Legislative Assembly
Wednesday, 6 September 2000
THE SPEAKER (Mr Strickland) took the Chair at 12 noon, and read prayers. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr Prince (Minister for Police), and read a first time. Second Reading MR PRINCE (Albany - Minister for Police) [12.03 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the second of two related Bills in this package. I outlined in the second reading of the Criminal Property Confiscation Bill 2000 the reasons that Bill was necessary. The basis for its introduction in the last session was so that it could be exposed for a period of time for public comment and consideration by members. At that stage, the consequential provisions had not been completed. As would be expected, the provisions outlined in that Bill necessitate a number of amendments to current statutes. Because of the number of amendments required, all consequential amendments and transitional provisions have been contained in a separate Bill, the Criminal Property Confiscation (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2000. The Criminal Property Confiscation (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2000 provides for the repeal of the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1988 - the repealed Act - and part IV of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 - the repealed part. It also provides that applications made under the repealed Act or part are, in specified circumstances, to continue to be dealt with as if the repeal of the relevant Act and part had not taken place. Similarly, the Bill provides for the continuation of other specified matters, such as holding orders and embargo notices made under the repealed part, and warrants issued under that part or the repealed Act are to remain in force as if the Act and part had not been repealed. These provisions are necessary to ensure that unnecessary time and expense is not caused as a result of the relevant appeals. The Criminal Property Confiscation Bill is essential in the fight against criminal activity and in identifying and recovering crime-related property. The consequential provisions Bill is necessary to enable its provisions to take over from the existing criminal confiscation scheme. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Cunningham. ACTS AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN DATUM) BILL 2000
Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Mr Barnett (Leader of the House), and transmitted to the Council. ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AUTHORITY BILL 2000
Second Reading Resumed from 29 March. DR EDWARDS (Maylands) [12.09 pm]: The Opposition supports this Bill because it recognises the modernised operations of the Perth Zoo and legitimises what is going on at the Zoo. The Opposition has one reservation that concerns competition for the scarce corporate dollars. I will comment on the Bill and the Zoo, and then move on to the concerns I have. Nevertheless, the Opposition supports the Bill and will not seek to amend it. Perth Zoo is nearly 102 years old. It is probably one of the few institutions in the State that has been open every day of its existence, which is a remarkable tribute to the people who have worked there over the years. The Zoological Gardens Act was first enacted in 1898 to cover the needs of the day. It was modernised in 1972. It had become apparent in the past five years or so that the Act needed modernisation to reflect the Zoo’s operations. As the minister said, this Bill modernises the definition of zoo. It reflects the whole range of activities at the Zoo - financial, business, sponsorship, research, conservation, and marketing activities, which have contributed to the Perth Zoo’s fine record. An entity that has impressed me when I have visited the Zoo - I have visited on a number of occasions and had a number of briefings - is the Marsupial Cooperative Research Centre. The Perth Zoo is a fine example of how zoos have changed over the past century. It has gone from a place to which people go to ooh and aah at exotic animals to a place that is recognised for its research and conservation efforts. The people at the Zoo can be proud of the number of exhibits that still exist for the member for Cottesloe and others to ooh and aah over. In addition to that, and probably
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 769 more importantly, the Zoo has an international reputation for the work it is doing in the important area of research. Throughout two world wars, the Great Depression and various stages in history, people have visited the Zoo every day for 102 years. Part of the Zoo's patronage comes from people who make return visits and bring their children, grandchildren and overseas and country visitors. The Zoo has a proud record. The Zoo can also be proud of its tourism record. In 1998 and in 1999 it received an award for the best major tourist attraction in Western Australia. It is certainly doing its job. I will concentrate on its conservation work and one factor that identifies the great work that is being done. In conjunction with the Department of Conservation and Land Management, the Zoo has released back into the wild more than 170 Zoo-bred threatened animal species. It is important that the work is undertaken in conjunction with CALM, because CALM clears the area into which the animals are placed so that no other predators will gobble them up. In recent times numbats, dibblers - tiny animals I had never seen until I visited the CRC at the Zoo - and the now quite famous Shark Bay mouse have been reintroduced into their natural habitat. The Zoo has made good links with other conservation agencies to advance the work that is being done in Western Australia. While the Zoo's conservation and research efforts focus on native animals, it has not ignored its global responsibilities to help maintain genetic diversity throughout the world. This is important when one considers the habitats that are under threat. Western Australians believe that flora and fauna losses result from salinity problems, in particular. Those losses will continue until that problem is resolved. However, pressures in other parts of the world - such as the clearing of rain forests, climate change and over-population - are placing many species under threat. The Perth Zoo also plays a role in that global sense. For example, a golden lion tamarin was brought to Perth from the Adelaide Zoo. It also has a Sumatran tiger that graced the cover of its annual report a few years ago. I was concerned to read in the Zoo's annual report about an incident in November 1998 which involved African hunting dogs under the Zoo's care. They died after they were fed meat that had been inadvertently poisoned. That demonstrated the complexity of the activities at the Zoo. The meat fed to those animals contained barbiturates. It transpired that the animal that had been fed to the dogs had been killed in an inappropriate manner, and some of the checks and balances about food quality had broken down. Since then I have had discussions with the Health Department, and I raised this issue in the estimates hearings. I heard some of the evidence to the inquiry that followed and the safeguards that are now in place to ensure animals are not inadvertently poisoned in that way. This demonstrates the complex tasks that have to be done by people working at the Zoo. Not only do they deal with hundreds of thousands of visitors who go there each year to see the rare and exotic animals in their care, and carry out research with native animals, but also they must undertake basic checks on food quality so they do not cause any harm to their animals. The Zoo's publicity is very good. Everyone will have seen recent television footage and photographs of the Rothschild’s giraffe being transported to the eastern States. That created lots of interest in the community, particularly among young people. I was also interested to read in the annual report that about 18 months ago the Zoo was responsible for an RAAF flight that transported horned oryxes from Western Australia to the Western Plains Zoo at Dubbo to help with its breeding program. People who are involved with the Zoo undertake many complex tasks in the day-to-day activities of the Zoo. As part of that, I understand that the Zoo is involved in 23 postgraduate research projects. I will turn now to events and marketing. The Zoo holds a huge range and number of functions not only to attract people to the Zoo and its facilities but also to educate the community and to provide a wide range of functions. When I visited the Zoo about five years ago, after not having been there for a long time, I was fascinated by the number of older teenagers who were there. I visited on a number of occasions on a Saturday morning and was amazed to see young people in the 18 to 20 year age group who had decided that going to the Zoo on a Saturday was a highlight for them. It is a tribute to the Zoo's marketing that it attracted that age group, the very young children who are fascinated by the animals, and the seniors who bring their grandchildren. It is a tribute to the Zoo that it has targeted those niche markets. In addition, the Zoo has run twilight concerts. This allow people to look at the animals in the early evening and stay on for a concert. Anyone who saw the dinosaur exhibition will never forget it. I had to run down a path chasing my son telling him they were not real, that they were only plastic and electronic. Mrs Edwardes: How old was he? Dr EDWARDS: He was about three years of age. He took off when this huge dinosaur exhibit moved its head and roared. Recently I took a number of my son's small friends to see the penguins. At their age, penguins are the flavour of the month. The penguin exhibit is fascinating. It is really well done and enjoyable. I had to be dragged away from the penguins on that occasion. The Zoo's work could not happen without their docents - their volunteers, of which there are around 300. In the Zoo's centenary year its docents gave nearly 45 000 hours of service. That is a lot of service from a lot of people with a great commitment to the Zoo. I was delighted to hear that entry was free on Father's Day. It was great to see on television the number of fathers and others making use of the Zoo on that day. The annual report is also interesting because one of the customer indicators is the entry price to the Zoo. People are very satisfied with the entry price, which is important, because if people are satisfied with the price they will visit the Zoo and enjoy the experience. It is a tribute to management that it can keep that price at a reasonable figure to achieve
770 [ASSEMBLY] the levels of satisfaction set out in the annual report, varying between a low of 79 per cent up to a high of 88 per cent. That is a very good target. I will now comment on the botanical state of the Zoo. A number of people I know go to the Zoo to look at the plants and not the animals. The palm collection is a very fine collection. I do not like palms, but members of my family are absolutely addicted to them and they go to the Zoo not to look at the animals but to stare at the palms and wonder at their ages and diversity. These sorts of plants are very important because they provide food for some of the Zoo animals, and there is a marriage between various departments. In my electorate, CALM rangers and students at the John Forrest Senior High School are now growing a type of bamboo around the school grounds, which provides shade to some of the classrooms and is periodically harvested and taken to the Zoo where it is used as food. The Zoo has a lot of what one might call tentacles that go out into the community and result in these high customer satisfaction ratings and high attendance numbers. In fact, in the Zoo’s centenary year the attendance was 635 000. The annual report states that the attendance is always up in the 500 000 range but it has grown steadily over the years and continues to grow. This leads me to one of my concerns about the Bill. In her second reading speech the minister pointed out that the board of the Zoo recognises it is operating in an increasingly competitive environment for what it calls “discretionary leisure expenditure”. This is an important point. The Zoo has embarked on a number of different business plans. It has drastically improved its performance. One need only look at how the exhibits have changed over the years to see the improvement. I am aware of improvements made at other levels - for example, how the Zoo is managing the nutrient flows and discharge water on the site. The Zoo has pointed out that part of the reason for the changes outlined in this Bill is to allow it to put the proper procedures in place so that it can compete for what it calls the “discretionary leisure expenditure”. Most of us deal with big, non-government organisations which are sometimes based in our electorates, and we are all aware of the difficulty people have raising money for their organisations. Those in the non-government sector tell us the situation is becoming tighter. For example, it is harder to get the corporate dollar, it remains difficult to get money for charities from other people, and they all feel the competition is very tight. Work has been done under the Charitable Collections Act and we may well see the results of that in the near future. While the Zoo is already out there competing for sponsorship, this legislation will make sure that it does so in a more active mode. I do not know what can be done about that. I have some sympathy with the Zoo. According to the Zoo’s business plans, it has obviously recognised that the amount of money it gets from government cannot continue to escalate and the programs and opportunities it wants to present to people all cost money. A positive side to this is that I believe there will be greater accountability. One of the frustrations we on this side of the House had was that sometimes we were not able to achieve an adequate level of scrutiny of the Zoo, because various societies and organisations are attached to and raise money for the Zoo. I raise the concern that the sponsorship dollar is tight and many large, non-government, charitable and other organisations are out there in the same environment competing for this dollar and, as people are saying, any dollar donated must be accounted for. It is difficult for everyone to compete in this environment. For example, the Zoo’s annual report contains a list of new sponsors and its gold and platinum sponsors. The sponsors include Healthway, Dome Coffees Australia Pty Ltd, Pivet Medical Centre, Alcoa of Australia Ltd, MIX 94.5, AlintaGas, Coca-Cola Amatil, the Water Corporation, Channel 10, the Lotteries Commission and the Sunday Times. That is a short list of some of the bigger and newer sponsors. The tribute to sponsors in the annual report is typed in a small font and fills up a very big page. One of the reasons so many people go to the Zoo and are very satisfied with their experience is, in part, attributable to these sponsors, but again the dollars are tight. I will now put on the record some of the issues the new Bill covers. As the minister said, it will provide the Zoo with a statutory basis to borrow funds externally for development purposes in line with its master plan; it will provide the basis to invest any sponsorship, fundraising money and profits in an appropriate short or long-term manner; and it will provide the basis to enter into business arrangements for profit sharing. There will also be a facility to charge a fee for services provided in connection with the Zoo for particular events. Finally, the Zoo will be able to operate under more than one trading name. I make those points to indicate that although, on the one hand, the Bill will make the Zoo more accountable and will bring it into line with modern practices, on the other hand it will be out in the marketplace competing in a different manner for that tight dollar. Finally, I welcome the recognition that has been given to the work done with the cooperative research centres and the Bill sets up the framework for the Zoo to compete in further CRCs. I believe the CRC that has been dealing with marsupials has been very successful and the fact that we are seeing the reintroduction of many native animals demonstrates its success. However, CRCs have only a limited lifespan and I am unclear as to what will happen when the current CRC reaches the end of its life. One hopes that a new CRC will emerge, that the work will never be lost and the Zoo will participate in some sort of new CRC. However, it is important that the Zoo has all its proper statutory mechanisms in place so that it can fully participate in new CRCs. In conclusion, I emphasise that the Zoo plays a valuable role in the community. We all visited the Zoo as children and undoubtedly we now take other children, friends and visitors there. The Zoo’s attendance figures of over 600 000 a year indicate that people are speaking with their feet and recognise the Zoo’s value. It is a tribute to the Zoo that over
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 771 the years it has moved away from using dreadful concrete and iron cages to very appropriate and entertaining facilities that hopefully meet the needs of the animals and also those of the general public. The Zoo has also moved into the arena of being a very credible partner in a cooperative research centre. Following the comments I have made which raised one concern we have with this Bill, we are pleased to support it. MS WARNOCK (Perth) [12.29 pm]: Like my colleague, the member for Maylands, I am pleased to support this Bill, which is timely, given the importance of zoos worldwide in the extremely crucial areas of species preservation, breeding and research. It is certainly no secret that zoos in the past, even one as splendid and much praised as our own, had standards of animal care that we would not tolerate today. I am sure that members will recall seeing bears in small concrete cages walking up and down looking depressed, and poor tethered Tricia, the elephant. That was a disgrace, but it was fairly typical of the way zoos ran at that time. Mercifully, those days have gone and the standard of keeping animals in zoos generally has improved out of sight. This Bill recognises those changes and the need to update legislation relating to Perth Zoo and its new role. It is a wonderful organisation. It has been open daily, 365 days of the year, for more than a century. Vast numbers of people visit the Zoo - it received some 600 000 visitors last year. It is visited by not only tourists but also several generations of Western Australians. I am sure that all members went there as children and took train rides. In the era I went there as a child, we probably even had elephant rides too. Since then members have probably taken their children as visitors. These days the Perth Zoo is remarkable not only for the beauty of its garden-style grounds, which are admired worldwide, but also because many species of animals now live there in rain forests, grasslands or open plains which are appropriate to their place of origin. It must be more fun being an animal in the Perth Zoo today than it was many years ago, insofar as human beings are able to tell. Even the lonely rhino Memphis now has a companion. I have not checked lately on how the relationship is going; all I can say is, good luck to them both. More seriously, it is well known that zoos now play a vital part in preserving threatened species from throughout the world through breeding programs. We should never minimise that important role that the Perth Zoo plays. Like many Western Australians, both ordinary citizens and scientists, I have been extraordinarily impressed with the success of conservation efforts for animals such as the orang-outangs, bilbies, chuditches, numbats and dibblers from Western Australia and of course the famous western swamp tortoises which are found nowhere else in the world and have been virtually rescued from extinction. It is chilling for animal lovers and conservationists like myself to constantly read about destroyed habitats and recently extinct species. We human beings have a very bad record of destroying species. The extinction of the Tasmania tiger is almost nauseating to contemplate. It is a tremendously sad story for animal lovers which should act as a warning to all of us if we think we can be casual about how we treat our fellow creatures. It would be nice to think that this type of thing no longer happens, just as it would be nice to think that human beings had stopped fighting each other over territory or religion. Alas, however, species are still under threat and millions of hectares of their habitat are destroyed every year. The chilling rate of destruction of habitats in places like Indonesia and South America means that every rare species that dwells in those various forests also is under threat. I am beginning to sound like a member for the Greens. I describe myself as a greenie and I have great concern about the way we treat not only each other, but also the planet. The conservation and preservation of species, the breeding programs and the research conducted by the Perth Zoo is vital. For a number of years, under various directors, the Zoo has changed direction, improved its performance and gone from strength to strength. I should declare an interest in a manner of speaking. I am a Friend of Perth Zoo, just as I am a Friend of Kings Park, and I sponsor a chuditch and a hairy-nosed wombat. I help pay for their keep through a program which is largely directed at school children, but I cannot see why adults should not do the same thing. Dr Edwards: Have you named it? Ms WARNOCK: Yes, I have, but I will not disclose their names, as they are too embarrassing. I would rather not discuss the hairy-nosed wombat any further. It was an anniversary present to my husband and the certificate hangs on the wall of our kitchen. We both enthusiastically and vigorously support the hairy-nosed wombat. I applaud the attempts of the Zoo to raise funds in this way. I emphasise that I also believe that all Governments of whatever political colour should continue to support Perth Zoo because of its vital place in the Western Australian community, its value as a conservation and preservation laboratory and its value as a tourist attraction. It is a high-quality zoo. I have visited a number of zoos in a number of places in the world. Insofar as a human can say this, I would rather be an animal in the Perth Zoo than I would in most of the other zoos I have visited throughout the world. I applaud the work of the Perth Zoo and everyone who works in it for the tremendous work they have done over the years in their various fields. I am pleased to support this Bill, as is the Opposition. MS McHALE (Thornlie) [12.36 pm]: I assure members that I did not deliberately dress for this Bill! Heaven forbid how I would have dressed for the prostitution Bill! I assure members that I am not dressing according to whichever Bill is before the House. I will make a few remarks about this Bill. It is clear from the comments of my colleagues, the members for Maylands and Perth, that the Opposition supports this Bill. I will reflect on the history of the legislation which has underpinned
772 [ASSEMBLY] the incredibly popular Perth Zoo. I remember that when I came to Perth in 1978 as a young British migrant, my first visit anywhere in Perth was to the Zoo. I remember two things: First, getting absolutely sunburnt because it was a hot February day, when I caught the ferry to the Zoo. Secondly, I recall being struck by the archaic condition in which many of the animals were living. It was not a pleasant visit to the Zoo. I was expecting to see something which reflected the Australian fauna but what I saw, even in 1978, was many of the animals in concrete cages. I felt that the Zoo had a long way to go. However, 20 years on, I am pleased to see that the Zoo has come an enormous way. It is now renowned as a centre of learning and excellence. It has evolved over its 102 years of existence. I remind people of that journey. The first Act that governed the Zoo was enacted on 28 October 1898. The Zoo, as we know, has celebrated its centenary. It is interesting to consider the intentions of the first piece of legislation to show how it evolved, although perhaps not as quickly as the animals would have liked. In those days the Zoo was a centre for a public resort and recreation. An acclimatisation committee was formed in 1896. In those days our Zoo was not seen as an educational centre or as a centre which protected our endangered species; it was a resort and a centre of recreation. One gets the impression that the animals were there for the humans' entertainment, not for the sake of the animals per se. Throughout the early 1900s it was clear that that was the direction the Zoo was taking. In 1972 when the Act was repealed and a new Act was introduced, there appeared to be a change in emphasis of the Zoo. The Zoo was very much becoming a centre for education and research. The Labor Government introduced the Bill in 1972. It was then beginning to be realised that the Zoo's potential as an educational resource was considerable. At the time it was said - . . . whilst in the field of conservation it has engendered an interest in endangered fauna and has also furthered the propagation of rare species in captivity. The short-necked tortoise, for instance, is an interesting example of the work carried out in this regard. In 1972 we were already understanding the need to preserve our endangered species. Unfortunately, species were being endangered and we were losing much of our natural fauna and flora. The Zoo was playing a much more central role in the preservation of our endangered species. Although it is distressing to accept that some species are endangered, the Zoo was playing much more of a role in the preservation of our endangered species. The main purpose of the 1972 legislation was to repeal the 1898 legislation and to give the board greater powers than it currently had. It also finally did away with the acclimatisation committee and established the Zoological Gardens Board. In fact, the 1972 legislation did to the 1898 legislation what this legislation is doing to the 1972 legislation, but this legislation does more. I understand from the briefing that I had in March that this Bill brings the Zoo into line with modern management practices and also modernises the legislation. The Bill reflects the commercial approach that the Zoo has been taking for a number of years. As with many other centres, whether artistic or natural as is the Zoo, organisations are having to turn to the commercial sector for sponsorship and for raising money for conservation and education programs. That is the reality that is certainly facing the Zoo. It is questionable whether that is right or wrong. However, the reality is that insufficient government funds are available to undertake the gamut of research required to protect our environment. This Bill enables the Zoo to raise money for conservation and education programs. At the briefing I said that the Bill did not have a set of principles underpinning the overall function of the Zoo. What I was getting at was whether there was an argument for enshrining in the legislation exactly what is the overall purpose of the Zoo. The Bill provides for the functions of the Zoo and the powers of any board, but from memory - the minister may wish to comment on this - it does not give the overall philosophy of the Zoo. The people at the briefing responded by saying that those principles are in the strategic plan of the Zoo, which may or may not change, and therefore were not enshrined in the legislation. That might be the answer but it may be worthwhile to have enshrined in the legislation exactly what is the philosophy of the Zoo. I understand 90 per cent of the Bill involves updating the old legislation and about 10 per cent involves the commercial interests of the Zoo. That is a necessary amendment to the legislation. It provides an opportunity for the Zoo to enter into financial arrangements with the Federal Government. I also understand the current Act frustrates the research programs that the Zoo wants to undertake. Therefore, the Bill is constructed in such a way as to increase the opportunities for research programs. I was driven to make a few comments about the Bill, having been a councillor in the City of South Perth where the Zoo is located. In a former life I was very much aware of the importance of the Zoo to the local economy of the City of South Perth as well as to the broader economy of the State from a tourism and environmental perspective. I know that the member for South Perth will contribute to this debate. I hope that he will because of his particular relationship with the Zoo. Having had that relationship with the Zoo as an ex-councillor, I wanted to make a few remarks about how important the Zoo is. It is also important for the Government to protect the Zoo by ensuring that it is more than adequately funded so that its research, its protection of endangered species and its contribution to the environment continue. When the Bill was introduced in 1972, it received bipartisan support. It was introduced by Mr Evans, the member for Warren, and Mr Grayden, the member for South Perth, supported the legislation on behalf of the Opposition. Likewise, we support this legislation. We hope that the Zoo goes from strength to strength. We hope that the commercial
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 773 interests, although necessary, do not have a negative impact on the many other organisations that are seeking the corporate dollar. In order to minimise that, the work of the Zoo and other organisations in seeking that corporate dollar needs to be ably assisted by a good Government. MR PENDAL (South Perth) [12.49 pm]: I want to make a brief contribution to the debate, and in the main to welcome the fact that we have a new Bill before the House which represents a comprehensive review and updating of a statute that has been on our books for a little under 30 years. I have a special reason for making this contribution; that is, the Zoo is an important part of South Perth and has been since 1898. We celebrated the centenary only a short time ago. I want to indicate the sense of continuity that still exists. It is somewhat amazing to think that to this day in Fraser House in South Perth there still lives one of the surviving daughters of Colonel Le Souef, who was the co-founder and the first director of the Zoo in 1898. That sense of history and heritage is still there and comes through loud and clear. If the Zoo is not the cultural heart of South Perth, it is certainly the heartbeat or perhaps the ventricle. It is so ingrained in South Perth’s social, cultural and educational life that it would be difficult to imagine the area without it. Indeed, when I was first elected to Parliament, an article appeared in an Asian newspaper suggesting that an investor was about to make overtures to the Western Australian Government to relocate the Zoo so that he could redevelop the site bounded by Mill Point Road, Labouchere Road, Onslow Street and Angelo Street for residential purposes. It was not difficult for a fresh, new member to make a very strong public case that it was a matter of hands off with regard to the Zoo. Thankfully that remains the case to this day. Unlike many institutions, the Zoo has a great and unsullied reputation. It also has a good reputation as an educator. It still attracts more visitors on a per-capita basis each year than any other Australian zoo. If that statistic has altered - I am not aware that it has - the situation must have changed only in the past year or two. The Zoo has played a part in the ongoing education of generations of children. It is still a central attraction to a huge number of people. About 600 000 people, or one-third of the entire Western Australian population, go through the gates each year for one purpose. That figure tells its own story. The Zoo is held in high regard not only nationally but also internationally. I have visited a number of the Zoo’s overseas counterparts, particularly during the years when I was the shadow Minister for the Environment. I had the opportunity to visit a number of zoos in the United States. I recall being taken to one which I will not identify but which was lauded as one of the 12 leading zoos in the United States. Even at that stage of its development, the “South Perth Zoo”, as we prefer to call it, was so transparently ahead of that highly-regarded US zoo that it did not bear any comparison. That was in about 1990 and it was the first time that it dawned on me what an important cultural and educational institution we had in the Zoo. Its role in international endangered species networks and programs is important; in fact, it cannot be overstated. When I visited the San Diego Zoo in 1996, the authorities there were very familiar with the work, developments and modern practices of the Perth Zoo and the part it was playing in preserving endangered species. It is very difficult for anyone in Western Australia, even being entirely parochial, to overstate the value of the Perth Zoo to our environment. The member for Thornlie referred to the commercial realities with which the Perth Zoo has become imbued. I will say again - I said it during one of the budget debates last year - that I regret that development. Thankfully, the day of the economic rationalist is almost over. We are about to move into a new era of politics in this country in which the dollar and the bottom line are not the only motivating influences. Notwithstanding what the Government would say to the contrary and notwithstanding the amount of money that it commits out of consolidated revenue, the fact remains that when, in balancing its books, the Zoo is forced to rely on sponsorship funds - as was the case when I reported to the Parliament - we have come to a very sorry pass. It does not reflect the true cultural value of the Zoo to our society when it is brought to that point. In the ordinary course of events I would not raise the question of an amendment because that would be dealt with in the consideration in detail stage, but I do not think we will have that stage. Members are aware that I have lodged the only amendment on the Notice Paper. I do not intend to do anything about that amendment because the Government has indicated that it will not support it. I will talk briefly about the principle that I was seeking to highlight so that those matters are on the public record. The Zoo has a special relationship with the South Perth City Council. It occupies a very significant portion of the public lands within the City of South Perth. In 1991, when I was the opposition spokesman for the environment, the importance of the relationship between the council and the Zoo was acknowledged and a commitment was made that an incoming Liberal-National Party Government would legislate to ensure that it was entrenched in the statutes. That would involve ensuring that a representative of the South Perth City Council - I think it was intended to be the mayor - would by right be a member of the Perth Zoo board. The Government duly changed and the member for Greenough became the Minister for the Environment. I subsequently led a deputation to him with the then mayor, Peter Campbell, to remind him of the coalition’s policy - given that I had written it. The Minister for the Environment at the time, Hon Kevin Minson, made the reasonable point that in the overall scheme of things, if that amendment were put in the new Government's legislative queue, we might be waiting several years before it would be debated in the Parliament. He wanted to honour the undertaking and said he would do that by making the next vacancy on the board available to the Mayor of the City of South Perth and that at an appropriate time further down the track the legislation would be
774 [ASSEMBLY] amended. I accepted that as a stopgap measure, as did the mayor. Of course, the Government has introduced legislation - the Bill before the House - but it contains no provision to honour that commitment. I regard that as, if not a breach of promise, an oversight on the Government's part. I made some efforts to bring about the outcome that had been promised. I regret the fact that the minister indicated to me, prior to the debate, that the Government does not intend to support my amendment. For the record, and in light of that, I regard it as a breach of promise. The undertaking was given and I accepted it in good faith. It is not good enough to say that the Government will keep appointing the Mayor of South Perth or his or her representative. We may get to the stage in one, two or five years when the minister of the day will have other imperatives before him or her and the opportunity to entrench the relationship may be lost. I do not think it is satisfactory and I express my anger at the Government’s not being prepared to honour the promise. I return to the positive note on which I began. It is good to see that the legislation controlling the Perth Zoo is being modernised. As with a number of similar statutory bodies in the past five or 10 years, when the occasion warranted it, the Parliament accepted with alacrity government Bills to modernise legislation. That is what we are doing in this case. There are sound reasons to support the Bill and to support the Government in what it does with the Zoo, with the exception that, in my view, it is being starved of funds when it is clearly one of Australia’s leading cultural organisations. I look forward to the day when the theory of economic rationalism dies so that an organisation such as the Zoo does not have to rely on sponsorship to survive. The Zoo’s survival is far more important than which sponsor’s banner is placed outside the Zoo’s premises. It is a great institution. I commend the Zoo’s directors and staff. It is an important part of my political and electoral life. I am happy to support the Bill albeit with a sense of anger that the one key element - which merely represented the coalition’s stated policy of nine years ago - will be the subject of a breach of promise. With that point to one side, I am happy to support the legislation. MRS EDWARDES (Kingsley - Minister for the Environment) [1.02 pm]: I thank members opposite for their support of the Bill today. I also thank them for the support of the Zoo over many years. The member for South Perth has a very special relationship with the Zoo and it is evidenced by his strong loyalty and commitment to the many programs for the Zoo that the Government has initiated. The member for Perth is also a strong supporter of the Zoo and Kings Park. The Zoo and Kings Park attract strong bipartisan support, which is unprecedented in many other areas, and that is largely because of the good work that they do. In respect of the member for South Perth’s request that a councillor of the City of South Perth be appointed to the Zoo’s board by statutory requirement, it is the current trend when developing legislation for appointments to boards, committees and councils, not to allow for the appointment of people in representative capacities. Individuals are selected on merit and for the skills that that person can bring to boards and committees. This Government has a strong commitment, through past and current ministers, to the Zoo. The Zoo has a strong relationship with the City of South Perth and this Government values that. It would be difficult, particularly with a number of sensitive issues to be considered, not to include an elected member of the City of South Perth as a member of the Zoo’s board. The Government has appointed the mayor or the mayor’s representative since 1993. The invitation has always existed, although in practice the position has been filled by the mayor. The top person in the City of South Perth has seen fit to take the position as a strong commitment by the City of South Perth. The Government does not believe that the appointment should be enshrined in legislation - as opposed to a policy which is endorsed by this Government - as it believes in flexibility. Many scientific organisations and other institutions would like a place on the board of the Perth Zoo. However, that would restrict the Government’s ability to appoint to the board representatives from a relevant cross-section of business, community, professional, local government and scientific communities. If the Government made a concession for a representative from the City of South Perth, there would be considerable pressure from other groups to be so designated. The Government believes that the current policy, to which it has a strong commitment, provides the intent that the member for South Perth wishes to have enshrined in legislation. Following the appointment of Peter Campbell, his successor, John Hardwick, became the representative. The position is currently filled by Her Worship, the Mayor, Suzanne Pierce. Members opposite referred to the discretionary leisure dollar that is spent in places such as the Zoo. Many places in Australia and overseas are competing for the tourism dollar as well as for the conservation dollar, which has a very strong place in the mission of the Perth Zoo. Having visited many attractions in Australia, I believe that many do better than we do. Many other attractions encourage visitors to empty their pockets during their visits. There are many places to eat, drink and shop for items connected with the attraction. There are also often other facilities on site which provide extra variety. That is the direction in which the Perth Zoo is heading. Having visited other zoos around the world, I can say that we are particularly fortunate. The Zoo is excellent in the way it manages the animals as well as other facilities to provide enjoyment for Western Australians and tourists. The Zoo also has a strong conservation program. The member for Maylands mentioned the cooperative research centre. That excellent cooperative exercise has been very successful. It is now under review, as a new CRC is established every seven years. The Zoo’s submission is receiving particular attention and has been enhanced by the level of cooperation the Zoo has with other government departments or agencies with an interest in science and conservation and academic institutions in Western Australia.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 775
The Zoo also receives particular attention because of its wonderful achievements and we look forward to a positive response to the submission. I have an update on some aspects of Perth’s Zoo and why it is regarded as so successful. It houses one of the four breeding pairs of silvery gibbon, which is the most endangered primate. Tomorrow is national endangered species day and Western Australia can take great pride in the work done by various agencies to look after some of our most endangered species, both native and exotic. Perth’s Zoo has the most successful breeding program for orang-outangs and produces the Australian guidelines for the care and housing of the animals. It tells other zoos how orang-outangs should be housed. The Zoo also manages the international studbook for the silvery gibbon, the regional studbook for animals such as the pygmy marmoset and the Australian captive management plans for the ringtail lemur. Many would be aware that the Zoo saved three sun bears destined for a local restaurant. They are now successfully housed in Western Australia. Those are just a couple of reasons why Perth’s Zoo is regarded as successful and why we feel the CRC submission will be successful. The timing of new births in the Zoo is always critical. Three new meerkats were born last week and are doing very well. The meerkats are part of the African Savannah exhibition. The Zoo’s veterinary services department has been successful and has close links with the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University for the treatment of all animals, both native and exotic. Competition for the conservation and the tourism dollar is increasing. Management must become more innovative and smarter in the way it carries out its functions. This legislation will help by providing for more management processes. At the same time, the Zoo remains a conservation and education agency, which is the forefront of its success. It has the highest number of visitors per head of population of any zoo in Australia. The success of its conservation program ensures that the Zoo remains a favourite attraction for many local families. I thank members for their support of the legislation and commend it to the House. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, proceeded through remaining stages without debate, and transmitted to the Council. ANIMAL WELFARE BILL 1999
Second Reading Resumed from 29 June. MR McGOWAN (Rockingham) [1.15 pm]: It is with pleasure that I continue my remarks on the Animal Welfare Bill. I feel deeply about the important issue of animal welfare and would like to do something in this Parliament about it that is lasting and of some value. I remind the House that when I first spoke on this issue, I had only 10 minutes to speak, which means I now have 50 minutes to complete my remarks on this significant issue. When I last spoke, I indicated that I grew up in a family that regarded animals highly. We were taught to respect other creatures and had a succession of dogs that were very much members of the family. My father also insisted on taking my brother and me on long bushwalks and showing us animals. As a result, we gained an appreciation of the animals - although we did not recognise what they were - and a love of nature and natural beauty. I do not think that is unusual. Many people would have a similar background, even if their fathers were not as fanatical about it as mine was. The interest people have in the welfare of other living things was most forcibly demonstrated to me by the response I received for the petition I presented in this place a couple of months ago. It was one of the largest petitions in the history of this Parliament, bearing 62 500 signatures. I have since received another 1 000 signatures and a number of other, unpresentable, petitions containing 1 500 signatures. Over 65 000 people have been concerned enough about this issue to put their names on paper and ask the Parliament to introduce some measures and mechanisms that ensure that we as a society have in place laws, procedures and programs that treat animals more sensitively than has been the case in the past. Many of these signatures came from various areas throughout the State. They came from communities far and wide, including small towns in areas in which one would not expect such concern, such as the wheatbelt, great southern and north west. Some of the petitions I received appear to have been signed by the entire population of the town. Members of the community took it upon themselves to knock on the doors of their friends, relatives and neighbours in the town and got almost everyone to sign a petition. That demonstrates that there is concern about animal welfare far and wide in the metropolitan area and country areas. I sent out 800 petitions, and received hundreds of letters as well as these petitions. It is unfortunate that I have not had an opportunity to reply to all the letters, but they are an indication of people’s emotions on this subject. I acknowledge the hard work done by some people. Lillian McDonald from Mullaloo wished me all the best of luck in submitting the petitions to the Parliament as she feels very strongly about cruelty to animals. Laura Desmond from Carabooda wrote - First I would like to say thankyou for the opportunity to contribute to something that I feel so strongly about. I am a bit disappointed, I only got 57 signatures but where I work is not a retail store and we don't have a flow of traffic coming through here.
