Legislative Assembly

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers. SPEECH THERAPIST — TOM PRICE AND PARABURDOO Petition MR T.G. STEPHENS (Pilbara) [12.01 pm]: I present a petition with 387 signatures. The petition reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Residents call upon the ... Minister for Health, to ensure that the WA Department of Health proceeds immediately to employ a full time speech therapist to accommodate the growing increase of patients in the Tom Price and Paraburdoo region. We, the undersigned, wish to draw to the attention of the Legislative Assembly that a full time speech therapist is urgently needed to assist the many children within these townships who are in need of frequent visits with a therapist to encourage and support their ongoing speech development. At the moment less than 50% of patients are receiving the support and treatment they need and others are getting by without the proper treatment which can be detrimental to a child’s personal development and learning ability. More than 50% of patients are not receiving therapy due to the small time-frame of the fortnightly visits. Additionally, there is no support or a locum therapist when the fly-in/fly-out speech therapist is on leave. For families to continue to live in these regions we need the State Government to supply the basic medical needs required. The below petitioners therefore ask that the Legislative Assembly give the appropriate support for a full time speech therapist to be employed to service both Tom Price and Paraburdoo to provide ongoing professional support and assistance to many children missing out. [See petition 66.] Petition MR T.G. STEPHENS (Pilbara) [12.03 pm]: I present another petition, with 27 signatures, calling on the government to employ a full-time speech therapist to cater for the increase in patients in Tom Price and Paraburdoo who are missing out on this much-needed service. The petition conforms to the standing orders of the house. [See petition 67.] BANNISTER CREEK PRIMARY SCHOOL Petition MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [12.04 pm]: I have a petition signed by 584 petitioners. The petition reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say: a) We believe that Bannister Creek Primary School would be improved if covered walkways were built between the new school buildings at the Purley Crescent site; b) That as covered walkways are already provided at the school’s current buildings at Karri Way, covered walkways should be included in the new buildings on a “like for like” basis; c) Covered walkways would assist with providing sun protection for children at the school; d) Covered walkways would also assist in wet weather for children moving between buildings; e) We believe covered walkways can be designed to allow adequate access for emergency vehicles; f) The best time to include covered walkways in the school is now, while the new school buildings are under construction.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4805

Now we ask the Legislative Assembly To support the inclusion of covered walkways into Bannister Creek Primary School’s new buildings. [See petition 68.] SHACK SITE COMMUNITIES Petition MR J.M. FRANCIS (Jandakot) [12.05 pm]: I have a petition signed by 140 petitioners and certified as conforming with the standing orders. The petition reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned say that: Leased Shack Sites Communities, such as Wedge Island, Grey, Donnelly River, Broke Inlet, Dampier Archipelagos, and Israelite Bay have long been the traditional holiday/recreational destination for many thousands of ordinary Western Australians. Most Shack Site Communities sprung up to accommodate the gathering of farming and town based families to enjoy holidays together in remote and idyllic fishing locations right across Western Australia. Some Shack Site Communities went onto becoming fully-fledged towns such as, Bremer Bay, Jurien Bay, Dongara and Horrocks, while some Shack Site Communities have disappeared. . . . Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly support our campaign for the Government to Examine how other States of Australia, including South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales have retained conforming Shack Site Communities in order to preserve these valuable assets for many Western Australians to have affordable coastal holiday destinations and continue to allow human interaction all but lost in today’s society. [See petition 69.] PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. MS JANINE PRITCHARD — APPOINTMENT TO STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Statement by Attorney General MR C.C. PORTER (Bateman — Attorney General) [12.08 pm]: Before I begin my brief ministerial statement, I would like to acknowledge the students from Queen of Apostles School in Riverton, who are in the gallery today. I inform the house that on 3 June 2009, the Governor in Executive Council appointed Ms Janine Pritchard of the State Solicitor’s Office as Deputy President of the State Administrative Tribunal for an initial term of five years. In accordance with section 112 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, Ms Pritchard has also been made a judge of the District Court. After consultations with both the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the District Court, it was widely agreed that Her Honour’s professional accomplishments to date will put her in good stead to deal with the challenges her new position will entail. Having earned a Bachelor of Laws with Honours and a Bachelor of Arts from the Australian National University in Canberra, Her Honour then went on to gain her Master of Laws degree, with distinction, at the University of London. In addition, Her Honour also has a Graduate Diploma in Women’s Studies from Murdoch University. Her academic interests were also evident later in her career when, between 1993 and 2002 and while working for the State Solicitor’s Office of Western Australia, she taught international, constitutional and industrial law at the University of Western Australia, Murdoch University and Curtin University of Technology. Her Honour’s first position with the Western Australian state government was as professional assistant to the then Solicitor-General, Mr K. H. Parker, AC, QC. Two years later, she commenced articles with the SSO and was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court in the same year. During her 16 years with the SSO, Her Honour performed a variety of duties. She acted as counsel and solicitor for the state in litigation, particularly in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. She appeared many times as junior counsel with the present Solicitor-General in the High Court of Australia on behalf of the state in constitutional matters, on several occasions even presenting the state’s argument to the court. Her Honour also provided legal advice to

4806 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] government on a variety of issues, but particularly public law, administrative law, constitutional law, freedom of information and privacy law, and industrial law, and in relation to the prosecutions of regulatory offences. Aside from her professional achievements, Her Honour has also taken a keen interest in mentoring the next generation of lawyers both within the SSO and in her capacity as a member of the Articled Clerk Recruitment Scheme Committee of the Law Society of Western Australia. She has also been a member of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, the Australian Institute of Administrative Law and the committee of Women Lawyers of Western Australia Inc. I offer my congratulations to Ms Pritchard on her appointment as Deputy President of the State Administrative Tribunal and wish her luck in the challenges of her new position. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Statement by Minister for Agriculture and Food MR D.T. REDMAN (Blackwood-Stirling — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [12.10 pm]: The Liberal- National government takes seriously its role in natural resource management, which is defined as “the sustainable management of the land, water, atmosphere and biodiversity resources for the benefit of existing and future generations, and for the maintenance of life support capability of the biosphere”. It is in essence the sustainable use of our natural resources to provide for the needs of humanity, and in this way reflects the true triple bottom line of sustainable economic, social and environmental outcomes. As the lead minister for natural resource management, I have inherited the role of managing the state’s natural resource management activities. To be better informed on how the government might improve its performance in this area, I commissioned a review of natural resource management delivery in Western Australia. This review was chaired by Mr Garry English, a previous chair of the South Coast Natural Resource Management region. Garry was assisted by Mr David Hartley, who is now retired but was previously the executive director of natural resource management in the Department of Agriculture and Food, and Mr Craig Warner from the Department of Treasury and Finance. I would like to place on record my personal thanks to these people for their work on this report. The report was delivered to me on 27 February 2009, and I now table a copy of the report titled “Natural Resource Management Review — Western Australia”, and the government’s response to that report. [See paper 957.] Mr D.T. REDMAN: The state natural resource management review will now be released to the public for consideration and feedback. One of the key recommendations of the review, however, has already waited too long. Recommendation 2 states that the state’s natural resource management plan be implemented as a matter of urgency. The previous Labor government spent a year prior to the September election trying to put a state natural resource management plan together. We inherited from Labor an NRM system with no priority and no state plan. It is my intention to get on with the job and table in the next few sitting weeks the Western Australian natural resource management plan. This plan is the next vital step in the path to getting better NRM outcomes. It is not the end document of this process but a stepping stone. However, it is astounding to me that the previous Labor government cared so little for natural resource management that in the past five years in which it has run a natural resource management program in the state of Western Australia it could not develop even this. Item 2.2.4 on page 11 of the state natural resource management review identifies that the natural resource management system, with its origins in the Natural Heritage Trust and national action plan for water— Point of Order Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Mr Speaker, the convention governing ministerial statements was not to have them laced with political invective. I would like to know whether that is still a requirement of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly or whether that requirement has changed now that National Party ministers are delivering ministerial statements. The SPEAKER: Member, it is not a requirement of standing orders. It is a brief ministerial statement. I urge the minister to continue. Debate Resumed Mr D.T. REDMAN: I will repeat the paragraph that I had commenced. Item 2.2.4 on page 11 of the state natural resource management review identifies that the natural resource management system, with its origins in the Natural Heritage Trust and national action plan for water has “contributed $536 million over five years” to Western Australia. Over half a billion dollars of state and commonwealth money has gone into a program under a Labor government that had no plan.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4807

Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Minister! Members to my left might not necessarily agree with or enjoy what the Minister for Agriculture and Food is saying. Although there is not a standing order that would ask a minister delivering a brief ministerial statement to use certain language or refer to certain subjects, I ask that most members in this place cease interjecting. Mr D.T. REDMAN: The review also identifies in item 2.2.1 on page 10 that the state of Western Australia also contributes more than $370 million a year directly to natural resource management activities through its state agencies. The SPEAKER: Minister, your time is up. INTEGRATED SERVICES CENTRES Statement by Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury — Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests) [12.14 pm]: The Integrated Services Centre pilots were established in March 2007 by the Office of Multicultural Interests for 12 months at Parkwood and Koondoola Primary Schools in response to a recommendation of the Across- Government Working Party on Settlement Issues for African Humanitarian Entrants. I am very pleased to inform the house that cabinet has approved funding for a further two years of $600 000 annually. The project is administered by the Office of Multicultural Interests in partnership with the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Health. I visited the Integrated Services Centre at Parkwood Primary School on 10 February with the member for Riverton, and the Minister for Education visited on 5 March 2009 with the member for Riverton. The funding of the Integrated Services Centre pilots has been considered in the context of existing settlement services and the state budget. During the next two years, the state government will be working to improve all settlement services and seek greater cooperation with the federal government. The answer to solving the needs of humanitarian entrants is to fund not only two Integrated Services Centres. For this reason, I have also initiated an agreement with the commonwealth Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to form an interagency settlement group of federal and state departments to improve service delivery and to fill gaps. The interagency settlement group will be a vital forum for the future of multiculturalism in Western Australia and I am very pleased that the federal minister has been open to greater cooperation between the federal and state portfolios. I acknowledge and thank the Minister for Education and the member for Riverton for their support for the continued funding of the Integrated Services Centres. The state government is committed to ensuring that humanitarian entrants receive proper settlement services and I am very pleased to inform the house of this new funding commitment. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS — WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2009 Standing Orders Suspension — Motion MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Leader of the House) [12.16 pm]: I move — That so much of standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable private members’ business to have priority from 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm on Wednesday, 10 June 2009. I have discussed this motion with the manager of opposition business and he indicated it is acceptable. We are happy to do this because we are sitting late tonight and we sat late last night, because the priority of this government and the Parliament is to pass the money bills—the appropriation bills and the Loan Bill. I am grateful for the cooperation of the manager of opposition business and I am sure he will have something to say about the time allocated to private members’ business, which is also something that we discussed, and I am happy to assist in any way I can. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [12.17 pm]: In my capacity as manager of opposition business I have had discussions with the Leader of the House in the spirit of bipartisanship that has pervaded this place this week. He and I have got on famously well today in deciding the course of business. I received a letter from the Leader of the House last week in which he indicated that private members’ business would be truncated by an hour. We agree to that because we also want the Loan Bill and the appropriation bills dealt with this week. The agreement that we reached is to reduce the time for private members’ business by an hour. We will proceed with the initial motion to which I referred about the closure of, or failure to open, police stations, followed by debate on the legislation moved by the member for Mindarie. We hope to get both matters dealt with, if possible, today. Certainly the initial motion on police stations will be dealt with within the first hour to one hour and 15 minutes of private members’ business, leaving 45 minutes for debate on the member for Mindarie’s legislation.

4808 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

We hope to get the Loan Bill through this place today and conclude the appropriation bills tomorrow. In view of the late nights that we have been enjoying, we will head home at the conclusion of that. That is our understanding of the arrangement that has been reached. I think the member for Alfred Cove might have a few words to say about this or other issues. DR J.M. WOOLLARD (Alfred Cove) [12.19 pm]: Obviously the legislation before the house this week is very important and needs to be passed. I am disappointed that something has not been done to date to look at the sitting hours so that when we have weeks like this, we do not have to sit late. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The sitting hours in other Australian Parliaments such as New South Wales are from 1.00 pm to 7.30 pm on Tuesday; 10.00 am to 7.30 pm on Wednesday; 10.00 am to 6.30 pm on Thursday; and 10.00 am to 3.00 pm on Friday. Mr M.P. Murray: Another day for country people to be away from home! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In South Australia the sitting hours are 11.00 am to 7.00 pm on Tuesday; 11.00 am to 7.00 pm on Wednesday; and 10.00 am to 6.00 pm on Thursday. Mr M.P. Murray: Why don’t we work Saturdays and Sundays? The SPEAKER: I am sure that some people in this place might share the member for Collie-Preston’s sentiments, but I would prefer to be able to hear the member for Alfred Cove and what she is proposing. I suggest that the member might want to do the same thing. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: In Tasmania, the Parliament sits from 10.00 am to 7.00 pm on a Tuesday, from 10.00 am to 7.00 pm on a Wednesday, and from 10.00 am to 7.00 pm on a Thursday. I had hoped to discuss this matter this week as part of private members’ business. As the time for private members’ business is being curtailed this week, I hope that this matter will be on the agenda next week. My request was for sitting hours to be reviewed by the Procedure and Privileges Committee and for it to report back to Parliament after the break. When this motion is debated, it could take 10 or 15 minutes at the most if there is support across the floor of the chamber. That would give all members—I understand the position of the member for Collie-Preston—an opportunity to put submissions before that committee dealing with both their electorate responsibilities and their responsibilities as members of Parliament. If the matter cannot be debated this week, and if there is not time under government business tomorrow to debate the sitting hours, I hope that the government will look at this matter next week so that next week it can hopefully support the recommendation to send the matter to a committee. MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Leader of the House) [12.21 pm] — in reply: I once again thank the manager of opposition business for his cooperation today. I appreciate it very much. Certainly, the bills that it is essential to get through the house this week are the Loan Bill and the appropriation bills. The manager of opposition business has assured me that the opposition will work with the government to get those bills through the house by close of business tomorrow. If it is a little earlier, that would be great, because nobody in this house likes sitting late—not just the member for Alfred Cove. I think somebody might be told off now, because it is a cardinal sin in this house for a member to allow his or her mobile phone to go off. I think I will have to deal with the member for Mindarie if the Speaker does not! I will deal with the comments of the member for Alfred Cove. She has put a request to me to try to give up some government time to debate this motion. I have said that that is certainly not possible this week because of other priorities of the government. I said to the member for Alfred Cove that it is not reasonable to bring in a motion one day and expect the government to allow time the following day to deal with it. I should say that a recommendation about sitting times was put to the house by a previous Procedure and Privileges Committee—I think it was about six years ago. I was certainly on that committee at the time. The present sitting hours are the ones that came forward. Some members would prefer to start a little later on a Thursday—rather than nine o’clock, perhaps 9.30 or 10.00 am. That has been put to me many times. Some people have suggested that perhaps we could sit a little earlier on a Wednesday to make up for an hour on Thursday. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: What happens if there are committees? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am not suggesting for one moment, member for Armadale, that we sit at nine or 10 o’clock on a Wednesday. I am suggesting that we really need to look at this issue in the calm light of day. I am happy to talk about it with the manager of opposition business. It is a matter that I would have to take to cabinet for its consideration. I am sure that it is a matter that the manager of opposition business would need to take to his caucus to see what its views were on sitting hours. It is imperative that we sit enough hours to pass the legislation. However, I will give the member for Alfred Cove an assurance.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4809

I am sorry; for everybody’s benefit, I indicate that somebody just fell over in the back of the chamber, but he is all right. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: He fell asleep listening to you. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I thought it was the member for Armadale who was snoring. I am sorry. It was somebody else, was it? Goodness me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We must not have any humour in this place. We get into trouble if we do that. I give an assurance to the member for Alfred Cove that I will take seriously her request. I am happy to sit down with her privately outside the chamber and look to see whether there is any room for accommodation of her request. However, as a Legislative Assembly, we must go through the normal process of both sides of the house considering this matter in detail. I do not think the answer is to send it straight to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, because that was done six years ago. If there is any change of heart now, it needs to come from within the chamber and not from the Procedure and Privileges Committee. Quite frankly, I think it has enough work to do. As I understand it, it has a lot of very important work to do, and it should be doing that. I think sitting hours are a matter for the chamber. I am certain that we will debate it, but we will have to choose the right time. Question put and passed. MEAL BREAK Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams): In accordance with the passage of that motion, I determine that there will be a meal break this evening between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm, so we will cease business at 6.00 pm and resume at 7.00 pm. LOAN BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 9 June. MR A.P. O’GORMAN (Joondalup) [12.25 pm]: I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Loan Bill 2009. I have great concerns with the $8.3 billion for which approval is being sought. The government is seeking this Parliament’s approval to seek that sort of financing over the next four years. It is a record amount that is being sought. I think it is being sought on what I call a fraud of a budget. I call the budget a fraud because not all the projects in the budget have an amount committed to them. That is a great concern to me, because in the eight years that I have been in this place, my understanding has been that the government must put into its budget papers everything it intends to do over the next four years. Our previous Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, was very diligent about making sure that all those things were in place. In fact, the budget process that we used to go through was a long and arduous one under which we put in our submissions, then we had to justify them to our ministers, and then the ministers took them to the expenditure review committee if they thought we had justified them sufficiently. Further scrutiny by the ERC then followed. Obviously, that process has gone out the window, because now we can have—this was reported in The West Australian—up to $2 billion worth of unfunded projects which have been talked about around the state but which are not included in the budget. That is a great concern to me. A set of figures were put out, and members on this side are expected to vote on them, yet we have scant information on those figures. Even for the capital works items that have been put in the budget, we get a global figure. We do not get a breakdown of what those particular items are. In my electorate, one such item is the Edgewater train station. I have read last year’s budget, and I understand that $1 million was allocated—that amount was going to increase—to improve the Edgewater train station. Many members might be thinking that the Edgewater train station is relatively new and they might be wondering why we need a major refurbishment of that train station. The reason I put it forward, and have done for a number of years—I got the previous government to agree to fund it—is that a lot of seniors and people with disabilities use that train station, which is between Edgewater and Heathridge, and they have great difficulty accessing the platform. Access to the station is across a fairly long bridge across the freeway. We all recognise that that must be done. However, there is also a very long ramp that people must walk down to get to the platform. We have been pushing for some weather cover over that station so that people who have disabilities or who are partially mobility impaired because of their age do not have to be out in the weather, whether it is exceedingly hot weather or whether it is exceedingly wet weather. Therefore, we have been looking for extra weather cover over that station so that those people can be adequately catered for. Also, we were pushing to have an escalator or a lift installed at that station to take

4810 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] people from the bridge over the freeway down to the platform, so that, once again, they can get to the platform of the train station without having to go down an exceedingly long ramp. The funding for that escalator or lift did not appear anywhere in the budget. My great fear is that this government will let it slide off the radar and the northern suburbs will again be ignored. The residents who use the northern suburbs rail line are disadvantaged once again. We have all seen the great work that the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure did in getting the rail line down to Mandurah. There are many magnificent train stations on that line, and I applaud that. We also need to look at the infrastructure that has been there for many years. Edgewater train station in my electorate is an example. Some money has been spent on that train station, in particular, on the car park. The car park was funded by the previous government. The works were scheduled to start under the previous government. They were just about completed at the time of the election last September. On 26 May I read an article in my local newspaper entitled “New car bays on track”, which I found quite amusing. I will quote from this short article. It states — Edgewater and Whitfords train stations will get a combined total of 370 new car parking bays. Transport Minister Simon O’Brien made the announcement last week, with Edgewater nabbing 170 new bays and Whitfords 200. Ocean Reef MLA Albert Jacob said the parking boost was part of an election commitment to deliver 3000 new car bays during the next four years. Work on the new bays will begin this year, subject to planning and other approvals. Once again, that is a fraud because those bays were in place at the time of the election. Members of the government—a minister and a backbencher—are now claiming credit for delivering those car bays. It is just outrageous that government members do this sort of thing. They do it continually. That is the calibre of the government members we have at the moment. The budget papers were also a fraud because there were substantial increases in costs to families, including increases in charges on vehicle registrations, public transport, water and electricity. These charges are just outrageous. The Treasurer and the Premier say that they have not increased taxes, but they have hit the people of this state in the hip pocket by an estimated $365 per household. They are not the only charges that have increased. We should take into account the other subsidies that have been withdrawn. A family with students at school has lost its $100 subsidy for schooling. Families who happen to have children who are in year 11 and 12 have lost a further $400. The cost to many families who have children in school in this state could be close to $1 000 when it is all added up. On top of that, this government was not happy enough with that. It slugged the childcare industry with extra licensing fees. That will affect family day care really badly. Family day care, which usually operates out of people’s own houses, provides care, from each house, for between four and six children. The government has attacked that as well. It is licensing family day care and adding a significant licence cost. The budget papers claim that the licensing cost will cover the cost of compliance. How have we managed to make these people compliant over the past number of years that family day care has been operational in this state? It is a very bad grab for money by this government. It is cynical. The government is providing the business sector with relief on its payroll tax but at the same time it is robbing families of that money to pay for the 12- month reprieve on payroll tax. We have to start to consider our taxation system and the fact that we are using household charges to tax people in this state. I will move on to the government’s election commitments. Arena Joondalup is in my electorate. It provides a fine service to the people in the northern suburbs. It provides sporting facilities. An organisation called Arena Community Sport and Recreation Association was formed in 2005. It was awarded large grants by this government and the previous government. Off the top of my head, I think it received about $1.7 million in grants through the community sporting and recreation facilities fund and other funds to build some netball courts, bring rugby league and rugby union back to the Arena and have some clubrooms for those organisations, including Joondalup Little Athletics, which operates out of the Arena. Those four clubs came together to form the Arena Community Sport and Recreation Association. The money has been distributed. The netball courts have been built but the clubrooms have yet to be built. Prior to the election, I was approached and told that due to the rise in building costs, there was a shortfall of some $200 000. I approached the then Minister for Sport and Recreation and asked him whether we could fund that. We went through a process of determining whether it was suitable to be funded and how we would fund it. We could go back through the CSRFF for a double dip and have a second go. We made an election commitment to provide that extra $200 000. At the same time the Liberal Party candidate who opposed me in Joondalup also put out a media release pledging to commit $200 000. Two hundred thousand dollars is not a huge amount of money in the scheme of this budget, yet the Arena Community Sport and Recreation Association is still hanging on by its fingernails to see whether it will get that extra $200 000 to complete its clubrooms and get on with the day-to-day running of its sporting organisation.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4811

When a group has something that it wants to get done so people have a place to meet, a place to store sporting equipment and a place to raise some funds but it cannot get it built because the government will not commit $200 000, that is very disruptive. The government has committed to it but it has not delivered. We are now nearly 10 months into this new government. Surely it is a simple matter of the government recognising its commitments. When I approached the minister and told him about it, he was not aware of the commitment. It took a few months to sort that out. The members of these two different parties that make up this coalition— actually, it is not a coalition; that is only playing silly words—cannot even talk to each other to tell each other what they have committed in the election and get on the move so that these organisations can do the good job of volunteering in our neighbourhoods. As I said, this budget is a fraud. Not everything was put into the budget properly. We are now starting to see projects come out of the woodwork that the Premier is saying are funded and the government will go ahead with them. What are we supposed to do? They are not in the budget papers. He says we should trust him. We should never trust a politician who says “Trust me”, particularly if he is the Premier. Just because he is a Premier, that does not mean we can trust him. In fact, that is probably a reason why we would not trust him. When the budget papers are handed down next year, we should be able to go through them, make an assessment of what commitments are there and determine the full cost to us. If there is a need for a loan bill, we can determine the exact amount needed. I think the figure of $8.3 billion has been pulled out of the air so that the government can cover anything and everything that may come up and try to be all things to all people. We have many issues in this state, many of which have been dealt with over the past eight years. It has not been recognised that hospitals have been built by the former government right around the state, particularly in rural and regional areas. Last week I was in the north west and I visited Roebourne, Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek. Each of those places has a hospital that was built in the past eight years. Among the other things we saw over the eight-year term of the former government was the building of many, many schools. One of them, the Craigie Heights primary school, is under construction in my electorate of Joondalup. I am glad to say that we fought hard in the northern suburbs to get that school up and running. I am glad to say also that the contract had been already let to build that school. I fear that if that contract had not been let, this government would have ripped out the funding for that northern suburbs school purely and simply on the basis it is a Labor electorate. I have that fear because this government has done exactly that with the Craigie community house we had proposed. The amount of $890 000 was in the Labor government’s budget to build the Craigie community house. This lot got in, and one of the first things it did was cut out the funding for it. There was no looking into whether it was needed or the reason for it. It amounted to, “We’ll just cut its funding because it is in a Labor electorate and we don’t want to build it”. That is a disgraceful way to manage government business. In the northern suburbs, many people are homeless and many cannot access childcare or playgroups. Craigie is one of those suburbs. That proposed Craigie community house could have provided financial counselling and a facility for playgroups. An important part of our community is the playgroup. It allows mums, whether they are young or in their older years, to chat and watch their children play with other children and reach developmental targets. They can discuss with each other what their children should be doing at a particular stage in their lives. In doing that, they can pick up on the developmental needs of their children. We know that across the state we are not adequately meeting early childhood developmental needs. A committee of this Parliament, of which I am a member, is undertaking an inquiry into that. I am staggered at how paltry our services are for early childhood years. I urge this government to look at the budget properly next year and start to address some of the real needs of this community. It should stop worrying about giving the money back to the business community through, for example, payroll tax and robbing parents. It must look at the needs of the community and deliver on some of those needs. Another one of those needs is school dental therapists, an issue brought to me about two and a half years ago. I took it to the then Minister for Health, who is no longer a member of this place, and we came up with a temporary solution. There are many issues for school dental therapists, but one of the major issues is that they are not paid appropriately. They are level 1 public sector workers. [Member’s time extended.] Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: These people are well qualified to deal with our children. They are in many, many primary schools throughout this state. Just about every child in this state at some stage visits a school dental therapy clinic. They have their teeth checked and various work done on their teeth, whether it be cleaning, extractions, fillings and all those sorts of things. If the work cannot be done at the school dental therapy clinic, the child is referred on. It is a vitally important health initiative that this state has been proud to run for many years. However, we are running the system, the school dental therapists and the dental clinic assistants into the ground. The school dental therapists tell me they are not getting proper consideration because the workforce is primarily female—primarily in their 50s. The state will run out of these workers in the near future. They feel that there is no commitment to school dental services in this state. The first thing that must be dealt with is the

4812 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] recognition of their qualification with appropriate pay for the job they do. We all know that they do a fantastic job. Every parent in this state will be up in arms if we do not support school dental therapy clinics properly. Another part of that is the equipment in the clinics. Some of the equipment has been in use since the 1970s. It is still operational but it is not up to modern-day standards. I ask that the Minister for Health—it is within his portfolio—undertake an urgent review of school dental therapy facilities and put some money in the budget immediately. From the way the government has been operating, we know that can be done because it has been done for Oakajee and the Esperance port and it is going to be done for the Northbridge Link. The minister needs to look at the school dental service and upgrade dental therapy clinics. One of the simple things female dental therapists need at the clinics is a second exit. At the moment most of the school dental therapy clinics have one opening that acts as an entrance and an exit. Lots of people might ask: what is the issue with that? The issue is safety in case of fire when an alternative exit is required and in case of an irate parent. People might ask: why would a parent become irate at a school dental therapy clinic? I do not know; there are many reasons. We all get irate people in our offices at times. We, as members of Parliament, have secondary exits out of our offices for our staff. We all have panic buttons, but we do not think it is good enough for school dental therapists to have that. It is a disgrace that we do not. I am glad to say that, at the Craigie Heights primary school, where a school dental therapy clinic is being included, we ensured that a second exit was added. However, that involved a fight, even with the architect, who did not want to do it because he could not see the purpose of it. But we kept fighting and we won because school dental therapists and their assistants felt they needed it. Other things they do not have in school dental therapy clinics are simple things such as answering machines, fax machines and photocopiers. Every one of our offices has all that equipment. School dental clinics do not have it. The answer to our request that I have received from the department is that the therapists can use the school equipment. When a clinic caters to 1 500 or 2 000 students, there is not enough time to run across to the school every time the therapist needs to photocopy or fax something. Another thing we all have in our offices—no doubt most of us and the school dental therapists have them in our homes—is a computer. School dental therapy clinics do not need state-of-the-art computers; they need basic computers with a program to manage the lists of clientele. As I said, there can be 1 500 or 2 000 children at a school, or even 2 500 in some of the bigger schools. At the moment all that work is handled on a Cardex system. It will assist our school dental therapy people greatly if they are given computers so that they can manage their workload. I plead with the Minister for Health to deal with this as a matter of urgency in the next six months of this government. I know he knows about it because the people who have come to me have told me that they have informed him as well. So far they have been pretty happy with his response, but it needs to be moved up and those clinics need to be properly looked after. I refer for a minute to parking at train stations. My colleague the member for Gosnells will also talk about this. When he mentioned it to me this morning, I thought, “What a great idea”. In the early 1970s when I started my apprenticeship, a way of life was the use of the car pool. Yes, I did my apprenticeship in a different country, but, for some reason, it was a natural event there. One person with a car did not drive 10, 12 or 15 kilometres to work alone; that person picked up two, three, or four other people and filled up his car. That system has three benefits: it keeps running costs down—it is actually very economical; it helps our environment; and it reduces the need for car parking at our places of work. I urge this government to consider the issue of making provision for car pooling at our public transport nodes. It is not that hard to do. We can make provision for car pooling and maybe even double the number of patrons using our train service without increasing the number of motor cars. I know that is a bit adventurous, but it would be a good thing to do. Even if people picked up only one other person in their suburb and got them to their transport node, it would actually double the number of patrons that we could get on our public transport system. My local hospital, Joondalup Health Campus, has taken a lead role, in my view, on this issue of getting people in and out of the health campus. Parking has been a huge issue at Joondalup Health Campus, and it has recently introduced pay parking. I get a lot of complaints from patients and visitors who object to paying for parking there, but when I query them, they always say that they can actually get a spot to park their car. What used to happen was people going to the city would park their cars at Joondalup Health Campus and walk to the train station, which is not that far away, and take up a car park bay for the day. Now that there is actually a charge for parking, people are not parking at the health campus all day, and parking is available for patients and visitors. However, it has not been left just at that. The health campus has also provided free off-site parking, and so that parked cars do not clog the roads to the health campus, a free bus service runs from that off-site car park to the health campus. The health campus has also introduced car pooling. Everybody still buys their staff parking permit and there are car park bays for staff that are quite cheap or free for the day, but the car needs to display two parking permits—one for the driver and one for the second person, the passenger, who uses that car. It is a very simple way to police the system: the parking inspectors simply look for two permits displayed on the dashboard, one for each person in that car pool car. Therefore, it is a very simple way to do that. The health campus has also gone a step further. I am very proud of how Joondalup Health Campus has jumped in with assisting us with the environment and parking. It has provided bicycles on a trial basis to a number of its

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4813 staff. It has provided trip-end facilities, such as showers, lockers and places for clothing and toiletries, so that people can cycle to the health campus. The health campus provides a bicycle on a temporary basis, as I said. It has six on site that are available to staff members who want to try cycling to work. Therefore, staff members do not need to purchase a bicycle and then discover for some reason that they cannot make the cycle ride to the health campus. It is a great initiative and I commend Joondalup Health Campus for doing that. I will move on to the matter of tax because, essentially, the budget is about tax and how the government raises money. Governments raise money through tax and family and household charges. I refer to the “Western Australian Government Submission to the Review of Australia’s Future Tax System” document. I would like to put on record one of the things in that government submission. Again, this is an attack on families. I will read it so that it is properly on record and that there can be no ambiguity about it. The submission states — • Land tax could be converted from an unimproved value basis to gross rental value basis and amalgamated with local government rates. In so doing, the land tax base could be broadened to align with the rating base (facilitating reduced tax rates), and progressive land tax scales replaced by proportional rates (albeit potentially differentiated by property type according to local government practice). I have read that part of the submission into the record so that people in this state are put on guard about what is in this government’s mind. This is something that the government thinks might work. I know the Premier brushed it off yesterday by saying that it is part of the global thought, it is a discussion and all those sorts of things, but often we see the seed planted many, many years before it eventually comes to fruition. That proposal for a land tax, in my mind, is nothing other than another attack on families in this state and an attack on the principal place of residence of families in this state. We have to be very careful and very diligent to ensure that this government does not progress this thought any further. This Liberal Barnett government cannot progress this thought any further; it is in the submission document and that is where it should stay. I know that on my side I will continue to fight to make sure that proposal never comes to fruition. We have also had, and I will mention it again, discussion about retail trading hours. It is a bugbear of mine and I know that I am probably hitting home because I keep getting people ringing me up saying that they have to talk to me about it to try to convince me to change my mind. I will not change my mind; retail trading hours are an issue for this state. It is an issue for the other side of the chamber, because I know many members opposite have objected to extending trading hours to 9.00 pm. I know that because in The West Australian last week the Premier was reported as saying that he may come back from 9.00 pm to 8.00 pm. I assume that is because of pressure from the government side, and the fact that he has not got the National Party behind him and he needs members on this side to support him. I for one simply cannot support deregulating trading hours; we have to do something urgently, regardless of trading hours, about commercial tenancies. We have to make that process more transparent and more equitable. MS A.J.G. MacTIERNAN (Armadale) [12.56 pm]: Like all my colleagues, I have been astounded by this budget, its sheer fraudulent nature and the failure to really address the very real economic issues that are facing this state. I have been astounded that such a budget could be put out that does not contain a single item of expenditure for so many projects for which commitments had already been made, such as Oakajee, the Northbridge Link and the Esperance nickel circuit. To pontificate, as the Premier does, on those three projects and not put a single cent into those projects is completely unacceptable. The claims that these commitments were only made subsequent to the closing of the budget papers is clearly not true. For a start, the Esperance nickel circuit contracts had already been let, so quite clearly decisions were made. Perhaps they were not formally documented in order to continue this scam, but quite clearly decisions had already been made. The contribution of the state government to Oakajee was never predicated on the federal government; it was expressed as something that the state government was going to do and, of course, it was seeking federal government support for it, but, again, there was nothing in the budget. We uncovered numerous scams during the estimates process. It is good that the Treasurer is in the chamber because he perhaps could help us with this. While the Treasurer is in the chamber, there are two issues that we would like some enlightenment on, the first of which is the central area transit bus system, whereby the government has introduced an expanded Perth parking levy. The government will collect some $16 million-plus extra each year from the Perth parking levy, and the $68 million that it will get under that expanded levy has been included in the income to the budget. However, on the opposite side of the ledger, the government has not included any of the expenses that line up against that. The only expense included is the expense from the levy at its existing rate; therefore, there is a $68 million imbalance. We have a budget that is presuming an income but not actually acknowledging the $68 million worth of expenditure that will be necessary to expend. I will be interested in the Treasurer’s response to that. The second issue is one that really does concern me because I think it goes to the wafer-thin budget surplus that we see in 2010-11—a surplus of some $23 million. I was quite puzzled by an allocation in the royalties for regions program. We see $216 million in royalties for regions—this is one of the unallocated expenditures—that is called royalties for

4814 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] regions regional and statewide initiatives. There is a big issue about how this money can be prioritised. There are no projects to spend it on as yet but it has been put into the budget. The other query that I raised was why is it, very strangely, that this fund in its first two years of operation is listed as a recurrent item and yet in 2010-11 is then changed to a capital item. This big lump of money in the first two years is a recurrent item. I am sad to see that the Treasurer is leaving the chamber. The Treasurer may go away but this issue will not go away. This fund is all unallocated money. We were trying in the estimates procedure to find out what secret projects the government might have in mind. It very oddly changes from recurrent to capital in the last two years. I therefore asked the agency why it was so. I would have thought that the department had some idea of what the projects were and why there would be the fundamental change from the project being recurrent to being capital. The departmental people said that they did not know and that is just what Treasury had told them to do. I asked by way of supplementary information if the department could provide the answer to why we are getting this one fund treated firstly as recurrent and subsequently as capital. I got the answer that the Department of Treasury and Finance had advised that the regional and statewide initiatives provision in the budget is predicated on estimated expenditure of 2008-09 and 2009-10 being expended for recurrent purposes and for capital purposes in subsequent years; that is, the department did it because the Treasury did it. We need to know whether there is a really different vision for this program and what sorts of things will be spent in the first couple of years that will be so different in the second couple of years. The reality is that this is another fraudulent mechanism to hide the reality of this budget. Of course, if an item is capital it does not go on to the operating costs and, therefore, the illusion can be preserved that there will be a surplus in the year 2010-11. As I say, no explanation has been given for that switch. At some point the government will have to come to terms with all the scams that it has pulled. The Premier hopes that there will be a massive revival—of course, we all hope that there will be—and that his bacon will be saved in the out years because there will be a lot more revenue. The government cooks the books for the first couple of years, crosses its fingers and hopes for an economic miracle that will save it. However, I would imagine that at least by the midyear review there will have to be some confrontation with the reality of all these projects that have been committed to and that have not proceeded. I suspect that one of the devices that will be used is that there will be an extraordinary go slow on a whole lot of capital projects, just as this government did in its first nine months in government, when basically capital works projects ground to a halt and that money was then rolled over into 2009-10 to improve the appearance of the budget. The member for Perth spent some time in his presentation talking about good and bad performances. I must say that in the estimates we had some very uneven performances. We had some very unsatisfactory answers coming back from various agencies. I had some good, and I think helpful, answers come back from some agencies. I thought that Horizon Power provided some comprehensive answers. The Kimberley Development Commission provided some interesting information and answered questions appropriately. I think there were some very poor performances from the Department for Planning. Although the parliamentary secretary was obviously quite helpful and not in any way seeking to block questions being properly answered, there was a gentleman who did look as though he might have been potentially one of those victims of dob in a bikie, who was acting as a minder, and I gather may have put the fear of God into some of the public servants who were answering. I will give an example of just how appalling the evasion is. I was asking questions about James Point port. The government has put out many releases saying that it is very much in favour of James Point port, that it is advancing with all the planning and that it is a step closer. We therefore asked the department, via the parliamentary secretary, questions about the road and rail infrastructure, because under the James Point operating agreement there is a requirement for there to be road and rail infrastructure provided by the state. It is a highly questionable and dubious undertaking, but nevertheless it is in the agreement. When I queried why there was no allocation, the departmental people said that they had no discussions with James Point Pty Ltd at all about that infrastructure. I find it absolutely incredible that here we have a government that on coming into government made statements that it was supporting James Point port and progressing it. The parliamentary secretary was not in the chamber when I said that I thought he conducted himself extremely well in that he did not in any sense seek to block questions being answered but that I thought there might have been other people in the room about whom one could not have said the same thing. When we asked about James Point port, the answer came back that there had been no discussion. For the whole nine months of this government, notwithstanding all those media releases and speeches about how the government was going forward with James Point port, there had not been one single discussion between the department and James Point Pty Ltd people about how they were going to build the roads and rail, which is just extraordinary. They said that they might be able to come up with another solution. They said that they thought there were existing roads that they could utilise so that they might not have to build those new roads and rail that they are required to build under the agreement, and that there might be another plan. We said that it was really interesting, but did not expect too much. I asked if by way of supplementary information they could tell us what those alternatives were. They said that the operating

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4815 agreement also provided for the parties to negotiate; that depending on the initial volumes it might be possible to service the port by a number of other routes; that it was premature to detail exactly where those might be until further work and consultation was undertaken. They obviously do not have hundreds of roads going into James Point, but they cannot nominate what they could use. They were saying that they had a clear contractual obligation to build those roads and that rail, but that they did not think they would need to build them because they could use existing roads. We asked them to tell us what the existing roads were, because they had been nine months into it. They said that it would be premature to detail exactly where those might be until further work and consultation was undertaken. I know that the wheels of government grind very slowly, but this is a joke. The Minister for Transport pontificates about how the government is going ahead with the James Point port, but apparently in nine months there has not been a single discussion between the department and the port, if we are being told the truth. There is no money in the budget to build the roads and rail, because the government thinks it can use existing roads. But can the minister tell us what the existing roads are? No, he cannot because he says it would be premature. It is absolutely disgraceful, and an appalling performance. I have raised the issue of the central area transit buses. It is another fraud to put $68 million worth of income into the budget and not acquit it against any expense item, when the government knows that it is bound by legislation to do so. The Perth Parking Management Act 1999 requires that this money be spent only on these particular items, and there is no provision for those items. A clear indicator that this is completely and utterly a device to boost the budget and make it look better than it actually is is the very fact that there is not even a plan about what the money will be spent on. Mr Deputy Speaker, you must be horrified about this. There has been no dialogue with the Perth city council, and there is not even a plan. Normally, a business case would be produced. There would be a plan for the CAT system and the free transit zone to be extended, and there would be an estimate of the operational and capital costs. To meet those costs, the vehicle levy would have to be raised. The government did not do that. It simply said that it needed another $68 million, so it was included in the budget, and the government would later work out what it wanted to do. I asked for an outline of what the additional $16.4 million per annum would be spent on. The answer was that areas of potential funding include improvements to be the central area transit system, improving public access, enhancing the pedestrian environment, supporting the bicycle network and other initiatives that support a balanced transport system for the city. The reply stated that the growing demand for CAT and free transit zone services would also require substantial operating and capital funding. The Public Transport Authority estimated that the CAT response would require an extra seven buses and increased operating expenses. The government does not have a plan that has been costed out. I do not personally have any problem with an extra $16.4 million being raised from the Perth parking levy. It is great—at least the government is going to do one thing in public transport—but that is not what has motivated this. [Member’s time extended.] Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN: That is not what has motivated this increase. The fact that the government does not even have a plan, apart from the general list of the kinds of things that money could be spent on, but it has increased the levy is not a commitment to public transport. It is trying to patch together a budget that is deeply and utterly flawed. Another answer I got back as supplementary information shows that the level of secrecy of this government is quite appalling. As members know, the opposition has been consistently raising its concerns about the complete lack of accountability that surrounds the use of the Country Age Pension Fuel Card. We support the notion of assisting our country pensioners, but we have pointed out that the checks and balances on the scheme are completely inadequate to prevent the scheme from being diverted for improper purposes. When the government is spending $80 million of taxpayers’ money, it has an obligation to ensure that checks and balances are in place. The material we received back as supplementary information takes the matter no further. Quite clearly, there is no legal impediment to anyone going to their grandmother, picking up her fuel card and using it to fill up their own car for their own purposes, if the grandmother says she does not need to drive, does not have a car or lives in a nursing home and therefore is going nowhere. It is not even illegal for that to happen. There are no controls and no way of auditing which vehicles are getting this fuel. Something in the order of $80 million worth of fuel will be going into vehicles, but we will have no way of tracing which vehicles the fuel is going into and who the recipients are. The minister made much of the obligations on Retail Decisions Pty Ltd. We asked for the Retail Decisions contract to be provided with all the financial details deleted, including the rate at which Retail Decisions was to be remunerated. We said we were not interested in any of the issues that were subject to commercial confidentiality. We were interested only to know how the system works. The government cannot use commercial confidentiality as an excuse. The minister said that he would provide that information. He said he would provide the contract with all the commercial details deleted. Of course, when he went back to his office he had second thoughts. He said that the contract would be provided on advice from the Information Commissioner, and after consultation with Retail Decisions about commercially confidential information. The answer stated that a time

