of further accidents of this type? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I am advised: a) The Dangerous Goods (Transport) (Road and Rail) Regulations 1999 is administered by the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) through the Safety Health and Environment Division (SHED) and not by WorkSafe WA. Since February 2001, there have been 3 tanker trailer rollovers at either roundabouts or intersections. 2 have been in the metropolitan area with the 3rd being in Kalgoorlie. In 2001, there was a fuel tanker rollover at an intersection in Malaga – in 2002, there was an acid tanker rollover at the Boulder roundabout in Kalgoorlie – and recently there was a Petroleum Crude Oil tanker rollover in Canning Vale. b) The accidents were investigated by DoIR; in particular, the Dangerous Goods Safety Branch of the Safety Health and Environment Division investigates all reported accidents involving dangerous goods and maintains a register of these accidents. c) All bulk dangerous goods vehicles require licensing and as part of the licensing regime, the tanker design must conform to the specifications as outlined in the Australian Standard - Road Tank Vehicles for Dangerous Goods, AS2809 prior to operating in WA. The requirements and specifications for baffling, rollover protection etc are contained in AS2809.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8149 d) Not applicable. e) No. This is not necessary as stability requirements are specified in AS2809 and the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 6th Edition, and the tanker trailers are manufactured to these specifications and verified prior to licensing for Bulk Dangerous Goods transport. f) See (e) g) See (e) h) The amount of product loaded into each compartment of a tanker trailer is checked to ensure compliance with prescribed ullage requirements were maintained. i) See (h) j) Investigations by the Dangerous Goods Safety Branch have revealed full compliance with all tanker design requirements. The first two accidents can be attributed to driver error, whilst the most recent accident is still under investigation. DoIR makes every effort to prevent future accidents. TAB SPORTS BETTING ACCOUNT AND FIXED ODDS BETTING 1438. Mr A.D. Marshall to the Minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming (1) How long has the TAB Sports Betting Account been in existence? (2) What is the amount of money allocated from the account to the Minister for Sport and Recreation for distribution to sporting groups, for each year, since the inception of the Sports Betting Accounting? (3) When was the fixed odds betting system introduced? (4) What is the total cost of establishing fixed odds betting? (5) What is the total amount of funds directed from the Sports Betting Account to offset the cost of establishing fixed odds betting? (6) What is the amount of funds that would normally have been allocated from the account to the Minister for Sport and Recreation that have been used to establish the fixed odds betting system? (7) What other amounts have been directed by the TAB to cover the costs of establishing fixed odds betting and what is the source of these funds? (8) What amount has been directed by the TAB to cover the costs of establishing fixed odds betting and what is the source of these funds. (9) Have any proceeds from ‘Footo’ been directed towards establishing fixed odds betting and if so, why? (10) To what areas of community interest, aside from sport, if any, have profits from fixed odds betting been distributed since its inception and what is the amount of each such distribution? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1) Since 1988 (2) $ $ 91/92 28,940 97/98 95,000 92/93 27,500 98/99 193,296 93/94 25,000 99/00 252,023 94/95 69,200 00/01 136,248 95/96 105,450 01/02 7,100 96/97 133,693 02/03 (YTD) 22,500 (3) June 2000 (4) $1.1 million (5) Nil (6) $1.1 million (7)-(10) Nil WATER RESOURCES, DUNSBOROUGH 1440. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Enterprises (1) Over the past five years, how much money has been spent by the Water Corporation on developing water supplies for Dunsborough, in particular, how much money has been spent drilling for water and developing bores?

8150 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(2) What is the content of naturally occurring fluorine/fluoride within each of the various bores from which the Water Corporation extracts water for supply to Dunsborough and what is the average fluorine/fluoride content (prior to treatment) of this water? (3) Has a fluorine/fluoride removal plant recently been installed at Dunsborough and, if yes, what was the total cost of this plant and what is its annual operating cost? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Water Corporation advises that; (1) Over the past five years the Water Corporation has spent approximately $12.3 million on the Dunsborough water supply scheme. This includes $6.67 million for the construction of new bores and collector main. Purchase of water from Busselton Water Board (BWB) was considered as an alternative source option but was not pursued because of the following issues: * Limited installed distribution capacity to meet future growth; * Major expenditure would be required for a new major distribution main for source to the Dunsborough Scheme; * This option could not be delivered in a suitable timeframe to meet Dunsborough water supply growth. (2) Fluoride levels of individual bores are: Bore 1/86: 0.45 - 0.65mg/L Bore 1/91: 0.2mg/L Bore 1/93: 0.35 - 0.6mg/L Bore 2/96: 0.65 - 0.75mg/L Bore 2/98: 0.25 - 0.45mg/L Bore 1/92: 2.2 - 2.5mg/L Bore 1/98: 1.2 - 1.3mg/L Bore 3/98: 2.3 - 2.6mg/L Bore 4/98: 2.4 - 4.1mg/L The average fluoride concentration prior to treatment for the 2001/02 year was approximately 1.05mg/L. The defluoridation plant is only used when combined fluoride levels are above the operational target range, being between 0.7 and 1mg/L. Normal operation is to shandy bores to meet this range. The health guideline is 1.5mg/L. (3) A defluoridation plant has been installed at Dunsborough at a cost of $1.595 million. The annual operating costs are approximately $21,000 per annum. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1459. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Peel and the South West I refer to the announcement made in December 2002 that the State Government has approved grants totalling $400,000 for 28 projects within the Peel region under the State Government's 2002-03 Regional Development Scheme, and ask – (a) how much is to be spent on similar programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Please refer to response provided to parliamentary question no 1460. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NORTH WEST 1460. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Peel and the South West I refer to the announcement made in December 2002, that projects including a community radio station, an olive growers' co-operative and an aquaculture training and research facility are among 22 selected to receive a share of $400,000 in State Government funding to the South West Region, and ask – (a) how much is to be spent on programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above?