776 [ASSEMBLY]
I would like to say that the majority of signatures I got were handed over very enthusiastically so obviously we are not the only ones who feel this is a good cause. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if there is anything I can do to help prevent cruelty to animals or to strengthen the laws regarding it. As I have already pointed out, this matter is a great concern to me so please don't hesitate to contact me for anything further I can do regarding this matter. It's good to see some-one who is in a position to be heard represent such a worthwhile cause. When I receive letters such as that, it makes me feel that I must be doing something right. June King from Geraldton sent me 938 signatures on a petition relating to cruelty to animals. That was the second or third instalment of signatures from June King, who has provided thousands of signatures. A gentleman in Merredin wrote to me wishing me the best of luck. Genevieve Holding from the Premier’s electorate of Nedlands wrote to me enclosing signed petitions on animal welfare laws. She said that everyone was eager to sign the petitions, even one elderly lady who was recovering from an anaesthetic. Genevieve wished me good luck with my presentation to Parliament. A number of these letters indicate the sincerity of people on this subject. I have received letters from the Kwinana Senior High School, and from people in Applecross, Forrestfield, Mandurah, Mundaring and High Wycombe. I have received further letters from Geraldton. The Ruby Benjamin Animal Foundation in Kallaroo wrote me a touching letter. Those are a small selection of the hundreds of letters I have received from people around the State who are concerned about this issue. I thank all those people for their assistance. It is a noble and good cause, and I am gratified that so many people are interested in defending the defenceless animals in our community. As the opposition spokesman on local government, it is my role to carry this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I have prepared a direction statement on this issue, which has been released to the public for feedback. It proposes a number of changes to the law, and they will be presented to the Parliament as amendments to the substantive Bill before the House. These amendments will go some way towards improving the situation of animals in this State. I am confident that as the years go by, greater emphasis will be placed on improving and toughening up the laws on animal welfare. I have consulted a range of groups, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have met with some industry groups and spoken to a number of caucus colleagues. I have also consulted widely with the general community. The Opposition will support the Bill presented to the Parliament by the Government, and will allow it to pass unimpeded through the Parliament. However, it will propose some amendments, and the Government must decide whether it will support or reject those amendments. At the end of the day, new legislation is needed. It has been a long time coming, and the Opposition will not impede its progress. In this context, I should say a few words about the history of this matter. The process of preparing a new Bill started in 1985. It was decided by the then Minister for Local Government that the prevailing laws on animal welfare were out of date, and that a new Bill was needed. In 1992 the then Minister for Local Government, David Smith, established the animal welfare advisory council. That council was a good development and it was designed to ensure that the minister received advice about animal welfare issues. It also ensured some steps would be taken to address what were widely regarded as cruel practices in research institutions around the State. It has been the Government’s stated intention since 1995 to introduce new animal welfare legislation, and that is now before the Parliament. The Bill is deficient in a number of respects. One of my proposed amendments will ensure the RSPCA will receive some financial assistance from the Government. The RSPCA was established in 1822 in London, England. It was carried over to Perth, Western Australia in the late nineteenth century. It is about 130 years older than the Liberal Party of Australia; 70 years older than the Australian Labor Party; and 90 years older than the National Party of Australia. It is a great organisation, and it is one of the most recognised charitable, non-profit making organisations in the world. Its membership consists very largely of people who want to do the right thing, and want to do something decent which they feel will improve the world in which they live. I was recently at a function at the new headquarters of the RSPCA in Malaga, when a card-carrying member of the RSPCA made a donation of $65 000 to the organisation she loves. The organisation holds events, such as the million paws walk. My Jack Russell enjoys taking part in that every year, walking with many other dogs along the South Perth foreshore. However, she sometimes causes a bit of trouble when she arrives there, which is the nature of that breed. The RSPCA is a great organisation. Some people say that it may be overtaken by some rebellious people who will cause trouble. I am not of that view. It is a substantial and highly respected organisation, and I want to help it. The level of pet ownership in Australia reflects the amount of interest in animal welfare. In Western Australia there are 345 000 dogs, 299 000 cats and about 100 000 other pets in private ownership. It is estimated that between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of households in Western Australia have a pet as part of the family. Members who have doorknocked, as I have and as I suppose most of us have, know that most of these people love their animals and think of them as members of their family. They hate the thought of someone being cruel to their animals in particular but also to animals in general. It is, therefore, appropriate that we put in place substantial laws in this area.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 777
There are two ways of addressing cruelty to animals. Penalties are the first thing that the media and the public think about when they hear that some heinous crime has been committed against an animal. The other side of the coin is measures to increase awareness and respect for animals and thereby reduce the number of people who are prone to be cruel to animals; and if we can reduce the number of people who are prone to be cruel to animals, we will create a better society. A number of years ago, Chief Justice Burt said, in addressing a conference on crime, that it is important to teach young people from an early age to respect animals, because we will then create people who are better adjusted and less prone to being involved in assaults or crimes against the person in later life. It has been proved that people who own animals live longer. One of the reasons is that people who own a dog are likely to take that dog for a walk and are, therefore, more likely to exercise, which will improve their longevity. Some of the vets to whom I have spoken believe that pet ownership also improves people's mental wellbeing. One of the nursing homes in my electorate has a pet Labrador, and the residents are generally very happy when they are in the company of that Labrador; in fact, they are often more happy than when they are in the company of their residential colleagues. Pet ownership causes people to have a better frame of mind and be much happier. Of course, the converse is that people often experience huge grief when their animal passes away or someone is cruel to their animal. Animal cruelty has become an increasingly prominent issue in the media. Recently, there was an article on the front page of The West Australian about a cockfighting ring. On 8 July, there was an article in The West Australian about a racket in Albany in which various people were alleged to have been involved in betting on the outcome of fights in which dogs fought to their death. Recently, there was a case involving someone in the Warnbro area, which is in the electorate of the member for Peel, skinning the tails of cats. As a member of the RSPCA, I receive RSPCA newsletters, which often have articles about people who have been cruel to animals. One particularly horrific case was of a puppy that had almost been starved to death, the photos of which made me feel sick to the stomach. The owner of that dog was fined $1 400 and costs of $237. The RSPCA put out a press release on 21 August about a woman in Hazelmere who had been cruel to horses. That woman was fined $2 500 - a higher fine than in most cases - and was banned from owning horses for the remainder of her life. Those newsletters have also carried articles about a man who had used live chickens to train greyhounds and was fined $500, and about dogs that had disappeared in Kalgoorlie, often to be put into rings in which they were made to rip each other apart and fight to the death for the entertainment of some bizarre people. On 2 September, there was an article in The West Australian about a horse trainer who had starved his horses to the point where they were emaciated and on the verge of dying a horrible death. Recently, there was an article in the Sunday Times outlining some other horrific cases of cruelty to animals. I propose to move a number of amendments to improve this Bill. Those amendments relate to penalties; binding the Crown; ensuring that the proceeds of prosecution go to the world-respected organisation, the RSPCA; requiring all suppliers of animals for experimentation to be licensed; and ensuring that the RSPCA’s scientific inspectors have the same rights and responsibilities to inspect scientific institutions as they have had historically. I will also raise a range of other minor matters that are possibly an oversight on the part of the draftsman. One concern that I will raise with the minister is the time frame for the preparation of codes of conduct, which will be done by way of regulation and may delay this Bill further. I also have a concern about the fact that the Bill contains no prescribed methods for destroying animals that are impounded. I would like to see more humane methods of destruction prescribed in the Bill, so that we do not see any further incidents of animals being destroyed in an inhumane manner. For example, in pounds, dogs have sometimes been shot in the presence of other dogs that are due to be put down. People may say that they are just dogs, but that is especially inhumane, and we should do something about that. Reports have been made to me of dogs being exported to Asia for whatever reason. I ask the minister to pass on any information he has on that. I would like more money allocated to education, to either an education fund or a scheme like that which operates in Victoria in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or a similar organisation, educates people about the benefits of responsible animal ownership. My final area of concern, which is not something we can legislate for, is the lack of recurrent funding so that the RSPCA can carry out its roles and responsibilities on behalf of the public of Western Australia. The Opposition proposes to amend the Bill to increase the penalties imposed on people who are cruel to animals. The public has keenly sought this. Although the penalties for cases of horrific cruelty to animals have increased, in recent years the increase has not gone far enough. I would like to see tougher penalties put in place, and the Opposition will move amendments for that purpose. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is 80 years old. The current laws impose a maximum penalty for an offence of animal cruelty of a fine of $5 000 and imprisonment of up to 12 months. The Government’s Bill proposes a minimum fine of $1 000, a maximum fine of $20 000 and a penalty of imprisonment for up to 12 months. The Opposition’s amendments will increase the minimum fine to $2 000 and the maximum fine to $50 000 with a maximum discretionary penalty of up to five years. The Opposition proposes to retain the system of infringement notices that are part of the current Bill for minor acts of cruelty that perhaps do not warrant prosecution before the courts. Infringement notices are a smart move. The Bill contains a number of penalty provisions, for which the Opposition has foreshadowed amendments that will substantially beef up those penalties.
778 [ASSEMBLY]
The second way in which the Opposition proposes to amend the Bill is to ensure that the Crown is bound by the Bill in the same way that corporations and individuals are bound. The Opposition will ensure that a government institution will be required to obtain the same licences and approvals as individuals and corporations. It is not good public policy for individuals to be liable to prosecution while the Government is not. It is not good public policy for corporations, which can be compared somewhat with the Government, to be liable to prosecution and the Government is not. It also seems unusual that a government institution is not required to obtain a licence or approval in the same way as a corporation. Although the provision under the Government's Bill may make it easier for ministers to avoid the responsibilities that everybody else has, it is not right to allow departments to avoid the responsibilities placed on everyone else in society. The Opposition’s amendments will ensure the Crown has the same obligations as the rest of the community. Mr Omodei: Do you have any examples that you would like to highlight? Mr McGOWAN: I have six points that I will raise with the minister during the consideration in detail stage. The Opposition will also seek to amend clause 7(1) of the Bill, which provides a loophole for the supply of animals for scientific purposes. Our amendments will affect the operations of scientific institutions in only minor ways. The Opposition does not propose in any major way to change the system of regulation in the Bill for scientific institutions - principally universities in Western Australia - that receive animals for research. The Opposition proposes two minor amendments. The first relates to the supply of animals to a scientific institution. One needs to obtain a licence if one is in the business of supplying animals - a dog, cat, rat or whatever - to an institution for research. The Opposition supports the licensing procedure contained in the Bill. However, the RSPCA pointed out a loophole in the Bill. If individuals who are not in the business of supplying animals for research decide they have had enough of their dog or have a litter of puppies they do not want, they are able to take their animals to an institution without the requirement to hold a licence. There should be strict requirements on people who supply animals to scientific institutions for research. The Opposition will attempt to amend the Bill to ensure it applies to all people who supply animals for research and not just to those who are licensed to supply animals for research. The third area in which the Opposition will seek to amend the Bill relates to the proceeds of prosecutions launched by the RSPCA. The original green Bill that was put forward by the Government contained a provision in which fines from prosecutions launched by the RSPCA would go back to the RSPCA. That provision should remain in the Bill. An argument against this provision is that it might turn the RSPCA into some sort of bounty-hunting organisation or that the RSPCA may be taken over by some sort of radical elements which will pursue prosecution willy-nilly for their own purposes. The RSPCA is older than the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia. It is immensely older than the Liberal Party of Australia, and we did not complain when that was taken over by radical organisations. We can entrust some responsibility to this organisation. It is capable of carrying out these matters with a sense of responsibility. In an average year $20 000 to $30 000 of fines go to the Crown as a result of prosecutions launched by the RSPCA. That is not a huge amount of money when we are referring to the budget of this State. There would be a loss to the coffers of the Treasury of Western Australia of around $20 000 per annum as a result of prosecutions launched by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That is a cost that Western Australia can afford to endure. At present when the RSPCA launches a prosecution on behalf of the people of Western Australia, as it is empowered to do under the old Act and the new Act that is being introduced, it costs far more than the proceeds it receives. The RSPCA has put together some figures detailing the number of prosecutions that it has undertaken. The reason the RSPCA undertakes so few prosecutions is that it is so expensive. In 1998 the RSPCA received 3 116 complaints of animal cruelty and attempted only 13 prosecutions, for two reasons: First, because it is so expensive to undertake these prosecutions; and, secondly, the RSPCA can take on prosecutions only when it is absolutely certain of receiving a conviction, because the costs are so high. There were 3 116 complaints in 1998 and 13 prosecutions; in 1999 it is estimated that there were 3 250 complaints and only 20 prosecutions. It is a very expensive business. The submission the RSPCA sent to me set out the costs to undertake the inspection and the prosecution services. The inspections cost $455 558 per annum. This year its budget for inspections is $490 000. That is simply for the RSPCA inspectors that we see around the streets. I have here a document in relation to the case of a puppy that was ill-treated and was on the verge of death when it was rescued by an inspector. The RSPCA pursued the owner of that dog and he was fined $1 400. I will quote what the RSPCA had to say - The RSPCA does not receive the proceeds of the fine, only $237 in costs. In real terms the case costs for the RSPCA was far more than $1 500 - recording and responding to the complaint, investigating the complaint, caring for and re-homing the puppy and prosecuting the owner. It is a well-documented fact that the costs of carrying out any sort of legal action are considerable - briefing lawyers, meetings with the law firm, pursuit of the matter through the courts, the mentions, often the failure of people to appear, appearances by the lawyer, then the ultimate prosecution and pursuit of the person for the fine. It is a very expensive business. It is unlikely that the RSPCA would pursue prosecutions frivolously. It carries out between 13 and 20
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 779 prosecutions a year. It is unlikely that the RSPCA would pursue these matters without the appropriate sense of responsibility and the feeling that it had to take these matters very seriously and ensure that they were undertaken only when necessary. The greatest check upon the power to be given to the RSPCA is the fact that if there is no conviction, there is no fine. The RSPCA will be pursuing only those people who, it is confident, are guilty of these offences. That is a great check upon this responsibility. Pursuant to clause 86 of the minister’s Bill, when local government authorities prosecute a case of animal cruelty under this legislation they will be able to recover and receive the proceeds of the penalty, yet the Government is drawing a distinction between the RSPCA and local governments in Western Australia. That is a false distinction and it is something that we will be attempting to amend. I expect that this will be a point of contention between the Opposition and the Government, but it is something that we are determined to pursue. At a personal level, I would like to see a recurrent grant given to the RSPCA for it to carry out its responsibilities. It is a fact that in every other State the RSPCA receives a recurrent grant. In South Australia it is $500 000 per annum. Other States have animal welfare Bills that enable the organisation to carry out what would otherwise be the responsibility of the State and, as such, it is appropriate for the State to assist such an organisation. That is my personal view and I would like to see some assistance given to the RSPCA. It is done in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. However, it has not been done in Western Australia for the past eight years. It is a small gesture to allow the RSPCA to receive the proceeds from these offences but it is a valid one, and if the Parliament were to amend the Bill to provide for that mechanism, it would be doing a good thing. Our amendment will toughen the penalties in relation to this matter. We will ensure that the Crown has the same responsibilities and liabilities placed upon it as those borne by the private sector and private individuals. We will make sure that the fines that currently go to the Crown will go to the RSPCA and we will urge the Government to provide the RSPCA with a recurrent grant, which was part of the 65 000 signature petition that I presented to the Parliament. We will make sure that all those people who provide animals to scientific institutions must be properly licensed. We will attempt to amend the Bill to ensure that the RSPCA scientific inspectors are enabled to enter scientific institutions, which right was there for 80 years and has been removed. We will attempt to amend the Bill to ensure that RSPCA inspectors can inspect scientific institutions as they always have done. In conclusion, I think the Government’s Bill is an improvement. However, the legislation has been in gestation for a long time - it is 80 years, in fact, since the last major amendment to this area of the law - and we will be seeking to improve the law somewhat to ensure we do not just catch up with the other States around Australia but we improve it so that we become a national leader in providing for the welfare and wellbeing of animals. We owe this to the public of Western Australia. Whether from country or metropolitan backgrounds, the vast bulk of people believe this, and the Labor Opposition will ensure that we represent the views and the ideas of the people of our great State. [Continued on page 797.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FINANCE BROKERS, MINISTER FOR FAIR TRADING
113. Dr GALLOP to the Minister for Fair Trading: Yesterday the minister said that he would not accept responsibility for the actions of crooked finance brokers, crooked valuers or crooked borrowers. Why will the minister not accept any responsibility for the failings of the Ministry of Fair Trading, which is under his direct control, and the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, which the minister has the power to sack and which contributed to the scandal that has seen hundreds of millions of dollars lost by thousands of elderly investors? Mr SHAVE replied: Yesterday the Opposition suggested that because people such as Graeme Grubb, who was today sentenced to 10 years jail, have been involved in blatant frauds, I should accept responsibility for that. It is true that the Ministry of Fair Trading comes under my portfolio. It is true that when people raise issues with me I have a responsibility to try to resolve those issues in relation to the Ministry of Fair Trading. At all times when issues have been raised with me I have undertaken to resolve them. The Labor Party may not agree with or accept that. Many people have made comments concerning funding and activities, and that I may have interfered in the operational matters of the Ministry of Fair Trading. On one occasion when the member for Fremantle was protecting his friend, Mr Dominic Casella, he went to the police. When the member for Fremantle thought that he could make a cheap political point, he ran to the police and told them that I had interfered with the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board. Dr Gallop: Answer the question. Mr SHAVE: I am answering the question, perhaps not as the Leader of the Opposition would like, but I am answering it. When I have sought changes in the activities of the Ministry of Fair Trading, on all occasions when it has come to me for funding, I have endeavoured to assist. When other people have come to me with specific problems, I have
780 [ASSEMBLY] endeavoured to assist. It is on the record at the Gunning inquiry that three times I went to the Chairman of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board urging him to introduce indemnity insurance. It is all on the record. The legal people on this side of the House know very well that I cannot direct the head of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board. Mr Dowling and Mr Wallace, who alleged that I was interfering in the activities of investigations, were found by the Gunning inquiry to be wrong. People might not like that, but it is a fact. The Gunning inquiry has come out with the truth.
FINANCE BROKERS, MINISTER FOR FAIR TRADING
114. Dr GALLOP to the Minister for Fair Trading: As a supplementary question, can the minister advise the House of his understanding of the principle of ministerial responsibility? Mr SHAVE replied: I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition, after his little effort when he was in charge of the State Government Insurance Commission, is even sitting in this House. At least I was not directly involved in losing the money like the Leader of the Opposition. It is an interesting concept. I will tell members what my responsibility is: If people come to me from that department and ask me to look at issues and I ignore that, I am culpable. If one reads the transcript of the Gunning inquiry and the evidence of Mr Morgan, who ran the section in charge of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board between 1993 and 1997, one will see that his evidence states that he did not realise there was a problem with overvaluations until he read about it in the newspaper. If one looks at the comments of Ms Brazier, who was in charge of the board between 1997 and June 1999, one will see she never perceived there was an overvaluation problem in the industry. If people bring issues to my attention, I will deal with them and endeavour to ensure that people are treated properly. No one has done more to assist these investors than this Government. This Government has employed liquidators, 17 people have been charged and one of the protagonists - if I can use that nice word - was put in jail for over 10 years. If members opposite want to say that I am responsible for those activities, let them continue; the public will not believe them.
INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, FINANCIAL POSITION
115. Mr TUBBY to the Minister assisting the Treasurer: Given the financial history of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia and the huge losses incurred during the Labor Party's administration, will the minister inform the House of the commission’s performance during the past financial year? Mr KIERATH replied: I am not only pleased but also very proud to report to the House that the Insurance Commission of Western Australia had a consolidated operating profit of $26.5m before tax for the 1999-2000 financial year. The year ended with the third party insurance fund having an operating profit after tax of $30m; the compensation (industrial diseases) fund made a profit of $3m; and the RiskCover managed fund had an operating surplus of $13.2m. This is only the second time in the past 10 years that the Insurance Commission of WA has been able to report a positive net asset position on a consolidated basis at year's end. The reason is simple: The Insurance Commission of WA, or its forerunner, was one of the treasure chests that was looted by the Labor Government when it was in power. Mr Johnson: Who was the minister? Mr KIERATH: I will come to that in a moment. Along with the names of others that were looted are Bell Group, Rothwells, Spedleys and Paragon. I hope the memories of opposition members are better than that of their former leader, Carmen Lawrence, who could remember little. I am sure those names are familiar to members opposite, especially the Leader of the Opposition because he was the minister responsible for this portfolio when the former Labor Government performed the biggest plunder of all. In the wake of losing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, we heard those angry words yesterday about ministerial responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition did not resign when he lost hundreds of millions of dollars when he was in the same position I am in. We have not even heard him say sorry. He cannot bring himself to say sorry. I point out to the people of Western Australia that there is a difference between the situation when that side is in government and when this side in government. If people want financially responsible management, unfortunately they can trust only the coalition Government. They cannot trust the Labor Party under any circumstances. Labor would like to kid us that WA Inc is in the past when it is not. This Government has managed to get agencies like the Insurance Commission of Western Australia back in the black. The Government has also managed to get the Government Employees Superannuation Board back in the black. No wonder the ALP's symbolic colour is red because that is how it leaves the State when it is in government. The Leader of the Opposition’s face should be the reddest of them all.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 781
FINANCE BROKERS, MINISTER FOR FAIR TRADING
116. Dr GALLOP to the Minister for Fair Trading: (1) In view of the minister's comments so far in this place and outside, are we to understand that it is his contention that he is without fault in the whole finance broking scandal? (2) If not, what faults does he acknowledge? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) This is a repetition of the last question. I have already put on the record my position relating to the Ministry of Fair Trading. I have already told the member that if the department needs assistance and extra resources and comes to me with a request for that or for legislative changes to be implemented, I will consider all the issues. No-one came to me for more money or said that there was a problem with overvaluations. I will take responsibility when I am negligent or when people come to me and say that we need to look at something and I do not look at it. FINANCE BROKERS, MINISTER FOR FAIR TRADING
117. Dr GALLOP to the Minister for Fair Trading: As a supplementary question, I take that to does that mean that the minister does not think that he is at fault at all? Mr SHAVE replied: The Leader of the Opposition can interpret it in any way he likes. SCREEN INDUSTRY TASK FORCE REPORT
118. Mrs HOLMES to the Minister for the Arts: I understand that the Premier's screen industry task force report has been launched today. What course of action will now be taken and what will be the benefits of a strong screen industry to Western Australia? Mr BOARD replied: I thank the member for Southern River for the question. We today launched the Premier's screen industry task force report, which is a very significant report indeed. Over the past 12 months a large proportion of the Western Australian screen industry, in conjunction with government agencies on a state and national basis, looked at the strong points of the screen industry in Western Australia and how we may be able to take the industry into the twenty-first century. I shall table the report. Embedded in the report is the fact that Western Australia is doing well in some aspects of the screen industry, particularly in documentaries, children's drama and educational programs. An opportunity exists right now, through emerging technologies - the Internet, pay television and digitalisation -for us to look at how we may be able to utilise assets in the areas in which Western Australian industry is strong to produce large amounts of content which will further benefit it. The recommendations in the report call for an investment in more production, an academy of screen and television - which we will be supporting in Western Australia - and an industry precinct where best practice is encouraged and supported. I encourage all members to look at the screen industry task force report and to consider how we may be able to move the industry forward, because it is about jobs and investment for Western Australia. [See paper No 183.] GUNNING INQUIRY, EVIDENCE OF MR MITCHELL AND MR SKEPPER
119. Mr McGINTY to the Minister for Fair Trading: (1) Does the minister agree with the Gunning inquiry's finding that sworn evidence from members of his staff, Bill Mitchell and Harry Skepper, was unsatisfactory? (2) What specific issues surrounding Mr Mitchell's conduct have been referred to an independent investigative agency? (3) What specific matters has Mr Mitchell referred to the police? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) My understanding of the Gunning inquiry is that it could not resolve the issue of the evidence of Mr Mitchell and Mr Dowling. On the one hand, Mr Mitchell wrote that an elderly gentleman needed to be assisted; on the other hand, the evidence of Mr Dowling was that he wrote that someone had tried to pressure a broker. The two people disagree on their evidence. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying that I had had meetings with people and tried to influence the outcome of their discussions. That was totally untrue. As I understand it, that evidence was given to the Gunning inquiry. Notwithstanding that, if serious allegations are made between public servants, those matters should be looked at appropriately. Mr Mitchell was particularly
782 [ASSEMBLY]
aggrieved at the comments that were attributed to him. He apparently wrote to the Police Service and said that he wanted the matter investigated. He also went to another body and said that he wanted the matter investigated. The Gunning inquiry believed, under its terms of reference, that any suggestion of impropriety or criminality on the part of any parties should be looked at. As I understand the comments in the report, that matter has been referred to the appropriate authorities. It is quite proper that they investigate it, whether Mitchell, Dowling or the committee referred it. DRUG ABUSE, REGISTRATION OF ADDICTS
120. Mr MASTERS to the Minister for Police: I refer to the recent crime forum held in Busselton. What is the Government's response to the claim that registering drug addicts and supplying them with government-procured heroin will protect the lives of young users, eradicate the black market for heroin and reduce the death toll from heroin overdose? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Drug abuse is a very difficult and complex problem. It is understandable, particularly when parents discover they have a child who is addicted to drugs, that they look for a quick fix - some sort of magic and very quick solution. It is also quite understandable that many people would say that if, in controlled circumstances, we supplied people with a pure form of drug that was non-toxic, the harm they would do to themselves, particularly the possibility of overdose, would be significantly reduced. The harm minimisation argument goes further than that, but that is it in a nutshell. It does not work. I ask the member to consider this logic: If we tried to register everybody who uses heroin, whether they are people who have been dependent for some time, occasional users or those who want to experiment, we would never be able to do so, because we would never be able to capture them all. If we then tried to give them heroin in some form or other, does the member seriously think that those engaged in the illegal trade would go off and do something else and stop trying to deal in drugs? They would not. Why would they do that? They would not do that because they make a monumental amount of money pushing heroin onto people. It would not do away with the illegal drug trade. We may or may not save people's lives and/or health. We can do that anyway with other programs. For example, the statewide methadone program, which uses trained doctors and pharmacists, achieves much the same end for those people on opiates who want to begin the process of recovering from their addictions. There are many other ways of achieving this end, including the use of naltrexone and other pharmacotherapies, and detoxification and going cold turkey. There are many ways of dealing with the problem, but supplying heroin to people who are using it, whether they are dependent, occasional or experimental users, will not solve the problem for anybody. Social support of people who are using opiates and helping them with other forms of treatment will solve the problem, together with good and rigorous policing and the use of many other programs. That is the drug strategy the Government has been running for four-and-a-half to five years, and it is effective. CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, GOVERNMENT EQUITY
121. Mr McGOWAN to the Premier: (1) Why is the Government now considering taking equity in the convention centre project? (2) Precisely what form of equity is the Government considering taking and what will it involve if it does not include any liabilities, share of profits or involvement in the running of the facility? (3) Will any tangible benefits to the State arise from the equity partnership or would this arrangement be, as the Minister for Tourism claims, merely symbolic? Mr COURT replied: (1)-(3) It has been the Government's intention from the outset that this would be a privately operated facility. Negotiations are still being conducted with the preferred provider and a number of options are being considered. In considering these options the Government does not propose to assume any operational risk. Accordingly, it would not have access to any share of the direct profits or losses from the business or be directly involved in the running of the facility. The tangible benefits are that the State will realise significant economic rewards from that project. I am a little bemused about why the member is asking these questions. Mr McGowan: You advised the other tenderers you would not do it. Mr COURT: As I understand it, the member sought a briefing on these matters. He was offered a briefing but he did not turn up. Mr McGowan: I was not offered a briefing. Mr COURT: Is it not true that the member was offered a briefing and that it was arranged for 2.00 pm on 1 August? Dr Gallop: You should answer the question in this Parliament. Mr COURT: I have just answered the question. Perhaps the member will say why he did not bother showing up.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 783
Members talk about the tangible benefits of this project. I have not met anyone - Dr Gallop: Answer the question; you were given notice of it. Mr Kobelke: What are you ashamed of? Mr COURT: I said that negotiations are being conducted with the preferred provider and that a number of options are being considered. One of those options is that if we contribute $110m, there may be better security for the asset. If the member had gone to the briefing he would have had this explained. We have been able to negotiate a convention- exhibition facility - Mr Kobelke: Something must stink here if you cannot answer a simple question. What are you trying to cover up? When you announced this proposal there was no question of equity and now there is. Tell this Chamber why. Mr COURT: Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr McGowan: You told the other tenderers there would be no government equity. Mr COURT: We have told everyone that the Government will contribute $110m plus land if required. We have been able to negotiate a deal - it was a similar deal with both parties - whereby we did not have to give up title to the land. At the end of this deal, the entire asset, including the land, will be owned by the State. Mr Kobelke: Why are you taking equity? Mr COURT: Because we are contributing $110m and, in the interests of ensuring we have the maximum possible protection, we will look at all the options. Mr Kobelke: Are you taking equity or not? Mr COURT: I just said that negotiations are still being conducted with the preferred provider and that a number of options are being considered. We will agree to the option that gives the State maximum security. Mr Kobelke: You must be hiding a very nasty smell if you cannot answer a simple question. You have told the public you are now taking equity. That is different from what you have said in the past. What you are hiding? Mr Cowan interjected. The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is making an interjection himself. Mr Cowan interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call to order the Deputy Premier. Mr Cowan: Fine. The SPEAKER: There are far too many interjections. The member for Nollamara has made the same interjection three or four times. We have all heard it. It is time we moved to the next question. Mr COURT: Not just yet; I would like to finish my answer. Mr McGowan: Is this not - Mr COURT: The member should let me finish my answer. He had his opportunity to be briefed but he did not show up. I have not met anyone in the hospitality or tourism industries who is not 100 per cent behind this project, although some people may not support it. This project is long overdue. It will create thousands of jobs and has the full support of UnionsWA and the trade union movement in general. The only negative response has been from members opposite. SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE TELEVISION TRANSMISSIONS, DWELLINGUP RESIDENTS
122. Mr BRADSHAW to the Minister for Regional Development: (1) Will the residents of Dwellingup receive a stronger television signal that will allow them to watch Special Broadcasting Service television transmissions and to receive improved pictures from the Australian Broadcasting Commission? (2) If yes, when and how will this improvement be made possible? Mr COWAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. The improvement in television services will be achieved by the end of this year. It has been brought about as a result of a partnership between the Peel Development Commission and other people in the community and the establishment of the Peel transmission working group. That group has raised $111 000 to contribute to the capital cost of improving television reception in that region. The group included Western Power, the City of Mandurah, the Shire of Murray, the Peel Development Commission, the Dwellingup community and the Department of Commerce and Trade.
784 [ASSEMBLY]
CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, NEXUS CONSORTIUM’S BID
123. Mr McGOWAN to the Premier: Some notice of this question has been given. (1) Is it true that the Premier has provided the details of the Nexus consortium's bid to the successful Multiplex tenderer? (2) If so, has he then breached the conditions of the request for proposal document and the relevant probity requirements? Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) Once again, if the member had bothered to attend the briefing, he would have all these answers. Dr Gallop: We want to hear them in the Parliament. Mr COURT: I will provide them. As per the process detailed to the consortia, a debriefing was held and a summary document of the task force assessment report prepared, which was given to the individual consortia for their comments. None of that material contained details of the Nexus bid. Some details of the bid were made public for media and public relations purposes after the announcement of the preferred provider as allowed by section 7.6 of the request for proposal.
ALINTAGAS, SHARES
124. Mr BLOFFWITCH to the Premier: Members are aware that shares in AlintaGas will soon be offered to the public. What steps are being taken to restrict ministerial participation in the share float? Mr COURT replied: There will be no ministerial participation in the share float. The following memorandum was circulated to ministers today - ALINTAGAS SALE - INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING The retail “public offer” period for the sale of securities in AlintaGas Limited will commence on 11 September and close on 6 October 2000. At this time, it appears that the float will be strongly supported by the public. To ensure that there can be no perception of a conflict of interest, Ministers and any ministerial officers who have been involved in the sale process, should not participate in the initial public offer. In this regard, members of the Sale Steering Committee together with associated advisers have indicated that they will not be taking up securities in the initial public offering.
BGC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD, INDUSTRIAL SITES DEVELOPMENT
125. Ms MacTIERNAN to the Minister for Planning: (1) Is the minister aware that BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd has now developed at least seven separate industrial sites in Hazelmere without planning approval, including a blokpave factory; a plant and machinery sales office and display yard; a precast concrete beam manufacturing plant; an office building; storage bins; and a major landfill site? (2) Is the minister aware that the City of Swan is reluctant to prosecute these flagrant breaches of the law because of a fear of the massive legal costs likely to arise, given the litigious nature and massive resources of BGC? (3) Given this and that local authorities are only delegates of the State Government in planning matters, will the minister consider providing financial assistance to the City of Swan to restore the rule of law to planning matters in this State? Mr KIERATH replied: (1)-(3) The Leader of the Opposition has a problem with this member as spokesperson on planning matters. One of the most basic aspects of planning legislation is that enforcement of town planning schemes lies in the hands of the local authorities - in this case, the City of Swan. Am I aware that BGC does not have planning approval? No, I am not. Ms MacTiernan: How could you not be aware when he is your mate and you are hearing appeals about it?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 785
Mr KIERATH: I am not aware of any reluctance to prosecute on the part of the City of Swan. The city is the sole party to take action to enforce the town planning scheme. The member should go back to school to find out what planning is all about.
HAZELMERE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
126. Ms MacTIERNAN to the Minister for Planning: Is the minister concerned that a major industrial development has been established in Hazelmere without planning approval? Mr KIERATH replied: If there were, I would be concerned. I will not take the member for Armadale's word for it as she has been wrong on many occasions. Mr Court: Did Mr Len Buckeridge not build all the public housing for the Opposition when it was in government? Mr KIERATH: BGC, the Buckeridge Group of Companies, did a lot of building for Homeswest when the Labor Party was in office. I would be concerned if a major industrial complex had been built without planning approval. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! I allow a lot of discretion for members to interject, particularly if a member has asked a question or has responsibility for the area. Other members are trying to take advantage of that and we are ending up with a free-for-all, which makes this place look as if it is not doing any proper business at all. I ask the minister to be brief. I will formally call the member for Armadale to order if she interjects once more during question time. Mr KIERATH: I am not aware that the complex was built without planning approval. The power to prosecute lies solely with the City of Swan. If it has happened, I encourage the City of Swan to take appropriate action.
BUSSELL HIGHWAY, DUPLICATION FROM DOLPHIN ROAD TO VASSE TURN-OFF
127. Mr MASTERS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: Could the minister please provide an update on planning for the duplication of Bussell Highway from Dolphin Road to the Vasse turn-off, recognising the great importance placed on this project by the Shire of Busselton? Mr COWAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question as it has permitted the Minister for Transport to provide the following response: Planning for the duplication of Bussell Highway from Dolphin Road to the Vasse turn-off has progressed to the point where most of the land required for the project has been secured. Some of the services impacted upon by the proposed works have been relocated and a preliminary design has been prepared. The current works program shows construction to be undertaken during the 2003-04 financial year. Every opportunity will be taken to bring this project forward whenever possible. The traffic situation on this section of Bussell Highway will also be significantly improved with the completion early next year of the Busselton bypass. This project is only one of many major works that highlight this Government's strong commitment to improve vital transport routes around the State. This commitment will continue over the next 10 years. The member may be interested to know that Main Roads WA expects to deliver over $750m in roadworks during the current financial year. This compares with approximately $370m spent on roads in 1992-93, which was the last year of the previous Government.