4816 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] line was unclear at this point, and that negotiations may take several weeks. This is disgraceful. When the previous government entered into the Perth rail contract, which was valued at $320 million, I tabled seven boxes of documents. The only thing that we deleted were the subcontract rates, because the contractor would need to subcontract work, and it was not fair that its planned rates were to be made available to people who would potentially be subcontracting. However, every other bit of it—all the commercial responsibilities, risks and so on—was tabled. The then opposition demanded that it be tabled, and the government agreed that it should be tabled. Seven boxes of documents were tabled. We asked to view this little agreement, worth $2.5 million, but under which $80 million will be spent. We tell the government to take out all the commercially sensitive information. It might be a dodge—we know the price was four times the amount of the other tender—but that is not the issue we want to pursue today. I expressly asked that the minister provide the Retail Decisions contract with all financial material deleted, including the rates at which Retail Decisions is to be remunerated. What possible issue of commercial confidentiality remains? It is an issue about the Minister for Regional Development not wanting proper scrutiny to take place. This is exactly the same concern we have seen with the Premier. He has committed—although not in the budget—state taxpayers’ funds of some $350 million to the Oakajee development. He has signed an agreement, but it is a secret agreement, just like the James Point agreement was a secret agreement. The taxpayers were never told about the full extent of responsibilities, such as that the state would have to pick up all the road and rail infrastructure costs. That was never mentioned in public. We came into government and we were completely horrified that those obligations were there. It was never mentioned in the agreement or the public information that the developer was to get hundreds of hectares of seabed for $10. We asked the Premier to give us, at the very least, access to information on the state’s obligations under the Oakajee port agreement. Take out all of the commercial stuff, but at least table the part of the document that will tell us the state’s obligations. The answer came back: no. The Minister for Regional Development has just entered the chamber. I tell him that I have expressed my extreme disappointment—more than disappointment—in the fact that the minister made an undertaking during estimates that he has not delivered. When I asked the minister whether he would provide the Retail Decisions contract with all of the financial material deleted, including the rates at which Retail Decisions was remunerated, he said he would. Now he has come back with yet another pathetic excuse for delays—that he has to speak to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner has got nothing to do with parliamentary estimates hearings. It is self-evident that if all the commercial information about remuneration to this company is to be deleted, there cannot be any legitimate issue of commercial confidentiality. The only person who is being protected is the minister, and the only one who has anything to hide is the minister, who has developed a scheme that has manifestly inadequate checks and balances. This government has the same level of secrecy as the last Liberal government. The opposition cannot get information on the Oakajee agreement or the Retail Decisions agreement. Last time the Labor Party got into government, we uncovered the reality of the James Point agreement, which had previously been hidden from the public. During the Labor Party’s time in government, we released an unprecedented number of contract documents. The conservative side of politics used to jump up and down and demand that we release draft contracts which, of course, would be ridiculous, and it is not something that we have ever done. We understand that there needs to be confidentiality while agreements are being negotiated. Negotiations cannot take place in a public environment. However, if the state has committed to an obligation, the obligation should be made public, including the commercial data. There should be a very limited range of exceptions to matters that affect the relationship between the private sector and its third party competitors. It is not about protecting the government; the commercial confidentiality of the government is not the issue here. Taxpayers should always be able to find out how much they are paying a company and the obligations of that company. It is equally important for taxpayers to know the obligations of the state under an agreement. The government has not been prepared to stand and provide that very basic level of accountability. I pick up on some comments made by the member for Joondalup. I asked questions of the Minister for Education on the issue of early childhood education. I received an answer that was somewhat nonsensical, in which the minister claimed that the Department of Education and Training did not fund any programs for supported playgroups for children aged zero to three, but that it had provided $135 000 to Challis Primary School. We know that the $135 000 is being used in part to fund this particular program. My concern, in common with the member for Joondalup, is about many of these little pilot projects that have been set up around the state. They are doing really well and doing great work, and they receive many accolades, including accolades from the minister, but there is nothing in this budget to match the rhetoric of the government’s press release announcing the appointment of the Minister for Education as the minister responsible for early childhood development. There is no program; there is nothing other than a bureaucratic office. There are no consequences on the ground following that decision. It was a good decision; the opposition supported the idea that the Minister for Education should become the minister responsible for early childhood development. However, it will have meaning only if we are prepared to support those programs. I am of the view that the programs that are making the most difference are the programs that we see in our schools. If the minister responsible for early childhood

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4817 development is to be someone who merely oversees press releases about federal funding, we are falling well short of our obligations in this area. I know that the minister says that she believes in and supports the sorts of principles that are enshrined in dealing with developmentally vulnerable children before they get to school age. It is not good enough for her to say that she really believes in these principles and that something has to be done, if when she takes the driver’s seat she does not do anything to apply them. I am disappointed that no action has followed upon the landmark appointment of the minister as minister responsible for early childhood development, but I hope that this may change in the future. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [1.26 pm]: I have previously referred to the fact that the budget provides $657 million to build extra prison accommodation. I have noted earlier that this is to meet increased demand for prison beds due to the sentencing policy of the incoming Attorney General of the Liberal-National government, which can only be described as penal populism. It is the sort of policy that was in favour during the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, and it has been revived in recent times. It is about jailing more people for longer. The learned Chief Justice of Western Australia pointed out in an article published in The West Australian last Wednesday that there is a misconception in the community that sentences are weak and that crime statistics are bad in Western Australia. The learned Chief Justice pointed out that this is a misconception driven by people with venal political interests, who would have the community believe that judges are not doing the right thing, and that not enough people are in jail. In fact, crime rates in Western Australia are lower than those of the other states of Australia, but the rates of imprisonment are higher. Both of these facts give a lie to the Attorney General’s philosophy. I rise to address some of the elements of penal populism. There are a number of areas; one is mandatory sentencing, and another is the Attorney General’s recent proposal to sentence to a three-month jail term any Aboriginal person bringing liquor into remote communities. Some of these people will be minors; some will be children, and they will be plucked out of the desert and taken to jail for three months simply for doing what 18- year-olds in Perth do—smuggle a bit of liquor around. It is absolutely appalling. Of course, through amendments to the parole regime, more prisoners will be denied parole and more people will be held in prisons. Given that one of the next matters on the notice paper is the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2008, which deals with mandatory sentencing, it is germane for me to deal with that aspect of it. I am very concerned. I pointed out in speeches given in this chamber on 21 May 2008 and 17 March 2009 that I would oppose mandatory sentencing for the reason that the case has not been adequately made by the Attorney General to demonstrate that judges are failing in their duty to regularly impose terms of imprisonment upon anyone who assaults and inflicts injury upon a police officer. However, I stand in trepidation and some fear for what I am about to say—fear for myself, my family and my children. I have today expressed my concerns to the Commissioner of Police. The background of my concern and fear for my wife and children is this: when this mandatory sentencing bill was brought on for debate on 17 March, there was a demonstration — The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Mindarie! I ask the member for Armadale to please have her meeting outside. The member for Mindarie is being put off. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I did not call that. On 17 March there was a demonstration outside Parliament when the executive of the WA Police Union attended, and when the honourable Minister for Police, the Premier and the Attorney General were all in attendance, and when the crowd was incited against any Labor politician or any parliamentarian—I include the new Greens (WA) member—who comes into this chamber and speaks against mandatory sentencing. In fact they said that if we voted against mandatory sentencing, this aberrant union—it has lost its way—would make our lives hell. I take offence at that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take offence at the fact that members of the police union came here to this Parliament and said that they knew where we lived and that they would make our lives hell. People do know where I live, and ever since I have been involved in advocating for Andrew Mallard, the police have made my life hell. People know that the windows of my home and parliamentary office have been smashed. People know that the police tried to arrest me on a false charge and leaked that corrupt action to The West Australian so that my political career and my family would be ruined by false allegations published in The West Australian. Everyone knows that because of my strong advocacy for Andrew Mallard, the police know where I live; it was written large in graffiti all over my front wall. Of course they know where I live and of course I take offence and of course I am scared. Am I going to take a backward step? No—not a half-step backwards in the face of Mr Dean’s attack upon my family and in the face of this police union’s attack upon my family. I am worried, and I am looking to this Parliament and to the Speaker of this Parliament to do something about it—to refer this to the Procedure and Privileges Committee to have an inquiry as to what happened out the front of Parliament and why Ms Carles, the new member for Fremantle, should herself when she rises, if she chooses to speak, have to go home to her family carrying the same fear.

4818 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

I am glad that the Attorney General has entered the chamber, as he will deal in due course with the parties to the offence who have created the fear that I have. I have a wife who is about the same age as the Attorney General’s wife. My wife has a little two-and-a-half year old baby at home. She is at home, 24 weeks pregnant and is facing a threat by the police union that if I speak against mandatory sentencing, the Quigleys’ lives will be made hell, as anyone else’s life will be. I will tell the house what I will do. I will speak vehemently against the bill. However, because the members for Kalgoorlie and Alfred Cove have already indicated that they will vote with the government and the legislation will go through Parliament, I will not put my wife’s safety at risk by staying in this chamber to vote against it and have my name recorded in Hansard as one of the members who, incited by Mr Dean, has to be targeted by corrupt police. The Attorney General was outside; he saw the incitement. The crowd was also incited by a very irresponsible Minister for Police. If something happens to me, the Attorney General will be able to advise the Minister for Police who the parties were to the offence. The parties to the offence would be anyone who incited the police to make my life hell. This is absolutely terrible. I have written to the Commissioner of Police today. The Commissioner of Police has, of course, written on a previous occasion to re-assure me. I seek once again to lay on the table the commissioner’s letter. Is leave granted? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mindarie can lay it on the table for the duration of today’s sitting. [The paper was tabled for the information of members.] Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The letter states, in part — I do not regard that your opposition to the principle reflects a failure on your part to support working police or that you are, in any way, ‘anti-police’. The Commissioner of Police gives the lie to the Premier’s allegation made in this chamber yesterday that anyone who does not support mandatory sentencing is antipolice. The Commissioner of Police’s letter exposes the untruthfulness peddled in this chamber by the Premier and by the Minister for Police. It exposes it, and the commissioner wrote that to Quigley. I want this letter published. I want it to get wide publicity so that the public will know what the commissioner thinks. He does not hold the same opinion of me as the Premier holds, or the same opinion that the Minister for Police holds, who comes along here dressed up like the pox doctor’s clerk peddling his nonsense! It is absolutely appalling. I have therefore written to the Commissioner of Police this morning pointing out to him that I intend to speak against mandatory sentencing and I intend to make a vehement speech against mandatory sentencing. I realise I have only 30 minutes today plus 15 minutes at the third reading stage, which will be ample. I have therefore written a letter to the Commissioner of Police today pointing out that there were police—his police; his serving officers—seeking to incite police. We know there are corrupt police. We know already what they have done and what they have practised against Quigley for speaking up for the weak, for speaking up for the innocent and for speaking up for the people who have been set upon by police. We know that. We know that they are out there. The president of the police union must go to the Procedure and Privileges Committee and explain the conduct of this police union on your reference, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has to be on your reference, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there are members of this chamber who are intimidated by their conduct. One thing that having cancer did for me was that it undid the shackles. I am not going to be scared of these people any more. I am not going to be intimidated by them, because jack the dancer is bigger and jack the dancer has bigger muscles and is more threatening than “Mr Bean” and his mates. I have therefore written to the Commissioner of Police pointing out the appalling conduct of his personnel and how, after I make this speech, I am going to go home concerned for the welfare of my young wife and concerned for the welfare of my four children, who all live with me in Trigg. As I said, people know where I live; it was written large in graffiti on my wall. I ask the Commissioner of Police to do his duty as the Commissioner of Police and to do what the Premier of Western Australia would not do—that is, send out an email today to all police personnel repeating to all police personnel what he has put in his letter to me, which is that the commissioner does not regard my opposition to the principles of mandatory sentencing as in any way evidence of a lack of support for the police. The police commissioner should first point that out to all police personnel so that one of these crooks—some weird policeman who is doing the police union’s bidding to make my life hell— will be put off. The other thing I have asked the Commissioner of Police to do before the bill comes on for the third reading, which is in the hands of my friend the Attorney General, is remind all police that if they act in response to Mr Dean and the union’s instruction—that is, make life hell for anyone who opposes this police legislation—it will constitute not only a serious disciplinary offence, but also a very serious criminal offence, and that the Commissioner of Police will organise a serious investigation into those responsible and see them prosecuted. I have put on the table my family’s fears. I have asked you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to refer to the Procedure and Privileges Committee the disgraceful episode outside this Parliament when members of the police union said,

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4819

“We know where you live. We’ll make your life hell. We’ll be your worst nightmare.” I got elected to this place to represent families. I got elected here to advocate for the families of Mindarie, and I am privileged and humbled to do so. I never envisaged that this would bring this reign of terror down on my wife, Michelle, and my four children just because I oppose this extreme police legislation. I turn now to the legislation itself. Point of Order Mr J.E. McGRATH: I understand what the member for Mindarie is trying to say, but I think he is making his speech in the wrong debating area. Mr P. PAPALIA: It is a general debate. He can speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He can speak on anything, member for South Perth. Debate Resumed Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I can understand why members of the Liberal Party want to silence me. While they are supporting this extreme position, I can understand why they want to do that. When this bill was introduced on 21 March, as I said, the Attorney General did not come into this place and cite any particular failure by the judiciary to properly sentence. He said that it happened regularly. On 21 March I said that before he brought the bill back into the chamber, he should for all Western Australians tell us the cases in which the judiciary is failing. However, the bill came back onto the notice paper, of course, without any response from the Attorney General. Mr C.C. Porter: Why don’t you ask me that question in question time? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The Attorney General had his chance. I therefore wrote to the Attorney General on 27 May asking these questions and asking him to name the cases. I sent the same letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police. Tell us the cases where the judiciary is failing. The Attorney General said on 21 May and agreed with me that he has a different philosophical approach to these matters and a different ideological approach to law reform from me. I am middle of the road on these matters. I think these things should be done carefully and slowly. The Attorney General, on the other hand, is an extreme right-wing populist. He says that he will introduce mandatory sentencing. He told us that he had been to some Aboriginal camps at which liquor got into the camps and that he will jail everyone there for three months, he will crack down on parole and he will borrow, borrow, borrow to build more prisons in the pursuit of penal populism. I wrote to the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to find out from the judiciary the cases that have failed since Labor doubled the penalties or increased them by between 140 per cent and 200 per cent in the law that became operative on 27 April 2008. I begged the Attorney General to name the cases in which the judiciary has failed since that time. He has not responded to my letter. Mr C.C. Porter: It is on its way. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: It is on its way. The cheque is in the mail. He will pass the legislation and tell us afterwards. The Commissioner of Police did not respond to the letter, but thank God we have an honest and courteous DPP because he did reply. The Director of Public Prosecutions said — I am not aware of any assaults on police officers since 27 April 2008 and prosecuted in the District Court in which bodily harm or worse has been caused which had been finalised by a conviction without a sentence of imprisonment. There were no cases. They were hiding it from us and the Attorney General tells us that the cheque is in the mail and that he will tell us the truth after he has passed the legislation. It is outrageous. Then the Director of Public Prosecution’s letter goes on to deal with summary cases. We all know that the DPP has now seconded one of his own officers to the prosecutor’s office at the courts into the police prosecution branch. The DPP informs me that that DPP officer has liaised with the police prosecutor on summary cases. The DPP then named five cases that have not resulted in terms of imprisonment since 27 April 2008. On closer inspection, and after having discussions with him—these are in the DPP’s letter—of the five cases named, three of them occurred before 27 April 2008, so they are irrelevant. We now get down to two cases. I am still running those two cases to ground. However, one of them is after the given date and the offender was given a term of imprisonment for causing a swelling to an officer’s head. The offender threw a stubbie that hit the back of the officer’s head, which swelled. The skin was not broken; it swelled. The offender received a suspended term of imprisonment because he was employed, as I understand it. We get down to just two cases. We will change the whole democratic structure and the separation of powers based on just two cases. There may be more cases but the Attorney General will not tell us before he brings on the bill. It is disgraceful! Mr C.C. Porter: Why don’t you ask me?

4820 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I did ask the Attorney General. I wrote to him and asked him to reply before I got to my feet to give this speech and now the Attorney General wants to reply by interjection. This is the Attorney General who would not write back in a timely manner to correspondence but who says that he will proceed with law reform in a studious and careful manner. Mr C.C. Porter: Why not ask me in question time? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The Attorney General can raise this later with me either by correspondence or in the third reading debate. I will not have any more of his misleading statements, half-truths and untruths peddled in Parliament without being met. What we do know, Mr Deputy Speaker — Mr C.C. Porter interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to have to shout across the Attorney General. Would you call him to order please, Mr Deputy Speaker? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney General, the member for Mindarie does not want to shout over the Attorney General. [Member’s time extended.] Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will now address some of the other things about mandatory sentencing. The Attorney General boasted in the paper that when we get this law through, we will be the only state in Australia with the law. Well, der! That is obvious because Australia—not under a Labor government, but the nation of Australia— entered into an international covenant to tell the people of the world who we are. That international covenant is called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That covenant was distributed to all the states to see whether they would agree with it before it was signed off. That is one of the things that tells the world what sort of people we are. In that national treaty, it is covenanted that we will not legislate for arbitrary imprisonment—that is, mandatory sentencing—and that anyone who suffers a term of imprisonment will always have a right of appeal. The government wants to throw that overboard. No other state has violated our international treaties like the Attorney General wants to without bringing even one case into Parliament to justify why he is doing it—none. The government has brought on the member for Kalgoorlie to vote for it, too. He is caught like a rabbit on the road in the spotlight, knowing that the Corruption and Crime Commission truck is just about to hit him. He will do anything in his craven attitude to suck up to the government. The National Party at the time of the last CCC report and the Liberals when he last got an adverse finding against him said that he should be not suspended from Parliament but dismissed from Parliament. That is what they said. Now they rely on him. When I spoke to the member for Kalgoorlie, Hon John Bowler—I think he is honourable because he was a minister—I said, “Do you realise that this mandatory sentencing will put in children as well?” He said, “No, it will not.” I said, “They’ve signed you up and you haven’t even read the fine print, sunshine. You are a father of five. You know what it’s like to raise young children. You know the mistakes that they can make, and you don’t care; you’re going to mandatorily imprison children.” Shame on you, Bowler! Shame on you! He said he didn’t know that they were going to do it. This great nation of ours tells the world through its treaties what sort of people we are. The Convention on the Rights of the Child says that when sentencing a child, the interests and rehabilitation of the child must always come first. I like the Attorney General as a bloke, but I do not like his politics. I like his family but I do not like their politics. Some people probably think I have something in for him. No-one would know that his dear father “Chilla” used to teach me high jump—I was one of his failures—at College Park in Claremont in the springs of 1962-64. That is where “Chilla” used to train me. I have nothing against the Porter family or household but I have everything against their stinking, extreme right-wing politics. It is fascism in a smart tie. I have everything against fascism in a smart tie. The Attorney General said, bearing in mind the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that we will mandatorily imprison children. If a child is approached by a police officer and pushes the police officer away, and in the course of pushing the police officer away the palm of the child’s hand clips the lip of the officer and the officer gets a small scratch, the child will be taken out of school and sent to jail straightaway. If a university student happened to make a single mistake as a child—I am not talking about caving in a police officer’s head; obviously an offender would be imprisoned for that—this extreme right-wing Attorney General says that that university student should be taken out of university and sent straight to jail. After his visit to remote communities, the Attorney General says that if a young Aboriginal child brings two cans of liquor into a community, the child should be given three months’ imprisonment. We will all be crushed under the jackboot of this extreme legislation. The Attorney General prides himself on being a DPP prosecutor. I agree that he did a couple of cases, but he could not hack it and that is why he resigned and went to another employer. I am not as learned as the Attorney General, but in 25 years of continuous legal practice at the bar doing bench work, the wash of extraordinary circumstances that I saw go through the court was greater than members in this chamber could ever imagine. I am looking the Attorney General in the eye across the chamber and I am humbly begging him, on behalf of the judiciary, to relent. We have cast upon the judiciary the heavy and melancholy task of sentencing people to prison day after day. That is not a pleasant task. These judges do not go around

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4821 looking like comedians. They go around looking solemn. That is not because of their worries in the world. It is because they are carrying the heavy burden of having to send people to prison on a daily basis. They do this magnificently in the service of the community. As the Chief Justice has said, in over 100 000 cases a year, the judges sentence correctly. However, when one of these judges who is burdened with this task of sending people to jail sees a deserving case—a person who should be given a second chance—the Attorney General says to him, “Even though you have done good work in 100 000 cases, and even though I have installed you as a justice, you are not allowed to dispense justice in this case; you have to impose a mandatory term.” This is the wicked unfairness that is being foisted upon the members of the judiciary, when they are doing their utmost to dispense justice. As I have said, it was only last week that the Chief Justice of Western Australia had an article published in The West Australian. Did the Attorney read that article? Mr C.C. Porter: Yes. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Is there any part of that article that the Attorney wishes to disagree with? Mr C.C. Porter: There are some parts that I think are less accurate than others. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Then I hope we will hear from the Attorney General about those issues that he would take the Chief Justice to task on. We know that many people are going to prison every day because the judges are doing their duty. I will give members an example—not a silly shopping trolley example, but a good example—to illustrate my point. A father has thrown a party for his 18-year-old son. During the party, the father hears some people scuffling, so he turns around and sees a person dressed in a T-shirt and board shorts wrestling with his son, so he goes over and punches the bloke. It turns out that the bloke who is dressed in the T-shirt and board shorts was an invitee to the party and is an off-duty police officer. The reason he had tackled the son is that he had seen the son do something unlawful, so he had moved in to arrest him. The father did not know that, so he had punched him. That father will then be sent to jail for six months, because the judge is not allowed to listen to the circumstances of the case — Mr M.J. Cowper: Rubbish! Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: “Sergeant Plod” from Pinjarra has said rubbish! “Sergeant Plod” knows that these laws are so badly drafted that they do not apply only in the circumstances as detailed by the Premier of Western Australia; that is, when an officer is in uniform and on duty — Mr M.J. Cowper interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only five minutes left. Can you please deal with “Sergeant Plod”? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Murray-Wellington and member for Mindarie! Mr M.J. Cowper: I am not sure who he is referring to. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am referring to you, “Sergeant Plod”! The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would the member for Mindarie please refer to members by their given constituencies and not by any other name. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I plead section 247—provocation. The Attorney General knows that what the Premier has said is wrong. These laws do not apply only when a police officer is on duty and in uniform. That is misleading this Parliament. Any person who hits a police officer who is on duty and in uniform and injures that officer will go to jail. We know that from the letter that has been supplied to us by the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, what happens when a police officer is off duty and in casual clothing and observes an offence being committed and moves to intervene? The law says that the officer must be acting in the execution of his duty as a public officer. A police officer has brought himself back on duty to effect an arrest, and he is punched. The person who punched that officer must be sent to jail. The court is not allowed to consider the circumstances of the case. Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise I have four minutes left to speak on this bill in the second reading debate and I will have 15 minutes in the third reading debate. No doubt we will hear the Attorney General’s response in the media and elsewhere to this incendiary speech today. Any truth in this speech will be regarded by some people as incendiary. I have three minutes to go and I have to go home to my wife and child tonight after this speech, which will, no doubt, get a little bit of publicity. I know that there are dozens and dozens of police who do not give a rats about the law. Did members see the way they parked all over the lawns of this Parliament? Any constituents who came to visit a member in this place and parked their vehicles like the coppers parked their vehicles around this Parliament would be charged. I know that there are offenders among the police and I know that the WA Police Union sought to incite them. I do not know how the Procedure and Privileges Committee works, but I know that they have intimidated me and they have intimidated my wife and they have said that should I oppose these laws they will become my worst nightmare. I put my hand up in good conscience and on

4822 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] good legal grounds; I totally oppose these proposed laws. I know that that now leaves me open to retaliation by corrupt police, who could visit my home on the instructions of the police union to make my life hell. They know where I live. We saw it written large in graffiti on my wall. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, would you deal with the Treasurer for me? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise the Treasurer that the member for Mindarie cannot shout over him. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We know from the Commissioner of Police’s letter that the Commissioner of Police gives the lie to the statements of the Premier and the Minister for Police, who say that anyone who does not support these laws does not support the police. No, I will not vote against these laws. I will speak against them. I am not mad. I do not want my name recorded in Hansard so that some corrupt police can come out to my house and make my life hell. Mr R.F. Johnson: Don’t be so stupid. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Did I hear the pox doctor’s clerk somewhere? I am looking to the Chair to protect me and my family by dealing with the police and I am looking to the police commissioner to email every police officer in Western Australia this afternoon to warn them off taking retaliatory action for my strident opposition to these laws. So it is, with the Speaker of the Parliament returning to the chamber, that I trust that the Chair will take the appropriate action through the privileges committee to extend me protection. MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [1.58 pm]: I rise to address the Loan Bill 2009. I realise this debate is about to be adjourned for question time. Before that occurs, I will quickly outline the issues I will raise when debate is resumed on this bill. The Loan Bill is seeking approval for expenditure of $8.3 billion and we are to assume that this massive loan can be repaid. Other members have addressed the lack of certainty about the government’s ability to repay this massive loan. When we debated the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2009, we were repeatedly told that we were not to worry about the detail of the financial arrangements of the state. In fact, we were told that we would have a wonderful process called estimates that would give us the opportunity to go line by line into the detail of the funding of state agencies. I was filled with optimism. As a new member I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity to put questions through ministers to the heads of various government departments to find out exactly what was being spent on various programs. I report that I found the process rather disappointing. The opportunity to scrutinise and to get decent answers just was not there. Obviously, some ministers did better than others. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport, the member for Nedlands, who I think did a good job as a parliamentary secretary. He certainly did not obstruct our line of questioning. However, I must say that the Minister for Agriculture and Food gave appallingly long, waffling answers to questions from his own side as well as from our side. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 4834.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ADVISER 492. Mr E.S. RIPPER to the Minister for Regional Development: (1) Is the minister aware of allegations that in April a senior adviser in his office hand-delivered a draft resolution of no confidence in the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation to representatives of the Shires of Shark Bay and Exmouth? (2) Does the minister endorse the actions of this senior adviser in attempting to undermine the position of one of the state’s most senior public servants? (3) Can the minister explain the motives behind this action? (4) What disciplinary action will the minister take with regard to this officer in light of these allegations? Mr B.J. GRYLLS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. (1)-(4) It is a very serious allegation that the Leader of the Opposition is making. I am not aware that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is correct. However, I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition providing me with that information; and, if the matter needs to be investigated, I will do so.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4823

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ADVISER 493. Mr E.S. RIPPER to the Minister for Regional Development: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister regard any action such as that as being consistent with the continued employment of the adviser? Mr B.J. GRYLLS replied: Once again, I would like what the Leader of the Opposition is alleging today to be substantiated. On that basis, I will add further information once I have seen that what the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward is correct. NICOLE FEELY — APPOINTMENT TO SOUTH METROPOLITAN AREA HEALTH SERVICE 494. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health: I refer to reports that John Howard’s former chief of staff and former executive at tobacco company Philip Morris has been appointed the chief executive of Western Australia’s South Metropolitan Area Health Service. (1) Is this not just another case of “jobs for the Libs”? (2) Can the minister confirm that Nicole Feely is a former chief of staff to John Howard and is a former executive at Philip Morris? (3) Is the minister confident that Nicole Feely will enjoy the support of such groups as the Cancer Council WA, Action on Smoking and Health Australia and Healthway? (4) Will the minister call on Nicole Feely to make a public statement condemning smoking? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(4) The only information I have about that is what I have read in the paper about her former employment. I have to say that I had absolutely nothing to do with her employment, nor should I. That position was advertised — Mr E.S. Ripper: It’s the same with Peter Conran really, isn’t it? Dr K.D. HAMES: No, I did not have anything to do with him either. That position was advertised Australia- wide. People put in applications for the position. It was assessed, presumably, by a panel within the health department, and it chose her as being the best person for the job. I think she has done a fantastic job. Today she was in my office with a group for a meeting. I have an enormous amount of respect for her knowledge and the information she provided. She does not provide any advice to me about smoking issues. She looks after the South Metropolitan Area Health Service. No issues relating to that have anything to do with decisions that she may or may not make or views that she may or may not have on smoking. That has absolutely nothing to do with her role description or the task that she has. She looks after the South Metropolitan Area Health Service. When I want advice on smoking, I get it from the relevant government department—the Department of Health—that provides advice on issues relating to public health; I do not get that advice from her. Therefore, I really am not concerned with whatever she did before. I am concerned about having the best people for the job. She was chosen above the other applicants as being the person with the best qualifications, and I have been very impressed with her since she has been in that position.

NICOLE FEELY — APPOINTMENT TO SOUTH METROPOLITAN AREA HEALTH SERVICE 495. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health: I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister write to Action on Smoking and Health and other organisations that have expressed concern about Ms Feely’s employment to state his confidence in her position and repudiate her involvement in working for tobacco companies? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: If any of those organisations write to me expressing concern about her appointment, I will be more than happy to write back to them and say that Ms Feely has no role on anything to do with cigarette smoking and that I have full confidence in her ability.

CULTURAL EVENTS 496. Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND to the Minister for Culture and the Arts: Being a former Deputy Mayor of the City of Perth, I am particularly interested in promoting cultural events in the heart of the city. Can the minister please outline how the Liberal-National government will attract a broader audience to our state’s cultural institutions?

4824 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Mr J.H.D. DAY replied: It is wonderful that the culture and arts portfolio got the first question from the government side. On behalf of the member for Dawesville, I welcome students from South Mandurah Primary School, who are sitting in the Speaker’s gallery, and also acknowledge students from Lesmurdie Primary School from my own electorate who were here previously. One of the wonderful aspects of the culture and arts portfolio is the ability to experience the great diversity and depth of activity in the culture and arts arena around Western Australia from the traditional to the very contemporary and from the well known to new and emerging artists and performers. It is important that our major cultural institutions appeal to the wide range of population and age and various interests of people in Western Australia. There are two examples of how that is being achieved at the moment. One is at the Western Australian Museum in Perth, which is currently presenting Nick Cave: The Exhibition, which is obviously about the life, times and creativity of Nick Cave, who is a wonderful singer, as many members will know. Mr D.A. Templeman: You’d make a great mime. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I suggest that the member visit the exhibition because I am sure he would find it of interest. Mr M. McGowan: Name one song. Mr J.H.D. DAY: The Ship Song. The member should listen to it; he might enjoy it. Mr M. McGowan: Name two songs. Mr A.J. Carpenter: Into My Arms is the next one. It’s very good. Mr J.H.D. DAY: That is good to hear. I will come back to that. I can see a developing interest in this exhibition. Having had the pleasure of opening it on 22 May in the presence of, amongst many others, Martyn P. Casey, one of the members of Nick Cave’s current band, I can thoroughly recommend that members and anybody else visit this exhibition. Even if people do not have a great knowledge of Nick Cave’s creativity and art form, it is worth visiting because it is an exhibition that presents somebody’s life in all its aspects in a very interesting way. The exhibition has a range of different presentations, including lyrics chosen exclusively by Nick Cave to feature in the exhibition, his notebooks and diaries, a selection of photographs by Polly Borland and others and some of his manuscripts, not only of music and lyrics but also of some of the books that he has written. The exhibition was put together by the Arts Centre in Melbourne. Its tour around some cities of Australia, not all, is supported by Visions of Australia, an Australian government program. I appreciate the contribution of the Australian government for funding that program. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER: Minister, I think we have some bad seeds. If the minister is able to finish his comments, I would appreciate it. Mr J.H.D. DAY: You are well informed, Mr Speaker. It is important to give due credit to some of the other artists in this state, including ericaamerica, the fashion designers and style-based visionaries. If members do not know anything about ericaamerica, I suggest they look them up on the internet. They have created an exhibition to go with the Nick Cave exhibition. I acknowledge also the contribution from the Belridge and Kent Street Senior High School students, who have prepared a fashion exhibition to go with this exhibition at the WA Museum. We now move onto the Art Gallery of Western Australia, another place I can strongly recommend members visit at the moment. Several members interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I give due credit to the staff at the art gallery for developing the concept of the ARTBAR events, the first of which will commence tomorrow evening. There will be four events between tomorrow and September. Mr J.N. Hyde: Do you have an invite? Mr J.H.D. DAY: Indeed, I do. Do you? Mr J.N. Hyde: Where’s mine? Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am sure it is in the mail. I give the member for Perth credit for attending quite a number of arts events in the time he has been shadow minister. He has shown a genuine interest in some of the events, albeit 90 per cent of the material he puts out in his media statements is completely and utterly wrong. But I am sure there will be opportunities to educate him over the next couple of years or so! These particular events are designed to appeal to a different demographic and to get people into the art gallery after hours to enjoy some food and drink, to see the exhibition, to listen to groups such as The Basics and to hear

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4825 people like Wil Anderson of the Gruen Transfer and Glass House ARIA award winner Tim Rogers, and Katie Noonan, who will be there on 17 September. I give credit to all the staff at the WA Museum and the Art Gallery of Western Australia who have been involved in organising these events and ensuring that those very important organisations are relevant to a broad range of Western Australians. LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION — APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS 497. Mr P. PAPALIA to the Minister for Local Government: I refer to recent appointments to the Local Government Grants Commission and the Western Australian Local Government Association’s selection of two suitable candidates for the commission, only to have them rejected by the minister and replaced by two people selected by him. (1) Can the minister confirm that he appointed two friends of the Liberal Party to the commission, one the Mayor of Nedlands and the other a former Liberal Party candidate for Bassendean? (2) Has the minister taken advice that his actions breach section 5(1)(c) of the Local Government Grants Act 1978? (3) What was the advice? (4) Is it also true that his appointments remained current from February until he was advised by WALGA in April of the inappropriate nature of his appointments? Mr G.M. CASTRILLI replied: (1)-(4) I asked WALGA for a list of names for me to consider, and I appointed two from that list. I am not quite sure — Mr P. Papalia: They were not on the list, minister. Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I asked for a complete list of the people who nominated. I will confirm that with the member, if that is all right. I appointed two people. I was then given the advice that it was contrary to what I was able to do, and I have asked WALGA for another list. That is where it is at. LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION — APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS 498. Mr P. PAPALIA to the Minister for Local Government: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister saying that the two people he appointed were on the list provided by WALGA? Mr G.M. CASTRILLI replied: I will have to confirm that with the member. WALGA supplied a list of names. Mr P. Papalia: You have breached the act and misled the house. Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: Hang on. This is to the best of my recollection and I will confirm it with the member. WALGA supplied some names — Mr P. Papalia: You were looking for reasons yesterday. You are getting them today. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Warnbro! Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: No. WALGA supplied me with some names. I went back and asked WALGA for the complete list of nominations of people who applied, and that is where I selected my people from. I will confirm that by the close of business this afternoon, if that is all right. COUNTRY LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUND — FUNDING FOR PROJECTS 499. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER to the Minister for Regional Development: Can the minister please outline to the house the types of projects that will be delivered by local councils in my electorate of Kalgoorlie and throughout regional Western Australia with the assistance of the country local government fund, and whether local governments will continue to receive funding under this program in the future? Mr B.J. GRYLLS replied: I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for the question. Members will be aware that the country local government fund was announced in December last year. It is the first major program to be rolled out under the Liberal- National government’s royalties for regions commitment. The fund gives recognition to the vital role that local government authorities play in building and maintaining community infrastructure. It also pays heed to the fact that the systemic sustainability study report identified a $1.7 billion infrastructure shortfall across the local

4826 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] government sector in Western Australia, from town halls and sporting grounds, which are so often the heart of country communities, to the less glamorous but equally important items, such as public facilities and drainage. I am very pleased to announce that as at the beginning of June more than $33 million in payments have been made to local governments across regional Western Australia. We would expect that by the end of this month, the full $100 million allocation will have been made to local governments in regional Western Australia. Given the current economic circumstances, the job multiplier of the country local government fund in regional communities across the length and breadth of this state is an outstanding example of how the Liberal-National government is determined to have a strong and robust economy going forward and to ensure that people displaced by the economic downturn can find new opportunities and new work with government infrastructure programs such as the country local government fund. For the member for Kalgoorlie’s benefit, in his electorate the fund is supporting a $320 000 central business district upgrade in Kalgoorlie-Boulder, and the construction of netball courts, a car park and an access road at the Goldfields Oasis Recreation Centre—a project with a total value of $530 000. I know that members opposite have a lot of fun trying to pull down the royalties for regions initiative. They like to make out that it is only funding National Party electorates, but for the member for Albany’s benefit, the City of Albany will receive $1.56 million for a number of projects, including the shared path network, valued at $945 000, and the important public ablutions block that I mentioned earlier—a $160 000 project. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr B.J. GRYLLS: The member for Collie-Preston will be very excited — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr B.J. GRYLLS: The member for Collie-Preston will be very happy that the country local government fund will be supporting a — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Some members in this place may be interested in this information; some obviously are not. If the minister is going to go through a long list, I ask at this moment that he desist. Members in this place who may be interested, I am sure, will be able to get access to this information at some point. I suggest that those members who have a particular interest give the minister the opportunity to present that information. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: In the seat of Collie-Preston, a $400 000 footbridge will be installed to link the north and south sides of Collie River, as well as more parking, lighting and drainage around the town. Several members interjected. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: Does the member agree with that? Mr M.P. Murray: The shire is deciding whether it wants the footbridge. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: That is why it has applied for the money. I have been made aware that the member for Collie-Preston went to the local government and thought of an incentive to bring Arnott’s to town. An Arnott’s factory in town may well provide the member with what he needs to get through the day, but unfortunately there is no Arnott’s factory in this scheme. In the member for North West’s electorate, there will be 14 new staff houses for the Shire of Roebourne. It will be the first time since the 1980s that staff houses have been built in that most important development area of the state and that is something we very much support. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: That is a very good initiative and I congratulate the minister on that. Mr B.J. GRYLLS: In the member for Pilbara’s electorate, there will be the installation of boundary fencing at Marble Bar RSL Memorial Park and Nullagine Park, upgrades to street lighting in Port Hedland, the upgrade of the swimming pool at South Hedland Aquatic Centre and, one of my favourites, a $120 000 tree planting program in Newman. It is disappointing that the member for Pilbara is not in this place today, because he is very upset about the colour of the royalty for regions scheme. Unfortunately, I do not think I can do anything about the trees that are being planted in Newman. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members!

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4827

Mr B.J. GRYLLS: These are just some of the projects being funded under the country local government fund. Once the full list is made available to me, I will make sure that I table it so that all members can see it. The member for Kalgoorlie asked whether this would continue into the future. It is important to know that the commitment by the Premier and the Liberal-National government is to invest in local government and community infrastructure in regional Western Australia, which is a fundamental platform of the new government. We have committed to continue that over the next four years of this budget program. Members of the Labor Party need to have a close word with the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, because the shadow Treasurer was reported in The Sunday Times as saying that under Labor the $400 million allocation to the country local government fund would not be there. We already see the opposition deciding that there is not a $1.7 billion infrastructure shortfall in local government in Western Australia. It has decided it will scrap the local government fund. I hope that each of the country members of the Labor Party will go to the shadow Treasurer and tell him to reconsider that very unwise decision.

