Legislative Council
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.00 pm, and read prayers. NEW STANDING ORDERS — CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL MATTERS Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Welcome back to the first sitting day of 2012 and to the first day of operation of the new standing orders adopted by the house on 1 December 2011. Pursuant to that resolution and the commencement of those new standing orders, I take this opportunity to advise members of a number of consequential and transitional matters arising from this change. Members will note that the new standing orders folders have been distributed in the chamber. The new folders include the revised order of business schedule for the house, the 2012 sitting schedule, the draft non-government business and private members‘ business schedules for 2012, an updated form of words guide that contains the wording of some common motions and questions used by members in the house, and the final copy of the new standing orders. Further to the new standing orders folders, members will also find a copy of procedural note 5 on their desks, which outlines the key changes under the new standing orders. On 29 September 2011, the Deputy Leader of the House tabled the Council‘s sitting schedule for 2012—tabled paper 3927. The details of that schedule are printed on the back of the first page of material contained in members‘ new standing orders folders. New standing order 6 provides that an annual sitting schedule be tabled in the Council, with subsequent variations to that schedule being provided for in part (2) of that standing order. I advise members that I consider the schedule tabled by the Deputy Leader of the House in September last year to be the sitting schedule required under new standing order 6. There are two motions on the notice paper seeking to establish select committees. These are motions 7 and 16, in the names of Hon Alison Xamon and Hon Wendy Duncan respectively. The terms of those notices of motion, as originally given by the members, included a quorum provision and a section that specified that the committees, if established by the house, would operate under the standing orders then applicable to standing committees. The commencement of the new standing orders renders these provisions redundant and, hence, following consultation with the two members, I have directed that the notices of motion be amended to exclude these provisions. Accordingly, the notices of motion appear on today‘s notice paper in that amended form. A further change that has occurred to the notice paper is in the consideration of ministerial statements. As the new standing orders provide that the 60-minute session immediately prior to dinner on Wednesday will be devoted to the consideration of committee reports and that other means will be used to pursue matters arising from ministerial statements, I have directed that the orders of the day relating to ministerial statements be removed from the notice paper. Accordingly, the section commencing on page 12 of today‘s notice paper has been reduced substantially and includes only the orders of the day related to committee reports previously tabled in the house. Pursuant to new standing orders 110 and 111, I am required to table schedules for non-government business and private members‘ business. I have previously distributed draft schedules to the party leaders. I now table the schedules and will call upon the Leader of the House in a few moments to move the consequent motions. Finally, the amended arrangements for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges necessitate the appointment of three members to the committee. The Leader of the House will move a motion in the near future to address that matter. [See paper 4274.] NON-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS — ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE Motion On motion without notice by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved — That the schedule for non-government business be adopted by the Council. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS — ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE Motion On motion without notice by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), resolved — That the schedule for private members‘ business be adopted by the Council.
568 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
BILLS Assent Messages from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 2011. 2. Manslaughter Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. 3. Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Amendment Bill 2011. 4. Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011. 5. Iron Ore Agreements Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. 6. Iron Ore Agreements Legislation (Amendment, Termination and Repeals) Bill 2011.
CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME Petition HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.09 pm]: I have two petitions. I present a petition containing 20 signatures couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia support actions that increase the number of beverage containers recycled in Western Australia and assist in improving the ongoing litter problem we have in our state. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to call upon the Barnett Government to immediately introduce a Western Australian Container Deposit Scheme, similar to the system that operates in South Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. A second and similar petition was presented by Hon Sue Ellery (Three signatures). [See papers 4266 and 4267.]
PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT Petition HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.09 pm]: I present a petition containing 8 677 signatures couched in the following terms — PETITION IN RELATION TO THE PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT RE-THINK ESPLANADE DEVELOPMENT To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia, while being strongly supportive of the concept of a Perth Waterfront Plan, are opposed to the current plan for the Perth Waterfront as: the cutting of Riverside drive will have serious impacts on traffic congestion in and around the CBD, throughout South Perth and the broader metropolitan region; the plan does not recognize the cultural and heritage values of the important Esplanade Reserve, much of which would be sold off; the lengthy construction time will disrupt city businesses and tourism; the inlet will have a negative impact on the Swan River; and the huge costs of the current project is a waste of taxpayer’s money. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the Legislative Council inquire into these matters before any further work on this project commences And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4269.] Hon KATE DOUST: I present another petition containing 662 signatures couched in the following terms —
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 569
PETITION IN RELATION TO THE PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to the current plan for the Perth Waterfront Project as: the cutting of Riverside drive will have serious impacts on traffic congestion in and around the CBD, and throughout South Perth; the plan destroys the heritage listed and culturally important Esplanade Reserve, much of which would be sold off; the overdevelopment of the site will have a negative impact on city businesses and tourism; the project will have a negative impact on the Swan River; and, there are far more important budget priorities for this government. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council inquire into these matters before any further work on this project commences. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4268.] TIER 3 GRAIN FREIGHT RAIL LINES — CLOSURE Petition HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.11 pm]: I present a petition containing 47 signatures. It is couched in identical terms to the petition I tabled on Thursday, 10 November 2011 regarding tier 3 grain freight rail lines closure. [The text of the petition was as follows.] To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to the closure of the Tier 3 Grain Freight Rail Lines across the Wheatbelt. We believe that the decision to close the Tier 3 lines will result in a significant increase in truck numbers both in the Wheatbelt and the Perth Metropolitan area as they deliver grain to the Kwinana Freight Terminal. We believe that in determining to close these lines, the Barnett Government failed to consider all of the road safety impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts and the social/amenity impacts of the line closures. We believe the Government has failed to give proper consideration to the CBH Business Case which demonstrates that rail transportation of freight can be competitive with road. We therefore urge the Legislative Council to investigate the Government decision making process for the closure of these lines with particular consideration to the CBH business case. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4270.] PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT Petition HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [3.12 pm]: I present a petition containing 13 signatures couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia assembled. We the undersigned workers, resident and ratepayers of the City of Nedlands, while being strongly supportive of the concept of a Perth Waterfront Plan, are opposed to the current plan for the Perth Waterfront project as: the cutting of Riverside drive will have serious impacts on traffic congestion in and around the Perth central business district;
570 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
as a result residents and business people of the Western Suburbs, including the City of Nedlands, will experience increased difficulty visiting central Perth; the said residents and business people will find it harder to travel to and from Perth Airport; the lengthy construction time of the project – anticipated to be some 10 to 20 years, will result in continuous disruption and traffic congestion for the foreseeable future. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the Legislative Council inquire into these matters before any further work on this project commences. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4271.] WADJARI PEOPLE’S TRUST Petition HON BRIAN ELLIS (Agricultural) [3.13 pm]: I present a petition containing 170 signatures couched in the following terms — To the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are opposed to the current management of the Wajarri People‘s Trust by the current Trustee and the Advisory Committee of the Wajarri People‘s Trust. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to recommend that a new Trustee is appointed and a new Advisory Committee structure is implemented. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 4272.] ABORTION Petition HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [3.14 pm]: I present a petition containing 766 signatures couched in the following terms — To the Honourable the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned respectfully commend to the attention of the House that: 1. In 2009, a total of 8885 abortions were carried out in Western Australia, representing 22.3% of all pregnancies. 2. From 2006–2009, more than half of pregnancies in teenagers (15–19 years of age) ended in abortion. 3. Many abortions are carried out for suspected or identified disabilities. 4. Each year, around 40 abortions are performed on babies of greater than 20 weeks‘ gestation. Your petitioners humbly pray that, in view of the above, you will commission an inquiry into the social and ethical impact that has resulted from the legalisation of abortion in 1998, with a view to changing the law to restrict the availability of abortions before 20 weeks gestation and prohibit abortions after 20 weeks gestation. Your petitioners further pray that you may exercise your God given authority wisely and to God‘s glory. [See paper 4273.] STOLEN WAGES Statement by Minister for Indigenous Affairs HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Indigenous Affairs) [3.15 pm]: I rise today to announce that I have made public the 2008 report of the Stolen Wages Taskforce and to provide information about the government‘s ex-gratia reparation payment to eligible Aboriginal people. Under past legislation, such as the Aborigines Act 1905 and the Native Welfare Act 1963, employers, including the state government, held money and property belonging to Aboriginal people from 1905 to 1972 in a complex network of trust accounts