KIMBERLEY TIDAL PROJECT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S CONFIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
128. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Energy: I refer to the Premier’s statement yesterday that he had given the minister a confidential copy of the Federal Government's feasibility study of the Kimberley Tidal Power project. (1) Does the minister accept the reported positive findings of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation on the technical viability of the project contained within the report? (2) Will the minister give a commitment that Western Power will not sign a contract with the gas power proponents before Federal Cabinet formally decides on the level of financial support it will offer the project? (3) Is it prudent in any case for Western Power to sign a power purchase contract with the alternative gas proponents before they have identified and secured sites for their power stations?
786 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Premier indicated that the Prime Minister had given him a copy of the study that was undertaken by KPMG and the Snowy Mountains Authority for the Australian Greenhouse Office, which reports to Senator Robert Hill as federal Minister for the Environment. The report has been discussed briefly by Federal Cabinet and will be discussed again in the future. The report is confidential. I have read the executive summary. I have asked some of my officers to analyse it and report back to me. I will sit on the report until such time as the Federal Government releases it. I hope it is released soon. When it is I will comment on it. KIMBERLEY TIDAL PROJECT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S CONFIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
129. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Energy: Will the minister answer parts (2) and (3) of my question? Mr BARNETT replied: The process has been debated at length. I have said before that there is only one proponent for power supply in the west Kimberley and that is Energy Equity-Woodside. It has been the sole proponent since December last year. With some involvement from the power procurement committee, it is currently negotiating a contract with Western Power. I expected negotiations to be completed by now but there are some complex issues. The site is not one of them as there are existing sites that can be used. The issues relate to the degree of capacity and demand built into the contract. They are technical and commercial issues. Once agreement is reached I will be approached. As the responsible minister I will scrutinise the contract. I will then take it to Cabinet as it is a significant issue. Western Power will only be able to sign and conclude a contract with the approval of the responsible minister. It will require a cabinet process because of the size of the contract. We should not forget the 1980s, because this issue is about being responsible, following proper process and letting a project succeed or fail on its merits. The Opposition needs to be careful with this issue as we will be debating it. I am looking forward to the Commonwealth releasing the report. Members on both side of this House talk about the so-called commonwealth contribution of $60m - it may need to be $150m. What they choose to ignore is that it is part of the cost blow-out from $80m to $335m to build something that can proceed only if the Government of Western Australia signs a $600m contract. This is not toy land stuff. MINISTER FOR POLICE, NO CONFIDENCE Matter of Public Interest THE SPEAKER (Mr Strickland): Today I received within the prescribed time a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate as a matter of public interest the following motion - That this House has no confidence in the Minister for Police. The matter appears to me to be in order. If at least five members stand in support of this matter being discussed, it can proceed. [At least five members rose in their places.] The SPEAKER: The matter shall proceed on the usual basis. This is a motion of some seriousness and I will take a reasonably tough line on members who interject. I want to hear what is said. DR GALLOP (Victoria Park - Leader of the Opposition) [2.38 pm]: I move the motion. It is indeed a serious motion. Yesterday the Opposition rose in this Parliament to request that the Government take seriously the tradition of ministerial responsibility. The Government has not taken it seriously with its attitude towards the Minister for Fair Trading. Today we will put the Government to a second test on the concept of ministerial responsibility. I will begin by asking the Premier a question. Why did the Premier not accept the offer of resignation from the Minister for Police when the matter of his involvement with Mr Jamieson first surfaced in The West Australian? Mr Court: I will answer that when I get up to speak. Dr GALLOP: Why was the offer of resignation not accepted? Mr Court: I will answer the question later. Dr GALLOP: I think the silence of the Premier on the question is deafening. I am giving the Premier the opportunity to answer it now. Why was the offer of resignation not accepted? Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Bassendean! Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 787
Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the second time. Dr GALLOP: If the resignation of the Minister for Police was not good enough for the Premier, we will give the Parliament a chance today to have a say on the matter. Members on not only this side of the House but also the government side will have a say. An interesting article was published in The Geraldton Guardian, headlined “Re- election fears fuel local attack”. I quote - Asked whether Mr Prince should have been removed as Police Minister during the current investigation, Mr Bloffwitch initially said that was up to the Premier. “He makes the decisions so I guess we just have to back him, but I don’t know if I would have done the same thing,” he added. The member for Geraldton today has a chance, in this Parliament, to take a clear position on this matter. This is a serious issue and the Opposition will outline a detailed case why the Minister for Police should be removed from Cabinet: First, the minister did not declare his interest to Cabinet or the Parliament when the finance broking scandal and what should be done about it was debated late last year. The minister had a personal and business relationship with Mr Leon Jamieson. That relationship is the basis of the minister’s removal from involvement in the police investigation of this matter and cabinet discussions of matters connected to it. I say to the Government that if a conflict of interest exists now, a conflict of interest existed then. The minister did not declare a conflict of interest, and he should have declared it. That is a very serious breach of his duty as a minister in this system of government. Mr Prince: It is a matter not of conflict but of perception. Dr Gallop: It is not a matter of perception. The Minister for Police had a personal and business relationship with Mr Jamieson. Is the minister saying there is no connection between that and parliamentary and cabinet discussions about the finance broking industry? He has been given orders not to respond. Secondly, it has been revealed that the member for Albany recommended to constituents that they invest in his and Leon Jamieson’s finance broking company, Albany Finance Ltd. The Gunning report, which was tabled yesterday, makes it clear that there should be full disclosure of information to prospective lenders. Constituents in Albany have made it clear the minister did not fully disclose information about their prospective investments. The Gunning inquiry also recommends that people convicted of an offence of dishonesty should not carry out business as a finance broker. We know that Mr Jamieson has been convicted of such an offence. These are serious matters that go to the heart of the finance broking scandal and why people are facing charges in the courts: Relevant facts were not fully disclosed to investors when they put their money in the care of other people. That is a serious matter in which the minister has been found wanting. The member for Fremantle will develop two other issues at length: First, there is clear evidence that the minister’s statements to this Parliament about when he first became aware of the issue were misleading. It is a serious claim, but we will back it up with evidence. What the minister has told Parliament and the public about his knowledge of this affair does not accord with the facts, and we will produce evidence to that effect. A second, very serious, issue relates to the minister’s obligations as a person responsible for a trust. The extent of his negligence as a trustee and the losses that have occurred are far greater than has been indicated to the public and the Parliament. The Opposition takes this matter very seriously. The minister failed to declare an interest to the Parliament and the Cabinet - an interest that is now acknowledged by the Government. He recommended his own finance broking company in Albany to constituents and potential investors without disclosing all the relevant facts. His claims about his knowledge of the affair have been misleading. Finally, there is the tragic story of his role as a trustee, which involves a significant degree of negligence and losses to Western Australian citizens. As the member for Geraldton is reported as saying in The Geraldton Guardian, this is a serious matter. The finance broking scandal is a disgrace. It is a stain on Western Australia and is affecting its reputation. This Government's role in defending its ministers, despite clear evidence of their failures in their responsibilities as ministers, adds to that stain. Today, this Parliament has a chance to have a say on the matter. The Premier will not show leadership, but the Parliament of Western Australia will send the Government a clear message about the standards it expects in Western Australia in 2000. MR McGINTY (Fremantle) [2.46 pm]: When the member for Albany - the Minister for Police - first commented, mainly through The West Australian, on the issues affecting finance broker Leon Jamieson and his role in the matter, he was at pains to point out that he first knew of the matter about six weeks before the stories appeared in The West Australian. On 21 August, it was reported that - Mr Prince said he had heard rumours of problems about a month ago and spoke to Mr Jamieson, who confirmed his worst fears at a meeting on July 21.
788 [ASSEMBLY]
The impression given by the member for Albany was that his first knowledge of the matters involving his friend and business associate Leon Jamieson was some time immediately prior to 21 July. Unfortunately for the minister, that is not true. I make the allegation in the Parliament today that the Minister for Police has misled the public and the Parliament over that matter. Yesterday, when asked a straightforward question during question time, the Minister for Police said that he first became aware of the issue when an advertisement announcing the departure of Leon Jamieson from Albany Finance Ltd was published in the Albany Advertiser. It is a matter of public record that the advertisement was published on 6 June, one and a half months earlier than the minister originally indicated he first became aware of the issue. Unfortunately, even that is not true. The minister told the House yesterday that he was aware of the Albany Finance announcement of the departure of Mr Jamieson, which was published on 6 June, and that he then asked a director about it before speaking to Mr Jamieson. I presume that discussion took place on 21 July, the date the minister gave to The West Australian. That is not credible, for five reasons that I know of. I have no doubt there are dozens of other reasons. I will outline them briefly. Many of the people who had money invested with Mr Jamieson, through Leon K. Jamieson and Associates, tell me their interest payments stopped in March of this year. In a small, tight-knit community such as Albany, particularly a business community which is far smaller, it would be impossible for the local member of Parliament to not know his friend and business associate was defaulting on interest payments, as occurred in March of this year. Secondly, in April or May of this year, a private investigator, Peter Boccamazzo, who was investigating Leon Jamieson, met the Minister for Police while travelling to Albany. They knew each other, and the member for Albany asked Mr Boccamazzo why he was travelling to Albany. Mr Boccamazzo told the member for Albany he was going to Albany to investigate the minister’s friend Leon Jamieson because of his involvement in fraud or funny business. Mr Boccamazzo cannot remember whether he used the word “fraud” or the words “funny business” in the discussion on the bus which took them to the airport to catch the plane to Albany that day, but it is crystal clear to him that the discussion took place, and it was about Jamieson and fraud. Mr Boccamazzo confronted the minister directly with it. Thirdly, on 25 May a writ was lodged in the Albany court on behalf of some disgruntled clients, who were victims of Jamieson as a finance broker, claiming more than $150 000 from Mr Jamieson, the friend and business associate of the minister. Who defended that writ? The minister’s former legal firm, Haynes Robinson, defended that writ. Are we expected to believe, coupled with everything else, that the minister was not aware of the issuance of that writ by another lawyer in the tight-knit business and legal circles in Albany? It strains the bounds of credibility. If the minister is saying he knew none of these things, particularly when Boccamazzo had discussed the matter with him on a bus on the way to the plane - Mr Prince: I will tell you about Mr Boccamazzo in a moment. Mr McGINTY: That is fine, and the minister can do that. On 7 June, an Albany lawyer, Christopher Cook, rang the member for Albany to speak to him in his capacity as Minister for Police. He said he was not happy about the fraud investigation taking place into Leon Jamieson. He wanted the minister to provide him with the name of a police officer with whom he could deal directly to ensure more action from the police on the fraudulent behaviour of Mr Jamieson. This is all before the minister knew anything about it! Mr Prince: No, it is not. Mrs Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER: The member for Midland will come to order. Mr McGINTY: The minister can speak in a minute. I want to lay this matter out very clearly so that there is no confusion about the facts. On 7 June this year, Christopher Cook - The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr McGINTY: Mr Cook confirmed with me this morning that he checked his file, and on 7 June he made that call to the Minister for Police asking him to name a police officer. That same day the minister rang Mr Cook and gave him the name of Sergeant Anthony Lee as the police officer to whom he should direct fraud matters involving Leon Jamieson. That is before the minister knew anything about it. Mr Prince: No, it is not - 6 June. Mr McGINTY: The minister will have his chance to set out his case. I now give the fifth reason it is not credible that the minister’s first knowledge of this matter was six weeks before this matter came out in The West Australian. The minister is a joint owner of Frederick House in Albany, which is about to go on the market. Albany Finance is one of the other joint owners of Frederick House in Albany, from where the minister practised law for a number of years and Mr Jamieson ran his finance broking business, and to this day the member for Albany retains an interest in that firm. They operated from that building which is about to be put on the market for sale. For at least the past 18 months to two years - this information comes from the co-owners of the building - Leon Jamieson collected the rent from all the tenants in the building and did not pay it on to the people who own it. Included in those owners is a person sitting in
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 789 this House, who has not received rental income for the past 18 months to two years. I do not know whether this applies to the minister but, for taxation purposes, the trust with which the owners of Frederick House were involved arranged for the rental incomes to be paid to their wives. Mr Prince: It is not a trust. Mr McGINTY: Whatever it is. The structure was such that the rental income was paid to the wives. The minister may say he never received any income. If the member for Albany was treated in the same way as other members of that body, his wife would have received the income, for reasons apparent to everyone in this place. If that rental income dried up between 18 months and two years ago, surely the minister would have known that. Those are five specific reasons that the member for Albany knew, before he took everyone into his confidence, about his criminal friend Leon Jamieson, whom he represented when Jamieson was found guilty in 1982 of stealing as a servant. That is another matter he wanted to cover up. It is simply not credible. A matter of even greater concern is the trusteeship by the minister of the estate of Kathleen Maud McLauchlan. As a result of the newspaper reports, members will be aware that $35 000 from that estate is in jeopardy because it was invested by the co-trustees of the deceased estate, the member for Albany and Leon Jamieson. People are aware that $35 000 is at risk. The truth is that an amount closer to $99 926 - not the $35 000 mentioned by the minister - has either been lost or is at risk through this trust. The minister has dramatically understated the extent of the loss from the trust of which he is a joint trustee with Leon Jamieson. The extent of the negligence caused by the member for Albany to this trust is massively greater than anyone has been led to believe. I ask for members’ forbearance as I trace through the events involving the estate of Kathleen Maud McLauchlan, who died in 1983. Mr Prince: You are reading from my letter. Mr McGINTY: No, I am not; I am reading from my notes. The original trustees of the estate were an elderly couple by the name of Egerton. The estate comprised the family home and approximately $80 000 in investments. The will provided for interest revenue from the estate to be paid to the son, John McLauchlan, for life, and on his death for the capital to be paid to his daughter, Serena McLauchlan, who is the grand-daughter of Kathleen McLauchlan. In 1984, the Egertons, feeling they were too old to properly administer the estate, resigned, and Kevin Prince and Leon Jamieson became the trustees. I presume the minister will tell us he was paid for that work as a trustee because at the time he was not a member of Parliament. In 1984, John McLauchlan purchased a property at 20 Adelaide Street, Albany, for $37 500. That purchase was to be funded from the interest from the estate. All the interest was to be credited to his account to pay for the house, and it would essentially become the capital of the estate for his daughter. I now refer to the first instance of negligence by the trustees in that matter. Today, Kevin Prince and Leon Jamieson are the registered proprietors of that property. There is nothing wrong with that; they are the trustees of the property. All interest payments from the estate should have been applied to the purchase price. Prince and Jamieson have never provided any paperwork or accounting for the proceeds of the estate. Today John McLauchlan does not know whether he owns the property or how much he owes on it. It is a case of sheer neglect by the two joint trustees of that property. The second issue that arises under this deceased estate is that in 1985-86, Mr McLauchlan made a complaint to the police because he was concerned that $9 000 had gone missing from the trust. He then received a threatening letter from the minister's former law firm, Haynes Robinson - at that stage the minister was a partner in that law firm - which said, in essence, how dare he accuse Mr Jamieson of stealing this money. Approximately 10 years ago, part of the deceased estate money was invested with Australian National Finance. Two investments were made, one of $29 023 and the other of $1 821. Only $6 401 was recovered from the $29 023 investment, resulting in a capital loss of $22 622; and only $513 was recovered from the smaller investment of $1 821, resulting in a capital loss of $1 305. The total capital loss 10 years ago from the Australian National Finance investment by the trustees of this deceased estate was $23 927. In my view, that $23 927 loss was the result of the negligence of the trustees. There has certainly been a failure to account for that loss, because that loss 10 years ago was not drawn to the attention of the beneficiaries until after this matter had exploded in recent weeks. Mr Prince: Nor to me. Mr McGINTY: That may well be the case; I will come to the minister in a minute. The beneficiaries were never told by the joint trustees, Prince and Anderson, of this disastrous investment that resulted in a loss of capital and interest income. Mr McLauchlan, thinking that he was earning that interest, paid tax on that interest, which the trustees had negligently never told him he had not earned. Where does that leave him in respect of the ownership of his house? He is now left in the precarious position where today the Minister for Police, and his friend Leon Jamieson, are still the registered proprietors of this place in Albany. I have told the House about the $35 000 unsecured investment, which still exists today, and significant losses are expected to flow from that. I have told the House about the loss of $23 927 a decade ago through Australian National Finance. I will deal now with the assets of the trust, which is the third component of the loss. A statement of trust
790 [ASSEMBLY] investments dated 30 June 1998, prepared by the trustees, showed total trust investments of $115 363. In recent weeks, the trustees, Prince and Jamieson, have provided a handwritten summary of investments which shows that the amount of $115 000 has diminished to $79 770. This includes an unsecured amount of $36 406. If that money has been lost, only about $40 000 of capital will be left in that deceased estate. The three components of the loss are the $36 000 that was unsecured; the $23 900 Australian National Finance capital that was lost a decade ago; and the further $35 593 that has gone missing in the past two years. Whether that has been stolen or has been the product of bad investments is not apparent from the paperwork that has been provided. What we do know is that the joint trustees did not account for this money and will be held liable for it. When this matter first appeared in the newspaper, it was a story about poor Kevin Prince, the victim, who has been betrayed by a friend and will now need to put his hand in his own pocket to make up the difference. What I have outlined today is a story about the grossest negligence by a trustee that one can imagine: He did not know, did not care and did not bother to busy himself with it, in the full knowledge that the Trustees Act, which he was responsible for passing through this Parliament, requires trustees to review trust investments at least annually. We have already had the admission that that did not occur. What we have here is not a victim, as the spin doctor sought to portray himself in this matter, but a person who has created victims. The Minister for Police referred to Leon K. Jamieson and Albany Finance not only people from his law firm but also constituents from his electorate office, but he deliberately did not tell them about Mr Jamieson’s conviction for stealing as a servant, for which he had represented Mr Jamieson in court; and the minister has made clear the philosophical reason that he did not make that disclosure. We have seen in the pages of The West Australian and on television an attempt to portray the Minister for Police as a victim, because he will need to put his hands in his own pocket. I will show members what a sham that is. On 11 August - three weeks ago - Mr Prince wrote to Mr Gary Anderson, chartered accountant, regarding Leon Jamieson and the deed of arrangement under part X of the Bankruptcy Act. One paragraph of that letter states - You will understand that naturally I and the beneficiaries of the estate are particularly anxious to know what is the status of the unsecured loans, clearly a breach of the Trustees Act. Mr. Jamieson is personally liable in my opinion if there has been any loss, and certainly insofar as I am concerned as joint Trustee I claim an indemnity from him in this regard. What a charlatan! The minister is setting up a defence for himself so that he will not need to reach into his own pocket to make good the money that he has taken from these people through his negligence as a trustee. The case speaks for itself. MR PRINCE (Albany - Minister for Police) [3.06 pm]: I really do not know what the member for Fremantle thinks he will gain by this. Mr McGinty: Your resignation. Mr PRINCE: Members of the public have had more than enough over the years of the politics of personal abuse and attack, and they despise the member for Fremantle and think he is - Mr Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Peel! Mr PRINCE: Let me set this straight. Kathleen Maud McLauchlan came to see me in 1974 and wrote a will in which she put her estate in trust, with income to her son - her only child - for life, with the remainder to his children. When she wrote her will in 1974, he did not have any children - strange will. He was married at the time, and subsequently he had a child - a daughter who is now almost 22 and lives in Perth. In the late 1970s I got to know Jamieson because we were members of the same squash club. He did a number of business things, and I did some legal work for him. He was charged with stealing as a servant because as an insurance broker he had misappropriated premiums that had been given to him to pass on to companies. He went to court and pleaded guilty.. It was the subject of quite extensive publicity as far as I can recall; it is nearly 20 years ago. He was fined $250. He must have had a bloody good lawyer. Mr McGinty: His father-in-law paid the penalty. Mr PRINCE: Yes, a remarkable man, but that is beside the point. He was at that time, as far as I can remember - I have not checked any records, nor do I intend to - a licensed finance broker, or he became one shortly thereafter, and the board put him on three-monthly audits, which I think then became six-monthly and then annual audits, which is the normal audit process. I gave him a go. In my view, the man was entitled to a mistake and to have another go. Eighteen years later, I say I was wrong. I trusted him, and I should not have. I am not the only one. Hundreds of other people have trusted him over the years, and some of them have lost as a result. Mrs McLauchlan died in 1984, and initially the Edgertons, an elderly couple, administered the will. In fact, I did the work in my legal practice. Afterwards they said, “We cannot do this; there is a small child here”, by which time, as far as I can remember, McLauchlan and his wife had separated; it was not the happiest of marriages. At the request of the Edgertons, Jamieson and I agreed to act as the trustees of the estate, because the matter would go on for some time. The estate consisted of a house and some money. I wrote the deeds - I will not produce them
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 791 because they are private - which accumulated McLauchlan’s income under the estate against the purchase price of the house. Mr McGinty: That is what I just said. Mr PRINCE: Yes. By 1993 his wife got a Family Court order against him vesting in her the whole of the estate interest in the house. He does not own it, and he has not owned it since 1993. His ex-wife owns it. Jamieson and I have our names on the title as a matter of law. As a matter of equity, the ex-Mrs McLauchlan owns the home and not John McLauchlan; and he has not owned it since 1993. Jamieson invested the money. Perhaps I should not have trusted him. In retrospect, I should not have done, but I did. Among the money he invested in the late 1980s and early 1990s - I am still trying to find out when - was an investment in a publicly listed company called Australian Industrial Finance. That company, like Cambridge Credit and a number of companies over the years, went into liquidation. The money was lost. There was a return of some cents in the dollar. The capital loss was $22 000. I found out about that recently. That had been kept from me, as well as from McLauchlan. In the meantime, as far as I am aware, the McLauchlans continued to receive the income from the estate. Jamieson does not know the detail of how much he has received and whether he should have received that. His accountants do not know. I certainly do not know. Jamieson said he would provide reconstructed statements. That is the last note I had from him. He has not provided that yet. That $22 000 is lost. No negligence is involved. It was invested in an authorised trustee investment at the time, a publicly listed company that was advertising for investors by prospectus. It was perfectly all right to invest with that company. Mr McGinty: You as trustee didn't know. Mr PRINCE: No. If it went bad; it went bad. There was money with AGC Ltd and Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd. Companies do fail - not many, but they do. This one did. That is a matter of great regret but there is no negligence there. As a never-practising lawyer, the member for Fremantle should not make accusations of that nature. The member for Fremantle has only represented himself, so he has a fool for a client. Mr Gary Anderson, the chartered accountant, who is the insolvency specialist appointed by Mr Jamieson and his wife to handle their affairs, supplied the details on the $36 000 to me. I received this information fairly recently. It shows that Jamieson made a series of advances. The first was in early 1997 and the last was on 31 December 1999. For the whole of 1997, 1998 and 1999, Jamieson had been paying out sums of money and debiting them against defaulting borrowers of his and paying interest to the lender of the money. We presume he did not know the borrower had defaulted. That is the detail that was given to me by Anderson the controlling trustee about two weeks ago on 25 August. It was then that I knew what he had done, although I clearly had suspected that for a little while, because all Jamieson would say to me was they were unsecured personal loans. It seems that he has done that with a lot of other people's money over time. He wrote up a deficiency of $ 1.9m out of a total book of $14m. I have known Peter Boccamazzo for some years. He has the benefit of lawyer-client privilege from me. He is a former client so I am restrained in what I can say. Mr McGinty: Do not break it then. Mr PRINCE: All right. As a matter of public record, he has been on the wrong end of insolvency twice. His builder’s licence has been taken from him. He has left Albany. He has a relationship with a lady whose parents are creditors in this estate. We were on the same bus going to the aeroplane. I said, "What are you doing here?" I had not seen him for ages. He said, "I am a private detective and I am investigating Jamieson for fraud." I said nothing. I might have made a mistake about some people, but I do not accept the word of that man with regard to anything. It was early May as far as I can remember. When Albany Finance Ltd put an advertisement in the newspaper saying, basically, that Jameson had been sacked, I rang the director. That was on 6 June. Chris Cook telephoned me the following day. Mr McGinty: Boccamazzo was right on this one, was he not? Mr PRINCE: He was. I spoke to the chairman of Albany Finance who told me that a firm of solicitors in Perth had made a number of threats to Albany Finance to recover money for the people whom Boccamazzo says he works. I see in the newspaper that Mr Boccamazzo says it is $300 000; Mr Cook told me it was $120 000. Mr Boccamazzo works on the basis of a success fee of 20 per cent. Mr McGinty: He told you in advance. Mr PRINCE: I did not believe him. I had no reason to believe him - not with his reputation. Mr McGinty: He did write and you ignored him. Mr PRINCE: It would not have made a blind bit of difference, because Jamieson had been doing it prior to this year. I now know that in relation to the trust fund for which I am jointly responsible he had been doing this in 1997, 1998 and 1999. I assume he has been doing it with other people's money over the same period. I had no idea he had been doing it. Mr McGinty: Chris Cook was a friend of yours. Mr PRINCE: Shush!
792 [ASSEMBLY]
I had no idea he was doing this when Cabinet discussed the matter that led to the Gunning inquiry. This is information that came to me since May-June of this year. Also, I went to hospital for a couple of weeks, which explains the delays and why I did not see Jamieson as quickly as I would have done - not that my going to hospital had anything to do with this; it did not. When I finally found out what he had been up to, I made a complaint to the police as the surviving trustee. Jamieson had retired as trustee. Finally I was able to say that there had not only been a misappropriation but also these unsecured personal loans were a sham. I was able to come to that conclusion when I spoke to his controlling trustee. The first meeting of creditors is this Friday in Albany. Mr McGinty: At 10.30 am at the Dog Rock Motel. Mr PRINCE: That is right. I will be there. Yes, I am jointly liable. Of course I will claim against the insolvency trustee in case there will be some form of recovery - it could be 25¢ in the dollar and it could be more. According to the information from Mr Anderson, it may be more. He was talking about a total deficiency of $374 000 on a liability of - Mr McGinty: You are up for $96 000 just in respect of your trusteeship. Mr PRINCE: The member for Fremantle is wrong. He cannot calculate and he is trying to exaggerate. The total liability is $1 746 635 less Anderson's fees. The total assets are $1 420 680. The deficiency will be $374 000 if all those assets are recovered at those values, which I doubt. That is a matter that will be resolved no doubt over the next few months or years that it takes to resolve these things under a part X bankruptcy agreement. Mr McGinty: Do you disagree that $96 000 is the current shortfall in the amount you are responsible for as trustee? Mr PRINCE: Yes, I do, because I do not think I have any responsibility for the money that was lost with Australian Industrial Finance Ltd. It was a proper investment at the time, and it went bad. With respect to what has happened since and the misappropriation of money by Jamieson that has caused me to complain to the police, I have proved in the bankrupt estate for $36 000 on behalf of the trust. It could be more; it depends on the calculation of interest, which should have been received over a period of some years. I do not know that. I understand that John McLauchlan is understandably upset. I have met many times with him and his ex-wife, representing their daughter. Mr Cook rang me and he said that he had some clients. He named them. He said complaints were lodged with the police. This was on 7 June. The Albany Finance advertisement was the day before. I rang the director and he said, "We are not getting any action from the police." I spoke to an officer at the police station. I subsequently spoke to Detective Lee and had a conversation about another former client who has been charged with a major amphetamine offence, as it happens. I passed that information back to Mr Cook. Mr McGinty: But at that stage you still did not report it to the police, and you are the Minister for Police. If you did not believe Boccamazzo surely you should have believed Cook. Mr PRINCE: That had no relation to the trust estate for which I was jointly responsible. I had no inkling that there was anything wrong with that. Mr McGinty: This is your responsibility. You should have known earlier. Mr PRINCE: I had no inkling that he had done anything with the trust estate until I said to him, “What have you been up to?” He told me, and said that there were these unsecured personal loans. Then he finally gives me the details, and in the interregnum is my hospitalisation. What has that to do with the Gunning inquiry? That was established in February; all of this happened in May, June, July and August until now. Mr McGinty: No, it was happening last year and the year before. Mr PRINCE: Yes, but neither I nor anybody else knew what he was up to. Mr McGinty: You did not know because of your own negligence. Mr PRINCE: I did not inquire of him. I did not do what I should have done - mea culpa, notwithstanding that Rumpole says, “Never plead guilty.” Yes, I am at fault and I have said that repeatedly and I have answered every question put to me by members of the media. Mr Carpenter: Did you offer your resignation? Mr PRINCE: I will let the Premier answer that. I have given as complete an explanation as I can. When one speaks about a unit partnership, trustees of a unit partnership, unit trust companies, public companies and so on, some members of the media know what it is about because they are in the business side of things, and others do not. One can explain and explain and they do not necessarily get it all right. However, I have told them everything I possibly can in answer to questions that have been asked. With respect to the loss to the McLauchlan estate - Dr Gallop: These are the typical double standards of the Liberal Party: It can be negligent, it can cut corners, and it can do anything and get away with it. That is what goes on in this Parliament. The SPEAKER: Order!
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 793
Mr PRINCE: I am responsible and I have never backed away from that. I was far less vigilant than I should have been. I understand that an enormous number of people have subsequently had a good look at a lot of trusts for which they are responsible, when in many respects they had dealt with them the way I have. That is a salutary lesson, not just to me but to everybody else. How much the loss will be is imponderable. At least $36 000 can be crystallised at the moment. I have told McLauchlan that I am responsible. As to creating victims, I referred people to Jamieson and he referred people to me. If someone comes to me and says, “Who is a good accountant?” when I am in practice as a lawyer, I would say, “Well, I deal with this person and that one is a good one as well.” It is the sort of thing one does all the time. The member opposite has never been in business and he would not know. Ms Anwyl: Not when you have a financial interest. Mr PRINCE: With respect to the people who are here, the member for Eyre would be the most knowledgable and perhaps the member for Kalgoorlie would know something, but the rest would not have a clue. Mr PRINCE: None of this, with the exception of the complaint to me about the apparent lack of action from the police, had anything to do with me as a minister. None of this has had anything to do with me even as a member of Parliament: It is a private problem that has become public. If I were not a member of Parliament there would not have been the publicity. That is plainly obvious. Mr McGinty: There would have been. The matter has been through many forums, and the investors want their money. Mr PRINCE: Neither me nor anybody associated with me will ever raise the problems of the member’s sister. I do not play the game that way. He does. The member brings this sort of action in here because this is a place where just about anything can be debated. Mr McGinty: They are all facts. You have not denied one of them. You said you did not believe Boccamazzo. Mr PRINCE: No, I did not believe him. On 6 June I suspected and made inquiries. On 7 June Cook talked to me. Mr McGinty: What about the rental income from Fredericks House? Mr PRINCE: Sometimes we receive rental income from Frederick House and sometimes we do not. It is a unit partnership. It had 15 partners when it was started in 1982. It now has 13. Mr McGinty: Didn’t your wife say, “I haven’t received my rental income”? Mr PRINCE: I am pretty sure it came to both of us. I cannot recall, to be honest. It does not really matter very much. The legal practice that I had in the late 1970s with two partners - Brian Bradley and Andrew Davies - existed in the former quarters of the bank manager of the Bank of New South Wales. It was very cramped and we needed new space. A firm of accountants, partners of whom were Mr Frost and his son, were also in cramped quarters; a doctor and his wife were in cramped quarters. The three groups needed somewhere else, so we got together with some other people, built a building and moved into it. That is how that all started. There were 15 owners, all of whom had different types of unit holdings in the partnership. I was the trustee of the partnership with the doctor and with the late Mr Frost. Over the years that has changed because my former partner, Brian Bradley, who was an ALP member and candidate, left the practice. So did Davies, and other people have come and gone. There have been changes over a period, but the object of the exercise was to provide ourselves with accommodation from which we could run a business. I got out of that in 1993 when I entered Parliament. I did not sell the interest, which I am told is worth about $20 000 - I left it there. It is their problem; if they want it, they can have it, in that sense. It is to do with the practice. Albany Finance started as a unit trust with a company as its trustee, which now happens to be the trustee of my family trust. The business grew outside that structure and became a non-listed public company, Albany Finance Ltd. I know; I incorporated the company. I also incorporated the company that is the trustee of my family trust. How much more does the member want to know? That business offered me shares and I took them. I got 9 000 shares with a face value of $1 each actually worth about 80¢. That is $7 200. Jamieson has a great deal more. He also has a larger interest in the building. Mr McGinty: When the rent came in Jamieson collected it. You should not have authorised it. He was not a real estate agent. Mr PRINCE: He was a partner. Mr McGinty: It was unlawful for him to collect the rent. Mr PRINCE: Absolute nonsense. Mr McGinty: Talk to your friend the Minister for Fair Trading. Mr PRINCE: Jamieson is one of the joint owners. He can collect the income. He does not have to get a real estate agent to do that. Mr McGinty: On behalf of a property he does not own?
794 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr PRINCE: He was a part owner of the building and still is. There are two buildings, which are separate. They have been amalgamated and they are now all strata titled. The ones that are part of the original building are still governed by the original unit partnership agreement and he has interest in that unit partnership. Mr McGinty: And he collects the rent off the others as well? Mr PRINCE: He may well do, but that is nothing to do with me. I have nothing to do with the second part of the building. That is a separate exercise with accountants and others, not me. We did not have anything to do with building a second building, which was about five years after the first. There is nothing wrong with his collecting the rent and, as far as I was aware, that was being done. Mr McGinty: But not paid to you? Mr PRINCE: So? Mr McGinty: It did not ring a warning bell with you? Mr PRINCE: Over the period that Fredericks House has existed it has actually cost money rather than returned money, because it was built for the purposes of accommodating my legal practice and the doctors, the accountants and others, who needed a place from which to work. That was part and parcel of the exercise; it was not an investment in the sense of looking for a return. Mr McGinty: With others it actually rang warning bells that their rental income had stopped and Jamieson was not paying it to them, and that was 18 months or two years ago. Were you unaware of that? Mr PRINCE: I was unaware or that, yes. I trusted the man; I should not have. The member for Fremantle also said that I had none of my own money invested with him. I have just told the member what I have invested. My late father died in 1986 and the $30 000 that he had, which was his superannuation from his days as a schoolteacher, went to my mother. On my advice she invested it with Jamieson. I know, because I wrote some of the mortgages on which it was lent out, and when my mother died in 1997 only $15 000 was left. Why? It was because she spent the remainder on furniture and other things over time. It was returned, it was repaid and distributed between me and my brother and sister. I trusted Jamieson with my widowed mother’s money. I should not have done it then but I did. If that is something for which I am to be crucified, the members opposite will not be doing it, the people of Albany will. An extraordinary number of people have expressed support for me. I suggest that if the member opposite keeps this up my majority will go up at the next election because those people do not like this form of personal attack. It is backfiring on the member for Fremantle personally and on the ALP in general. MR COURT (Nedlands - Premier) [3.30 pm]: Fancy the Leader of the Opposition talking about ministerial responsibility! He is the very person who hid from the people of this State the deplorable position in which he had put the State Government Insurance Corporation's third party insurance fund. He refused to accept the advice to put the fund back into a proper position. He hid the details of it, because it was just before an election. One of the first jobs of this Government was to face up to that situation and impose a $50 excess on third-party premiums. The people of this State had to pay to put that fund back into a solvent position. The Leader of the Opposition is a member of a Government that lost more than $1.5b. He has just listened to a minister say, “Yes, that man had a conviction for that matter, yes I gave him a go and yes, that trust has been betrayed.” The Leader of the Opposition is asking the people of this State to give him a go after what he did with taxpayers’ money. What a nerve! Dr Gallop: You have a short memory. You are a hypocrite.
Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! Members realise that rulings have been made in the past that referring to another member as a hypocrite is impugning that member. There are ways of putting things which are acceptable to the Chair but that is not. Dr GALLOP: I withdraw the comment.
Debate Resumed Mr COURT: The Leader of the Opposition has deliberately decided to go for the man, not the ball. The Opposition has just detailed someone's personal trust, of which the minister was a joint trustee and is currently the only trustee. The minister has fully explained everything, not only to Parliament, but also to the media. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether the minister offered to resign. Normally I would not comment on this, but I feel very strongly about it so I will. The minister came to me and informed me of the situation in relation to Mr Jamieson. The minister provided me with all of the information in his possession, which is basically what he has again explained to this House. After explaining all of that he said to me, “If because of my handling of this trustee matter you believe it is appropriate that I resign, I am prepared to do so.” I said to that minister, “You have given me a full explanation. Make that explanation public and I do not see it as at all appropriate that you resign under those circumstances.” I do not have much time to debate this matter and I have sat in silence while other members have spoken. On at least one occasion the minister spent 20 minutes detailing all of the things he has explained in this Parliament. The minister
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 795 has been open. He has said that he is liable as a joint trustee. The member for Fremantle said that Mr Boccamazzo confronted the minister on a bus. The story is that they were on a bus going from a terminal to an aeroplane. The minister explained to this House why he did not take those comments seriously. I do not know how personal the Opposition members want to get. People have told me things about the member for Fremantle in the corridors of Parliament or wherever, and it goes over the top of my head. The Opposition has made a decision to target the way in which the minister has been handling that trustee. He has been completely open. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he sat in a Government that lost billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. He should not pull out the sob stories. Billions of dollars were lost. The Minister has explained the trustee issue in detail. He has said that in some cases he gave advice to people. The member for Kalgoorlie, who interjected, gives advice to people as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament. Ms Anwyl: I never have a financial interest. Mr COURT: The member for Kalgoorlie is sensitive about this issue. That member provides constituents with a list of lawyers whom she recommends and she is not averse to writing a debt collection notice for a constituent. As a lawyer, the member opposite does not mind providing that advice. Hon Nick Griffiths in the other House does not mind advertising his services using Parliament House as the telephone number. Members opposite have made a decision today to go for the man and not the issue. The minister has fully explained himself, which is more than members opposite ever did. MR PENDAL (South Perth) [3.36 pm]: The rule is that 30 minutes is allotted for debate for the Government, 30 minutes for the Opposition and five minutes for the Independents if they choose to use it. Because of the brevity of that position I will now foreshadow an amendment which I hope will become self evident to members in the next two or three minutes. Notwithstanding the heated exchanges across the Chamber in the past three or four minutes, the bulk of the debate has occurred under what might be described as solemn circumstances. One always knows when a matter is serious in this House because members tend to listen to each other. In the first three-quarters of the debate there has been a sense that we are dealing with a serious matter. The minister has had some serious allegations levelled against him. They are so serious - we are talking about a matter of no confidence, the effect of which is for a minister to resign from his portfolio if it is carried - that there must be some warning, other than the provisions of an MPI given to a minister to enable him to fairly prepare an argument, but in such a way that it does not allow him to escape the judgment or the wrath of the House. I repeat what I said earlier: It is difficult to determine such a matter in the space of a 30-minute debate from both the Government and Opposition and five minutes from the Independents. The rules for an MPI debate are not appropriate for a matter as pivotal and important as this. In the past couple of minutes that have been available to me I have given a copy of my suggested amendment both to the Leader of the House and to the Opposition. The SPEAKER: Perhaps I could have a copy for the Chair. Mr PENDAL: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, I realise I should have done that in the first place. I intend to move that the minister is facing such serious allegations that he needs to produce documents in order to give members a considered response. If the Government rejects the amendment, which is to give the minister some time and some precedence in the House next Tuesday to answer the allegations, I shall vote for the Opposition's motion. I do not necessarily want to support at the moment the Opposition's motion because its seriousness has not necessarily been matched with the time given to the minister to prepare and respond. Nonetheless, there are some implications for the Opposition and certainly some implications for the Government. Amendment to Motion
Mr PENDAL: In those circumstances, I move - That the motion be amended by deleting all words after "House", and substituting - requests the Minister for Police and member for Albany to make a statement to this House not exceeding one hour on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 as a considered response to the allegations made in the House today by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fremantle. DR GALLOP (Victoria Park - Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 pm]: The Opposition will accept the amendment moved by the member for South Perth. We do not resile from our position that this Parliament should have a lack of confidence in the minister. However, the member for South Perth has made the point that from his point of view as a parliamentarian, he wants more time to consider this issue. We are happy to allow this Parliament more time for this matter to be placed on Parliament’s agenda. We will support the amendment moved by the member for South Perth so that he can be satisfied there has been a fuller debate on this matter.
796 [ASSEMBLY]
No-one on the government side dealt with the very important matter of conflict of interest or whether the Premier's code of conduct that is supposed to apply to his ministers has any worth at all. No-one on the government side dealt with whether it was appropriate for the member for Albany to recommend that his constituents invest in a firm in which he had an interest and in a finance broking firm in which the director was a personal and business friend. The minister has not adequately addressed the issues raised by the member for Fremantle about when the minister first knew about this issue and what he did about it, and the relationship between the facts of the matter and what he told the Press when the matter first came up in August. There is also the matter of the trusteeship. Trusteeships are set up under law. Certain requirements follow from that. If I read the Gunning report correctly, the author believes that we must take much more seriously than we have the responsibility when people are asked to invest money and what the disclosure requirements should be on the people who are entitled to take that money. We believe this matter can be further considered if required by other members of this Parliament. We do not think that the Government has in any way, shape or form dealt with the issues we have raised. MR BARNETT (Cottesloe - Leader of the House) [3.44 pm]: The member for South Perth makes a valid point in that to move a motion of no confidence should be done by substantive motion. He is correct in that, but the Minister for Police has given a detailed and open account of all the issues raised in matters to do with his private activities, most of which occurred prior to his being a member of Parliament. This Government has no hesitation in expressing its support for the Minister for Police. He is a man of high integrity. Although the member for South Perth makes a correct point of procedure, we in the Government will not hesitate to vote in support of the Minister for Police. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result –
Ayes (19)
Ms Anwyl Dr Gallop Mr Marlborough Mr Ripper Mr Brown Mr Graham Mr McGinty Mrs Roberts Mr Carpenter Mr Grill Ms McHale Ms Warnock Dr Constable Mr Kobelke Mr Pendal Mr Cunningham (Teller) Dr Edwards Ms MacTiernan Mr Riebeling
Noes (28)
Mr Barnett Mr Day Mr MacLean Mr Shave Mr Barron-Sullivan Mrs Edwardes Mr Masters Mr Sweetman Mr Bloffwitch Dr Hames Mr McNee Mr Trenorden Mr Board Mrs Hodson-Thomas Mr Minson Dr Turnbull Mr Bradshaw Mrs Holmes Mr Omodei Mrs van de Klashorst Mr Court Mr Johnson Mr Osborne Mr Wiese Mr Cowan Mr Kierath Mr Prince Mr Tubby (Teller)
Pairs
Mr Thomas Mr Nicholls Mr McGowan Mr House Mr Bridge Mrs Parker Amendment thus negatived.
Motion Resumed Question put and a division taken with the following result -
Ayes (19)
Ms Anwyl Dr Gallop Mr Marlborough Mr Ripper Mr Brown Mr Graham Mr McGinty Mrs Roberts Mr Carpenter Mr Grill Ms McHale Ms Warnock Dr Constable Mr Kobelke Mr Pendal Mr Cunningham (Teller) Dr Edwards Ms MacTiernan Mr Riebeling
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 797
Noes (28)
Mr Barnett Mr Day Mr MacLean Mr Shave Mr Barron-Sullivan Mrs Edwardes Mr Masters Mr Sweetman Mr Bloffwitch Dr Hames Mr McNee Mr Trenorden Mr Board Mrs Hodson-Thomas Mr Minson Dr Turnbull Mr Bradshaw Mrs Holmes Mr Omodei Mrs van de Klashorst Mr Court Mr Johnson Mr Osborne Mr Wiese Mr Cowan Mr Kierath Mr Prince Mr Tubby (Teller)
Pairs
Mr Thomas Mr Nicholls Mr McGowan Mr House Mr Bridge Mrs Parker Question thus negatived. ANIMAL WELFARE BILL 1999 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MS WARNOCK (Perth) [3.50 pm]: The Opposition supports this long-awaited legislation and believes it should be further strengthened. It replaces a 1920 Bill that has needed updating for many years. Today we witness increased awareness of animal rights in western societies. People's expectations and beliefs about how animals should be treated have changed a great deal. We are now more likely to criticise others for cruelty to animals. People now demand a tougher approach to punishment of offenders. We are not as tolerant of hunting, particularly for sport rather than food, as we once were. Some people even oppose eating meat. It is good to see a tougher approach being taken to all kinds of cruelty to animals and that the definition of “cruelty” has been considerably expanded. There is reason for optimism when one considers the detail in this Bill and the enormous public interest in it that attitudes to animals and animal cruelty are changing. However, recent incidents exposing cockfighting and dog fighting in Western Australia might suggest that we need to be even more vigilant. My colleague the member for Rockingham circulated a petition on the subject of animal welfare some months ago and was inundated with more than 64 000 signatures demanding stronger protection for animals. As all members know, very few subjects are likely to arouse such passion as animals, particularly ill-treatment of animals. It is a good thing that we are taking the opportunity to say that cruelty and misuse of animals is not on and that our society will severely punish those who do it. Together with other parliamentary colleagues, I went to the opening of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ new premises at Malaga in June. The new facility is a five-hectare property at which abused or abandoned animals are temporarily housed. Its establishment is an excellent step forward for a respected charity that receives no regular, ongoing government funding. Dr Hugh Worth, the National President of the RSPCA and a well-known person in this field, reminded the audience that the RSPCA was established in England early in the nineteenth-century by William Wilberforce, who is more widely known as the leader of the campaign to abolish slavery. The RSPCA's magazine states - It was William Wilberforce who first taught us that animals have an intrinsic value of their own and, accordingly, must be considered to possess the right to live in a manner which enables them to have a positive life and develop and enjoy their inherent qualities. To achieve this we must accept that we owe a duty of care to the animals that we have taken into our lives for our companionship and enjoyment. That is the RSPCA’s philosophy. It is a mark of a civilised society that, although we quite properly place offences against the person higher up the punishment scale, we also treat very seriously offences against our fellow creatures. Although the RSPCA has been around for a long time, this the first time that it has had an animal welfare centre in this State. It is the realisation of a 100-year-old dream. It has sponsorship, fundraising campaigns and many volunteers, but no regular government funding. That is why my colleague the member for Rockingham has moved his amendment relating to the proceeds of RSPCA prosecutions under this new legislation. I will forbear telling members what the RSPCA does because I have limited time and I am sure that most members know that. The purpose of the new Bill is to repeal the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1920 and to replace it with a modern Act so that animals will be decently cared for and protected. What is in the Bill? First, it contains increased penalties for cruelty offences - a maximum fine of $20 000, a minimum fine of $1 000 and imprisonment for one year. As I
798 [ASSEMBLY] mentioned, the Labor Party will suggest making those penalties even tougher. New cruelty offences have been proposed with offences for special circumstances. The legislation also contains new offences relating to releasing animals for hunting, shooting or fighting. I mentioned a moment ago that we have recently heard of instances of dog fighting and cockfighting in Western Australia. Apparently charges have been laid for the cockfighting offences. It is very timely that we are introducing a Bill that imposes tougher penalties for cruelty to animals. Members may recall that this Bill first appeared as a draft in October 1998 and comments were invited. About 200 submissions were received and this new Bill is apparently the result of numerous subsequent improvements. One thing that interests me is the definition of “animal”. It was much narrower in the old Act and has been expanded to include more animals. It no longer includes only domestic or captive animals; it has been expanded to include live vertebrates other than humans or fish. Fish-related cruelty offences will be controlled under the Fish Resources Management Act. The Bill also contains a section relating to the use of animals for scientific purposes that may well be the result of increased activity on the part of animal liberationists. Ownership of pets is the reason that most people have an interest in this Bill. Pet ownership in Australia is so much a part of everyday life that it involves 13 million Australians, it employs over 37 000 people, it contributes about $3.3b to the economy annually, and it makes the 13 million people involved happier, healthier and less stressed. I agree with that. Dr Gallop: What about the slightly younger person sitting in front of you? Ms WARNOCK: I know that it engenders very good feelings even in younger people such as my colleague the Leader of the Opposition. Like many people who grew up in the country, I spent my childhood surrounded by thousands of animals. There were sheep, goats, kangaroos, emus, chooks, pigeons, horses and cattle. I fed and looked after chooks, groomed horses and walked behind sheep with a dog and, like most people, we regularly ate animals. Animals are treated very well in the country because they are an essential part of the work force and the landscape. However, some people do not respect them. We need laws to indicate that in a comparatively civilised and humane society, certain behaviours are expected of people with regard to animals. That is why the Opposition supports this Bill very strongly. It takes a much tougher approach to animal cruelty and imposes on all of us a responsibility to look after our fellow creatures properly. Leave granted for speech to be continued. Debate thus adjourned.
LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (ASBESTOS DISEASES)) BILL 2000 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr Graham, and read a first time. Second Reading MR GRAHAM (Pilbara) [4.01 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. As the law presently stands in this State a victim of an asbestos-related disease who has instituted a common law claim is engaged in a race against time: A race to finalise his claim before he himself is claimed by the disease. This is the case because the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 fails to allow the continuation of a claim for pain and suffering damages, damages for loss of expectation of life and exemplary damages to survive should the claimant pass away before his claim is finalised. The injustice exposed by this failure is most evident in cases where the basis of the claim is exposure to asbestos. This exposure gives rise to diseases such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer. Mesothelioma remains latent for up to 50 years. However, once diagnosed the disease will usually result in death within months. I have argued on many occasions in this House that a NSW dust diseases board type of organisation would lower the level of confrontation and remove much of the unnecessary litigation. Many of the difficulties that confront people with asbestos-related diseases would be alleviated if that sort of board existed in Western Australia. Sadly, and for whatever reasons, successive Governments have chosen not to proceed down this path. Even if that change were made, it would be the law, both statute and common, that would determine the actions victims could take. Currently there is a great difference between the damages payable before and after death. This is extremely unfair to the victims. The differences that exist between the damages payable before and after death have the effect of placing sick and dying people under enormous pressure to pursue their claims. Those differences require victims to spend their last days, and in some cases, hours, acting as the pawns in a tired, old legal farce. I know from personal experience that this is valuable time. Surely simple human decency and compassion demands that time be properly spent surrounded by family and friends and not be wasted arguing about legal niceties.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 799
Put simply, the cold, hard facts of the conundrum facing a victim and his family is this: Alive the settlement will be $X; dead the settlement will be $X minus the matters referred to before. The inhibitor to the estate of a claimant receiving the same entitlements is the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941, which removes certain existing rights on death. It is these provisions at which this legislation is directly aimed. As it is currently constructed, the legislation provides a potential financial advantage to defendants in the event that court proceedings are either prolonged or delayed. This occurs in the knowledge that the victim may die before the action is finalised. In my view this is, and always has been, a totally unacceptable way of dealing with people in these situations. Asbestos victims are not criminals; they are not people who have committed offences; they are not bludging on the system. In the main, asbestos victims are working people who have faithfully and loyally carried out their duties in their day to day employment. In most cases, victims are suffering either seriously debilitating or terminal diseases. They deserve better treatment than they are currently receiving. In the case of mesothelioma, while there can be up to 50 years before diagnosis, victims succumb to their illness very rapidly. It is a terrible death. For these victims there is no “level playing field” in settlement negotiations because most of them realise that they are unlikely to survive a lengthy trial. Victims are effectively forced to accept a lesser amount of compensation than they would have otherwise received. Victims do this in the knowledge that they are unlikely to see their day in court. That injustice was recently tragically demonstrated in the case of the late Len Patterson, a retired Fremantle wharfie. I recognise his son today in the public gallery. I have not met Mr Patterson, but I have met many other people in similar situations and it was his case that led to this Bill. Mr Patterson, like so many others, was exposed to deadly asbestos at the Port of Fremantle. Mr Patterson was diagnosed with mesothelioma and spent the last precious weeks of his life in a legal battle for compensation. With only three weeks to live, a bedside hearing allowed his evidence to be taken in his South Fremantle home. It was reported that Mr Patterson reached a settlement just one week before this trial was scheduled to commence and two weeks before he died. Mr Patterson wished for his claim to be heard in a public forum at the Supreme Court. He wished for the public to hear of the unsafe work practices that he claimed shortened his life. He also wished to create a legal precedent for his Western Australian wharfie colleagues. Had Mr Patterson proceeded, as was his wish, his claim for general damages would have died with him. Faced with that choice, he felt compelled to accept a lower settlement. It is that type of situation that demands immediate amendment to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941. This Bill does exactly that. It is aimed at preventing repetition of this sort of injustice. This is not novel legislation. Parliaments in New South Wales and Victoria have recognised that this situation is unjust and have amended relevant legislation accordingly. This Bill largely mirrors the changes recognised as being necessary in those States. This Bill is long overdue and is an important step in eliminating this injustice to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases and their families. Western Australia, the home of the Wittenoom tragedy and having the highest rate of mesothelioma in the nation, should be ashamed that in this day and age people are still dying uncompensated through no fault of their own. In strongly commending the Bill to the House, I call on the major political parties to support the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Tubby. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF SENIORS) BILL 2000 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Dr Gallop (Leader of the Opposition), and read a first time. Second Reading DR GALLOP (Victoria Park - Leader of the Opposition) [4.11 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. Serious and violent crimes against older and more vulnerable Western Australians are increasingly common, and I know all members in this House find these crimes extremely disturbing and repugnant. This issue is constantly raised by the public at the many meetings I attend throughout the State. Although there is some uncertainty about the full extent of the increase in crimes against older Western Australians, there is little doubt that these types of offences are increasing. Although the fact of this total increase is serious enough, in many cases it is the type of crimes committed against older and more vulnerable victims that is so shocking. For example, a 79-year-old man was attacked outside his home; an elderly couple were the victims of a vicious home invasion; and in tragic cases elderly women died within hours of being the victims of violent handbag snatches. All crimes are senseless, and these crimes are even more so because they pick on seniors who are so often the most vulnerable in our community. Too often, older people are seen as easy targets, and this exacerbates their sense of fear and insecurity about being attacked and being yet another victim of crime in the streets, in the shops, on public transport, in other public places and, increasingly, in their own homes.
800 [ASSEMBLY]
With the introduction of this Bill the Opposition puts forward specific legislative initiatives that will mean criminals who prey on older Western Australians will be left in no doubt that they will face longer jail sentences for their crimes. If this Bill is passed by the Parliament, it will significantly toughen the maximum penalties the courts can impose for four very serious offences - assault, robbery, burglary and fraud - in situations in which the victim is aged 60 years or more. This legislation sends a clear message that the elderly are valued and respected members of our community, who are worthy of the greatest protection our laws can provide. I turn now to the specific provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protection of Seniors) Bill 2000. Under the Labor Party’s Bill, section 318 of the Criminal Code will be amended to ensure that an assault against an older person will be classified as a serious assault. That will increase the maximum penalty for such an offence from five years to 10 years. Currently, the Criminal Code classifies assaults against public officers, train drivers or taxi drivers as serious assaults, and the Labor Party believes that assaults against seniors also warrant this level of classification. Section 393 of the Criminal Code deals with robbery, and clause 5 of the Bill provides that the penalty for robbery of a senior will increase from 14 years to a new maximum of 20 years. Section 400 of the Criminal Code will be amended by inserting a new paragraph in the definition of “circumstances of aggravation” to encompass people aged 60 and over. This will result in a maximum penalty for burglary of seniors of 20 years. It should be noted that this reflects the approach to sexual offences that already applies in the Criminal Code. In section 319 the definition of “circumstances of aggravation” in the commission of a sexual offence includes the situation in which the victim is aged 60 or older. The amendment to section 409 of the Criminal Code will increase the penalty for fraud from seven years to 10 years. The heartbreak of those seniors who entrusted their life savings to finance brokers for investment, only to watch it disappear, highlights the fact that these types of so-called white-collar crimes are indeed not victimless crimes. This Bill sends a very clear message to offenders; the Labor Party is not prepared to see older Western Australians victimised in this way. This Government has been talking about the need to increase penalties for crimes against seniors, and that move is long overdue. However, the Labor Party is concerned that the Government has still failed to adequately explain how and when it intends to increase the penalties and, most significantly, to identify which crimes it proposes to target. It seems apparent that the Government intends to use its controversial sentencing matrix to devise new penalties. However, that approach ignores the urgency of the situation and could just add to the delays in dealing with the matter. The matrix Bill is a complex piece of legislation and the Legislative Council’s Legislation Committee has not finished its review; therefore, the Bill has yet to pass through the Parliament. With all these considerations in mind, it could well be that the earliest the Government is prepared to implement changes to adjust the penalties for crimes against seniors under the matrix legislation will be well into next year. For Labor, this means waiting too long and it involves a timetable that is too uncertain. In contrast, Labor’s legislation is simple and easy to understand. If it is given bipartisan support, it can pass through Parliament in a matter of days, not months. For those reasons, I urge the Government, the minor parties and the Independents to support Labor’s Criminal Code Amendment (Protection of Seniors) Bill. I remind the House that Labor has already demonstrated its preparedness on a number of occasions to adopt a responsible and bipartisan approach to sensible measures aimed at making our community safer. This includes mandatory sentencing, truth in sentencing, confiscation of criminal property, support for greater powers for home owners to defend themselves and their property, and support for improvements to the fines enforcement system. It is now time for the Government to reciprocate and, in a bipartisan spirit, support this important legislation for our senior citizens. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Tubby. HEALTH SYSTEM BUDGET Motion MS McHALE (Thornlie) [4.17 pm]: I move – That this House regrets the failure of the Court Government to offer any real hope for our failing health system in its recent announcement on health service funding. Furthermore, we note that last year’s health budget blew out by $23.7m. This latest gesture of $32m by the Government therefore represents no real growth. This House condemns the Court Government for plunging the health system into further crisis and for placing hospital staff under such extreme pressure. In my presentation this afternoon I will outline the reasons I have moved this motion, and why I am so critical of the Government’s announcement last week. Essentially this Government’s approach to health can be summarised as too little, too late. It appears the Government is suffering from what I see as a terminal illness; that is, some sense of cognitive dissonance. It seems to be saying one thing, while doing or meaning another. In the context of the health service funding the minister appears to believe his own spin doctors when he says there is a record budget for the health service, when in reality in per capita terms there has been a 0.72 per cent cut for the 12 metropolitan hospitals, and in real terms a per capita cut at some of the regional hospitals. It is unfortunate that the minister believes his own rhetoric
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 801 because he is an honourable man. It is unfortunate that the spin doctors and the bad advice he is receiving from his bureaucrats are undermining his honour. Mr Day: Thank you for your support, but I suggest you look at the figures as well. Ms McHALE: We have looked very closely at the figures and, to ensure that I do not mistakenly misrepresent them, I went through them in some detail. The minister’s announcement last week was misleading. Mr Shave: With your last comments, you should swap portfolios with the member for Fremantle, because I think you would do a better job on fair trading than he does. Mr Day: Will you tell us your solutions to the problems? Ms McHALE: I did that in reply to a similar interjection from the Minister for Police some weeks ago. The problem with nursing in this State is to some extent due to the enormous pressures on the hospital system, in part due to the industrial relations climate and in part to the rostering system. Therefore, minister, I would immediately look to address those problems. Solutions are available. When nurses leave the system because they cannot get their annual leave, I would ask questions of the hospitals: Why is that the case? Why make the problem worse by inflexible management practices? I do not accept that there are no solutions. That is my response to the interjection concerning my approach. Places like the United Kingdom are expanding their bed numbers by 5 000 and recruiting our nurses. We cannot stem the tide and cannot attract nurses prepared to work in our system. We are losing nurses from public hospitals to the private sector, interstate and overseas. One cannot stop nurses, or members of any other profession for that matter, travelling. However, some nurses wish to stay in this State, yet refuse to work in the Public Service because of the inordinate pressures that apply, as was outlined in the report from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. Those pressures are being caused by problems in the health system in this State. The nursing shortage cannot be explained away in its entirety as a national shortage and, ipso facto, we cannot do anything about it. We must look in our own backyard to see the problems in our system. I guarantee that if I did so, I would find some solutions and I would work immediately to address those matters. More importantly, the research has been done: Recommendations already reside in the Health Department to address this problem. Time and money has been wasted and opportunities have been lost to address the problem. Another characteristic of our health system is that 32 per cent of staff are temporary; that is, only 68 per cent are permanent. The Government's attitude is that this provides flexibility. Another suggested reason for the problems in the health system is that one cannot run an organisation in which one-third of its staff is temporary. It does not provide the flexibility one needs, but creates a range of other problems. Inflexible management practices, the rostering system and pressures on the system are causing problems. The King Edward Memorial Hospital inquiry is also having a significant effect on recruiting. The minister has been boasting over recent months about significant reductions in waiting list figures. The waiting list for the teaching hospitals stands at just on 10 000 cases. However, the minister fails to tell us about the waiting list for non-teaching hospitals. As at 30 June, 10 437 cases were on the teaching hospitals' waiting list, and another 5 921 cases were on the non-teaching hospitals' waiting list. When added together, the total waiting list comprises 16 358 cases, yet the minister suggests that the numbers are reducing. One is getting only one part of the picture. It would be very interesting to see whether an increase has occurred in the figure for non-teaching hospitals as the figure for teaching hospitals has decreased. The reality is that the total number of cases on the waiting list was 16 358 as at 30 June. It is not true for the minister to say that the waiting list has reduced to only 10 400 cases, as that is only part of the picture. The minister should tell the community the real story. Mr Day: I know you were not in Parliament at the time, and nor was I, but the Opposition received none of that sort of information when your party was in government. Ms McHALE: Maybe the then Opposition did not ask the right questions, or maybe it did not ask nicely. It is difficult to understand what occurred in the past without statistics; however, we are considering the year 2000, and what has happened over the past eight years under the Court Government. This Administration promised in 1996 to halve the waiting list from 9 000 cases to about 4 500. The Government has failed miserably to meet that commitment. Another difficulty in the system is for those waiting to get on the waiting list; namely, those on the pre-waiting list. The chief medical officer has acknowledged that it is impossible to assess how many people are on the pre-waiting list. I refer to people assessed as requiring investigation by a specialist at a hospital, but who cannot get an appointment to see that specialist. A person attends a GP with an emerging problem that requires investigation. The time taken to go from the GP to the specialist is unquantifiable at this stage. The availability of that figure would reflect more accurately the state of the health system regarding waiting lists and waiting times. The chief medical officer has indicated that those figures might be available at the end of September. He added a qualification about their accuracy and the need to verify the figures, which is fair enough. The Opposition will ask for those figures soon after 30 September. The issue should not be allowed to slip. The minister should keep an eye on that matter and ensure that the figures become available at the earliest possible time.