DRUG-DRIVING LAWS 500. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Minister for Police: I refer to the minister’s commitment to strongly enforce drug-driving laws. (1) How is that commitment compatible with the decision in the 2009-10 budget to purchase only an additional two drug buses in four years? (2) How will it be possible to enforce these laws statewide with only one vehicle in the meantime? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for the question. The government obviously has a commitment to drug-driving as well as drink-driving laws. The member would be aware that with the financial constraints the state faces, in the same way as every country in the world, we cannot do everything at once. However, apart from the two drug-drink buses that we intend to have on the roads in our term of government—it will not be this year because it is not in the budget—the police have the option, which is what I think they are looking at doing, to test people they suspect might be under the influence of drugs. The equipment is available for certain patrol cars, although it will not be the full kit that is found in drug buses. However, if somebody is found through a preliminary test to be under the influence of certain drugs, that person can be taken to a police station for analysis. We have the equipment; there should be no mistake about that. However, the member must understand that we have to prioritise all our expenditure. Ms M.M. Quirk: So ablutions blocks in country towns are more important than enforcing the drug-driving laws throughout the state. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is a really stupid comment. I think that is a bit beneath the member for Girrawheen. She knows my commitment and the commitment of this government. We are bringing in some of the toughest legislation this state will ever see. Ms M.M. Quirk: When? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am pretty confident that members will see it next week. We just have to get cabinet to sign off on it, which should not be a problem. I am amazed at the attitude of the crowd opposite. The reason they are there and we are here is that we are tough on crime. They had eight years—no, it was seven and a half because, for some reason, they went for an early election; they could not keep up the pace. The reason we are here and they are there is that people voted us into government because of our stand on law and order, which is something that was woefully lacking in members opposite during that seven and a half years in government. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will not talk while the member is interjecting. In this first term of government members will see a government that is absolutely committed to cracking down on criminals, drink drivers, hoon drivers and those who speed excessively. Members will see an enormous difference between this government and the woeful performance of members opposite when in government. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. We will be cracking down on the use of drugs as well. The previous government went soft on drugs, and that is why there are so many drugs in our society now. We will be getting tough on that, and legislation will be introduced very soon that will re-establish the emphasis on trying to crack down on drug dealers, drug pushers and drug takers. That is something that the previous government was not prepared to do. The previous government went soft on drugs. It was happy for everybody to be able to grow two cannabis plants per person in their homes. What a disgraceful dereliction of duty! The opposition has ignored the needs and the wants of our children. It is putting drugs in front of them. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

4828 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

EDUCATION — BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT CENTRES 501. Ms A.R. MITCHELL to the Minister for Education: In my time as a teacher, I was well aware of antisocial behaviour in the classroom and the playground, and the impact that behaviour had on the education of our students. Can the minister inform the house about what the state government is doing to improve student behaviour in Western Australian public schools? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: I thank the member for Kingsley for the question and for her interest in this issue. A major election commitment of the government was a large injection of funds into behaviour management and behaviour improvement. In my first two months as minister I discovered on visits to schools that highly disruptive students are a major issue for teachers and principals. This issue was dealt with by the previous government with the establishment of behaviour management centres. Today I have announced that we will extend that program with six more behaviour management centres—three in the secondary area and three in the primary area. All of these centres will be in major regional centres. Seven of the centres set up by the previous government were in the metropolitan area. The three secondary centres will be in Port Hedland, Bunbury and Geraldton, and the three primary centres are in Bunbury, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton. Planning for those centres will begin immediately. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Will they be state or federally funded? Dr E. CONSTABLE: They will be funded by the state. Planning will begin immediately, and I hope the centres will be well and truly up and running before the end of the year. These centres are designed to cater for students with highly disruptive and challenging behaviours. They are part of a $46 million strategy in addition to other funding for behaviour management that the government is injecting into this area. The centres provide programs for students who are best dealt with and catered for with individually tailored management programs. A problem that many schools are facing is that these highly disruptive students interfere with the learning of other students, so that at least the plan for them to be moved out of their regular classrooms to participate in programs gives them the best opportunity of being reintegrated into their schools or, if they are older teenagers, to have the opportunity to move into training at some point. In addition to the behaviour centres, government is also providing funds for 25 school psychologists to be trained in the mental first aid program, also to help those students who have extreme emotional and behavioural issues. As well as providing for those students who need support immediately, it is very important to always look at early intervention, and the positive parenting program will receive $1.46 million to provide early intervention programs for 100 centres in the metropolitan area and 60 in country areas. Mrs M.H. Roberts: What about the 450 teachers’ aide positions you are cutting? Will they help? The SPEAKER: Member for Midland, I was very subtle before, but perhaps I should have formally called you to order. I now formally call you to order. Dr E. CONSTABLE: All of these things add up to a major commitment by this government to improve behaviour in schools and to support teachers, principals and those students who need special support. WATER SUPPLIES — SECURITY 502. Mr F.M. LOGAN to the Minister for Water: I refer to the minister’s dire warnings to the house yesterday and the imminent threat of sprinkler bans across Western Australia. (1) Will the minister now act responsibly and reinstate the 5.5 gigalitre Logue Brook water trade deal with Harvey Water to secure Perth’s water supply for this summer? (2) Will the minister immediately reverse his decision to axe the highly successful Waterwise program? (3) Will the minister outline his strategy to provide adequate water supplies to Perth should we continue to experience a record dry winter? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: (1)-(3) I ask the member for Cockburn whether he will support a very good program of asking the people of Perth to conserve water over winter by switching off their sprinklers. The member for Cockburn — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: The member for Cockburn is the only one who can save the day? Is that what you’re saying? The SPEAKER: I know that the member for Armadale has a great interest in this matter, but she did not ask the question. I call the member for Armadale to order for the first time. Dr G.G. JACOBS: The member for Cockburn is implying that the issue of Logue Brook and water rebates has, in some way, threatened our water supply.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4829

Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan: Yes! It’s pretty logical! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I know that the member for Cockburn is interested in a particular answer. Some members might not be, but I would prefer to hear the minister in silence. Dr G.G. JACOBS: The member for Cockburn should look at what is happening with our dams, including the very much reduced resource of Logue Brook, and the fact that we have had only 77 millimetres of rainfall this year to date when the expected average is 318 millimetres. Perth has this year overdrawn eight gigalitres of water against last year’s rates through domestic water use. We have a water demand management issue, and if the member for Cockburn were responsible, he would not pick out the issue of water rebates. The water rebates scheme had run its life and had reached — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I asked members to hear the minister in silence. I ask members to respect what I ask of them. I formally call to order the member for Mandurah for the first time, and the member for Armadale for the second time. Dr G.G. JACOBS: It disappoints me that the opposition cannot see that we have an 8 gigalitre overdraw of water in Western Australia, and at least 40 per cent of that is due to sprinklers on lawns and gardens. Let us save that resource over winter now; that is my call to the people of Western Australia. If the opposition had any civic responsibility, it would join me in calling on people to exercise their civic responsibility to save this very important resource for summer. Organisations such as the Conservation Council of Western Australia support this move to introduce a very sensible and responsible program to save water. We do not know what the future situation for rainfall will be, and this is a responsible move to highlight this issue and to save this resource for summer next year. WATER SUPPLIES — SECURITY 503. Mr F.M. LOGAN to the Minister for Water: I have a supplementary question. Apart from flailing about in this house, pleading with Western Australian consumers to save water, what decisive action will the minister take to secure Western Australia’s water supply for next summer? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: There are numerous methods for using the resource well and developing new resources. We have been through that in budget estimates. The whole issue of security through diversity — Mr F.M. Logan interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Cockburn! Dr G.G. JACOBS: The member for Cockburn had been going on about infill sewerage but he then said that I should spend more money on looking at a recharge of the Gnangara mound; he wanted both things. We have been faced with an unprecedented dry season this year and we need to consider that responsibly. I call on the people of Western Australia and the member for Cockburn to join me in that responsible move and ask people to conserve this resource for the future. MINISTER FOR HEALTH — VISIT TO GERALDTON AND TOM PRICE 504. Mr I.C. BLAYNEY to the Minister for Health: I understand that the minister visited Tom Price last week to address certain regional health issues facing residents in the Pilbara. Can the minister advise whether he met the Tom Price District Hospital community action group during his visit; and, if so, can he run through some of the outcomes of the meeting? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: It is a pity that the member for Pilbara is not in the chamber, as I was going to have a go at him for his comments the other day. However, I thank the member for Geraldton for the question; it was very good. We stopped first in Geraldton and we got the opportunity to have discussions with the Department of Indigenous Affairs staff about local Aboriginal issues. However, we also met the member for Pilbara’s good friend Sandy Davies—I am sure he is a friend of yours too, Mr Speaker—of the Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service. As we all know, he is a very outspoken gentleman. However, he gave a very impressive presentation on the services the Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service provides. If all Aboriginal medical services were as good as that service, there could be a huge increase in the services that we provide to Aboriginal people. We did visit Tom Price as well, which was at the request of the parents of a child with a speech disability. The member for Alfred Cove’s committee has presented to the Parliament a report that examined the provision of

4830 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] those sorts of services by occupational therapists, speech therapists, school nurses and the like. We know that there is a major problem in the huge shortfall in services. However, the speech therapist who visits Tom Price and Paraburdoo is now located in Port Hedland and flies in once a month to provide the service. The therapist gets there late in the morning, is there for only that day and the next morning and then goes off again. It is very difficult to provide adequate therapy. About 20 parents turned up to the meeting in Tom Price, all of whom have children in similar circumstances. It is very difficult to get that sort of access for their care. It was put to me that they desperately needed an increase in services. One option is to employ someone based in that town. It would be a great thing if we could get someone based in Tom Price, but currently, as I said, that person is based in Port Hedland. We have tried before to get someone and it is has been very difficult. We could spend a lot of time advertising for people to come to a new town. Although Paraburdoo and Tom Price are beautiful towns, they generally stay six months and the whole problem starts again and we have to re-recruit and re-sort out housing. We therefore discussed an interesting concept while we were in Tom Price, which I intend to explore. There are people already living in the town—often partners of people working in the mining industry who are former teachers or in some cases former nurses—who have some degree of expertise and who could contribute that expertise and assist people, particularly those with a speech disability. If I can employ those people in the town, perhaps even two or three, they would then go to a person’s house with the latest technology available in portable telehealth. They would work with the trainer, the mother and the child on regular upgrades of the teaching program that those kids need, particularly giving the ones with speech disabilities early access to training. It is an alternative method of providing those services and would not be as good as employing a trained, qualified speech therapist. However, I believe it is a method that we should consider using in country regions, given the improvements in technology in a range of areas, including specialist medical treatment in other areas, to make sure that someone in the town is doing the work and linking up directly one-on-one with patients to provide that expertise wherever the patients might be: Perth, Port Hedland or wherever. It is an option that we intend to explore and if we are successful in finding someone to do that job in Tom Price and Paraburdoo, we might be able to extrapolate that out to the rest of regional and rural Western Australia. PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING — PURCHASE OF STOCK 505. Mr P. PAPALIA to the Minister for Local Government: I refer to the public library framework agreement and the previous government’s commitment to spend $30 million over three years for the purchase of new library stock. (1) Is it true that the government omitted from the budget funding for stocking the state’s libraries? (2) Does that not mean that local governments around the state will be compelled to increase their contribution to libraries beyond the $66 million that they already commit? (3) Is this a $30 million hole in the 2009-10 budget? Mr G.M. CASTRILLI replied: (1)-(3) I hope that there is funding for the purchase of library books. I need to confirm this, but I think it is in the arts and culture budget. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I have given the member for Warnbro a supplementary question if he wants to ask one. PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING — PURCHASE OF STOCK 506. Mr P. PAPALIA to the Minister for Local Government: How then does the minister explain the advice that I have received from the Western Australian Local Government Association that there is no funding for the purchase of new library stock? Mr G.M. CASTRILLI replied: It is very interesting because now I can work out a good pattern of where WALGA is at. My understanding is that the funding is in the arts budget. Mr P. Papalia: The State Library of Western Australia told WALGA it was not. Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I will confirm that and get back to the member. POLICE — RURAL CRIME UNIT 507. Mr M.J. COWPER to the Minister for Police: Over the years, primary producers in my electorate have been impacted on by the theft of stock and machinery. One of the Liberal-National Party election commitments was to re-establish the rural crime unit to help farmers combat the theft of livestock. Can the minister update the house about this initiative?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4831

Ms M.M. Quirk: The cattle rustlers can relax because they are not real coppers. The SPEAKER: Order! The question was not asked of the member for Girrawheen and I formally call her for the first time. Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: I thank the member for the question. I know that he has a great interest in this matter. I inform him that one of the inspectors who are now working for the new rural unit will be based in Waroona in his electorate, which is good news. There are a total of seven inspectors. Two are based in Perth and the others are based in Cranbrook, Williams, Morawa, Broome and, as I have said, Waroona. They will be working very closely with the regional detectives in those areas to provide livestock identification and traceability expertise to help with livestock crime investigations. Members opposite abolished the rural crime squad. That left our farmers vulnerable to the thieves in our society. Those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the members for Mandurah and Girrawheen for the second time. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am very pleased to say that the Liberal-National Government took on board the concerns of our farmers in our regional and rural areas. I had a meeting with the Commissioner of Police and my very good friend the Minister for Agriculture and Food to work out — Several members interjected. Dr G.G. Jacobs: They are not interested. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: They are not interested because to fight crime is a good story. Following that meeting, it was resolved that it would be best to enhance the capabilities of the rural crime unit. We did that by deploying seven inspectors who have specialised knowledge in livestock. They know how to trace livestock through the sale yards, abattoirs and through the export stages. The rural crime unit is backed up by detectives. I will explain what their specific role is. It is to increase the surveillance in the saleyards, export depots and abattoirs. The unit will increase compliance with stock identification and movement and identify suspected livestock offences and collect evidence before referring these matters to the WA Police detectives. Also, importantly, they will maintain a database of suspected livestock breaches, investigations, prosecutions and outcomes. By having this database, they will be able to trace any repeat offender who is stealing livestock from — Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The opposition is making light of this. They are the ones who abandoned our farmers and our rural specialists who rely on their income not only from livestock but also from supplying food to Western Australia and other parts of the world. They abandoned that unit, as they abandoned many areas of crime. They are soft on drugs and soft on crime. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I could go on forever. Mr M.P. Murray: You have sent out public servants! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Members opposite did not want anybody in place! They abandoned all our farmers! I am talking about farmers in the member’s area. We are looking after farmers in the member’s area. Someone has to do that. The member is not prepared to do that. No members opposite are prepared to do that. They abandoned those farmers. Well, we are back in government, and we are looking after those very important people in our community—our farmers. I am delighted that the new rural crime unit is up and running, and it is being very effective as we speak. ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION — DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 508. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: I refer to statements made in the Parliament by the Premier that the Aboriginal economic development division of the Department of Commerce is to be transferred to the Department of Indigenous Affairs, and to statements by both the Treasurer on 27 May and the Premier on 28 May that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs had been informed and had agreed with the abolition of the Aboriginal economic development division of the Department of Commerce. (1) What functions is the minister now taking on as Minister for Indigenous Affairs? (2) What resources is the minister putting into this function? (3) If the minister is not assuming responsibility for Aboriginal economic development in Western Australia, as the Premier has said, then who is?

4832 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) The member asked me a question about this last time, and in fact also in the estimates committee, and I made the point that although I am the minister for Aboriginal affairs, every time an issue arises that relates to an Aboriginal person, that does not make it my responsibility. I pointed out to the member last time that the Aboriginal economic development role was not mine. That role has been transferred to the Treasurer. Mr R.H. Cook: They have said that it is, now. Dr K.D. HAMES: Who said that? Mr R.H. Cook: The Deputy Premier and the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet have said that. Dr K.D. HAMES: The member has said that the Premier said something different. I do not know what the Premier said at that time. Mr R.H. Cook: You could read Hansard! Dr K.D. HAMES: Well, I could if I wanted to, but why would I? Mr R.H. Cook: Because he has directly contradicted you! Dr K.D. HAMES: Then ask the Premier about what he said. Mr R.H. Cook: I am asking you! Dr K.D. HAMES: I do not know what he said. Mr M.P. Whitely: You do not know anything when it comes to Aboriginal economic development, do you? The SPEAKER: Order, member! Dr K.D. HAMES: All I said was that this particular area is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Treasurer. ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION — DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 509. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minster for Indigenous Affairs: I ask a supplementary question. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has been directly contradicted by the Premier and the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Why has the government dropped the ball on the important issue of Aboriginal jobs? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I do not think that is the case at all. The premise that the member is putting—that we are not looking after the employment of Aboriginal people—is absolutely untrue. All the member needs to do is look at the huge amount of work that is being done by the Premier in his role as Minister for State Development, by the Minister for Regional Development — Mr M.P. Whitely interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Bassendean! Dr K.D. HAMES: — and by the Treasurer, particularly in his role as Minister for Housing. Mr M.P. Whitely interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! This is not the member for Bassendean’s question. The member for Bassendean has opportunities in this place. I formally call the member for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES: A huge amount of work is being done to deal with Aboriginal employment. Is it not funny that when I visit Aboriginal communities, as I have done a number of times already and as I intend to do significantly more, what those Aboriginal people say to me is thank God the Liberal Party is back in government! Several members interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: It is true! They say that! Mr R.H. Cook interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kwinana! Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes, they do. They say that to me all the time. Members opposite promote themselves as being the group that looks after the Aboriginal people in this state, but it is not true.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4833

Several members interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: All members have to do to find an example is to look at the issue of housing. Where is the funding for housing for Aboriginal people in this state coming from? There will be a huge amount of state and commonwealth funding for infrastructure in the remote areas. Members should look at what happens in the metropolitan area, where funding is provided for housing through the minister responsible for Homeswest. Members should consider how many houses were created under the previous Liberal government and how many were created under the Labor government. When I was the minister responsible, approximately 1 350 Homeswest houses were being built each year in this state. In the Labor Party’s last term of government, 850 Homeswest houses were built. Mr R.H. Cook: What did Sanderson say about axing the economic development division? The SPEAKER: The member for Kwinana had the opportunity to ask the question and I gave him the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. It is not an opportunity for the member to repeatedly interject. I formally call the member for Kwinana to order for the first time. I hope the minister will conclude his answer shortly. Dr K.D. HAMES: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker, I found it difficult with the constant interjections to maintain my train of thought. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that if he constantly interjects, saying things that are not true, eventually I will take some notice of him. I do not intend to. JUSTICE SYSTEM — COMMUNITY WORK 510. Mr P.T. MILES to the Minister for Corrective Services: Community work is an important non-custodial option that helps to maintain the justice system in the electorate of Wanneroo. I understand that the minister is in the process of reconfiguring the manner in which community work is supervised by his department. Is the minister able to elaborate on the changes he is contemplating? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. As at the end of this financial year a very different system of policy will be applied to community work in this jurisdiction to that which has applied in the past 10 years. It is absolutely critical to helping solve some of the problems that we are experiencing in sentencing and the prison population. Currently in our system there are over 4 000 prisoners. We have nearly double that number in the community who are being supervised on one form of order or another—parole, community-based orders or intensive supervision orders. To those orders attaches very often the requirement of community work. Having community confidence in that system and sentencing confidence on the part of the judiciary in that system is absolutely critical, yet, against all the other states and territories in Australia, Western Australia has the lowest rate of completion of community work, at about 56 per cent. Some of the other jurisdictions are managing to track upwards past 80 per cent in the completion of community work. I remember a comment made by a magistrate when I first came to this Parliament — Mr J.R. Quigley interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER: I heard a yawn from the member for Mindarie, and, of course, he is very interested in prisons and prison policies, but he is not too interested in this issue because it was a conspicuous failure on the part of members opposite to try to ensure that sentences other than imprisonment were available. It was amazing that, as community completion rates were dropping, the non-imprisonment orders to which community work was attached were not being given out in the same numbers by the courts. There were more people going through the system and fewer people with orders to which community work was attached, because the judiciary had lost confidence in that system. The problem was twofold. Firstly, the policy that we had in place in this state was indecipherable and unworkable; and, secondly, we had absolutely no stringency or discipline in enforcing it. In the past six months we have managed to more than double the turn-up rate to community work parties. In some instances, only 24 per cent of the people who were supposed to turn up for community work on a given day were there. We now have it up to over 50 per cent, and that is without changing the policy but by instructing the department to correctly enforce the existing policy. The existing policy was called the three omissions policy. It said that when an offender failed to report or comply on three separate, but consecutive, occasions, there would be a possibility of breach. The hook in that is that three separate, but consecutive, occasions meant that everybody who had a community-based order or intensive supervision order with community work attached could miss number one, miss number two and go to number three and they were perfectly safe. That cycle followed and followed and nobody was completing community work in the time period that was envisaged. That is why we had a 56 per cent rate of completion of community work, which compared very unfavourably with every other state and territory. The new policy is a very simple, easy-to-understand policy. If a person misses his community work once, he receives a warning; and, if he gives an excuse, it will have to be given within

4834 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

24 hours. If a person misses it twice—it need not be a consecutive omission—the presumption will be that he has breached, and he will be sent back to court for re-sentencing. If he misses it three times, he will know that he will automatically be breached. If we have managed to increase turn-up rates by more than 50 per cent—more than double—without changing the policy, I think we can do very positive things with instituting a quite sensible policy change.

LOAN BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [2.55 pm]: I will resume my speech by concluding my points on the estimates process. The estimates process was something of a let-down for a new member such as I. It is certainly something that I hope the Parliament will put its collective mind to addressing to find a means of better investigating the expenditures of the agencies through the budgetary process. In the future we hope to see some bettering of the process. In this speech I particularly want to focus on a number of areas that highlight the problem of the $8.3 billion loan and the fact that probably the $8.3 billion loan is not the total amount. There may be many more millions of dollars that need to be attached to that, suggesting in fact that we have a state debt that is much bigger than has been presented in the Loan Bill. One area in which it is particularly evident that we have a problem is that of waste management. We have seen in the budget papers that the state budget depends on annual revenues of $39 million from a waste levy—from a waste levy that has to be imposed on householders. That would have to be done through local governments. Indeed, it will require the amendment of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act, because the objects of that act require that the money in the waste resource recovery account—the money that is acquired from an existing levy—is put uniquely towards the reduction of waste and also the recycling of waste. The proposition that the government has put forward in this budget is that the $39 million will go to prop up the budget of the Department of Environment and Conservation. Therefore, there is a reliance in this budget on amendments to an important piece of legislation. That is a big assumption, and one that I do not think can be made lightly. It is one that may well fall through when people are given the opportunity to consider what is at stake here. I say that because there is a lot at stake. We really are in a situation in which the management of waste in this state is approaching a crisis point. People have been saying that for a number of years, but it is not to be taken lightly. The issue of how we recycle waste, how we make sure that there are market incentives for the recycling of waste, how we deal with that waste in a cost-effective manner and how we can make money from waste are matters that the previous government put its mind to and did an extensive amount of work on. It might be the Yorkshireman in me that makes me say this, but the accent would be something like this: “Lad, where there’s muck there’s money.” I gather that Hansard will not be able to record that attempt at a Yorkshire accent. However, when we see the amount of waste that is generated by our society and consider that it is lost to the economy, something is going wrong. We prefer to plunder natural areas, natural resources and resources in general—virgin resources—rather than going for recycled product. There is a lack of a level playing field. We really need to establish a level playing field so that recycled product is able to compete with new product. That is the area in which we have to develop the right recycling processes. That is why the intent of our Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act is to make sure that we put money from a levy towards developing a system that will enable the proper recycling of waste materials. In a very considered piece in The West Australian on 3 June, Robert Taylor outlined the problem as he saw it following on from the budget. He wrote — The Government’s decision in the State Budget to ratchet up landfill levies an astonishing 400 per cent for industrial and household waste has caused plenty of angst in local government, where most of the anger from householders and businesses will be felt. That is a very accurate summing-up of the situation. The problem we face is that the government is slugging people an extra amount for their waste but not actually doing anything to solve the problem of waste. Something has to be said about the process used to alert the chairman of the Waste Authority, the body which is set up under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act to administer the levy and which has the job of turning around how we manage waste in this state. Mr Barry Carbon, the chairman of the Waste Authority, received a letter from the Minister for Environment, Hon Donna Faragher, on 15 May telling him to up the amount of the levy. He was told that the new levy rates would be $28 a tonne for liable putrescible landfill sites and $12 a cubic metre for liable inert landfill sites. He was just told to up the levy. There was no consultation with the expert body in the state, the Waste Authority, on how to tackle the problem. The chairman was just told to do it without any consultation at all. The letter from the Minister for Environment states —

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4835

The Budget Statements reflect an anticipated change in the expenditure rules for revenue from the landfill levy, — Anticipated, but not guaranteed — which would allow funds from the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Account … to be applied to a broader range of environmental and conservation purposes. That is code for making the Department of Environment and Conservation’s budget dependent on waste. The production of more waste actually means a better budget for our Department of Environment and Conservation. What a terrible situation in which to put our environment and the funding of one of our most important agencies. That is an outrageous situation! This all comes at a time when we should be looking at smart ways to reduce our ecological footprint. There are a number of excellent ecological footprint calculators that I would counsel members to view, including the wwf.org.au footprint calculator. Using that calculator, members can see just how much footprint is generated through the production of waste and therefore realise that this is something that we really have to tackle. If everyone on the planet lived the sort of consumption lifestyle that Australians live, we would require between three and four planet earths to support that lifestyle. Obviously, that is a totally unsustainable situation. I will conclude on the issue of this imposition, this directive, to the chairman of the Waste Authority. Mr Carbon was in fact obliged to make changes without a meeting. On Wednesday, 20 May 2009, the Waste Authority, without having met, had to issue a resolution to change the levy rates. It had to agree to advise the Governor of the new landfill levies. That is, I think, an abuse of process which is quite unacceptable and which, what is more, goes against so much of the good advice that we have on the management of waste. We need to bear in mind that Western Australia is one of the lowest recyclers in the nation and one of the very highest producers of waste. Of course we need to have in place a mechanism that can turn that around, which is the intent of the existing levy. In fact, when Cheryl Edwardes was Minister for the Environment in 1997, she said that the levy funds would not be used to fund the ongoing usual activities of the Department of Environmental Protection—as the Department of Environment and Conservation was then called—with the exception of the administration of the levy, which was to be funded by the levy. She recognised at the time of the Court Liberal government that this was critical to the success of waste management in Western Australia. I conclude my discussion on waste by mentioning a report from the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs. That committee was chaired by Hon Sheila Mills, its deputy chair was Hon Bruce Donaldson and it was made up of Liberal, Labor and Greens (WA) members. Its report states — The Committee finds that although an increase in the landfill levy may be appropriate, it is concerned that any increase in the levy may be absorbed as an additional revenue stream for the Department of Environment and Conservation’s activities in the area of waste management. There has been this temptation but there has also been a recognition that this was a very dangerous road to go down. The recommendation states — The Committee recommends that the Government implement a comprehensive review of levies, rates and charges associated with waste management, with the aim of getting a uniform, coordinated and cost reflective fee structure that can be reviewed by an independent body, such as the Economic Regulation Authority. Nothing of the sort has happened yet. I will highlight the dire situation of waste in this state by referring to the South Metropolitan Regional Council’s facility in Canning Vale. I know that this is an issue dear to the heart of the member for Jandakot and the member for Riverton. A fire went through the recycling area. Interestingly, the facility in Canning Vale has received a lot of public criticism. Perhaps some of that criticism is justified. I understand that it is solely to do with the smell generated by the composting aspect of that facility, in part caused by the green waste going into the composting area. I do not believe that the recycling of cans and paper is responsible for the smell. The problem of waste relates to the $39 million hole in the budget. I move on to the issue of container deposit legislation. At first I was pleased to see Hon Donna Faragher announce that she was welcoming further work on container deposits. When I read her media release of 22 May, I was quite disappointed because it was just an endorsement of another study, the first stage of which will involve a choice modelling survey to determine community attitudes on its preparedness to pay for a container deposit scheme. That is an absolute waste of time. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: The member for Mandurah is absolutely correct. We have had some very comprehensive, well-conducted surveys that have provided good data showing that 90 per cent of the Western Australian public absolutely endorse the idea of a 10c or 20c deposit on bottles and cans. This will be a test for the government. Will the government just buckle to the whims of the beverage industry? For some strange

4836 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] reason, the beverage industry likes to say that this is not a deposit; it is actually a tax. That is a ridiculous claim because obviously if people return their cans or bottles, they get their deposit back. The only people who would be penalised by this system are those who do the wrong thing—those who leave their beer bottle on the side of the road for it to be smashed and run over by unsuspecting cyclists who then have to suffer the problems of a puncture. Problems also arise when cans are left by the side of roads in bushland areas where fauna are inclined to put their head in. I have seen terrible photos of lizards and snakes that have gone for the little bit of sugar remaining in a can of drink and have got their heads stuck and die. Action is needed to bring about the introduction of container deposit legislation. The benefits are enormous. There are employment opportunities. We can use it as an opportunity to generate the level of critical mass that makes a recycling industry viable in Western Australia. I want to touch briefly on the issue of infill sewerage. This is something that, in my electorate, we are concerned about, particularly the absence of any ongoing funding for the infill sewerage program. It is a terrible situation. There are existing structures especially in Eileen Street and, I think, parallel to Corfield Street near Verna Street, where deep sewerage is ready, but it is not available to the majority of residents in Eileen Street. A bit of funding could provide enormous benefit by having that system installed. Realising the shortness of time I will move on from infill sewerage to the disappointment with the funding for transport and the lack of imagination. It is all very well to want to reduce the amount of expenditure but we must use innovative mechanisms to counter the problem and provide the service. Can I have a brief extension of time please? [Member’s time extended.] Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P.B. Watson). The sorts of innovation I am thinking of were mentioned by the member for Joondalup, who highlighted the benefits of giving some encouragement to car-pooling arrangements. At the moment, the vast majority of vehicles arrive at train station car parks with only one person in the car. In other words, we hear a great deal of outcry about a fantastic train system for which not enough car parks are provided. We could counter the lack of car parking bays by providing some sort of incentive such as priority parking at the train station to people who arrange with their neighbours to take two or three people in their car to the station. The benefits of that would be enormous. It would save at least $51 million because that is the amount we will spend on creating 3 000 car parking bays and that will probably not be enough while individuals continue with this rampant desire to drive to the station alone in their individual cars. Rather than spending $51 million we could encourage people to do something a little cleverer and a bit community oriented by working with their neighbours to drive to the train line efficiently and cooperatively. Instead, in answer to a question on notice when I raised this issue, the Minister for Transport straightaway dismissed it as an idea that was not acceptable because he says in answer to parliamentary question on notice 784 — … Not all passengers will want to or be able to arrange to share their journey to the station. Because of that idea the minister has—no doubt there is some substance to his argument, although he has not presented any—no suggestions have been made for how we could possibly instigate some sort of incentive system. It is very disappointing. Another very disappointing matter that relates particularly to my electorate, and which concerns also my friend, the member for Southern River, is the traffic snarl that occurs around Bannister Road and Garden Street on Nicholson Road. Some terrible traffic build-ups occur there at peak-hour times, yet nothing is allocated in this budget to remedy that situation that impacts on many of my constituents and, indeed, the member for Southern River’s constituents. Mr P. Abetz interjected. Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: I have asked questions about funding to resolve the problem, and I have not heard anything yet. I have asked parliamentary questions and not received back any positive suggestions. I received a response yesterday that the City of Gosnells can deal with it. Mr P. Abetz interjected. Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: The information I have does not back up what the member is saying. Hopefully, the member for Southern River and I can work collaboratively to solve that transport problem. I fear, though, that we will have to wait until a Labor government is returned before we see some innovative solutions that lead to the sort of infrastructure that is required. I turn now to energy and the problem of the gross feed-in tariff. It is a problem because a promise had been made by the Minister for Energy, Hon Peter Collier, that this Liberal government stood for a gross feed-in tariff. On Thursday 19 March there was a debate in the Legislative Council on the renewable energy technologies gross feed-in tariff motion in which Hon Peter Collier said —

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4837

I say at the outset that the government supports this motion. Therefore, I find it astounding that in the budget we are told that it is not a gross feed-in tariff; it is a net feed-in tariff. This is about the money that people are paid when they put photovoltaic panels on their roofs. It is something that I am sure all members would agree is a very sensible thing to do and something that people should be given some incentive to do, just as in Germany. We know that people in Germany are paid a substantial gross feed-in tariff, which has acted as a huge stimulus in making that country one of the first manufacturers — Mr W.R. Marmion: Number one. Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: Germany’s gross feed-in tariff has made it the number one country for photovoltaic energy. I think the new member for Fremantle touched on this issue as well. It is an issue that really should be dealt with properly, but instead we have a government that is backing away from a commitment on a feed-in tariff for electricity produced by photovoltaic panels. Another statement on 14 May from the Minister for Energy, Hon Peter Collier, stated — In meeting the Government’s election commitments, $13.5 million will be allocated over four years to introduce of a gross feed-in tariff for solar energy … Therefore, people who were perhaps of a Liberal Party inclination in their voting would have been getting messages all along that they had the right idea in supporting the Liberal Party and thinking that it would get them a gross feed-in tariff. But then the reality comes along—it is not a gross feed-in tariff; it is a net feed-in tariff and that is all we are getting. Indeed, there is even a serious question mark over the amount of money that will be made available to provide people with some sort of payment for that net feed-in tariff. I will move on to a planning issue. I think there had been some hope that the new Minister for Planning would continue the very good work done by the previous Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. However, yesterday there was an announcement about Moore River near Guilderton. It is not very far from Perth and it is a wonderful, beautiful area where the Moore River winds through to the township of Guilderton. Quite often there is a sand spit across the river mouth. It is a wonderful estuary with absolutely outstanding natural values. A couple of landholders, I think the Plunkett Homes builder-developer is the principal one, want to build a huge subdivision there. The Minister for Planning announced yesterday that he would allow a development for 6 000 people in 2 000 dwellings to go in this almost pristine area, this wonderful asset, that we have so close to Perth. He wants to see this area turned into the northernmost edge of urban expansion and urban sprawl. To sprawl up to Moore River would mean pushing the edge of urban sprawl out by at least another 30 kilometres, which raises serious questions about the sorts of jobs that people would commute to from this Moore River development. It also raises serious questions, of course, about the environmental impact of the development, as well as questions about the sort of infrastructure needed and who will pay for that infrastructure. We know from previous proposals that the proponent was expecting the state to pay for some sort of bridge to be built. This is all overturning the wonderful work done by the previous government and the Western Australian Planning Commission. In April 2005 the Western Australian Planning Commission stated that a number of aspects of the proposed urban development south of Moore River were considered to be contrary to the state sustainability strategy’s principles, one of which was the scale of urban expansion. The WA Planning Commission found that unacceptable. The proposed development was also considered to be contrary to social and economic sustainability principles. The commission had considered the issues of where people would work and how they would get to shopping places and so forth. It looks like the enlightened position of the WA Planning Commission in 2005, the position of the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, has been overturned with just one media release, one announcement and one bit of pandering to supporters of the Liberal Party. That is extremely disappointing, but I think it needs to be before the Western Australian public because it defines where the Liberal Party is today, which is in the pockets of big developers such as the Plunketts who want to push along developments in pristine areas such as Moore River. When Dr Geoff Gallop was Premier of Western Australia, he was very keen to make sure that this state would protect such areas. He wrote to the Shire of Gingin saying that there had to be 100 metre setbacks and a review of all sorts of scientific studies that had been put forward to ensure that this area was not developed in any haphazard or dangerous way for the environment or people, or in an economically untenable way. It has already been mentioned in the debate that some $166 million of the $8.3 billion is being dedicated for a road. It needs to be said that based on information that has come out in the past few weeks, it is a road that goes to nowhere. The idea of building Roe Highway stage 8 is that it would somehow facilitate transport of trucks and freight into the port of Fremantle. We recently heard that the intention of the Premier, and I imagine of the government as a whole, is to eventually move the port of Fremantle to Cockburn Sound. Why on earth would they then want to spend $166 million building a road that would go through the internationally recognised wetland area of Beeliar Regional Park and the Japan Australia Migratory Birds Agreement and China Australia Migratory Birds Agreement wetlands, which are recognised for their migratory bird species. Signatories to the

4838 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] international agreements include Japan, China and South Korea. We expect other countries to honour their part of these international agreements. Why can Australia not honour its part? Mr W.J. Johnston: Maybe the member for Jandakot can explain why we are going to build over there. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.M. Francis): The member knows better than to reflect on the member for Jandakot when he is sitting in the chair. Mr C.J. TALLENTIRE: We look forward to hearing the member for Jandakot. The Roe Highway stage 8 extension is not only environmentally disastrous, but also economically costly to this budget. It is also potentially the construction of a white elephant. The Loan Bill with its $8.3 billion represents a massive financial debt to the state of Western Australia, but it is more than that, because it also represents a massive debt that we are making for future generations through the depletion of our environmental heritage. It also has some very dangerous social aspects—I use the example of Moore River again—by placing people at the outer limits of metropolitan Perth in places where they will be isolated and eventually marginalised. On those counts, this budget and the $8.3 billion represent a massive debt, which certainly fails any test that could be applied through the use of sustainability principles. We will be living with the consequences of it for many years to come. MR M.P. WHITELY (Bassendean) [3.24 pm]: I will use the next half-hour to outline my frustration and anger at the commonwealth government’s handling of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Both the Howard and Rudd governments have expressed concern about misdiagnosis and over-prescription for ADHD. However, both delegated their concerns to the ADHD industry to address. Of course, it is the very industry that created the problem in the first place. We have had enormous success in Western Australia. Child drugging rates are down from an estimated 18 000 in 2000 to just over 6 000 in 2007. Two very good clinics are to open up in the next six to eight months. They will give a full assessment of children’s behavioural and learning difficulties and reduce reliance on ADHD medication. All that good work is in peril in Western Australia, but probably more so in the rest of Australia where states are more likely to follow the federal government’s lead. I am particularly angry with the Rudd government’s Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, who was a lion in opposition on this issue and has been a mouse in government. Specifically, in opposition she called for the full disclosure of the pharmaceutical company ties of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians ADHD guidelines development group. She called for that loud and clear in opposition, but in government she has actually covered up those ties. In opposition she called for an independent inquiry along the lines of the 2004 Education and Health Standing Committee inquiry into ADHD, but in government she has gone back to the ADHD industry for advice. I will say a lot more about that later. I have tried to work cooperatively with her and her office through a number of forums. I will not outline them, but substantial efforts have been made to get her to work on a cooperative basis with me, and I have given up in frustration. One of the issues I have made the most noise about publicly is the Howard government’s decision to put a drug called Strattera—atomoxetine hydrochloride—on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This decision came into effect on 1 July 2007. This drug, Strattera, was subsidised by the PBS under the Howard government at a cost of $101.2 million over four years. Strattera carries a black box warning for suicidal ideation—the highest possible warning that can be carried for a drug. I have talked about this drug at length in Parliament before. In fact, the last time I talked about Strattera was about a year ago, when I went through a series of adverse event reports collected by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I am going to go through the new adverse event reports for Strattera that have occurred over the past 12 months. I will read out 13 incidents of suicidal ideation, mainly amongst children; in other words, kids wanting to kill themselves as a result of taking this drug to deal with what is considered troublesome behaviour. Before I do, I point out that research done by Con Berbatis, from Curtin University of Technology, showed that, because this is a voluntary reporting system, only a tiny fraction of the adverse events that actually occur get reported. He estimated that as little as two per cent of adverse event reports for drugs get reported by general practitioners. I am not suggesting that these accounts represent only two per cent for Strattera. It may be much higher for that drug because some of the adverse event reports are very serious. However members should understand that these 13 reports are only a fraction of the total figure. We do not know whether they represent four, 10 or 20 per cent of the total figure. If they represent 20 per cent of the total figure, that is 10 times the amount of reporting that the researcher encountered by general practitioners. I will read through some of these reports. The first relates to an eight-year-old boy who experienced suicidal ideation, including drawings of himself hanging upside down from a tree in the ocean. A 28-year-old male experienced suicidal ideation. A nine-year-old girl experienced self-harming, although the account does not detail the nature of the self-harm. This next report is the second time I have read a report of this type in this Parliament. A 12-year-old girl taking the drug to address her behavioural problems was so distressed that she ripped out her fingernails and toenails. An 11-year-old boy suffered the emergence of suicidal ideation. I am only reading these very briefly because I have got a lot to say. A 14-year-old boy experienced suicidal ideation. I will read the full report on another 13-year-old boy. It states —

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4839

By 2nd week on 40mg dose of Strattera parents noticed patient was more moody, irritable, but patient noticed concentration had improved at school, by 4th week—suicidal ideation (wanting to end it all, life is not worth living), no specific plans, physical and verbal aggression to family, school teachers and peers, roughly handling pets. Crying excessively, angry, withdrawn, socially isolatory, impulsive, moody, stopped being affectionate to family. However, his concentration at school had improved! Other reports refer to an 11-year-old boy who became extremely agitated, terrified and talked about wanting to die; a nine-year-old boy who experienced suicidal thoughts, ongoing nausea and taste disturbance; a 10-year-old boy who developed psychotic symptoms and was being vague and talked about suicide; a seven-year-old boy who experienced suicidal ideation; and a 25-year-old woman who experienced suicidal ideation. The final report of a suicidal ideation is of a 48-year-old man. I have read out only the reports on suicidal ideation, but there are another 11 reports. Over the past year, there have been 24 reports. As I said, this is only the tip of the iceberg because this is a voluntary reporting system and only a tiny fraction of reports are made. The call I made to Tony Abbott when he was the federal health minister was: do not make this bad decision; do not include this drug on the schedule of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In fact, the Australian Childhood Foundation went a step further and asked the minister to ban this drug altogether. We do not need this drug to improve kids’ concentration at school. I had no success. I had a sympathetic hearing from Nicola Roxon when she was the opposition spokesperson on health, but I have faced a stone wall since she became the Minister for Health and Ageing. Those reports speak for themselves. I will return to the point that I made earlier. I stated that the immediate problem is that national guidelines for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder published in 1997 were rescinded by the National Health and Medical Research Council on 31 December 2005. On behalf of the Howard government, the NHMRC outsourced the development of new treatment guidelines to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. That sounds pretty straightforward and credible, until one does some research into the RACP. I would suggest that that organisation is not an independent guardian of professional standards. In the past fortnight a campaign by Dr Jon Jureidini has received publicity and has highlighted that Australian medical professionals could be compromised by commercial relationships. One does not have to dig too far to find those relationships. The RACP website details its most recent convention, Physicians Week 2009, which finished in May. The sponsors and exhibitors at that convention included Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly Australia and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, all of which are ADHD drug manufacturers; and a host of other pharmaceutical companies. That was true for 2009, 2008 and 2007 and if I were to go further back, I suspect it would be true for previous years as well. Those relationships were revealed by a casual effort to uncover RACP’s commercial conflicts of interest. They were easy to find, and I found them in about five minutes. The RACP has commercial relationships with the pharmaceutical industries that produce ADHD drugs. In May 2007 the RACP guidelines committee was chaired by Dr Daryl Efron. It was disclosed that Dr Efron’s had connections with drug companies; he worked on the advisory boards of Novartis, the manufacturer of Ritalin, and Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Strattera, the drugs that I just spoke about. Dr Efron argued that he had no conflict of interest. He made an interesting point, because implicit in that comment is the thought that he is independent of the drug companies. It is interesting when one reviews Dr Efron’s public statements on ADHD drug treatment because he does not always agree with the drug companies. In fact, one of the pieces of advice that Dr Efron gave, which received publicity at the time, was contrary to the guidelines of Novartis, the drug manufacturer. Novartis states: do not use Ritalin in children under the age of six, whereas Dr Efron recommends it! Dr Efron has publicly advocated for the use of Ritalin in children under the age of six! It is true that he does not always take the advice of the drug companies; however, that is an example of the fact that he is prepared to go beyond what the drug companies recommend, and to recommend the use of psychotropic drugs on some very young children. Dr Efron’s drug company connections were disclosed in the Daily Telegraph in late April-early May 2007, which reported that Tony Abbott said — … it was “not a good look” … That is, to have a chairperson with those drug company connections, and within a very short period Dr Efron resigned. The Daily Telegraph reported that Tony Abbott also said — … he “instinctively questioned” the long-term use of drugs for non-life-threatening conditions. This followed on from comments from the then Prime Minister, John Howard, who a week earlier on 27 April 2007 was reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying — … he was worried about reports of over-prescription of Ritalin. Howard went on to say that the government —

4840 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

… was awaiting the outcome of a government-funded review of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of ADHD by the Royal College of Physicians. Those comments by Howard and the comments by Abbott that I am about to read out reveal the fatal flaw in the Howard government’s approach, and I would argue also the Rudd government’s approach. Abbott is further reported in the Daily Telegraph as follows — “I want to see new clinical guidelines but I stress it is up to the experts to carefully weigh all the issues,” Mr Abbott said. All of that sounds terribly reasonable. However, who are the experts? Unfortunately, the experts in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians guidelines group were, with some exceptions, ADHD industry insiders— people with commercial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, back in April 2007, when Dr Efron’s pharmaceutical ties were disclosed, a number of people called for the disclosure of the drug company connections of all members of the RAPC guidelines committee, and leading the charge was Nicola Roxon as opposition health spokesperson. In fact in June 2007 she was reported in the Daily Telegraph as having said — These guidelines are incredibly important and it is important there is public confidence in them … Given the controversy surrounding ADHD, releasing the names is the sensible option to help restore public confidence in the process. Nicola Roxon therefore said that the names should be put out there so that some research could be done to find out whether these people had a conflict of interest, all of which I applauded at the time. I thought: wonderful, here we go, a brand-new approach. However, she became the Minister for Health and Ageing about six months later in November 2007 and did not do a thing. She did not insist on their disclosure. In fact a year later there was some public disclosure of the level of the conflict of interest. There was an article that appeared in Adelaide’s The Advertiser in November 2008, a year after Nicola Roxon failed to reveal the drug company connections. The article reads — Seven of the … 10 group members, including doctors, have declared receiving grants and air fares, hotels and overseas trips from companies making drugs to treat the disorder. One non-medical member, former teacher Geraldine Moore, had the bill for her Sydney book launch picked up by Eli Lilly, manufacturer of one of the two major ADHD drugs, Stattera. … The newspaper has obtained the conflict of interest declarations made by nine of the 10 original working group members. The 10th has demanded details remain secret. Two of the nine since have quit. Among replacements is educational consultant Michelle Pearce, — She is from Western Australia — who helped write a booklet “Teenagers with ADHD” for drug company, Novartis. So there we are, at least 70 per cent—I suspect that the tenth one wants it covered up—and therefore probably 80 per cent have drug company connections. I happen to know many of the drug company connections. They will be revealed in the fullness of time, but I do not have time to go through them today. At least 70 per cent, but in all probability 80 per cent of them, had ties to the drug companies. In November 2008, Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon asked Senator Joe Ludwig, who represents Minister Roxon in the Senate, about the conflicts of interest. Senator Xenophon wanted to know details about the conflict of interest. The minister’s response was — The minister has been advised that the conflicts of interest declared by working party members are consistent with the normal range associated with clinician review committees of this nature. If that is true, it is even more worrying. The federal government is saying that 70 per cent or 80 per cent is standard. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M.P. WHITELY: We can expect that level of drug company conflict when guideline reviews are conducted for all sorts of other conditions. I do not have as great an interest in other conditions because this issue is enough of an obsession to have without worrying about other conditions. It certainly is not a defence to say that it is standard government practice. In fact, it is a real concern. Nicola Roxon, as opposition spokesperson in April and May 2007, called for full disclosure but failed to deliver it in 2007 when she became the minister. When the conflicts of interest were exposed in 2008, she again failed when she was asked in the Senate to detail them but did not do so. Another thing that Nicola Roxon called for when she was the opposition spokesperson was an independent inquiry. She said it was to be along the lines of the inquiry into ADHD in Western Australia three years ago. She said that she did not want children being