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 571 administered by the then Department of Native Welfare. The control of wages was permitted under legislation that gave the department the power to hold up to 75 per cent of earnings in a departmental trust account. There is little or no evidence that these wages were returned. This was one of many unfortunate controls imposed on Aboriginal people by commonwealth and state governments across Australia. Following the 2006 report of the commonwealth Parliament Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommending action on the matter of stolen wages, the former Western Australian state government approved in May 2007 a task force to examine the practices relating to the government control of Aboriginal people‘s money. A project team subsequently undertook a process of consultation, archival research and policy analysis to understand the nature and scope of the issue. During the public consultation period, 62 meetings were held in 58 towns and communities, with approximately 920 attendees. This resulted in the receipt of more than 500 submissions. I would like to thank the people who came forward to speak about their experiences in relation to the government‘s control of their wages. It is also important to acknowledge that due to a significant lack of reliable record keeping, lapsed time and the sad passing of many people impacted by the actions authorised by successive governments dating back more than 100 years, it has been impossible to determine the full impact or the true value of any compensation. The Stolen Wages Taskforce concluded that many Aboriginal people experienced some form of government control over their lives, including their income. However, limited documentation remains, making it difficult to verify the number of people affected and how much was held in trust. The task force also made a number of recommendations the majority of which fall outside the specific scope of stolen wages and are not supported by this government. The Liberal–National government is focused on bringing this unfortunate matter to a conclusion and cabinet has agreed that an ex-gratia reparation payment of up to $2 000 be made to Aboriginal people born prior to 1958 who are still living and who potentially experienced direct government control over their income while resident at Moore River native settlement, Carrolup, Mulla Bulla Station, Sister Kate‘s Children‘s Home and other government native welfare settlements in Western Australia. All applicants will need to complete a statutory declaration and lodge their application within six months with the Department of Indigenous Affairs. The government needs to balance the claims of those affected against the contemporary needs of Aboriginal Western Australians. This approach is the most effective method to address this issue, and the best way to bring to conclusion this aspect of Western Australia‘s history. The commitment of the Liberal–National government is evidenced through a number of initiatives aimed at improving the lives of Aboriginal people as well as encouraging economic development. Liberal–National government initiatives in Indigenous Affairs include increased funding for community-based Aboriginal patrols providing street level assistance to vulnerable and homeless people; an Aboriginal Employment strategy enhancing career opportunities available to Aboriginal people in the state‘s public sector; contributing to the expansion of the Clontarf Aboriginal College Hostel; the Training Together Working Together strategy to provide training opportunities for Aboriginal people; the Aboriginal justice program, which includes a range of initiatives aimed at reducing recidivism and supporting victims of crime; establishing a specialist Aboriginal mental health service and developing a new mental health facility in Broome; and COAG national partnership agreements in health, housing, early childhood, economic participation and remote service delivery, each focused on closing the gap in life outcomes for Aboriginal people. I am making the broader 2008 taskforce report available to the general public in recognition of the many Aboriginal people who shared their stories. The report and application details can be accessed on DIA‘s website at www.dia.wa.gov.au. The PRESIDENT: I want to make it clear that if any member wishes to make ministerial statements an order of the day for another day‘s sitting, they may do so, as was customary. However, we note that consideration of ministerial statements is now no longer part of the committee reports session. It now becomes a matter of discretion whether any member wishes to still make it an order of the day for the next sitting of the house or not. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY: I seek your guidance, Mr President, so perhaps I will claim I am moving a point of order. I note that the final two sentences of the minister‘s statement refer to him making the report available to the general public, but then refer the house to a website. I wonder whether we might be so bold as to ask the minister to table the report that he has referred to in the house. Hon PETER COLLIER: No. The PRESIDENT: That is at the minister‘s discretion — Hon PETER COLLIER: No, I will not be tabling it. The PRESIDENT: — but having said that, I presume the minister has his own means of making it available, as he said he would. But in terms of referring to a website, this matter has been raised before in this house and I
572 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] have made my position clear; I do not believe it is an adequate response to refer another member to look up a website. I am back to asking whether there are any further statements by ministers or parliamentary secretaries. If not, we move to papers for tabling. ST ANDREW’S HOSTEL SPECIAL INQUIRY Letter of Request from Hon Peter Blaxell — Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I have some papers for tabling. The first paper for tabling is a letter I have received from Hon Peter Blaxell, who is the special inquirer into the St Andrew‘s Hostel special inquiry. Considering the nature of the letter, I will read it to members. The letter states — On 15 November 2011, the Premier, under section 24(H) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, directed a Special Inquiry (Inquiry) be held into the response of government agencies and officials in relation to allegations of sexual abuse at St Andrew‘s Hostel, Katanning. Attachment 1 is a copy of the Terms of Reference. I am writing to request access be granted to me and the Inquiry staff to certain transcripts and submissions of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, 1982–1988 for its Review of the Country High School Hostels Authority, as listed in Attachment 2. I also request that permission be granted to me and the Inquiry staff to quote or otherwise refer to extracts of witnesses‘ testimonies and submissions for the purposes of my Inquiry. Please note that I do not consider the views or opinions of Committee members expressed during the course of the hearings to be relevant. I am conscious that it is, of course, beyond the scope of my Inquiry to inquire into the role of the Committee, or its deliberations, findings or recommendations. I do believe, however, that the evidence of Board members, the Warden and other public officials provided to the Committee in 1988 in connection with the operations St Andrew‘s is of vital importance to my Inquiry. To date my inquiries have revealed no equivalent contemporaneous record of the views of parties integrally involved in the subject of my Inquiry. I draw your attention to the first limb of Term of Reference 3 for my Inquiry which requires me to report: Findings about why the behaviour of staff the subject of allegations at St Andrews Hostel was able to continue for an extended period. These transcripts and submissions would provide a unique opportunity to gain insight into how the hostel was able to maintain such a positive reputation at the same time that the sexual abuse of boarders appears to have become entrenched. Further background to my request can be found at Attachment 3. I would be grateful if this request could be considered by the Legislative Council as a matter of urgency. Public hearings for the Inquiry will commence on 20 February 2012 and my report is to be completed by 31 May 2012. Please do not hesitate to contact Dr Jeannine Purdy, Principal Research and Report Officer, on 9420 4422 should you require any further information. Yours sincerely Hon. Peter Blaxell Consideration of the tabled paper made an order of the day for the next sitting of the house, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House). [See paper 4156.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Special Report — “Inquiry into the role and functions of bodies equivalent to the State Public Sector Commission in other jurisdictions” — Tabling HON MAX TRENORDEN (Agricultural) [3.37 pm]: I am directed to present a special report of the Standing Committee on Public Administration in relation to the resolution of the committee on 30 November 2011 to commence an inquiry into the role and functions of bodies equivalent to the State Public Sector Commission in other jurisdictions with the following terms of reference —
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 573
To undertake an Inquiry into the role and functions of bodies equivalent to the State Public Sector Commission in other jurisdictions, and in particular: (a) accountability mechanisms applicable to the role, with particular focus on Parliamentary accountability; (b) employment practices and procedures, with particular reference to the recruitment, appointment, and retention of senior executive service personnel equivalents; (c) performance management practices and procedures with reference to the recruitment, appointment, and retention of senior executive service personnel equivalents; and (d) any other relevant matter. [See paper 4279.] The PRESIDENT: Members, as this is the first committee report tabled under the new standing orders, I will read the relevant section included in the procedural notes on your desks. It states — Committee reports are deemed printed and published upon presentation — there is therefore no longer any question put to the House on the tabling of the report: SO 188. On presenting a committee report the committee Chair may speak for up to three minutes so as to provide an overview of the report and refer to any relevant matters: SOs 21, 189. I now call on the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, if he wishes, to make a three- minute statement. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: Early in 2011 the Public Sector Commissioner approached our committee and had a discussion about whether it was relevant for this house‘s committee to take up the role of oversight, or some other function, of the public service. The committee considered this at length and made a decision that that will be a role for the committee for the forthcoming year. The particular report tabled today is in terms of getting some background information to carry out that inquiry. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION Twenty-second Report — “The Role Played by the Corruption and Crime Commission in Aiding the Security Operation during the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting” — Tabling HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [3.40 pm]: I am directed to present the twenty-second report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, entitled ―The Role Played by the Corruption and Crime Commission in Aiding the Security Operation during the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting‖. [See paper 4276.] Hon NICK GOIRAN: This report acknowledges Western Australia Police, the Corruption and Crime Commission and the government for the planning and implementation of the largest security operation ever carried out in the history of Western Australia. The report arose out of the somewhat controversial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011 that allowed the CCC on application from the Commissioner of Police to assist with the security operation. Only one application for CCC assistance was made. The application was granted and a CCC surveillance team successfully provided the relevant assistance. Perhaps most importantly, the committee discovered that the reason for the CCC to be called in for assistance was resource driven and not because of any specialist expertise or other reason. Simply put, all the police surveillance personnel were otherwise engaged and a request for the use of CCC staff was made. This application could not have been made and granted if it were not for the specific provisions of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Special Powers) Act 2011. In the circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion is that the planning by the government and the execution by WA Police, with some assistance from the CCC, proved an unmitigated success for CHOGM 2011 and the state of Western Australia. As committee chairman, I take this opportunity to thank the witnesses from the CCC and Western Australia Police who appeared before the committee late last year, as well as my fellow committee members and the staff of the committee whose support and professionalism is much appreciated. I commend the report to the house. Twenty-third Report — “The post-CHOGM technological capability of the WA Police” — Tabling HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [3.42 pm]: I am directed to present the twenty-third report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission entitled ―The post-CHOGM technological capability of the WA Police‖. [See paper 4277.]
574 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Hon NICK GOIRAN: This report highlights the fact that Western Australia Police now has equivalent technological capabilities to interstate and federal counterparts, as well as the Corruption and Crime Commission, as a direct result of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting security operation. A previous report of this committee in September 2010 entitled ―How the Corruption and Crime Commission Can Best Work Together with the Western Australian Police Force to Combat Organised Crime‖ raised the most concerning lack of technological resources within WA Police. Recommendations were made on the basis of this. The procurement of a suite of resources to assist with the CHOGM security operation has enabled WA Police to have a technological capability at least equal to the CCC and interstate police counterparts, which the committee regards as most satisfactory. We congratulate the government for achieving this. The government‘s move towards an expanded organised crime–fighting role for the CCC had previously been argued at least partially on the basis of the greater technological capacity of the CCC. This argument now falls away completely and re- emphasises the fact that any additional resources to fight organised crime would best be placed with WA Police. It is of continuing concern to the committee that there is currently no capacity for organised and specialist crime personnel to be quarantined from other areas of need as they arise. The devotion of additional human resources to allow this to happen would significantly benefit Western Australian society in its fight against organised crime. As the committee chairman, I take this opportunity to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee over the past months as well as my fellow committee members and the staff of the committee whose support and professionalism is much appreciated. I commend the report to the house. Special Report — “Inquiry into the Corruption and Crime Commission and Allegations of WA Police Misconduct” — Extension of Reporting Time — Tabling HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [3.44 pm]: Mr President, I am directed to table from the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission a letter addressed to you with regard to the inquiry into the Corruption and Crime Commission and allegations of WA Police misconduct, which seeks an extension of reporting time to 15 November 2012. [See paper 4278.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM LEGISLATION AND STATUTES REVIEW Sixty-ninth Report — “Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill 2011” — Tabling Hon Nigel Hallett presented the sixty-ninth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in relation to the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill 2011. [See paper 4280.] Seventieth Report — “Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011” — Tabling Hon Nigel Hallett presented the seventieth report of the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review in relation to the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. [See paper 4281.] SHIRE OF KALAMUNDA HEALTH LOCAL LAW 2011 — DISALLOWANCE Withdrawal of Notice HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [3.46 pm]: Pursuant to a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, I withdraw notice of motion for disallowance 2, Shire of Kalamunda Health Local Law 2011, from the notice paper. The PRESIDENT: With our streamlined operations, that is withdrawn and there is no question for me to put. The withdrawal is noted. METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1203/41 — PERTH WATERFRONT — DISALLOWANCE Motion Pursuant to standing order 66(3), the following motion by Hon Ken Travers was moved pro forma on 6 March — That the metropolitan region scheme amendment 1203/41, Perth Waterfront, published in the Government Gazette on 14 October 2011 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 18 October 2011 under the Planning and Development Act 2005, be and is hereby disallowed. The PRESIDENT: This refers to tabled papers 3961, 3962, 3963 and 3964. The question is that the motion be agreed to. At the outset, because we are in new territory here today, I will explain that this is a situation that rarely comes up—that is, a disallowance motion being dealt with before the deadline. In terms of the new