802 [ASSEMBLY]
We need to know, as a community, the true pressures on the health system, and we need the statistics in order to understand the funding questions. We must consider how funding has increased from 1993 to 1999. Other increases have occurred over that time. The attitude in areas of the Court Government is that hospitals have never had it so good, with an increase of 45 or 50 per cent in funding. Mr Graham: Sheer luxury! Ms McHALE: That is right - they had to lick the pavement back then. This represents a significant increase from 1993 to 1999. The minister has said that the increase varies from 40 per cent to 50-something per cent. If one applies a mathematical calculation to those figures, it is clear a significant increase has occurred during that time. However, by way of a reference point, the Premier's salary increased by about 39 per cent during that time. I now give members an analysis of the five teaching hospitals. Before I am accused of being metrocentric, I had the opportunity to look only at the five metropolitan teaching hospitals’ annual reports from 1993 to 1999, and I will continue this analysis to make a comprehensive analysis of the 12 hospitals. In the six years from 1993 to 1999, those five teaching hospitals have received a 39 per cent increase. However, the wages went up $112m, which was a 21 per cent increase. The cost of buying the food, paying the power bills and buying medical supplies increased by 55 per cent, an increase of $52m. Superannuation increased between five and sixfold. For instance, the King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women-Princess Margaret Hospital for Children superannuation bill in 1993 was $1.7m. It is now $10.3m. The Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital superannuation bill was $1.4m. It is now $9.7m. When one starts to bandy about figures and to say that there has been a 39 per cent or 40 per cent increase and how good that is, that is a hollow claim, because when one looks underneath those figures, one begins to see where the money is being eaten away. Mr Day: Of course, a lot of it has gone in increased salaries. Most health expenditure is on salaries. If you do not think enough is going in, how much more should be put into our Health budget? Ms McHALE: I will answer that question, but I will not answer it now. Dealing with the revenue in hospitals, patient income or patient charges, which are important revenue, have decreased by 25 per cent over the past six years. The figure has gone down from $40m to $30m. What is emerging is a better analysis of why these hospitals are under the pressure that they are and why the Opposition and lobby groups make the claim that the hospitals are under enormous pressures. Income from patients is going down because of the reduction in the number of private patients, but the costs in certain areas have gone up many more times than the actual increases that this Government has given to those hospitals. They are the same increases that this Court Government says are the best that the hospitals have ever had. Those sorts of claims are wrong and are seen to be hollow claims by those who are working in the hospitals. Wages, cost of power, cost of food and medical supplies have increased. I have not done an analysis for acuity or increase in activity. When one does those sorts of analyses, one begins to understand the enormous financial pressures that our hospitals are under. I make this request to the minister - it will only take a phone call to his office: In the minister’s response, could he tell us how he has allocated the waiting list money of $22m or thereabouts? I believe that it is in the area of $22m for 2000- 01. If at all possible, could the minister tell us how that will be distributed, because $18m or thereabouts went to the Metropolitan Health Service Board last year. It is important to know how much of the $22m will go to the Metropolitan Health Service Board this year for waitlist activities, how much will go elsewhere and where it will go. My point is that if it is significantly less than the $18m that the hospitals received last year, that represents a further cut to the hospitals, because that waitlist money was used and absorbed by the hospitals for recurrent everyday funding. Mr Day: It certainly should not have been if it was. It should have been used for elective surgery. If there were any suggestion that it was not, I would be very interested to know. Ms McHALE: The minister might want to look at that further. However, in all genuineness, I ask the minister whether it is possible for him, either today or tomorrow, to let us know how he is allocating the waitlist money, because it is important to know where it is going. Mr Day: I am not sure that has all been finalised, but I am seeking further information about that. Ms McHALE: My understanding is that it is finalised, but I may well be wrong. The spin that was put on the minister’s announcement last week fools no-one. During the past week I have been trying to ascertain the impact of that announcement, and basically it has received no response whatsoever, other than perhaps the fringe benefits tax announcement, which is a welcome announcement for the doctors in the hospital system. I hope that the Government negotiates with the Commonwealth to ensure that the Commonwealth funds this State to cover the cost of that FBT. The reality is that for four years in a row this Government has been required to top up the Health budget. Last year the budget blew out by $23.7m, and there was a last-minute funding injection. That has become almost an annual event. Therefore, one could say that with this $32m, we are seeing the top-up at the beginning of the year. It is only two
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 803 months into the financial year. It is pretty clear that the hospitals and the health system are saying that they need more money. Therefore, this top-up that we saw last week is not growth; if anything, it is to maintain the levels of last year or even to keep the hospitals from sinking further into a deficit situation. The sort of activity that usually occurs at the end of the financial year when there is a top-up of money is taking place at the beginning of the year because already the pressures on the health system are such that the hospitals are saying that they need more money. I predict that during the next 12 months the full impact of the inflationary figures, which will include the goods and services tax in the next quarter, will be seen. The problem for many of the hospitals is the reduced value of the dollar. That will manifest itself during the next 12 months. The reduced patient revenue and the increased costs will only get worse during the next 12 months, and it will become apparent as we move through this financial year that the funding is still woeful and that the Government will have to top up the funds. Mr Day: Tell us how much more you would put in. Ms McHALE: We will tell the Government in due course. Mr Sweetman: And from where you are taking it. Ms McHALE: It is not the Government that needs to hear that answer; it is the community. The people of Western Australia need to hear that answer, and they will. We will not make any promises that we cannot fulfil - I give my word on that. However, there is no greater issue for the community of this State than health. We will ensure that there is a health system of which the community can feel proud and in which the workers and staff of the hospitals feel proud to work. That is not the situation at the moment. Above all else, we will have a health system of which the people feel proud and to which they will want to go. My final comment is that the announcement was strong on rhetoric and very low on substance. Although in this House we may bicker about the amount of funding and what graphs and statistics we want to use, ultimately it is the sick, the elderly and the young children who suffer because of the under-funding problems. MS ANWYL (Kalgoorlie) [4.49 pm]: I will make a brief contribution to this debate, particularly so far as the motion pertains to the people living in my electorate. I listened with interest to the speech of my colleague, the member for Thornlie, who is the opposition spokeswoman on Health. I also heard some of the questions that the minister asked her. Dealing with not only nursing staff but also all health professionals, there is a simple starting point from which to recruit and retain those staff; that is, to treat them with the level of respect and esteem that they deserve. That is particularly so of medical professionals who reside and practise in remote areas of Western Australia. In a moment I shall refer to one specific case. I brought before the Minister for Health the case of obstetricians in my electorate. Mr Day: You are not seriously suggesting that either the Government or I treat our health officials without respect, are you? Ms ANWYL: If the minister listens to me for the next three minutes, he can tell me whether the obstetricians in my electorate have been treated with the respect and equity that they deserve. The view of the medical profession in Kalgoorlie-Boulder is that they have not. The maternity hospital in Kalgoorlie is the busiest of any in regional areas with 800 births a year as opposed to about 5 000 at King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women. The minister may then tell me whether those health professionals have been treated properly. Mr Day: I trust you will put both sides of the story. You might want to talk about the large capital works being undertaken in Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Ms ANWYL: A large part of this motion deals with the issue of health professionals and the level of service. There is no point in having new hospitals if there are no professionals to work inside them. I shall be making a grievance tomorrow morning to the minister of which I give some notice now. It involves two paediatricians who have been neglected to the extent that they have threatened to leave Kalgoorlie-Boulder. However, I shall return to the issue of the gynaecologist and two, perhaps three general practitioners who work as obstetricians. The minister is familiar with the circumstances of the case because I have had correspondence with him. The minister's attitude with a gynaecologist of the stature of the person I am talking about is that it is not appropriate for the minister to take an interest in the matter. That is not withstanding double standards that are applying in some other remote areas of Western Australia. Mr Day: I have said that there is an obligation to comply with the Financial Administration and Audit Act, and the health service has that obligation. Ms ANWYL: I hope that the minister will apply that same rhetoric to other health services around the State, Carnarvon and Geraldton in particular. I believe that in one metropolitan health service, an arrangement has been made which has been denied to the obstetricians in my electorate. Mr McCallum is a very well-regarded gynaecologist who works extremely hard and is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He has been recognised along with five other international gynaecologists and obstetricians and awarded a distinguished community service award for emergency obstetric care. The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics notified him in a letter of 2 August 2000 that he had been selected with five other international practitioners from Chad, Egypt, Peru, Thailand and Malaysia to
804 [ASSEMBLY] receive an award. Part of the award comprises $US5 000 that will be given to the Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital for his good works. He acknowledged that the award would not have been possible without the excellent level of support that he receives from midwives, general practitioners and other medical professionals at the Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital. How ironic it is that at the same time as this international award is being presented, he is also being asked to repay $41 000 to the Northern Goldfields Health Service for difficult births that have been performed over a substantial amount of time. The dispute is whether he was authorised to perform that work on difficult births and be paid that amount. He maintains, together with a substantial number of other general practitioners who carry out obstetrics work, that it is the case and it was done at a high level. I am incredulous that the minister has chosen not to intervene. I am sure this is the case around regional Western Australia: As soon as such a dispute comes up, those people involved are headhunted. Other regional health services regularly attempt to headhunt the paediatricians, the gynaecologist and the orthopaedic surgeon in Kalgoorlie-Boulder. People belonging to a campus somewhere else in regional Australia think that those medical specialists are prepared to live in the country and make a contribution to a regional community. They would therefore go aggressively after such people to try to recruit them because they would have a much better chance of success of getting people like that than they would by advertising in the metropolitan area. The minister can spout his rhetoric about the Financial Administration and Audit Act. The fact is that the failure of the Court Government to sort out the issue of visiting medical practitioners has led to this problem. That is bad enough, but the minister has failed to come to grips with the issue and people are being paid at that rate in other health campuses around the State. I have asked questions on notice, so presumably the minister's staff are aware of the issue. I hope that I will not discover that other medical specialists have been paid at that rate, or indeed general practitioners practising as obstetricians. I am not sure whether the minister realises the significance of 800 babies being born each year at Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital. If women are not able to have emergency access to a gynaecologist and serious obstetric help, such babies will not be born in Kalgoorlie. Women will have to travel to Perth and possibly be dislocated from their other children and their families. We must do everything possible to make sure that that gynaecologist stays in Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Many of the general practitioners involved have been practising in Kalgoorlie for a very long time. There is a shortage of general practitioners in Kalgoorlie-Boulder, although it may not be as bad as some other one-doctor towns around the place which do not have a doctor at all. Mr Cowan: One-doctor towns which do not have a doctor? Ms ANWYL: They are classified as one-doctor towns. I am sure there are hundreds of them. Mr Cowan: As a matter of fact, through the Australian Medical Association and the Western Australian Centre for Remote and Rural Medicine not one practice in the country at the moment is vacant. Ms ANWYL: That is very good to hear. I am surprised. Mr Cowan: Quite often doctors are temporarily placed. Ms ANWYL: They are locums. Mr Cowan: Some are, but nevertheless those practices have either a locum or a practising doctor. Ms ANWYL: I am pleased the Deputy Premier says that because I was quite alarmed recently when I heard that two metropolitan areas, I think one was Kwinana and the other Quinns Rocks - Mr Day: Two Rocks, Yanchep. Ms ANWYL: They were wanting to be classified as places of unmet need in order that they might attract overseas doctors. I have nothing against the people living in those places having close access to a doctor, but to compare communities like that with some of the more remote communities in the State left me quite incredulous. The real bonus will be when we have adequate numbers of locums so that the resident general practitioners in country areas will be able to take annual leave and the like and know that someone will look after their practice. That is an example of not treating someone with the respect he deserves. I ask that the minister intervene in this matter, particularly if it transpires that other specialists and obstetricians are being paid at the higher federal rate for difficult births. One simple thing the Government could do to attract more qualified nurses back into the workforce would be to provide some childcare. I speak to many nurses in the metropolitan area and in country areas. Many of them, particularly in my electorate, have young families. They are willing to do nursing work but they are not prepared to pay $200 or $300 a week that is required after the savage Federal Government cuts of nearly $1b were ripped out of childcare. Creches could then be located in hospitals without too much difficulty. It would also attract qualified ancillary health workers back. I am told there is an international shortage of audiologists. That is impacting on my area in which there is a significant number of children, particularly Aboriginal children, who need regular monitoring.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 805
They must join a waiting list to have tests carried out by the industrial mine workers' audiologists. I am sure that some research would reveal that some women with young families would be prepared to do some part-time or full-time work in child care. I have the utmost praise for the nurses who carry the heavy workload in the Kalgoorlie Nursing Home where there is a chronic shortage of nurses and an acute shortage of registered nurses. I am sure the minister is aware that the award is much lower for those nurses than it is for nurses working in general hospitals. I appreciate that that impacts on metropolitan areas as well as my own electorate. Nevertheless, I am concerned about it because, although in the 1996 census less than 5 per cent of Kalgoorlie's population was aged over 65, that has changed in recent years. I would like to see people who have spent their whole life in the goldfields able to retire there and, if necessary further down the track, make a smooth transition without fear into a nursing home. Some people were perhaps a little surprised that that nursing home was accredited given its severe shortage of staff, particularly registered nurses. When the whole health system flounders, some of the more specialist services suffer. One of the areas of acute need in Kalgoorlie-Boulder is mental health. This ties in with the minister's earlier comments about capital works, which I acknowledge are to take place at the Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital as a result of which a ward will be devoted to the care of mental health patients. That is long overdue. This week I received an answer to a question on notice from the minister that spelled out in clear terms the number of admissions of Kalgoorlie-Boulder residents to Graylands Hospital. Emergency treatment has risen from 18 in 1992-93 to 48 in the 1999-2000 financial year. That is a significant increase. That development, therefore, is most timely. Of course, some of the capital works to which the minister will refer also include the rural paediatric unit that is being developed at the Kalgoorlie hospital. I will save my remarks about the paediatricians until tomorrow. I reiterate that the Government can implement many capital works but they are of very little use to my community if adequate numbers of trained staff are not available to work in them. Although I have focused on Kalgoorlie-Boulder I am aware that the needs in many of the outlying smaller communities from Kalgoorlie-Boulder are even more acute. For example - I have not had an update; someone may have been recently recruited - a month ago Leonora had been without a community health nurse for many months. The impact of that on the community cannot be overstated. If the minister wants to ensure that staff levels increase, he must pay staff properly and treat them with the respect they deserve. He must acknowledge the extra sacrifice that medical practitioners and health professionals make when living in remote country areas, because they are usually on call all the time. I hope the minister will intervene on the issue I have outlined. MR DAY (Darling Range - Minister for Health) [5.04 pm]: This motion is misleading. It does not reflect the reality in our health system. The Opposition’s arguments are pretty lame. It knows it should be making positive comments about our health system but, politically, it cannot afford to make very many positive comments; therefore it generates the sort of rhetoric and negative arguments that we hear in here time and again. For its own political purposes, the Opposition is desperate to create the perception that our health system is under severe pressure and is struggling and, most significantly, that the Government is not meeting its obligations to adequately support our health system. It is engaging in the process of establishing the big lie. The Opposition believes that if it says something often enough, people may believe it. The Opposition also has a simplistic and narrow view about the delivery of health services in our State. Its arguments are very much focused on providing services through our hospitals. The Opposition might be tapping into the general public perception that if we have large, highly funded hospitals we have a good health system. The reality is that there is much more to providing a good health system than focusing on large hospitals, important though they are. Whether we view this argument from a qualitative or a quantitative point of view, I can demonstrate that we have a very strong record of making health services a high priority in this Government's activities. We spend more from the state budget on health services than on any other area of government. To a large extent, that is possible because we have taken a prudent approach to financial management in this State. We have not blown $1.5b on WA Inc related activities as did the former Government which depleted it of the funds necessary to adequately maintain our schools, to expand our health services or to provide adequate support for the Police Service. Ms McHale: You must consider the economics of the 1980s. To pick on that is predictable but uninspiring. If you take into account the recession of the 1980s and early 1990s you can begin to understand the pressures on a Government delivering health care. Mr DAY: The Labor Government's priorities were clearly wrong, although I am not saying it did not provide any increase to the health system. However, it did not provide the increases in funding it could have if it had not lost so much money supporting some of its business associates through the WA Inc activities for very poorly founded motivations. I will leave that argument aside. Whether we look at this issue qualitatively or quantitatively, this Government's record compares very favourably with the 10 years the Labor Government was in office. For example, four new major hospitals have been built or are being built in this State since this Government took office. The Armadale-Kelmscott Health Service is a $48m new construction that will be of major benefit to people in the south- eastern part of the metropolitan area. The Joondalup Health Campus has been substantially expanded from the
806 [ASSEMBLY]
Wanneroo Hospital; the $68m south-west campus is an entirely new facility collocating St John of God Hospital and the Bunbury Regional Hospital in Bunbury. It is now providing a far greater range and quality of health services than has been the case in the south west. The Peel Health Campus in Mandurah has substantially expanded the range and quantity of services available in the southern part of the metropolitan area and Mandurah. What new hospitals did the Labor Government build when it was in office? I am not aware of one. Ms McHale: How much did we spend on the north block? $120m. Mr DAY: The Labor Government did not build one new hospital. Ms McHale: It was focussing on metropolitan services, but the minister seems to have forgotten that. Despite the fact that there was a rapidly growing population in the outer parts of the Perth metropolitan area during the 1980s - which certainly continued during the 1990s and into this decade - there was not one major new health service development when the previous Labor Government was in office. I acknowledge that there was one completed project, which was the north block of Royal Perth Hospital. That was a good development. The reality was that the needs were far greater than that and a lot more should have been attended to. From a qualitative point of view the reality is that the Health budget has increased from $1.2b, as it was in the last year of the Labor Government, to the current level, in round figures, of $1.9b; that is a total of $702m more each year is being spent on providing health services in the State than was the case when the Labor Party left office. It is a very substantial increase. I accept that much of it has gone towards increased salaries and wages which is by far the largest component of our Health budget. A lot of money is spent paying health professionals to deliver health services. The reality is that we now spend about $700m more each year than was spent when the Labor Party left office. The Government should be given credit for that. It cannot be ignored. The rate of increase has been far greater than when the Labor Party was in office. Last week the Labor Party came up with a cute argument that, despite an extra $32m being put into the health system to provide for increased demand and increased costs in providing services, there was no real increase because it was necessary to deal with the effects of inflation and population growth. If the Labor Party wants to use that sort of argument I will too. I will use it as I did in question time yesterday when I looked at the Labor Party's last eight years in government. That is a period with which we can make a reasonable comparison as this Government has been in office for eight years. If I use the same methodology as the Labor Party used last week, I can say that there was an annual real increase in health funding when the Labor Party was in government of 0.56 per cent, compared to the eight years that this Government has been in office of 2.75 per cent. That is approximately five times the real growth rate. If the Labor Party wants to play those sorts of games I am more than happy to engage in them and to look at the full story rather than to undertake a selective examination of figures that the Labor Party is obviously very keen to use. The substantial increase in funding allocated to health services has, in part, gone towards increases in salaries and wages, but it has also gone towards expanding the health services being provided, particularly in the outer parts of the metropolitan area and in rural and remote parts of Western Australia. In terms of quantity of services and of providing a greater range of services close to where people live, it has been facilitated through the very substantial increases in allocations to the Health budget that this Government has made over the past eight years it has been in office. A number of examples come to mind. Over the past few weeks I have visited various health services and hospitals around the State. The emergency department at Royal Perth Hospital has been expanded. Approximately $1.2m has been spent - it is not “fairy” money that hospitals come up with in some way. The Opposition pretends that the money comes from nowhere. It is money allocated as a result of decisions made by this Government. It has led to the establishment of a new observation ward adjacent to the emergency department of Royal Perth Hospital. It is an area known as the “holding bay”. It is not a particularly endearing term but it describes the purpose of the ward. It has had the effect of substantially expanding the capacity of the emergency department. I am advised that it is the second busiest emergency department in Australia. The new development means it is now possible for emergency staff to conduct serial blood tests over a 12-hour period to determine whether a person has suffered a heart attack. Six beds in the new ward are supplied with cardiac monitors. More can be done in the emergency department at RPH than was the case in the past. The story does not stop there. Another stage of the redevelopment of the emergency department is due to commence in March next year, when the resuscitation area will be redeveloped and expanded. It will increase the number of trauma treatment bays from four to five. A new trauma x-ray system will be installed to further enhance the facilities at RPH’s emergency department. Another example that comes to mind is the establishment of the paediatric cardiac surgery operating theatre at the Princess Margaret Hospital for Children. It has been provided at a cost of approximately $1.5m and it means that, for the first time, children who need complex cardiac surgery who previously would have had to travel to either Melbourne or Sydney, can now be operated on in Western Australia. The $1.5m did not come from nowhere; it has come from the Health budget as a result of allocations that have been made by this Government. As of a few weeks ago, 24 children who would have had to travel outside the State for cardiac surgery, have been operated on in the new theatre at Princess Margaret Hospital. I must give credit to the staff involved in providing the service, in particular, the paediatric cardiac surgeon, David Andrews, who is clearly dedicated to providing this sort of treatment in Western Australia. I also give
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 807 credit to the nursing and operating theatre staff, who, in many cases, have undergone specialised training to enable the theatre to operate in Western Australia. Ms McHale: Have the cots and beds that were deemed to be obsolete been replaced? Mr DAY: I know that there were cots in neonatal units that were in need of replacement. New ones are on order but I have not heard whether the replacements have arrived. I assume that they have, but I am happy to confirm that. The member for Thornlie has raised the subject of children’s and maternity services. Another example that comes to mind is the new outpatient clinic at King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women that is currently under construction at a cost of about $1.3m. It should have been constructed about three years ago when funding was provided through the Health Department. It is disappointing that it has taken this long. If the funds had been applied to the purpose for which they were allocated, the clinic would have been built long ago. The good news is that it is now happening and it will be a far better facility than the existing outpatient clinic. It will clearly be in the interests of both patients and staff. I have previously mentioned the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital campus redevelopment at a cost of $48m. It is expected to be completed in August or September next year. For the first time it will include a 25-bed in-patient mental health facility so that people from the south east metropolitan area, who at the moment need to be treated at Graylands Hospital, can be seen closer to where they live. The same sort of thing is occurring at Swan District Hospital. There will be a new 25-bed in-patient mental health facility. I visited it last week. It is a major, new, well-equipped facility on the hospital site. It will greatly benefit people in the north eastern part of the metropolitan area and in the Midland district. If they need treatment, they will be able to get it closer to home rather than having to be admitted to Graylands Hospital. Many other developments are occurring around the State. Kalgoorlie has already been mentioned in this debate. A major redevelopment of the Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital is occurring to provide a new paediatric ward, new mental health beds and new staff accommodation. The Government is doing what it can to ensure health professionals are attracted to places such as Kalgoorlie, and that they have good accommodation. There are the examples of redevelopment at Moora, Narrogin, Nannup, Pemberton and Quairading. I recently opened a major new extension and redevelopment of the existing building at Quairading to provide aged care accommodation on the hospital site. I am pleased to say a hospital is now being planned in my electorate in Kalamunda. Another example that comes to mind is the opening of the renal dialysis centre in Midland. I am pleased the member for Thornlie was present at the opening of that new centre because, for the first time, the Government is providing renal dialysis services in the eastern part of the metropolitan area. This centre is part of the Government’s policy of providing services closer to home wherever that is reasonably possible. It is being done on the site of the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital, and at Fremantle, Mandurah, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie and Port Hedland. A new centre will be opened in Broome early next year. There are other examples of the Government’s investing substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money to provide much needed services closer to where people live. The Government does not want a continuation of the situation that existed under the Labor Government, whereby people who needed renal dialysis services had to go to the centre of the metropolitan area, whether they lived in the far north or the south west of the State. Another example that comes to mind is the new child and adolescent mental health centre in Clarkson, which I opened a couple of months ago. With the huge population growth in the north metropolitan area there is a need for a range of new services in addition to the major new Joondalup Health Campus. A new police station has been recently opened in Clarkson, and the area has a relatively new high school. Other developments in the education system are occurring in the northern part of the metropolitan area. Mirrabooka has an excellent new mental health centre that I have visited in the past couple of weeks. The previous accommodation for that service was far too small, and it now has spacious accommodation in which a large number of dedicated mental health professionals provide services through the public health sector. They now operate from a far more appropriate and adequately equipped facility. Yesterday a new community health centre was opened in Mirrabooka. Last week I opened the new community midwifery program offices in East Fremantle. Midwives and associated support staff are providing midwifery services in the metropolitan area and homebirthing to women who opt for that form of delivery. The dedicated people in that community midwifery program are now able to operate from expanded and better offices in East Fremantle. These things do not occur by accident or in the absence of good support from the Government. I give every credit to all the professional people - doctors, nurses, allied health staff, administrative and other support staff - in the health system. I give full credit to the dedication and commitment that they generally show in providing very high quality health services throughout Western Australia. However, it does not happen without strong support from this Government, whether that be moral or financial support. This motion moved by the Opposition is primarily about finances, and the record clearly demonstrates that the Government has its priorities well established with regard to adequately supporting the health service.
808 [ASSEMBLY]
I could give a range of other examples of developments around the State that have occurred or are about to occur; for example, the redevelopment of the Geraldton Regional Hospital and the replacement of the Halls Creek District Hospital. An excellent new multipurpose centre is being constructed in Jurien Bay, and $2m has been spent on stage 3 of the Albany redevelopment. Ms McHale: What about the renal dialysis patients? Mr Prince: It will be dealt with when the demand is there. Mr DAY: For the first time renal dialysis is provided in Albany, although it is on a community basis. Ultimately, I have no doubt there will be a full satellite service in Albany, as the member for Albany said, when the demand is there and it can be justified. I acknowledge there are pressures in the system and problems occur from time to time. We know of at least one tragic example in recent times, but the Government can do nothing to guarantee that problems will not occur in the delivery of health services in this State. Whether it be a coalition Government or, in the long distant future, a Labor Government, there is nothing any Government can do to guarantee absolutely that problems will not occur. Generally speaking, this State has a very high quality health and hospital system. I am pleased such a sentiment is borne out by letters I receive from time to time. I will read some of the letters I have received in recent times because they bear out the argument that the health service is well funded and well supported. They also pay a great deal of credit to the health professionals working in the system. One letter I received recently states - On Tuesday 15th August our family suffered a tragedy when my mother . . . was struck down suddenly by an unexpected Cerebral Hemorrhage. The help care and professionalism shown to Mum and ourselves by all hospital staff was so fantastic I feel compelled to forward this information to you with the request that you pass our heartfelt thanks on to all involved. I certainly intend to do that. The letter further states - The Accident and Emergency department at Fremantle couldn’t have been better, organizing an immediate head scan coupled with an emergency transfer to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital which prevented immediate death and helped give Mum every chance of life. Ms Anwyl: You have consistently cut the number of nurses who work on shift at Fremantle in the accident and emergency department. Mr DAY: The Government has substantially expanded the health system in the quality and range of services provided. I am not aware of the detail of management decisions made at Fremantle Hospital. This Government has spent about $8m on substantially upgrading the emergency department at that hospital. That occurred when the member for Albany was Minister for Health. Contrary to the views expressed by the member for Kalgoorlie, the sentiments expressed in this letter continue - Upon arrival at SCGH Mum was taken for immediate neurosurgery. During this time the Accident and Emergency front desk could not have been more helpful. Despite being extremely busy a terrific lady guided us to the I.C.U. where Mum was taken after her operation. The care given to Mum during her time at the I.C.U. can only be described as humbling and eased our grief considerably. The worst service was EXCELLENT and everything else could only be regarded as above and beyond the call of duty. The most incredible thing was how each staff member cared for Mum while looking after the emotional needs of our family as well. Another example is given in this letter, which reads - I recently had a very unfortunate incident of collapsing after having finished the Perth Marathon which was held on 16 July 2000. . . . When I arrived at Royal Perth I was wheeled into the emergency section immediately and the treatment I received by the staff was second to none. I cannot compliment you enough on such an efficient way of treating patients. The nurses were fantastic, the doctors, outstanding. Words quite honestly cannot describe my appreciation in the way in which these people helped me. . . . I would appreciate it if you passed this letter on to the staff at Royal Perth Hospital because I cannot praise you enough on to the fantastic Ministry that you are the head of.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 809
He obviously means the health system as a whole. Another example is from someone who lives in Queensland, who writes - Recently I took gravely ill in Broome and needed emergency surgery. I was taken to Derby Regional Hospital to undergo this on a Sunday afternoon. I would like to register my appreciation for the treatment I was given by the dedicated staff. I was fortunate to have a very experienced surgeon do the operation. Dr Lishman did a great job and saved my life. He then took a great interest in my progress for the eight days I was under his care. The post operation care by the nursing staff was superb. All patients were treated as equals. Even the kitchen staff took pains to puree my food and then pay me a visit to see if there was anything I fancied to eat. The final letter was received from the wife of somebody who is no longer receiving hospital treatment on a regular basis, but who is being treated in a community-based setting. Her husband was seriously injured in an accident and now requires 24-hour care and assistance as a result of an acquired brain injury. She writes - The help that we have received from the Health Department has been crucial in assisting our family to cope, and in saving my sanity. It has literally meant that I have been able to eat and sleep again. Our Case Coordinator at the State Head Injury Unit arranged for us to have some funds to pay for professional care for Rob. . . . I wanted you to know how very important this kind of help is to families in these circumstances. It is. As I said, a great deal of credit is due to the professional people in our health system who provide these services, of which I have given only a small number of examples today. This sort of system cannot operate, and this fantastic work cannot be done, if the Government does not provide for it. The Government has put its money where its mouth is and has given the provision of world-class health services the highest possible priority since it has been in government over the past eight years. I am interested to know whether the Labor Party will continue to criticise the Government for its record. Those criticisms are not borne out by the facts. Members opposite continue their negative approach to the record of the Government and to criticise what it has been doing. They argue that insufficient funding is allocated to the health system, albeit that it has received far greater real increases in health funding since the coalition has been in government compared with the time the Labor Party was in government. It is incumbent upon the Labor Party to explain what it will do, how it will deliver services, how it will do that better and provide services closer to where people live. I cannot see how it can be done any better, given that the Government has provided additional health services closer to where people live. It is also incumbent upon the Labor Party to indicate how much additional funding it would put into our health budget. The Labor Party is reticent on this issue. It does not want to put its money where its mouth is. It wants to continue to run around the State and create negative stories. The Labor Party does its damnedest to create the perception that the Government has not adequately funded our health system. At the same time it refuses to provide information about the funding it would make available in addition to that which the Government has made available. The Labor Party knows in reality that it cannot provide much more. It knows it would have to take the funds from some other area of government or increase taxes and charges. Presumably the Labor Party will continue to engage in this rhetorical process without putting figures on paper. It is getting close to the election and it is time for the Labor Party to be up-front and to tell us how much additional funding it would make available for our health system were it elected to government. Members opposite must also demonstrate where that funding would come from - if there would be any real increase; because I suspect there would not be. I have demonstrated clearly that this Government has its priorities right. It has substantially increased funding to the health system in real terms - much more than the Labor Party did when it was in government. MRS HODSON-THOMAS (Carine - Parliamentary Secretary) [5.38 pm]: I make no apology if I repeat some of the remarks made by the minister today. As a mother I know that if one repeats the message often enough eventually it will penetrate. Yesterday I asked the Minister for Health a question without notice about comments made by the Opposition that funding in the Health budget had been declining in real terms. The minister commented on that in his address today. Yesterday the minister outlined in his response to my question that the Government had made a further allocation of $32m and the budget this year will be $1.922b. No matter how often it is said in this place, it staggers me that although the Health budget has increased in real terms the Opposition fails to comprehend the reality. The member for Thornlie has already remarked on the minister’s announcement last week that hospitals in the metropolitan area would receive an average boost of 4.2 per cent in funding, and rural hospitals would get a 4.6 per cent boost in funding. The Opposition failed to comprehend that the coalition Government’s average annual increase in the Health budget for each year was 7.2 per cent in comparison with 3.8 per cent for the last three years of the Labor Government. It does not matter how often one repeats that message, it does not seem to penetrate.
810 [ASSEMBLY]
In a media statement last week the minister said that this Government continued to spend more on health than any other State. That statement needs to be repeated: According to the Grants Commission, in Western Australia approximately $1 000 per person a year is spent on health services. The Minister for Health is to be commended for his commitment and efforts to provide health services for all Western Australians. I will outline a number of positive initiatives on which the Government is delivering. Last month the minister announced that the Geraldton Regional Hospital would get a state-of-the-art spiral computed tomography scanner. I am sure the member for Geraldton recognises how important that is, so that cancer and other patients will no longer have to travel to Perth for a CT scan. It is indicative of the Government’s commitment to making health care more accessible to people living in regional Western Australia. Last month the Minister for Health opened the Midland renal dialysis centre. That is a positive for people with kidney disease living in the Swan, Kalamunda, Mundaring and Bassendean areas. The new centre gives these people a health service that is closer to their home. That is the Government’s commitment to the community. People will spend less time travelling to access dialysis treatment. In July the Minister for Health officially opened the newly-renovated Busselton District Hospital. The $1.28m project included major renovations to theatre facilities, sterilising services, day surgery and an intensive nursing area. Busselton District Hospital was redesigned to assist with the increasing demand for services in and around Busselton. The member for Vasse has told me that he has received only positive feedback from his electorate. As has often been said by the Minister for Health in this place, and again during this debate, when the new Armadale hospital opens in September 2001 the Government will have completed four of the most modern hospitals in Australia - Peel, Bunbury, Joondalup and Armadale - at cost of $190m. This is unlike members opposite, who did not build one hospital in their time in government. In closing my remarks, I highlight some comments made by my colleagues outlining their experiences. The members for Joondalup and Mandurah, who unfortunately are not here today, commented in this place about their respective health campuses. They confirmed the exceptional services and reduction in waiting times provided to their communities. Although the Joondalup Health Campus has received some adverse media attention in recent times, it provides excellent services to the northern suburbs in a state-of-the-art facility. The Peel Health Campus, like Joondalup, has achieved significant reductions in waiting lists for surgery. On Thursday, 15 June, the member for Mandurah said the following in this place - However, in Mandurah the Peel Health Campus has seen a significant reduction in the waiting list for surgery. For example, the waiting time for orthopaedic surgery for joint replacements was previously two years. In Mandurah now it is around three months. The waiting time for arthroscopic surgery was more than 12 months; it is now fewer than three months. In opthalmology, such as cataract surgery, people waited more than 12 months; now the waiting time is three months or less. There is no waiting time list for ear, nose and throat surgery for children for tonsillectomies and grommets. I understand that the waiting time for similar surgery at Princess Margaret Hospital is 12 months or more. Unlike the Opposition, I acknowledge the actions, commitments and efforts of the Minister for Health to deliver real benefits in his portfolio. He should be commended. MR TUBBY (Roleystone) [5.42 pm]: I make a short contribution outlining that my constituents are pleased with what the Government has provided in my health region, which also includes the electorate of the member for Thornlie. I become a little tired of the continual carping and criticism of the public health system by members of the Opposition, who do nothing to support people who work very hard in the system. In many cases, people work under trying conditions which the Labor Party when in government did nothing to rectify. These health workers are very dedicated and are providing an excellent service. The larger teaching hospitals have not had the large funding increases they experienced in recent years, and anticipated they would receive again. People from my electorate and adjacent areas previously had to travel to Royal Perth or Fremantle Hospitals to obtain many services. Mr Prince: Renal dialysis, for example. Mr TUBBY: Indeed, renal dialysis is now provided at the Armadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital. These services have been decentralised to where people live. The major teaching hospitals in my view - the minister may disagree - should not expect the same level of increases in their annual budgets that they received in recent years when the level of services they provide in real terms has declined with decentralised services. It is a very good initiative. Many people who live in my area found it very difficult to board trains to travel to Royal Perth Hospital for their dialysis treatment. Mr Kobelke: Are you saying that they now have a higher level of service? Mr TUBBY: Most definitely. We are very pleased with the service provided. Mr Kobelke: They will laugh you out of town; you’re not talking reality, my friend. Mr TUBBY: The member knows nothing about the situation. He lives in an inner suburb and has been spoilt for years. He should visit the outer suburbs to see the huge population increase. Services previously had not kept pace with that
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 811 growth, which was particularly the case during the Labor Party’s period in government. I inspected Armadale- Kelmscott Memorial Hospital early in my time as a member of Parliament, and I was appalled to see the underground area where the circuit boards and airconditioning ducts and units were located. The circuit boards had their doors wide open, and pedestal fans were blowing air on them to stop them overheating. Mr Prince: You took me there. Mr TUBBY: Indeed. I took the minister of the day to see the situation, which had existed for years. I spent only five years in opposition, and I had lived in the area for four or five years prior to that time. Every time an election came around, my predecessor, Cyril Rushton, would say, “Watch them put the sign up.” The sign would go up on the corner near the hospital: “This is the site of the redevelopment for the new Armadale-Kelmscott hospital.” Cyril would win the seat, and down would come the sign after a couple of weeks, yet the Labor Government would allow the conditions to remain with fans blowing on the circuit boards. Mr Barnett: Was it the same sign at each election? They would have saved money on the sign. Mr TUBBY: I am sure they put it in mothballs. Nothing changed. Patients and staff put up with appalling conditions. The airconditioning unit was so obsolete that new parts could no longer be bought for it. Every time it broke down, they had to rummage around other hospitals in the State for replacement parts that they salvaged to try to make the system work. It was appalling. Members opposite when in government did absolutely nothing for the area. I was previously the only Liberal member in the area surrounded by Labor members. All that changed in 1993 and 1996, partly because Labor neglected what were thought to be safe seats. A few seats were lost around the area, which happens when people are ignored. This Government has provided services in these areas. We are proud that the level of services has improved over the years, and proud of the quality of the hospitals. A new $48m hospital will be opened next year with public and private beds. Mr Riebeling: Do have you have any acute care nurses? Mr TUBBY: I agree that there is a shortage of nurses, which is an Australia-wide problem. In fact, I am told that it is a worldwide problem and that it is getting worse. This difficulty cannot be sheeted home to the Government, which is doing everything it can to encourage nurses into training and to put them into hospitals. People make a choice not to go into nursing, but the Government is encouraging nurses back into hospitals. The new Armadale-Kelmscott Health Campus hospital will have public and private patients and 25 beds, as the minister mentioned, in the mental health sector. Those patients were previously treated and accommodated in Bentley, which was a long way from my electorate. People will be treated and looked after in the locality in which they live. It is about time the Opposition stopped carping about and criticising the public health system in this State. Whether members opposite believe it or not, it is a very good system. If we put the entire state budget into Health, some health needs would still be unmet and more money would be required. Likewise, no matter how much money is put into Education, there will always be an area of need. We must balance areas of need. The $900m that the Labor Government put into Health in 1991-92 is a far cry from the $1.9b put into the health system in this State by this Government. The member for Thornlie, in continually carping about and criticising the health system, denigrates the people who provide loyal and faithful service and a quality of care in the community that is second to none. The member for Armadale unfortunately is not in the Chamber. However, people living in her electorate, that of the member for Thornlie and my electorate are sick and tired of hearing the member for Armadale carp about and criticise the new $48m hospital in the area. This is to be provided thanks to this Government, with no support from members opposite when in government or opposition. MR OSBORNE (Bunbury) [5.49 pm]: Madam Acting Speaker - Ms McHale: We’re going to have a re-run of Bunbury. Mr OSBORNE: So we should, because it gives me an opportunity to say what I have said in this place before and to once again address the approach that the Opposition has taken to the South West Health Campus. Reflecting in a similar way the words just spoken by the member for Roleystone, it needs to be said again and again that the Opposition has done nothing but oppose the South West Health Campus in Bunbury. Ever since it was brought to public attention that the Government wanted to build a brand new hospital in Bunbury, the Opposition has opposed it. There were some infamous debates in this place some years ago, in which the member for Yokine made unjustifiable and unconscionable attacks on the - Ms McHale: Me? Yokine? Mr OSBORNE: I am sorry, what is the member’s electorate? Ms McHale: Thornlie. I was not even here in this House. Mr OSBORNE: I said a couple of years ago. Ms McHale interjected.