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4841 medicated if they did not need it, and wanted to ensure that the children who needed support and assistance could get it; so we must get the balance right. That was a great call. The inquiry that she was referring to was an inquiry of the Education and Health Standing Committee, of which I was a co-opted member. It was made up of members from the Labor, Liberal and National Parties, and it included Mike Board and Paul Andrews, who brought an open mind to this matter and reached the same opinion as I had. It was a very good inquiry. Nicola Roxon held out that inquiry as a gold-standard inquiry. However, when she came to government, she completely ignored the Western Australian experience and relied on the guidelines of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the membership of which is conflicted. I am of the same political colour as Nicola Roxon but I joined the Labor Party to look after the most vulnerable people. There is no-one more vulnerable than a child, including a 12-year-old girl who rips out her toenails and fingernails and a seven-year-old boy who wants to kill himself. I believed that the Labor Party would take this issue seriously. I implore the Rudd government and Nicola Roxon to pull out their finger and get on with the job. I will talk for a minute about where the process is at. The draft guidelines that were made public, which I have had an opportunity to view, have gone back to the committee and the committee has worked on them. The RACP committee has handed it to the National Health and Medical Research Council. The full council is considering the final guidelines for public release. I am very hopeful that the NHMRC has enough brains to override the draft guidelines. All the indications so far, from my reading of the tea leaves, are that these things will slip through unnoticed. The consequences of following through this flawed process will be a disaster. The guidelines are incredibly drug-company friendly but hostile to children. If implemented, the recommendations will result in the use of amphetamines—Ritalin, which is an amphetamine-like drug, dexamphetamine and/or Strattera—as the first-line treatment for a condition, the diagnostic criteria for which includes avoiding homework, fidgeting in the seat, playing too loudly and seeming to not listen. It will encourage a biochemical intervention with amphetamines and other dangerous drugs to address those behavioural and educational problems. Specifically, the guidelines encourage the off-label prescription of a range of other drugs, including selective serotonin re- uptake inhibitors, which will potentially expose to litigation those clinicians who follow the guidelines and prescribe off-label medication. The recommendations will also create an incentive for schools to act as commission-based ADHD spotters. I say that because one of the recommendations is that schools be provided with extra funding if children in their cohort are diagnosed with ADHD. That will create an incentive, as it has in the United States, for schools to have more kids diagnosed with ADHD. Another of the recommendations is that screening for ADHD be done inside the prison system. That recommendation may ultimately lead to a cheap source of amphetamines within the prison system that can be diverted to other prisoners. A host of other disastrous consequences are likely to come about if these draft guidelines are approved. The defence that will be used against these criticisms is that the RACP committee took an approach that was evidence based. That is absolute rubbish. It is a complete nonsense to say that is what the RACP committee did. The majority of the controversial recommendations that were made by the RACP committee were based on the consensus of the guidelines group. These recommendations have been justified as being “best practice based on clinical experience and expert opinion”. In my opinion, just because these recommendations are based upon the clinical experience of those in the guidelines group does not make them expert opinions. Expert opinion is certainly no substitute for science. Consensus is not science. The consensus of people who have drug company financial connections is certainly not independent science. This is not an evidence-based approach to medicine. In fact, some of the studies that the group relied upon are completely spurious. I have lost count of the number of studies quoted in the report—it is certainly more than 50—by an American doctor by the name of Joseph Biederman. In June 2008, Dr Biederman was exposed in The New York Times as having received $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug companies between 2000 and 2007 without disclosing that to Harvard University, his employer. A number of the other studies quoted in the report are by Dr Laurence Greenhill. I have personal experience of Dr Laurence Greenhill, because I was invited to attend the Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions conference that was held in Melbourne in September 2006, and he was one of the guest speakers at that conference. I was a bit surprised to get that invitation, but I was rapt to go along. Dr Greenhill had been invited to speak to the 300 international psychiatrists and other invited guests at that conference about the debate about the box warning for ADHD drugs that had occurred in the United States in 2005 and 2006. What had happened at that time was that a specialist drug safety advisory panel of the United States Food and Drug Administration, comprising statisticians and cardiologists and all sorts of people with expertise in drug safety, had voted to put a box warning on all ADHD stimulants; that is, drugs such as dexamphetamine, Ritalin and Concerta. A box warning is the highest possible level of warning, and they recommended one such warning for psychiatric and cardiovascular events. Another panel—the paediatrics panel—had actually voted against that, and in the end the FDA decided not to put out that warning. Anyone who heard Dr Greenhill’s presentation to the audience would think that it was some sort of lunatic fringe that had wanted to put this box warning on those

4842 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] drugs. It was not. It was the drug safety advisory panel that had been commissioned by the FDA. The people on that panel are the most expert people in the United States when it comes to drug safety; yet Dr Greenhill had been paid, presumably by a drug company, to address this conference. He told those in attendance not to worry about what they read in some journals or the media because it was of no concern, as the people who raised the concerns were of no consequence. I knew that what he said was rubbish and stood up and, in my somewhat irritating style, posed a question to Dr Greenhill. I told him that I was interested in the drug company connections of the people on the paediatrics panel and asked him whether he might like to tell the conference about his drug company connections as well. Dr Greenhill did not say this at the beginning of his presentation, but he was connected with GlaxoSmithKline, an ADHD drug manufacturer; Eli Lilly; McNeil Pharmaceutical; Novartis Pharmaceuticals, another ADHD drug manufacturer; Solvay Pharmaceuticals; Bristol-Myers Squibb; and Alza Corporation. He forgot to mention that he was in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry and the ADHD drug manufacturers. However, he was giving advice to 300 assembled international psychiatrists. If it had not been for an annoying and persistent politician from Western Australia, he would not have disclosed to those assembled his drug company connections. As an aside, at that conference I was interested in a great big Eli Lilly stand, which was about 20 foot high, and male and female models were handing out free information about the drug Strattera—the very drug I mentioned earlier that resulted in the adverse events of children wanting to kill themselves and rip out their fingernails and toenails. Some very attractive young people were handing out this information and there was not one bit of information on that 20 foot stand or in the information presented to those in attendance about the dangers of Strattera. It was a conference attended by international psychiatrists who wanted to be educated on treatments for conditions such as ADHD. If some of the recommendations of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians on ADHD are put into play, it will be a disaster. I mentioned briefly the recommendation about school funding. That recommendation is that federal, state and territory funding allocations to schools need to be revised to enable schools to access funding to students diagnosed with ADHD. That would be wonderful if we knew that the kids who are diagnosed with having difficulties concentrating at school were receiving special attention. However, in the United States, it means that every school that has in attendance a child who has been diagnosed with ADHD gets approximately an extra $400 in untied funding. It is a historical figure and it might well be more than that now. In other words, they get extra money to spend on anything they want. An incentive has actually been created for the schools to have kids diagnosed: the schools get an extra $400 in funding. The other recommendation to which I referred was about prisons’ screening. I am about to run out of time, but I will conclude with this comment: we have been through it all in Western Australia. We had the leadership of people like Bob Kucera when he was the health minister, and Alan Carpenter when he was the Premier, which put Western Australia in a very good place. I acknowledge that the now Minister for Mental Health, the member for Eyre, has picked up the ball and is running with it. We have been through the ringer and had the experience. We have done well in this state. Why the hell would Canberra not look at WA’s experience and what it has done? For instance, Sydney has replaced Perth as the ADHD child drug capital of Australia. They are making all the mistakes we made, but they have the opportunity to learn from our experience. I encourage them to do that. I would encourage Canberra to pay attention to what is going on in Perth. MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [3.54 pm]: I am mindful that I have only a few minutes before debate on the Loan Bill is adjourned. However, I would like to make a start on my response to the $8.316 billion Loan Bill that we are being asked to consider. The position I would like to take in looking at this bill is, I suppose, through a much more people-focused lens, the lens of what is happening in our community, and what will happen in the coming years when Western Australians realise that, because of this level of debt that the state is entering into, the debt level for each individual will be $8 000. I want to start by talking about social exclusion and, first of all, some of the triggers that create social exclusion in a community. I beg for members’ forgiveness if this sounds like a list of things that are happening in Western Australia at the moment, but I think that is the point I am making. Firstly, there is housing affordability. When that is out of the reach of many people, there is a trigger for social exclusion. Massive debt—individual debt and state debt—is another one of the triggers in communities that create social exclusion. High unemployment rates and job losses, family violence, mental health issues, and drug and alcohol abuse issues are all triggers that contribute to social exclusion in the community. What is the impact of that on families and households in each of our electorates? Social exclusion breeds high levels of relationship breakdown and high levels of family and domestic violence, increases mental health problems and increases drug dependence and alcohol use. It is salutary to think about these things when we think about the level of debt that we are entering into with this Loan Bill. At the moment in our communities, social exclusion is probably the single most destructive factor that we all face. Certainly, I know that the people who come to see me in my electorate office come with problems such as housing affordability. That is probably one of the top things that they come to see me about. They may be on a very long public housing list, having to wait

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4843 for two or three years to be considered for public housing. Worse still, they may be pensioners who have perhaps downsized their home and bought something smaller, or they may be renting something smaller. They find that they can no longer afford the rent that they must pay just to live in the house and maintain a lifestyle that is half decent. From talking to seniors in my community, I know that many of them are spending a very high proportion of their pensions on housing. They often do not have enough money left for food, social activities and health care needs. For the first time in many years I played bingo with a seniors group in Maylands. It was a thriving community group. There must have been 50 or 60 seniors there playing bingo. I was a dismal failure in my attempt to clean out the pool. However, I sat down and talked to these pensioners about their lives and how things have been impacting on them. They are very, very concerned about their inability to meet the increasing costs of living. The cost of food in Perth has increased by 8.6 per cent in the past 12 months; housing by 8.1 per cent; health services by nearly 12 per cent; and education by 15 per cent. In Western Australia, there were 399 home repossessions in the January to March quarter, which is the highest number on record and more than double the decade-long average. The number of unemployed people in our state nearly doubled, going from 28 000 in October last year to 55 200 in April this year. If we were to measure it again and look at the seasonally adjusted figures for June, we would find, I am sure, that it is now much higher. In sitting down and speaking to people in my community, I have found that the impact of social exclusion is already being felt very clearly. I can see that this will be exacerbated by what the government is proposing in this Loan Bill. The cost of living increases that are being imposed by this budget add up to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per family—increases that we have heard detailed in this place over the past two weeks with incredible precision. Our side has argued against those increases and the government has argued why they will not impact on families. Families will feel the hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars of increases in the form of increased water and energy costs; increased transport costs; extra rates that we find they will now have to pay due to increased waste treatment costs; hidden increases in the cost of food, which is driven up by the increased cost of producing that food; and ever-increasing rental costs and the lack of public housing. Although I acknowledge some really good work is being done to develop new social housing, that work will never be enough. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 4863.]

POLICE STATIONS — CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT Motion MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [4.00 pm]: I move — That this house condemns the Barnett government for the impending closure of Ballajura Police Station, its failure to build the Secret Harbour and Carnarvon police stations and its broken election commitment to reopen Gascoyne Junction Police Station. This motion provides the opportunity for members who have grave concerns about the administration of law and order in their constituencies, in particular what has happened as a consequence of the recent budget, to raise some very important issues for their electorates and what they understood, prior to the election and prior to the budget, to be the policies of the government. This motion provides us with an opportunity to reveal to the house what we were advised was the policy of the government and what the minister said was the policy of the government and to reveal the very poor outcomes for the electorates affected by the state budget. In this motion, we detail four separate communities on which the impact of the state budget on the provision of law and order services has been drastic—all of which, I might add, are located in Labor electorates and have been positively and absolutely victimised by the recent state budget and the decisions that were made as part of the budget process. A number of opposition members who represent these various communities will raise issues about those impacts. I have an understanding with the Leader of the House that this motion will be dealt with in total in the course of approximately an hour. Bearing in mind that understanding, I will not be long in dealing with aspects of this motion relevant to my electorate. I will say that there was an expectation, an understanding and indeed a promise that the state government would provide a new police station at Secret Harbour in the member for Warnbro’s electorate, thereby alleviating pressure on Rockingham Police Station, which is in my electorate. Anyone who understands the geography of my community would understand that it is an elongated urban community; it is a long coastal community stretching from where I live in Rockingham Beach all the way down to Golden Bay and Singleton—a distance of 25 to 30 kilometres. Rockingham Police Station is located right at the very northern end of the community, and that is a significant issue for the southern area of my community, which is 25 to 30 kilometres of urban development away from the police station. The former government looked at the police capital works program—admittedly it was brought forward—and planned a police station for the southern suburbs of Rockingham to meet the needs of that part of the community. As I said, we looked at the

4844 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] program. The construction of the police station was brought forward two or three years, from memory, and it was to serve the southern part of an elongated urban community in the southern suburbs of Perth. What happened? After the election, we were naturally concerned that the new police station with additional officers to be based at Secret Harbour in the southern part of the community in the City of Rockingham would be lost. We made inquiries through the local press. The local newspapers took up the issue because it was a matter of concern. A site was purchased, with a sign, and there were drawings, plans and documentation for a new police station in the southern part of Rockingham. It was ready to go to tender. We wanted that to happen. We took it up with the local newspaper. It inquired of the Minister for Police on 7 November 2008, and it received a commitment from him in writing, reported in the local newspaper as follows — “The Secret Harbour police station is in the forward estimates and will proceed as originally planned,” Mr Johnson said. The Minister for Police advised the community of that commitment. What did we find in the budget? The police station is gone. That is a direct broken commitment by this government to our community. It has more of an impact on the member for Warnbro’s constituency than on mine, but it still has a significant impact on the people of Rockingham whom I represent. This is an opportunity for me to put on the record that impact on the community. I am sure that the member for Warnbro will go into greater detail, but it is a significant issue for the people of the southern suburbs of Perth. We have lost a police station that was promised by this government for our community. That is why we wanted to use this opportunity to raise what is a very important issue for my community, and I have done so now. MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [4.07 pm]: I rise to speak to the motion condemning the Barnett government for the impending closure of Ballajura Police Station, its failure to build the Secret Harbour and Carnarvon police stations and its broken election commitment to reopen the Gascoyne Junction Police Station. The government campaigned heavily on law and order during the last election campaign and it continued to try to make law and order an issue in government. Within nine months of coming into government, it effectively made a decision to close Ballajura Police Station. The decision was made with little or no consultation with local residents or the local community. It is a decision that will impact upon the local community significantly. It has angered and distressed the Ballajura community. Before I move more into the motion, I would like to acknowledge Ian North and the officers based at Ballajura Police Station for the work they have done over the years serving the Ballajura community. There will always be people who want better and greater services, but everyone acknowledges that the local police officers’ ability to be in touch with the local community, to talk to the local residents and to be active in local community groups are things that all residents have appreciated and respect significantly. I want to go over a little of the history of the Ballajura Police Station. I understand that last year a new police station for Ballajura was a priority in the police service’s capital works program. The police service has a long- term strategic accommodation program that it develops and continually monitors. A new police station was on that program when we left government. The Labor Party made a commitment to build a new police station in Ballajura. It was worth about $5.5 million. There was a need for a new police station. When I came into government—sorry, when I was elected and we lost government — Mr R.F. Johnson: Hard to take, isn’t it? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It is especially so when the government is closing police stations in my electorate. When I was elected and the new minister took his position, I asked a number of questions about the government’s intention of building a new Ballajura Police Station, knowing that there was a distinct priority in the previous strategic accommodation program. I was quite shocked to see that funding for a new Ballajura Police Station had disappeared from that program, and even more shocked to hear on the grapevine that the government was considering closing this vital and essential service for the people of Ballajura. I believe that it is the government’s three per cent efficiency dividend and its redirection of funds to other areas that have caused this decision. I believe that if Western Australia Police had the money, not only would the police station remain open, but also a new police station would be built to service the community. As I said, I heard on the grapevine a number of months ago that the government was considering closing the police station. I came into the Parliament and asked a number of questions and I raised it as a grievance on a number of occasions. Although I do not want to go through it all, needless to say, I do not believe the government was very straight with me, as the member representing the area, on the future of the Ballajura Police Station, and we got absolutely no straight answers. The community was unaware that the government was even considering closing the police station, even though it was already down the path of considering its closure. There was no consultation with the community—absolutely none. As the local member, I believed it was my role to inform the community of the government’s proposal and to ensure that the community had the opportunity to provide its views to the government on the prospective decision. About three weeks ago I began a petition through the Ballajura community. In just under three weeks I have collected 1 600 signatures from the Ballajura community protesting against the impending closure of the

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4845

Ballajura Police Station. As I said, that was done in under three weeks. In addition, we undertook a postcard campaign, in which residents of the Ballajura community received a postcard that they were invited to send back if they supported the police station. More than 800 postcards were returned within two weeks. That shows the strong sentiment of people in the Ballajura community regarding their local police station. I have reproduced some of the comments from these postcards in my notes. They are as follows — • Permanent police presence provides a deterrent to crime. • Our community standards will suffer if we lose our boys in blue. • Ballajura needs this station. • I don’t want it closed. • We are a large suburb. By rights we deserve a police station. • Keep our suburbs safe for our kids and elderly. • We are sure that 20 000 people who live in Ballajura would agree to keep the police station open. • You need localised policing for localised problems. • The Ballajura police station is an important part of the community and should remain open. As I said, it shows a strong sentiment from the people of Ballajura. I reiterate that there has been no communication and no consultation by the government with the people of Ballajura on this matter—absolutely none. As I said, it was my role to inform the community of what the government was doing and to try to keep the government across the fact that the community did not want the Ballajura Police Station closed. As part of the community campaign, I also held a community forum on Monday night, which was very well attended. I welcome Margaret Ryan, one of the attendees, who is in the public gallery today. She is very interested in local issues and is active in many community groups. It was a very good forum due to the fact that there was a good attendance by some of the police hierarchy. I express my thanks to Assistant Commissioner Shayne Maines, District Superintendent Ian Thomas and Inspector Greg Knott who attended the forum. They stayed for the length of the forum, which went for almost two hours. The only very, very disappointing aspect was the announcement at the forum by the police in attendance that the Ballajura Police Station was to be closed. Although I organised this forum to allow community members to vocalise to the police hierarchy directly that they wanted their police station to remain open, the government had already made the decision to close it. I must say that the community group that attended were angry about it; they were very disappointed. It was not something that I wanted to deliver at my own community forum. I thought it was very, I suppose, bad timing, but also again it demonstrated that this government had no consultation and no communication about this proposal. It was up to me to organise the vehicle for communicating that this decision had been made. As I said, the community wants and needs a police station in Ballajura. I know the Minister for Police will speak on this matter and I hope he addresses this issue seriously today, because it is a very serious issue — Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course I’ll address it seriously. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It would be the first time. It is a very serious issue — Mr R.F. Johnson: If the member wants to make silly remarks like that, then she does not warrant — Mr B.S. Wyatt: Oh, come on! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It is a very serious issue. I will be outlining a couple of requests and I hope that the minister takes notes and responds to them when he gets to his feet. As I said, another claim was made at the forum about the Premier’s commitments or comments made in the office of the member for Swan Hills; namely, that the Premier had made a commitment to keep the Ballajura Police Station open. I know that it was put in a letter to the Minister for Police that that claim was made. Again, I welcome any sort of advice or comments that the minister can make on that matter because there is strong feeling from local council members and from some members of the local community who attended the function at the member for Swan Hills’ office that the Premier did make a commitment to keep a police station open. Mr R.F. Johnson: A police station or a police presence? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: A police station. Mr R.F. Johnson: Well, that is what the member says; I think I’ve heard something different. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: A permanent police station, as I understand. Minister, I will sit soon because my colleagues the member for Warnbro and the member for North West want to speak about their own police stations. I will ask the minister three questions. Can the minister reconsider the

4846 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] decision to close the Ballajura Police Station? As I understand, the lease for the current police station expires in September this year. It is not too late to reverse the decision. I think the way that the decision has been made, the way it has been rushed and the lack of communication and consultation mean that it is worthy of reconsideration by the minister and cabinet. At the very minimum, I ask that the minister commit to a permanent policing post in the suburb of Ballajura at the current site of the police station. That to me would be the bare minimum. It would be a place where members of the public could go and inform the local officer about issues in the area and also to have a good community contact. If the minister goes ahead with the closure, I ask that a six-month review be undertaken to analyse and assess the crime and law and order impact of the closure of the police station. One key thing is that the proposal would move the police to Kiara and Ellenbrook. The problem is that there are no public transport links between Ballajura and Kiara. When I was in the shopping centre the other week talking to people about this issue, many people did not know where the Kiara Police Station was and had no idea how to get to it. Mr R.F. Johnson: I think a lot of the member’s constituents — Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The minister will get to speak in a second. I ask that he consider those three points. If the minister wants to take notes so that he does not miss out anything when he stands to speak — Mr R.F. Johnson: The member can remind me. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I ask the minister to reconsider the decision to close the police station, to commit to maintaining a community policing post in the suburb, and to undertake a six-month formal review to assess the impact of the closure, if the minister goes ahead with it, on law and order and crime in the suburb. MR V.A. CATANIA (North West) [4.18 pm]: I obviously rise to support the motion. It is extremely disappointing that in the 2009-10 budget there was no Carnarvon police station. I am deeply offended because this project, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this house and in the other place, is a very important piece of infrastructure for the people of Carnarvon. I have stood in this place many times and I have had the Minister for Regional Development call me a church mouse when I am in government and a lion when I am in opposition. If members have a look at Hansard and media reports, it is funny to look back on the work that I and the community of Carnarvon put in to ensuring that the Carnarvon police station and courthouse would be rebuilt and relocated; it was quite staggering. When I look at some of these media reports I have a bit of a chuckle to myself because I cannot believe the amount of work the community put in to ensuring that the Carnarvon police station and justice complex went to the right spot. The motion is directed to the Minister for Police, but I wanted to put on record what I think is quite a compliment from the Minister for Regional Development, who called me a lion in opposition. Mr R.F. Johnson: A lion? Mr V.A. CATANIA: A lion—to ensure that this government keeps to its word. He called me a church mouse in government. I came across this media statement — Survey highlights preferred site for justice complex. The Member for the Mining and Pastoral Region says a survey he commissioned has given a clear indication of the Carnarvon community’s preferred site for the new multi-million dollar courthouse and police complex. Vincent Catania says he was surprised locals were not consulted over the complex, considering it will be a landmark project. That was when I was part of the government. I fought hard to ensure that the community got what it wanted. It is quite interesting to see another — Haase backs pushes to move Carnarvon police station. The federal Member for Kalgoorlie has supported a local government push to have the Carnarvon police station moved from its waterfront location on the town’s main street. There are more media statements. I wish the Minister for Regional Development was here to listen to this, because it is interesting. Another is — Ex-shire presidents enter justice complex debate Three former shire presidents from Carnarvon have met North-West Coastal MLA Fred Riebeling to debate the location of the town’s new police station and courthouse. One of those three ex-shire presidents happened to be the candidate for the North West seat during the 2008 election. Mr R.F. Johnson: For which party?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4847

Mr V.A. CATANIA: It was the National Party. He supported the move and supported me when fighting against my own party and government to ensure that the community got what it wanted. A speech made by Hon Ken Baston, a member for the Mining and Pastoral Region in the other place, is reported in the Hansard of Tuesday, 28 June 2005. This gives some idea of how long this issue has been going for, which is why the community is up in arms about what has been going on and the lack of detail for Carnarvon when it comes to the budget. Hon Ken Baston said — It is disappointing for the Carnarvon people that no funding has been provided for the Carnarvon police station courthouse. This precinct sits right on the fascine development. It is a prime bit of land. Basically, Carnarvon needs a new police station. The current police station needs to be moved. The Shire of Carnarvon has already purchased land for the police station-courthouse complex to be moved to in the future. Perhaps some funding could be provided for the design and planning stage, which will take about a year to complete. I believe in the order of $500 000 is needed for that, and the project will cost between $12 million and $15 million. That funding is needed not only for a new police station but also for the future aesthetics of Carnarvon if it is to develop as a major tourism town and as a gateway, as everyone keeps saying, to the Ningaloo Reef. Carnarvon and Exmouth are supposedly the two gateways to that reef. Hon Ken Baston has been very supportive and very vocal in ensuring that the Carnarvon police station and justice complex goes to the right site, yet we have seen the government exclude it from the budget altogether. I again refer to the Minister for Regional Development, who calls me a church mouse in government and a lion in opposition. Looking through these media statements and press releases, I do not see one from the National Party. There is not one press release from the Minister for Regional Development. That great champion of regional development has never put a press release out on this issue. The press release from 15 August 2007 is headed “Premier announces site for Carnarvon’s new $40million Police and Court complex”. I have to read this out, because hopefully it will remind the government how much work was done, how much blood, sweat and tears were put into this, and how many friendships in government were really tested. The press release reads — The State Government has listened to the Carnarvon community and will build the new $40million Carnarvon Police and Court complex at the Gascoyne Traders site. That is, removing it from the fascine, funding the project totally and building it where the people of the community want it. The press release continues — Premier Alan Carpenter said a number of sites had been considered, however the Traders site was the overwhelming choice of the Carnarvon community and local members Fred Riebeling and Vince Catania. “A recent readers poll in the Northern Guardian found that 96 per cent favoured the Traders site. This follows on from a survey undertaken last year by local member Vince Catania which found that 87 per cent of people favoured the same site,” Mr Carpenter said. The Premier said the complex was a State Government election commitment. There we have it—a local member doing his job of making sure that the community’s views are represented. So that people are quite clear about the survey, I direct-mailed the whole of Carnarvon with a survey offering a choice of four sites. Of the surveys that came back to me, 87 per cent favoured the police station and courthouse being removed from the fascine to go to the Gascoyne Traders site. That was a catalyst for getting the then state government to ensure that it listened to the people. Then there were all the media releases that were made after that, such as one headed “Carnarvon Shire welcomes justice complex”, which states — The Western Australia Government is expected to announce today that it will build a $40million police and justice complex in Carnarvon, in the north-west, on a site preferred by the community and local shire. There is a whole heap more press releases, but I just quickly picked up the first five. They will show members opposite the level of work that a church mouse in government did to ensure that the community was listened to. I wish the Minister for Regional Development was here, because this is a regional issue. It seems to be a common theme in this place that members of the National Party seem to disappear when we talk about regional issues. I am glad that the Minister for Police is here. Mr B.S. Wyatt: That happens regularly. Mr V.A. CATANIA: Yes, it does happen quite regularly and it is quite concerning, but I think the public is not fooled by that, particularly the people of Carnarvon who participated in the survey and fought hard for this project. Even the National Party’s candidate who ran against me in the elections supported the police station and courthouse. I believe Hon Wendy Duncan, who is now a member for the Mining and Pastoral Region in the other place, is also on record as saying that she supports this vital piece of infrastructure.

4848 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

The government can talk about the costs blowing out, and I think that costs have gone up a bit from the original $40 million. Often members will ask whether it would be better to spend that $40 million on other projects such as redeveloping the fascine wall or shifting the airport. Yes, those projects are good, but if we want private development in Carnarvon, we need to relocate the police station and courthouse away from the fascine so that private developers can be enticed to develop one of the most magical vistas in Carnarvon. We must take advantage of that. I know that the Minister for Police agrees with that, but we also need to listen to what the police are saying. They need a new police station. The Carnarvon Police Station has basically been condemned by the police union. Many times, stickers have been put over the police station where it currently sits. It needs to be relocated. It needs to be built for the sake of police officers as well. To finish off, members, the motion before us also refers to the Gascoyne Junction Police Station. Gascoyne Junction is a fine place. One of the problems is that, unfortunately, under our watch in government, the Gascoyne Junction Police Station closed. It was an operational issue. The police commissioner decided that Gascoyne Junction Police Station should close. I can recall, and I am sure a few members here will recall, that when the police minister was the opposition spokesperson for police, he accused us of making political decisions. Am I correct, members? Mr D.A. Templeman: I remember exactly. Mr P. Papalia: Weekly! Mr R.F. Johnson: Heaven forbid! Mr V.A. CATANIA: One of the election commitments was to reopen six regional police stations that had been closed. I believe that three police stations are on the way to being reopened and three police stations are not— one being the Gascoyne Junction Police Station. I am sure that we will get to the bottom of this. The Minister for Police now says that it is an operational issue, not a political decision, and it will now not reopen. One member whom I have worked closely with, even though we are on opposite sides, is Hon Ken Baston, member for the Mining and Pastoral Region. I know that I read out a Hansard excerpt but it was also interesting to see this press release. It is dated 6 July 2007. I hope he has still got the fire in his belly to convince the police minister to reopen the Gascoyne Junction Police Station. It is headed “Want a Policeman? Call Carnarvon or Mullewa” and states — “Don’t call us, we’re busy building a $95 million Police complex in Perth” is the message from Carpenter government to Gascoyne Junction,” said the Hon Ken Baston MLC. “The decision to close the Gascoyne Junction Police Station is extremely short sighted and another example of the blinkers that the Carpenter government wears when it looks at regional Western Australia … Oh my gosh! I shall read on, members — “All communities deserve a police presence,” said Mr Baston, “and size and economics should be secondary to the social needs of the people who live there.” The closing of the police station will compromise safety in a very isolated community in addition to taking away an integral part of the social fabric of the town. Removing them takes some heart from the community. “The nearest police presence will be 160km away in Carnarvon, which is too far away for peace of mind,” said Mr Baston. We have a member of government supporting the Gascoyne Junction Police Station when he was in opposition. I hope he has still got the fire in his belly to convince his own colleagues to reopen the Gascoyne Junction Police Station. As I said, I have stood here time and time again and put the case forward. When I was in government, as a member of the other place, and now as the member for North West, I have put the case forward to ensure that Carnarvon gets what it wants. It seems like it has fallen on deaf ears. The minister is going to Carnarvon to discuss this issue and I am sure that we can come to a resolution. But in the meantime I am very disappointed, Minister for Police, that the three members of the National Party are not in the chamber yet again when it comes to regional issues that are important to my seat, North West. They failed to talk about these issues when in opposition and they are failing to do so again in government. Mr R.F. Johnson: Ballajura and Secret Harbour are hardly regional areas. Mr V.A. CATANIA: I hope that the Minister for Police can convince his coalition partners in this place—I am glad the Premier is here—to take some interest on issues that matter to the people of regional Western Australia.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4849

MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [4.34 pm]: I rise to endorse and thoroughly support the motion that this house condemns the Barnett government for the impending closure of the Ballajura Police Station, its failure to build the Secret Harbour and Carnarvon police stations and its broken election commitment to reopen Gascoyne Junction Police Station. If there is any advice that I can offer to those few people who have been in this place on my side for even less time than I, it would be to try to avoid rising to speak on a motion in the wake of the member for Rockingham. Such is the incisive and forensic nature of his mind and his professionalism that invariably I find myself wondering what I am going to talk about after the member for Rockingham has stolen my thunder on the subject matter. Initially, I thought that may be the situation in this case because I wanted to remind the Minister for Police about the statements that he made on 7 November 2008 as reported in the local press in Rockingham and the assurances that he conveyed to the people of Rockingham at that time regarding the Secret Harbour police station and the reliability and trustworthiness of the new government. As the member for Rockingham has already said, the Secret Harbour police station was already in the estimates and the Minister for Police promised that he would proceed as originally planned. I wanted to take some moments to reflect on those statements, as I did in my 25-minute reply to the budget speech, but I will not do that. Instead, I will try to anticipate what the Minister for Police will say today. I probably have some insight into that because the minister did rise following my response to the budget speech, and he made some comments on my speech. When the Minister for Police stands to speak on the issue of Secret Harbour police station—if he has the courage, and I am not sure about that—and the statements that he made on 7 November 2008 and his unequivocal commitment to the people of Rockingham that the Secret Harbour police station would go ahead, the minister should address why he misled the people of Rockingham at that time, but I suspect that, as is invariably the case, the minister may try and weasel out of it by suggesting that it was the early days of the government. In fact, by way of interjection, he suggested that it was only two months after taking office that he made that statement. That is not entirely correct, but that was the suggestion that he made the last time this subject matter was debated in this place. The minister may suggest that it was early days when he made this commitment, this promise, this assurance to the people of Secret Harbour and more widely to the people of Warnbro, Port Kennedy, Golden Bay, Singleton and Baldivis, and also to the people in the northern part of Rockingham who would benefit from the new police station and the additional police officers to staff that police station. The minister will suggest that somehow it is okay to mislead the public and the voters of Western Australia if it is in the early days of a government! If a government has had only a couple of months in office and if a minister has been sworn in for only a few months—never mind that he is one of the most experienced members in this house, and never mind that he served in the previous Liberal government as a minister and knew the sort of commitment he was making to the people of Rockingham and the credence they would accord to his statements—the minister will say, possibly, that people should have known to ignore him because he was operating in thought-bubble mode in the early days of his office. I am trying to anticipate what else the minister will say. I suspect the next thing he will say is that somehow Secret Harbour police station was not an appropriate commitment by the former government, and that somehow it was an election offering in a desperate attempt to curry favour with the people of the then Peel electorate in the hope that the Labor Party might benefit from making a promise that would be in forward estimates. I can tell the Minister for Police that the Labor Party and its candidate at that time did not require any promises of a police station to get over the line against the Liberal candidate. There was no drama there, minister! There was no need to make any promises, but we did. We brought forward a police station that was already in the forward estimates for southern Rockingham. It just happened to be in Port Kennedy. That commitment for Port Kennedy was made on the advice of the police and well in advance of the election, but at a time before the expansion of Rockingham to the southern suburbs. These are now some of the fastest growing suburbs in the state of Western Australia and are desperately in need of their own police station to ensure not only a police presence on the ground, but also police activity and shorter response times. It is an irrefutable, undeniable fact that the southern part of Rockingham and the northern suburbs of Mandurah are geographically separated from the nearest police stations in Rockingham, Kwinana or Mandurah. Police cannot physically get there faster unless they fly in by helicopter; I know the Minister for Police is buying one helicopter, but he will have to buy two more—one for Mandurah and one for Rockingham—to ensure that the local coppers can respond to a call in an appropriate time, conduct their task, get back to their home police station and ensure that their officer in charge knows that they have returned to the station and are able to respond to other calls in other geographically separated sections of their patch. If the minister has the gall to make that outrageous and incredibly unsubstantiated claim that there will somehow be a better service provided by large, centrally located police stations, will he please explain how that will improve the response time for coppers who have to drive for 20 to 30 minutes just to get to the incident, conduct their task and return to the police station? This government has cancelled—it is no longer threatened or delayed—the Secret Harbour police station, which was to serve the suburbs of southern Rockingham and northern Mandurah. This has happened despite the fact

4850 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] that the previous government not only committed funds, but also had spent $2 million on acquiring land and completing the planning. The land had been levelled and they were actually going to go to tender, and the current government has cancelled the project so that it can put the $8 million towards funding the information and communications technology program. I reckon that could very easily be funded by taking some of the $166 million that the government is spending to establish a road to nowhere through the threatened Beeliar wetlands, which will accord no benefit to anybody. No-one has called for that road to be constructed, but the minister is going to do it just because he is stubborn and is ignorant of the people of Western Australia. He does not care what the electorate wants and he is arrogant. Mr C.J. Barnett: That was a nasty finish! MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Minister for Police) [4.42 pm]: I feel as though I have been bashed about the head and everywhere else with a feather duster! I am arrogant, nasty and all sorts of things! Jeez, I have had a few descriptions in my time in this place, but that really was mean! Mr M.P. Whitely: You’re just a non-event! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: My friend the member for Bassendean does not even reach the status of a non-event! He is insignificant in this place! His mates do not even like him; even his colleagues do not like him! He has always been the outcast, so why he makes these stupid, insidious remarks, I do not know! He is a persistent interjector, and if the Acting Speaker wants this debate to be over soon, she needs to call him to order! Somebody needs to, because I am sick to death of hearing his constant interjections. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs L.M. Harvey): I call the member for Bassendean to order. The minister has the call. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I appreciate that. The previous four speakers have voiced what I am sure are their genuine concerns about their electorates, and I was happy to listen to them. What I am not happy to listen to is some diatribe from another member who has no interest in this area whatsoever. I will deal with the comments of the member for West Swan first, because she was the first person to speak on this motion about the closure of the Ballajura Police Station. I am aware that she held a public meeting on Monday of course, although the member did not invite me. If she had, I might have come along, but that is beside the point. Ms R. Saffioti: You’ve never answered any of the questions I’ve asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Then perhaps a public forum would have been a good place to ask me questions, and I would have certainly answered them. I would have loved to have gone for a cup of tea and a biscuit! Ms R. Saffioti: I saw you were a bit busy on the news that night; that’s why I didn’t invite you! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am never too busy to listen to my colleagues’ concerns, I assure the member! I am aware that the member had about 60 people at the meeting; is that right? Ms R. Saffioti: No. There were about 100 people there for my speech. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: There were 100 people? Ms R. Saffioti: Yes. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will not challenge the member on that number, but I was told there were about 60 people there and that included quite a few police officers, which I was glad to hear. I appreciate the member’s comments about the police officers’ attendance at the meeting. What was announced on Monday night was that the Commissioner of Police had made a final decision to close that specific station. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am happy to talk to the member for West Swan but I will not suffer the sorts of interjections that I am getting from both sides of the house. I am happy to answer all the member’s questions. Ms R. Saffioti: So, you want me to protect you! Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I need somebody to protect me from a couple of feather dusters! Ms R. Saffioti: Okay; member for Cannington and member for Bassendean! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member for West Swan should pull them into line, as I have limited time and part of the deal was that we would deal with this matter as quickly as possible.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4851

Ms R. Saffioti: Okay; keep going. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The situation is this: as the member for West Swan knows, Ballajura Police Station is not up to the right standard for police officers to work in. The member for West Swan would agree with me on that, I am sure. Ms R. Saffioti: It has been okay for the past number of years. The people of Ballajura are asking: if it has been okay over the past number of years, why isn’t it okay now? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It has been run-down enormously in the past 15 years. The member for West Swan has visited it and I have visited it. I must tell the member for West Swan that the police tell me that it is not up to the standard that they expect their officers to work in. The holding cell is in the general office where everybody is. Ms R. Saffioti: I know, but — Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not and they certainly do not think that is suitable. The facilities for holding people there are not up to the standard that is required. Ms R. Saffioti: But it is not the community’s fault. You are actually penalising the community for successive governments not giving it — Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Of course it is not the community’s fault; I would not for one minute say that it was. I am saying that it is the Labor Party’s fault. Why did the Labor Party in seven and half years of government not replace that station at least a year ago when it needed replacing? It did not do so because it was not a priority. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It became a priority — Ms R. Saffioti: We didn’t close it. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am not going to try to be heard over a barrage of interjections on this matter. This is a serious issue for the member for West Swan. Ms R. Saffioti: Yes. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I want to give her the answers. The member may not like what I have to say, but that does not mean that her colleagues have to barrage me with interjections. I suggest that this matter became a priority for the member for West Swan when she became the candidate for the seat. She was chief of staff to the former Premier at the time and would have known that that police station was running down and down. Therefore, the member for West Swan, as the prospective candidate for that seat, should have done something a lot earlier. Mr W.J. Johnston: She is! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Of course, yes. As soon as the member for West Swan became the candidate, she thought she had to do something about this because it is a big issue in Ballajura, but she knows that the station is not up to standard. The Commissioner of Police told me early on in the piece that Ballajura is one of the police stations that he desperately needed to close. He said that he was not prepared to sign a fresh lease in September and put his officers back there for another five years, which is the minimum lease he could get; that was definitely not the answer. The Commissioner of Police therefore said to me that he would prefer to close that particular station as a fully functional police station and move those resources—about 80 per cent to Kiara and 20 per cent to Ellenbrook. I have been assured that the police presence in Ballajura and surrounding suburbs will actually be enhanced by the actions that the police commissioner is taking. The member for West Swan and I know that regional areas need small, independent police stations because there are large areas to cover. However, the metropolitan area does not need umpteen tiny police stations. The best efficiencies cannot be had out of tiny police stations. Every station that is opened and maintained must be staffed with all sorts of people and officers. They have to do a lot of paperwork and clerical work and a lot of other work in those little stations. In moving those officers to a larger station, a lot of that work will be taken on by other people. That will therefore free up those officers to be in patrol cars and out in the community. I am assured that there will be far more patrols in that area than there are at present. If that is the case, to me a higher police presence is what is needed. The commissioner and I are aware of the crime statistics not only in the member for West Swan’s electorate, but also in other electorates. It does not matter whether the seat is a Liberal or Labor seat, as far as I am concerned I want crime to decrease. I will do everything in my power to ensure that that happens, whether it be in my seat or the member for West Swan’s seat. I promise the member for West Swan that I want criminals caught and I want hoons caught. I am aware of the concerns that were raised at her meeting on Monday evening. I am aware of all those concerns because they

4852 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] were reported back to me. I am sure that the member saw one or two people there who she guessed would have sent me information. I did not send any staff there. A local person who knows me quite well emailed me and told me what went on at the meeting. He recognises that there is always a concern in the community and that everyone would love to have a police station located at the end of their road; of course they would. I accept that that would probably make people feel safer. However, at the end of the day, it would not do that and it does not create a safer environment. What creates a safer environment is having a lot more police officers who can respond very quickly patrolling the streets. Very often the officers who respond to crimes committed in Ballajura and its surrounding suburbs come from Kiara. They already do patrols in Kiara. A lot of the member’s constituents who need to renew a licence, such as a firearms licence, through a police station go to Mirrabooka because they do not think that it is too far away from them. The problem is that the police districts are divided in such a way that Mirrabooka Police Station is not responsible for Ballajura. If the districts were slightly altered, the member could benefit by getting a police response from Mirrabooka and a police response from Kiara. That is something I am discussing with the Commissioner of Police. That would double the efficiency of both those areas. However, at the end of the day, that is the commissioner’s decision. I am trying to help the member and the people of Ballajura and its surrounding suburbs. I promise the member that that is not stupid rhetoric; it is the truth. I want to help people whenever I can. The member asked whether I could give a commitment to keep it open. I cannot do that. Ms R. Saffioti: I asked the minister whether he could retain the community policing post at the existing site of the station. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not know about retaining it at the existing site of the station. Let me put it this way: I believe that the commissioner will move his officers out of that station pretty quickly. In the meantime, I understand that he will leave a front desk there so that there will be a police presence. Ms R. Saffioti: Is that your commitment? Are you going to agree to that commitment? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I cannot give the member that commitment. I can give a commitment that I will discuss it with the commissioner and I will let him know that that is what I would like to see done, at least until the lease runs out, so that there is a police post there. I will also ask him about the possibility of providing a small police post and whether that would work. I will give the member that commitment. I will discuss that with the commissioner but at the end of the day it is his decision, not mine. The commissioner and I discuss things. Often he is happy to assist in making happen things that I would like to see done and I am happy to assist him do some of the things that he wants to do. We have a good working relationship, and that is what I want. What was the member’s other point? Ms R. Saffioti: A six-month review post-closure to assess the impact of the closure on local crime statistics and law and order issues in the area. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will not commit to a six-month review because that is too soon. However, I will commit to look at the crime and antisocial behaviour figures for Ballajura and the surrounding areas over the next six to 12 months. I would prefer to have a 12-month review. I will also try to encourage the commissioner to send in the Burglar Beware squad because that will show the burglars in the member’s area that we mean business. I am happy to try to encourage him to do that, and that would assist the member’s community. Ms R. Saffioti: Of the 15 officers, how many are you transferring to Kiara, as opposed to Ellenbrook? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: As I understand it, about 80 per cent are going to Kiara and 20 per cent to Ellenbrook. Ms R. Saffioti: Even though Ellenbrook will not be covering Ballajura. It will pick up Cullacabardee. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It will predominantly be Kiara. Do not forget that officers from Mirrabooka, when needed, will cross their district boundary line and go into Ballajura. Ms R. Saffioti: I have been told that the north metro versus the south metro have different frequencies, so there is not a lot of coverage. They cannot go into the other district because they use a different frequency. I was told by the local police that Mirrabooka is not being served by the Ballajura police. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have to be honest, but I have been told that, very often, when there is a serious incident — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs L.M. Harvey): Order, members! There is a lot of background noise in the chamber, and Hansard is having difficulty hearing the minister. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have been told by senior police that, very often, when there is a serious incident and a large number of police officers are required, they come from Mirrabooka. That happens on a regular basis, whenever a serious incident occurs. I will check up on that, though, with the commissioner, and if the situation is any different from what I am telling the member now, I will let her know for sure.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4853

I now want to deal with the fact that the former government had put some money in the forward estimates for a new police station. However, that is the sort of thing that is usually announced in the year before an election or just before an election. That is what very often happens. That is what happened in the member’s party time and again. The Labor Party was very good at putting up signs saying that this is the site for this particular — Ms R. Saffioti: But you closed it! There is no comparison with what you are saying now. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: If the member had not wanted that police station to be closed, she should have organised for the construction of a new police station. When I say “the member”, I am not saying as the member for West Swan, because the member has not been in that seat long enough. I am saying that as the former chief of staff to the then Premier, the member should have organised for the former government to build a new police station there—not because she was going to be the candidate for that area, but because she believed there was a need for a new police station to be built there. The member should have done something about that, but she did not. Mr W.J. Johnston: You are in government now. What decisions are you making? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Did the member not understand what I have just said? It is being closed down. Mr W.J. Johnston: Yes. You are closing it. That is your decision. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Look, my friend; I am addressing a concerned member. This has nothing to do with the member for Cannington. It is not his area. I am not going to get into an argument with the member for Cannington. I am not going to take his incessant interjections. Mr W.J. Johnston: You are a disgrace! You are a complete embarrassment! The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Cannington! The minister has the call. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think I have said everything I need to say to the member for West Swan. Mr P. Papalia: Are you going to get to my police station? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Of course I am. If the member could keep some of his colleagues quiet and put them back on their leash, I would be able to deal with that in the time that the manager of opposition business wants me to deal with it in. Okay. I am happy to take on board the matter raised by the member for West Swan, and I will carry through with what I have said I will do. I turn now to Secret Harbour police station. There was some funding for that in the budget. I accept that I made some comments about that matter to the local newspaper on 7 November. I accept that. I did that because when I was asked whether there was any money in the forward estimates for a police station at Secret Harbour, I got my people to check the forward estimates, and there was some money in the budget for that. Mr P. Papalia: There was $10 million. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes. Mr P. Papalia: But you know that I wrote to you prior to that. That is why the story was raised. It was because of my letter. You never responded to that letter. The way I got a response was in the media. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I respond to every letter, my friend. Mr P. Papalia: Perhaps that is true, minister, but I did not get a response. I got a response in the media. The suggestion was made that, by doing that, I had somehow misled the people of Rockingham by saying that Secret Harbour police station was under threat. However, in reality we were quite perceptive—the member for Rockingham and I—when we were starting to get concerned about this matter way back in November, and you confirmed that in the media. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: When the media asked me, I checked the budget papers, and there was $10 million in the forward estimates for a police station to be built in the member’s area. The member accepts that that announcement about a police station in Secret Harbour was made during the time that the member was seeking election to this place. Mr P. Papalia: I’m quite proud of that fact! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have to ask, being a cynical person, why was that announcement made? Mr P. Papalia: Would you like me to answer that or are you going to stop me from answering? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member can give me the answer in a minute, but let me finish first. The member did not take any interjections from me—none at all—so give me the courtesy — Mr P. Papalia: I had less time! You have an hour! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member can take as long as he likes. I am not going to take an hour. I am on a time frame the same as the member, but I have to respond to three different people. I will tell the member for Warnbro that the police told me they never wanted a police station at Secret Harbour.