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 575 standing orders, specifically standing order 21, it is considered a motion and therefore the speaking times are 45 minutes for all members with 15 minutes for the mover in reply, rather than as an order of the day, as it would be with a bill, when the leaders of the parties have unlimited time. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.48 pm]: I appreciate the fact that we are dealing with this before the end of the usual 10 sitting days and that I am therefore able to put forward more of the arguments about why I have moved this disallowance motion today. I want to make it very clear at the outset. I know that in modern politics the desire is always to try to dumb down the debate and to suggest that by moving this disallowance motion the Labor Party somehow does not support a waterfront development. We support a waterfront development. We support the activation of the waterfront, but we also support the need to do it properly; the need to have done the work and to have addressed all the issues; and that in fact, we need to enhance the area whilst protecting its existing values for the community. It needs to be activated whilst respecting its past and its present role. Something that we have not done well in Western Australia is integrate the future with the past and although there is probably one area in which we have done that well, namely Fremantle, the rest we have done poorly. I constantly hear people refer to other places around the world and how those places have activated their waterfronts. I remember the immense amazement I felt when I travelled to Boston about 30-odd years ago. As I walked through the middle of Boston, I suddenly came across beautiful parklands leading down to the water‘s edge that were highly activated and used by the community. I thought that it was fantastic and that it would be fantastic for Perth to have that one day. However, that is not what the government is doing with the Perth waterfront. The answer is to try to bring the waterfront to the city, whereas the alternative is to try to take a bit of the city to the existing waterfront to deal with the issues around Riverside Drive and the like. I make it clear at the outset that the Labor Party supports a waterfront development, but we believe that this government is making some very bad decisions about the sort of waterfront it is developing. As is always the case with metropolitan region scheme amendments, there is a process; they are put out for comment and people are invited to provide comments. It is interesting that people keep saying—I heard it again on the radio this morning—that people have left this a bit late. No; they have not left it a bit late. If people get a copy of the submissions document that was tabled as part of the MRS amendment in this house, they will see that all the issues that are being raised today were raised by people in that submissions process. They are very detailed submissions. I wonder how many members on the other side have taken the time to read these submissions. There is deathly silence. I take it that members have not read this document. Hon Simon O’Brien: Are you inviting interjections? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am inviting an interjection on that point. Have members read it? Hon Simon O’Brien: It was circulated to everyone. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, and have members on the other side read it? Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If members took the time to read the very detailed submissions of the members of our community who have put a lot of time and effort into writing these submissions, they would see that they raise some very valid points. They are not just submissions from members of the community; they are submissions from other government agencies that raised concerns about the way in which the waterfront development is about to proceed. Another document that was tabled at the time is the report on the submissions. The Western Australian Planning Commission has provided a report on the submissions after holding some hearings. Again, if members took the time to read the summary of the submissions by the WAPC and its response, they would see that in many cases the planning commission has effectively acknowledged the issues that are being raised by the objectors in their submissions and has simply stated, ―Submission noted‖. The planning commission can normally uphold or dismiss, and often that is what it does. It says, ―Submission upheld‖ and the amendment is changed. In fact, in one case the planning commission made a minor modification after some issues were raised by one of the departments and the objections were upheld; in other cases, it simply rejected the issues. In most of the cases, the planning commission noted the issues. It does not address the issues; it does not provide the solution to the sorts of issues that have been raised. I think we need to take a little time today to look at some of the issues that have been raised. I will go through them in the order in which they appear in the report on the submissions. The first issue is the removal of the primary regional roads reservation and the impact on local roads surrounding the waterfront—effectively, that is the decision to cut off Riverside Drive. I have heard arguments put constantly by government members that the government is not cutting off Riverside Drive; it is deviating it. It is being cut off; people will not be able to travel from one end to the other as they currently can. When people get to Barrack Street, they will need to turn right, go up the street, join other traffic, come around and then come back down William Street to join the existing traffic on both those roads. That is not a simple deviation whereby it runs on its own road with no other
576 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] traffic; the traffic will have to join other traffic. It is the failure of the government to address and manage that issue that is at the very heart of many of the objections to, and certainly the concerns of WA Labor with, the rezoning as it is currently proposed. There are many issues with this rezoning. What I should have said at the outset is that I do not think many people understand that, as at last Friday, this waterfront development was going to cost the state $440 million. The government expects to get some of that money back through land sales, but I recall seeing somewhere that the original plan had to be modified, because the government does not know whether it will be able to recoup money from the land sales as quickly as it had expected. As I understand it, that $440 million that the government is going to spend does not include the construction of one single building. We look at all the fancy drawings and models that have been done for this project, but not one single building will be constructed out of this $440 million. The Aboriginal cultural centre, as I think it is called — Hon Kate Doust: Is not on the plan. Hon KEN TRAVERS: There is not one dollar for its construction. So we cannot look at that plan and say that for this $440 million, we will get that beautiful environment. No. This money is just for the basic construction of the project. On the weekend, we saw the first blow-out for this project. An extra $57 million will now be required for the upgrading of Graham Farmer Freeway to manage the traffic that will be diverted or relocated from Riverside Drive to the Graham Farmer tunnel. The other night I had to drive home from South Perth. It was interesting. I pulled out of South Perth, and I was going to drive across the Causeway. I then saw a sign that said ―Graham Farmer Freeway,‖ and I thought I should do this, because in the future this will be the only way that I will be able to get from South Perth to where I live. As I drove along that road, I thought, ―Wow! Imagine what this is going to be like, driving past Burswood Casino, and the new stadium, and trying to get across those points at busy times when those roads are congested.‖ It was an eye-opener for me. However, that is the route that the government says people will have to take. As I have said, the government will have to spend an extra $57 million. So we are now up to $500 million worth of government expenditure for this project, yet not one single building will be constructed. The government will still require the private sector and other people to build around this development. Another issue that I should raise is that the government will be removing any future capacity to upgrade Graham Farmer Freeway. But I am not sure that the blow-out that was announced on Sunday with respect to the widening of Graham Farmer Freeway and the modifications at the western end to Mitchell Freeway will be the end of it. On 9 November last year, the Minister for Transport in the other place made a number of comments about Mitchell Freeway. He alluded to the need to widen the freeway by building extra lanes at the western end. He also mentioned the need for extensive work to upgrade the Loftus Street–Cambridge Street intersection. Anyone who has travelled through that intersection early in the morning during peak hour, or late in the afternoon, for that matter, would know that it is an incredibly congested intersection. Traffic at that intersection already banks up into the tunnel on many occasions. Yet in the minister‘s announcement on the weekend, there was no mention of any money to address that issue. In fact, there is one thing that the minister announced that I suspect will make the situation at that intersection even worse. The freeway will be widened by building extra lanes at the western end. There will also be another on-ramp to the freeway. It is hard to explain how this will work. However, instead of all the traffic that comes off the freeway having to take the exit to Loftus Street and Cambridge Street, there will be a second option whereby a road will come off that with an on-ramp to the freeway. So we will end up with on-ramps to the freeway coming out of the tunnel on both the eastern side and the western side of the freeway. That will enable traffic to get onto Vincent Street. However, that will put more traffic on the two lanes of the Loftus Street–Cambridge Street exit. I would love to know from the government today what its modelling is. I understand that the minister told the media on Sunday afternoon that he would be happy to release the modelling. That is the challenge for the government today. If it will not cause problems, the government should release its modelling. I urge the government to show us how this will work and how these roads will function after it has made the very bad decision to close Riverside Drive—that indication is what the people of Western Australia are looking for. In the longer term we will need to convert Perth from a car-based society to one based on public transport. We will need light rail to move people around the inner core of the city centre, yet no provision to allow for light rail is made in the waterfront development plans put forward by this government. Perth predominantly runs along a very narrow east–west corridor. The reason we would want a waterfront development and the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre down on the waterfront is to build some north– south corridors from the waterfront. One of the reasons for sinking the railway line and the Northbridge Link is to get an activity corridor that runs north–south, unlike the very linear east–west corridors. We would want to have light rail running up and down one of those north–south corridors. It was fortuitous that today I received some answers to some questions on notice that I asked about this very issue—that is, whether the East Perth
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 577