812 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr OSBORNE: No, that is one of the points I was about to make. The member does not go to Bunbury very often. However, it did not stop her participating in a debate in this place a couple of years ago when she made some very poor and unconscionable attacks on the hospital in Bunbury. During that debate, I asked the member why she did not go to Bunbury to see what was there. She has subsequently visited. However, I was advised by the people at the South West Health Campus that she had not been to the hospital when she spoke in that debate. In fact, I gave the member some private advice; namely, that she should do herself a favour and go and make peace with the administrators and the nurses. I regard the member as a fair and reasonable person and I suggested that she mend a few fences, because the sorts of things that she was saying about the staff and the administrators at the South West Health Campus were very hurtful to them and they were untrue. The real reason I make a brief contribution to this debate is that once again the Labor Party has been at it in Bunbury, and raised the fact that the hospital budget increase was less than 0.5 per cent. The estimable Hon Bob Thomas, using his undoubted mathematical skills, taking into account the gravitational effect of the moon, factoring in inflation and doing all those sorts of marvellous things at which he is so good, has arrived at a 0.5 per cent increase in the budget for the hospital. He calls on the Government to provide more expenditure, and says in general terms that not enough has been done and that things would be so much better if only the Labor Party were in government in Western Australia. However, everyone knows that Hon Bob Thomas does not have a clue what is going on in Bunbury. People do not even know who he is. If he went to the South West Health Campus and used the name Bob Thomas, those people would not have a clue about whom he was talking. However, there we are. He is quoted in the newspaper, purporting to be an expert on health issues in Bunbury and criticising the Government’s health performance. I will address the four major points which were made in that article and which were supported by Hon Bob Thomas. Essentially, the article states that there has been a small increase of 0.5 per cent, taking into account inflation, population growth and so on. It states that the Government has not taken into account that the Bunbury region is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, and that the Government has not factored budget growth into its calculations for the needs in that area. The article poses the rhetorical question: How can a bigger population maintain the same level of service with less funds, and which areas of service will be most affected by the reduction in money that is available? Finally, the article states - Hon Bob Thomas supports this - that there is a perception in Bunbury that hospital decisions are made based on funding criteria rather than on patient needs. I always take strong exception to those sorts of comments, because they are a direct insult to the professionals - the doctors and the nurses - who work in those hospitals. It is not an attack on the Government to say that the health professionals would evict a patient from his bed or that they would abort a hospital procedure simply for funding reasons; it is a direct attack on the integrity and professionalism of the staff who work in those hospitals. Every time members opposite make that sort of comment or accusation against professionals, it is taken very personally by them. They talk to me about it and they wonder why people from the Opposition make those accusations when, as professionals, they would never do those things. I will deal with the first point made in this newspaper article; that is, the figures show that there has been a drop in funding in the hospital in Bunbury. Of course, that is not supported. It must be recognised that the Bunbury Health Service has received a base purchasing funding increase of 39 per cent - $21.9m to $30.4m - from 1997-98 to the present day. The Government recognises that the population of the Bunbury area is growing, and it funds the health service in that area according to the identified health needs of the population. An increase in funding of 39 per cent in two years is substantial. I cannot understand how members opposite can continually make these base accusations in the newspaper that the Government is not funding adequately hospital services in the south west. As I said in my introduction, the article further states that the Government does not recognise that there has been population growth. Of course it recognises that growth. In fact, the minister attended a seminar in April this year at which a study was presented which outlined the improvements and the increases in services that should take place in the south west region. That function was well attended. Members of the medical profession who attended that seminar were very complimentary of the Government. I do not remember any member of the Opposition being there. Since then, the Government has approved a $6m funding increase to support that south west plan. That is proof positive that it recognises the population growth in the south west region and that it is doing everything that can be reasonably done in recognition of that. An enormous number of extra services have been provided in the south west region. The Government is continually transferring patient activity from the metropolitan area to the south west. When the hospital was first being planned, it was recognised that a large number of medical procedures were going from the south west region into the metropolitan area. When the hospital was being built, we calculated that about $26m worth of medical activity was going out of the south west region every year. We recognised that not only would it be more efficient in terms of health expenditure for those medical procedures to be performed in the south west, but also, more importantly, it would mean better health outcomes for the patients. Ever since that hospital has been constructed, there has been a steady transfer of services from the metropolitan area to the south west region. Renal services, chemotherapy, palliative care, a 15-bed in-patient facility for mental health patients and a rehabilitation and restorative unit have been put in place or are planned in the south west region. As well as new services, an increasing level of acuity of cases is being treated in the south west
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 813 region. The hospital in that region is now able to say truthfully that it is one of the best regional hospitals of its kind in the world. I am not a local member who is blowing his trumpet when I say that. One would not find a better general hospital facility in any regional city in any country. It is of great credit to this Government that it recognised it should enter into an arrangement in that region with the St John of God health care system, and that it should incorporate the Bunbury Health Service and replace the outdated hospital that existed previously in Bunbury. With those few words I will close my remarks. I reject utterly the comments in the newspaper article of Tuesday this week and I reject utterly the support given to those comments by Hon Bob Thomas, who I repeat does not know what he is talking about. The kindest interpretation that can be put on his remarks is that he is unaware of what he is saying. If I wanted to be less gracious, I could say that he has mischief on his mind. Unfortunately, as is the case with many members opposite, Hon Bob Thomas does not understand that the mischief he does ultimately does not come to rest on members on this side; it impacts on the public’s confidence in the public health system, and it impacts particularly on the administrators and the staff who work in that hospital. They are fine people and I support the work they do. Mr Kobelke: It is a pity they have a Government that stuffed it up for them, though; that is the problem. Mr OSBORNE: That is the trouble with the member: He also does not know what he is talking about. Mr Kobelke: You go out and talk to the people using the services, which have gone downhill under your Government. Mr OSBORNE: The member does not know what he is talking about. It is often said on this side of the House that the member for Nollamara has a very fine speaking voice and that he is able to dominate this Chamber because of the quality of his voice. Unfortunately, it is not connected to anything. That is the case in this instance as well. I reject the motion. MR RIEBELING (Burrup) [5.59 pm]: After listening to this debate in my office and hearing government members speak in glowing terms about how wonderful everything in the health system is, I tell members on the other side of the House about a member of my family who has been recently diagnosed with cancer. A surgeon advised that member of my family that she urgently needed surgery. The surgery was to take place at that magnificent private-public campus in Mandurah! However, due to the insufficient number of acute care nurses, the operation could not be scheduled. I am referring to a life and death situation with which this “brilliant” health system cannot cope. If anyone opposite thinks that situation is due to good, well managed health care I beg to differ. I hope that member of my family can have the operation within the next few days. However, it has already been too long - over a week - but still no acute care nurses are available who are capable of looking after a patient who has had her kidneys removed due to cancer. If members opposite think a hospital should operate in which very sick people cannot get access to that kind of care, they are very wrong, and it is time they had a serious look at their priorities in relation to funding appropriately qualified staff to provide after-care for patients. A surgeon and the operating theatre are available, but after-care nurses capable of looking after patients in the public section of the Peel Health Campus are not available. If members opposite do not believe me, I urge them to find out the true situation because it is unacceptable in the extreme for people with life threatening situations to have to wait even two weeks for an operation to save their lives. MR TRENORDEN (Avon) [6.02 pm]: I cannot let this opportunity pass because the Opposition has described a situation that is not true, certainly in my electorate. When the Labor Party was in power it sought to close the York District Hospital. Since a multipurpose service was introduced into the York community about three years ago, funding for health services has increased by almost $1m. In the past four years, the York District Hospital has won at least three interstate awards for service. The Opposition has a nerve coming in here and making negative statements about the Government's record on health. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Avon Health Board was recently established to oversee the Northam and York hospitals and health in the district of Toodyay. The board has turned around health services considerably in that section of my electorate. It inherited a debt of approximately $1m and turned it into an asset this year. The board has not been established to be a beancounter; nonetheless, it was able to deliver that without a great deal of pain. The Northam Regional Hospital is on the cusp of offering substantial services, visiting specialists and many other ancillary services that come to Avon. Mr Prince: Is this a new hospital? Mr TRENORDEN: It is a brand new hospital. Thanks to me and some very important people in my electorate, a 40- bed nursing home has also been established. Ms Anwyl: Is it fully staffed with nurses? Mr TRENORDEN: Yes. Ms Anwyl: How many registered nurses do you have? Mr TRENORDEN: I cannot answer that question. My job is to get it established; it is their job to run it.
814 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr Barnett: Do you have the community centre in Toodyay? Mr TRENORDEN: Yes; it is proceeding. I was going to mention that. Mr Pendal interjected. Mr TRENORDEN: The member for Toodyay should keep quiet; he should not get involved in this debate! Mr Pendal interjected. Mr Barnett: The member for Toodyay and I now have the numbers! Mr TRENORDEN: I am becoming outnumbered in my own electorate. The Leader of the House and the member for South Perth inhabit my electorate at times, which is something of a problem because I think they are there to white-ant my activities! One can never be too sure! Mr Prince: It is part of the immigration program. Mr TRENORDEN: I think the member for Albany also has some interest in the nursing home in Northam because he played a part in its establishment. Health funding - the amalgamation of state and federal moneys - was sought from my electorate to get the nursing home built, and I was part of the negotiations. Hon Peter Foss, the predecessor of the member for Albany when he was Minister for Health, was also part of the process, as was Senator Richardson when he was a federal minister. That was initiated in Avon. Many people in Australia have benefited from that minor, albeit important, change. Mr Wiese: It is a major matter that has had a huge impact. Mr TRENORDEN: Yes, it is a major matter. I can talk with a fair amount of confidence on what has occurred with health in my own electorate. Recently, not without some pain, Beverley moved to a multipurpose service, but since doing that the community has picked up dramatically. Support services for that community are now enthusiastically receiving an extra $129 000. On Friday this week we will meet members of the Pingelly community to begin talks about an MPS in Pingelly. From one end to the other of my electorate health is on the move. A mental health unit has been established in the wheatbelt where it has not previously existed. As we all know, mental health is a serious, rapidly growing problem. I suspect the lead speaker for the Opposition in this debate will appreciate the high rate of suicide in my part of the world, which is very serious. Suicide is about the most tragic of all health issues. Some very good people have been working very hard in that area. It is not an easy area with which to deal. The suicide rate in the central wheatbelt in my electorate is frightening. An excellent team dealing with drug issues is now delivering services to the central wheatbelt that were not there two years ago. Ms Anwyl: What about naltrexone? Mr TRENORDEN: I am happy to talk about that. Ms McHale: Is it at the Northam clinic? Mr TRENORDEN: I am the member for Avon and I must support the constituents, who do not like the naltrexone program, although my personal view may differ. Ms Anwyl interjected. Mr TRENORDEN: The member for Kalgoorlie should read The West Australian. I do not believe my job as a member of Parliament is to promote my personal view. In the time I have been here I have always supported my electorate rather than promoted my personal point of view. The drug issue has been important because, like all other communities, Northam has been hit hard by the activities of youth, people falling down personally and crises within families. It is important that those services are constituted. There is no question that the naltrexone unit is an issue in the community. Any activity that helps heroin addicts must be supported. I have said many times that once a person becomes an addict, it is no longer a criminal issue - it is a health issue. I desperately feel for people who have been addicted. Some may say that it is their own fault that they get into that situation; however, once they become addicted they are in a terrible state. I would hate not to give support to people who suffer from all ranges of addictions, including alcohol. Alcohol is one of the issues that we seem to regard as taboo. The Aboriginal community in my electorate does not receive enough support in that area. Although the issues relating to Aboriginal health are hard to raise within the federal context, they receive support from the average community person who wants to see those services delivered. Some Aboriginal community members need specialised support on issues such as alcohol and general nutrition and I would like to see that happen more in my electorate. It happened a few years ago, but for some reason support from the Federal Government has dried up. I cannot explain why that has happened, but it is a sad thing. I am also passionate about the issue of country doctors. Until recently the record of doctors servicing country areas has been ordinary. I am encouraged by what many Western Australians are doing in that area. There is some prospect of
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 815 changing the system and getting country doctors to where they are needed. Arguably we do not have enough doctors in Northam, York and Goomalling. I suggest that a doctor is needed somewhere between Beverley and Pingelly around the Brookton area. We could do with more doctors in the system. I will not use this opportunity to talk about what I think should happen to the doctors. The Minister for Health visited Wagin some months ago, and those discussions have been had. A range of people are on the right track, but we need to keep working to make sure that adequate support mechanisms are in place for country doctors. People should not have to struggle to find a doctor in places such as Toodyay, York and even Goomalling. York and Toodyay are beautiful towns. The right support mechanisms - I do not necessarily mean financial - must involve the family and the spouse, as well as lifestyle issues as much as the health issues. Toodyay has a good doctor, but York should be able to get the doctor it needs. The Opposition has not done itself much credit over an issue that I have watched from a distance. The argument over the King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women has been ordinary. The debate has hurt the public perception of the hospital. Ms McHale: The inquiry and the management of the hospital have damaged the hospital, not the Labor Party's position. Mr TRENORDEN: The public perception of the service delivered from that hospital also has been damaged, which is unfortunate. I have had some minor association with that hospital, which I hold in high regard. Last year my mother died of old age over the period of a year. She spent some time in the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and I could not fault the staff. Ms Anwyl: None of us do. Mr TRENORDEN: A lot of abuse has been handed out to the staff. I could not fault the hospital in any way at a time when my mother was desperately ill. It was not a happy time for me. It is a time when one is on edge and it is not hard to be unhappy with the process; however, I could not fault what that hospital did for my mother under pressure. Much of that pressure on nurses has been around for a thousand years. If Florence Nightingale had been asked what it was like to be a nurse, she would probably not have said much that was different from what some nurses say today. It is not easy being in the caring industry. It is not easy being a nurse, a doctor or an administrator in those places. There will always be pressure and one could argue about the level of that pressure. It is not good to denigrate our senior institutions. I am pleased that the children’s hospital does not seem to be getting much of a kicking. What has happened at the King Edward Memorial Hospital is unfortunate. It does not deserve some of the comments it has received from talk-back radio. It is imperative that people who go to a hospital do so with confidence. It should be remembered that whatever the statistics about King Edward, the difficult cases go that hospital, therefore, the statistics must be above the average. People can have babies from one end of Western Australia to the other, but this is not as easily as I would have hoped, and many more country hospitals should have more births within them. Ms McHale: Talk to the minister who called the inquiry. Do not lay the blame on this side of the House, as the member for Collie does. Mr TRENORDEN: I was about to say that I did not lay the blame anywhere. In this place we love to blame people and point fingers, but in this case I suggest to members opposite that perhaps we should not be talking so much about blame. Hospitals such as King Edward must attract the difficult cases; therefore, the patients and families are under pressure, as are the staff who know they have difficult cases on their hands. To feel for the families, one has only to go through some of the wards and look at the premature babies and watch the mothers and fathers sweating over a child who has been born months ahead of its time and who is unbelievably small. That is real pressure. If members tell me that a hospital like that will not always function properly, I will instantly agree because that sort of pressure is unnatural and it will never be totally controlled. The debate about King Edward Memorial Hospital is unfortunate. I have heart pangs every time I hear about it on talk- back radio. It is an institution of the State which deserves to be put on a pedestal. Nothing is perfect, and I am not saying it is perfect, but it is an institution that should be put up on a pedestal. Despite this debate, the truth of the matter is that it will be at that site 50 years from now. It is not the building that makes that institution so good as it is, it is the people who sweat and toil and put in the hours above what is required. It is a fine institution and I will not be a part of the process of shooting at any of the public interests that arise out of that institution. When my mother left Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, I wrote to the administration, although I know that it is like whistling in the wind because it is such a huge place. I was appreciative of what the staff did for my mother at a very difficult time at the end of her life. I cannot agree with the motion before us. Health is always a difficult issue. There will never be enough money for Health but it is a question of whether the funds are being administered fairly and equitably. I might argue about the matter of equity because I would like more money to be spent in the bush. I will always argue that because I am a bush person. I am sure that 55 per cent of the health service budget going to four hospitals will always cause some pain. I
816 [ASSEMBLY] am also sure that they are wonderful institutions, but so are the Northam District Hospital and the Beverley District Hospital. Mr Wiese: And Narrogin Regional Hospital. Mr TRENORDEN: Yes, the lot of them. People put in many more hours than they get paid for and they put in a lot of blood, sweat and tears for which they get no recompense. I cannot agree with the motion. MS McHALE (Thornlie) [6.21 pm]: I shall exercise my right of reply in a very few minutes. Mr Tubby: You do not have many supporters. How many spoke? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Ms McHALE: I will reduce the analogy to a very simple level, so that people can understand the reason for the Opposition's concern at the announcement. If the contents of a shopping trolley cost $100 last year and the same contents cost $110 this year but I have only $106, have I a 6 per cent increase or are there items I shall not be able to buy? Mr Day: Under this Government you have something like $115. Ms McHALE: Under this Government we do not have $115, and the amount is less than the cost. That is the analogy I am trying to get across. Most members here probably do not go shopping and so do not understand the value of the dollar. Mr Pendal: That is a very sexist remark. Ms McHALE: I am sure the Independent member for South Perth is somewhat different. I shall reduce the analogy to a simple level, because it is clear from the comments of members opposite tonight that they do not understand the analysis. I could have come into this place tonight with many letters commenting on the reasons that people feel our health system is under threat and in crisis. I have not because that is not the issue. The minister has come into the House with letters. I do not dispute what he and the member for Avon are saying about the quality of the care that is delivered. That is not the point under debate or the point under the microscope. We all know and hear that despite the pressures and the difficulties of the hospitals our medical staff, nursing staff, clerical staff and domestic staff all work with one purpose in mind; that is, to be part of a public hospital and to look after the patients. That is not under dispute. I defy anybody to point to one thing that I or any member on this side of the House has said that is a criticism of the very dedicated staff in our public hospitals. Ms Anwyl: What about the member for Ningaloo? Ms McHALE: I meant on this side of the House. I am not talking about the member for Ningaloo whose comments were outrageous. We know that the quality of staff is excellent in our hospitals, and we want to preserve that quality. The pressures on the hospitals resulting from the systemic difficulties, the funding, the management and the industrial relations practices have caused many of the current problems. Members can bandy about statistics. We have seen a bit of that this afternoon and I am sure we will see more of it in the lead-up to the election. The Opposition will produce its statistics, and the Government will produce its statistics. These are not our criticisms. It is not only members of the Labor Party who think that the health system is under enormous pressure and strain; the people of Western Australia are saying it. The member for Avon has made out that only opposition members are criticising the Government's record on funding, but that is not so. We are acting as the voice of many people who are incredibly distressed and concerned. I refer to people who have worked in the system and can observe it better than we. Mr Tubby: If you were a good socialist you would be supporting the public health system, not denigrating it every time. Ms McHALE: What an extraordinary comment. I am supporting the public health system, and I want the opportunity to improve and restore it to a system in which people can feel proud to work and of which they can be proud to be part. I was criticised this time not for having a metrocentric view, which is good and is probably because the member for Collie is not in the Chamber, but for being overly focused on public hospitals. To a large extent most of my comments were about public hospitals because they are the symbols of the public's concern about the decline of the public health system. For the record, the Labor Party has already put out a directional statement on men's health. The minister's spies attending the breakfast I held would have reported to him that I talked very strongly about a public health system and restoring Western Australia to its former premier position in public health. We have a vision for the health system which incorporates very broad community care, primary care and hospital-based care. Let me assure the minister that the Labor Party's policy on health is very comprehensive and will focus not only on public hospitals. A large part of
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 817 our commitment will be to restoring public hospitals, but it will have a breadth of vision which will enable our health system to be one of which we can all feel proud. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (16)
Ms Anwyl Dr Gallop Mr McGinty Mr Ripper Mr Brown Mr Grill Mr McGowan Mrs Roberts Mr Carpenter Mr Kobelke Ms McHale Ms Warnock Dr Edwards Ms MacTiernan Mr Riebeling Mr Cunningham (Teller)
Noes (26)
Mr Barnett Mrs Edwardes Mr McNee Mr Sweetman Mr Barron-Sullivan Mrs Hodson-Thomas Mr Minson Mr Trenorden Mr Board Mrs Holmes Mr Omodei Dr Turnbull Mr Bradshaw Mr Johnson Mr Osborne Mr Wiese Dr Constable Mr Kierath Mr Pendal Mr Tubby (Teller) Mr Court Mr MacLean Mr Prince Mr Day Mr Masters Mr Shave
Pairs
Mr Thomas Mr Cowan Mr Marlborough Dr Hames Mr Bridge Mr House Mr Graham Mrs van de Klashorst Question thus negatived. KIMBERLEY TIDAL POWER PROJECT Motion MR RIPPER (Belmont - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.30 pm]: I move - That this House calls on the Minister for Energy to - (a) withdraw his de facto Cabinet veto against the Kimberley tidal power project; and (b) make a full statement to the House about the outcome of the federal feasibility assessment of the project and the level of financial support which the Federal Government is now offering the project. At the opening of the spring sitting of Parliament we were all stunned when the Minister for Energy told the House that, regardless of Cabinet's consideration of the merits of the Kimberley tidal power project, he would not be issuing a directive to Western Power to sign a power purchase agreement with the tidal power proponents. Mr Barnett: That is interesting fiction. You should look at what I said. Mr RIPPER: The minister can clarify his remarks, but that is my clear memory of the tenor of his answer to the Parliament. He certainly said that a contract could not be signed with the tidal power proponents if Cabinet made a decision in favour of it and rejected the gas option. The minister argued that, if Cabinet decided against the gas option for West Kimberley electricity generation, the whole process would have to start again. The minister is making life very difficult for his cabinet colleagues and for those members of the coalition who favour the tidal power project, and we know that some members of the coalition are in favour of it. They know that if the Government makes a decision in favour of tidal power it will be against the very public and vociferous opposition of the Minister for Energy. They also know that if the Government wants to support the tidal power project that it will be at the risk of a damaging public argument with the minister and that they may have to deal with the minister's resignation. It is conceivable that Cabinet will decide to reject the Minister for Energy's recommendation that Western Power sign a contract with the gas generation proponents rather than with the tidal power proponents. The minister could well say that he cannot go along with that decision and that he has no alternative but to resign. That is the political position Cabinet is facing. The Minister for Energy is trying to exercise a political veto over Cabinet's decision on this project. Perhaps some members of the Government do not find such a resignation unwelcome. In fact, this might encourage supporters of the tidal power project within the Government. The Minister for Energy should calculate all of these factors very carefully lest he encourage the course of action he is trying to deter.
818 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr Barnett: There is already one flaw in what you are saying. If you were to look at the record of what I have said, both in this place and outside, you would find that I have never suggested I would resign. Mr RIPPER: I agree that the minister has not explicitly threatened to resign. However, he has said somewhat emotionally that he will not issue a directive to Western Power to sign the contract if Cabinet makes a decision to support tidal power generation. Mr Barnett: I did not say that either. Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the minister should quote what he said. Mr Barnett: Perhaps you should do a modicum of research before putting a motion. Mr RIPPER: I do not need to do research; I have a clear recollection of the minister’s losing his cool and making that statement in the House. My assessment of the situation is reinforced by what members on this side have heard informally. Apparently the Federal Government is prepared to offer financial support to the Kimberley tidal power project and its so-called due diligence study has confirmed that the project is technically and financially feasible. Members of the Opposition have not been given access to federal Cabinet’s deliberations or to the due diligence report. We would like the Federal Government to be more open about what it is proposing and to release the due diligence report. We understand that the State Government has a copy of it. If the Federal Government will not release it, we would like members opposite to do so. In the absence of those two important pieces of information, we must rely on what we hear informally. Mr Omodei: From what I have heard, if you win government you will build it regardless of whether it is feasible. Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the minister should research Hansard, because he has clearly misunderstood the position of the state parliamentary Labor Party, which was expressed in a motion that I moved on this subject only a couple of weeks ago. Members on this side support the building of the Kimberley tidal power project if the federal study confirms that it is technically and financially feasible, and if the Federal Government is prepared to advance the required funding. Mr Omodei: How much is that? Mr RIPPER: The figure is $61m. Mr Barnett: It has never offered that. Mr RIPPER: I said that members on this side would support it if the Federal Government were prepared to advance the funding. This should not be any source of mystification to the Government. They were the terms of the motion I moved in the House when we last debated this subject. They were also the terms of the media release announcing the Opposition's support for the project. If members opposite were to refer to Hansard and that media release, they would see the position that has been adopted by the state parliamentary Labor Party. Mr Barnett: I want to be clear about the Labor Party's position. Let us assume that the Federal Government's study supports the tidal power project and that it agrees to provide the $61m. If the Labor Party were in government, would it sign a contract for $360m of construction and $600m of power supply? Yes or no? Mr RIPPER: We support the project. Mr Barnett: Yes or no? Mr RIPPER: I will put the answer in my own words rather than give a yes or no answer. Our position is that we support the project provided that the federal feasibility study states that it is technically feasible and the Federal Government is prepared to advance the money for the project. If that were the case, when in government, we would go ahead with the project. That is clear. Mr Barnett: I want to hear the member say that, when in government, he would sign a construction deal for $360m and a power purchase agreement for about $600m, provided the two conditions are met. Mr RIPPER: I have said that if the conditions are met we will proceed with the project. To go ahead with the project means that Western Power would sign a power purchase contract with the proponents of the tidal power project and the tidal power project proponents would proceed with their construction contract. It is not a case of the Government signing the contract; it is a case of the Government signing a power purchase agreement with the tidal energy consortium. Mr Barnett: I hope the member understands what I said the other day. If those two conditions are met - and the member says he will proceed with the project - it is not a case of Western Power, as a board, signing the contract; it would be the member, if he were the Minister for Energy, instructing Western Power to sign a $600m contract. That is what the member will need to do to a group of directors subject to the Companies Code. The Government would need to instruct them. That is the only way the project can proceed. Mr RIPPER: The minister asserts that Western Power would need to be instructed to sign a contract. That is only an assertion. Currently there is not a situation where Western Power has been given the feasibility study commissioned by
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 819 the Commonwealth nor is there an ironclad guarantee of commonwealth support. It has also not been given an understanding of the Government's position. The last time this matter was debated I outlined the process I believe should be followed. I clearly said that the Cabinet is the apex of the tender process. In the end the Government carries the can for this decision - that is what public ownership of a public corporation means. In the end the Government is responsible. It cannot run away from the responsibility and say that Western Power is somehow separate from the Government and the Government has no responsibility for what Western Power does. In the end the Government has to accept responsibility. The Minister for Energy, in particular, has to accept responsibility for what happens in that agency. Mr Barnett: If the Labor Party’s so-called policy commitment is worth anything, the member will have to say that if the conditions are met - that the federal study is favourable to tidal power and the Federal Government agrees to $61m worth of subsidy - when in government, if required, the board of Western Power will be directed to sign the $600m contract. If that is not the case, the Labor Party has no policy. Mr RIPPER: The minister has a horror of the Government taking responsibility for an important decision in the energy field. The Government owns Western Power. The Minister for Energy is responsible to this Parliament and to the public for the operation of Western Power. In the end, if the Government makes a decision in favour of a particular project on proper grounds, it is then entitled under law passed by this Parliament - and sponsored by the Minister for Energy - to issue a direction to Western Power. Mr Barnett: So you would do it! All I want to know is if it is the Labor Party's policy to direct the board. Mr RIPPER: We support the project on the basis of certain conditions. If the conditions were met, the Labor Party, as a Government, would make a decision. If the implementation of that decision required a direction to Western Power we would accept the responsibility. Mr Barnett: What a fantastic election commitment. The Labor Party has very little room to move in its election commitments. The member has just committed to $360m worth of construction and $600m worth of power purchase. Let us start adding up the WA Inc from now on. Mr RIPPER: Let us be clear about this. The minister is proposing that Western Power sign a power purchase agreement with the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy Limited consortium. The ministerial advisory committee states that, on the basis of Federal Government assistance of $61m, there is very little to choose from in terms of cost between the gas option and the tidal power option. If the minister wants to take the Labor Party's policy and somehow add it to our election commitments, then he must do the same on the Government's side of the equation. The truth of the matter is this: Western Power’s commitment in this regard is covered by the fact that it is a commercial organisation. While there is a cross subsidy because of the uniform tariff, a large part of its obligations in respect of power purchase in the West Kimberley is covered by commercial returns. Not all of the obligations are covered by commercial returns because of the operation of the uniform tariff and the uniform tariff will still have to apply whether the Government chooses the gas option or the tidal power option. I return to the comparison made by the ministerial advisory committee. Assuming Federal Government assistance, the ministerial advisory committee, established by this Minister for Energy, states that there is little to choose from in terms of cost between the two options. There is no difference in the budgetary impact of the Government's policy and Labor’s policy. If the minister’s advisory committee is right, there is no significant difference between the budgetary impact of his policy and our policy. As a Government, the Labor Party would be prepared to take responsibility for energy policy and to make a decision and have the decision implemented rather than stand aside and say that it was not going to take responsibility; it was not going to have a Minister for Energy who is a real Minister for Energy; that it was going to hand everything over to a government-owned corporation and not have any influence over it; and that it was going to stand completely aside from it. I do not think that Governments should interfere in the day-to-day commercial operations of government-owned corporations. Such corporations should, by and large, operate entirely commercially. There are times when major policy decisions have to be made and when Cabinet has a responsibility. Whatever his protestations, the minister acknowledges that. Otherwise why would he take this whole matter to Cabinet? What is the role of Cabinet if it were not recognised that it had a legitimate role? Mr Barnett: Because of the size of the contract. Mr RIPPER: Because of the size of the contract the minister thinks it should be taken to Cabinet. In other words, the minister contemplates Cabinet overruling Western Power. The possibility, in theory, exists. Why take it to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Because it is a $600m contract. Mr RIPPER: If the minister thought that Western Power was making a mistake, what would he do? Mr Barnett: As a courtesy to my cabinet colleagues, and because of convention, I would make sure that Cabinet was fully informed before I signed the contract. I would give Cabinet the opportunity to either endorse or oppose the contract.
820 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr RIPPER: What would the minister do if Cabinet received advice from Treasury and a strong argument from the Treasurer to the effect that Western Power was making a decision that was financially risky? Mr Barnett: I do not answer hypothetical questions. Mr RIPPER: I, on behalf of the Opposition, have to answer every hypothetical question that the minister puts up. When I put up a plausible scenario to the minister he does not answer. Mr Barnett: I make the observation that the prospect of State Treasury advising in favour of tidal energy is extremely remote. Mr RIPPER: That is beside the point. Let us deal with the issue. The minister appears to be horrified at the idea that any Government might issue a direction to Western Power. Mr Barnett: No, I do not at all. Mr RIPPER: That is what the minister is putting to me. Mr Barnett: I have given directions to Western Power. However, there is a problem. You say the legislation authorises the minister direct Western Power. Mr RIPPER: It is the Government's legislation. Mr Barnett: It is quite proper. Mr RIPPER: It is quite proper, according to the Burt Commission on Accountability. Mr Barnett: However, if directions are given to Western Power that are inherently non-commercial and motivated by political reasons - not in the interests of the State - there is a danger of making the same mistakes the Labor Government made in the 1980s with the PICL project. Many people in the business community and on both sides of politics thought it was a great idea. However, the Government was wrong and lost $400m because the project was non-commercial and politically motivated. Mr RIPPER: Of course, decisions must be made on proper grounds. I do not suggest that the decision to use tidal power would be made on anything other than proper grounds. Mr Barnett: You have said that $61m of federal government money should be used on the basis of a favourable report that was produced for it. In other words, you would avoid responsibility and commit Western Australian taxpayers on the basis of a federal government report. Mr RIPPER: Much debate about the tidal power project has taken place. We have gone over all the advantages and disadvantages. After examining all the arguments for and against tidal power and all the arguments for and against the gas option, the Labor Party concluded that it would support the project provided two things occur: Federal government funding and a favourable report on the feasibility study. They were not the only considerations, but they are the two final hurdles this project must overcome before the Labor Party will support it. We were prudent in those judgments because there are two types of risk: The technical risk, hence our reliance on the feasibility study, and the financial risk, hence our reliance on federal government funding. I move to the issues I want to raise, rather than the issues with which the Minister for Energy has sought to distract us. We have heard that the Federal Government has informally offered the money for this project and that the due diligence study ticked off on the project. If that is the case, the conditions for the Labor Party’s support of the project have been met and, just as importantly, the National Party’s conditions for support of this project have been met. The National Party’s public statements have expressed the same point of view as that of the Labor Party. Further, if those conditions have been met, the support mooted by the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Planning will eventuate. Mr Barnett: Congratulations, you have lined up your coalition. However, I will stay on this side. Mr RIPPER: It would be an interesting coalition: The Minister for Lands, the Minister for Planning, the National Party and the Labor Party, although one could speculate about the motives of some of the elements. The Minister for Energy seems horrified by and critical of the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Yet, it is virtually the same as the National Party’s position and I think it is the same as the positions of the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Planning, although we have not heard any explicit public statements from them. We have also heard that the Premier has told Western Australian federal Liberal members of Parliament that although the Federal Government is prepared to financially support the project, he will not go ahead with it because the Minister for Energy poses too much of a management problem. In other words, the Premier is fearful of the veto the Minister for Energy is threatening to exercise on this project and is concerned about the internal political problems that would result if the Government were to support the tidal power project. That concern is likely to cause the Government to not support the tidal power project. Mr Barnett: How do you rationalise your support for this project when it came fourth in the tender process? What do you say to the three other tenderers?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 821
Mr RIPPER: The tender process pitted three fossil fuel proponents against a renewable energy proponent. It was not a process that compared like with like. I pointed out earlier that some elements of the tender process were arbitrary. For example, a weighting of 1.6 per cent was given to renewable energy and a further 1.6 per cent to greenhouse gas emissions. Those are arbitrary elements. Why give a weighting of 3.2 per cent to greenhouse gas and renewable energy issues? Why not 8 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent? A tender process that does not compare like with like has inherent difficulties. It is necessarily an arbitrary exercise and something in which politicians are entitled to exercise judgment. For example, what weighting should be given to risk versus community benefit? The ministerial advisory committee decided on a weighting of 80 per cent for risk factors and only 20 per cent for community benefit factors. It also said that tidal energy would have come out ahead if 55 per cent of the weighting were given to community benefit factors and 45 per cent of the weighting to risk factors. These are matters of judgment; it is not a science. The minister should not hold up this tender as the holy of holies, because many factors were not objective and required some judgment to be exercised. The weighting that should be given to greenhouse gas control and renewable energy considerations and the weighting that should be given to community benefit versus electricity supply risk are matters of political judgment. They are value judgments. Ultimately, politicians are elected to make value judgments about which policies should have priority. I do not see anything wrong with Cabinet being at the apex of the tender process or its going behind the recommendation of the tender panel and asking if it agrees with the value judgments about the weightings that were given to various factors. It might decide that it agrees with the weighting demarcation and endorse the gas option. However, it might come to a different decision about the weighting that should have been given to supply risk versus community benefit or greenhouse gas control versus other factors. I am concerned about what will happen with this project as the gas contract would have been signed by now if it were not for some unexpected problems. I would like an assurance that the Government will not proceed to reach a final agreement with the gas proponents until the issues in the federal feasibility study have been closely examined and the Federal Government has made a decision about the level of funding it is willing to supply to the tidal project. Can the minister give an assurance that it will not gazump the federal decision on funding? Mr Barnett: It is not the Federal Government’s decision to make. Mr Kobelke: Did it shift the goal posts? Mr Barnett: It does not decide what option goes ahead and it does not sign the contract. It does not have responsibility for power supply. It does not have to subsidise power consumers. Mr RIPPER: Will the minister give an assurance that the State Government will not make a decision until Federal Cabinet has made a decision on whether to fund this project? Mr Barnett: No, and I have never given that assurance. I have always said the Federal Government has adequate time to consider its report, whatever it might recommend, and whether it wants to make funds available to Tidal Energy Australia Pty Ltd and Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd. It can do that. It has had the report for probably three or four weeks. Frankly, I wish it would release it tomorrow; then I would be free to comment on it. I cannot explain why it is now sitting on the report. Perhaps the reason is that the report is not as conclusive as you or your informant might suggest. Mr RIPPER: I await with interest the publication of the report. Mr Barnett: So do I. Mr RIPPER: I seek an assurance from the Government that it will not make a decision on this power procurement before federal Cabinet has made a decision on the finance and before the report is made public. Will the minister give us that assurance? Mr Barnett: I have said that Western Power will negotiate a contract. We still have a couple of weeks to go. I thought it would have been done by now. It will come to me. I will have some questions. I will take it to Cabinet. There is a 10-day rule, and that means a decision of Cabinet will probably be at least four weeks from today. The Federal Government can make whatever decisions it wants about funding and table the report. I hope it does. I am certainly not saying that we will hold up decisions pending an indeterminate federal process - we will not do that - but there is plenty of time for it to release its report. This means that not only is your policy very weak and unaccountable, but also you are saying to the people of Western Australia that you will let the Federal Government make decisions for us. Weak, weak potential Government! Mr RIPPER: We have a very clear policy. We imposed a couple of additional hurdles on this project, out of prudence, as one would expect from a responsible alternative Government. Leave granted for speech to be continued. Debate thus adjourned. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
MR BARNETT (Cottesloe - Leader of the House) [7.01 pm]: I move -
822 [ASSEMBLY]
That the House do now adjourn. I remind members that there is likely to be a blockade of the Parliament tomorrow. We normally start at 9.00 am. I suggest that members allow plenty of time to walk the last few blocks, if they need to. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 7.02 pm ______
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 823
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
EDUCATION, LITERACY PROGRAMS
1. Mr CARPENTER to the Minister for Education: (1) Does the Education Department run any specialist programs for groups of children with learning difficulties or literacy problems? (2) If yes, what is the nature of the programs? (3) What are the current funding levels for the programs? (4) What are the forecasts of funding for these programs for the years 2000-01 to 2002-03? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) The Education Department provides the following programs to support students with literacy problems: - Literacy Net Program; - First Steps; - Supporting Aboriginal Students in the Early Years; - Deadly Ways to Learn; - Reading Recovery Pilot; - Commonwealth Literacy and Numeracy program: Grants to Schools; - National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy; - Stepping Out; - Literacy Support Program 8-10; - The ABC of Two Way Learning; - Reading Resource Teachers; - Language Development Centres; and - Students at Educational Risk (school based literacy initiatives). (2) THE LITERACY NET PROGRAM The Literacy Net program addresses the needs of those students identified as at risk in relation to the National Literacy Benchmark Standards at all phases of schooling. The National Benchmark Standards have been incorporated into the Literacy Net checkpoints developed for all year levels P-7. During 1999 all P-3 teachers throughout the State have been able to access Literacy Net professional development and training. The Literacy Net program has expanded during 2000 to include professional development and training for teachers of Year 4-7 and 8-10 students. FIRST STEPS The focus of First Steps is the diagnosis of students needs in literacy learning and the planning of appropriate teaching programs to meet those needs. This linking of assessment to teaching includes the enhancement of teacher observation skills, and guidance in the preparation of individual education plans as a key intervention measure. SUPPORTING ABORIGINAL STUDENTS IN THE EARLY YEARS This project assists schools to improve the literacy outcomes of K-3 Aboriginal students. The project promotes an integrated approach to assisting identified students improve literacy outcomes, involving P-2 teachers, AIEWs, parents and care givers. The project incorporates the Department's Literacy Net. DEADLY WAYS TO LEARN Resources have been developed to provide teachers of Aboriginal students K-10 with strategies that will enable them to implement bidialectal teaching approaches. These are particularly useful when working with students who come to school speaking a non standard dialect of English because literacy is typically mediated in Standard Australian English. These will continue to be a useful resource tool for teachers. READING RECOVERY A Reading Recovery pilot program will be conducted in 2001. During 2000 expressions of interest will be sought from schools. The Reading Recovery Pilot will run for two years 2001-2002.