4854 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Mr P. Papalia: That is interesting because the same police gave advice prior to the election that Secret Harbour was an appropriate site. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: To whom did they give that advice? Did they give that advice to the member for Warnbro? He was only a candidate during the election campaign and the police were hardly likely to give him advice. Mr P. Papalia: It was the then police minister, with whom I have a very close relationship, who told me. He came down to announce the Secret Harbour police station. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am sure that he did and I am sure that he saw it as a great opportunity during the election campaign to say, “We will have a new police station in Secret Harbour, thanks to our wonderful government and a great candidate.” That is what he would have done. Mr P. Papalia: All of that is true. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Very little of it is true. In fact, none of it is true. First, the previous government was a lousy government; secondly, the member for Warnbro was not a great candidate; and, thirdly, there will not be a police station in Secret Harbour. Mr P. Papalia: Why did we get a one per cent swing towards us when we had been the incumbents for seven years? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will tell the member why. Several members interjected. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I advise the manager of opposition business that I am doing my best. It is important to me that I get my points on the record, because members opposite have done that. The truth of the matter is that it was a bit of a stunt during the election campaign in the Warnbro electorate. The police told me that they never wanted a police station in Secret Harbour. I understand that money had been transferred from a proposed police station in Port Kennedy to Secret Harbour. When I made the comments in the local paper I did so in good faith, because the forward estimates indicated that money had been transferred from Port Kennedy to Secret Harbour. That was on 7 November. We had been in government barely two months at that time. The government was facing a situation in which, all of a sudden, the international financial crisis, which had an effect on police as well, tumbled into place and we had to look at the whole situation very seriously. The police told me that a police station in Secret Harbour was not a priority for them. I will talk about the police hubs, because that is important. Mr P. Papalia: What does the government intend to do with the land that was purchased? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I imagine that the land will be sold and the proceeds will go into the police fund. They will need that money. I will have to check on this, but I imagine that the savings on not building that particular police station and probably the proceeds from the sale of the land will be used for the system of network that the member for Warnbro referred to, which is absolutely essential. The information and communications technology requirements are actually critical to the police at the moment. Without a state-of-the-art communications system all the police stations in the world would not function properly. A lot of the current technology is out of date and, quite frankly, that is because it has been neglected for seven and a half years. The previous Labor government could have done something about that. It did not provide any funding for ICT. Communications in the police service is the most critical area of need. The former minister knows that. Members are aware that Tardis is now being used within the police service. Without the latest communications system, police officers cannot do their job properly when they are out and about. The beauty of ICT and the larger hubs is that more police officers will be patrolling in their vehicles and they will be able to respond very quickly to crimes that are being committed and antisocial behaviour. They will have all that information in their vehicles. That is seen as more critical than some small police stations. At the end of the day, the beauty of ICT is that it works 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A lot of the smaller police stations open only between 9.00 am and 4.00 pm or 10.00 am and 5.00 pm. They might look good, but are they functional and do they allow police officers to operate in the best possible way? I do not think so. I am not a great lover of small police stations, other than in country areas. I much prefer the bigger hub system under which a lot more police officers going out and about can be controlled. I do not want police officers to be stuck behind desks. I do not want police officers to do jobs that public servants can do. I want police officers to be out there in their vehicles on the front line, responding as quickly as they possibly can to crimes that have been committed. I think that the announcement about the Secret Harbour police station was a bit of a political stunt. I have taken advice from the police, and they say that it is not a preferred option to have the station there. They were not supportive of it being located there when it was announced by the Labor Party during my friend the member for

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4855

Warnbro’s election campaign. It might have been good for the member. I know that when a person is standing as a candidate, particularly a brand-new fresh candidate in a by-election, it is great to be able to announce that we are going to have a hospital here and a police station there—all these wonderful facilities. It is great, because obviously candidates think that it will buy them votes. However, I am not a great believer in that. At the end of the day, I think people have more sense than that, and they see through those sorts of empty promises. Let us now get on to the Carnarvon police and justice complex. Where is my good friend the member for North West? He is in the chair. I thought for a minute he had deserted me. I will not talk to the member directly while he is in the chair as Acting Speaker as that is not appropriate, but I will talk about the comments that he has made as the member for North West when he has been in his position in the chamber. As the member is aware, the replacement of the Carnarvon Police Station was originally funded an amount of $4.25 million, I am told, in the 2004-05 state budget. Due to prolonged delays with site identification, I am told that the approved budget for WA Police has now been increased to $12.5 million. The project scope has increased to include a courthouse and a juvenile justice centre. Therefore, it is not just a police station; it is quite a complex. I have nothing against that. In fact, I think it is probably a good idea. Certainly, I know that my colleague the Attorney General and Minister for Corrective Services has an interest in this; of course he does. I have been told that the former government had endorsed the acquisition of a site owned by the Shire of Carnarvon—the Gascoyne Traders site, which is the one that the member has been talking about, on the corner of Robinson Street and Babbage Island Road. Unfortunately, the site soil and groundwater is contaminated with diesel fuel. I am sure that if the Acting Speaker were sitting in his place, he would probably be shaking his head, or he might be nodding; I do not know. That is the difficulty. That is why it would have been nice for somebody else to be in the chair, because the member and I could have had some dialogue. However, that is the information that I have been given. I am also told that the shire verbally agreed to arrange remediation of the site, including the removal of contaminated soil and the monitoring of the groundwater. I am also advised that the WA Police scope remains unchanged. However, delays have resulted in increased cost escalation beyond the current budget, which, of course, is a concern for me and for everybody. I am also advised that the indicative advice indicates that the revised cost of the police station is likely to be approximately $15 million, which is $2.5 million above the existing budget. Upon receipt of formal advice from the shire regarding the site remediation program and resolution of the Department of the Attorney General and Department of Corrective Services scope, the current cost estimate, including the site acquisition cost, and program will be updated. I think that the people involved are waiting for advice from the shire about the site remediation, so that is a matter that the member for North West and I may well talk about when I go to the north west, have a cup of tea with him and discuss these very important issues. I have told the member that I am very happy to do that, and I will certainly listen to him and to the shire. I am advised that the early indications are that all three agencies will require additional funding to address scope changes and cost escalation pressures. I am sure that the member is aware of that as well. Until funding issues are resolved, the short-term accommodation issues at Carnarvon Police Station will be addressed through the WA Police minor works and maintenance programs to ensure that service delivery is maintained. The service is being maintained, although obviously not to the standard that we would perhaps all like. However, as we work through these issues I am hopeful that that will happen. WA Police has assessed its projects and re-prioritised its proposed funding from construction to ICT because, once again, those ICT requirements are, as I said, absolutely essential. In fact, senior police have described the ICT funding requirement as critical. I have promised to be brief and I hope that I have covered everything. Obviously, I would like to keep my commitment to the member for North West to meet with him and the shire president and anybody else who is interested. I am more than happy to talk these things through. The member for North West’s suggestion of a possible avenue forward did whet my appetite; however, that is something about which I think we will need to talk when I visit the north west. I would need a commitment in writing from the shire about the verbal suggestion the member for North West has put to me. The member will have to get that organised before I visit the north west. If the solution covers areas of interest to my colleague, the Attorney General and Minister for Corrective Services, I will have to discuss a possible way forward with him. Everybody accepts that we have to overcome some problems, but we are in the business of trying to overcome problems and therefore I will give a commitment to try to do just that. I am here to help; I am from the government. The Gascoyne Junction police station is one other area that I wish to quickly speak about. I know that the manager of opposition business — A member interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr V.A. Catania): Perhaps the minister could speak a little louder; I think members on my left are finding it difficult to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman: When you were in opposition we never had any trouble hearing from you. You used to shout it out, but now you are keeping it very quiet. You are keeping it to yourself. Come on, member for Hillarys, speak up!

4856 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No; it is that, unfortunately, my voice is going. For those members who cannot hear me, I have to say that I have the same problem when I hear mumbling from back there by way of interjection. It is a two-way street! I will certainly speak loud enough for members to hear and if they cannot hear, they must please tell me. The information that I have about Gascoyne Junction police station is, as members would know, not about its reopening. Our election commitment was to reopen regional police stations and $8 million was committed over the forward estimates period. The Liberal Party committed to reopening the police stations at Cranbrook, Dumbleyung and Wickepin by investing the resources required to meet the cost of refurbishing those premises and the ongoing cost of operating those stations. The government has provided $2 million in 2009-10 and remains committed to reopening those stations. Members should remember that the former Labor government made the decision to close six country police stations, not us. I asked WA Police to conduct a review of the 2008 police station closures. That review identified three areas that require increased police service delivery since the closure of those six police stations; accordingly, the Wickepin, Dumbleyung and Cranbrook stations will be reopened. The evaluation of statistical data indicates that the impact on the former Gascoyne Junction subdistrict has been minimal, with most activity occurring at the Burringurrah Aboriginal community. The policing of Gascoyne Junction is being undertaken by the Carnarvon police subdistrict on a needs basis—something of which I am sure the member for North West is aware. I am also told that a three-day patrol is undertaken on a monthly basis—weather permitting. That patrol travels to Gascoyne Junction, Mt Augustus and the Burringurrah Aboriginal community for licensing and liaison duties as required. Obviously, we would like to see more of a presence in that area. I will see whether there is any possibility of that. I am happy to talk with the member for North West. If he can identify the serious areas of concern, I am very happy to talk to the commissioner about them. I have not been able to give the member great news. I will try to be as helpful as I possibly can about the issues raised today. I conclude by saying that I obviously made comments about Secret Harbour police station on 7 November. Other comments were also made. The police and the government have had to look very seriously at reprioritising a lot of the infrastructure and facilities that would have been very nice to have under normal circumstances to ensure that the funds go to where they are most needed during these hard economic times. Let us hope that in the next year or two the world economic situation gets a lot better and that has an advantageous effect on WA. If we have more funds, we can do more things. At the moment we are running a reasonably tight ship. There is an absolute commitment that we will not put public safety at risk. I am very confident that the extra police officers we have promised and the former government promised will go a long way towards trying to reduce crime and protect the community. With those words—I think I have kept to my side of the bargain of concluding the debate within an hour and a quarter—I will now take my seat. I finally say that there is no way in the world that the government or this side of the house would agree with the motion put forward because we do not believe that we should be condemned by the Labor Party. In fact, we think that we should be condemning the Labor Party for not addressing these issues in the seven and a half years that it was in government instead of leaving us with the headache of having to make good all the bad things that it did through its lack of decision and lack of commitment. Question put and a division taken with the following result —

Ayes (26)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr W.J. Johnston Mr P. Papalia Mr A.J. Waddell Ms A.S. Carles Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.B. Watson Mr A.J. Carpenter Mr F.M. Logan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr M.P. Whitely Mr V.A. Catania Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan Mr E.S. Ripper Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr R.H. Cook Mr M. McGowan Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Ms J.M. Freeman Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr J.N. Hyde Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr C.J. Tallentire

Noes (30)

Mr P. Abetz Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr D.T. Redman Mr F.A. Alban Mr M.J. Cowper Mr R.F. Johnson Mr A.J. Simpson Mr C.J. Barnett Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A. Krsticevic Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.M. Francis Mr W.R. Marmion Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.T. Miles Dr J.M. Woollard Mr I.M. Britza Dr K.D. Hames Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr J.E. McGrath (Teller) Mr T.R. Buswell Mrs L.M. Harvey Dr M.D. Nahan Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr A.P. Jacob Mr C.C. Porter Question thus negatived.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4857

CRIMINAL CODE (IDENTITY THEFT) AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from 6 May. MR C.C. PORTER (Bateman — Attorney General) [5.22 pm]: I will be making the lead contribution for the government on this bill, which was introduced by the member for Mindarie. I might go about that by looking at it in three stages: the first is to give at least some exposition of exactly what the practice of “skimming” is as it presently stands. Secondly, I will go into some detail on how the member has structured this bill. Thirdly, I will indicate what form of legislation the government intends to introduce into this house on this issue and the reasons we will respectfully say that it is superior to the private member’s bill before us. The private member’s bill and, indeed, the legislation that the government intends to introduce to deal with a very wide range of criminal offending that is generally known as identity theft or identity misuse. The volume crime in that area is the offence known as skimming. Sometimes this legislation is called anti-skimming legislation. It exists in several other states—in Queensland, it is the Criminal Code and Civil Liability Amendment Act 2007; there is a bill presently before the Victorian Parliament, the Crimes Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill 2009; and, in South Australia, the Criminal Law Consolidation (Identity Theft) Amendment Act 2003, in fact, became the basis for Model Criminal Code working committee drafting of what was seen to be Model Criminal Code offences of identity theft. With respect to what skimming actually is—this becomes important for considering the likely efficacy of any bill that is brought into this place to try to criminalise the practice—in effect, it is two separate gatherings of data. The first is the capturing of the encoded data from an automatic teller machine card’s magnetic strip. The second involves capturing the associated personal identification number for the ATM card. To do that, as I understand the situation, at least two pieces of equipment are needed. The first piece of equipment needed is something to gather data from the card’s magnetic strip. I am advised that generally the device used, which is usually no larger than a deck of cards, is either placed over the front of or piggybacked behind the card entry slot on an automatic teller machine. The idea is that when people put their cards into the machine that data is transmitted to the people who are gathering the data and they are usually not more than a block away and are usually within sight of the machine. I must say that card skimming is not to be confused with the slightly less sophisticated criminal practice, which has also been witnessed in this and other jurisdictions, in which a shell is put over the dispensing part of an ATM. People go to the ATM to withdraw $100 and when the money does not appear in front of them, because it has been collected by the fake shell, they think that something has gone wrong and leave. The person who put the shell on the ATM then comes and collects the money. Card skimming is something more sophisticated than that and, as I said, the first part of it requires gathering the data on the magnetic strip. The second part is that the personal identification number is needed to make the data on the magnetic strip in any way useful. Generally speaking, that is done through the placement of videorecording technology, usually what is known as a pinhole camera, at a point on the ATM. Often it is placed in the light diffuser area, the speaker area, the side facade of the ATM, the card reader entry slot or sometimes right above the keyboard. That is the way in which people collect these two types of data. Generally speaking, in this and other jurisdictions, the skimming devices are attached either late at night or early in the morning—periods when there is low traffic—and are normally attached for only a couple of hours. The people who gather the data are usually very close to the ATM, typically at a nearby site, while the skimming operation proceeds and the data is transmitted to them by wireless technology. This private member’s bill is meant to criminalise a range of other identity offences, but the operation of card skimming is perhaps the most well known and the highest volume crime of this type of identity offence. Some arguments exist about whether the process that I have just described to the house could be captured by existing legislation as an inchoate offence or an attempt, and it would very much depend on whether the actions undertaken by the person who had the intent to gather the data were more than merely preparatory. I think those arguments are probably peripheral to this debate and it is safe to say that there is now a clearly recognised need to have this as a stand-alone and separate offence in most criminal jurisdictions; certainly, that has happened in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. That is what skimming basically is and what the Criminal Code (Identity Theft) Amendment Bill 2009 is meant to capture. I will now look at the way in which the member for Mindarie has structured this bill. As the member for Mindarie has pointed out, it is essentially a hybrid of two existing pieces of legislation—the Queensland legislation with small parts of the Victorian bill also worked in. Proposed section 440B(1) is a provision from the Queensland legislation and proposed sections 440B(2), 440B(3) and 440B(4) are from the Victorian legislation, before proposed section 440B(5) reverts again to the Queensland legislation, and the rest of the bill is effectively a redraft of what exists in Queensland at the moment. I am not a drafter and neither, obviously, is the member for Mindarie. I want to identify some of the problems with drafting the bill in this way, but it is not a criticism of the member for Mindarie. One problem in not having

4858 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] access to the expertise of the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office is that when members start cutting and pasting from other acts, they can cause themselves problems that they do not foresee, particularly with — Dr J.M. Woollard: Will Parliamentary Counsel assist members in the future? Mr C.C. PORTER: I knew the member would ask that question and I was trying to have the answer before I spoke today, but I do not. However, to the member’s point, legislative drafting is a peculiar and difficult skill and sometimes very small words, omissions and changes of words can cause great difficulties. I want to go through what I think are probably eight or nine such difficulties that exist in what is otherwise a very valiant attempt by the member for Mindarie to produce a bill that would get the job done in properly criminalising this type of behaviour. I will start with the first proposed subsection, which is Criminal Code proposed section 440B(1) and is at clause 4 in the private member’s bill. The first thing that is notable about that subclause is that it uses the term “entity”. The first line reads — A person who obtains or deals with another entity’s identification information … That obviously becomes an offence. The use of the word “entity” is obviously critical because it is meant to capture both obtaining or dealing with another human being’s or person’s identity information and other, non- human entities, such as corporate entities, trusts or whatever it might be. That is conceivably very wide. The first problem that I foresee in the way the word is used is that “entity” is not used at all in the Western Australian Criminal Code. Had this bill been sent to the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office, it would no doubt have—it would have been advisable to have done this—placed a definition of “entity” into the definition section of the code as part of this legislative package. This bill does not do that. I foresee that it would create some significant difficulties. In the latter part of the bill one can see what is attempted to be achieved by the use of the word “entity”. The bill does not define the word “entity” but proposed section 440B(10) contains other definitions, and also, as is the case with the Queensland model, gives examples for an entity that is an individual—that is, examples of the type of information. It goes on to give examples of information for an entity that is a body corporate. Of course an entity would not necessarily be limited to a body corporate. Without some form of definition we would not know in the Western Australian Criminal Code what an entity was. No doubt we could have recourse to other jurisdictions to try to work out what it meant if the courts found themselves in that position. Indeed, courts might have recourse to the Queensland code, which does separately have its own definition of entity, albeit, curiously, its definition of “entity” is in part 6, which deals with prostitution. That is another matter that no doubt we will be dealing with here in due course. Dr J.M. Woollard: Hopefully sooner rather than later. Mr C.C. PORTER: We will come to that, but let us deal with identity theft first. The first point that I would raise is that what is critical to this legislation is to capture people who try to take the identity of a human being or person and also an entity. We have borrowed the term “entity” from the Queensland code, but unlike the Queensland code we have not defined it. Therefore, problem number one is that it is a bit more than inelegant and would cause us some serious difficulties with interpretation. It is not best drafting practice for our own court, in an interpretative question, to have to go to other jurisdictions to work out what it was that we as a Parliament meant by the term “entity”. This also becomes critical in another way, which I will describe in a moment. Save to say here that the term does not appear at all as it exists in our Criminal Code and this bill does not define it, although we have some sense of what is intended by that term. That is problem number one. Problem number two also appears in clause 4 and the first part of the Criminal Code that it seeks to amend, which is proposed new section 440B(1). The proposed new section reads — A person who obtains or deals with another entity’s identification information for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, an indictable offence commits a misdemeanour. Maximum penalty — 3 years imprisonment. The words “commits a misdemeanour” are interesting. The member for Mindarie might recall that it was his previous government that eradicated the use of the word “misdemeanour” from our Criminal Code. If members do a control-F search of the Criminal Code, they will find that the word “misdemeanour” does not exist at all any more. I think that was included in the 2004 amendments that brought in the either-way offence system. The member for Mindarie has quite fairly cut and pasted from the Queensland code, but the Queensland Parliament did not go through the same process of tidying up the hierarchy of offences that we did in this jurisdiction. We have all but eradicated the concept of a misdemeanour. We simply have indictable offences and simple offences. In fact, the only place I could find a reference to a misdemeanour in this jurisdiction is in the Crimes at Sea Act 2000. I think it is the case that the reason it maintains the use of the word “misdemeanour” is that it has mirror effect in other states’ legislation that also uses the term. We have a definition of it in our Interpretation Act but, importantly, it was a term which was known to the Criminal Code but which has been taken out of the Criminal

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4859

Code entirely. Problem number two would be that if we adopt this form of drafting, after all the effort of the previous government to take the word “misdemeanour” out of the code and simplify the offence structure to indictable, simple or either way, we would be going back to a system that we tried to get rid of. Mr J.R. Quigley: You can just amend that word. Mr C.C. PORTER: I could, but because I have nine or 10 problems, I would end up with nine or 10 rather heavy amendments when considered collectively. The member for Mindarie might consider that the matters I have raised could all be individually amended, but I think collectively they cause some difficulties in bringing this legislation up to the standard at which it would achieve what the member is seeking. As a third point, I note that the words “commits a misdemeanour” also appear in proposed section 440B(2), so that is another amendment that would have to occur. Proposed section 440B(1) was adopted from the Queensland legislation, but then there has been a slight restructure of a section of the Victorian Crimes Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill 2009, which appears as proposed section 440B(2) in this legislation. Very interestingly, there is a difference between what is in the Victorian bill and what the member for Mindarie has adopted here. If I might summarise, the Victorian bill appears to me to make it illegal to possess equipment whilst also holding an intention to use that equipment for a certain purpose, that purpose being an indictable offence. In effect, that is how the Victorian model goes. The Victorian provision reads, in part — A person, who possesses equipment that is capable of being used to make, use, supply or retain identification documentation … That is the trigger for the criminality. Attaching to that trigger, in the Victorian legislation, an offender would have to be in possession of equipment that is capable of being used to make, use, supply or retain, plus there would have to be an intention to use, or an intention that another person would use the equipment to make, use, supply or retain identification documentation, and there would have to be an intent to use any such identification documentation to commit an indictable offence. The member for Mindarie has collapsed all of that down into one provision but interestingly that provision does not use the words “use, supply or retain”. Mr J.R. Quigley: I just went by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General subcommittee on the Model Criminal Code’s provision that was put forward as an example. Mr C.C. PORTER: That is right, but that also contains other parts, including the South Australian bill that is used as the Model Criminal Code legislation, that cover the whole, and talk about false identities. It has a separate definition of a false identity, and through the South Australian model code legislation it weaves this term “false identity” throughout the model. It seems to me that, not being the South Australian model, and not using the words “use, supply or retain” the difficulty is created that the legislation is too narrow about what a person could be criminally liable for possessing. The member for Mindarie’s bill makes the possession in certain circumstances of equipment capable of being used to make identification documentation potentially criminal, but this does not apply to equipment that is capable of using, supplying or retaining identification documentation in certain circumstances. It seems to me that that is necessarily a software problem, because an offender might be able to communicate or manipulate constructed identification through the internet or whatever other means. That would necessarily also need to be criminalised, but this bill does not do that because of a hybrid way it has gone about its business. It too narrowly criminalises the type of position we would eventually want to criminalise. We would not want to criminalise only the possession in certain circumstances of equipment that can make identification documentation, but also the possession of equipment that can use it, supply it or retain it. That is a very important point, because it means that we are not quite getting to where we want to be with this legislation. The fifth point I raise I will call the restaurant clause. It refers to proposed section 440B(3) and (4). I will read them to the house. Proposed section 440B(3) states — This section applies to a person who intends to commit, or facilitate the commissioning of, an offence even if the committing of the offence concerned is impossible or the offence concerned is to be committed at a later time, and in the case of subsection (1), whether or not the person to whom the identification information concerns relates consented to the dealing in, or possession of, the identification information. There is a typographical error there—“whether or not the person to whom the identification information concerns relates consented”; it has to be either “concerns” or “relates”, but that is a very minor matter. It should be considered in the light of proposed section 440B(4), which states — Subsection (1) does not apply to dealing in, or the possession of, a person’s own identification information. I refer to this as the restaurant clause for the reason that I perceive that it is designed to pick up certain circumstances in which either an individual or a body corporate will consent to a third party using identification

4860 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] information—for instance, at a restaurant. One of the great scams with credit cards is the retention of relevant information on the old style credit card machines, as used in some restaurants; the information can then be used on the internet to log into the credit card holder’s account. The problem is that in the original drafting, following the Queensland model, the term “entity” has been used. However, in proposed section 440B(3) and (4), the term “person” has been used. This creates a problem. If a person goes to a restaurant and consents to the use of his data to pay his bill and the data is subsequently improperly used to commit an indictable offence, he will have criminal recourse against the person who stole his information, even though he originally consented to the use of the information. The proposed subsection does not use the term “entity”, however, which means that it could conceivably exclude a corporate credit card being used nefariously in the same fashion by a restaurant after, for example, the director of a corporation has given the restaurant a corporate credit card to pay his bill. That again causes a problem; it is just one of the drafting problems that occur when legislation chops back and forth between two different pieces of legislation using different terms. The unfortunate effect of that drafting is that it will criminalise the improper use of information that is given with the consent of an individual, but not by other entities, including corporate entities. Proposed section 440B(5) states — For subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the other entity is alive or dead, or exists or does not exist, or consents or does not consent to the obtaining or dealing. Proposed section 440B(5) attaches to the proposed subsections above it, particularly proposed section 440B(1). It basically provides that if a person commits an offence involving the obtaining of or dealing with the identification information of another entity, it is immaterial whether the entity is alive or dead. However, a conceivable interpretation is that in situations in which a “person” is referred to in this legislation, whether the person is alive or dead is relevant. That is a sui generis rule of interpretation that holds that if something is specifically excluded in one part of legislation, it may mean that there had been an intention to include it in another part of the drafting. That could potentially cause a problem. The seventh difficulty I have identified in the drafting is the definition of “identification information” in proposed section 440B(10). The definition again relates to the definition in the Queensland legislation. It states — … identification information, of another entity, means information about, or identifying particulars of, the entity that is capable of being used, whether alone or in conjunction with other information, to identify or purportedly identify the entity. That is a fair definition, but I think that a superior definition exists in the Victorian Crimes Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill 2009. It is unfortunate that it did not find its way into this legislation. The Victorian bill adopts a very modern drafting practice, and gives a very full explanation of “identification information”. The definition in the Victorian bill states — … identification information means information relating to a person (whether living or dead, or real or fictitious) that is capable of being used (whether alone or in conjunction with other information) to identify, or purportedly identify, the person, being information such as— The bill then goes into all the relevant examples — (a) a name, address, date of birth or place of birth; (b) information as to the person’s marital status; (c) information that identifies another person as a relative of the person; (d) a driver licence or driver licence number; (e) a passport or passport number; (f) biometric data; (g) a voice print; (h) a credit or debit card, its number or data stored or encrypted on it; (i) a financial account number, user name or password; (j) a digital signature; (k) a series of numbers or letters (or both) intended for use as a means of personal identification; (l) an Australian Business Number within the meaning of the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 of the Commonwealth.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4861

That is not an exclusive list, but I think it is a better practice in drafting to provide that list in those circumstances. Probably the final substantial problem that I envisage in this drafting is, as I mentioned earlier, in the idea that there is no definition of “false identity”. I foreshadow that I would prefer to adopt the South Australian legislation, which is effectively based on the Victorian legislation with some modifications, and I will bring it before Parliament shortly. The South Australian bill goes into some detail, first of all in defining a false identity, and then in making sure that certain offences in respect of that idea of a false identity are offences. The interpretation in the South Australia legislation reads — false identity—a person assumes a false identity if the person pretends to be, or passes himself or herself off as, some other person; The other person may be— (a) living or dead; (b) real or fictional; (c) natural or corporate. The South Australian bill then has specific offences that relate to that concept of false identity, and reads — (1) A person who— (a) assumes a false identity; or (b) falsely pretends— (i) to have particular qualifications; or (ii) to have, or to be entitled to act in, a particular capacity, makes a false pretence to which this section applies. It might be that in certain cases a person using data—for instance, skimming data—could not be said to be taking on a false identity. However, if that were the case, there are a range of other types of criminality that involve the assumption of a false identity—an impersonation—which might have nothing to do with credit cards or indeed data of the type I have mentioned; nevertheless, we might wish to criminalise it as an offence. Someone might impersonate someone else for any number of reasons attached to criminality. When we consider all those difficulties collectively and the way in which the legislation moves backwards and forwards from the Queensland bill to the Victorian bill and does not consistently apply or define the terms that appear in those two bills, I perceive that we would have some difficulties if this were the way in which our jurisdiction went about trying to criminalise the types of behaviour that it appears we are trying to criminalise. I might also add that it appears to me in some respects, as I said briefly at the beginning of my speech, that the type of behaviour we are talking about could already be considered criminal. Dr J.M. Woollard: Under what section? Mr C.C. PORTER: As an attempt to commit a further offence. Obviously if someone takes money out of someone else’s bank account from an automatic teller machine or online and it is not that person’s account, it is stealing of one variety or another, which appears in our Criminal Code. Presumably if a person were found in a situation in which that person had the type of equipment we are talking about, it is conceivable that the person could be charged with an attempt to steal if it were able to be proved that the person had the requisite intention to steal and that the person’s actions were more than merely preparatory to the commission of that offence. The meaning of “more than merely preparatory” is one of those notably and properly vague terms that has been clarified by years of precedent. Dr J.M. Woollard: Attorney General, are you saying that it is your understanding of the Criminal Code; because that can be used now in the courts if you are saying that you believe that that section of the code in relation to stealing can be used? Mr C.C. PORTER: It would very much depend on the circumstances and the way in which the court viewed the possession of the skimming devices—the equipment. That would have to be seen by the court as more than merely preparatory to the offence of taking money out of someone’s bank account, and that would depend very much on the circumstances. There might have been additional evidence in most circumstances, such as email communication between the people that revealed their plan, or other equipment. It may be any other sort of evidence also. The point about the necessity of having legislation of this type—I certainly agree with the member for Mindarie about this—is that there might be a range of instances in which people could have in their home the type of equipment that we are talking about. Although intuition might tell us that there is no good reason for having that equipment other than to likely steal money from someone’s account, later down the track

4862 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] it might be found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the people involved had engaged in an act that was more than merely preparatory. Dr J.M. Woollard: You are saying that the code could be strengthened. Mr C.C. PORTER: The attempt provisions would likely cover some of the conduct but by no means all of it. We must decide whether this is such a growth area of offending, particularly the theft of money through internet banking and the use of ATMs, that we need to take the step, as other jurisdictions have done, to criminalise the possession. The criminalisation of a possession also occurs in instances when there must be more than mere possession; there must be an intention to make, use and supply or transfer identification documentation, and also an intention to commit an indictable offence. Another difficulty I foresee with this legislation, member for Mindarie, is proposed section 440B(2), which states — A person who possesses equipment that is capable of being used to make identification documentation, with the intention that the person or another person will use the equipment to commit an offence against this section commits a misdemeanour. The Victorian version of the provision that the member for Mindarie has used essentially says that a person must possess and have an intention to commit an indictable offence. The member for Mindarie’s provision is that the person must possess the equipment and then have an intention to commit an offence against this proposed section. The only other offence that is in the section, other than the possession offence, is the first offence, which is a person who either obtains or deals with another entity’s identification information. It might be conceivable— it seems to me that this is what the Victorian and South Australian legislation seeks to pick up—that if someone possesses the equipment and intends to commit another offence—for instance, murder, armed robbery or any number of other indictable offences—these other provisions will pick up that type of criminality, whereas this provision feeds back in on itself. All it attempts to pick up is that a person possesses the equipment and has an intention to commit an offence against this proposed section. The other offence against this proposed section is the obtaining of or dealing with identification information. In effect, we would be criminalising a person for possessing equipment that obtains data in circumstances when the person intended to obtain data. It becomes completely superfluous and does not pick up a variety of other types of offending, for which the person could possess the equipment. I will also talk about the idea of attempts. When we look at what would be more than merely preparatory in this area, we can see that a range of possessive offences would not be caught by this legislation. It is interesting to know how the member for Mindarie has drafted this legislation. I refer members to Woolmington v the Queen, which takes us back. Code states such as Western Australia and Queensland do not have mental elements to our offences. When an offence such as murder is committed in a non-code state where the common law exists, such as Victoria, there must always necessarily be a physical element to that offence—actus reus and mens rea; there must always be both. An offence such as grievous bodily harm in this jurisdiction is an offence absent of mental elements; the offence is merely the doing of grievous bodily harm. There does not need to be an attempt to do grievous bodily harm. There merely needs to be the doing of grievous bodily harm. There is no mental element to that offence. That proposition has been tested in a variety of cases, but most notably with respect to the possession of illicit substances and drugs. A number of cases have basically been run on the argument that even though a person may be merely in possession of drugs, the person has committed the offence of possession. The defence that is then often mounted is that the person was in possession of drugs but either did not know that those drugs were in his possession or did not intend to do anything with those drugs. One case that is often referred to is the Canadian case of a woman who knew that drugs were in her car, but she did not know how they had come to be in her car, and she was trying to get rid of them by throwing them in a lake, or whatever it might be. The best case law that exists in this jurisdiction says that even though Western Australia is a code jurisdiction, we do not automatically have a mental element to certain offences. We also find that some words, such as “possession”, carry with them—by necessity of the English interpretation of those words—the idea that there is some element of intention. If we rely on authorities in this jurisdiction that relate to drugs, it may be the case that the words “a person who possesses equipment that is capable of being used to make identification documentation with the intention” will also be superfluous. I say that because the way in which we read “possession” in the case of offences for the possession of drugs necessarily means that there must be an intention to use or supply the drugs. Therefore, offences such as possession with intent to sell or supply mean not only that the person must possess the drugs but also that the person has an intention to sell or supply them. Mere possession also seems in this jurisdiction to have some form of intention attached to it. Therefore, that might also become unnecessary. I also foresee a difficulty with the use of the word “misdemeanour”. That difficulty is that we would then have a new form of words in the Criminal Code that say that a particular offence is not only an indictable offence, but also a misdemeanour. Our procedures in this jurisdiction have been streamlined so that we now have only indictable offences and summary offences. There are quite strict rules about when an offence is to be dealt with

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4863 summarily or when it is to be dealt with on indictment in the Magistrates Court or the District Court. This proposal will bring into the mix a completely new word that is at this stage foreign to our Criminal Code. As to whether a misdemeanour should be dealt with summarily in the Magistrates Court or in the District Court, at this stage, with all the reforms that have been made in our legal system over the past 10 years, that would be anyone’s guess, but if we hark back to 2004, that could create a good deal of confusion. There are some other notable aspects of the South Australian act that I think make that legislation preferable, and that we will be adopting in our legislation. I will close by talking in general terms about what we are proposing to adopt in the legislation that we intend to bring into this place. The first is that it seems appropriate to introduce a section that will creates a new offence for — a person who makes, uses or supplies the identification information (that is not the identification information that relates to that person), and — (a) who is aware that, or that there is a substantial risk that, the information sought is identification information; and (b) who intends to use or supply the identification information for the committal of an offence. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): Order, member for Mindarie! I hope the member is listening to this, because I cannot hear what the Attorney General is saying. Mr C.C. PORTER: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. The way that is structured in the South Australian legislation is different from the way it is structured in the bill that we intend to introduce. That is because what is required is not a strict intention on the part of the person to use that information to commit a further offence. However, if the person who gathers that information is aware that there is a substantial risk that that information is identification information, and if the person intends to use or supply that identification information to another person for the committal of an offence, that person may be in some difficulty. The point is that it is often the case that the person who has gathered the information sends that information to third and unrelated parties who are manufacturing devices that can be used to take money out of people’s accounts. However, the person who has gathered the information may claim to have little or no knowledge of the intention of the persons to whom he is sending the information, and he may use that as the basis for a defence that even though he is in possession of that information, he is not doing anything wrong. Proposed section 440B(2) refers to a person who possesses equipment with the intention that the person will use the equipment to commit an offence against this section, or another indictable offence. A person may be in possession of the identification information documentation with the intention of passing it on to another person, in circumstances in which he knows that the other person may be committing an offence. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.00 pm LOAN BILL 2009 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [7.00 pm]: Before the debate on the Loan Bill was interrupted I had been talking about not only aspects of social inclusion in my electorate, but also, in more general terms, those things that will result from an increasingly difficult social climate in our state over the coming years. To conclude the local aspect in my response to the Loan Bill, I will raise a couple of issues that concern my electorate. One is the lack of funding that is evident by the government’s action to remove guards from school crossings. Another is the need for maintenance funding for Embleton Primary School. The Minister for Education’s entrance into the chamber is timely. Embleton Primary School has been mentioned already in this house today in a discussion around behaviour management schools. This tiny school in my electorate is a behaviour management school. One of the most important things for children to have is a school premises of which they are proud. When they attend school their behaviour should reflect their surroundings. Children attending a school comprising decrepit buildings with leaking roofs do not feel confident. However, children attending a school that is in a good state of repair feel confident and important. The state of the school buildings should add in a positive way to the success of any behaviour management program. However, Embleton Primary School is sadly in need of repairs and I hope that at some point in the future some maintenance of the school buildings can be undertaken. The school crossing in my electorate, which I have mentioned several times in this house as being of real concern to me, is the school crossing on Grand Promenade in Bedford. This school crossing impacts on three schools in my electorate—St Peter’s Primary School, Inglewood Primary School and Inglewood preprimary. In

4864 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] addition, the crossing also impacts on a kindergarten near the preprimary. The government has taken away the school crossing guards. Mr R.F. Johnson: We have not taken away school crossing guards. Ms L.L. BAKER: The government has taken them away. Mr R.F. Johnson: The government has not done that. A committee organises that, as the member well knows. Ms L.L. BAKER: But it is the minister’s government. Mr R.F. Johnson: Whereabouts is this? Ms L.L. BAKER: It is in Bedford. I have raised this issue with the minister before. Mr R.F. Johnson: When did they last have a class one? Ms L.L. BAKER: Is this the review? They had the review about three months ago and were told that they would lose the crossing guard about a month ago. Mr R.F. Johnson: Have they lost the crossing guard? Ms L.L. BAKER: As far as I am aware, it is about to happen. Mr R.F. Johnson: I do not think so. Ms L.L. BAKER: That is very good to hear. I shall go away and check that. I thank the minister, if that is true. Mr R.F. Johnson: Please do, because I have taken some action in relation to crossing guards. Ms L.L. BAKER: I will try to keep the smile off my face. I thank the minister very much. Mr R.F. Johnson: I do what I can for you; you know that. I’m from the government. Ms L.L. BAKER: That will be fantastic. Therefore, I will not talk about school crossings. However, I will remind the government that maintenance at the Embleton school needs to be done. I will also talk about a couple of other programs in which I do not think the government has invested in this budget. One is a program called the Green Advantage. That program has been run through Edith Cowan University and the Swan Catchment Council. It targets ways of triggering good practice in environmental management by small business owners, particularly those whose businesses are along the Swan River. This program, which has been really successful in investigating the triggers that would encourage small businesses to be more energy and water efficient and to look after waste management more effectively, has run out of funding. No more work will continue under this program. It does not look as though this valuable program will continue. That is really sad for my electorate in particular, but for all the electorates along the Swan River that have small businesses on the banks of the river. Tiny enterprises, particularly those in light industrial areas, are much more inclined to treat their waste management with a bit more abandon than perhaps we would like. The Green Advantage was a program that genuinely tried to address the concerns of small business and tried to introduce some better practices, knowing the tight times that small businesses always have and the narrow budgets and profit margins on which they run. It is very sad that this program will not get any further funding from this government. Another problem that I can identify very readily because I have run foul of this myself is the need for a state trail bike strategy. I mention this because a committee was set up by the former Labor government that involved all the agencies as key players. They worked on an extensive consultation with the trail bike riders, the enthusiasts, the nay-sayers—people who do not like trail bikes—and the agencies whose job it is to try to look after conservation and environmental management in our state. They finally came up with a very weighty document— I mean that quite sincerely; it is an enormous report—about what could happen. I say this knowing that the issue is very near and dear to the hearts of some other members in this place—the member for Darling Range and the member for Swan Hills, in particular. Trail bikes have been reported on in the news and in current affairs programs quite a bit over the past three weeks. There have been three or four separate news items in the electronic media and on talkback radio. This is a very, very severe problem. I know that recommendations have been made and that work is continuing. I will try to summarise the large number of recommendations. Basically, they were about licensing off-road vehicles, so that we can track illegal use when those vehicles go off-road; providing recreational facilities for bike riders, so that people who want to engage in trail bike riding as a sport have somewhere to go without necessarily degrading the bush and destroying natural flora and fauna; and better policing of and fines attached to the areas where this happens. That is a very brief summary. When we asked questions during estimates about where this was going, we were told that it was really a local government concern and that local government was being asked to implement it. If that is true, I am very distressed to hear that the state government has decided not to put any resourcing behind either local government or its own agencies. The Department of Environment and Conservation gave no indication that it was expecting a windfall in this budget to manage this.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4865