Redevelopment Authority had looked at any north–south light rail routes across the Perth city centre as part of its Perth City Link project. The answer was no. In my view, this is a very fundamental issue. How will people move across that corridor down to the waterfront? I also asked the Minister for Planning, through his representative minister in this chamber, whether any traffic modelling had taken account of potential light rail corridors running north–south down to Barrack Square or the bottom of William Street. Barrack Street was a terminus for the old tram network. Again, the answer to my question is no. If the government were the visionary government that it claims to be, its very basic fundamental planning would be about how to model the city for the future, yet the work simply has not been done. We as a Parliament have been asked to allow this metropolitan region scheme amendment when the government has not done the work to support the amendment. We on this side of the house have looked at this matter and read the work of the experts in the submissions that I have outlined, and we know that it will be a disaster. That is why the seven inner-city local governments have all become very concerned about what will go on. No announcement was made on Sunday about the Loftus Street–Cambridge Street intersection. The government says that 14 500 cars will be relocated to the Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel. How many of those cars will seek to exit onto Loftus Street or Cambridge Street? Is the government able to tell us that very simple answer today? I am happy to take an interjection, because if the minister can give me an answer today on how the government will manage the matter, she might start to allay some of my concerns. Answer me that: how many cars will try to use that exit? Hon Helen Morton: You will have to wait. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I hope the minister gives me the answer in her response. Otherwise, I get my 15 minutes in reply. Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the minister can answer these questions, she might find that we are an opposition that is open to these matters, but we will not blindly stand and not raise the legitimate questions that everybody else in Perth is asking, including people from Liberal Party heartland. I went down to watch the rally on the foreshore a couple of weeks ago. This is an interesting issue. People came up to me to talk to me about it spontaneously. I remember that one woman came up to me and pointed out that she lived in Nedlands and had been a Liberal voter all her life. She said, ―As much as it hurts me to say this, you‘re doing a very good job!‖ That is because I am asking the questions — Hon Helen Morton: Don‘t let it go to your head! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will not; do not worry! I know you are only as good as the last issue you dealt with. That is why the opposition is raising these concerns—because they are legitimate concerns. The job of the government is to answer these concerns. So far, it has not. Is the government true to its word? Will it release all the modelling? The modelling included in the document I referred to earlier, the report on submissions, is the modelling only for the immediate area around the waterfront development. That is really interesting. It shows that a number of roads, including Mounts Bay Road and the Esplanade, will go from 1 190 vehicles in 2009 in the ―AM peak‖ to 1 160 in 2031. Likewise, in the ―PM peak‖, a fall in the number of vehicles is expected. I would like to know how the government believes that will be the case. Hon Lynn MacLaren interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But only if we have provided the alternative transport options; otherwise this city would have ground to a halt under ―peak oil‖, Hon Lynn MacLaren. When I look at these figures, it jumps out at me that those roads are already at capacity during peak times. We physically cannot put any more traffic onto them. This argument that the government is deviating Riverside Drive is a nonsense. It is being closed or diverted, or whatever term it uses. No more cars can get onto those roads—they are already at capacity. That traffic has to be relocated somewhere. We know where 14 500 vehicles will go. According to the government, they will go into the Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel. I suspect it will be more than the 25 000 to 30 000 vehicles that currently go through the tunnel, regardless of the growth figures. We have not even got onto the question of what population growth projections were used in developing these models. The new population projections from the government were released a couple of weeks ago, the government being the last group in Western Australia to realise how quickly Perth is growing and to catch up! Everybody else had known it for the past five years—this government took its time to work that out. We know that the roads the government is trying to ―divert‖—as the government calls it—Riverside Drive traffic onto are already at capacity; they are already full. It will not be able to move any more traffic through those roads during peak hour. That traffic will need to relocate to alternative roads. That is why, I think, we see that people from the City of South Perth are so incredibly nervous. That is why I want to know from the government what it will do, not only at the intersection of Loftus and Cambridge Streets, but also with traffic travelling along Loftus and Thomas Streets? How will it manage additional traffic along those roads? One does not have to be a
578 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] traffic engineer to know that if we put extra vehicles out there, we will need extra road space or we will need to put on better public transport. We know the government is not doing that for light rail. We know, because the answers say they have not even started planning for it. It will be a car-based solution. How will it be managed? Those are the sorts of questions that people need to have answered by the minister today. I want to touch on one other furphy that has been floating around. Maybe the minister can explain this one to me. I understand the Premier has said on radio on numerous occasions—as recently as today—that at some point in the future we may need to put Riverside Drive back in the form of a tunnel. Is that the official government position? Hon Helen Morton: Keep going. Hon KEN TRAVERS: So the minister does not know? Hon Helen Morton: Just keep going. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I look forward to this new enthusiasm of the government not to even engage and answer a simple question in an important debate like this. Hon Helen Morton: Just keep going. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is fine. Clearly the government does not have the answers because it has always been happy to provide those answers by way of interjection in the past. All we can do is assume that the Premier has been providing the formal government position. If the minister will not answer my question by way of interjection, I hope that she will make a note and give me a very specific answer. Is that part of the government‘s view—that in the long term there will still be the need to look at tunnelling Riverside Drive? We are deferring a cost for a future government that should be picked up as part of the Perth Waterfront development today. It is an unfunded liability to the state, if that is the case. More importantly, the government‘s own report on the submissions states on page 7 — Through the Perth Waterfront masterplan process both bridge and tunnelling options for the continuation of Riverside Drive were considered, however, neither option was ultimately supported on the basis of: The impact of ramp and dive structures on public amenity; Impact of the supporting structures on potential development sites; Prohibitive construction costs and site conditions (i.e. high water table and flood risks); and The likelihood that any such intervention will concentrate bypass traffic along Riverside Drive, placing greater pressure on the Causeway and existing intersections along Riverside Drive. That is why the government‘s own experts say they rejected that option in the submission. Yet the Premier, when confronted on these issues on the radio and in other forums, says that a future government can still build a bridge or a tunnel. In fact, he says that he would expect it to occur within the next 10 to 20 years. Why do we not take the $57 million the government is putting into widening the tunnel and build the tunnel through Riverside Drive today? Surely it will not be that much more expensive to build the tunnel, although the submission does talk about the prohibitive costs. The government needs to be clear about what it is saying. Is the submission in the report the correct position, or is it the lines that the Premier runs on the radio when he is under pressure? Who is telling the truth here? Which is the correct statement? Maybe they are both correct, in which case I am sure the minister will give a full and thorough explanation of how the government‘s position can be the Premier‘s position while at the same time addressing the four points in the submission that I have just read out to the house. A range of other important issues were raised in the submission about the traffic and parking for the existing residents who live in that area. However, I need to move on to a couple of other areas that I think are absolutely crucial when considering the proposal before Parliament today. The next issue that I think needs to be thoroughly looked at is that the report on the submissions simply does not answer the concerns that were raised in the submissions. Many private people, including, I note, Hon Lynn MacLaren, referred in the submissions to the loss of public open space. One of the submissions was from the government‘s own Department of Sport and Recreation. Its submission regarding this proposal states — The Esplanade serves an important public service function for city workers within the surrounding precinct and therefore where such an open space is proposed to be removed or replaced with something that offers a different public space mix, the Department would seek to ensure that recreation and open spaces are not compromised. This is particularly relevant where active sporting spaces are converted to a passive pedestrian focus, and ultimately raises the question of ‗how will the proposed development enhance recreational activity?‘ The Department expects that future planning will take into account the change in open space form and function, and address how new public access areas will enhance enjoyment.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 579
It also refers later, if I recall correctly, to the need to deal with that active recreational space that we will lose when we lose the area that is the subject of this metropolitan region scheme amendment. That is the government department‘s view. In my view, the response to those submissions simply did not deal with that issue. It refers to the fact that there is a lack of activity around it and that the space is not utilised to the degree that the government would like it to be utilised. Surely the answer to that is to consider how to get other development around that open space that will stimulate and activate it and ensure the surveillance of it so that it can be used. Where will those corporate sports be played? Where is the solution to the loss of that active space? We are very lucky in Western Australia to have such a space so close to our city centre that office workers can enjoy and be active and healthy. Sure, there needs to be a way in which we connect and provide for constant activity from the city centre down to that foreshore. It was interesting; I was down there on Sunday talking to people from a couple of media outlets, and I noticed the number of people walking across the Esplanade—that is, going from the belltower to the railway station. I just thought, ―I don‘t have a problem with building some low-level developments through that area, reorganising Riverside Drive and getting a better interaction so that people use that space and enjoy it.‖ But we need to have an answer to how we will deal with the loss of that active recreational space. That is something that I do not think the government in its responses provided to this house to date has accurately addressed in any way. Again, maybe the minister can do that for us today. I look forward to hearing how that will be dealt with, because once it is gone, it is gone forever; we are not going to get it back. I still get mesmerised by this figure: it is now half a billion dollars for this development. I do not know what the government is planning to do down there, but it must be one of the most extravagant concept plans I have ever seen, whereby the government gets to spend half a billion dollars and it does not actually end up with anything other than a new inlet. Hon Kate Doust: A small inlet. Hon KEN TRAVERS: A small new inlet and a few building blocks. When it is sold, that amount will not be recouped; the land values will not be enhanced enough to recoup anywhere close to that expenditure. That is an extravagance, and in a city that is a growing like Perth is, we need to put that money into helping families in the suburbs of Perth. Everywhere I go as shadow Minister for Transport, I am told that we need better public transport: we need more rail carriages and we need a railway service in some areas, and other areas are just begging for a bus service. Perth is a growing city. We must constantly increase the capacity of our public transport system, and half a billion dollars could go an awfully long way to doing that. We met with the City of Joondalup the other day. It wants to do a waterfront development; it wants to do the Ocean Reef boat harbour. It was not even contemplating the need for $500 million to do the Ocean Reef boat harbour, which would create just as many new waterfront-located building sites as the Perth Waterfront development. I do not know whether we will have gold-plated taps or statues of every former Premier and the current Premier. I do not know what will be down there that will cost us so much, but it is an enormous cost and that active space will be lost. If the government wants to do it, it should be able to explain how it will manage those issues. When we look at what a problem obesity is, we can see that we need to be dealing with it. Another area that is heavily touched upon is heritage. Again, it is something that we probably have not done well in Perth. Fremantle has done well in maintaining and enhancing its heritage, but in Perth, we have not. I want to again quickly recount a tale. I do not remember much about my grandparents. I only ever knew my two grandmothers; both my grandfathers had passed away before I arrived. However, I have very clear memories of one of the visits that my grandmother made to Western Australia. We went and visited a very distant relative—I cannot even remember what connection he was to me—who lived in one of the upper-level Lawson Apartments. I even remember walking into these art deco apartments and the elevator; I have very vivid memories of that. I would have been probably nine or 10 years old, and I remember being absolutely blown away by Lawson Apartments; never having seen anything quite like it before in my life, I was absolutely amazed by it. That shows the impact that it had on me as a nine-year-old. I think I was once taken to that building as a treat to have a meal at Luis and, again, I remember being absolutely blown away by this building that I was in awe of. To this day, I still remember that visit with my grandmother. I recount that story because it shows that that building has an amazing sense of history and heritage in Western Australia. I picked up that history and heritage as a nine-year- old. I could understand as a nine-year-old how important this building was and I probably did not even understand what the word ―heritage‖ meant back then. I also remember standing in a Chicken Treat restaurant in South Perth of all places that displayed some pictures of the old Perth foreshore and the new Perth foreshore looking across from South Perth. The Lawson Apartments building was the tallest building in Western Australia when it was built. Chicken Treat had a photo taken when it was the only building on the Perth foreshore that could be seen from South Perth. Today it has a photo showing how the city has been built around it. I am told that next door to Lawson Apartments used to be one of the most beautiful buildings in Western Australia—that is, the old Esplanade Hotel, which was knocked down well before I arrived. Most of the people of my parents‘ generation still bemoan the loss of that piece of heritage as they do the loss of the Pensioner Barracks, of which only the Barracks Arch remains. They are examples of lost heritage.