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8151

Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Development Commissions were provided with an allocation of $400,000 under the Regional Investment Fund for the purpose of administering Regional Development Scheme grants for regional development projects. Questions in relation to grants made available throughout the North West should be referred to the Minister responsible for the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne regions, the Hon Tom Stephens. COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1472. Mr L. Graham to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development I refer to the announcement made in October 2002 that stage two of Beacon's multipurpose community resource centre received a boost from a State Government grant of $90,000, and ask – (a) how much of the proposed $90,000 is to be spent on programs in the North West of the State? (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent? (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds? (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) None of the $90,000 will be spent in the North West. (b) In Beacon. (c) The Department of Local Government and Regional Development administers the Scheme. (d) The Beacon project is likely to commence construction later this year. DISABILITY SERVICES, NORTH WEST 1477. Mr L. Graham to the Minister for Disability Services I refer to the announcement made in October 2002 whereby the State Government announced a boost of more than $866,000 in recurrent funding to provide therapy and professional services to people with disabilities, and ask – (a) how much of the proposed $866,000 is to be spent on programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: a) A total of $63,029 has been directed to programs in the North-West of the State. b) $41,965 has been allocated for an Indigenous Allied Health worker to provide services to children and adults with disabilities in the West Kimberley area (Derby and remote indigenous communities). $21,064 has been allocated for a Therapy Assistant to provide services for school age children with disabilities in Kununurra and surrounding communities. c) The Country Services Co-ordination Directorate of the Disability Services Commission is responsible for administering these funds. d) Funding for the Derby Health Service has been allocated. Arrangements with Kununurra Health Service are being finalised and it is anticipated that the service will commence operations in this current financial year. COUNTRY HOUSING AUTHORITY PROGRAMS, NORTH WEST 1478. Mr L. Graham to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Works I refer to the recent announcement that $1million will be made available for a Country Housing Authority program to help smaller and remote communities provide adequate housing to attract and retain trades people and professionals, and ask – (a) how much of the proposed $1million is to be spent on Country Housing Authority programs in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1) In February 2003 an additional $400,000 was allocated to the Country Housing Authority to support housing in remote indigenous communities making a total of $1.4 million available through this program.

8152 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

$640,000 has been allocated to be spent in the North West region of the State. (2) Fitzroy Crossing, Broome, Kununurra, Derby, Nullagine and Halls Creek. (3) Country Housing Authority. (4) A number of programs have already commenced. All programs are due for completion by 30 June 2004. HOUSING, NORTH WEST, ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE 1479. Mr L. Graham to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Works I refer to the recently announced signing of the 'Agreement for the Provision of Housing and Related Infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in Western Australia', to which the State Government agreed to provide additional funding of $6.289 million over four years; increasing the State's contribution to an average of $17 million per financial year over the life of the agreement (five years ending July 5, 2007), and ask – (a) how much of the proposed $17 million is to be spent on programs for the provision of housing and related infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the North West of the State; (b) in which towns and communities will the funds be spent; (c) who will be responsible for administering the funds; and (d) when will the programs commence operation in each town referred to above? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (a) The proposed $17 million State contribution is part of a larger funding pool of approximately $62 million which will be spent on programs for the provision of housing and related infrastructure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Western Australia in 2003/04. The pool contains funding from ATSIC and the Commonwealth, in addition to State contributions. Under the interim funding formula endorsed by the Aboriginal Housing and Infrastructure Council for 2003/04, approximately 52% of the funding pool will be spent in the North West of the State; i.e. in Kullarri, Malarabah and Wunan ATSIC regions. (b) Each ATSIC Regional Council has provided a Regional Housing and Infrastructure Plan, which identifies the projects it requires to be undertaken in the region. A list of the communities identified by Kimberley Regional Councils for projects in 2003/04 is attached. (c) The Department of Housing and Works’ Aboriginal Housing and Infrastructure Unit (AHIU) is responsible for administering the funds. (d) The AHIU is currently preparing its 2003/04 Operational Plan, which contains the projects identified by Regional Councils in their Regional Housing and Infrastructure Plans. Once the Operational Plan is endorsed by the signatories to the Agreement, then AHIU can begin implementation of the Operational Plan. Therefore, commencement dates for individual projects have not been identified at this time. Communities identified by Kimberley Regional Councils for 2003/04 projects Kullarri Banana Wells – Burrguk Beagle Bay Community Inc Bindurrk Embalgun Goolarabooloo Goombarding Gubili Gurrbalgan Urrmarr Lombadina Aboriginal Corporation Loongabid Milargoon Milari Mundud Ngamakoon Ngarlan Bulgin Bygnunn Djarajung Gumbarnun Maddar