Mr A.J. Simpson: Which department did you ask that question of? Ms L.L. BAKER: The department of environment. Mr A.J. Simpson: Believe it or not, motorbikes come under the Department of Sport and Recreation. If you had asked your question of that department, it would have informed you that $20 000 has been allocated to do the Back on Track report. That is being done by the committee that I chair. Ms L.L. BAKER: Is that a realistic budget for a state trail bike strategy? Mr A.J. Simpson: Yes, it is. We are getting the costings done with that amount of money. The costings will come back to us in the next couple of months, and I will be back in here to table that report. Ms L.L. BAKER: I look forward to it. That will be fantastic. As members opposite know, it is a big problem; one that has caused me a great deal of personal grief. I would be very happy to see that happen. I move on to the broader issues that concern me about social exclusion and the debt cycle. The cuts that have been made to child protection and Indigenous support will not do anything to help the social fabric of our community. The funeral assistance scheme has gone. Last week I was speaking to someone who is in the business of funeral directing. He said that the amount of money that was provided was quite tiny. His company had ceased bidding for the contract to manage this service because it was not commercially viable for his company in any way. Even this small amount of money that was meeting some of the most vulnerable needs of the community has gone. The Aboriginal economic development division has gone. I have grave concerns about what cuts in funding will do to the child protection system in this state. I have spoken about this in this house before. The three per cent efficiency dividend will cause a reduction in the cooperative work between departments as they try to come together to address the dreadful issue of looking after at-risk children. [Member’s time extended.] Ms L.L. BAKER: For every child coming into care, there will be one fewer worker in the Department for Child Protection to support them. I am also really concerned about the government’s management of any increase of mandatory reporting because the impost on the child protection system and resources will be extraordinary. The area that is of greatest concern to me is the government’s reduction of payments to non-government organisations. I want to talk about a number of issues on this. What happens if we shorten the length of contracts of non-government organisations to deliver services? Instead of offering a three-year contract for service delivery, that contract may be changed to 12 months and then there will be a review in light of a 12-month contract. The first thing to go in an organisation that has core funding for only 12 months is the ability to attract and keep staff. Along with that goes the knowledge that the staff in that organisation have collected. They move on; they have mortgages, families and lives to lead. They cannot wait to see if they can eke a few extra dollars out of their next contract bid. The community loses confidence. One of the major reasons government actually works with the community sector is to make a connection to the most vulnerable parts of our community and to reach people who genuinely need help. The community loses confidence because services are tenuous and organisations are not sure whether they can be delivered past a certain length of time, they cannot keep staff, they lose intellectual property, they lose their knowledge base and they lose their social networks. A very fragile state is created in organisations that we are trying to use to deliver services to the most vulnerable people. Finally, the capacity to plan goes out the window because organisations simply cannot afford the resources to keep people involved in planning. Why would they, if they have funding for only 12 months? The impact on non-government organisations, be they Aboriginal or any other type of non-government organisation, of shortening contracts is very, very detrimental to the organisation’s ability to perform the very things we want them to do—that is, to get close to the community and respond to its needs. This leads me to draw attention to the reduction in payments to non-government organisations that were identified in the budget. The budget assumes a reduction of $1.296 million over four years. That is already shown in the estimates, so the assumption is that that saving must come from somewhere. The Department for Communities told us in the estimates hearings that it will be reviewing each program that it funds to ensure that the future nature and mix of funded services are consistent with current community needs. I am not sure why the government thinks it has the market cornered on understanding what the community needs when these are the community organisations we work with to find out what the community needs. It will be pretty detrimental to make their existence more fragile. I have a list of 205 organisations that will be impacted on by this review. Clearly, because of the reductions that have been identified in the budget, they will also have their funding cut. They include family centres, childcare industry support, family and domestic violence support and family and community support. When I first stood, before the debate was interrupted for private members’ business, I was talking about social exclusion. We vest our trust in the programs that tackle social exclusion. Government agencies cannot do it. The government can try

4866 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] to deliver services but it cannot get down to the level needed to tackle problems such as antisocial behaviour. Programs affected include Bullsbrook Neighbourhood Centre, Carnarvon Family Support Service, Cockburn Family Support Service, Melville Family Support, Kununurra Neighbourhood House Family Support Service, Community Link and Network WA Metropolitan and Statewide Co-ordination Service, the WA Council of Social Service and many little childcare centres. Some of these places are funded with less than $100 000. Surely this government should be concerned that it is looking at cutting programs such as those for Parenting— Aboriginal Early Years, Aboriginal Early Year Support Service—Goldfields, Aboriginal Parent Support Service, Aboriginal Early Years Support Service—Armadale Health Service Area and at North West Metropolitan Area, Central Great Southern Aboriginal Early Years Support Service and Lower Great Southern Aboriginal Early Years Support Service. Dr K.D. Hames: Who is cutting those; you are not suggesting I am? Ms L.L. BAKER: This list is 205 projects long, minister. Dr K.D. Hames: You’re not suggesting I’m cutting the funding. Ms L.L. BAKER: I never suggested that. If the minister was listening, he would have heard me say that the Department for Communities is reviewing these programs, I assume, to meet its $1.26 million cut. Dr K.D. Hames: The reason I asked and the reason I was confused is that I fund a lot of similar programs and we are not cutting funding to them. Ms L.L. BAKER: I am reading from the Department for Communities’ list. Antisocial behaviour stems from social exclusion and it is well understood that the best way of tackling it is from a community level through preventive services. If these programs are cut and their financial stability and their ability to sustain service delivery are placed under threat, it will result in very retrograde outcomes. In conclusion, I simply say that I am greatly concerned by the impact that the Loan Bill 2009 is likely to have on families in the immediate term, together with the cost increases as a result of some of the government strategies in the budget. In a few years, that will equate to an individual debt of about $8 000 a person, and that should be of concern to the entire community of Western Australia. I really think that the government has got it wrong in this case. The government should have looked very differently at a lot of things and should have rethought its priorities. It should put people first rather than the economic strength of the state. I know that they are interlinked, but if we focus too much on one, it is to the detriment of the other. MS J.M. FREEMAN (Nollamara) [7.21 pm]: I rise to speak on the Loan Bill 2009. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the new member for Fremantle and I wish her the best of luck in this house. It has been an interesting six months for me and I assume she will find that herself. This Loan Bill seeks approval to borrow more than $8 billion to meet the government sector borrowing requirements. It seems like a bit of an unfunded black hole for many of the other associated issues that we have heard about in this place in the past few weeks. Most of all, it concerns me that 65 per cent of the general government sector is debt-funded and that debt burden will amount to more than $7 000 for every man, woman and child in Western Australia. I understand that comes in the context of what is happening federally, but I have taken note of the debate in this house about the federal government’s capacity to be able to raise revenue and the position it is in regarding capital injection. Another thing that concerns me that seems to be one of the biggest gaping holes we prospectively face in the future is that the budget neglects one of the biggest looming liabilities that the state faces—that is, unfinanced superannuation liabilities. That is something we will all have to come to terms with for the future of this state. It also concerns me that the government is happy to accept federal funding for certain projects but then defers important projects such as the Alexander Drive-Tonkin Highway overpass, which is an extremely important project for the people of Nollamara and the surrounding suburbs, including Morley. That project has been delayed while a project like Roe Highway stage 8 proceeds, a decision that was not announced prior to the election and is an $8.8 million funding commitment. Roe Highway stage 8 will damage one of our last remaining wetlands and bushlands and it is being blundered into when other projects really need much more focus and much more capacity. I read a number of speeches. I was in this place over the past couple of days in preparation for my contribution to this debate, and I was taken by my colleague in the other place who talked about the previous Labor state government’s programs in building roads and its very good record on that. That good record should have extended to Tonkin Highway and I think that it is extremely important that we ensure that what is now being federally funded and has been promised by both sides of this house and by both sides of federal government is delivered to the people around there because frankly they are just tired of hearing about it and they want it to proceed. I would like to talk about Koondoola Plaza Shopping Centre. As members would be aware, because of the number of times I have raised this in the Parliament, the Koondoola Plaza is a critical issue for the residents of Koondoola. I want to put more detail on the record because some members do not understand what I am talking

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4867 about. The current facilities are dilapidated and unsightly, with potholed car parks, and they are neglected. The poor design of the centre, which is like a cluster of separate shops, generates a feeling of insecurity. The plaza owners have responded by installing steel shutters and security bars and boarding up windows and entrances, which in turn make the centre unwelcoming and unsafe. It means that the area gets a bad name, which it does not deserve. The result is that only residents without other alternatives use the centre, so profitability is affected and investment return is reduced. This perpetuates the cycle of decline. It is therefore heartening that there is cross- party support for action to upgrade the area. That is demonstrated by the decision of the Minister for Planning to maintain the Koondoola revitalisation funding in the 2009-10 budget. I congratulate the government for doing that. There is a renewed sense of activism in the area. I would like to acknowledge both the Koondoola Ratepayers and Tenants Action Group for its tireless work over the years and the Koondoola Advancement Committee for its new enthusiasm to ensure that there is finally a positive outcome for this area. A recent letter from the Koondoola Advancement Committee to the Wanneroo council states, according to my notes — Koondoola is a marginal suburb and in many ways is given negative labels and has a stigma. The last thing we need is for government and council neglect of the suburb to continue. The effect on the self- esteem of children and young adults who live here has wide ranging consequences and the Koondoola Advancement Committee believes it is time to focus on solid solutions to our problems. We want action now and we intend providing residents with information on how to make use of various government and non-government agencies that may assist them. The practice of continued marginalization of our suburb must end now and we demand nothing short of better accountability practices. The group is very serious. I think many tiers of government have worked hard and assiduously to try to resolve this issue, but despite the hard work of the City of Wanneroo, the Department for Planning, the previous local member and the previous government, there has not been a satisfactory resolution to this point. The crux of the difficulty lies with what appears to be a dysfunctional strata arrangement. Irrespective of consultation and planning, which consider business needs, the eight owners have not been able to reach agreement with each other and with the City of Wanneroo. Clearly, this is a great disappointment to those who have put time and effort into this project. I would like to reiterate my willingness to work with the Minister for Planning and his government to deliver this project to those people in Koondoola, because it is vital for the community of Koondoola that the centre be upgraded, given its damaging effects. Indeed, just recently the impact of it was demonstrated by a petition with 400 names that was sent to the City of Wanneroo. In respect of the budget and the Loan Bill, I would also like to talk about the wages policy. As far as I am concerned the government’s wages policy is a sham. Capping wage increases to the consumer price index, which presently sits at around two per cent, does not maintain real wages, as the CPI does not reflect the day-to-day necessities. CPI increases are not a good measure of what is required to maintain a standard of living, as over the past four or five years while we have seen a decline in the CPI, the decline has been the result of a decrease in the cost of luxury goods. Basic goods, such as food, rent and charges went through the roof. My colleague from Maylands made a very good submission on this and on the need to ensure that people have living wages. The wages policy is a charade when it is juxtaposed with the recent wage negotiations with the police that resulted in an eight per cent wage increase over two years. The purpose of enterprise bargaining is to negotiate with workers, not to go in with a preset position. I was pleased to hear the Treasurer speak of his respect for police workers when they took industrial action to prosecute their claim for increased wages. As I see it, it is a worker’s right to take such action. I applaud the Western Australian Police Union for pushing and prosecuting its claim for eight per cent over two years, and I applaud the Treasurer for respecting this. I expect that similar understanding will be extended to all workers in this state when it comes time for their wage negotiations. It is unjust to apply a wages policy to one sector of workers and not to others and there is no justification for it. Indeed, all it appears to do is to entrench the unacceptable gender pay gap that exists in Western Australia—a 28 per cent pay gap. The agreements that are scheduled in this “constructed” period of wages policy cover areas that have predominantly women employees—in particular, nurses, education assistants, hospital workers and cleaners. I trust that the Minister for Health will be as respectful and understanding of industrial action that needs to be taken in the prosecution of nurses’ claims as the Treasurer was with the police. This government is on notice, as other governments have been, that the pay gap cannot continue and must be addressed. It should not be aggravated by the current wages policy. It is also a disgrace that the current government is simply dismissing discussions with the commonwealth about a contemporary industrial relations system, when its current system is haemorrhaging. It is a costly system that caters to less than 30 per cent of Western Australia’s workforce. It has a legitimate role in presiding over Western Australian government employees, but not at the cost of $6 541 for every application. I have a great regard and respect for the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission, its officers and commissioners, and I welcome a proper review that includes all stakeholders and is realistic about the future industrial relations system in Western Australia. However, I also believe that that review should not duplicate others, and should

4868 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] ensure fairness. It concerns me, then, that the Treasurer appears to have appointed someone who may, from my reading, appear biased. I quote from the Treasurer’s media statement made on 1 June 2009 — “Mr Amendola’s work representing the Commonwealth in the 1998 waterfront dispute; the 2002 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry; and his more recent involvement with the Office of Workplace shows his IR expertise is second to none.” I think that should have referred to the Office of Workplace Relations. I think there was an error in the Treasurer’s press release. Further, I went to the website of Blake Dawson, from where Mr Amendola hails, and noted that the summary of his background states — His vast experience offers a particular focus on assisting clients with the enforcement provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, key provisions dealing with collective agreement making and AWAs, the freedom of association provisions in the Workplace Relations Act — Read “WorkChoices” — and various discrimination issues. I look forward to Mr Amendola ensuring that he has an inclusive view of workplace issues, and that he is not simply being contracted to engineer the state form of WorkChoices. It is also concerning that this government is taking a separatist position on the harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws in Western Australia. It seems to me that the motto for this government is to work with the feds when it suits its ideological agenda and there is a cheque attached, and to cause havoc, which costs money to business, when it does not. I also want to speak about the impact on education of what we have discovered about the budget over the past few weeks. I recently went to the funeral of a friend’s father. It was a celebration of a good life, advantaged by access to education as a child born in a poor Welsh mining village. It was noted that his capacity to contribute greatly to this state and other places in areas such as teaching and drama was provided by the opportunity to attend further schooling through a scholarship—an opportunity not afforded to many of his peers in his village. The opportunities for education are on display in the electorate of Nollamara. Accessible education is a foundation of an inclusive society. I welcomed today’s announcement on the funding of the integrated service centre, although I note that $600 000 is less than the $800 000 that was committed by the previous Labor government. It is a fantastic program, and it needs to continue and expand. I do not welcome the abolition of the It Pays to Learn allowance, because it will have an adverse impact on the educational outcomes of students in the Nollamara electorate. However, of greatest concern is the cutting of 450 education assistant positions. The cutting of more than 400 education assistant positions does little to respect and recognise the importance of the tasks education assistants perform, and the contributions they make to schools. The member for South Perth raised similar concerns to the concerns I have about what is occurring in the electorate of Nollamara. He has been informed that education assistance time for one of his constituents has been reduced this year. He was told that it would be dealt with separately. It seems to me that this is not just a one-off issue. It is certainly an issue that is occurring at schools in the electorate of Nollamara. It has a massive impact on the children and parents involved; the parents have to keep their children at home because there is no longer adequate education assistance at the local school. It puts the child’s education in peril, and it means that parents are restricted from ongoing and secure employment. I believe it is actually discriminatory on the grounds of disability to not provide what children with disabilities require to attend school. I recently visited a school and saw a gorgeous young preschool child with cerebral palsy. She also had a beautiful smile and was very clever. She was clearly disadvantaged by the fact that her body would not do what she told it to do, but I was told that she participated actively and that she wanted to do everything that other children did. This child is in preschool, and such great opportunities lie ahead for her; the difficulty is in providing her with the necessary special education assistance to ensure that she can make the most of those opportunities. Cutting the number of education assistants will have a massive impact on the capacity for these people to realise their potential. I am aware of the experience of a number of ethnic education assistants who have been employed for as long as seven years or more, but still do not have permanent employment status. I have read the estimates of the impact of the cuts on education assistant numbers, and the minister has outlined that cuts will be made when existing education assistants are no longer required at the schools at which they are currently employed. [Member’s time extended.] Ms J.M. FREEMAN: That is no consolation for ethnic education assistants who have worked on temporary contracts for many years. These people need the security of ongoing employment; their skills are transferable, and they should be employed on an ongoing basis. They should not be subject to the whim of the minister to make cuts to employee numbers. These women are mostly low-income workers. Many years ago when I first worked at the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union—the LHMU covers education assistants—the

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4869 occupation of education assistant was considered to be one of the lowest paid in Western Australia. The good work of the education assistants, working collectively with their union, gained for them the suitable and sustainable wage levels that they now enjoy. It is somewhat concerning that one of the major issues in their enterprise bargaining agreement campaign was to gain permanency for many education assistants. Many members in this chamber will be aware that permanency is one of the major issues for many of the teachers in our community. One of the impacts of not having permanency in the education system is that many teachers leave state government schools in search of permanent and ongoing secure employment. It was the same for education assistants. After a long and protracted number of years of negotiation with the Department of Education and Training, permanency was made available to these workers because of their skills and because of their capacity to contribute to the school environment. It seems, therefore, a travesty to be faced with the fact that the education department has made these people permanent and is now abolishing 500 or more of their jobs. It is therefore a major concern to me. I had an opportunity to look at estimates committee supplementary information A16, in which the department states that in each of the 267 schools listed there is at least one full-time equivalent education assistant above the formula-derived establishment. The department is therefore saying really that it will get rid of 540 jobs because there are almost two FTEs in every one of these schools, and some schools with more. Members might want to look at the list to see whether schools in their electorates are on it. The member for South Perth will be pleased to know that one school in Como in his electorate that is not even on the list will have a reduction in education assistants. Mr J.E. McGrath: That was said in estimates. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes, the member for South Perth made the point in the estimates hearing and I noted that too. I just say in closing that one aspect I have noted when I have visited schools in my electorate is the belief that they are hamstrung by red tape. I say this for the benefit of the member for Scarborough. Recently I visited a school that had received funding from the education department to construct a path for a young girl with cerebral palsy who needed to get to two playgrounds. The school could have employed a contractor who works in the area—thereby increasing employment in the area—who would have done a superior job and would have constructed four paths for the price of one, so that all the kids could use them as tracks to ride around, instead of one child with cerebral palsy having two tracks to gain access to the playgrounds. However, the school could not use that contractor because it is bound to use someone on the government list. That just does not seem logical to me. Mrs L.M. Harvey: No, it’s a disgraceful system! Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I am sure it has been in place for a number of years. When I spoke to the Treasurer in estimates, there was no indication from Treasury either that it would change. If the government has the capacity to allow more flexibility in that area, the opposition would welcome it. However, I say to the member for Scarborough that I would not talk too soon until the government delivers. I say to the government: please deliver. It would be a great thing if the government delivered such efficiencies. MR A.J. CARPENTER (Willagee) [7.42 pm]: This Loan Bill is being introduced against the background of the worst first budget in the state’s history. It is a joke of a budget. It is a ridiculous budget. Nobody takes this budget seriously anymore. It did not take long for the true state and ineptitude of the new government to reveal itself. It had to come, and it has come in the form of the budget. I likened the members of the new government earlier in the year to participants in Napoleon’s 1798 attempted invasion of Egypt: 95 per cent of his troops did not know where they were going, did not know what to do when they got there and hated the experience. This government did not know what it was going to do, had no idea of going about proper policy development and that lack of policy preparation and lack of detailed work in the initial instance has manifested itself in a budget that should be an embarrassment to the members of this government. It is a budget that has been cobbled together by people who did not know what they were doing or why. There is no thematic purpose to it. There is no policy purpose to it. It is a joke! It would make a good assignment probably for university doctoral students: have a look at the 2009-10 Western Australian state budget and tell us what the government was trying to do; and try to find a worse example of a budget either by a first-year, first-term government or any government in Western Australia or in the history of any other state. It is a shame for the state of Western Australia that we have got to the position that is this budget, the 2009-10 budget. However, it is not surprising, because when we look at the people who put it together and the attitudes they take to their role, it had to happen. It is unfortunate that the adverse international economic circumstances have compounded the government’s incapacity and it has turned out a document that we should all be embarrassed by. The budget has so many holes and failings in it that it will continue to be a source of material for the opposition until the next budget is produced in 12 months. It is a Swiss cheese of a budget. It is so full of holes that it lacks any substance whatsoever. What a shame that we in Western Australia, with our resources bounty and the hard work that has

4870 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] been done over the past 10 or so years, should have to confront a massive debt position within the space of a few years. What a shame that some people do not think that that is an issue for the state. Our circumstances are not comparable with the circumstances faced by the federal government. It is completely different. We are a state government with different responsibilities. There is a different dynamic at work in our economy than in the national economy. We are the powerhouse and resource capital of the nation, and we should produce a government that is capable of establishing Western Australia’s long-term economic and therefore social success. Sadly, it is quite the contrary. This budget threatens to be a monster to deal with for years to come. A question was asked rhetorically by other members: where is the plan for the rectification of this budget position? Where will we be in five or 10 years’ time? We have seen a crazy spending splurge in the first nine months of this government. It was a completely uncontrolled spending splurge, the likes of which I do not believe have been seen before in Western Australia. It is unbelievable unaccountability. It is one thing to have the royalties for regions policy. There is some logic to it and a basis for that. However, it is unthinkable that it will be a massive spending spree with no accountability levels whatsoever. The government is not running a shonky two-dollar company; it is running the state of Western Australia. If the state is not properly maintained, the nation will fail. The Treasurer is not running a mickey mouse bus tour operation in Busselton; he is running the state of Western Australia. He must take his responsibilities seriously. The Treasurer cannot be a halfwit and the type of person who tries to get a laugh with sight gags and be a credible Treasurer of the state whom people at national forums will take seriously. He cannot be a half-baked spiv who ran a bus tour company and expect to be taken seriously as the Treasurer of Western Australia if he does not make changes to his behaviour. The budget that he has produced reflects that background. The Treasurer is a lightweight. I will get to the Minister for Health in a minute. Where was the serious hand on this budget? Where was the hand of heavy political responsibility in the framing of this budget? Where was the person during the budget deliberations who was saying that the one thing we must maintain is our economic credibility? If that person was there, he has not been heard in the formulation of this budget. It is a sham of a budget and it is a shame for the people of Western Australia that this budget has been produced. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Can members keep their conversations down. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Members can compare the budget position that we had for the past eight years—I make no reflection on the government before that because different circumstances applied and it had its own issues— with the budget circumstances predicted in the next four years in this document. We have gone from being a net lender of some $3 billion to a prospective borrower of $6.8 billion or $6.9 billion; that is a $9 billion turnaround. The last time a Loan Bill was brought into this Parliament was in about 2004, when we had a Treasurer who took his role seriously and who copped a lot of flack because he was such a serious Treasurer. That Treasurer brought a Loan Bill into the Parliament that was seeking an amount of about $400 million. That was quite controversial at the time. That Loan Bill was brought in during the very difficult—as members may remember—fiscal and economic circumstances that prevailed during the first three or four years of this decade. Mr P. Papalia: It was only $250 million. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Was it? This Loan Bill is seeking to borrow $8.3 billion, yet we have not heard one word about where this path is going to lead. Where is the sunshine at the end of the day? How are we going to get out of this? The answer to that from the other side of the Parliament was given by the Premier during the estimates when he said, “Something may drop out of the sky”. In Western Australia something may well happen, because we are so lucky with our natural resources. Something may well drop out of the sky. But the Premier cannot run government like that. The Premier can muck about with his little play games with his little mickey mouse companies and businesses in the hopeful expectation that, no matter how badly he runs the place, something may happen, but he cannot run the state of Western Australia like that. I dare say that if the Premier tried to run a serious business in that way, he would be either thrown out or brought before the appropriate authorities to explain why he has produced as his annual financial report a document that is such a sham. There is more than $1 billion worth of unaccounted expenses that the government has committed to that does not appear in the budget document. How can the Treasurer get away with that? I will tell the members how. The Treasurer thinks he can get away with it because when he was in opposition and in the position of having to scrutinise legislation, he did not take that role seriously. The last shadow Treasurer, Steve Thomas—not a bad member of Parliament—lost his seat. The current Treasurer was not the shadow Treasurer at the time. Steve Thomas was the shadow Treasurer. Steve Thomas might have made a better fist of being Treasurer than the current Treasurer is making. We all know what the current Treasurer was up to when he was in opposition. He certainly was not taking his role seriously. The Treasurer has all the attributes of a lightweight spiv who has drifted, through good fortune, into one of the most important roles in Western Australia. The Treasurer may well have some sort of acumen for this role, but it does not come to the fore in this document. The next person up the line of authority is the Premier. The Premier’s stamp is all over this document, because he has made it clear throughout his time in Parliament that he does not take budgeting seriously. The Premier has said as much in this chamber. The Premier has said that the only part of the budget that matters is the part that

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4871 applies to the forthcoming financial year—2009-10. The rest of the budget does not matter. I can tell those members who might be so ingenuous as to not believe it that when the Premier was a minister, he acted as though budgeting did not matter. So we have a Treasurer who has not matured on the vine sufficiently to take on his role in an appropriate way, and who is being overseen by a Premier who does not think budgets matter. Of course that means that we will have a disaster on our hands. That is especially the case when the dynamics of the international market are playing out in the way they are. If things were still booming and the economy was still growing at eight, nine or 10 per cent and revenue was pouring in the door, they might have been able to get away with this sham. The other thing that is going against the Treasurer and the Premier in trying to get away with this sham is that the current Leader of the Opposition spent eight years as the Treasurer of the state of Western Australia, and he actually knows a bit about budgeting, about responsible spending, about revenues and about the construction of the budget and what it means. He did not have a lot of fans at the end of that eight years, because not many successful Treasurers do have fans, but he knows a hell of a lot about budgets. Therefore, when the Treasurer presents a document such as this, of course the Leader of the Opposition can see through it, and he has. There are also new members of this chamber who can see through this budget. One of those members is the member for West Swan. The member for West Swan has been involved in budget preparations at the state and commonwealth level for a very long time—longer than anyone on the other side of the chamber. Of course she can see through this drivel that presents itself as a budget. I can tell members that when we were in government we took the whole process—formulating the budget, understanding the dynamics and what it means—very seriously. We had very committed people, both elected members and non-elected people, involved in the process, one of whom was the member for Balcatta. His was an extremely conservative hand in budget discussions. I would probably have been the most adventurous person in the budget discussions. We had the then Treasurer, the cautious member for Balcatta and the very cautious former member for Fremantle wanting to maintain the integrity of this state’s finances and protect this state’s reputation. We would not have produced a piece of rubbish like this. It is a joke. It is a piece of rubbish. It is a piece of garbage masquerading as a budget for Western Australia. It has been produced by people who are tantamount to clowns in the act, who think that the purpose of politics is self-aggrandisement or standing up in the chamber and getting a laugh. It is a shame that this document has been produced. I refer now to unfunded projects. Was Oakajee the number one priority of the government’s? Mr P. Papalia: No, it was Ord River. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: The government has overshot on Ord River. It got swept up in the view that somehow or other it would produce something of political icon status and be cheered on for decades to come. It will not be. The whole concept of the Ord River replacing the Murray-Darling Basin as the food bowl of Australia is ridiculous. What will be grown in the Ord? The way to go about the Ord River project is small incremental increases. The idea of splurging hundreds of millions of dollars so that farmers will come from the Murrumbidgee River area or wherever it is no longer raining to grow oranges and apples is ridiculous. It will not happen. They will not grow cotton on the Ord either, because there is no market for cotton. There is no market for sugar either. They are talking about growing something called chia, which is a herbal ingredient that is put into food. It is not the sort of project to hold up as a number one priority. The government made a commitment to Oakajee. God only knows why, because probably only God understands the working of the mind that has driven it. It was going to happen. The ducks were lined up. The private financiers were there ready to provide money to the private developers. Okay, this government has different priorities to the previous government, but where is that reflected in the budget? How often did the now Premier, as minister, talk about this being a major project for which he went to the commonwealth to get commonwealth funding; however, there is no state funding in this budget? What would happen if a serious, credible company produced a document like this budget that did not refer, even in the footnote, to committed expenditures of a magnitude like this within the near future? The company would have to explain itself to its shareholders and would probably have to go before the appropriate authority to explain why the document is such a misleading one. I refer now to the Northbridge Link—the underground railway project. I really love this project. I do not know the scope of it. I do not think anybody, including the government, does. They do not know how long it will take to complete or how much it will cost. However, I like the project, but there is nothing allocated to it in the budget. It is a ridiculous omission. We cannot have major projects that do not have funding allocated to them in the budget. The budget is a document that does not bear scrutiny by anybody who takes politics seriously. I could go on, but other members have already spoken about the unfunded commitments that are not referred to in the budget. The day the Treasurer, the member for Vasse, got to his feet and delivered that budget speech was the day that a fraud was perpetrated on the people of Western Australia. I listened to it and said that I had not heard anything like it. It is a sort of Reader’s Digest sanitised version of a budget speech. We do not hear budget speeches that

4872 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] do not refer to increased taxes and charges, but we did this time. The Treasurer was not pitching into the same opposition crowd that used to be on this side before the government changed. This is an opposition that knows a bit about this sort of stuff, can take it seriously and has forced, I believe, some attention from an otherwise reluctant media. [Member’s time extended.] Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Revenue is at risk. It was disturbing to listen to the Premier during estimates when he was asked questions about the level of funding from royalties in the forward estimates. As a state government— initiated by Geoff Gallop and Clive Brown—we went through a very, very difficult process to virtually force an agreement out of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto for increased royalties from a category of iron ore called fines, which had hitherto attracted a concessional rate. Those who are interested already know the history of it. We got an agreement from those two companies—this agreement exists in writing—that for future projects the concessional rate on fines would disappear, and they would pay the same royalty rate as they do for lump ore. That agreement was reflected in the pre-election financial statements—$500 million. Then I heard the Premier say in the chamber that basically—I think this is what he was saying—that agreement does not exist. The only agreements that exist are the state agreements, which have not yet been altered. To me, that puts at risk and in jeopardy that $500 million in the budget figures. I hope that the Premier is successful if he proceeds with his attempt to completely eradicate the concession on fines. I think it will be very difficult because, for one thing, companies make investment decisions based on a certain set of known factors, known parameters, and that is reflected in the state agreement. To retrospectively change or alter those factors is, I think, a difficult thing to sustain in argument, and it goes to that hoary old chestnut of sovereign risk. I hope he is successful because it will mean a lot of money for the state. However, he has put at risk the $500 million, or thereabouts, that we had already secured. He should have nailed that down and then moved a step forward. However, it is not reflected in the budget, which leaves the possibility that as well as more than $1 billion in committed projects not referred to in the budget, the government could have a major shortfall in its revenues. On smaller scales today I think the member for Armadale referred to another such case. The member for Balcatta referred in discussion with the police minister to another case of about $8 million that is expected to be derived from some outcome of the antihooning legislation. These are just numbers that are on a wing and a prayer. There is absolutely no agreed process for or explanation of how that money is going to be raised. Mr R.F. Johnson: Yes, there is. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: No, there is not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You think you know everything, my friend. You don’t. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: No, I do not. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): Member for Warnbro! Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Numerous projects have been cancelled, which is very, very unfortunate. There is an argument that an incoming government has its own set of priorities and therefore can go ahead on its own path. However, I believe that when money has been committed in a budget to a project in a local community, and the party that goes on to form government gives an undertaking in opposition and during the election campaign that those commitments will be honoured, it is a disgrace when those commitments are dishonoured. That is what has happened in this budget. I will give the house one example, because it allows me to talk briefly about my own electorate, and that is the infill sewerage program in Spearwood. I went to a community meeting on Sunday evening at the Phoenix Primary School hall in Spearwood, which is in my electorate. There were 150 people in attendance, including a staff member of the Minister for Water. We discussed this matter. I gave a commitment to the people there that I would raise this matter with the Minister for Water, which I am now doing. I am glad that he is in the chamber. I also said to them that I considered the minister to be a reasonable—I think I might have used the words “very reasonable”—person. Dr G.G. Jacobs: I got that feedback, yes. Thank you. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I think the minister is a very reasonable person. If he were able to be educated to the particular circumstance in Spearwood, there would be a very good chance that those people could change his mind. I actually did it in 2006 when they came to me. An undeniable case was put to me and a commitment resulted out of that. I think the minister could change his mind. Whether he is able to change his mind and the position of the Treasurer and the Premier, I do not know. I urge the minister to take up the opportunity to speak to those people. They are very reasonable people who are being put in a shocking position. It is a matter of their health as well. Dr G.G. Jacobs: Member, I’ve given an undertaking to meet the Spearwood Action Group next Tuesday.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4873

Mr A.J. CARPENTER: That is good. I ask the minister to go with an open mind. They are very reasonable people, long suffering, and I do not want them to be dudded in the way that they are being dudded by this budget. This is the situation they are confronted with. The interesting gaggle of people who came together to make up the new government of Western Australia—congratulations to them; they were elected into that role— came to office with no plan of what to do when they got there. I think everybody understands that that is the case. The Liberal Party certainly did not have a plan. The National Party consistently advertised its royalties for regions program out in the regions so it could argue that that is what its plan was. I say to the Leader of the National Party that the big weakness of that program is that there is no accountability around the model. The Leader of the National Party will get himself into serious trouble—that is my advice to him—if he proceeds in the way that things are proceeding, and he should avoid that. When a party is in government, it cannot hand out tens—ultimately, hundreds—of millions of dollars on its own whim. Levels of accountability and responsibility have to be constructed around that process so that everybody—including, unfortunately for the Leader of the National Party, the opposition, the media and the people who miss out—can understand what has happened, the process and why money has gone in particular directions and why it has not gone in others. That is a basic requirement of accountable government. Unless the Leader of the National Party understands that quickly and gets to grips with that issue—I do not believe that he is, and I do not believe that he is malintended either, by the way—he personally and his ministers will get into serious trouble. I will give an indication of the worst possible scenario of how this might happen. I have been around politics in Western Australia in one form or another long enough to remember when the term WA Inc was conceived. The term WA Inc was not conceived as a derogatory term; far from it. The term WA Inc was coined as a descriptor of a force that was supposed to be unifying Western Australia and sending it in a brand-new direction with youth and enthusiasm and entrepreneurial skill to benefit all of Western Australia. What happened? Because that process, that energy and that motivation went completely off the rails and ended up in shocking outcomes through very bad process, the term WA Inc came to be understood for what it is understood now; that is, not a good thing but a very bad thing. It is possible that the National Party’s clever little catchphrase—royalties for regions—might suffer the same fate. Unless the National Party acts to put the right accountability mechanisms around the process that comes under that umbrella of royalties for regions, it will inevitably get itself into trouble. The National Party simply cannot be seen—this is how it is being perceived at the moment—to be wandering around the state handing out money willy-nilly for no constructive or apparent purpose other than a political benefit. The Leader of the National Party used this aspect of human nature very cleverly against the Labor Party. People take the benefit that they are given initially, they bank it, then they ask for more. When more is not produced or when they are dissatisfied with what the government is doing for some reason, they will turn on it. He will not be able to go on in the future interminably writing out cheques for people who walk in and out of his office. There has to be a structure around it. Anyway, that is his problem, but it is a real problem. The royalties for regions concept has some validity, but the way it is being handled now is very badly constructed policy and will lead the Leader of the National Party and the government into a very adverse outcome unless he is careful. He can take that advice or ignore it. I think my first words were, “… worst first budget of any new government in the history of the state”. It is a shocking budget; it is a hopeless budget; it thumbs its nose at accountability and honesty. It is a budget for which the government should be embarrassed. I say to the members of the government that, unless they can wheel forward some of the people on their side of the Parliament who have a more constrained, restrained, mature hand to play a role in this budget process, they will be shot down in flames as their term goes on. One other bit of advice: the media are watching now. It is very interesting. I have noticed that the government’s run of highly dubious appointments is now starting to attract some attention. The way questions were answered by the Minister for Local Government today was appalling; scandalous. I do not know what happened in the Leader of the National Party’s office, but he might be in trouble. He cannot behave in government as though he is not in government. He cannot have the attitude that the current Premier has—that good budgeting does not matter—and he cannot give the response that the Premier gives when serious questions are asked of him and he responds in a Bjelke-Petersen like way with, “Who cares?” or “So what!” When a serious question was asked, such as that asked of the Premier of Western Australia today about propriety, he quite often says, “So what!” “Who cares?” He gave that response when a question was put to him about the appointment of Haydn Lowe as the chairman of the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee. There is a scandal in that appointment. I invite anyone who is interested to investigate the appointment of Haydn Lowe as the chairperson of the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee and the circumstances that allowed that to happen. There was the dismissal of the committee, the knocking back of the recommendations for its replacement and the forcing of the acceptance of Haydn Lowe as the chairman of that committee. The response from the Premier when that matter was raised in the estimates hearings was, “So what!” Well, so what if he thumbs his nose at proper process! I had to sack, I think, four ministers—not because they were pocketing money, but because they did not comply with proper process. None of those people—one is still in the chamber—was ever accused of pocketing money. It was about

4874 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] process. In government, if people avoid proper process, which the government has done with this budget, they are gone. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [8.13 pm]: I want to speak on this bill. The level of debt this government is taking this state to is extraordinary. I have watched politics since I was 15 years old, and I have been a member of the Australian Labor Party since I was 17 years old. In all my reading over that period, one consistent theme has come through when the Liberal Party or its predecessors—whatever conservative party it might be— talks about the Labor Party. They always allege that it is the Labor Party that gets us into debt and the Liberal Party that gets us out of debt. That has been the consistent theme of the Liberal Party since it was established in 1944: Labor gets us into debt and Liberal gets us out of debt. Let us look at the record of recent years. The record is that the Labor Party has paid off debt and the Liberal Party has acquired the greatest debt, by whatever measure we put around it, in the history of this state. Under this government, Western Australia will carry almost $20 billion worth of debt. That is the greatest turnaround in the state’s financial fortunes in this state’s history. I said a few weeks ago that, for my family of now five people, the debt is nearly $8 000 each; that is $40 000 worth of debt under my roof that the government has managed to secure for us. The great sham, the great misleading historical fallacy, that was put around by the Liberal Party over so many years is now proven; that is, the Liberal Party is responsible for sending this state into that extraordinarily high debt position. Other members have talked about it, particularly the member for Victoria Park, but I wanted to put on the record that I am appalled by the level of debt that the government has got us in. I want to talk about a couple of other matters, one of which I am appalled about and the other on which I want some clarification because I am concerned about it. The second matter concerns the Gorgon project. I have some comments to make about the domestic gas obligation of that project and what decisions this state government might have made, and whether it has published them, that impact on the domestic gas obligation of that project. However, the first matter I want to talk about is what I saw in question time today and on the television tonight about the actions of members of the Leader of the National Party’s staff in undermining the director general of the Department of Environment and Conservation. I put on the record that I appointed Mr Keiran McNamara as director general of the Department of Environment and Conservation; he had formerly been the director general of the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I appointed him to that position in either early or mid-2006. I think he is a highly professional government officer, a capable man with a long record of service to this state, who does a very difficult job in a state of this nature; he is always subject to those taunts that anyone who believes in conservation or protection of this state’s environment is subject to. Mr McNamara is subject to the taunts that he is slowing things down, stopping development and not allowing things to happen, but he leads a very professional organisation. In fact, it is probably the most professional organisation I had the privilege of serving as minister, for the 1 800 or so staff contained in that agency across this great state are wonderful people who are committed to the state’s environment and who often serve in arduous conditions in difficult environments and communities that are difficult for people who believe in those responsibilities. Mr McNamara had a difficult relationship, it has to be said, with the Shire of Shark Bay, and I understood why. The establishment, if we like, of Denham and that community were extremely hostile to anyone who had any commitment to conservation and the environment. In that area it was largely about the conservation aspects because it is a beautiful part of the world. The Shark Bay World Heritage area was the first World Heritage area in Western Australia, and large components of the marine environment are protected; it is small in overall terms but a large part compared with other parts of Western Australia and Australia generally. The natural environment of this area is now famous throughout Australia and the world. The staff who worked for the former CALM, now the Department of Environment and Conservation, were subject to some persecution in that community from the establishment that ran that town, particularly some of the councillors. One councillor, as I recall—this is not a joke—held the natural environment in such contempt that he went on national television and alleged that dolphins are paedophiles. I am not joking. He was one of the shire presidents of that community and he appeared on Four Corners in 2006 and alleged that dolphins are paedophiles and that if people actually understood what they were really like, the great myth of dolphins being appealing creatures would be exploded. Mr J.R. Quigley: Was he a member of the Liberal Party? Mr M. McGOWAN: Probably; he was a very conservative gentleman. Mr T.R. Buswell: Why do you suspect he was a member of the Liberal Party? Mr M. McGOWAN: He was very conservative. Mr T.R. Buswell: Why do you think that? Mr M. McGOWAN: Something in the back of my head is telling me that I was told that; that is why. I am not alleging that other people believe it. All I am saying is that that particular gentleman appeared on the Four Corners program alleging that and had a completely dismissive attitude towards the natural environment of that part of the world even though it is that part of the world’s greatest asset. Mr McNamara had a difficult relationship with those people and people who believe in such things. As I recall, there were the issues with state