580 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Why is this so important when the building is going to stay there? It is about its sense of place. I think the cafeteria in front of Lawson Apartments used to be called the war pensioners cafeteria. It is now a Chinese restaurant but it has had many uses over its lifetime in Western Australia. That restaurant will be moved. Part of the heritage of Lawson Apartments and its role in the visual amenity of the Perth foreshore will be completely lost under this proposal. We will forever regret that we have lost that as one of our most amazing and stunning buildings in Western Australia. It is about its sense of place. It is about how it relates to its environment. That is what heritage is about. We can develop the waterfront and still maintain that sense of heritage and place for both of those incredibly significant buildings. Lawson Apartments was effectively the first multistorey building in Western Australia. It needs to be recognised and acknowledged for that. We should be able to continue to see it from the South Perth foreshore. We should not block out that vista. It is part of the heritage of that building and it is absolutely crucial to the skyline and the heritage of Western Australia. We have lost so much that we cannot afford to lose it. It is an amazing building. It has survived for all this time and it needs to remain there along with the other building across the road from it. The cafeteria I was thinking of was called the Florence Hummerstom Kiosk. The War Widows‘ Guild used to meet there from 1949 to 1963. Those buildings are an important part of our heritage. If we pull them apart and relocate them, they will not have the same heritage. We cannot replace that heritage; we cannot replace their sense of place. There are so many other things that will be lost, such as the Sir J.J. Talbot Hobbs Memorial, which has been the site of the salute during the Anzac Day parade for as long as I can remember. As much as the government wants to pretend otherwise, all these things will be gone. Hon Liz Behjat: The memorial can be relocated. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But it will lose its sense of place. Part of its heritage is about its sense of place. We are not talking about Disneyland. We cannot relocate these things. We cannot put buildings in front of the Lawson Apartments and think that we have maintained its heritage. We have so little of these buildings left that we are now in sad decline. Many other issues have been raised, such as environmental issues. A lot of the documentation contains quotes from research about the breeding grounds of dolphins. One of the submissions is from a researcher who has said that the government cannot rely on his research to make the claims it is making because he did not look at that area; he did not do that study! He said that the government needed to do its own studies to determine whether the development will or will not have an impact on the area. Again, when this report was provided, it did not address those issues. I want to know whether the government has done that work and can assure us that this development will not have an impact on the dolphins in the Swan River, or whether the government is still relying on this previous research, which the researcher has stated very clearly cannot be used because it is not valid for that area. That is a very basic fundamental issue. Will this development kill the dolphins of the Swan River? Will it have a negative impact on the dolphins of the Swan River? We have already lost too many of them to proceed with a development without knowing what those impacts are and whether they will be dealt with. There are the issues of shadows, wind, water circulation and flushing. This report has raised many options that we need to consider. I have not had time to give them adequate coverage in this debate today, but I seriously urge members to go away and read the submissions and the comments made in response to them. They will see that they do not address the issues, or in some cases, they acknowledge the issue raised but then provide no solution. That is not the way to proceed with the major scheme amendment that we are dealing with today. I look forward to the minister providing a number of those answers today. If the government has nothing to hide, it should table all its traffic modelling to let the people of Western Australia fully understand the impacts. It should table not just the localised traffic modelling, but the modelling of the impacts of this development on the whole of the Perth metropolitan area—the City of South Perth, the City of Perth, the Town of Victoria Park and the City of Subiaco. People have a right to that information, and only a non-accountable and secretive government will not provide that information to the Parliament today before we vote on this matter. The government should provide detailed information on the impact of these changes on the area around Loftus and Cambridge Streets. I will have to see the modelling to reassure myself about this development—I look forward to seeing it—and whether or not the measures that were announced on Sunday will be sufficient to deal with all the issues around the widening of the tunnel to three lanes and the traffic coming out of the tunnel. There is still a grey area around the impact of the traffic flow from the new off-ramp to the Loftus–Cambridge Streets exit. The government should release that information today, and as part of that the government should be clear about the population projections that were used as part of that modelling. Were they the old ―Western Australia Tomorrow‖ population projections or the new ones that were released in February this year? The government should definitely answer those questions today: how will it deal with public open recreational spaces and the heritage values, and how will this $440 million be spent? Actually, it is $500 million now. When we take $440 million plus $57 million, we are basically up to $500 million. Will there be any more expenditure required to do this?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 581
Finally, will the government explain whether the Premier‘s vision of the development in 10 to 20 years is government policy? Will we be able to build a tunnel under or bridge over this area as a continuation of Riverside Drive; and, if that is the case, how do we reconcile that with the comments contained in the report on the submissions? I look forward to hearing the government‘s response before we make our decision. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I give the call to Hon Lynn MacLaren but, noting the time, I will interrupt the debate to take questions without notice. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 589.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE SENIORS SAFETY AND SECURITY REBATE 1. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Seniors and Volunteering: I refer to the Premier‘s announcement on radio this morning that the seniors safety and security rebate will be continuing, despite the Department for Communities advice to seniors on its website that it will not. I quote from the website of just a few hours ago — The scheme … ends on 30 June 2012 with final applications to be received no later than 31 March 2012 … (1) Why is the department advising that the scheme is ending if it is not? (2) What steps has the minister taken to ensure that seniors now know that they do not have to lodge their final application in the next 25 days? (3) For how long will the scheme be continuing? (4) How much money has been allocated to continuing the scheme? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)–(4) This is a wonderful scheme for our seniors and I am really pleased that the Labor opposition recognises that. I said yesterday that we would extend the scheme from 31 March. The Premier backed that up this morning and said that we would keep the scheme going. We will be doing that, except for budget considerations for the next four years. When we started the program, which we did three years ago, we had an end date, and that was 31 March. Seniors knew that; it was in our Seniors Card Discount Directory, through which seniors can get discounts of up to $1 400. We therefore have a very good package for seniors. The money is there for the scheme to continue for both the security rebate and the fire safety rebate; each rebate is up to $200, making a total package of $400. The department was informed this morning, and I expect that it will very soon be removing that notice from its website if the 31 March cut-off date is on there. As to when the scheme will cease, that is up to budget considerations. It may not cease; it may continue for the next four years, but we will be alerting seniors in seniors newspapers, and certainly on the website and at seniors centres, that this very good program will continue. NO-FAULT INSURANCE SCHEME — RESEARCH PROJECT 2. Hon SUE ELLERY to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to the research project commissioned by the Insurance Commission of Western Australia through the University of Western Australia on a no-fault insurance scheme for those acquiring a disability through catastrophic accident. (1) When was this research completed? (2) When was a report on it provided to either the former or the current Treasurer? (3) Will the Treasurer table the report; and, if not, why not? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of the question. The Treasurer advises me of the following — (1) The research was completed in August 2010. This research was commissioned by the Insurance Commission, not by the government. (2)–(3) The current Treasurer has never been provided with a copy of the report and as such cannot table it. The Insurance Commission also advises that the report was inconclusive, did not provide accurate information and has not been relied upon for any further workings.
582 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
BUSINESS GROWTH CENTRES — CLOSURE 3. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: I refer to the Department of Training and Workforce Development‘s business growth centres. (1) Can the minister confirm that these centres will be closing; and, if so, on what date will each centre close? (2) Was a report into the functioning of business growth centres completed; and, if so, by whom, and will the minister table a copy? (3) Who made the decision to close these centres and for what reason? (4) When was this decision made, and did the minister know of the proposal to close these centres when he opened the Kalgoorlie centre in September last year? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes; the business growth centres are closing due to the expiration of the economic stimulus package funding on 31 December 2011. West Coast Institute of Training was funded to deliver the business growth centre service; therefore, the date of closure for each centre is an operational matter for West Coast Institute of Training. West Coast Institute of Training has advised the following closure dates: Joondalup office, closed 18 January 2012; Albany, 2 March; Kalgoorlie is scheduled to close on 30 April; and the Geraldton office and the city office, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, are scheduled to close on 29 June 2012. (2) Yes; the Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation was engaged by the department to undertake an evaluation of the business growth centre service. I am currently considering the report and will happily provide the honourable member with a private viewing in due course. (3) The business growth centres are closing due to the expiration of economic stimulus package funding on 31 December 2011. The evaluation report prepared by the Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation recommended the establishment of a modified program, and the government will consider such a proposal in the upcoming budget process. (4) The decision was made once the evaluation report had been finalised. The evaluation report had not been completed in September 2011, so no decision had been made at that time. DENMARK CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVING 4. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the minister representing the Minister for Education: I refer to the minister‘s decision to evict the Centre for Sustainable Living in Denmark from its premises in order to provide temporary accommodation for classes during the refurbishment of Denmark High School. (1) Did what the minister has said was ―wide consultation about the use of the centre building‖ include consultation with the Denmark Education and Innovation Centre, the controlling body of the Centre for Sustainable Living? (2) If yes to (1), when were the consultations held and what was the outcome; and, if no, why not? (3) Have any discussions been held with the Centre for Sustainable Living or with the Denmark Education and Innovation Centre about ways to provide temporary accommodation to house classes for the period of the refurbishment without evicting the centre? (4) If yes to (3), what was the outcome and; if no, why not? (5) Has the promised meeting between Mr Milan Trifunovic of the Department of Education and the Green Skills project management at the centre taken place? (6) If yes to (5), what was the outcome; and, if no, when will it take place? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(6) The Minister for Education has not made a decision to evict the Denmark Education and Innovation Centre. DEIC has a monthly periodic lease over the site and was advised in October 2011 that the lease would not be extended beyond June 2012. Despite the honourable member‘s lack of clarity in part (1) of her question, the Minister for Education was advised by the Department of Education as follows — Since late 2010, the principal has consulted widely with the school council and the parents and citizens association, the regional executive director and various members of the Department of Education
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 583
regarding the use of these facilities for school operations. Flowing from this consultation, DEIC was advised that its lease would not be extended beyond June 2012. The school requires these facilities to provide accommodation for students while the $7 million capital works upgrade at the school is being carried out, and for future uses by the school. A meeting will take place later this month. CAMDEN SOUND MARINE PARK — FISHING INDUSTRY 5. Hon GIZ WATSON to the Minister for Fisheries: (1) Will the government be providing any financial payments to benefit the fishing industry as part of the creation of Camden Sound marine park? (2) If yes to (1), how much will be provided, for what purpose and when? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Compensation may be payable to affected fishers under the Fishing and Related Industries Compensation (Marine Reserves) Act 1997. (2) Any compensation will depend on the final zoning of the marine park and be assessed under the fishing and related industries compensation act. The timing of any payments will depend on when the new marine park is finalised and the subsequent processing of any compensation claims by individual fishers. LAND RESUMPTIONS 6. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Lands: I refer to the protracted uncertain status of the following three holdings of land: lot 507 on diagram 91207, certificate of title volume 2115, folio 23; lot 63 on plan 739, certificate of title volume 1049, folio 169; and lot 64 on plan 739, certificate of title volume 1667, folio 630. (1) Is it the minister‘s intention to resume the abovementioned holdings of land? (2) If the answer to (1) is that the minister intends to resume the land, when is it the minister‘s intention to do so? HON WENDY DUNCAN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The minister has provided the following response — (1) Discussions with the affected landowners are continuing. (2) Not applicable. PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT — UTILITIES 7. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Planning: (1) What water, gas, power, communication—including any fibre-optic cabling—or other services are currently located within the area to be impacted by the Perth Waterfront development? (2) Will any of these services need to be relocated? (3) What is the estimated cost of relocating these services? (4) Is the cost of relocating all these services included in the estimated $440 million cost of the redevelopment? (5) If no to (4), who is responsible for the cost of relocating these services? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Water, sewer, gas, power and communications services are located within the area subject to the Perth Waterfront development. (2) Yes. (3) The Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority is currently assessing the proposals received in response to a request for tender issued to the open market in November 2011 for forward works, external roadworks, major services and ancillary works. The installation of new services and relocation of
584 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
existing services form part of this tender. The contract award details will be available on the Tenders WA website once a contract has been awarded. (4) The contract referred to in part (3) is within the current budgeted costs for the project. (5) Not applicable. SMOKING BAN — SECURE MENTAL HEALTH UNITS 8. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental Health: I refer to the minister‘s December 2011 meeting with mental health nurses who are United Voice members, at which she discussed the current ban on smoking in secure mental health units. I am advised that the minister made two commitments at that meeting: firstly, that in February she would take to cabinet a proposal to allow involuntary patients to smoke outdoors in designated smoking areas; and, secondly, that the mental health nurses who attended that meeting would have input into the policy group making the recommendations on the new smoking policy. Given these undertakings — (1) Why has there been no arrangement made for the nurses to have input into that policy group? (2) Why has there been no information on the progress of the minster‘s cabinet submission? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I believe that I heard the member say that it was a question without notice of which some notice had been given; unfortunately, it has not been received by me to date. TEENAGE ASYLUM SEEKERS — SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 9. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the article on page 17 of today‘s The West Australian titled ―School ban on asylum seeker kids‖, regarding the state government‘s decision not to allow teenagers from the Leonora Alternative Place of Detention to attend classes at Leonora District High School. (1) How many teenagers of potential high school age who would otherwise be entitled to attend Leonora District High School are currently housed at the APOD? (2) Why has the decision been made to deny these children education at the school, given the positive effect this has had on local and asylum seeker students in the past? (3) Given the decision not to allow asylum seeker teenagers to attend the school, will the Premier urge the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to expedite their move into community detention? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) What other strategies will the state government employ to ensure that these children are able to attend school in the community as soon as possible? (6) When is it anticipated that all remaining school-age children at the APOD will have been moved into community detention? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The number of children held at the Leonora Alternative Place of Detention at any one time varies as the commonwealth transitions younger asylum seekers through the centre prior to release into community detention. As at 6 February 2012, the profile of children held at Leonora APOD was: two 14-year-olds; 20 15-year-olds; 51 16-year-olds; 89 17-year-olds; 23 18-year-olds. That is a total of 185 children. School-age asylum seekers do not have an automatic entitlement to attend government schools; nevertheless, the government has done its utmost to assist the commonwealth and provide English language and schooling to these children. (2) No decision has been made to deny children education. The agreement entered into with the commonwealth government enabling school-age asylum seekers to attend Leonora District High School in 2010 and 2011 expired at the end of 2010. As a courtesy, this arrangement was extended to the end of the 2011 school year. This occurred during a time when changes to the commonwealth‘s immigration policy saw the number of school-age asylum seekers held at Leonora decline considerably. This number, however, has recently increased considerably as the commonwealth is now using the Leonora facility for 14 to 17-year-old unaccompanied minors. In the absence of guaranteed or consistent student numbers for the 2012 school year, the teaching resources in Leonora were transferred to areas of greater need within the WA schooling system.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 585
(3)–(4) The Premier has previously expressed the view that holding children in detention is not satisfactory. (5) The commonwealth has again been requested to provide advice on potential student numbers and the type of education program required. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have been asked to provide advice to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as to the type of program that the commonwealth is requesting. (6) This is a matter for the commonwealth Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, as it is solely a matter of commonwealth responsibility. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION — ―ELVIS‖ HELICOPTER 10. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the minister representing the Minister for Environment: (1) Has the Department of Environment and Conservation ever refused to give consent to the Erickson sky- crane ―Elvis‖ dropping sea water onto a particular site for environmental reasons? (2) If so, on how many occasions? (3) If so, on how many occasions since November 2011? (4) If so, at what sites and in relation to what incidents? (5) What are the criteria for DEC to consider it inappropriate to drop sea water at a particular location? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)–(3) The practice of dropping sea water was questioned on one occasion when it was proposed on 4 January 2012. However, it had no bearing on fire suppression as the sky-crane was not required for the incident in question. (4) It was at Jandabup Lake, Jandabup for Swan coastal fire 47. (5) DEC does not have formal criteria for this purpose. The question arose at an operational level in relation to risk to surrounding property and possible environmental impacts on the wetland. Environmental factors are considered in bushfire suppression operations so long as successful suppression is not jeopardised. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING TENANTS — ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR POLICY 11. Hon ED DERMER to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: I refer to the antisocial behaviour policy for Homeswest tenants. (1) Is it now the case that the department will act on police reports only from those properties adjacent to the offending residents at the premises? (2) Is it now the case that complaints of disruption and antisocial behaviour from nearby residents other than direct neighbours will not be taken into account in assessing whether eviction action should commence? (3) Is this a change of the government‘s policy; and, if so, when did this change occur and why was the change made? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) No. All relevant evidence is taken into consideration when assessing complaints of disruptive behaviour. Action is taken in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1987. (3) No. ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES DETERMINATION PROCESS 12. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: I refer the Department of Indigenous Affairs‘ internal practices for registering Aboriginal heritage. (1) Has the Department of Indigenous Affairs adopted new internal procedures in relation to Aboriginal heritage sites?