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8153

Manowan Morard Mudnun Red Shell Wunan Balgo Bow River Emu Creek Glen Hill (Mandangala) Kalumburu Kundat Djaru Mardiwah Loop Molly Springs Mud Springs (Ribinyung Dawang) Nicholson Block Nulleywah Oombulgurri Warmun Warrayu Wuggubun Malarabah Bawoorrooga Bedunburru Bungardi Djugerari Galeru Gorge Gillaroong Girriyoowa Jarlmadangah burru Jimbalakudunj Junjuwa Kadjina Kandiwal Karmilinunga Karmparmi Koorabay Kupartiya Kurnangki Kurungal Council Larinyuwar Looma Majaddin Marneburlonge Marunbabidingari Mimbi Mindi Rardi Mowanjum Muludja Ngalangkadji Ngurtawarta Pandanus Park Parukupan Wangkatjungka Windyuduwa Windyuduwa Yakanarra Yungngora

SEWERAGE, CONLON STREET, WATERFORD 1500. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Enterprises (1) Is the Minister aware that there are some 50 houses in and around Conlon Street, Waterford, that are still not connected up to deep sewerage, in spite of the 19 year time span since urban development?

8154 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

(2) Is the Minister aware that, because of the low topography and low-lying nature of the area, septic tanks are very ineffective, requiring annual pump-out of tanks and leach drains by some residents at a cost of $1200 to $1800 on each occasion? (3) Is the Minister aware that many houses in the Waterford area are rented out to students, recognising the proximity to Curtin University, with up to 15 students in some houses placing extreme pressure on a septic system designed for a family of 4 or 5 people? (4) What information is available to indicate whether the Waterford area, being close to the Canning River, is a significant contributor of nutrients to the river, thereby assisting in eutrophication, algal blooms and other adverse environmental consequences? (5) Will the Minister make representation to the Minister for Government Enterprises requesting that these 50 or so houses be connected to deep sewerage as a matter of high priority? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Please refer to the answer to Parliamentary Question 1501 SEWERAGE, CONLON STREET, WATERFORD 1501. Mr B.K. Masters to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Enterprises (1) Is the Minister aware that there are some 50 houses in and around Conlon Street, Waterford, that are still not connected up to deep sewerage, in spite of the 19 year time span since urban development? (2) Is the Minister aware that, because of the low topography and low-lying nature of the area, septic tanks are very ineffective, requiring annual pump-out of tanks and leach drains by some residents at a cost of $1200 to $1800 on each occasion? (3) Is the Minister aware that many houses in the Waterford area are rented out to students, recognising the proximity to Curtin University, with up to 15 students in some houses placing extreme pressure on a septic system designed for a family of 4 or 5 people? (4) Is the Minister aware that, being close to the Canning River, the Waterford area is likely to be a significant contributor of nutrients to the river, assisting in eutrophication, algal blooms and other adverse environmental consequences? (5) Why are these Waterford residents told that they must wait until a private developer progresses the next stage of land developments before deep sewerage will be provided to their homes, when houses around them are already connected to the Water Corporation’s reticulated sewer system and it is a very simple matter for the Corporation to extend an existing collected pipe into their area? (6) When will these 50 or so houses be connected to deep sewerage? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Water Corporation advises that; (1)-(6) The properties in and around Conlon Street, Waterford are part of two Infill Sewerage Projects referred to as Cannington 9A and 9C. An efficient and cost effective engineering design for these projects is highly dependent on the future development proposals for the Clontarf area. A sewerage pump station is required for these projects and will need to be located within the Clontarf site, part of which is to be subdivided in the future. Any piecemeal sewering of this area would require the construction of temporary pump stations that would become redundant once the Clontarf area was developed. The construction of temporary pump stations is not an efficient use of the limited funds available and is a practice that should be avoided if at all possible. The Corporation recently received a preliminary subdivision proposal for the Clontarf site. The pump station required for servicing both the subdivision and surrounding unsewered areas, Infill Projects Cannington 9A and 9C, needs to be located within this proposed subdivision development and once this has been determined and the subdivision plans finalised, construction of the subdivision will proceed. Following finalisation of the subdivision plans the Corporation can proceed to investigate and design the sewerage scheme for the unsewered areas surrounding the subdivision. Wastewater from the unsewered areas surrounding the subdivision, when sewered, will drain into the subdivision area and then be pumped into the existing main sewerage system. It should be noted that the surrounding unsewered area cannot be sewered until the subdivision development commences. The Corporation is aware of the need for this area to be sewered and will endeavour to progress construction as soon as possible. At this time, construction is provisionally scheduled to commence in the 2005/06 financial year.

[ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003] 8155

ENERGY IN WA CONFERENCE, ADDRESS BY MINISTER FOR ENERGY 1503. Mr J.H.D. Day to the Minister for Energy (1) I refer to the Minister’s address to the Energy in Western Australia Conference on 26 March 2003 and ask will the Minister table a copy of his address? (2) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) The address to the Energy in Western Australia Conference on 26 March 2003 can be located on the Minister for Energy's website located at www.ministers.wa.gov.au/ripper under speeches. FINANCE BROKERS SCANDAL, CHARGES AND CONVICTIONS 1507. Mr J.L. Bradshaw to the Attorney General (1) How many people involved in the Finance Brokers Scandal have been charged with offences? (2) How many of these people charged have been brought before the courts? (3) How many convictions have resulted from the charges of those involved in the Finance Brokers Scandal? (4) How many people have been before the courts for a judgement? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1) Twenty-four people involved in the Finance Brokers Scandal have been charged. (2) Twenty-four people have been brought before the courts. (3) One conviction has resulted from those charges and two acquittals are currently the subject of appellate review. (4) Ten people have had their charges determined. SEWERAGE, MURRAY AND SERPENTINE RIVERS, LEAKAGE FROM SEPTIC TANKS 1509. Mr J.L. Bradshaw to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Enterprises (1) How many residential and business properties in the Murray Shire and City of Mandurah that abuts to or is within 500 metres of the Serpentine and Murray Rivers have access to reticulated deep sewerage but are not connected to the system? (2) Is the Minister aware that septic tank seepage, while not the only cause of nutrient leakage into the river system, is also a primary contributing factor? (3) Is the Minister aware that the Serpentine River has algal counts far in excess of those recorded in the Murray/Darling system and that both the Serpentine and Murray Rivers also suffer from yearly algal blooms and fish kills? (4) Is the Minister aware that the successful implementation of recommendations in the recently published Economic Development and Recreation Management Plan for the Peel Waterways (Launched in October 2002) is contingent on resource funding being allocated to State Government Departments to implement these recommendations? (5) If the Minister is aware of these facts, are there any plans to address the problem and when are these plans to be implemented? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Water Corporation advises that (1) There are 291 business or residential properties within 500 metres of the Murray or Serpentine Rivers in the City of Mandurah and Shire of Murray that have reticulated sewerage available but are not yet connected. (2) In this location, septic tank seepage is a contributing but not primary factor. (3)-(5) Answers to these questions must come from the Water and Rivers Commission. The Water Corporation is not privy to all the facts. SEWERAGE, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, CONNECTION TO RETICULATED SYSTEMS 1510. Mr J.L. Bradshaw to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Enterprises (1) Is it common practice to impose a condition on commercial properties to connect to reticulated sewerage systems before their properties are allowed to be sold? (2) Does this policy apply to all commercial properties where there is reasonable access to the reticulated sewerage system and, in particular, in the Murray Shire where the river system is badly affected by nutrients?

8156 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 3 June 2003]

Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Water Corporation advises that (1) Once the reticulated sewerage system has been completed for an area, the Water Corporation notifies owners of the properties, both commercial and residential, that the properties are able to be connected and advises that connection is required within five years. The Corporation contacts the owner again if the property has not been connected after four years, and again after four years and nine months. If the property is sold during the follow up period, the Corporation contacts the purchaser and advises that connection is required within twelve months of the date of sale. Failure to connect does not prevent a property being sold. (2) This policy applies to all properties that are capable of being connected to a sewer but are not actually connected. The Corporation has previously specifically targeted property owners in environmentally sensitive areas where owners have not connected to infill sewerage schemes. This targeted approach to encourage connection has been successful in the past and this approach will soon be adopted for unconnected properties within the areas that the Member has mentioned. ______