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4875

Museum assets that were provided to that community on loan and not returned by that community under instruction from the council. There was therefore a difficult relationship and extreme hostility to departmental staff. The worst thing was that staff could not be kept in that community because they suffered a degree of persecution from that establishment, which had a hatred of people who believed in environment and conservation; that is, people who actually wanted to protect the marine environment and maintain the marine reserves. The Department of Environment and Conservation had difficulty keeping them there because its staff had such a hard time. We now see the Leader of the National Party’s office involved in an undermining campaign. I noted tonight on the news a failure by the minister even to back that director general, who is a professional public servant of decades standing in both national and Western Australian governments. That sort of behaviour by his staff and the minister in not supporting a director general, and someone who must contend with that sort of behaviour in the community, is not good enough. The minister should support people who fulfil those sorts of roles. I do not know what involvement members of the minister’s staff have had in this shocking undermining campaign of a senior public servant, but whatever it is it should be exposed. We should get to the bottom of what has gone on in the minister’s office in undermining a senior professional public servant who has had to put up with a lot from people whom the minister is supporting. I have outlined to the minister the sorts of beliefs of those people who are undertaking that undermining role. I suspect that there is a lot to go on that issue. It is perhaps incumbent on the minister to come into this house and make a personal explanation or at least a short or long ministerial statement to outline what has gone on. The third issue I wanted to deal with is the Gorgon project. I will put this on the record in the hope that at some point the Premier or some minister might explain what has gone on. I have here a copy of the submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in support of an application for interim and final authorisation of the Gorgon gas project. Of course, this project has come about as a result of a state agreement act in 2003 between the former government and the project proponents. When I became Minister for the Environment in 2006 I was presented with a project that had gone on for three or four years and had reached a point at which I was required to make a decision on its environmental approval. I put the toughest conditions around it of which I could possibly conceive. I note that the proponents have come back with some amendments that the new government has dealt with. One of the issues was the project providing a domestic gas supply, feeding into the domestic gas pipeline, from the Gorgon gas fields. The expectation in the project agreement and Barrow Island Act was that gas would come on line domestically in 2012. In the submission to the ACCC by the project proponents, they indicated that they applied to extend the date for the establishment of the Domgas project because of project delay, upstream sequencing constraints relating to Gorgon and Jansz deals and other technical issues on 6 April 2009 and requested that the minister—that is the Minister for State Development, the Premier—extend the date for the establishment of the Domgas project to 31 December 2015. That is a three-year extension on the requirement to feed domestic gas to Perth, or to industry in Western Australia along the way. Their reasoning, and I have no reason to doubt it, has to do with project delays and so forth. However, the submission indicates in paragraph 2.19 that delivery of domestic gas to Western Australian customers is to begin shortly after the start-up of the third liquefied natural gas train in 2015. The company is saying that domestic gas will not be provided to Western Australian customers until the third LNG train is operational, not the first two. That is the issue. If there are delays in the project—we know that there always seem to be with these major projects, in the area of financing and so forth—I can accept that, but why is there no provision of domestic gas until the third LNG train becomes operational in 2015? We know that the Minister for State Development—the Premier—has approved this, although I am not aware that anything has been released publicly to reveal why or when. All we know is that the company is saying that the Premier ticked it off, so he has signed some document; however, no public announcements have been made as far as I am aware. That is another issue. He needs to reveal to us whether he announced that publicly and whether he approved the plan to provide domestic gas supplies only after the third train becomes operational. The third point is that in paragraph 7.51 of the submission it is stated that even in the period after the first provision of gas, the project will remain in the early stages of its development. At the first provision of gas—as I understand it, that will be after the third train becomes operational—the participants anticipate supplying only up to 150 terajoules a day of domestic gas, and it is their current expectation that it may take six years after first gas in 2015 to reach the 300 terajoules a day target under the state agreement. Although they will start providing gas on 31 December 2015, it will take six years before they reach the expectation contained in the Barrow Island Act 2003 and the Gorgon gas processing infrastructure project agreement, signed by Geoff Gallop and the company in 2003. The question is: who agreed to that? How was it agreed to, and what was the reasoning behind it? I have not heard the Premier reveal the answers to any of those questions, and I think he needs to provide answers. We allowed Gorgon into the current site, and we permitted the injection of the carbon dioxide produced by the plant into the ground to produce the biggest underground reservoir of carbon dioxide in the world. That injection is a legitimate project for Western Australia; it is a great project for Western Australia. We also wanted to ensure that there would be domestic gas supply, but four significant issues have now developed around the Premier’s

4876 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] approval provided to the company. I have not seen any answer from the Premier about why he provided that approval. I have seen him on television and on the front page of The Sunday Times beating his chest about issues to do with BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, but this one—the reduction in the amount of domestic gas and the delay of supplies until the third train becomes operational—has slipped under the radar. It all slipped under the radar while the Premier has continued beating his chest over BHP and Rio Tinto. I saw in The Sunday Times the other day that the Premier was launching his “mercy dash” to China. It was announced on Sunday, even though it has already been in his diary for a couple of months! Bearing in mind that what happened with Chinalco happened last week, he is going on his mercy dash in July, even though the trip has been in his diary for a few months; it became a mercy dash some months after he advised everyone that he was going to China. I am not sure how “mercy dash” is defined, but if the Premier ever launches a mercy dash to save me, I think I will have expired by the time he arrives! [Member’s time extended.] Mr M. McGOWAN: The opposition has been urging the Premier to visit China for a long time, because China is our principal trading partner. He had some moderately hostile things to say, or expressed some concerns, about Chinese investment and the bidding process for the Oakajee port. He indicated that Japan was his favourite, and that now — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): Members, I have called out three times. The next time I call out, I will call a member to order. Mr M. McGOWAN: He is now saying that China is the issue, and that the Chinese, like the Japanese before, have been insulted in some way by what has taken place. What took place was a commercial arrangement between two companies that are big boys in the international marketplace. To imply that it had anything to do with Chinese investment in Western Australia is wrong; it has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese investment in Western Australia or Australia generally. There is no race-based issue here whatsoever. It is a Chinese company attempting to enter into an arrangement with a British-based company, and that is the extent of it. If it does not stack up commercially, it does not stack up. If one company does not want to enter into the arrangement, it will not enter into it. It had nothing to do with Foreign Investment Review Board approvals, and it had nothing to do with Australian attitudes towards China, and to paint it as such is completely misleading and potentially damaging. When it is painted in this light, the media in countries such as China and other countries in the region might actually think that there is an issue. By coming up with this issue—which he is allegedly going to solve with his mercy dash—the Premier has potentially actually created a real issue. I find it extraordinary for him to do that; why would he? Admittedly, he got a front-page story in a newspaper, but that is not exactly the best reason for creating an issue that does not exist, but that could potentially cause Western Australia some trouble in the region. I find it unnecessary. I also thought that there was a degree of gullibility on the part of the journalists who wrote the story; I do not understand why they would actually write that story, considering everyone already knew some time ago that he was going to China. The Premier needed to go to China, however, because it is Western Australia’s major trading partner. He needed to talk to the Chinese government and to the people who buy products from Western Australia, particularly our mineral products. It is a great idea for the Premier to go to China; admittedly, he should have probably made it his first trip last year. The opposition would have supported that. I have no difficulty with the Premier travelling overseas at any time to meet our trading partners, whether it be Japan, Korea, China or wherever he likes; but the circumstances in which he is making this trip to China, and his delay in going there, have created an issue when one did not exist, and this also reflects upon the people who were gullible enough to believe what he said. MR J.J.M. BOWLER (Kalgoorlie) [8.34 pm]: I rise to speak briefly on a few matters. First of all I wish to respond to some allegations and some weird and wild links made by the member for Mindarie earlier this evening. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): Treasurer, the member for Kalgoorlie is speaking. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: The member for Mindarie is renowned for his moments of brilliance, and in the eight years I have known him even moments of genius. I do not think this evening was one of those moments. People say that there is a fine line between genius and insanity. It may be that the latter prevailed on this occasion. I would like to think so, and I would like to think it will not continue. I say that because the member for Mindarie attacked me for the way I want to vote in this house. It is a basic tenet of our democracy—go and get him on the phone; I was hoping he would stay here—and it is a basic tenet of this Parliament that members have a right to vote how they want to vote without being personally attacked for how they want to vote on any matter before this house. Members on the opposition benches rarely have a say on how they vote—usually one or two faceless factional leaders tell them how they will vote—and

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4877

Liberal Party members beat their chests and say how they can always vote how they want to vote, but in reality they never do. The ACTING SPEAKER: I ask the member for Kalgoorlie to take his seat for a second. The member may want to raise some of the things he has been saying so far about the member for Mindarie about insanity and things like that, but they must be raised in a substantive motion. I therefore warn the member for Kalgoorlie that he is treading a fine line. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: I qualify that by saying that, in a way, I was trying to praise the member for Mindarie and that I believe the attack on me this evening was a mere aberration. The fact of the matter is that I believe this house sent a strong message to all Western Australians on mandatory sentencing legislation, which I understand the opposition will not vote against. I believe that additional protections have been placed in the legislation so that any overzealous copper, particularly in my electorate in Kalgoorlie, will not single out any individual or family for something in the manner that the member for Mindarie believes that individual or family will be singled out if mandatory sentencing legislation is passed. I come back to the fact that this is a house where people can vote how they want to vote. They are elected to represent their constituents, and once they have made a decision to vote in a particular way, they should not be personally attacked and have links drawn to matters such as those drawn this evening, which I believe were so illogical that they were almost a fairytale. If all I had needed to do to get rid of the Corruption and Crime Commission was to curry favour with the previous Premier and the current one, I would have been there a long time ago. I just say that I am one of the great forgivers of the world. I recall that two years ago members on both sides of the house—not the former Premier but others—danced on my grave and made statements that others would neither forget nor forgive. I do. Mr P. Papalia: There’s a lot of people on that side. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: As I said, on both sides. Mr P. Papalia: Not as many on our side. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: The member for Warnbro should be careful. I will move on to more positive matters, and I will not be too long on my feet. I will refer first of all—this is not a positive matter—to the Ian Ward tragedy, the subsequent inquest in Kalgoorlie and what has happened since then. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Mindarie! Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: I approached the Attorney General and said that if there was a $100 000 penalty under the contract because of Mr Ward’s death, the state government should make it a special ex gratia payment to the family of Mr Ward to start a trust fund or some sort of trust that his children would be able to use in future years. It was not my idea. The idea came from the previous Minister for Corrective Services, the member for Girrawheen, and credit should go where credit is deserved. I believe it is a suggestion worth following up. The Treasurer is present in the chamber today. I think if the government were to keep that $100 000, if would be almost akin to blood money. While we are on the Ian Ward inquest, I want to be critical of the Department of Corrective Services. The then Minister for Corrective Services, the member for Girrawheen, took up a suggestion the week after Ian Ward’s death that the department change its induction system to allow work camps to take low risk of flight remand prisoners rather than have them transported across the state to prison. The minister thought that was a good idea and she put it to the department. However, to my mind the department is dragging its feet on that suggestion. Heaven forbid we end up with another tragic death. The new government has decided to build another work camp at Warburton. That would mean that a low risk of flight remand prisoner who had not committed an offence of a serious nature such as assault but perhaps had committed just a traffic offence—as was the case with Mr Ward—would not need to be flown all the way from Warburton to Kalgoorlie, at a cost of $6 000 or $7 000, but could be driven five minutes away to the new work camp. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P.B. Watson): Order, member for Mindarie! I call the member to order for the first time. If the member wants to talk, would he go to his own side of the house, please. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: The Attorney General and Minister for Corrective Services is not in the chamber at the moment, but I ask him to get his department to hurry up on this matter, because the former minister put to the department a year and a quarter ago that it should change the way it inducts remand prisoners so that they will be able to go direct to work camps. The last thing we want is another tragic death to occur. I move on now to a couple of other matters. The first is the proposed BHP-Rio Tinto merger. As a former Minister for Resources, I take a great deal of interest in matters such as this. When I was Minister for Resources, I could not believe how BHP and Rio could have so many stranded assets located so close to each other’s

4878 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] infrastructure. I know that during the time of my predecessor—either the former Premier or Hon Clive Brown— an effort was made by BHP and Rio to do what they are now proposing to do. That is a very logical move. However, I am a bit concerned about the statement from the Premier that he wants to look at this matter. I want to say a few things to the Premier. The first is that this is good business; it should have happened years ago; and it will be good for Western Australia. However, I also say to the Premier that he has some very strong bargaining tools. I would like to see the Premier use those tools to achieve two things. The first is Indigenous employment, both in direct jobs and in Indigenous business opportunities. The Premier should go to BHP and Rio and say, “We are going to have to do a lot for you, because there are a number of state agreements that will need to be changed, but before we will agree to this, you will have to come on board and instead of just talking about Indigenous employment, you will have to do something about it.” I am not going to mention names, but one of these companies is not too bad. The other is terrible—it does a lot of talking about Indigenous employment but does very little about it. It is time the state government put these companies on notice that this is what they must do if they want the state government to support this change. The initial estimate was that this change would save these companies $10 billion. In The Australian today, there is a new estimate that it will save them $20 billion. The Indigenous people who live in the Pilbara should be guaranteed direct and long-term benefits before the state government agrees to this change. The other issue I need to raise is local government rates. I cannot believe that these companies are not paying full local government rates. It was certainly the policy of the former government that these companies should be paying full local government rates, and when I was Minister for Resources I thought that was within weeks of coming to fruition. I urge the Premier to make sure that when he talks to both BHP and Rio, that is the first thing that he puts on the table. Mr E.S. Ripper: I agree with you on those two points. However, what about royalty rates and third-party access by junior miners to the infrastructure? Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: Royalty rates is a no-brainer—that should happen. Third-party access is something that I know the Leader of the Opposition’s government pursued and wanted to see happen for eight years, but it did not quite get it over the line, and the government was probably another eight years away from achieving it. That is a dream. I suppose that if BHP, Rio, FMG and others are using the existing facilities almost to capacity, it does not matter. However, if there is spare capacity, the Leader of the Opposition is right. Wiser men than us have failed to achieve that in the past. Mr E.S. Ripper: A huge bargaining position is available to the government now. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: There is. While I am talking about the Pilbara, the member for Rockingham raised the matter of the Premier’s visit to China. The member for Rockingham made the point that the Premier is creating his own issue that he must solve. The Chinalco deal must have left a bad taste in the mouth of the Chinese government. To say that it would not have left a bad taste is illogical. It is good that the Premier is going to China. It is our biggest trading partner and we must do everything we can to protect that link. For some years now, Western Australian governments have held regional cabinet meetings in all parts of Western Australia. The former CEO of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Tim Shanahan, suggested that the entire Western Australian cabinet should hold a cabinet meeting in China and then Japan. Those countries virtually dominate our trading and our future. I am sure that private industry would fund those two cabinet visits. Mr E.S. Ripper: We could stay and run the state while they did that. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would love to have a crack at that. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: It would be like a regional Parliament but on an international scale. I am sure that the companies that deal and work with China and Japan would pay for it so that it would not cost the Western Australian taxpayers anything. It would be a wonderful gesture to those two trading countries and would illustrate and emphasise their importance to Western Australia. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: There is one flight already. Earlier tonight I attended a function in Perth to launch the final fundraising drive for a movie that is proposed to be made, in part, in the goldfields—my home town of Kalgoorlie. It is a $50 million movie that is based on Robert Drewe’s book The Drowner. The producer, Stephen Van Mil, and Robert Drewe were there. Robert Drewe flew to Western Australia from the eastern states. Stephen believes that he is well advanced in attracting the likes of Cate Blanchett, Mel Gibson, Liam Neeson and other actors. This would be a fantastic boost for not only my home town of Kalgoorlie, but also Western Australia if it does come off. The film would be shot in Perth and Kalgoorlie. That would be great for our tourism industry. If members have any spare money, they should invest in it.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4879

MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.47 pm]: I will make a few comments to discuss the implications of this budget and how it might impact on some areas of Indigenous affairs. If time allows, I will also make some comments about local issues in Kwinana. I begin by saying that the Loan Bill is a significant bill. It is a bill to borrow $8.3 billion and represents more than $7 000 debt for every man, woman and child in Western Australia. But this bill, and indeed this budget, does one very specific thing. This is the line in the sand. This is the point at which the government owns its own destiny. This is the point at which the blame game will stop and the government can take ownership of the decisions it made in this budget. It is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate to the people what it stands for and what its values are. It is true to say that there are some very revealing aspects in the budget about what this government represents and what its values are, particularly regarding Indigenous people. Before I begin, this is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the new member for Fremantle to this place. I wish her all the best during her time here. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs was on his feet in question time today talking about the government’s commitment in the area that relates to his portfolio. He referred in particular to the government’s commitment to housing, and that is probably the only area he would like to enunciate as an area of importance to the government. It is also important to point out that all the areas in which the government is making significant investment are part of the process of the Council of Australian Governments. The federal government is equally committed to resolving issues of Indigenous service delivery to Indigenous people in remote communities. Arguably, it is more greatly committed to resolving issues of Indigenous housing, and it is good that we are actually seeing some things taking place in that area. It is where we see the government standing on its own two feet in making decisions about this budget that we see the true colour of its flag in a range of issues that undermines the pretensions of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in relation to the government’s commitment to the area of Indigenous affairs. When we look more closely at the implications of this budget, we can see a pattern of behaviour that paints a picture of a government with a set of values that are intrinsically anti-Indigenous affairs and anti the empowerment of Indigenous people to take control of their own lives. It really undermines the government and all that it says it is trying to achieve in this important area. I spoke recently in this house about the cuts to the Aboriginal economic development unit of the Department of Commerce. It is important that we further examine this area. Since I last spoke in this place we have had the opportunity to quiz the government in estimates on the decisions that lay behind the cuts to the Aboriginal economic development unit. The true attitude of this government to Indigenous employment is written large in its explanations. The Aboriginal economic development division brought a unique skill set to government. The Aboriginal economic development unit is a difficult area to work in. It is one that we cannot come to lightly and it is one that we cannot come to with a view of scoring quick outcomes and easy goals. I know that from my experience working in the area. I worked for six years on various native title representative bodies and came to that process, probably like a lot of people involved in this area, thinking that a whole range of things can be achieved quickly. Quite frankly, they cannot. It requires concerted effort over a long time. It requires gritty, difficult, hard work to shift ideas, shift initiatives and make things happen. It requires a particular skill set. There is not one member in this chamber who does not understand the difficulties of working in the area of Indigenous affairs. There is not one member in this chamber who does not understand that goals in that area are not easily achieved. What we had in the AED was a particular skill set among a group of public servants who understood this area. They understood the networks associated with this area and what they had to do with their different ideas, capacities and skills to make things happen. It requires experience. It requires a knowledge about what has worked in the past and what might work in the future. It requires a patience borne of that experience. In the AED there was a unique skill set; a skill set that now, unfortunately, will be spread to the four winds of the public service. A critical mass of skills and ideas will no longer be at the disposal of governments that are trying to look for opportunities for people in Aboriginal communities to create a sustainable future for themselves. I said recently in a speech in this house that there was a range of projects that the AED, previously known as the Office of Aboriginal Economic Development, was responsible for. Of course there were iconic projects such as the Clontarf Football Academy, which has been an extraordinary success. There was also, for instance, the arts commercialisation project. This is an example of the sorts of projects that are absolutely crucial for Aboriginal communities. This program was responsible for a thousand equivalent full-time jobs. These were not jobs in regional centres; these were not jobs in the metropolitan area. These were jobs that were associated with some of the most remote communities in Western Australia. People were trained to pull together arts centres, utilising the skills, the talents and the intellectual knowledge that they had built up as young children and now as adults. They were taught what they could do in arts centres to create a sustainable future for themselves. I think that that project alone justifies the ongoing funding for the AED. In that project alone, there are some of the most stark examples of why the funding is so important. However, there are others. There is the Coral Bay resort

4880 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] development—an Indigenous tourism project being undertaken by the Baiyungu Aboriginal Corporation. It provides those people who live in that unique environment of Coral Bay with an opportunity to share in the wealth and the income that has been generated from the boom in tourism in that area. It is not quite as remarkable as the arts commercialisation project on which the Martumilli people were making huge progress, but it is still a very important one. There was the memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto for the creation of 300 jobs in that mining company alone. It is hard work and important work. In the Collie region, there was the economic development agreement with the Boddington goldmine for the Gnaala Karla Boodja language group. Again, that is a very important outcome. One of the reasons why the project is so important is that it is another very good example of what the Aboriginal economic development unit did. An agreement between the Boddington goldmine and the Gnaala Karla Boodja language group was brokered by the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council. That created an income stream and an economic opportunity. It took the AED to try to gel that agreement into economic opportunities—an extremely important contribution. I know that Lieutenant General John Sanderson, for instance, as chair of the Indigenous Implementation Board, has been very impressed with some of the work that the AED has undertaken. I know that he regards the AED as a very important tool for achieving some of the things that he wants to achieve as head of the Indigenous Implementation Board. I wonder what he thought when he saw that the government had taken the axe to this important part of government. He had been talking to government all this time about the sorts of instruments it needs to make a difference, so I wonder what he thought when, at the first opportunity that this government had to put its money where its mouth is in the area of Indigenous economic development, it dropped the ball. We went seeking answers to why the government made this decision. Surely, this could not have been a deliberate decision by government. Perhaps there was a lack of communication—a misunderstanding between the various ministers about what was happening. Mr T.R. Buswell: Who said that? Mr R.H. COOK: I was supposing, Treasurer, that that is perhaps the reason why this decision has been made. I guess we were willing to give the Treasurer the benefit of the doubt and that he could not have been so short- sighted as to take that step. In estimates, the question was put to the Treasurer: “Did you speak to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs about this decision?” The Treasurer said, “Yes. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs was consulted. He was part of the cabinet process when this decision was made.” I think it is fair to say that the minister was informed. The member for West Swan asked the Premier whether he was told of the decision. The Premier said — Yes, I was aware of that decision and I support that decision. The member for West Swan asked — Who will now be responsible for the functions that were undertaken by the Aboriginal economic development unit? The Premier responded — The Department of Indigenous Affairs. The Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet then made a contribution to estimates. He said — We have a great director general and we are trying to support him in his efforts to turn around the Department of Indigenous Affairs so that people will come to the department as a force for economic development. The member for West Swan asked the Premier — Is DIA being provided additional resources or staff? The Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet responded — DIA will get all the resources it needs to do it. The Premier later went on to state — Kim Hames is the responsible minister and I am sure that he would have discussed this decision with General Sanderson. We have an emerging picture of the government, fully informed of the implications of this decision and of a single mind about what it thought economic development in the area of Indigenous affairs should be doing next: it should be going to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and he now has responsibility for this area. It will not surprise members to hear that we asked the minister his opinion of these developments, given that under section

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4881

13 of the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Act 1972, he has statutory responsibility for Aboriginal economic development. We asked — … can the minister tell us what discussions he had with the Treasurer prior to the abolition of the AED unit and what part of the budget the minister was going to use in order to fulfil his obligations under the act? The minister replied — I have not had discussions. We have a government that is pointing in different directions, trying to absolve itself of responsibility for this decision. “It’s not my responsibility; I didn’t do it”, says the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. The Treasurer is saying, “I talked to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs about this.” The Premier is saying, “Yes, we were all involved in the act.” The Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet chimes in and says, “We know that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs will take this forward and he will have all the resources he needs to undertake this task.” We quizzed the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. We asked — Which minister has responsibility for Aboriginal economic development? The minister replied — I think the Treasurer currently has that role. We have this complete breakdown of any knowledge, coordination or acceptance of responsibility as to who is going to run the Aboriginal economic development area. Under further questioning, the minister said that he had no extra funding in his budget to take on this important area. We know that we have seen a cut in funding of almost $5 million from this area, with $300 000 being sprayed off towards the Small Business Development Corporation and another $300 000 being sprayed off to the Department of Agriculture and Food. The government is walking away from its essential obligations under the AAPA act and the Treasurer is walking away from his responsibilities as the minister responsible for the Aboriginal economic development division of the Department of Commerce. The AED is now lost to this government; it is lost to the Aboriginal people of Western Australia. It is a huge loss of opportunity. But the cuts go on. We also know that funding has been taken out of the Belmont Enterprise Centre, which was looked upon by a lot of Aboriginal people, particularly women working in remote communities, as a really important contribution to their economic development. Carol Hanlon, who works tirelessly in the Belmont Enterprise Centre — Mr B.S. Wyatt: She’s on the Belmont council as well. Mr R.H. COOK: Indeed. She has been working with Aboriginal groups right around this country in places such as Lombadina, Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing. She has been recently invited to work with the Manda Mia Aboriginal Corporation in Roebourne, and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Halls Creek wants her assistance in setting up a business enterprise centre. Carol was responsible for helping Aboriginal women in remote communities undertake learning and enterprise opportunities to try to develop art and textiles and to use their skills to set up businesses for themselves—gone. Funding axed. It is interesting to note also that not only the member for Belmont and the member for Victoria Park, but also Senator Eggleston; the federal member for Swan; and Senator Johnston have all written to the government supporting the Belmont Enterprise Centre. But, instead, that is another area of Indigenous economic development that has gone. It is interesting to note where it has gone from. Since the election, the Treasurer has managed to move out of his department almost every area that touches upon Aboriginal economic development or opportunities, to make sure he does not have involvement in them. They include the Office of Native Title, which went out pretty quick smart, and the AED, which has also been moved away from his department to make sure he does not have responsibility for it. Now it is the Belmont Enterprise Centre. It is almost as though there should be a sign on the door saying “Could the last Indigenous affairs program out please turn off the light”. The Treasurer has been moving every area of Indigenous economic development out of his area. [Member’s time extended.] Mr R.H. COOK: The member for Victoria Park made a very pertinent observation that on a number of occasions the Premier has said that economic development will be a cornerstone and a priority of his government. Indeed, the Treasurer got up and said that this budget is about protecting jobs. But it is not about protecting Indigenous jobs. I want to talk also about a couple of other initiatives that demonstrate what this government is really about when it comes to Indigenous affairs. The funeral support fund was a small program within the Department for Communities. It was a very important program because it provided funding for families who were destitute but had obligations they had to fulfil to see their loved ones off to a better place. We know that the people who primarily benefited from this fund were Indigenous families. In another place and time they were called “pauper

4882 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] funerals”. This funding was for people who cannot afford the cost associated with putting their loved ones to rest—gone; another program callously axed. It is also interesting to note that we are getting reports now from the Department for Child Protection that the Minister for Child Protection is actively working against any initiative in her department to hold a welcome to country ceremony at official ceremonies or to make any acknowledgement of the traditional owners of this country in a manner that is now accepted practice when the department is holding ceremonies or gatherings. Actions speak louder than words and we have had a lot of words from this government about how it believes Aboriginal economic development is an important priority for it, but we know that is not the case. As the member for Kalgoorlie reminds us, I hope that, as the coroner’s findings in the case of Mr Ward get brought down this Friday, we will actually see some actions in place of some of these hollow words. I add my voice to that of the member for Girrawheen and others in this place who say that Mr Ward’s family deserves to be acknowledged and deserves an ex gratia payment or some sort of payment to acknowledge the pain, suffering and the extraordinarily difficult circumstances which Mr Ward must have faced and which his family now face on his behalf. As I said, this budget is the first opportunity for the government to really hoist its colours, show what it is about and really demonstrate what it means. We know what the government means and we now know what it stands for; it stands for hollow rhetoric in Indigenous affairs. There is no backup for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and no capacity to deliver any sort of change. Indeed, it must be an extraordinary disappointment to Lieutenant General Sanderson when he sees the havoc that has been wreaked across the programs in government and when he sees the government slowly wind back, dismantle and undermine any capacity that it has to bring Aboriginal economic development forward as a priority. It axed the Aboriginal economic development division and sent it off to a minister who does not even know that he now has responsibility for it, even though it is part of his statutory responsibility, and the government has not given him any resources to take it forward. We see across the board that a number of programs are under review, as the member for Maylands reminds us, or are being axed, which really shows what this government thinks in the area of Aboriginal affairs. I want to touch briefly on a couple of matters about my area of Kwinana. The development of the East Rockingham wastewater treatment plant is of great concern. A lot of members of the Hillman community only recently discovered this project was going ahead and they feel betrayed by government—I do not mean “government” as in the members opposite, but by government generally—that this facility is being developed so close to their area. They are now acutely aware of the impact that this may have on them and their lifestyle. I notice in the budget and from the comments of the shadow Minister for Water that the development of this particular facility now looks as though it will be pushed back well beyond the 2015 date when it was intended to become operational. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Water whether this delay in the project now represents an opportunity to bring the best technology to bear and to provide further comfort to the people of Hillman that their homes and lifestyle will not be impacted on and they will not have any loss of amenity and, indeed, to determine whether there are other, more innovative ways that waste water can be treated in this region to allow for the development of urban areas in the south metropolitan area. Finally, I want to touch upon an issue that continually raises its head in the Kwinana area. There is a growing awareness amongst the people of Kwinana that if it stinks, we send it to them. If it is an industry that smells, the place to send it is Kwinana. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr R.H. COOK: If there is an industry that people do not like, they send it to Kwinana. We know that the government is looking at the development of the James Point port in future. I want to acknowledge the level of anxiety in the community because the development of James Point port is an opportunity to shift the livestock export trade to that area. I note the comments of the member for Fremantle earlier this week on her opposition to the livestock export trade. I acknowledge that opposition, but I want to impress this on the member for Cottesloe as well: opposition to a particularly smelly industry does not mean an opportunity to send it to a new port. The member for Fremantle is genuine in her opposition to it. I hope that we can work together to make sure that we are not looking at this as simply the shifting of a problem that people in Fremantle, North Fremantle and Cottesloe do not want in their area. This government has ownership of its destiny. The Loan Bill represents an extraordinary amount of debt for the people of Western Australia. In the budget documents it is writ large what the government stands for. Despite the protestations and the hollow words of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, it does not mean that Indigenous affairs and Aboriginal economic development remain a priority. It means that Aboriginal economic development, indeed the whole of the Indigenous affairs area across the programs, has moved down a rung as a priority, and in many cases has been cut altogether. I intend to hold a candle to the hollow words of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to make sure that the community, particularly the Aboriginal community, knows what

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4883 they stand for. They stand for lost opportunities and taking the Aboriginal community backwards, and they will not be forgiven. DR J.M. WOOLLARD (Alfred Cove) [9.18 pm]: I was not going to speak but, as the member for Kwinana said that actions speak louder than words, I thought maybe it was time to stand and put on record the fact that my electorate has been sadly neglected for many, many years. Since the election, I have had an opportunity to meet with individual ministers and discuss the problems that I have in my electorate. Members were talking earlier today about sewerage. How many times have I stood in this place with petitions and complaints about Booragoon Primary School, where children were evacuated from the preprimary centre because of the sewage flow back up from septic tanks? I congratulated the Minister for Education last year because one of the first things she did was to ensure that the health of those children was no longer at risk. She also deserves congratulations for the establishment of the Office of Early Childhood Development and Learning. We know that childhood development came under several departments for many years, so no-one was looking at a child as a whole. The minister announced in May that she had appointed Brenton Wright from South Africa to look at how all those services could be brought together. Just the other week the staffing shortages in the area of childhood health were reported in this house. We reported that in 2008, 126 full-time equivalent child development services staff, 105 community child health nurses and 135 school nurses were missing. The committee made some mention of the neglect of Aboriginal health. The Commissioner for Children and Young People noted in her submission that 75 per cent of young people in juvenile detention are Aboriginal; 42 per cent of children in out-of-home care are Aboriginal; in Western Australian schools, Aboriginal student achievement is significantly lower than non-Aboriginal student achievement; Aboriginal infants die at around three times the rate of non-Aboriginal infants; Aboriginal Australian children ranked twenty-third out of 24 OECD countries in the area of mental health; and Aboriginal Australian babies have the lowest birth weight in the OECD. I placed those statistics on the table because we have only five Aboriginal child health nurses, two of whom are in regional areas. I have mentioned to the Minister for Health that I will be asking him questions about children’s health. The budget stated that there would be 800 additional full-time equivalent nursing positions. I will be asking him next week how many of those positions will be allocated to community health, child health and child development services. I also want to know about Aboriginal child health nurses. I would also like the statistics on Aboriginal health workers. In South Australia, where there is more of a focus on children’s health, maternal health nurses, who are very similar to our community health nurses, pay a home visit soon after a child is born if the mother is under 20 years of age, if the infant is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, if the mother is socially isolated, and for several other reasons. When a maternal health nurse, or community health nurse, visits those families, those families are offered 34 visits over the first two years of the child’s life. They are trying to redress the imbalance by looking after children when they are very young. I have found so far that the Minister for Health has been very receptive to initial concerns that I have expressed, such as what the government’s plans might be for Fiona Stanley Hospital. So far, all the comments he has made in this house have been very positive towards the development of both phase 1 and phase 2. I wrote to him recently and congratulated him on getting the funding to move the terrible health care facilities at Shenton Park, so that a new building can be built sooner rather than later at the Fiona Stanley site. I have to thank both the minister and the opposition health spokesman, the member for Kwinana, as well as the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the National Party for their support for the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 2008. We all know that people are dying on a daily basis because of tobacco, so I was very pleased that there was bipartisan support for the bill. I am obviously looking forward to the bill going through the upper house; it has been there now for many weeks. I hope that it will be debated sooner rather than later because we know that people continue to die on a daily basis because of tobacco. The shadow Minister for Health today asked a question about the appointment of the new chief executive officer of the South Metropolitan Health Service. I was not aware that she has a background of working for tobacco companies. I went to the Minister for Health today to point out to him that I have received several complaints from people in both the south metropolitan and north metropolitan areas about smoking on hospital grounds. The two hospitals that people have mostly complained about are Fremantle Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital. Mr R.H. Cook: I get a lot of complaints about Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital as well. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Yes. The previous Minister for Health introduced a policy of no smoking in hospitals and within hospital grounds. I mentioned this to the minister today. I wrote to the chief executive officers of both the North Metropolitan Health Service and South Metropolitan Health Service. The minister’s immediate response was that I should get the information to him and he would look into it. I thought then that I should have sent it to him four weeks ago, but I will make sure he gets it tomorrow. Each time I have approached the Minister for Health he has been very helpful.

4884 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

The budget does not address all of Alfred Cove’s deficiencies. Some areas have been addressed, but there is still a big gap in spending on law and order. There are two police stations servicing the electorate of Alfred Cove, and Palmyra Police Station, in particular, is in very poor condition. The fact that we are losing so many police officers is very sad, and we should not be asking them to work in conditions such as exist at Palmyra Police Station. I have begun discussing this matter with the Minister for Police because we need a new police centre in the south metropolitan area. I think the Minister for Police wants to interject! Mr R.F. Johnson: I just want to let you know that we’re not losing police officers at the rate we were 12 months ago or two years ago; we are, in fact, to some extent inundated with local recruits wanting to join the police. We are not seeing the drain of experienced police officers that we saw a year or two ago. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: If that has been the pattern for a while, I guess the previous government needs to be congratulated as well as the current government. Mr R.F. Johnson: No, it’s only happened in the past six to nine months. That’s the truth! Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: If that is the case, I have to congratulate the Minister for Police! However, I must point out some of the conditions in which these police officers are working, particularly police officers at Palmyra Police Station in my electorate. They are not fit premises. Mr T.R. Buswell: They are not thick premises? Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Fit premises. They are very thin officers! I would like to take the Minister for Police there at some point and show him those facilities so that we can make sure — Mr R.F. Johnson: Can we go now? Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Ha, ha! I am pleased to finally see some resources going to support schools in my electorate. Mr J.E. McGrath: You have a brand-new school. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Only one. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Atwell Primary School should be replaced as well. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: The community appreciates what the government is doing at Applecross Senior High School; it is a very good high school. Mr T.R. Buswell: It’s been a long time coming, member. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: It has been, and in fact the current Premier visited that school many years ago and said that it should have been replaced. I think a new school was almost taken for granted. The Premier remembered the commitment that he had given to that school. He and the Minister for Education visited the school and saw the terrible condition it was in. Mr J.E. McGrath interjected. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: There are a lot of other problems with schools with leaking roofs and so on. I am sure schools in many other areas have similar problems. Mr T.R. Buswell: I have a school without a roof. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: Is that a new school being built? Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: There are problems with education services, but I am very pleased that the government is addressing those issues. There are big problems in the provision of health services, but the Minister for Health is working very hard and I hope to see the imbalance that has existed for many years in children’s health services now addressed. I have mentioned law and order. There are problems with transport in my electorate. There are people living in some suburbs who have to catch two buses and cross Canning Highway to get to a local shopping centre in Fremantle or Perth. It is very difficult for elderly people and people with young families. I saw recently that the members for Riverton and Southern River got the Minister for Transport to look at the needs of the elderly in the community and got a new bus route started through the suburbs in their electorates. The community in my electorate is not asking for a new bus

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4885 route; it is asking only for a deviation so that the bus that goes through the area can drop people off at the local shopping centre. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. WOOLLARD: This budget is a good budget. It is certainly a good budget for the community in my electorate. It is a very positive budget. I am hoping to see great improvements in health services, which have been neglected for many years, particularly community health care services. I am hoping that now more funding will go into prevention and community health care services in the future. We know that every dollar spent in a child’s first years can save thousands of dollars over that child’s development to adulthood. As there have been some negative comments made by previous speakers about the Minister for Health, I just want to thank the Minister for Health for the support that he has given to people within the south metropolitan area. MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Treasurer) [9.34 pm] — in reply: I will make a couple of quick comments to close the debate. I will try to not cough too much. I should point out that my sons are attending one of the swine- flu infected education institutions in the Premier’s electorate and I am happy to share my experiences with him! I join a number of members who congratulated and acknowledged the member for Fremantle on taking her seat in Parliament yesterday. I thought it was a refreshing inaugural speech. She was well supported in the gallery and by her family, whom I had the pleasure of meeting afterwards, including the member’s mother and brother, which was a real privilege. It was a shame that more members of the opposition were not in the house to hear the member’s inaugural speech. Mr P. Papalia: Are you kidding? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: No. Mr P. Papalia: Who was missing? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The Leader of the Opposition. While I have been in this place I have listened to two other inaugural speeches given by members who were elected in a by-election. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Eric, you were here, weren’t you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: No, he was not here for any of it. Mr E.S. Ripper: I was debating issues of the day on radio station 720. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Fantastic. I am very pleased for the Leader of the Opposition. I am just making the point — Mr P. Papalia: To say that the member for Fremantle’s speech was not well attended is irresponsible and not true. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am just making an observation from where I sat. While I have been here, I have listened to two other inaugural speeches. One was by the member for Victoria Park, who replaced the former Premier, Hon Geoff Gallop, and the other was by the member for Bateman, who replaced the late Trevor Sprigg, the former member for Murdoch. They were both very good speeches, as was the member for Fremantle’s speech. When the other two members made their speeches, nearly every seat in the house was filled, including the seat occupied by the Leader of the Opposition. I am not passing judgement on the Leader of the Opposition’s failure to attend; I am just making an observation. I congratulate the member in a non-inflammatory manner for her speech. She will bring a range of views with which we might often disagree. Notwithstanding that, we respect that. For what it is worth, I welcome the member. I have been listening to the debate on the Loan Bill either directly from the chamber or indirectly from my office so that I minimise the possibility of infecting my colleagues. I listened to the member for Kwinana, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who again insinuated that the portfolios for which I have responsibility and which have an impact on Aboriginal people are the areas that I have abandoned. He listed native title as one of those. Originally that was one of my portfolios. I have a relatively small list of portfolios and when the Premier finalised the portfolio allocations and that portfolio was given to the Attorney General, I thought that that was an appropriate destination for what is a very important policy area of government and a very important area of engagement with Aboriginal people. I did not wish it away. That was an appropriate reallocation of that responsibility. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned also the withdrawal of funding from the Office of Aboriginal Economic Development. That withdrawal has occurred, and I will talk about it in a moment. However, what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition neglected to say when he made those statements is that the one area of government that does most of the heavy lifting in attempting to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people in Western Australia is an area for which I have direct ministerial responsibility—housing. I cannot understand why he makes those statements and ignores the fact that I am the Minister for Housing and Works. I assure the house that I am working tirelessly with my department and the commonwealth Minister for Families,

4886 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, to improve housing outcomes for Aboriginal people, especially housing outcomes in remote areas of Western Australia. I have been to the Kimberley and will go back there in a couple of weeks. We have a lot to learn from the mistakes that have been made in the past. The federal minister and I are very keen to embrace new ways to approach housing in Aboriginal communities. I often tell people that I went to Balgo and visited the Djuraballan communities. It was a very interesting experience. I also visited a number of other communities on that trip. When I went to Balgo, we spent some time looking at housing design in that community. I thought I would share with the house what transpired from that visit. I gained an understanding, which was reinforced by the community members, that the housing design in Balgo is not reflective of the cultural lifestyle that those people choose to lead. We have to design better houses. We currently have students from the University of Western Australia engaged with the Balgo community in an attempt to get some fresh ideas into designing better housing outcomes. That is great. I will be going back to Balgo in two or three weeks, hopefully with some of those students, to work through those house designs. That is fundamentally important. One thing I have learnt is that no one house design can be applied to all communities. That is only one small example. I have a strong commitment to making sure that our government does better in what we are doing in the Aboriginal space. Housing is a fundamental social right. I am committed, as is the government, to doing a better job with Aboriginal housing. We will partner with the commonwealth and we will work shoulder to shoulder with the people in those communities. We are not going to solve the problems in all these remote communities in one week. We are working at the moment with Balgo and some other communities in the north in particular that the commonwealth has highlighted as being of specific importance, and we will keep doing that. If the Leader of the Opposition were here, he might understand some of the work that we are trying to do to secure land tenure for Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people continually say to me—as people in Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing have said to me at meetings—that they want to own their own homes. That is fantastic. We need to do a lot of work to help those people understand the challenges of home ownership, but where we can help, we will. That is something that we are actively pursuing. I should also share with the house some of the work we are doing around Halls Creek with the Wunan Foundation in Kununurra. A new hostel will be built on a property that the government has purchased just out of town called Burks Park. I do not like the word “hostel”, but it is the term people like to use. I will be going to Halls Creek in a couple of weeks to look at the plans. That hostel will be built by young Aboriginal people from the Kimberly who are on traineeships or are tradespeople. It will provide a home for young people who have jobs or are in training. It is a new initiative for that area. It is fantastic. Also on Burks Park, young Aboriginal people are learning new skills in the pastoral industry and in a range of other industries. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Is that one of the hostels that was mentioned in the media release put out by Jenny Macklin? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Do you know the time frame for that? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I would need to confirm it, but my understanding is that construction is imminent. It is a very exciting design. Mr B.S. Wyatt: How many people will it accommodate? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I think around 20, but I will need to confirm that also. One of the other things we are doing is building visitor centres. I recently went to Port Augusta to look at its visitor centre. What happens in a lot of remote communities, as the member would be aware, is that people move in and out. The populations are very transient. That is the case particularly in communities on the edge of the desert. People travel to these remote communities but have nowhere to stay. When Aboriginal people go to Halls Creek, they often stay at Dinner Camp at the edge of the town. I have been there. There is nothing at Dinner Camp. It is awful. We want to build visitor centres in these remote communities so that people who come into these towns will have a place to camp where their families will be safe and where elderly people who are getting dialysis can stay in comfort. The accommodation at the visitor centre at Port Augusta ranges from the equivalent of modern onsite caravans to tents. It is fantastic. Our first visitor centre will be built in Kalgoorlie. We will then progressively build them around the state. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that I have handballed my responsibility. I will take anything in this place, but I find that highly offensive, because this is an area in which we are doing a lot of work. Sure, people will be critical. I expect that. But no-one can deny our willingness to partner with those communities. It is the same with Aboriginal economic development. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a point of difference with me on that matter. Some staff and $1.9 million in wages have been taken out of the former Office of Aboriginal Economic Development. Some of the staff and $300 000 of funding from the AED have been moved across to the Small Business Development Corporation. Those staff will be doing the very same things that the member claimed the Belmont SBDC could do. Those people will be doing that work in the