586 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(2) If yes to (1), will the minister table the new procedures; and, if not, why not? (3) How do any new procedures affect the protection of an entire land feature as a single Aboriginal heritage site? (4) How do any new procedures affect the site determination process? (5) If new procedures are in place, what, if any, consultation was undertaken by the department on proposed new procedures prior to implementation? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Department of Indigenous Affairs is in the process of developing new policy and guideline material as part of a broader Aboriginal heritage reform. As an interim measure the DIA seeks to ensure that before Aboriginal sites are registered, those with an interest in the land are afforded an opportunity to be heard. Procedural fairness and natural justice are not new concepts. (2)–(5) Not applicable. SCHOOLS — PARENTING HUBS 13. Hon LINDA SAVAGE to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to the Premier‘s statement of 21 February 2012 to co-locate children and family services on school and other community sites, particularly in low socioeconomic areas. Can the Premier give an undertaking that these shortly to be announced centres will not include the existing centres of Challis Parenting and Early Learning Centre, Midvale Early Childhood and Parenting Centre Integrated Early Childhood Hub, and Roseworth Primary School extended services facilities? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Liberal–National government will be making an announcement relating to this issue shortly at which time more information can be provided. SOUTH HEDLAND AND PUNDULMURRA TAFE CAMPUSES — BUILDING MOULD 14. Hon HELEN BULLOCK to the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: I refer to the answer to question without notice 1026 asked on Thursday, 10 November 2011. (1) How many workers‘ compensation claims did the occupational health and safety management receive relating to the mould outbreak and remediation work? (2) Have those claims been finalised? (3) If no to (2), when will they be finalised? (4) If yes to (2), how many of those claims were successful and how many were rejected? (5) Of those rejected what were the reasons provided for the claims being rejected? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1) Five. (2) Two have been finalised and three are still pending. (3) One claim is expected to be finalised in approximately two weeks. The remaining two claims are still being assessed by RiskCover. An exact time for completion cannot be provided. (4) Of the two claims finalised both were rejected. (5) These claims were rejected on the grounds that the condition was not related to the work environment to a significant degree, or that the worker had not suffered an injury as defined by section 5(1) of the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. LITTLE PENGUINS — HABITAT 15. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the minister representing the Minister for Environment: (1) Is the minister aware of the Murdoch University research that raises serious concerns regarding the long-term survival of Perth‘s little penguin population after deaths reached four times the normal level in the second half of 2011?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 587
(2) Is the minister aware that the main reason for these deaths was starvation and that other deaths have been caused by collisions with marine craft? (3) Is the minister aware of the finding in the public environmental review documents for the Point Peron marina that the Garden Island penguins appear to forage almost exclusively within the southern half of Cockburn Sound during chick rearing? (4) Is the minister aware of the finding in the PER documents that the seagrass in Mangles Bay has been identified as an important nursery areas for a range of fish species found within the diet of little penguins? (5) Will the minister undertake to ensure that the little penguin habitat is protected now and into the future and that the proposed canal estate adjacent to their foraging area is not permitted? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1)–(2) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised the minister that the research indicates that the main reason for the deaths was starvation most likely caused by high sea temperatures linked to the strong La Nina conditions and a strong Leeuwin current that occurred in the summer of 2010–11. High temperatures impact on the survival of the fish that are the main food source for penguins and can lead to their starvation. (3)–(5) The Environmental Protection Authority is currently assessing the Mangles Bay marina-based tourist precinct and as part of this process the proponent, Cedar Woods Properties, has released the public environmental review documentation for public comment until 23 April 2012. The public environmental review document addresses the impacts of the proposal on the little penguin and its habitat, and these matters will be given due consideration by the Environmental Protection Authority in its report and recommendations. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION STRATEGY 16. Hon KATE DOUST to the minister representing the Minister for Science and Innovation: I refer to the government‘s development of a new science and innovation strategy. (1) Other than government agencies and boards, who has the government consulted to date regarding this new strategy? (2) When will there be an opportunity for the science and innovation industry to comment on a draft strategy? (3) Is this new strategy still anticipated to be finalised by mid-2012; and, if not, why not? (4) Why has it taken this government so long to complete this new strategy? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) In addition to the Technology and Industry Advisory Council and government agencies, the Chief Scientist and Advance Consulting and Services Pty Ltd have provided input into the development of a science priorities document, which will guide the development of the science and innovation strategy. (2) Following approval of the science priorities document, wider consultation will take place in the course of developing the science and innovation strategy. (3) It is anticipated that the strategy will be completed by mid-2012, subject to cabinet processes. (4) The time taken to prepare a science strategy is considered appropriate. ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS — PEEL REGION FUNDING 17. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the minister‘s announcement on Thursday, 19 May 2011 in which he stated — ―By 2015 Royalties for Regions will have allocated more than $1billion towards health services and infrastructure in regional areas including an investment of $538million to strengthen medical care and services in rural communities in the southern part of WA. (1) How much of the $538 million has been allocated to the Peel region? (2) What services in the Peel region are receiving, or are scheduled to receive, part of that funding? (3) How much of the $538 million has actually been spent in Peel this financial year to date?
588 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
HON WENDY DUNCAN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1)–(3) The question should be directed to the Minister for Health as the Department of Health is responsible for the implementation of services and infrastructure referred to in the member‘s question. PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT — GRAHAM FARMER FREEWAY TRAFFIC 18. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the 14 500 estimated additional vehicles that will use the Graham Farmer Freeway as a result of the Perth Waterfront project. (1) How many of these vehicles does the modelling estimate will use the tunnel exit onto the Loftus and Cambridge Streets intersection? (2) How much of the $57 million announced on Sunday, 4 March is for upgrades to this intersection and what work is involved? (3) Does the government intend to do any work on Loftus Street or Thomas Street to accommodate these additional vehicles; and, if not, why not? (4) If yes to (3), what work will be done, how much will it cost and when does the government expect it to commence? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. A response has been provided but I am not satisfied that the response is as clear as it needs to be, so I will withhold the answer for now. I am seeking some amendment from the minister, but because the other house is not sitting today, it is a bit hard to get hold of him. I will provide an answer as soon as it is available. Hon Ken Travers: You could even add it into the debate later tonight. Hon Simon O’Brien: I could do, yes. FINANCIAL COUNSELLOR POSITIONS — NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS 19. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Child Protection: Given that individual non-government organisations all report an increased demand for both emergency relief and financial counselling and that the decision to cease the requirement for a referral to a financial counsellor in order to receive a hardship utility grant scheme payment has not reduced the demand for financial counselling services, will the minister now commit to continue the funding for those additional positions financial counselling placed in NGOs in January 2011? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I was very surprised when I heard that the Department for Child Protection was ceasing to fund 23 financial counsellors. That is very wrong. Twelve financial counsellors were put on for the short-term and they were told that it was a short-term contract. Two contracts will cease in June and the other 10 will cease sometime after that. Hon Sue Ellery: The NGOs have received letters about 23. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: I do not know where that number came from, but I assure the member the number I have is 12 and that two will cease in June. I will just read to the member the information I have so that it is very clear. In April 2010 the department provided additional funding for two non-recurrent financial counsellors, for a period of two years, to the City of Cockburn and Anglicare. That funding will expire on 30 March 2012. In December 2010, in an effort to reduce waitlists for the hardship utility grant scheme in areas of high demand, six services were provided with additional non-recurrent funding for the period 1 December 2010 to 30 June 2012. That funding was provided to services in Gosnells, Cannington and the foothills, Mirrabooka, Balga and Girrawheen, Fremantle, Rockingham and Kwinana, Mandurah—the Uniting Church, and Midland, Merriwa, Clarkson and Quinns Rock. In the 2010–11 budget, under the hardship efficiency package, additional funding was provided for the Office of Energy, as well as for the hardship utility grant scheme and financial counselling. The department was provided $412 248 in 2010–11 for financial counselling services.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 589
The services of two non–recurrent funded financial counsellors will cease on 30 March 2012. Those positions were put in place because of the backlog from the HUGS operation. We have now streamlined HUGS and believe that the backlog of applications from HUGS is now caught up. Hon Sue Ellery: It is actually not reducing the demand, though. Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No. Those counsellors will not be kept on because their contracts will cease, which does not mean to say that I will not be looking in the future to see whether the counselling services continue to back up. I think at present in the south west, for instance, it is a two-week wait. But I will certainly be monitoring that and if we find the need, we will reassess that. CLIMATE CHANGE 20. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Environment: My question without notice of which some notice has been given is to the Premier, but I understand that it might have been redirected to the Minister for Environment, and I am hoping that the Minister for Environment can answer the question in the way in which it was formulated. (1) Does the minister support statements by Professor Giles Hardy, director of the Western Australian Centre of Excellence for Climate Change, Woodland and Forest Health that the rising temperatures we are seeing is climate change? (2) Does the minister support the statement from the commonwealth-established Climate Commission that there is significant evidence that climate change has contributed to the marked drying trend in the south west of the state? (3) What instructions has the minister given to all members of cabinet to mitigate the causes and impacts of climate change in their portfolios in light of 2011 being Western Australia‘s hottest year on record, as stated by the Bureau of Meteorology? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. He is right; it has been redirected to the Minister for Environment. (1)–(2) The minister supports the research of the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative Western Australia. Research has found that, like global temperatures, WA temperatures have also increased since 1910. The strongest trend has been observed since the 1950s, though in the north of WA there has been a slight cooling in average temperatures. Research of the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative stage 2 program in 2002 concluded that in south west Western Australia, it is most likely that both natural variability and the enhanced greenhouse effect have contributed to the rainfall decrease. (3) Ministers and their departments are already developing mitigation measures and have outlined actions being taken to address climate change in response to parliamentary questions from various members in 2011. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 5044, 5045, 5015, 5043, 4969, 4977 AND 4991 Papers Tabled Papers relating to answers to questions on notice were tabled by Hon Norman Moore (Minister for Electoral Affairs), Hon Simon O’Brien (Minister for Finance), Hon Peter Collier (Minister for Energy) and Hon Helen Morton (Minister for Mental Health). METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AMENDMENT 1203/41 — PERTH WATERFRONT — DISALLOWANCE Motion Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [5.05 pm]: As the Greens (WA) spokesperson on planning and heritage, I have a keen interest in the proposed Perth Waterfront development. As members heard from Hon Ken Travers, I have made a submission to the metropolitan region scheme amendment process. I also have lodged an appeal to the decision of the Environmental Protection Authority to not assess this proposal, and shortly I will have an opportunity to speak to the authority about my concerns. I have consulted very widely on these proposed plans; in fact, I have talked with a wide range of stakeholders—planners, councillors, heritage professionals, environment groups and cycling advocacy organisations. I also attended the CityVision forum on the topic; I believe I was the only member of Parliament there. I have also attended forums by the National Trust of Australia and the History Council of Western Australia.