824 [ASSEMBLY]
COMMONWEALTH LITERACY AND NUMERACY PROGRAM: GRANTS TO SCHOOLS The Commonwealth Literacy and Numeracy Program (CLNP) funding targets those students most at risk of not achieving adequate literacy and numeracy skills and assists schools in the achievement of measurable improvements in literacy and numeracy outcomes. Schools are encouraged to use funding to assist students in the crucial early years so that every child commencing school from 1998 will achieve a minimum acceptable literacy and numeracy standard within four years. The program also targets students in the middle years of schooling who have not developed adequate literacy and numeracy skills who are therefore having difficulty coping with the school curriculum. As part of this program schools develop and implement specialist literacy programs designed to support the development of effective literacy skills. Schools involved in the program employ a range of strategies and programs in order to achieve the CLNP objectives. Overall, the funding allows schools to increase the amount of time and resources allocated to the targeted students. The most common intervention strategy is the employment of support staff to provide smaller classes, one to one intervention and/or a support role in the classroom. NATIONAL INDIGENOUS ENGLISH LITERACY AND NUMERACY STRATEGY The objective of this strategy is to achieve English literacy and numeracy for Indigenous students at levels comparable to those achieved by other young Australians. The strategy identifies six key elements that contribute to successful literacy and numeracy learning. These include a focus on starting early; gaining the support and involvement of parents, families and communities; using the best teaching methods; and getting the best teachers on the job. Implementation of the strategy in Western Australia is being undertaken through a partnership with the three education sectors, that is the Education Department, the Catholic Education Office, and the Association of Independent Schools. STEPPING OUT Revised Stepping Out materials and related professional development will assist secondary teachers to support students' literacy development in all learning areas. Stepping Out reinforces developmental learning theory and builds on teacher's understandings about learning in middle and secondary school. It promotes and models strategies to help teachers implement a student-centred, inclusive and open ended curriculum, cross curriculum learning tasks and portfolio assessment. LITERACY SUPPORT PROGRAM 8-10 This program is designed to facilitate the learning of Standard Australian English (SAE) by Aboriginal students who have an Aboriginal language or dialect as their first language. Formerly the Critical Steps Program. THE ABC OF TWO WAY OF LITERACY AND LEARNING The ABC of Two-Way Literacy and Learning is a professional development project being conducted by the Department. The ABC project seeks to influence the socio-cultural and linguistic climate of schools so they become more attractive and effective for Aboriginal students. The Two-Way element of the title is to alert teachers to the value system and the culture implied in school routines, classroom strategies, management procedures, teaching resources, etc, and to look at ways of adapting them so they take account of Aboriginal ways. To foreground the notion of two-way, all ABC training is conducted jointly by an Aboriginal person working alongside a non-Aboriginal person. The ABC of Two-Way Literacy and Learning is based upon a train-the-trainer model, in which District Service Centre personnel provide training to district personnel. This will enable district personnel to incorporate understandings about two-way bidialectal education when working with schools. READING RESOURCE TEACHERS An emphasis on literacy for all students is a priority in all phases of schooling. In secondary schools this is supported through the allocation of Reading Resource Teachers to senior high schools. The role of the teachers is two-fold, in that they work with students and also in collaboration with other staff members. There are currently 46 full time and 11 part time teachers employed in this role. LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTRES There are four Language Development Centres (LDCs) with thirteen satellite classes that provide a comprehensive, full time educational program for students K-4 with speech and language impairment and average to above average cognitive functioning. Students receive intensive assessment and analysis of language competencies by a speech pathologist and a speech and language specialist teacher. The LDC curriculum focuses on language development along the oral to literate continuum and the teacher collaboratively develops programs with the speech pathologist in response to individual student needs.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 825
STUDENTS AT EDUCATIONAL RISK (SCHOOL BASED LITERACY INITIATIVES) The Students at Educational Risk Strategy aims to coordinate programs and services that will improve the educational outcomes for all students considered to be at educational risk. The strategy has an allocated annual budget of $3.1 million. Funds are allocated to districts to support schools in implementing the strategy. Districts have advised that ~$270,000 has been spent on literacy based initiatives. (3) Funding levels for the programs for the year 2000-2001 are as follows: - Literacy Net - $800 000. As well as funding the P-3, 4-7 and 8-10 Literacy Nets, this also includes $25 000 for First Steps, $76 000 for Reading Recovery Pilot and $25 000 for Stepping Out. - Supporting Aboriginal Students in the Early Years - $62 000. - Commonwealth Literacy and Numeracy program - direct grants to schools: $6 283 000. - National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy - funding for all Western Australian education sectors for 2000 is $3.271 million (Education Department share is anticipated to be $2 355 120). - Literacy Support Program 8-10 - $124 225. - The ABC of Two Way Learning - Year 8-10 $50 000. - Reading Resource Teachers - salaries for 46 full time and 11 part time teachers - approximately $2 317 000. - Language Development Centres - $4.5 million (includes staffing) - Students at Educational Risk - $3.1 million per annum, of which schools have used ~$270 000 for literacy initiatives. Note: Deadly Ways to Learn - Commonwealth funding concluded March 2000. (4) Forecasts of funding for the years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003: - The Commonwealth commitment to the Literacy Net will continue to be $800 000, this will include $24 000 for First Steps, $76 000 for the Reading Recovery Pilot and $25 000 for Stepping Out. - Supporting Aboriginal Students in the Early Years - Commonwealth has not yet advised of funding levels. - Commonwealth Literacy and Numeracy Direct grants to schools: $6 283 000 is proposed. - National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy - funding for Western Australia for 2001 is $2.16 million and for 2002 is $1.541 million. - Literacy Support Program 8-10 - $124 225. - The ABC of Two Way Learning - Years 8-10 - $50 000. - Reading Resource Teachers - salaries for 46 full time and 11 part time teachers approximately $2 317 500. - Language Development Centres - funding for Language Development Centres has been estimated at $4.5 million for 2000/01; $4.75 million for 2001/02; and $4.75 million for 2002/03. - Students at Educational Risk - the budget for 2000/2001 will be $3.1 million. Budgets for other years are not yet finalised, however the Strategy will continue until 2005. The proportion of this funding used by schools to support literacy initiatives will not be known until districts provide reports to Central Office detailing how the funding was used. Specialist programs for children with learning difficulties. (1) Education Department schools provide programs for students with learning difficulties. All schools develop and implement a range of programs for students with learning difficulties in response to individual needs and issues. Student Service and Curriculum Improvement teams are located in each education district to assist schools with identification and planning for students with learning difficulties. If schools require additional help, statewide support is also provided by the learning difficulties teams located at the Centre for Inclusive Schooling. (2) The nature of specific programs implemented by schools is determined in response to individual student needs. (3) All school resources are directed towards addressing the needs of individual students including students with learning difficulties. All schools have the flexibility and resources required to identify priority areas and to select appropriate strategies and programs in response to local needs. These resources are included in School Grant funds. (4) Not applicable.
826 [ASSEMBLY]
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHANNEL 31 ADVERTISING
11. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Planning; Heritage; Minister assisting the Treasurer: (1) Has each department and agency under the minister's control actively looked at placing government advertising on Channel 31? (2) What amount of advertising does each department or agency plan to place with Channel 31 over the next six months? (3) Has each department and agency under the minister's control spoken to Marketforce or any other government advertisers about using Channel 31? (4) If not, will each department and agency have such discussions? (5) If not, why not? Mr KIERATH replied: Ministry for Planning Office of the Minister for Planning (Appeals) Subiaco Redevelopment Authority East Perth Redevelopment Authority Midland Redevelopment Authority Heritage Council of Western Australia State Revenue Department Valuer General's Office Government Employees Superannuation Board (1) No. (2) Nil. (3)-(5) The member is advised that Media Decisions, holder of the Government's master media contract for purchasing all media space, including television air time, and which is a Marketforce company, has advised all government advertisers on several occasions that consideration should be given to using Channel 31. Media Decisions has also been directed by government to include Channel 31 for consideration in schedules, where appropriate, for all departments and agencies. Departments and agencies under the minister's control will continue to be reminded to consider using Channel 31. With encouragement from government, Marketforce executives met with representatives of Channel 31 in March and this resulted in Channel 31 being given, free of charge, an extensive strategic plan designed to gain higher market penetration. Insurance Commission of Western Australia (1) Yes. (2) Nil. (3)-(5) The member is advised that Media Decisions, holder of the Government's master media contract for purchasing all media space, including television air time, and which is a Marketforce company, has advised all government advertisers on several occasions that consideration should be given to using Channel 31. Media Decisions has also been directed by government to include Channel 31 for consideration in schedules, where appropriate, for all departments and agencies. Departments and agencies under the minister's control will continue to be reminded to consider using Channel 31. With encouragement from government, Marketforce executives met with representatives of Channel 31 in March and this resulted in Channel 31 being given, free of charge, an extensive strategic plan designed to gain higher market penetration. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHANNEL 31 ADVERTISING
18. Mr BROWN to the minister representing the Minister for Mines: (1) Has each department and agency under the minister's control actively looked at placing government advertising on Channel 31? (2) What amount of advertising does each department or agency plan to place with Channel 31 over the next six months? (3) Has each department and agency under the minister's control spoken to Marketforce or any other government advertisers about using Channel 31? (4) If not, will each department and agency have such discussions? (5) If not, why not?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 827
Mr BARNETT replied: Department of Minerals and Energy Coal Industry Superannuation Board (1)-(5) The Department of Minerals and Energy and the Coal Industry Superannuation Board do not undertake television advertising. The member is advised that Media Decisions, holder of the Government's master media contract for purchasing all media space, including television air time, and which is a Marketforce company, has advised all government advertisers on several occasions that consideration should be given to using Channel 31. Media Decisions has also been directed by government to include Channel 31 for consideration in schedules, where appropriate, for all departments and agencies. Departments and agencies under the minister's control will continue to be reminded to consider using Channel 31. With encouragement from government, Marketforce executives met with representatives of Channel 31 in March and this resulted in Channel 31 being given, free of charge, an extensive strategic plan designed to gain higher market penetration. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHANNEL 31 ADVERTISING
19. Mr BROWN to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: (1) Has each department and agency under the minister's control actively looked at placing government advertising on Channel 31? (2) What amount of advertising does each department or agency plan to place with Channel 31 over the next six months? (3) Has each department and agency under the minister's control spoken to Marketforce or any other government advertisers about using Channel 31? (4) If not, will each department and agency have such discussions? (5) If not, why not? Mr COWAN replied: Office of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3)-(5) The member is advised that Media Decisions, holder of the Government's master media contract for purchasing all media space, including television air time, and which is a Marketforce company, has advised all government advertisers on several occasions that consideration should be given to using Channel 31. Media Decisions has also been directed by government to include Channel 31 for consideration in schedules, where appropriate, for all departments and agencies. Departments and agencies under the minister's control will continue to be reminded to consider using Channel 31. With encouragement from government, Marketforce executives met with representatives of Channel 31 in March and this resulted in Channel 31 being given, free of charge, an extensive strategic plan designed to gain higher market penetration. Burswood Park Board (1) Yes. (2) Nil.; (3)-(5) See above. Western Australian Greyhound Racing Authority (1) Yes. (2) $7 800 (3)-(5) See above. Totalisator Agency Board (1) Yes. (2) No advertisements placed directly with Channel 31. However, a $5 400 sponsorship package with the Western Australian Trotting Association on Friday night live trotting segment on Channel 31 is for a 12-week trial that commenced on 26 May 2000. (3)-(5) See above.
828 [ASSEMBLY]
Lotteries Commission (1) The Lotteries Commission has actively looked at placing advertising on Channel 31. (2) The Lotteries Commission does not plan to place any advertising with Channel 31 over the next six months. (3)-(5) See above. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHANNEL 31 ADVERTISING
21. Mr BROWN to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Tourism: (1) Has each department and agency under the minister's control actively looked at placing government advertising on Channel 31? (2) What amount of advertising does each department or agency plan to place with Channel 31 over the next six months? (3) Has each department and agency under the minister's control spoken to Marketforce or any other government advertisers about using Channel 31? (4) If not, will each department and agency have such discussions? (5) If not, why not? Mr BRADSHAW replied: Western Australian Tourism Commission (1) The Western Australian Tourism Commission actively assesses all television and other media options to maximise value for money and market reach. Channel 31 is one of many options considered. (2) No advertising is planned on Channel 31 over the next six months by the WATC. (3)-(5) The member is advised that Media Decisions, holder of the Government's master media contract for purchasing all media space, including television air time, and which is a Marketforce company, has advised all government advertisers on several occasions that consideration should be given to using Channel 31. Media Decisions has also been directed by government to include Channel 31 for consideration in schedules, where appropriate, for all departments and agencies. Departments and agencies under the minister's control will continue to be reminded to consider using Channel 31. With encouragement from government, Marketforce executives met with representatives of Channel 31 in March and this resulted in Channel 31 being given, free of charge, an extensive strategic plan designed to gain higher market penetration. Rottnest Island Authority (1) No. (2) Nil. (3) No. (4)-(5) The Rottnest Island Authority has not entered into discussing options for the use of Channel 31 as no television advertising is undertaken by the agency. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, CHANNEL 31 ADVERTISING
22. Mr BROWN to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: (1) Has each department and agency under the minister's control actively looked at placing government advertising on Channel 31? (2) What amount of advertising does each department or agency plan to place with Channel 31 over the next six months? (3) Has each department and agency under the minister's control spoken to Marketforce or any other government advertisers about using Channel 31? (4) If not, will each department and agency have such discussions? (5) If not, why not? Mr MARSHALL replied: Ministry of Sport and Recreation Western Australian Institute of Sport Western Australian Sports Centre Trust (1) No.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 829
(2) Nil. (3)-(5) The member is advised that Media Decisions, holder of the Government's master media contract for purchasing all media space, including television air time, and which is a Marketforce company, has advised all government advertisers on several occasions that consideration should be given to using Channel 31. Media Decisions has also been directed by government to include Channel 31 for consideration in schedules, where appropriate, for all departments and agencies. Departments and agencies under the minister's control will continue to be reminded to consider using Channel 31. With encouragement from government, Marketforce executives met with representatives of Channel 31 in March and this resulted in Channel 31 being given, free of charge, an extensive strategic plan designed to gain higher market penetration. EDUCATION, DISCRIMINATION BY SENIOR MANAGEMENT
29. Mrs ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: What action is taken against senior management discriminating against employees? Mr BARNETT replied: Due to the very broad nature of the question, it is difficult to provide a concise answer. However, complainants of alleged discrimination are expected to raise the matter with the other person involved in the first instance. If this is not possible, or the matter is not resolved to the complainant's satisfaction, it is the line manager's responsibility to discuss and attempt to resolve the matter. Complaints against a member of the department's senior management can be referred to an officer senior to them, such as the Director General, or to an external body such as the State School Teachers' Union or the Equal Opportunity Commission to assist in the resolution of the complaint. Should the member for Midland be able to provide more specific information, I may be able to provide a more directly relevant response. ELECTRICITY GENERATION, NEW RENEWABLE TARGET
33. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Energy: (1) How does the State Government plan to implement the 2 per cent New Renewables Target for electricity generation in Western Australia? (2) What funds - if any - have been set aside in the forward estimates for each financial year for this purpose? (3) Does the State Government consider this target to be binding on Western Australia? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) Under the Commonwealth's Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, the State Government does not have responsibility for implementing the 2 per cent New Renewable Target for electricity generation in Western Australia. The main liable party in Western Australia will be Western Power Corporation. Western Power is government owned but required to act as a commercial entity and its forward plans are commercially confidential. However it is public knowledge that Western Power has committed $45m to a 22MW windfarm at Albany, which is expected to meet the required commitment for 2001 and 2002. (2)-(3) Not applicable. COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTIONS
42. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Planning; Heritage; Minister assisting the Treasurer: (1) Will the minister identify each of the tribunals and boards with adjudicative functions under the minister's portfolios? (2) For each tribunal and board - (a) who are the current members; (b) how much remuneration is each member paid; (c) how many matters did it adjudicated on in 1999; (d) how many matters has it adjudicated on in 2000; (e) how long is the waiting list for matters to be adjudicated; (f) does it have any non-adjudicative functions; and (g) if yes to (f), please list these non-adjudicative functions? (3) For each tribunal and board, what was the total budget expenditure for the financial years - (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) estimate for 1999-2000?
830 [ASSEMBLY]
(4) For each tribunal and board, what are the forward estimates for each of the next three financial years? (5) Do any of these tribunals and boards have the power to hear cases in regional and remote areas? (6) If the answer to (5) is yes - (a) which boards and tribunals have this power; and (b) for each of these boards and tribunals, which towns and areas are they able to visit? (7) If the answer to (5) is no, why not? Mr KIERATH replied: (1)-(7) A full list detailing the membership of government boards and committees was provided in response to question on notice 1927 on 13 June 2000. If the member has a question regarding the adjudicative functions of a particular committee it may be possible to provide a response in the detail that has been requested. COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTIONS
43. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Housing; Aboriginal Affairs; Water Resources: (1) Will the minister identify each of the tribunals and boards with adjudicative functions under the minister's portfolios? (2) For each tribunal and board - (a) who are the current members; (b) how much remuneration is each member paid; (c) how many matters did it adjudicated on in 1999; (d) how many matters has it adjudicated on in 2000; (e) how long is the waiting list for matters to be adjudicated; (f) does it have any non-adjudicative functions; and (g) if yes to (f), please list these non-adjudicative functions? (3) For each tribunal and board, what was the total budget expenditure for the financial years - (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) estimate for 1999-2000? (4) For each tribunal and board, what are the forward estimates for each of the next three financial years? (5) Do any of these tribunals and boards have the power to hear cases in regional and remote areas? (6) If the answer to (5) is yes - (a) which boards and tribunals have this power; and (b) for each of these boards and tribunals, which towns and areas are they able to visit? (7) If the answer to (5) is no, why not? Dr HAMES replied: (1)-(7) A full list detailing the membership of government boards and committees was provided in response to question on notice 1927 on 13 June 2000. If the member has a question regarding the adjudicative functions of a particular committee it may be possible to provide a response in the detail that has been requested. COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTIONS
45. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Employment and Training; Youth; the Arts: (1) Will the minister identify each of the tribunals and boards with adjudicative functions under the minister's portfolios? (2) For each tribunal and board - (a) who are the current members; (b) how much remuneration is each member paid; (c) how many matters did it adjudicated on in 1999; (d) how many matters has it adjudicated on in 2000; (e) how long is the waiting list for matters to be adjudicated; (f) does it have any non-adjudicative functions; and (g) if yes to (f), please list these non-adjudicative functions?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 831
(3) For each tribunal and board, what was the total budget expenditure for the financial years - (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) estimate for 1999-2000? (4) For each tribunal and board, what are the forward estimates for each of the next three financial years? (5) Do any of these tribunals and boards have the power to hear cases in regional and remote areas? (6) If the answer to (5) is yes - (a) which boards and tribunals have this power; and (b) for each of these boards and tribunals, which towns and areas are they able to visit? (7) If the answer to (5) is no, why not? Mr BOARD replied: (1)-(7) A full list detailing the membership of government boards and committees was provided in response to question on notice 1927 on 13 June 2000. If the member has a question regarding the adjudicative functions of a particular committee it may be possible to provide a response in the detail that has been requested. COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, ADJUDICATIVE FUNCTIONS
47. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Family and Children's Services; Seniors; Women's Interests: (1) Will the minister identify each of the tribunals and boards with adjudicative functions under the minister's portfolios? (2) For each tribunal and board - (a) who are the current members; (b) how much remuneration is each member paid; (c) how many matters did it adjudicated on in 1999; (d) how many matters has it adjudicated on in 2000; (e) how long is the waiting list for matters to be adjudicated; (f) does it have any non-adjudicative functions; and (g) if yes to (f), please list these non-adjudicative functions? (3) For each tribunal and board, what was the total budget expenditure for the financial years - (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) estimate for 1999-2000? (4) For each tribunal and board, what are the forward estimates for each of the next three financial years? (5) Do any of these tribunals and boards have the power to hear cases in regional and remote areas? (6) If the answer to (5) is yes - (a) which boards and tribunals have this power; and (b) for each of these boards and tribunals, which towns and areas are they able to visit? (7) If the answer to (5) is no, why not? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: (1)-(7) A full list detailing the membership of government boards and committees was provided in response to question on notice 1927 on 13 June 2000. If the member has a question regarding the adjudicative functions of a particular committee it may be possible to provide a response in the detail that has been requested. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAMS
83. Mr RIEBELING to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Tourism: For all government departments and agencies under the minister's control, will the minister provide the following information - (a) does the department or agency maintain an internal audit program, and if not, why not; (b) is this internal program undertaken by an outside contractor; (c) if yes -
832 [ASSEMBLY]
(i) who is the outside contractor; (ii) on what date were they contracted; (iii) when does the contract expire; (iv) were tenders called for the contract, and if not why not; (v) what is the total value of the contract; (vi) if the contractor charges an hourly rate, what is that rate; and (vii) what was the value of the contract in 1998-99? Mr BRADSHAW replied: Western Australian Tourism (a)-(b) Yes. (c) (i) Ernst and Young (ii) Contracted through Department of Contract and Management Services on 22 May 1997 (iii) Extension option exercised and contract now expires 2002 (iv) Yes (v) $24 000 per annum, with CPI adjustments after the first year (vi) Not applicable (vii) Internal Audit Services for 1998-99 amounted to $24 055. Rottnest Island Authority (a)-(b) Yes. (c) (i) Ernst and Young (ii) 28 April 1999 (iii) 27 April 2002 (iv) Yes (v) Base of $20 900 plus any additional audit work required by the authority (vi) $80-$100 per hour for audits beyond those foreseen at the time of the tender (vii) Nil. MEN’S MEETING PLACE INC, FUNDING
88 Ms ANWYL to the Minister for Family and Children’s Services: (1) What funding has been provided to the Men's Meeting Place Inc? (2) Is it intended to provide these funds on an ongoing basis? (3) Has the minister visited the service? (4) If so, when? (5) Does the minister consider that the service is providing a worthwhile service to the men of the Kwinana district and surrounding areas? (6) Is the minister aware that significant numbers of men are accessing this from elsewhere? (7) Has the minister received applications for funding from any other men's health or crisis service provider? (8) Is any Family and Children's Services funding allocated for services which focus on the needs of men? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: (1) The Health Department of WA has provided $47 800 per annum to the Men's Meeting Place for the past two years. Safer WA has provided $50 000 per annum for the two years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. As well, Family and Children's Services provided MMP non-recurrent funding of $30 000 for the purpose of back payment of staff for services engaged during the 1999-2000 financial year. (2) A condition of the funding from the HDWA was that an evaluation be conducted. Subsequent to the evaluation HDWA has recommended that the service continue to be funded at the present level of $47 800 on an annual renewable basis. Safer WA funds are not ongoing and will cease following the 2000-01 financial
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 833
year. Family and Children's Services funds were non-recurrent. The Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet requested that Family and Children's Services conduct an examination of funding requirements for MMP. This report has recently been finalised and submitted to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. Inclusive in the report are recommendations regarding ongoing funding of the service. The Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet are considering this report. (3) Yes. (4) 9 March 2000. (5) The recent evaluation of MMP undertaken by the Centre for Mental Health research indicated the service provided assistance to men in crisis referred to the service. MMP is developing experience and expertise in responding to men with mental health issues and the range of other service needs. (6) According to the reports provided by MMP to the HDWA approximately 78 per cent of men accessing the service are from the local area, 20 per cent are from the wider metropolitan area and 2 per cent from regional areas. (7) The Mental Health Division of HDWA has not received any other applications from other crisis or health service providers specifically targeting men. Family and Children's Services has received applications for funding from Men's Health and Wellbeing Association Inc and Dad's Landing Pad Incorporated. (8) In response to a recent review of Family and Children's Services family and parent support services for men, the department is developing strategies to ensure family and parent support services are more responsive to the needs of men. Family and Children's Services funds services specific to the needs of men utilising various service delivery strategies including - a men's domestic violence help line; a family support service for men; men's counselling services; and supported accommodation services for single men. Additionally, one-off grants are to be made available to assist funded family support and parenting non- government organisations to improve services to men. The majority of departmental service provision and non-government funded service provision is non-gender specific and accessible to both men and women. Service delivery outlets of Family and Children's Services offer extensive parenting and family support services that are accessible to men, as well as specialised crisis support and help line services. Additionally, Family and Children's Services funds over 270 service providers with services accessible to men in the non- government sector.
POLICE NUMBERS, CANNINGTON, NORTH AND MIDLAND DISTRICTS
136. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Police: (1) What is the current police to population ratio in Western Australia? (2) What is the police to population ratio in the Cannington police district? (3) What is the police to population ratio in the North police district? (4) What is the police to population ratio in the Midland police district? (5) What was the total number of reported crimes in the Cannington police district in each of the following years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; and (c) 1999? (6) What was the total number of reported crimes in the Northam police district in each of the following years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; and (c) 1999? (7) What was the total number of reported crimes in the Midland police district in each of the following years - (a) 1997; (b) 1998; and (c) 1999?
834 [ASSEMBLY]
Mr PRINCE replied: (1) 1:380.511,2 (2) 1:884.281,2 (3) 1:314.451,2 (4) 1:695.121,2 (5) 1996-97 financial year Total recorded offences 42 7233,4,5 1997-98 financial year Total recorded offences 43 7773,4,5 1998-99 financial year Total recorded offences 45 3393,4,5 1999-2000 financial year Total recorded offences 45 5483,4,5 (6) 1996-97 financial year Total recorded offences 4 3053,4,5 1997-98 financial year Total recorded offences 4 4383,4,5 1998-99 financial year Total recorded offences 4 8333,4,5 1999-2000 financial year Total recorded offences 4 8283,4,5 (7) 1996-97 financial year Total recorded offences 16 0193,4,5 1997-98 financial year Total recorded offences 18 2333,4,5 1998-99 financial year Total recorded offences 19 1523,4,5 1999-2000 financial year Total recorded offences 17 2173,4,5 Statistical Notes 1The population figures used to calculate the police to population ratio are based on the latest available figures of Estimated Resident Populations as at 30 June 1999, determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figures are a "best fit" of police boundaries with Census Collection District boundaries, the smallest spatial unit of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification. The populations relate to usual residents and do not reflect populations influenced by fluctuations in the movement of people associated with entertainment, employment, recreation, shopping and tourism. 2Counts of sworn police officers used to calculate the police to population ratio are based on approved average staffing levels as at 31 July 2000. The figures include senior police, police officers, Aboriginal police liaison officers and special constables. Part-time employees are counted as a proportion of a full-time person, therefore the full-time equivalent used in the calculation may include a decimal place. This figure does not include unsworn Police Service personnel. 3The mentioned information is report in financial years. 4Reported offences are selected offences reported to or becoming known to police and resulting in the submission of an offence report in the Offence Information System. Offences against public order, such as disorderly conduct and offences against the Firearms Act, Liquor Licensing Act and a number of other offences against the statute laws of this State and the Commonwealth are not recorded in this system at present. 5The number of reported offences for a period (eg. week, month, quarter, year) comprises all offences reported during that period and will include offences committed during earlier periods. Therefore the reporting of historical offences will inflate the number of reported offences for a period. POWER SUPPLIES, BROOME
140. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Energy: (1) What is the current peak demand of the township of Broome for power? (2) What is the current maximum generating capacity of the Broome powerhouse? (3) At what date does the projected anticipated demand for power of Broome pass the current capacity of the Broome powerhouse? (4) What steps would need to be taken to increase the capacity of the existing local Broome powerhouse to meet the projected demands? (5) What would be the anticipated - (a) cost; and (b) time frame, for upgrading the existing local Broome powerhouse to meet the projected demands? (6) Are there any unresolved occupational health and safety issues that require resolution at the Broome powerhouse?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 835
(7) Has any pressing sound level issue been identified that requires immediate resolution? (8) If yes - (a) who identified this issue and when; (b) what is the current noise level; (c) to what level is it required that this noise be reduced; and (d) inside what time frame is it required that this noise reduction occur? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) 16,290KW was the peak demand of the township of Broome last summer. (2) 16,730kw is considered to be the safe dependable generating capacity of the Broome power station. (3) The capacity of the Broome Power Station will be increased to 18,680 kw to meet the forecast peak demand of 18,340kw for the township of Broome this summer. (4) The increased capacity will be supplied by temporary (hired) generating plant. (5) (a) Cost will be dependent on the options taken and would be competitively sourced at the time. (b) Hire plant can be operational within four (4) weeks and large capacity, stand alone arrangements can be operational with 12 weeks. (6)-(7) No. (8) Not applicable. HEALTH DEPARTMENT, LEGAL CONSULTANT
186. Dr CONSTABLE to the Minister for Health: With reference to question on notice No 636 - (a) who undertook the market research and analysis which led to the decision not to create a permanent public service position for the legal consultant; (b) what other information did that market research yield; (c) how long was the position of legal consultant advertised before applications closed; (d) how many applicants were considered and interviewed for the legal consultant's position; (e) who was on the selection panel which conducted interviews to fill the position of legal consultant; (f) who prepared the contract for the legal consultant's position; (g) was external legal advice sought with respect to the content of the contract; (h) does the contract make provision for the intellectual property in the advice/agreements drafted by the legal consultant to remain with the State of Western Australia; (i) if not, why not; (j) is the legal consultant's contract subject to commercial confidentiality considerations; (k) how long did the legal consultant who eventually filled the position spend working - (i) full-time in private practice; and / or (ii) part-time in private practice; (l) what were the names of the firms in which the legal consultant held a partnership stake; (m) how many agreements has the legal consultant drafted since her 1997 appointment and was how many of those agreements were drafted by her - (i) in part; and / or (ii) in their entirety; (n) were the agreements referred to in (c), and in the Minister's answer to question on notice No. 636 drafted by the legal consultant or by other legally qualified persons; (o) how much money has been paid to the legal consultant for her services since 1 July 1999 in the terms of - (i) base rate fees; and / or (ii) penalty rate fees;
836 [ASSEMBLY]
(p) will this contract be renewed; (q) if the legal consultant in question is no longer retained by HDWA under the original contract, is she providing advice to HDWA through any other organisation; and (r) if yes, what is the name of that organisation and what is the nature of the legal consultant's employment relationship with the HDWA? Mr DAY replied: (a)-(b) The reference to market analysis in the response to question on notice No. 636 was to an internal assessment by the Health Department of Western Australia (HDWA) of the Department's ability to attract a lawyer with the required expertise in commercial law on an employment basis or under a contract for services to satisfy HDWA's anticipated demand for legal advice in this area. (c) An invitation to tender for the Legal Consultant's services was issued by the Government Health Supply Council on 12 May 1997. The closing date for the submission of tenders was 23 May 1997. (d) Two tenders were received and considered. (e) Evaluation of the tenders submitted was by rating against the stated selection criteria. This evaluation was undertaken by consultants engaged by HDWA. The consultants' recommendation as to the preferred tenderer was accepted by HDWA. The tender recommendation was reviewed and approved by the Health Supply Contracts Committee of the Government Health Supply Council as correctly reflecting procurement process in accordance with State Supply Commission policies. (f) The contract was formed by HDWA's acceptance of the tender submitted by the preferred tenderer in response to the publicly released tender document. This tender document was prepared by the Government Health Supply Council with input by HDWA on the specific duties to be performed by the Legal Consultant ("the project brief"). (g) No. HDWA was advised in relation to the preparation of the project brief by consultants. (h)-(i) No. It was not the practice at the time the tender was let to make provision with respect to the protection of intellectual property in contracts of this kind. (j) It is a general condition of contracts awarded by the Government Health Supply Council that contractors agree to the release by the Council of the contractor's name and the contract price. (k) The Legal Consultant was in private legal practice from 1980 to 1995. The proportion of time spent in full- and part-time legal practice is not known. (l) Keall Brinsden (now Corrs Chambers Westgarth). (m)-(n) Quantification is not possible in the absence of a definition of what is meant by the term "agreements". In practice, the Legal Consultant provided advice to all parts of HDWA on documents and correspondence which constituted agreements with third parties. The principal areas of the Legal Consultant's involvement in the negotiation of commercial agreements were detailed in the response to question on notice No. 636. That response indicated that some agreements were negotiated involving other externally provided legal advice. The size and complexity of these agreements is such that it is not practically possible to rely on advice and input by a single legal practitioner. In such cases the Legal Consultant has had an important role in ensuring that the interests of HDWA and those of the State of Western Australia are safeguarded by the provision of timely and appropriate legal advice, whether by herself or other legal practitioners, during the negotiation process. (o) (i) $86,625; (ii) $61,650. (p) HDWA still needs commercial law advice and ways of obtaining such advice are under review. (q) No. (r) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SKEA NELSON AND HAGER
187. Mr KOBELKE to the Minister for Health: For the Health Department of Western Australia in relation to the firm Skea, Nelson and Hager, for the 1997-98 financial year - (a) what was the total of all payments to Skea, Nelson and Hager; (b) what was the specific nature of the work for which these payments were made to Skea Nelson and Hager; and
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 837
(c) how was this work awarded to Skea, Nelson and Hager? Mr DAY replied: (a) $476 050 41. (b) Legal advice on Expression of Interest/ Request for Proposal ( EOI/RFP ) process for proposed privatisation of Armadale Health Service. (c) The Health Department of Western Australia did not appoint Skea Nelson and Hager for legal advice on EOI/RFP process for proposed privatisation of Armadale Health Service but received certified copies of invoices from Treasury, which it processed for payment. FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES, EMERGENCY RELIEF IN KALGOORLIE
217. Ms ANWYL to the Minister for Family and Children’s Services: (1) How many applications for emergency relief or other immediate assistance are received by Kalgoorlie Family and Children's Services for each financial year from 1996 to date? (2) What trends are being experienced? (3) What funding is provided to outside agencies for emergency relief? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: As at 15 August 2000 (1) 1995/1996 829 1996/1997 784 1997/1998 854 1998/1999 1184 1999/2000 801 July 2000 40 (2) Numbers of applications have remained essentially constant except for a significant rise in 1998/99. (3) Emergency relief funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. They provide $52,970 to these agencies in Kalgoorlie. Financial Advocacy & Relief Agency $37,350 Bega Garnbirrinu Health Service Aboriginal Corporation $12,500 St Vincent de Paul $ 3,120
FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES, CHEETHAM STREET OFFICE
219. Ms ANWYL to the Minister for Family and Children’s Services: (1) How many workers are employed in the Cheetham Street office of Family and Children's Services and what are their duties, public service level and designated titles? (2) What effect did the restructure have on these positions, and specifically will the minister describe any change to the number of staff or the nature of the duties? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: As at 15 August 2000 (1) Approximately 30 staff are normally based in this office. However, resources, including staff, are allocated to a zone rather than a specific location. This enables Managers to apply resources flexibly to meet changing needs. Title Level Duties Zone Manager 7 Manages business outputs of the Zone Senior Case Work Supervisor 6 Case work quality assurance Psychologist 5 Psychological services Team Leader (3) 5 Manages team outputs Community Development and Funding Officer 5 Non government services Children's Services Officer 5 Supports and advises children's services Under 10s Coordinator 5 Runs Under 10s program Senior Social Worker 5 Child protection services Senior Officer Aboriginal Services 5 Advises Zone Manager on Aboriginal services PIC Coordinator 4 Runs Parenting Information Centre
838 [ASSEMBLY]
Best Start Coordinator 2/4 Runs Best Start Program Early Education Officer 2/4 Education services Service Delivery Officer (7) 2/4 Generic welfare services Administrative Assistant 2 Administration duties Aboriginal Resource Officer 2 Supports case workers Financial Assistance Officer 2 Assesses and provides financial assistance Resource Worker 1 Runs migrant women's group Youth Project Officer 1 Supports youth Best Start Activity Leader 1 Delivers Best Start program Customer Service Officer (3) 1 Reception and information duties (2) There has been an increase in FTE in the Goldfields since the restructure, with an increased focus on preventive services.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, INCREASE
231. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Energy: (1) Is the minister aware that under the conditions of the Kyoto agreement Australia has a commitment to limit the increase in greenhouse gas emissions to 8 per cent in the period 1990 to 2010? (2) Is the minister aware that the document "Energy Western Australia" published by the Office of Energy in April 1998 - page 65 - projects that carbon dioxide emissions from primary energy demands will increase from approximately 35 million tonnes in 1990 to approximately 70 million tonnes in 2010, an estimated 100 per cent increase? (3) Have these projected figures for carbon dioxide emissions been revised since the publication of the document in April 1998? (4) If so, what are the new projected figures? (5) Has the Government put in place strategies to respond to the greenhouse gas targets of the Kyoto agreement? (6) If so, what are they and what do they aim to achieve? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3) The most recent projected figures for Carbon Dioxide Emissions were published by the Office of Energy in the document "Energy Western Australia" in August 1999. (4) The document "Energy Western Australia" published in August 1999 projected that Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Primary Energy Use will increase from an estimated 33 million tonnes in 1990 to approximately 70 million tonnes in 2010, an estimated 110% increase. (5)-(6) Greenhouse Gas abatement will require action across a range of portfolios, not just energy. Government responsibility for Greenhouse Gas abatement policy and strategies lies with the Minister for the Environment.