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4887

Kimberley. We will stand tested on our record. People have gone into the area of the Minister for Agriculture and Food to assist Aboriginal agricultural and pastoral businesses in the Kimberley. KIMSS and PIMSS— Kimberley Indigenous Management Support Services and Pilbara Indigenous Management Support Services— are doing great work in this area. These are important aspects of trying to provide contemporary solutions for Aboriginal people. I am happy to be criticised. However, I am not going to sit in my office in Perth and tick boxes in a structure. I want to talk to the people on the ground and come up with solutions that mean something to those people. I therefore find the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s line of attack quite misleading and quite offensive, to be frank. But, anyway, I am used to being offended in this place. It comes with the job. I was reflecting on some of the comments — Mr P. Papalia: You said that there were not many opposition members in the chamber for the member for Fremantle’s inaugural speech. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: There were not many opposition members in the chamber for the member for Fremantle’s inaugural speech. That is the way it was. I am not rewriting history. The Leader of the Opposition was not here. I will reflect, albeit quietly, on some of the comments of the former Premier. For example, he commented on what he called the highly dubious appointment of a Mr Haydn Lowe to a position in government. Yesterday he commented on the appointment of a former senator, Chris Ellison, to an advisory position in government. I will touch on a couple of appointments by the former government so that the public record is refreshed on the sorts of things that used to happen. A Helen Creed—maybe she worked for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union—got a cushy job as the fair employment commissioner, a purely political position paying over $100 000 a year. Mr Mark Cuomo, the former state secretary of the Australian Labor Party, was another political appointment. When I was a member of the university ALP in 1984, Mark Cuomo used to sit at the back of the room and he would welcome us by saying, “Tovarich! Comrade!” I think it means “Hello, friend”—perhaps someone might be able to enlighten me. He would sing the wonderful ALP song. He now heads up a range of boards. He sent the state ALP broke. He missed out on his Senate preselection, but the ALP rewarded him. He was on the Painters’ Registration Board, the Builders’ Registration Board, the Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board and the Building Disputes Tribunal. He was on maybe $100 000, $150 000 or a bit more a year. When Sharryn Jackson lost her federal seat, she was ferreted off into the Community Cabinet and Liaison Unit. Maybe we criticised those appointments. I cannot remember. Were they highly dubious appointments? Quite possibly. Ian Taylor, a former Deputy Premier, was appointed chairperson of Landstart, chairperson of the State Housing Commission and chairperson of the Country Housing Authority. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Does that therefore make the appointments of Haydn Lowe and Chris Ellison highly dubious appointments? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am reflecting on things that are past. John Cowdell was appointed to the Peel Development Commission. There are others—Diana Warnock, Kay Hallahan and Megan Anwyl, who was appointed to the Esperance Port Authority, and that is a clean-up operation if we ever needed one. In addition there was Jeffrey Carr; Michael Barnett; David Smith, a former member for Bunbury who is now the mayor of the City of Bunbury, who was appointed to the Bunbury Port Authority; Bob Pearce, he of stamp-licking fame, was appointed to the Fremantle Port Authority; Judyth Watson; Nick Catania; Yvonne Henderson; Ron Davies; Jackie McKiernan, nee Watkins; and Mr Daniel Smith, who may be known to some members opposite, including the member for West Swan. We heard that a few weeks ago the member was having a coffee with him and a former Premier in West Perth at a cosy little eatery, perhaps plotting the return of the former Premier to the Leader of the Opposition’s position. Perhaps there are others. Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I wanted to put these names on the record. I know the member for Hillarys is getting toey. Kevin Reynolds is on the Builders’ Registration Board, the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board and the Painters’ Registration Board; Joe Bullock; Martin Pritchard, who is a friend of Joe’s at the shoppies. I have already mentioned Helen Creed, but there is Jock Ferguson, who is now in this Parliament; Dave Robinson; Stephanie Mayman; and Tony Cooke, who heads up the Occupational Safety and Health Commission—I must say that he is doing a good job. I have pages of names. I will not read them all out. Mr J.E. McGrath: Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I will give the member a hint—oink, oink. I have a document full of names and at any time this issue is raised we can pull it out and refer to it. I have not got to family members or failed former candidates. It is a fantastic little document. We might get it bound and put in the library. For tonight that will do. I come back to the former Premier. He said to us that we should get some of the people from the back bench to move to the front bench, otherwise we will be shot down in flames. Is it not funny that a person who politically shot himself in the foot would attack us and presume to warn us of being shot down in flames? He said words to

4888 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] the effect that in the political history of Western Australia this budget will go down as the worst first budget in history. I wonder what will go down as the worst first state election in history? Mr B.S. Wyatt: There can only be one first state election. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: For a Premier. I wonder what will go down as the worst early election in history. When John Tonkin lost, at least he could blame Gough Whitlam. Who does the former Premier have to blame—his cohorts in the decision to go early, the member for West Swan and the member for Cannington? There are three of them—the trifecta of political geniuses who plotted the future of Labor. We thank them. Every time the former Premier gets up and speaks, I silently say to him, “Thank you; thank you so much.” Mr P. Papalia: Did you hear the comments that he made about you being a clown? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I heard all his comments. Mr P. Papalia: Did you take note of that bit—how it is not a good look for a Treasurer? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: “Uplifting” is the only word that springs to mind to describe his comments. But there he goes—the worst first budget and the worst first election. I do not know; maybe the member for Belmont wants to make a comment. Robert Ray made the point that the member for Belmont was in Exmouth when the decision to call the election was made. The former Premier continually says to me—I heard the comment again—that I am a mickey mouse small business operator from Busselton. Maybe so, but I am proud of it. We took on a small business and employed a couple of people. We scrubbed floors. I fried eggs and drove buses. I did all that. It is demeaning, I know; it is awful to have to admit that I have worked hard. My wife did the same thing. We have done all that stuff. We mowed lawns. I have cleaned up stuff that people would not want to talk about. I have done all sorts of things, and the former Premier picks on me. I do not care, because I am the same as hundreds of thousands of small business operators around Western Australia. Maybe that is why they deserted him. My wife and I, hand in hand, built that business up. He can call me a mickey mouse tour bus driver from Busselton. I do not care; I really do not care. I am happy with and proud of what my wife and I achieved, and I am happy with and proud of the experiences it gave us, just as hundreds of thousands of small business people around Western Australia are happy with and proud of what they achieve. Every time we make a policy decision that supports small business, we acknowledge how proud we are of the contribution that small businesses, like ours was, make to Western Australia. I will never, ever hide in shame at the fact that I am, in some people’s eyes, a mickey mouse bus tour operator from Busselton, because when I look at a balance sheet, I know the difference between a credit and a debit; I know what a liability means and I know what an asset means. I certainly know what a liability means when I see the member for Willagee rise to his feet. He often gets up and pontificates about the 1798 invasion of Egypt by Napoleon. The troops did not want to be there. They did not know where they were going. They were distraught. Do members know what happened on polling day when the member for Willagee and his troops went into battle? A lot of them went around and pulled the pictures of their general off the wall at the polling place and hid them out the back in the dumpster—they did. Ask the member for Mindarie what he did with the pictures of his little general. Ask the former member for Wanneroo, who was seen frantically belting around her electorate on that Saturday morning, pulling down the pictures of her little general. His troops were not just confused; they did not want to know him. The member for Willagee can keep using the Napoleon analogy for as long as he comes into this place, because he and Napoleon have something in common. They are both angry, arrogant little men. That is the fact of the matter. The issue is that when Napoleon on that long march east lost that battle in 1813—the member for South Perth will remind me where it was — Mr J.E. McGrath: Leipzig. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Leipzig. I knew he would know. Napoleon ended up on the island of Elba, or Elbe—I am from Busselton, mickey mouse—but he escaped after six years. He was liberated and he rose again. Maybe that is what the member for Willagee is hoping for; that he will get on a rowing boat and get off his Elba and get back into control. But do members know what? I do not think he will ever get a chance to meet his Waterloo. When he gets back in the boat, the only people rowing will be the member for West Swan and people like Daniel Smith, their partner in crime. Has the member for West Swan seen what has happened with Daniel Smith? She should be careful when she has conversations with lobbyists such as Daniel Smith because they go to the rugby and tell everyone what they talk about when they have a cup of coffee together. That is what happens with Daniel Smith. The member for West Swan needs to buy him a zip or a bit of velcro or have a signal and say, “Daniel, don’t talk about this when you go to the rugby because some of the people at the rugby might not be Labor supporters. Don’t talk about how we’re going to build up our little Napoleon, get him out of Elba and ride off to Waterloo, although, before we do that, we’ll get rid of the member for Belmont.” The member for West Swan should just buy Daniel Smith a little zip. I did not want to comment on the member for Willagee; I was distracted. I will get back to three or four of the substantive points. Mr P. Papalia interjected.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4889

Mr T.R. BUSWELL: We can all enjoy a laugh in this place. We often laugh at the member for Warnbro. Mr P. Papalia: We think you’re very funny. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: We think the member is funny. I sometimes wish he had read the dial with the oxygen flow on it on one of those deep dives. No oxygen does have an impact on cranial capacity. I will move on. There are only three or four substantive points I wish to make. Substantive points were raised in the speeches on the second reading debate. They were raised again and again. I felt like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, but we survived. Mr P. Papalia: Is this a joke to you? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I can assure the member that it is no joke to me. He can ask my colleagues about the extent to which I joke in my capacity as Treasurer. There was a discussion about the difference between borrowing for government trading enterprises and borrowing for general government purposes. Clearly, this is an unusual bill to fund borrowing for general government purposes. It is important to understand that. Unfortunately, I cannot enlarge the graph that I have in front of me. I will hold it up. I showed this graph when I gave the budget speech. It shows that the percentage of money being spent on investment in the general government sector is high this year and will be for the next couple of years. I will give some of the figures. In 2009-10, 47 per cent of the capital works budget, our asset investment program, is going to the general government sector. Last year it was 43 per cent and the year before it was 41 per cent. Why is that important? It is because the general government sector is the sector that builds things such as hospitals, schools, police stations, prisons and the like. Some people say that that is bad debt. I would be happy to go out to electorates where new schools are being built and ask people if they think it was bad debt that built those schools or those hospitals and prisons. I do not think it is bad debt. We have an obligation to provide those services. More importantly, through our $8.8 billion investment program this year, we have an obligation to support Western Australians in work. That was our fundamental objective for the budget. The point has been made over and again that $19.3 billion at the end of four years is an unsustainable level of debt. I disagree. Some members may have a political view that it is an unsustainable level of debt. The facts are that the independent assessor of debt and the sustainability of debt, Standard and Poor’s, has cast its ruler over this budget. It has cast its ruler over our management of the finances of Western Australia, and we have maintained our AAA credit rating. I am happy with that outcome and I am comfortable to be judged by the very stringent requirements that Standard and Poor’s have of us. I value that much more highly than comments of members opposite. It has been interesting to listen to some of the comments of members opposite. Every single opposition member has said that this is a bad government as it is borrowing too much money. In the very next breath, cumulatively, they have all proceeded to urge us to spend billions and billions of dollars. They can criticise us for the fact that debt has been too high, yet they are prepared, on top of that, to recommend we spend billions and billions of dollars. Mr P. Papalia: I saved you $166 million out of Roe 8, so take that back. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: That is $166 million over $19 billion. I hate to again use a maritime analogy, but it is a drop in the ocean; it is a bubble in the gas tank. The only two things I have heard publicly that members opposite have recommended we should not spend money on is $166 million on the Roe Highway extension and $400 million on the country local government fund. When members opposite were in Geraldton on their postcard visit this week, did they explain to the City of Geraldton that they wanted to abolish the country local government fund? Did they tell the City of Geraldton that it would not get the $1.7 million to upgrade its library and administrative centre if members opposite were in government? When they got in their cars and drove down the road to Dongara, in the Shire of Irwin, did they tell them that they would not have had the $711 million they have received under the country local government fund towards their indoor recreation centre and upgrade to the administration building if the opposition had been in government? I do not think they did. I do not think members opposite have the courage of their convictions. We have spoken before about members opposite being all flag and no pole. That is what this little exchange over the past couple of days following the budget speeches—I accept their right to make those statements—has shown: members opposite are all flag and no pole. They cannot criticise us for borrowing too much money if all they want us to do is spend more. They have been saying, “You’ve borrowed too much money, but, by the way, can you spend another $7 billion or so because that’s what we think you should be doing?” If the government is borrowing too much money and members opposite want us to spend about $6 billion or $7 billion more, how will they cut that back to reduce the level of borrowings? All the saving they have offered up so far is $566 million. It is a drop in the ocean; a bubble in the gas tank. I want to very quickly touch on a couple of other very brief issues. There has been discussion, and rightly so, from the shadow Treasurer about movements in parameters. This is an issue that causes me much consternation.

4890 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

I will wait for the shadow Treasurer to look over for one second because I want to talk about the exchange rate and the royalties. Mr B.S. Wyatt: At last, something of relevance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It is a difficult thing for us to manage. If there is a way that we can agree on a better way of setting exchange rates for the budget and the presentation of the state accounts, I am happy to enter into that discussion. At the moment, we use a six-week average. The issue with that is the extreme volatility for the state’s finances. At the moment, the Australian dollar is about 10c higher compared with when the budget was handed down. That has a significant impact on our finances. I do not know where it will be at the end of the year. People have a whole range of parameters. If we can smooth out some of that volatility by extending the period we use to make the weighted average, I am happy to talk about that because it is difficult to shape government policy in response to short-term changes in exchange rates. We will do it, but I am not necessarily sure it delivers the best outcome. If we can talk about that in a bipartisan way or maybe even get the Public Accounts Committee to look at it, that will be a positive step forward. Mr B.S. Wyatt: If the Public Accounts Committee is looking at a better process by which the Treasurer’s advance can be dealt with, maybe you can include that in the terms of reference. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I think we will do it separately. I might want it to apply separate consideration to it when it comes back. Then again, I might take up the member’s suggestion; it is a good point. The other issue raised is the price of iron ore; it is volatile, as is the price of oil at the moment. My advice is—it is important this goes on the record—that the recent deal Rio signed with the Japanese and, I think, the Korean steel mills means we are facing a weighted average decline of 37 per cent in the price of iron ore. That has a significant impact on our budget, moving forward, and is another factor we have to manage. We will step up and manage that, but it is difficult. The member is right; we are operating in a very volatile period. I do not think anyone is questioning the quality of the work that goes into the estimates, because it is a historic methodology. However, in relation to the exchange rate, there is room for us to look at what we should do. It is not my intention to talk for any longer. I have been interested in the contributions to the debate made by all members and I look forward to this bill being passed, which I should say is a Loan Bill for four years. The other option was to have introduced this bill and sat through this process every year. It was a tough decision, but after a couple of days of sitting through the debate, I have to say that I think I made the right decision. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clause 1: Short title — Mr B.S. WYATT: In the vague spirit of goodwill that the Treasurer spent a bit of time on in his reply, I also welcome the member for Fremantle. I spoke before she gave her first speech, which was very good, and I welcome her to this place. Even though I doorknocked for her opponent, I still welcome her in this place. I think that she will find the Treasurer spends a lot of time on witty anecdotes and amusing commentary. I hope she does not — Mr R.H. Cook: Most of it is just bullying actually. Mr B.S. WYATT: There is a lot of bullying in there as well, but I hope the member can move beyond that and sometimes have some more of the sensible commentary from the Treasurer. The Treasurer made the point a second ago that the Loan Bill 2009 covers borrowings for four years. Can the Treasurer please advise the house in respect of the previous loan bill in 2004, or any others before it, whether that is usual or whether a loan bill is normally an annual request for borrowings? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The advice I have is that the last loan bill was for two years. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Victoria Park that this is not a general debate and he has to stick to the clauses in the bill. We are dealing with clause 1, the short title. Mr B.S. WYATT: The short title is the “Loan Act 2009”. Have any other bills entitled loan acts required approval for borrowings for up to four years? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Not to my knowledge. Mr B.S. WYATT: The question I have is in light of the unusual request for authorisations of up to four years of borrowings, and in light of the fact that the sum being borrowed is obviously an extraordinary amount. The last loan bill sought $250 million, from memory, and the loan bill before that, from the Treasurer’s second reading speech, had about $150 million left over from the one before it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Victoria Park saying that there should be a change to the title of this bill?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4891

Mr B.S. WYATT: Not at all, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe what the member is speaking on is relevant to the title of the bill. The member could maybe fit it in on another clause. Mr B.S. WYATT: Is the Deputy Speaker happy to take my questions when we get to clause 3, which is the general authority to borrow? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will deal with that when we come to clause 3. Mr B.S. WYATT: I am happy for clause 1 to be put. Clause put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement — Ms R. SAFFIOTI: When is it expected that the first draw-down of this $8.3 billion will occur? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It is anticipated that the first draw-down will occur this month. Mr B.S. WYATT: I note the Treasurer is looking for $225 million in borrowings authorised under this bill to get him through to the end of 2008-09. How much of the existing authorisation of $447 million is still outstanding? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I do not have the exact details of how much is outstanding now. There are a couple of weeks left of the financial year. In the next couple of weeks the existing authorisation of $447 million will be fully drawn down and, in addition to that, $225 million will be drawn down and applied to the $447 million. Clause put and passed. Clause 3: Power to borrow money for public purposes — Mr B.S. WYATT: The Treasury gave me a briefing on this legislation. We are now dealing with the relevant clause that authorises the borrowing of the $8.3 billion. The breakdown of the consolidated account, which the Treasury officers gave me, had a five-year total of financing payments of $5.8 billion. I assume the Treasurer will have a copy of the document before him because his Treasury officers provided me with a copy of the document. What are those financing payments and can the Treasurer give a breakdown of them? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am happy to help out there. There is $5.801 billion in total across effectively a five-year period from this last month of this financial year to the end of 2012-13. As I understand it, the components of that are as follows: borrowings associated with Perry Lakes are $121 million; the Western Australian cooperative scheme has on-past borrowing costs of $7 million, which were incurred up to the end of this financial year. Mr B.S. Wyatt: That is $5.8 million for the whole five years. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes. The Western Australian cooperative scheme is for only this year basically. It is a minor amount. The Fiona Stanley Hospital appropriation is $1.31 billion; the royalties for regions appropriation is an amount of $2.957 billion; the holding account is an amount of $853 million — Mr B.S. Wyatt: What is the holding account for? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I will tell the member in a second when I get some more advice. The repayment of borrowings to the Western Australian Treasury Corporation amounts to $554 million. That is the breakdown, as I have it, of the $5.8 billion that appears as financing payments. Mr B.S. WYATT: I asked a question by way of interjection when the Treasurer referred to $853 million for a holding account. Will the Treasurer give some information about that holding account? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: My understanding is that that is the payment of cash into the Treasury holding account. The Treasury holding account is used for a variety of purposes, including depreciation, leave liability and the like. I should point out that the financing payments are not interest payments but payments that Treasury makes—I will accept guidance on this—to a total of $5.8 billion across the period into holding accounts, trust funds and the like. Mr B.S. WYATT: I have a question about a very small amount that is contained in the total. I asked about it, but the Treasury officer was unable to tell me during my briefing. I appreciate that it is a small amount, but under “investing receipts” from 2007-08 through to 2012-13, in each year other than 2010-11 there is no allocation at all, yet in 2010-11 there is a positive allocation of $17 million. Can the Treasurer provide some information about that? Mr T.R. Buswell: Unfortunately that information is not available at this stage, but I am happy to take the question on notice and provide information to the member via correspondence. Mr B.S. WYATT: Can the Treasurer therefore confirm whether the investing payments of just over $11 billion over five years affect the equity contributions? I assume that is the asset investment program. Is that correct? What is the make-up of that $11.091 billion? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Investing payments totalling $11.091 billion are made up of equity contributions of $4.115 billion and capital contributions of $6.975 billion. I will not go into detail, although I can provide the

4892 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] information to the member. Equity contributions are spread across health, education and training, housing, Verve Energy, LandCorp, corrective services and other areas. It is a pretty similar mix for capital contributions. Mr B.S. Wyatt: A minute ago you referred to a list that you are happy to provide to me. I do not want to sit here and ask for detailed figures all night. Can you provide me with that list? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I can get the breakdown that sits behind those figures. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Will that include the equity contributions and the capital contributions? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I will provide the member with a breakdown of everything that sits behind the summary that the member has already been provided with. Mr B.S. WYATT: I want to move to some questions about the debt itself and about the commonwealth guarantee that I earlier indicated I wanted to discuss. It has previously been indicated by way of parliamentary answer that the general split of short-term and long-term debt is 30 per cent short term and 70 per cent long term. Mr T.R. Buswell: Thirty points and 15 points. Mr B.S. WYATT: I have information that Western Australia Treasury Corporation advice as at the budget cut- off date about rates to be applied to new borrowings for the standard portfolio structure should be 30 per cent short term and 70 per cent long term. I refer the Treasurer to the March memo that was prepared for him by the Under Treasurer about problems that Treasury was having borrowing. It states that the Western Australian Treasury Corporation is of the view that sourcing the remaining long-term debt component of its borrowing program will be very difficult. In the event that this cannot be achieved, the memo states, the Western Australian Treasury Corporation will be forced into borrowing the remainder of long-term debt requirements through short- term facilities. In this instance, the Western Australia Treasury Corporation will have to utilise derivative markets to implement the state’s interest rate risk management policies. This has the effect of significantly increasing the state level of refinancing risk and increasing the Western Australian Treasury Corporation’s own market risk position. I put a number of questions to the Treasurer during the estimates committees about whether the commonwealth guarantee had corrected the problems that Tim Marney, the Under Treasurer, identified in that document about raising long-term debt. His response to my question was to the effect that at that stage he was not able to state whether the commonwealth guarantee would correct the debt position, particularly the ability to access long-term debt. However, he was keen to see the form of the guarantee. That guarantee has now been tabled in the federal Parliament. Can the Treasurer provides the house with any comments about whether the standard portfolio structure of the state debt will still be 30 per cent short-term debt and 70 per cent long- term debt and whether the Treasurer is comfortable, in light of the borrowings of $8.3 billion, that the state can access long-term debt, particularly in view of the indication that Tim Marney gave during estimates that he still had doubts about that? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The member is right; the guarantee has been tabled. I have not had any additional advice provided to me by Treasury or the Western Australian Treasury Corporation. My understanding is that we have a month or so to provide a response to the commonwealth government, and I expect that advice in the not-too- distant future. I am happy to provide the member with a briefing on the issues relating to Treasury and the Treasury Corporation down the track, as I was to provide the document he quoted from. The government has not had reason at this stage to reconsider the 70-30 split between long-term and short-term debt. With regard to Mr Marney’s comments, my advice is that the issues surrounding the state’s capacity to access what I might refer to as a traditional mix of debt are somewhat easier now. In other words, the constraints that we faced a few months ago when we negotiated those outcomes with the commonwealth government are not as severe now as they were then. Whether that is because of some free-rider effect in the market—that is, the market assuming that people will jump on board if the commonwealth government offers enough—only time will tell. It may well be an element; I am a bit of a theorist of the rational expectation school, so I suspect that that would have had some impact, although I cannot comment on that matter definitively because we have not done an analysis. Mr B.S. Wyatt: In his memo to the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer said that he was worried about having to utilise the derivative markets because he could not access debt. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: My advice is that the situation in the market for the state’s capacity to access debt has eased somewhat between March and now to become more reflective of a normal debt-raising profile. I am sure there will still be an impact in the market, but it is not as noticeable today. That is the advice I have, and my adviser has confirmed it. It is not as noticeable in the market today as it was in March, when that paper was prepared for me and a version of it was forwarded to the commonwealth government. I am not saying that we are back to what could be called historic norms, but my advice is that our challenges are not as dire as was the case in March. Perhaps that is because of a free-rider element. Some states—Victoria, for example—have said that they will not touch the commonwealth government guarantee. Queensland, on the other hand, jumped on board in a flash. I do not have enough analysis available to provide any further detail. My advice, at a broad level, is that conditions in the market are not as severe as was the case pre-March, when that memo was written.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4893

Mr B.S. WYATT: I follow on from the points the Treasurer made about Victoria. The Victorian government has stated that it does not intend to access the commonwealth government guarantee. I asked the Treasurer and the Under Treasurer during estimates whether the Treasurer anticipated that Western Australia would require the guarantee and whether, if it did, the Treasurer would feel compelled to guarantee the existing debt stock so as not to effectively create two tiers of debt. Is the Treasurer able to provide any further comment on that? Mr T.R. Buswell: No, I have not been provided with any additional advice subsequent to estimates on this matter. Mr B.S. WYATT: I ask the Treasurer’s indulgence again. I quote again from the Under Treasurer’s memo to the Treasurer. It states in part — WA Treasury Corporation faces the prospect of having to refinance up to $4.7 billion in short term debt between 4 March 2009 and 30 June 2009. To facilitate this, WA Treasury Corporation has recently doubled the size of its Eurocommercial paper program to US$3 billion. The memo went on to say why the Western Australian Treasury Corporation wanted a guarantee. That $4.7 billion is obviously a significant figure of short-term debt to be refinanced between March and 30 June this year. Can the Treasurer, either now or by way of supplementary information or correspondence to me, provide some information on whether that was successful, whether it was rolled over in more short-term debt or whether the state has been able to get some long-term debt on that? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I have not received specific advice on any inability to raise that money; I would therefore assume that we were able to. Rather than speculate, I would prefer to provide the member with some more solid advice. It is an important issue and I have to provide that advice. When the memo makes reference to short-term debt, I am not sure whether that is a reference to the fact that the debt we were refinancing was also short-term debt or whether we were being forced into short-term debt because long-term debt was no longer available. I would therefore rather get more comprehensive advice in relation to the matter. Mr B.S. WYATT: I would appreciate that. The Treasurer would appreciate my interest in this area because if the Treasurer does need to access the guarantee, the cost of the debt is going to increase if we have to buy the guarantee from the commonwealth. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: That is a very interesting point. There are mixed schools of thought on this matter. The argument the member will find articulated in that memo says that the historical differential between commonwealth bond rates, state bond rates and commercial paper was stepped up. We are in the middle. As a result of the commonwealth introducing the commonwealth guarantee for our banks, the differentials had altered and we were actually paying more by way of comparison than had historically been the case. The issue then is if we accept the guarantee, the extent to which our base rate—if I could use that term—adjusts down as a result of the market valuing the guarantee relative to the 30 basis-point increment, or the 30 basis-point premium or price that we have to pay the commonwealth for the guarantee. Again, I think it would be fair to say that there are mixed views on where those relativities will end up. I am sure the member will understand that it is a pretty dynamic market. Some people argue that we will pay more. Others argue that the adjustment in our base rate—if I can call it that—when the 30 basis points are added on to that will not see us pay any more. I do not have a definitive answer around that. Suffice to say that I can recall the Treasurers’ meeting quite well and that there was mixed advice on that from both the commonwealth and state experts in the room who deal in financial markets. Mr B.S. WYATT: In light of the Treasurer’s previous answers, I will put a hypothetical question to him now. If the state gets to the position that it will have to utilise the commonwealth guarantee for its new debt, it seems to me that without also guaranteeing our existing debts, which at the moment are not that huge comparative to where we are heading, we must also guarantee that without—I do not want to use the phrase—“abandoning that debt”. Mr T.R. Buswell: I think you are right. Mr B.S. WYATT: Is the Treasurer able to give us—I dare say that the answer is no—the likely impact of the cost of guaranteeing our existing debt? Mr T.R. Buswell: No, I am not able to. Mr B.S. WYATT: Okay; that is fine. Will the Treasurer provide me then with a bit of information on clause 3? It states — The Treasurer may borrow sums of money, not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of $8 316 197 000, from the Western Australian Treasury Corporation or elsewhere, for public purposes. I am particularly interested in “or elsewhere” and whether historically the state has utilised any organisation other than the WATC to access the debt markets; and, if so, which organisation? Does the Treasurer anticipate using any organisation other than WATC to satisfy the state’s debt requirements?

4894 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I thought that this was the Khemlani clause, so I took some further advice on it. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Will you be heading off to the Middle East? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: No. The Minister for Agriculture and Food went to the Middle East. We looked at the Loan Bill 2004, and found that “or elsewhere” was inserted in that bill also. I hate to use the term “rare”, but as rare as loan bills are, the only change that was made to clause 3 in the Loan Bill 2009 compared with the Loan Bill 2004 is that the word “Governor” has been replaced by “Treasurer”. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Does the 2004 bill say “or elsewhere”? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Yes. Mr P. Papalia: The other difference is the $8 billion. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: We have had a long discussion about the quantum. Mr P. Papalia: I thought I would get it in there. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It was a good point. Clause 3 of the bill certainly says “or elsewhere”. We put our heads together yesterday and tried to work out why it would say that. My advice is that since Anthony has been in Treasury—he has a longer corporate knowledge than I have—the government has never borrowed from any organisation other than the Western Australian Treasury Corporation. Mr B.S. Wyatt: There must have been some anticipation. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I can only assume that “or elsewhere” is in the legislation to cover the possibility that the Western Australian Treasury Corporation could have its name changed. This is what we talked about yesterday. It could be restructured or something else could happen to it. There certainly is no desire on behalf of the government to not borrow from the Treasury Corporation. I am happy to get some more advice on that. We put our heads to this the other day. We cannot think of any other circumstance when the government would not borrow from the Treasury Corporation unless the Treasury Corporation underwent a restructure that involved it being renamed. I can get more advice about that for the opposition. I questioned whether that needed to be in the bill. I am sure that the matter can be dealt with in the other place. If there is no valid reason for it to be in there, I am happy that when it goes to the other place—perhaps we had better look at the timing. We cannot amend it in the other place. I apologise for giving that bad advice. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The Minister for Health makes a valid point, although it would have been the Treasury Corporation that borrowed from the commonwealth. That is the only reason I can possibly think of. We talked about this yesterday. Mr B.S. WYATT: I appreciate what the Treasurer just said. Obviously, “or elsewhere” opens up other options to the government for its borrowing requirements. Is the Treasurer happy to confirm to the house that the government will not borrow from any organisation other than the WATC or from an organisation that fulfils the role of the WATC if its name is changed? Mr T.R. Buswell: Absolutely. If I ever became aware of that, I would commit to letting the house know about it formally. It is one of those historic clauses that has been rolled across into this bill. We have applied our minds to why it is in the bill, and that is the only answer we can come up with. Mr B.S. WYATT: My next question flows from the question I just asked. I had a chance today to look at the Guarantee of State and Territory Borrowing Appropriation Bill 2009, which was introduced into the federal Parliament. It is not a very long document but it states the context of the amendments regarding guaranteed state and territory borrowings. Clause 3 of the explanatory memoranda to the bill states — The Guarantee of State and Territory Borrowing covers securities issued by Central Financing Authorities … “Central financing authorities” is defined in the explanatory memoranda as the various Treasury Corporations in each state. For Western Australia, it is defined as the Western Australian Treasury Corporation established under the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986. The point I am making is, as we now know, even though the government will not use any organisation other than WATC to borrow for the state’s debt requirements—the Treasurer has committed to that—the fact is that the guarantee would not cover any other organisation the Treasurer chose to use. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I can give the house an absolute guarantee that that is not on our radar. That is a historic clause in the Loan Bill. I can give the member a copy of the previous Loan Bill to show him that that is the case. I often question these types of historic clauses. I cannot imagine that the former Treasurer and now Leader of the Opposition would have envisaged borrowing from a company other than Treasury Corporation, unless Treasury Corporation were to, for whatever reason, change its name and/or its form, but no doubt that would be the

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4895 subject of scrutiny by the house. My adviser, Mr Kannis, has a copy that I can provide to the member so that he can have confidence in what I have just said. Mr B.S. Wyatt: A copy of what, Treasurer? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The Loan Bill 2004. I will just move across the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker, to give that to the member, in the spirit of cooperation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am glad it is in the spirit of cooperation! Mr B.S. WYATT: I thank Mr Kannis and the Treasurer for providing that. I appreciate that this is something that for historic reasons has stayed in the legislation over time. However, I dare say it would cause me some concern, and people all over Western Australia some concern, if we were to start to utilise organisations beyond Treasury Corporation. I think every member of Parliament would have confidence in Treasury Corporation. However, when we look at what has happened since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it would cause me some concern if we did start to utilise more creative methods to get the money to pay back the debt. That is something that I would not be very keen on. However, I accept the Treasurer’s word on that. The Treasurer has not seen the commonwealth guarantee, has he? Mr T.R. Buswell: No, I have not. Mr B.S. WYATT: Okay. I have a few more questions on this clause, but the Treasurer did say that I can access the Under Treasurer or Mr Kannis at a later date when I have had a chance to look through this document. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: As soon as Treasury Corporation has assessed that document, and as soon as is practically convenient, I will get them to brief the member. I think this is an issue that we are approaching in a bipartisan manner, and I will be happy to get the member’s input on it. Mr B.S. WYATT: I thank the Treasurer for that. I was hoping to raise a few more issues, because the federal bill actually has a deed of guarantee and the scheme rules, which have been posted on the website www.stateguarantee.gov.au, but that site is not up and operating yet, so hopefully by the time Mr Kannis gives me that briefing we will be able to access that document. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: My question relates to the issues raised by the member for Victoria Park about the borrowing and debt-raising activities of Treasury Corporation. In the past, specific capital-raising activities have been undertaken in Japan, because Japan is a good source of funds. Is there any indication of what the source of funds will be for that $8.3 billion? Is Treasury Corporation planning to undertake any specific activities to raise these funds? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I do not have any advice on that matter. The only indication I have seen was in the memo that the member for Victoria Park has referred to, which is about the Eurobond market. That is the only information I have seen to indicate any change from historically normal patterns, although I have to say that at the broader level there are some emerging capital markets that we could look at attempting to attract to our paper. One example is China, which, as I understand, is not particularly active in our paper at the moment. I do not get involved in that, though. Mr B.S. WYATT: To follow on from the member for West Swan’s question: is Japan still buying our paper? Mr T.R. Buswell: I would need to get advice on that. Mr B.S. WYATT: Okay. I thought the Treasurer might know. Mr T.R. Buswell: I try to keep across a few facts, but that is not one that I currently know about. Clause put and passed. Clause 4 put and passed. Clause 5: Principal, interest and expenses payable out of Consolidated Account — Mr B.S. WYATT: I note that the principal, interest and expenses are payable out of the consolidated account. The $8.316 billion is the principal amount. Therefore, the interest payable does not come out of that $8.3 billion. The $8.3 billion is the principal amount that the government is seeking to borrow; therefore, the government does not need authority to pay the interest because that comes out of the consolidated account on top of the $8.3 billion. Is that correct? Mr T.R. Buswell: That is correct. Clause put and passed. Title put and passed. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.

4896 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

Third Reading MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Treasurer) [10.42 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [10.43 pm]: Members will be delighted to know that I will not keep the house for too long. A lot has been said about the Loan Bill 2009, which seeks to borrow $8.3 billion for the next four years to fund the general government sector. In his reply to the second reading debate, the Treasurer referred to the extra borrowing and the commitments made by the Labor opposition. I assure the Treasurer that, come the next election, the Labor opposition will have a costed and accurate reflection of its commitments. Four years is a long time, but between now and then we will highlight what is not in the budgets, particularly this budget, because that is our role. The commitments that the opposition makes in the lead-up to the next election will be clearly set out. I know that when the Treasurer was on this side of the house he adopted a very similar strategy to the one he is using now. The only idea that we had about what the now Treasurer might have got when in government was his reference to a former Massachusetts governor. I cannot remember his name. It might have been Weld. Mr T.R. Buswell: William Weld. Mr B.S. WYATT: I thank the Treasurer—less with less; that is all we heard from the Treasurer when he sat on this side of the house. I assure him that, between now and the next election, the Labor opposition will have a series of — Mr T.R. Buswell: You will get more with more. Mr B.S. WYATT: Hopefully we will get more with less with the way that things are going. We never know. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that the state debt in Western Australia will always be lower under a Labor government than a Liberal government. The past 20 years has proved that. The net- financial-liabilities-to-revenue ratio under Richard Court’s government was 117 per cent; under the former Gallop-Carpenter government it went to a low of 42.9 per cent. The estimates for 2012-13 are that it will get to 85.4 per cent. This side of the house has spent the past two days outlining why we think that 85.4 per cent figure is likely to be breached. The Treasurer likes to think that there will be more debt under a Labor government, but history proves the fact that state debt will always be lower under a Labor government than under a Liberal government. I can see where we are heading. Four years from now, when, hopefully, Labor is returned to government, we will again have to deal with excessive debt that has been left to the people of Western Australia by a Liberal government—$7 850 for every Western Australian. That will be the inheritance that the people in my electorate will receive from the Barnett government. No doubt that is something that the next Labor government — Dr K.D. Hames: What is the forecast federal debt? Mr B.S. WYATT: I thank the Deputy Premier for that interjection. The forecast federal net debt is $188 billion. It is funny; I find myself saying many similar things to what Mr Hockey is saying. I look forward to meeting Mr Hockey one day. Maybe he will call on my electorate. When he comes over to visit Steve Irons, the federal member for Swan, maybe he will visit me in my electorate office. Mr Hockey makes the point that that $188 billion equates to $9 000 per Australian. This government’s $19.1 billion basically reflects the $188 billion that is being accrued at the federal level. It is a significant level of debt, $7 850, that every single person in my electorate—not every voter, but every single person in my electorate—will have to pay off for many years to come. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. WYATT: The complaints will come, Treasurer, when people start seeing services cut to pay for that, and when they start seeing household fees and charges going up further and further to pay for the debt that this legislation authorises the government to borrow. This is just for the general government sector. I know why the Treasurer is seeking authority for this borrowing over the next four years—he does not want to be back in this place year after year, watching the debt figures increase. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mr B.S. WYATT: I would love to go through this process once a year to keep a keen eye on the Treasurer and his borrowing. In light of what is not in the budget—the billions of dollars of commitments that are not there— that debt figure is not accurate. We know it is not accurate, and we know that that $7 850 will get up around the $9 000 mark by the time we get to 2012-13. The Treasurer has made the point about Groundhog Day. That is one of my favourite movies. I can assure members that debt and deficits will be a constant theme from this side of the house over the next four years. The

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4897 government may not like it, but we will be talking about it for the next four years. We will be making sure that every Western Australian knows what the legacy of this government is; that is, this government is leaving every one of them $7 850 worth of debt. The Premier sat on this side of the house in his first term as Leader of the Opposition. He knows that it does not matter what the debt level is; it is the interest payments that hurt. I know that the Treasurer has put forward the figure of five per cent of operating revenue. That five per cent figure is looking conservative. I dare say it will go above that figure, and the Treasurer will have to alter the fiscal strategy in the next budget and find something else to measure his rising debt levels. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, state debt is always lower under a Labor government than under a Liberal government. Members opposite do not like hearing this. The past 20 years prove it. These are Treasury figures. Treasury has been kind enough to calculate it for us. It is all very easy to see. I know that a future Labor government will have to pay off the debt that all the government’s big-spending ministers sitting on the front bench are rapidly accruing, which is rapidly leaving this state with a massive and long-term liability. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council. MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Questions without Notice 497 and 505 — Personal Explanation MR G.M. CASTRILLI (Bunbury — Minister for Local Government) [10.49 pm]: In reply to a question asked by the member for Warnbro in question time about Local Government Grants Commission appointments and his assertion that these appointments were made because of those people’s alleged political affiliations, I wish to say that both persons are outstanding contributors to the Western Australian community and are well recognised for that contribution. Both persons submitted impressive curricula vitae for the position. As per section 5(1)(c) of the Local Government Grants Act 1978, I requested that the Western Australian Local Government Association submit a panel of names to me for consideration for recommendation to vacancies on the Local Government Grants Commission. The vacancies were for a metropolitan commissioner and a deputy, a country urban commissioner and a deputy, and a country rural deputy member. On 8 December 2008, WALGA submitted to me a list of names that were its recommendations for the positions on the Local Government Grants Commission. Also included in that letter was a list of other nominees. I wish to read out the list of names on the panel and other nominees for the positions of metropolitan commissioner and deputy. The names on the panel were: Councillor Henry Zelones, City of Armadale; Councillor Ron Hoffman, City of Gosnells; Mayor Peter Tagliaferri, City of Fremantle; Councillor Elizabeth Taylor, Shire of Kalamunda; Councillor Wayne Barrett, City of Gosnells; and Councillor Tina Klein, Town of Bassendean. The other nominees were Mayor Sheryl Froese, City of Nedlands; and Councillor Michelle Stubbs, Town of Bassendean. I table that letter. [See paper 960.] Mr P. Papalia: They weren’t on the list, were they? Mr G.M. CASTRILLI: I appointed two nominees who were not from the panel list but who were included in the nominee list as metropolitan commissioner and deputy. On 24 February 2009, I wrote to WALGA informing it of the appointments. On 2 April 2009, I received a letter from WALGA pointing out that the persons appointed as metropolitan commissioner and deputy commissioner were ineligible as they were not included in the panel of names submitted by WALGA. I instructed the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to seek legal opinion from the State Solicitor’s Office on the validity of the appointments. The advice from the State Solicitor’s Office dated 24 April 2009 confirmed WALGA’s view that only names identified as being on the panel of names must be considered. The State Solicitor also advised that this did not affect the validity of the work undertaken by the grants commission during this time. Equipped with this information, I arranged for the metropolitan commissioner and deputy commissioner to resign, which they subsequently did. I wrote to WALGA on 28 April advising it of the outcome and asking it to submit a new list. In relation to the other question from the member for Warnbro about the library framework agreement and the funding, I have received advice from my department that the library framework agreement is not part of the responsibility of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. House adjourned at 10.53 pm ______

4898 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES — CHILDREN USING ANTIDEPRESSANTS 746. Mr M.P. Whitely to the Minister for Mental Health (1) What is the number and proportion of children currently receiving Mental Health services that are prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI’s) or other anti-depressants? (2) How many children under 18 are prescribed SSRI’s either through the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, public hospitals or other State-run services? (a) further, can this information be provided for the separate age groups of between; (i) 11 – 17; (ii) 5 – 10; and (iii) 0 – 5? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: (1) The total number of children seen within WA Health’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services during the week beginning 4 May 2009 was 830; of which 149 children were currently on SSRI medication and 17 children were currently on other anti-depressants, being 20%. (2) Of the149 children on existing SSRI medication, 113 were prescribed SSRI medication by WA Health’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services — representing 75.83% of the total children. (a) (i) Aged 11-17 years: 110 children (ii) Aged 5-10 years: 3 children (iii) Aged 0-5 years: Nil children Note: To provide an answer to a question of such an all-encompassing nature would divert vital clinical resources away from front-line client care for a significant period of time (approximately 25 clinical, medical, allied health and supporting administrative staff for an average of 9 days each). Therefore, the above answer has been provided for a snapshot of a week from 4 to 8 May 2009 for WA Health’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services only. DAWESVILLE CHANNEL – MOSQUITO CONTROL 751. Mr D.A. Templeman to the Minister for Water (1) Is the Premier aware that at the time of the construction of the Dawesville Channel, the Government committed $4 million towards mitigating the effects of the Channel’s construction, with one of those impacts being mosquitoes? (2) Can the Government advise the details of this expenditure? (3) Was there a timeframe for its expenditure? (4) Were the funds allocated; and (a) if so, when were they allocated? Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: Mosquito management is a shared responsibility of the relevant Local Government, and the Department of Health (DoH). In particular, locally the arrangement is via a CLAG Group (Contiguous Local Authority Group) chaired by the City of Mandurah and attended and funded (in part) by the DoH. I would suggest that this item is best answered by Dr Mike Lindsay of the Health Department’s Mosquito Bourne Disease Control Branch. ARTWORK IN MINISTER’S OFFICE 848. Mr J.N. Hyde to the Minister for Water; Mental Health (1) For the Minister’s office/s, has artwork been purchased outright, leased, loaned or gifted since the election in September 2008? (2) If yes, please detail the cost of any artwork in each category and the source of the artwork.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 10 June 2009] 4899

Dr G.G. JACOBS replied: The Department of Health provided the response: (1) Yes, eight pieces are on loan from the Creative Expression Centre for Art Therapy (CECAT) Art Bank to the Minister’s office, for as long as the Office requires. These can be swapped over at any time for other art works in the Art Bank. No money has changed hands. (2) [See paper 956.] The Department of Water has provided the following response: (1) Yes (2) $1744.92, loaned from Department of Water The Water Corporation has provided the following response: (1) Yes. Loaned. (2) Loaned — $1,500. Source — Water Corporation photographs. WA ACADEMY OF PERFORMING ARTS — GOVERNMENT FUNDING 859. Mr J.N. Hyde to the Minister for Education (1) What financial assistance has the Minister’s department provided to the Western Australian Academy of Performing Art in the current financial year? (2) How much assistance was budgeted for WAAPA? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: (1) The Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts received $6 227 185 of funding between 1 July 2008 and 30 April 2009 for delivery of training in performing arts, music and stage management. The estimated total funding for this financial year is $7 500 000. (2) $7 500 000 of financial assistance was budgeted for the Academy.

______