WESTERN POWER, HEALTHCARE CARDS
234. Mr RIPPER to the Minister for Energy: Why is it necessary for Western Power Corporation to sight Health Care cards before extending concessions when the facility for cross-referencing computer information with Centrelink is currently available? Mr BARNETT replied: All customers are required to provide evidence of rebate entitlement to Western Power when they first apply for the State Government Energy Rebate. It is the customer's responsibility to demonstrate their initial entitlement. The validation with Centrelink checks the existing information held by Western Power. If Centrelink advise the continuing eligibility of a customer, the rebate is maintained without the need to contact the customer. If Centrelink advise a customer is no longer eligible, Western Power requests a copy of their card in order to allow the customer the opportunity to demonstrate ongoing eligibility. For this reason, Western Power's requests are a service to customers.
RURAL PAEDIATRIC UNIT, KALGOORLIE-BOULDER
239. Ms ANWYL to the Minister for Health: (1) What funding will be provided for the rural paediatric unit at Kalgoorlie-Boulder for each of the next four financial years?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 839
(2) What changes if any are proposed to this facility? Mr DAY replied: I am advised by the Northern Goldfields Health Service that - (1) The Rural Paediatric Unit will receive, in 2000/01, $48 401.77. It is funded by the Health Department of Western Australia through the Department of Paediatrics, University of Western Australia. Funding beyond this will be considered pending the outcome of a review agreed between the Health Department and Department of Paediatrics, University of Western Australia. (2) Changes, if any, to the facility will be considered once the Review has been completed. GRAYLANDS HOSPITAL, ADMISSIONS FROM KALGOORLIE-BOULDER
244. Ms ANWYL to the Minister for Health: How many admissions are received at the Graylands Hospital from the postcode areas for Kalgoorlie-Boulder 6430 and 6432 for each financial year from 1992-3 to date? Mr DAY replied: Number of admissions for residents of Kalgoorlie-Boulder region to Graylands Hospital by financial year from 1992-93 to 1999-2000 - 1992/1993 18 1993/1994 21 1994/1995 13 1995/1996 34 1996/1997 37 1997/1998 37 1998/1999 41 1999/2000 48
ALINTAGAS SALE, STAFF ARRANGEMENTS
255. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Energy: (1) Is it the Government's intention to sell AlintaGas? (2) If so, has the Government given any consideration to the future of AlintaGas staff? (3) Is it the Government's intention to require any purchaser to employ all AlintaGas staff? (4) If so, what is the arrangement? (5) If not, why not? (6) Is it the Government's intention to offer AlintaGas staff redundancy pay or a termination payment of some description? (7) If so, what is that redundancy or termination payment? (8) Will AlintaGas staff be treated the same or will there be different conditions that apply to office staff, executive staff, administration staff and outside work force staff? (9) If so, what different conditions will apply to what staff? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(2) Yes. (3)-(4) An agreement for transitional arrangements was struck between AlintaGas and the ASU and the CEPU on 5 May 2000 and then endorsed by the employee union membership on 7 June 2000. All employees were offered employment with either AlintaGas Limited or AlintaGas Networks Pty Ltd. As at 14 August 2000 99% of employees have accepted employment. Of the remaining employees two have sought redeployment and one employee is yet to confirm his choice. All offers of employment were made on the same terms and conditions that employees currently enjoy with the addition of the transitional arrangements. The transitional arrangements covered superannuation, pay increases, a transitional payment of up to $15 000, preservation of long service and annual leave, recognition of sick leave balances and $1 000 worth of shares in AlintaGas Limited when floated. (5) Not applicable.
840 [ASSEMBLY]
(6) Redundancy was not offered as part of the transfer process. AlintaGas has had several organisational reviews and at the time of transfer, was considered to be appropriately structured to meet the challenges of the deregulated gas industry. (7) Not applicable. (8) As indicated in item 3 all employees were treated the same with respect to their employment conditions. AlintaGas did not make any changes to the employment demographics as part of the transfer process. (9) Not applicable. HOSPITALS, NEEDLE EXCHANGE POLICY
256. Mr PENDAL to the Minister for Health: I refer to the policy of needle exchange which takes place at all public hospitals, including those in country areas, and ask - (a) is it correct that the policy requires nursing and/or hospital staff to hand out a clean needle to drug users, but only in exchange for used needles; (b) is the minister aware that in some hospitals nurses are now expected, in direct contravention of the stated policy, to hand out clean needles, without used needles being handed in; (c) will the minister institute inquiries on the extent to which the needle exchange process is being circumvented and take action to return to adherence of the stated policy; (d) if not, why not; (e) is the minister also aware of the philosophical objection many nurses have towards handing out free needles to drug addicts; and (f) if so, what options are available for nurses placed in this unfair predicament? Mr DAY replied: (a) No. (b)-(d) Not applicable. (e) Yes. (f) Nursing staff may be called upon to undertake some duties in their work that challenge their personal beliefs. In the interests of public health, access to sterile needles and syringes is crucial to preventing the transmission of blood borne viruses, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Minimising the risk of transmission of blood borne viruses is a corporate priority of HDWA, and employees are required to participate in delivering services which contribute to this objective. PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL, DEATH OF ALEXANDER LEAHY
261. Mr McGINTY to the Minister for Health: (1) Is the minister aware of the circumstances surrounding the death of Alexander Leahy at Princess Margaret Hospital on 7 January 1995? (2) Is the minister aware of Ms Cecile Leahy's concern that this was a preventable death, which was inappropriately handled by the hospital? (3) What has the minister done to ensure that this matter is properly investigated and resolved with Ms Leahy? Mr DAY replied: (1) Alexander Leahy was nearly two years of age when he was admitted to PMH on 6/1/95. His condition deteriorated and he died on 7/1/95 of Meningococcal septicaemia. Meningococcal septicaemia is a relatively rare disease which, in the early stages, can be indistinguishable from a viral infection. Septicaemia (infection in the blood) has a worse outcome than meningitis (infection in the fluid around the brain). There are many documented cases where the condition becomes fatal within a few hours of the patient becoming unwell. There is no single laboratory test, nor a method of clinical examination which can rapidly and reliably distinguish children who are about to become dangerously ill, from those with mild or moderate illness. (2) There is no evidence that Alexander Leahy's death was preventable. (3) The hospital sought independent expert medical opinion about this matter and no evidence was found that Alexander Leahy's death was preventable. Due to Ms Leahy's concerns, the hospital sought different independent expert medical opinion. Both these opinions showed that Alexander Leahy's death was not preventable. Ms Leahy has met with Mr Michael Moodie, the Chief Executive of PMH on a number of
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 841
occasions and also the hospital's Director of Clinical Services. Mr Moodie has encouraged Ms Leahy to approach the independent Office of Health Review. The Director of the Office of Health Review is currently investigating the matter. JOONDALUP HEALTH CAMPUS, CHEMOTHERAPY SERVICES
262. Ms McHALE to the Minister for Health: I refer to chemotherapy services offered to public outpatients at Joondalup Health Campus and ask - (a) how many public patients have been treated as public outpatients at Joondalup Health Campus during 1998-99; and (b) were these patients receiving - (i) intravenous chemotherapy; (ii) if so, how many; (iii) oral chemotherapy; and (iv) if so, how many? Mr DAY replied: (a) 403. (b) Although patient treatment information is available in individual patient records, there is no consolidated report, which can provide this detailed level of information at short notice. FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICY OFFICE
267. Ms ANWYL to the Minister for Family and Children’s Services: I refer to the Family and Children's Policy Office and ask - (a) how will the office promote the development and implementation of policies which support and strengthen family life; (b) how will the office promote the interests of families and children with other government and non-government agencies throughout the community; (c) which government and non-government agencies are involved; (d) how will the office facilitate whole of government initiatives which positively impact on families with children; and (e) which initiatives are being developed at the present time? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: (a) By the development and implementation of the Five Year Plan for Families and Children and the FamilyOne Business Strategy. (b) By involving other government and non-government agencies in the development of the Five Year Plan and the Business Strategy. (c) Forty four State government agencies were invited to send a representative to a briefing session on the Five Year Plan - see below - the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services (other Commonwealth agencies will be approached as required); the Western Australian Municipal Association; non- government agencies are being involved largely through peak organisations such as the Western Australian Council of Social Services. (d) The development of a whole-of-government strategy will be part of the Five Year Plan. (e) The Five Year Plan for Families and Children and the FamilyOne Business Strategy. List of Agencies: Aboriginal Affairs Department Agriculture Western Australia Contract and Management Services Curriculum Council Dairy Industry Authority of WA Department of Commerce and Trade Department of Conservation and Land Management Department of Land Administration
842 [ASSEMBLY]
Department of Local Government Department of Minerals and Energy Department of Productivity and Labour Relations Department of Transport Disability Services Commission East Perth Redevelopment Authority Education Department of Western Australia Education Services Fire and Emergency Services Department Health Department of Western Australia Kings Park Board Lotteries Commission Main Roads Western Australia Ministry for Culture and the Arts Ministry of Fair Trading Ministry of Housing Ministry of Justice Ministry for Planning Ministry of Sport and Recreation Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet Office of Citizenship and Multicultural Interests Office of Racing, Gaming and Liquor Office of the Commissioner of Workplace Agreements Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner Office of Youth Affairs Police Service Rottnest Island Authority Small Business Development Corporation Subiaco Redevelopment Authority Western Australia Department of Training Western Australian Drug Abuse Strategy Office Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation Western Australian Tourism Commission Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Commission (WorkCover WA) WorkSafe Western Australia Zoological Gardens Board OMEX SITE, AIR MONITORING
270. Ms McHALE to the Minister for Health: (1) Has the Health Department of Western Australia been asked to report to the Omex Community Intermediary Committee on the exceedences of air monitoring acting levels during the excavation of the Omex site? (2) If yes, when was this request made? (3) Did the HDWA present their report to this committee? (4) Did the HDWA receive the raw monitoring data on the same day it was recorded or the very next day? (5) If not, when did the HDWA receive this data? (6) Has information been provided to the Community Intermediary Committee on the health impacts of the exceedences of action levels monitored during the excavation of the Omex site? (7) If not, why not? (8) What action has the HDWA taken to protect the health of residents living close to the Omex site with respect to the exceedences of action levels for sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds? (9) If no action has been taken why is this the preferred option? Mr DAY replied: (1) Yes. (2) At the Omex Community Intermediary Committee meeting held 18 May 2000. (3) A verbal report was provided to the Committee.
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 843
(4) Not initially, but from 16 May 2000, yes. (5) HDWA received verbal reports prior to 13 May 2000. A report containing data excerpts was received on 13 May 2000. From 16 May 2000 the HDWA received data as it became available. (6) Yes. Information has been provided on the likely health effects of sulphur dioxide. (7) Not applicable. (8) In response to exceedences, inspection of the site was undertaken and requests were made that work practices be changed to minimise or reduce exceedences. The Health Department was available to provide advice to any of the residents who requested it throughout the remediation process. (9) Not applicable. HOME BURGLARIES, SECURING OF PREMISES IN ABSENCE OF OWNER
275. Mr PENDAL to the Minister for Police: (1) What is the police protocol for securing a burglarised home when a report has been made to the police while the property owner is not at home? (2) Once police officers have investigated the scene without the property owner's presence, how is the burglar's point of entry secured? (3) Do the police maintain a presence at the burglarised home until the property owner/s return? (4) If not, what efforts are made to secure the house before police leave the scene of the crime? Mr PRINCE replied: (1) Police officers who attend home burglaries where no owner or key holder can be found are required to secure the premises in accordance with the Commissioners Orders and Procedures. Every effort is made to identify a relative or friend of the owner in order to ensure the integrity of the unsecured premises. (2) Burglarised premises are made secure through contact with the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) who offer police a 'board up' service on a needs basis. Police Officers make arrangements for this service through police communications. (3) Under normal circumstances police officers maintain a presence at the burglarised premises until such time as they are made secure. Police officers have a duty to ensure the integrity of unsecured premises, however in some instances, police maybe called away from the location in order to attend an urgent or higher priority task. Once secure, police would not maintain a further presence at the premises, however calling cards would be left advising the owners to make contact with police upon their return. (4) This question has been answered by the preceding paragraphs. POLICE, RATIO OF OFFICERS TO POPULATION AND OFFENCES
290. Dr CONSTABLE to the Minister for Police: (1) What is the current ratio of police officers to members of the Western Australian population? (2) How does the ratio compare with the police officer to population ratio of other States and Territories? (3) What is the ratio of police officers to offences in Western Australia? (4) How does this ratio compare with the ratio of police officers to offences in other States and Territories? Mr PRINCE replied: (1) 1:386.71,2 (2) The following are the most recent official national police to population ratios as published in the Report on Government Services 20003 New South Wales 1:476 Victoria 1:488 Queensland 1:495 South Australia 1:431 Tasmania 1:441 Northern Territory 1:217 Western Australia 1:381 Australian Capital Territory 1:465 The ratios are based on 1998-99 data.
844 [ASSEMBLY]
(3) The Western Australia Police Service records offence related information in two data systems, the: (i) Personal Apprehension Information System. Essentially, this System contains information about offenders; and (ii) Offence Information System (OIS). This System contains reported and detected offences against the person and property offences. It is from this System that this State's crime statistics are extracted. Offences against public order, such as disorderly conduct, and regulatory type offences, such as offences provided by the Firearms Act, Liquor Licensing Act, Road Traffic Act, and a number of other offences against the statute laws of this State and the Commonwealth are not recorded in the OIS. To determine the total number of discrete offences would require extensive interrogation of the above Systems, and the extrapolation and validation of the data. Providing a response to the Member's question would require the allocation of considerable police resources and time. Accordingly, I am unwilling to commit agency resources to this task. (4) This information is not published at a National level. Statistical Notes 1The population figures used to calculate the police to population ratio are based on the latest available figures of Estimated Resident Populations as at 30 June, 1999, determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figures are a "best fit" of police boundaries with Census Collection District boundaries, the smallest spatial unit of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification. The populations relate to usual residents and do not reflect populations influenced by fluctuations in the movement of people associated with entertainment, employment, recreation, shopping and tourism. 2Counts of sworn police officers used to calculate the police to population ratio are based on approved average staffing levels (AASL) as at 31 July, 2000. The figures include senior police, police officers, Aboriginal Police Liaison Officers and special constables. Part-time employees are counted as a proportion of a full-time person, therefore the full-time equivalent used in the calculation may include a decimal place. This figure does not include unsworn Police Service personnel. 3Report on Government Services, Vol. 2., Part D Justice, Chapter 7 Police Services, Table 7A.13 Police Staff, by sworn/unsworn status (staff members per 100,000 population), p. 596. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY AND THE PERSON
291. Dr CONSTABLE to the Minister for Police: (1) What was the total number of crimes against property and crimes against the person committed in 1998-99? (2) What percentage of these offences were committed by perpetrators with pre-existing criminal records? Mr PRINCE replied: (1) As provided in the Western Australia Police Service 1998-1999 Annual Report to Parliament: Total offences against property - 209,5341,2 Total offences against the person - 21,3791,3 (2) To determine the number of 'perpetrators with pre-existing criminal records' would require the allocation of considerable police resources and time to extrapolate and validate the information from records associated with the above processes. Due to the resources and time needed to provide a response, I am unwilling to commit the resources required. Statistical Notes 1The number of reported offences for a period (eg. week, month, quarter, year) comprises all offences reported during that period and may include offences committed during earlier periods. Therefore the reporting of historical offences will inflate the number of reported offences for a period. 2'Offences against property' include: burglary, stealing, motor vehicle theft, fraud, arson and damage offences. 3'Offences against the person' include: homicide, driving causing death, robbery, assault, sexual assault and deprivation of liberty. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, APPEALS TO THE WA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
304. Mrs ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: (1) How many employees of Education Department Western Australia (EDWA) have had to go to the Industrial Relations Commission after decisions made by the Employee Relations Branch of EDWA in the last 5 years? (2) Who is responsible for the outcomes and penalties imposed in any EDWA inquiries?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 845
(3) How many decisions have been overturned by the Industrial Relations Commission in this time? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) The Education Department did not maintain a database of disciplinary matters until June 1998. Since then, nine employees have appealed to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission against disciplinary action cases managed by the Employee Relations Directorate. (2) The Director-General is responsible for the outcome and imposing of penalties in accordance with the Education Act 1928 or the Public Sector Management Act 1994. (3) Since June 1998, the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission has not overturned six disciplinary penalties cases managed by the Employee Relations Directorate. The remaining three cases are currently awaiting hearing and determination by the Commission. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVES, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES
305. Mrs ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: (1) Who is the Director of Employee Relations of EDWA? (2) What have been his previous appointments with any Government Departments or Agencies? (3) Who is the Executive Director of Human Resources of EDWA? (4) What have been his previous appointments before working for EDWA? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) Mr Danny Cloghan is currently Director of Employee Relations at the Education Department of Western Australia. (2) Prior to commencing with the Education Department in 1998, Mr Cloghan was Director of Human Resources with the W.A. Department of Training. Prior to that he held senior management positions with the Department of Productivity and Labour Relations and a Minister of the Crown. (3) Mr Stephen Home is currently Executive Director, Human Resources Division at the Education Department of Western Australia. (4) Prior to 1997, Mr Stephen Home held a range of positions including Acting Chief Executive Officer of both the Fisheries Department and the Department of Productivity and Labour Relations, as well as other senior positions with the Department of Productivity and Labour Relations.
PADBURY PRIMARY SCHOOL, NEWLY APPOINTED TEACHERS
306. Mrs ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: (1) Did any newly appointed teachers commence at Padbury Primary School in 1998? (2) If any, to what year levels were they assigned? (3) Did South Padbury Primary School have any newly appointed teachers commence in 1998 to a junior primary year level? (4) If any, what fraction of teaching appointment time was this? (5) Who was the Manager of the Staffing Directorate at the beginning of 1995? (6) Who was the Manager of the Primary Staffing Section and who was the Manager of the Secondary Staffing Section? (7) Who was the overall Director of Staffing? (8) Who was on the selection panel for choosing the Freedom of Information coordinator for EDWA in 1999? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) Eight newly appointed teachers commenced at Padbury Primary School in 1998. (2) Two teachers transferred into the school on a permanent basis: - 1 FTE - Pre-Primary - 0.4 FTE -Year 1/2 from 9/02/1998 onwards Six teachers were appointed to the school throughout 1998 on a temporary basis: - 1 FTE for one semester in a middle primary class - replacement for a teacher appointed to the Abrolhos Islands
846 [ASSEMBLY]
- 1 FTE for a term in a middle primary class - 1 FTE for a term in an upper primary class - 1 FTE for a term in a Year 1/2 class - long service leave vacancy - 1 FTE for a term in a Year 1 class - long service leave vacancy - 1 FTE for a term in an upper primary class - long service leave vacancy (3) In 1998, one teacher was appointed to a junior primary year level. (4) One FTE for one semester. (5)-(6) In 1995, the Staffing Directorate comprised two separate branches. In 1995 the Manager of Primary and Specialist Staffing was Ms Beverly Dornan and the Manager of Secondary Staffing & Promotions was Ms Carolyn Brasnett. (7) There was no overall Director of Staffing. In 1995, the Director of Primary and Specialist Staffing was Mr Peter Denton and the Director of Secondary Staffing and Promotions was Mr Garry Fischer. (8) The selection panel for choosing the Freedom of Information Coordinator for the Education Department in 1999 consisted of the following members: - Ms Pamela Moss (Chairperson) - Mr Michael Reay - Ms Janet Rodgers
TEACHERS, LITERACY AND NUMERACY TESTS
307. Mrs ROBERTS to the Minister for Education: (1) Has it been brought to your attention via a report originally addressed to the State Ombudsman and then forwarded on to yourself, that there are instances where a principal has discriminated against a teacher for not belonging to the State School Teachers Union and made them do all the Year 3 Literacy Testing in their school? (2) If so, what has been done to ensure that the State Literacy and Numeracy Tests are not being used to harass some teachers? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) I have no knowledge of this report. (2) Not applicable.
GRAYLANDS INTENSIVE LANGUAGE CENTRE, RELOCATION
311. Mr CARPENTER to the Minister for Education: (1) What is the rationale for the possible re-location of the Graylands Intensive Language Centre to either Bentley Primary School or Ellenswood Primary School? (2) How would this possible re-location of the Graylands Intensive Language centre to one of these schools improve language teaching services for newly arrived migrant children? (3) When will the re-location of the Swanbourne Post-compulsory Intensive Language Centre to Perth Modern School take place? (4) Will the facilities at Perth Modern School be of the same quality, for both staff and pupils, as it is at present at Swanbourne High School? (5) What resources, such as computers and other teaching resources, will be transferred to Perth Modern School so that the pupils transferred will receive the same quality teaching? (6) What type of buildings will the re-located pupils from Swanbourne Intensive Language Centre occupy at Perth Modern School? (7) Will the same facilities that are available to teaching staff at the Swanbourne Intensive Language Centre be available at Perth Modern School? (8) Will the Minister confirm how many students will be transferred to Perth Modern School as a result of the closure of the Swanbourne High School? (9) Is any new funding provided to Perth Modern School for the development of a ballet program? (10) Is there a proposal being considered to transfer the students requiring Intensive Language Programmes from Swanbourne to Balga Senior High School?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 847
(11) Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Federal per capita grants made available, at the State level, to teach English as a Second Language to newly arrived migrant children, are transferred to the school or education system when these children re-locate at another school or within another system within the 12 months qualifying period? Mr BARNETT replied: (1) The location of Intensive Language Centres (ILC) is based on the principles of access, equity and the efficient and effective use of resources. ILC locations have been and are contingent on new-arrival student demographics; location and provision of Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) on- arrival accommodation; and the suitability of host schools. The past fifteen years have seen major changes in the settlement patterns of newly arrived ESL students. These changes have been due to: · the closure of the DIMA on-arrival accommodation at Graylands, Osborne Park and Mosman Park; · the proposed closure of remaining DIMA flats at Balga in September 2000; and · the impact of the family reunion program and more affordable housing in outer metropolitan suburbs. This has resulted in a greater spread of students across the metropolitan area, prompting the Education Department to review its program provision. The Local Area Education Planning (LAEP) process for primary ILCs is intended to enhance the overall provision for primary intensive language services by ensuring equitable access and effective use of resources. Options for community wide consultation have been developed by the LAEP Drafting Committee. Although Bentley and Ellenswood Primary Schools were discussed as possible new sites for an ILC, no specific school has been identified, and no decision made to relocate the ILC. (2) The aim of any possible relocation of the Centre would be to locate it closer to the homes of the students, reducing the travel undertaken by the students and the cost of transporting them. However, no decision on relocation has yet been made. (3) The movement of Swanbourne ILC to the Perth Modern School site will be completed by the end of 2000 in line with the closure of Swanbourne Senior High School. The re-located post compulsory centre will be ready for the start of the 2001 school year. (4) Facilities for both students and staff at Perth Modern School will be comparable to those at the Swanbourne site. Both classroom space and staff office accommodation were negotiated and agreed upon by Swanbourne ILC, Perth Modern ILC and Education Department LAEP personnel at the end of 1999. (5) Swanbourne ILC teaching resources such as books, stationery and equipment will be transferred to the Perth Modern School site. An agreement between the two school librarians has been reached to ensure all ILC/ESL books held in the general Swanbourne Senior High School collection will be transferred to Perth Modern School. The current Principal at Perth Modern School is presently negotiating with Swanbourne ILC personnel to establish information technology needs so that comparable computer access for ILC students is provided. (6) Swanbourne ILC students will be fully integrated into the existing mainstream school classrooms/buildings. An additional transportable building will be provided for use as a home economics classroom. (7) Yes. Throughout 1999 comprehensive negotiations between Education Department personnel, Perth Modern ILC and Swanbourne ILC Deputy Principals and staff were undertaken. As a result of this consultative process comparable facilities for teachers moving from Swanbourne ILC were identified and agreed upon by all key interest groups. (8) The dynamic nature of newly arrived migrant settlement patterns makes it difficult to establish actual student numbers. It is anticipated that in the vicinity of 100 ILC students will be transferred to the Perth Modern School site. A further 100 mainstream ESL students may enrol for the start of 2001. Students are currently completing enrolment forms for 2001 and more accurate student enrolment numbers will be available at the end of Term 3. (9) There is no new funding. Under the terms of the 1999 contract, following the competitive tendering process, the costs of the delivery and development of the program are to be met by the successful tenderer. At the end of 1998, $800 000 was allocated to complete two ballet studios and to support the transfer of the ILC. The work on the studios has been completed. (10) No. (11) The Commonwealth Government determines the mechanism for the allocation of the per capita grant for newly arrived ILC students. If any changes to these procedures were to be made, it would have to be in consultation with other States and Territories through negotiation with the Commonwealth. The Federal Government would need to be approached in regard to this matter.
848 [ASSEMBLY]
PLANNING, STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE
340. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Planning: (1) Has the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee of the Western Australian Planning Commission identified strategic infrastructure, which is necessary for the social and economic development of the State? (2) Has the Committee given any priority to the provision of that infrastructure? (3) What are the top twelve projects the Committee has recommended, that do not have a funding allocation in the 2000/2001 State Budget? (4) What study or studies has the Committee or the Western Australian Planning Commission released on infrastructure needs in the last twelve months? (5) What study or studies commissioned by the Committee or the Western Australian Planning Commission have been completed but not yet released? (6) What studies does the Committee or the Western Australian Planning Commission expect to be complete in the next six months? (7) What study or studies have been commissioned by the Committee and/or the Western Australian Planning Commission since 1 July 1999? Mr KIERATH replied: (1)-(7) The Infrastructure Coordinating Committee was established under the Western Australian Planning Commission Act 1995. It has a wide ranging role in the coordination of infrastructure across the State. The Committee has prepared development programs for the Perth Metropolitan area and major regional towns and has considered a wide range of reports on industrial land, regional mineral province studies and specific infrastructure such as schools, water supply and sewerage. The Committee works closely with all major Government infrastructure suppliers and local government authorities. Given the nature and extent of your questions, I will arrange for you to be briefed by a senior officer of the Ministry for Planning and a representative of the Western Australian Planning Commission. HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WA, FUNDING FOR REGIONAL ADVISER POSITIONS
349. Mr McGOWAN to the Minister for Heritage: (1) Is the Minister aware that funding for the Heritage Council of WA Regional Adviser positions was reduced so that a service of 52 hours a month prior to 31 December 1999 has been cut to only 16 hours this year? (2) Have any further funding cuts taken place since 31 December 1999? (3) Are any further funding cuts foreshadowed? (4) Does the Minister recognise that these funding cuts place an unreasonable burden on volunteers and could result in valuable heritage being lost? (5) Will the Minister be allocating additional funding to compensate for the reductions last year? Mr KIERATH replied: (1) I am aware that the service referred to operated at 32 hours per month prior to 31 December 1999 in three of seven regions supported by the Heritage Council. Since that date it has operated at 16 hours per month in all regions. (2) No. (3) The funding will be reviewed as part of the budget process for the next financial year. I am aware that the Heritage Council is seeking additional funding to increase the available hours. (4) I am more than aware of the difficulties confronting people in regional areas who are involved in managing State and local heritage assets. As Minister, I am concerned by the reduction in hours and I am satisfied that the Heritage Council is making every endeavour to overcome this difficulty. (5) The funding will be reviewed as part of the budget process for the next financial year. CRIME RATES, MR LAWSON’S CLAIMS
351. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Police: (1) Is the Minister aware of an e-mail from a Thomas A Lawson to all members of Parliament dated 15 July 2000 concerning comments made by the Police Commissioner?
[Wednesday, 6 September 2000] 849
(2) Is Mr Lawson correct when he claims that the Western Australian rate for crimes against the person is thirty one per cent higher than the average of the Eastern States? (3) If not, what is the percentage? (4) Is Mr Lawson correct when he claims that Western Australia property crime is fifty percent higher than the average of the Eastern States? (5) If not, what is the percentage? (6) Is Mr Lawson correct when he claims the combined crime rate is forty seven percent higher than the Eastern States? (7) If not, what is the percentage? Mr PRINCE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) Yes. Mr Lawson appears to have used the Report on Government Services 2000, produced annually by the Productivity Commission, as a source of rates for crimes against the person and property crimes. The Report sources its crime rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) publication Recorded Crime Australia, 1998. However, the ABS has subsequently released Recorded Crime Australia 1999. Based on the more recent 1999 data, the Western Australian rate for crimes against the person is now only eight per cent higher than the average rate for the Eastern States (including the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory) in comparison to the thirty one per cent. (4)-(5) Yes. However, again more recent data from the publication Recorded Crime Australia 1999, shows that the Western Australian rate for property crimes is now thirty four per cent higher than the average rate for the Eastern States (including the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory) in comparison to fifty per cent. (6)-(7) Yes. However, again more recent data from the publication Recorded Crime Australia 1999, shows that the difference in the combined crime rate between Western Australia and the Eastern States average has reduced from four seven per cent to thirty one per cent.
SAFFRON, MR ABE
369. Ms WARNOCK to the Minister for Planning: (1) Has the minister ever met or had discussions with property developer Abe Saffron, owner of the Raffles Hotel? (2) If so, where and under what circumstances? Mr KIERATH replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SALMAT CONTRACTS
464. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Family and Children’s Services; Seniors; Women's Interests: (1) What departments and agencies under the minister's control have a contract with printing and mailing company Salmat? (2) What is the nature of each contract? (3) When was each contract entered into? (4) What is the cost/value of each contract? (5) When does each contract expire? (6) What matters were taken into account in awarding the contract? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: (1) None. (2)-(6) Not applicable.
850 [ASSEMBLY]
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SALMAT CONTRACTS
470. Mr BROWN to the parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Sport and Recreation: (1) What departments and agencies under the minister's control have a contract with printing and mailing company Salmat? (2) What is the nature of each contract? (3) When was each contract entered into? (4) What is the cost/value of each contract? (5) When does each contract expire? (6) What matters were taken into account in awarding the contract? Mr MARSHALL replied: (1) Nil. (2)-(6) Not applicable. UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, UNDERWOOD AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT
478. Dr EDWARDS to the Minister for Planning: (1) What advice has the Ministry for Planning provided to the University of Western Australia with respect to the proposed Underwood Avenue redevelopment? (2) Will the Minister table this Advice? (3) If not, why not? Mr KIERATH replied: (1) In recognition of the current Urban zoning in the Metropolitan Region Scheme for this site, a negotiated outcome (which involves a compromise between conservation and development) has been proposed by the University. At officer level, the Ministry for Planning has indicated that the proposal is generally acceptable on Bushplan grounds as expected for the site under Perth's Bushplan. However, there are other outstanding planning and environmental issues which need to be addressed. (2) I table a letter to Chappell and Lambert from David Nunn, A/Executive Office, Ministry for Planning dated 20 October 1999. [See paper No 182.] (3) Not applicable. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ASSETS SALES OVER $500 000
504. Dr GALLOP to the Minister for Family and Children’s Services; Seniors; Women's Interests: Will the Minister provide the following details for all Government owned assets sold since January 1997 which had a sale value of $500,000 or more - (a) name and nature of the asset; (b) date sold; (c) nature of sale and name of buyer; (d) proceeds received from the asset; (e) associated revenue from the sale, such as stamp duty; (f) the application of the funds received; and (g) any associated costs incurred in the sale process? Mrs van de KLASHORST replied: (a) Property - 39 Lawley Cres. MT LAWLEY (b) 28th June 1997 (c) Sold by public auction to Perth Girls School (d) $610,000 (e) Not applicable. (f) Capital Works (Adolescent Child Support Centre) (g) Marketing and selling $10,675
______