590 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
I have been concerned to unveil the detail in this proposal. Among these stakeholders, there is overwhelming support for some kind of development along the waterfront. Some people feel that we can enhance the amenity and can better use the waterfront. However, there is a commonly held belief that the current plans for the waterfront are overambitious and ill thought out and will damage the heritage and the amenity value of the waterfront rather than enhance it. From a Greens perspective, we would love to see an iconic, state-of-the-art, sustainable development on the waterfront—one which is pedestrian friendly and which celebrates the location of Perth on the scenic Swan River. However, as many members will have seen, there is much public opposition to this development. In mid-March 2011, Channel Nine‘s A Current Affair screened a program on the Perth Waterfront development. It did a for-and-against poll; there have been many polls on the waterfront over this time. At that point, 67 per cent of participants—that is two-thirds—were against the proposal. I fear that was a damning response. The recent CityVision forum on the project re-emphasised the concerns that were brought up on the Channel Nine program. In my view, one of the most disturbing aspects of the waterfront development is the lack of genuine public consultation on this proposal. When the metropolitan region scheme amendment was put out for public comment this year, a series of concerns were raised during the submission process, as Hon Ken Travers mentioned. A number of non-government organisations and members of the public also spoke out at that time. I want to summarise these issues in my remarks today. Hopefully, the minister representing the Minister for Planning can address some of these issues. I am aware that a lot of the detail of this development has not really come out into the public arena, and I hope that the debate on the disallowance motion is an opportunity for the government to put forward its best foot, as it were. To date, there are many concerns and lots of evidence that point to an unsustainable development with serious environmental concerns. One of the concerns that I want to mention first-up, off the bat, is the adverse impacts on our Aboriginal and European heritage, with the development impacting on two registered sites, the Esplanade and the Swan River. The ―Register of Heritage Places — Assessment Documentation‖ clearly identifies the following — While Esplanade Reserve displays the framework of the Paradise style in the selection and arrangement of planting, modifications to the place have introduced the more eclectic elements of the Plantsman‘s Gardens style … The 1928 kiosk is a fine example of the Federation Arts and Crafts Style, composed of interlocking octagonal forms with elliptical arched windows … The variety of planting and landscape features at Esplanade Reserve provide a range of aesthetic and spatial qualities which are valued by the community for their enhancement of the urban environment … These are heritage values that the people of Perth want to see honoured and respected, and in some way preserved. I feel that the Minister for Planning‘s direction on this matter has somehow left them wanting. Some of the most well respected heritage professionals in this city are now speaking out and saying the plans are not good enough. Removing Florence Hummerston Kiosk is not good enough. There has to be some celebration of heritage in this important area. At the History Council of Western Australia forum that I went to, some elderly gentlemen spoke eloquently about their memories of going to the Esplanade Reserve and standing on the soapbox. There used to be a soapbox at the Esplanade, and people could go there to speak on any issue that they wanted to speak on. It was a public space that was treasured by the community in the early days of Perth as a city. This development could hark back to those days by having a speaker‘s box, or a place where people could speak out in a public forum. It would be helpful, I think, to the people of Perth, when we try to develop this area, to say, firstly, that we acknowledge that this area has heritage values; and, secondly, that we have a really good idea for how to incorporate that into our city so that we do not lose it for all time, as speakers before me have mentioned in relation to that beautiful building, The Esplanade. The adverse impacts of this project are not just to our European and Aboriginal heritage. There are also significant trees that are under threat. In its submission, the History Council argues that The Esplanade, as one of the earliest infrastructure projects in this state, has huge cultural and social importance. The council argues also that it believes that the master plan is out of step with international best practice for heritage conservation. What a shame. We should be providing state-of-the-art heritage conservation in this state. This state has a booming economy through mining. Let us spend that money wisely and honour our heritage. The National Trust has also raised concerns about the adverse impacts of this project and has argued against the removal of the Florence Hummerston building. I note that the National Trust is not at this time opposing the metropolitan region scheme amendment for this project. There is a difference between the MRS amendment and the master plan. The MRS amendment merely deals with the zoning for this area and allows us to use this area for urban development. The master plan deals with what we plan to put into this area. My concerns rest largely
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 591 with the master plan. But the problem is that we have had no opportunity to comment on the master plan— thanks to the planning system that we have set up, in which a committee talks to another committee—and to look at how we will develop this precious iconic area in Perth. So, instead I am left to debate the zoning of the land on which the government is proposing to build whatever it is that it decides to build. The National Trust has commented on the waterfront project in its magazine, trust news, dated November of last year. Many members will receive the National Trust magazine. I will show members what the cover looks like so that they will recognise it in their mail pile. Briefly, it notes — Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett claims that the ‗expanse of lawn‘ — That is an indirect quote — cuts off the Swan River from the city. The development, he claims ‗will assist Perth to mature as a vibrant and sophisticated capital city, providing an attraction for locals and tourists‘. The National Trust is very eloquent in noting — However, a truly ‗mature city‘ is one that recognises and honours its past and the past uses of a place. The proposal does not recognise the significance of the land it seeks to develop. Every vestige of heritage value will be eradicated, while the control of Perth‘s most important public space is passed to private developers. Public space is also my concern. The loss of important public space was a key concern for not only me, but also many submitters, including the Department of Sport and Recreation. This is an important space and it has great importance. It hosts many cultural and social events. It also provides that breathing space between the skyscrapers and the river. Apart from Hon Kate Doust and Hon Ken Travers, I do not recall any members who were there on the waterfront at that Sunday rally when the City Gatekeepers spoke about the value of the space. One chap could not help himself; he jumped up on the stage at the end of the rally and said he had to speak. The young man, who works in a building nearby The Esplanade, said, ―I have to tell you, I use this space every day. My mates and I come down here and we exercise in our lunchtime and we are going to miss this opportunity. No-one seems to have acknowledged that we care about this space and we want it retained.‖ Hon Ken Travers: The Department of Sport and Recreation does care about it, but its care is ignored in the response. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: As Hon Ken Travers found out earlier when he asked people whether they had read the submissions to the MRS amendment, not many people have. The Department of Sport and Recreation made a submission. It was clear that the area has value to the department, yet we are not hearing about any of the decision-makers figuring that into their plans. Hon Ken Travers: Even the responses about planning fail to understand the nature of cycling and what impact this will have on the cycle routes. Hon LYNN MacLAREN: The issue of cycling also concerns me. I go on to mention the scale and nature of this development. Many submitters believed that the proposed development was over-scale and would result in overshadowing and wind tunnel effects. Among others, Winthrop Professor Jenny Gregory advocated small-scale development at the water‘s edge, graduating higher as it moves away from the river. Rather than connect the city to the river, the proposed development will create a barrier. I do not know whether members or even you, Mr Deputy President, have received the beautiful illustration—I will table it if you will permit me—that shows how we could graduate a development along that foreshore so that the river is not overshadowed by these big buildings, plans for which we are regularly seeing published and modelled at 140 William Street and the City of Perth. We have seen those models everywhere. These massive buildings right there on the waterfront cause an overshadowing of the river. The graduation of the development in this illustration is at, I think, a 30-degree angle. We could easily accommodate lower scale buildings at the waterfront to give people that sense of human scale, which I think is another common criticism of this. People would like to have a human scale on the waterfront. I seek leave to table this illustration. Leave granted. [See paper 4289.] Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I will comment on the environmental impacts. Concerns have been raised about the river‘s biodiversity. I have some concerns about the drainage management plan, which came up in question time today. Page 25 of the water quality report for the Perth Waterfront development states — Pathogen levels were generally low, however concentrations recorded near the Mounts Bay Main Drain outfall … exceeded the primary and secondary recreational contact guidelines at times of moderate to heavy rainfall … We looked at the National Health and Medical Research Council reports on this. ―Primary contact‖ means swimming in the river. ―Secondary contact‖ is described as ―activity in which only the limbs are regularly wet
592 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] and in which greater contact (including swallowing water) is unusual.‖ That is boating and wading—things that will supposedly be created in this beautiful public space inlet; that is, a safe and accessible opportunity to paddle around in the water. According to the drainage management plan for the development — To allow the PWP to proceed as proposed, the MBMD will be realigned to discharge at the base of William Street, outside and downstream of the proposed inlet. However, this is still very close to the proposed development. Page 69 of the waterfront plan shows a tiered walkway that goes right down to the river, in proximity to the proposed outlet. It is not clear from the documents what potential impact the Mounts Bay main drain will have on the water quality in the inlet. Again, this is an opportunity for the minister to address those concerns so that people who might be looking forward to a paddle in that waterfront inlet might feel safe about doing so. Hon Ken Travers has extensively outlined the traffic impacts that we worry about in relation to this. Concerns have been raised with me. The chap who best described the impact of closing Riverside Drive, or even diverting Riverside Drive around the back of this development, was Ken Adams from the CityVision group. Ken Adams distributed a paper to us entitled ―The Perth Waterfront—Myths and Realities‖. It sets out several scenarios dealing with transport options that might be in the transport study. Rather than deal with hypotheticals, we should really find out how traffic will flow through our city after this development. I am also referring, as a Green, to pedestrian and cycling traffic. How will traffic flow through the city in that area? I would love to hear whether there is a medium-term plan—I would prefer it to be a short-term plan—for some light rail connections through the city, up Barrack Street, so people can come down to the waterfront and enjoy it without congesting the area with traffic, which is already an issue there. I will briefly quote from ―The Perth Waterfront—Myths and Realities‖ about the traffic consequences — The diversion and throttling-back of Riverside Drive has consequences in the short term and very serious long term strategic implications. Riverside Drive—in addition to its vital traffic functions—has since the 1930‘s been part of a continuous scenic vehicle route tracing beside Perth and Melville Water. (Prior to the 1959 advent of the Narrows interchange this ran both ways via Mounts Bay Rd—which the proposed plan will resolve by a new two-way road link between William Street and the Narrows.) This scenic route runs all the way between the Causeway and Crawley and offers marvellous changing views of the city — We all know that. In fact, we were told at the briefings how important it is to retain that along Mounts Bay Road and Riverside Drive, even if there is a little diversion around the development. According to CityVision — The new plan will sever this flow, a critical element in the functioning of the city. Increased traffic congestion due to this severed artery will be damaging, not only at peak periods, but throughout the day, as otherwise bypassing traffic is forced either into CBD congestion or to the single alternative—Graham Farmer Freeway. I would like to get some confidence through assurances from the minister that these traffic impacts are being addressed and that people will be able to move around the city. The last thing we want is the creation of more traffic congestion when today‘s transport planners know pretty well how to avoid that. The Greens (WA), of course, would like to see how we are planning for sustainable options such as light rail. We need significant improvements to our public transport services, such as the completion of the Knowledge Arc Light Rail line, to ensure that traffic congestion problems do not occur in this area. Even some of the people involved with the Perth Waterfront development use the cyclepath in the proposed development site. Many people approached me after the rally and said that we must retain cycling in this area. The answers to my questions in Parliament have revealed the number of people who use that cycling path as a commuter route every day. Let us not put barriers in the way of cyclists. Let us make sure that we create more opportunities for cyclists to get to their destination more quickly and to get cars off the road and out of the city. Let us not create problems for them. Finally, I want to touch on sustainability and the susceptibility of the project to the effects of climate change. I raised this matter in the briefing and in questions in Parliament. How far back from the current level of the river will the development have to be built to ensure that the severe storms and sea level rise that we will suffer do not undermine this new development? Have we adequately addressed that concern? My colleague Hon Robin Chapple will expand upon this notion. We need to hear about the plans built into the design of this project to adapt to climate change. Likewise, what energy star rating will the buildings be required to have? Will we use things like the north–south orientation and all the passive energy design knowledge that we have to ensure that this is a state-of-the-art development that we can be proud to showcase to the developed world and that can be enjoyed as a tourist destination as well as a place in which to live and work?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 593
These are some of the concerns that were raised in the submissions. What was the government‘s response to these constructive and well-informed comments? In my view, and in the view of many of my constituents, the government‘s response has been underwhelming. No major changes have been made to the metropolitan region scheme amendment as a result of the public submissions. The only change to the MRS amendment is the modification of its western boundary to retain that section as part of the primary regional roads reservation. The government has done nothing to address the concerns raised by the key heritage stakeholders about the loss of public space. In fact, the Western Australian Planning Commission claims in the submission that — … over 60 per cent of the development will remain accessible to the community and will continue to be held in public ownership. I tried to—as members say—unpack that. What does that mean? When I questioned these figures, the Minister for Planning admitted that the ―publicly accessible area‖ includes all aspects of the public domain, including the promenades, islands, roads and the inlet. I do not think that replacing the gathering spaces for the people on the Esplanade with roads is an adequate trade-off of public open space and nor do I think that the government should be counting the roads as public open space. I even question the inclusion of the promenades. To what degree will the commercialised area be privatised? I recently visited South Bank in Brisbane and felt that it was public open space; I did not feel that it was privatised space. However, I have been to places where commercial enterprises have been built right down to the waterfront. Auckland in New Zealand is a good example of that where quite a few restaurants have been built up to the waterfront and it felt as though I was walking through people‘s dinners. Development and setting aside places where we, as Perth individuals, feel as though we can hang out regardless of what commercial venture is happening behind us does matter. My conclusion, following the questions that I asked about the public open space, was that roads and the bits under the water were included in the calculation of how much public open space will be provided. I have noticed on some of the drawings that there is a bit of jetty and marina. To what degree is that going to be sold off to people who are residents of the penthouses? Is that going to be a public marina or is that going to be a place for private boat owners? I do not know. We would like to hear those details. According to the government‘s ―Key Facts—Perth Waterfront‖ fact sheet, of the 6.147 hectares of parks and recreation reservation excised for the project, only 1.5 hectares are promenade, and the 0.7-hectare island will remain as public open space. In other words, only 36 per cent of this space will be preserved, not 60 per cent, as the government was claiming. I know that even since we prepared these notes for my speech, the government has announced an extended promenade. It would be good if, when the government comments on the metropolitan region scheme amendment disallowance motion, it would advise us about whether it has increased the public open space as a result of the public concern about that. The government also failed to address public concerns about the scale and the nature of the development, and the environmental and transport impacts. Finally, the government has failed to incorporate cutting-edge sustainability principles into the design, including the adaptation to rising river levels. Now, prove me wrong, gentlemen. I would love to be proven wrong on this, and I would love to hear them defend the sustainability of this state-of-the-art new development, because that is what the people of Perth would love to welcome, and I would be happily proven wrong if this development is going to deliver in that regard. I want to quote from the CityVision paper ―The Perth Waterfront—Myths and Realities‖ just to bring it home and remind members that, no, I am not opposed to any development in this area, as most speakers are going to be telling them. What we are concerned about are certain key values that we feel are not being reflected in the public information that is coming out about this project. Even CityVision is suggesting, and from day one it has suggested, alternative approaches to accommodate us. These are people who want to work with the government. I would like to wax for a long time about how this process is making it difficult for the public to be engaged, and it is making it difficult for these people to put forward their alternative approaches, so here they are relying on Hon Ken Travers, at the eleventh hour, with a disallowance motion for the metropolitan region scheme zoning amendment. But so be it. I will put their points in this paper, which states — An alternative approach is therefore to consider, in detail, a much less expensive development approach which involves much simpler structures and earthworks and allows for only lightweight buildings (up to, say 3–4 storeys, or more if super-lightweight) that do not require deep piling but ‗float‘ on the ground. This is technically entirely feasible, will involve the Government in much lower risk and expenditure and a can be built over a much shorter time frame. THE REALITY: This is their conclusion — A redesign of the current plan is required. This will be painful—the current project team would much prefer to get something done, no matter what. However, the shortcomings of the current plan are serious enough to warrant some retreat and re- consideration.
594 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
It is now the responsibility of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority to produce a new plan. They have both the mandate and resources to undertake it. However, new planning must have some constraints that are not obvious in the current design solution. The constraints and objectives would include: Ensure that the regional function of Riverside Drive as a main by-pass route for the CBD is preserved; That is the controversial one — Maintain the objective of providing better connection and access between the city (at St Georges terrace) and he river, but measure and judge this very carefully; Improve cyclist and pedestrian amenity, including allowing for both commuter and recreational cyclists in separate bike paths away from the road traffic; I think the design team is part of the way there on this, but we need to see the proof — Investigate, in detail, lower cost and simpler public realm design and low-rise alternatives for development sites The final point is something that is dear to many people in this city— Incorporate heritage items into the plan. We should find a way to make the plan reflect our heritage. I believe that the development of the Perth waterfront at this time in our state‘s history is an opportunity to showcase sustainable design and improve the enjoyment of the Swan River for all at a time when an increasing population and economic growth places much more pressure on public open space. However, by failing to adequately take on board community concerns and feedback on the government plans, I am concerned that the government will end up commissioning an expensive eyesore that destroys the heritage value and amenity of the Perth waterfront. I will wind up by making some remarks about the process. Some serious concerns about the process have been raised with me by constituents. The last day that submissions were accepted by the Department of Planning, the department was moving its offices. One of my constituents went to the Department of Planning to get a copy of the metropolitan region scheme report so he could make a submission to it. When he turned up at the office, no reports were to be found. It is the legal responsibility of the Department of Planning to have those reports available for people until the time submissions are due. Hon Helen Morton: Was that the day before submissions were closed? Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Apparently, it was the day submissions closed. I can understand that when moving office, it is hard to keep across all the detail. Eventually this constituent got a submission form. Did the department meet its legal obligation? I am not sure. I know that it was raised in the transcripts and it has been raised before. I am concerned that the integrity of the process is retained. Was the MRS report available from the department when it should have been made available as part of its legal responsibility, and was that good enough? In several submissions, including my own, the comment from the planning department is ―submission noted‖. Is ―submission noted‖ a reasonable response to a submission to a metropolitan region scheme amendment? I am making the argument that it is not. Indeed, I have been advised that regulation 17 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, as found on the State Law Publisher‘s website, states — … the responsible authority shall, within — (a) 6 months of the expiry of the period specified … (b) 42 days of receiving a statement delivered …; or (c) if the responsible authority makes a request under … of the EP Act … The main point is that when a submission is received, the commission must — consider all submissions to the Scheme and in respect of each submission shall consider whether the Scheme should be modified accordingly or whether that submission should be rejected. After reading that, I would suggest that simply noting a submission is not good enough. In the view of my advisers, the commission has not met its legal obligation to make a decision to either take a submission into account or reject it. I know it is polite to note them but perhaps it is not the responsibility of the commission. Maybe the commission has to have a view and put in the report why it has rejected the points raised in the submission or even that it rejects the submission. In other words, by just saying that it is noted, how do we know that the very real concerns of departments such as the Department of Sport and Recreation have been taken into
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 595 consideration and that the plan has been amended? Each of the departments, authorities or agencies that took the time and the effort to comment on this metropolitan region scheme amendment did so because it has a statutory obligation to comment, and those comments should be responded to by the responsible authority, in this case the Planning Commission. I want to know what is failing in our system if these treasured and significant agencies, having made valid comments on a proposed amendment, have for all intents and purposes, and for all we know, been completely ignored. I would like to hear the minister‘s response on that. Likewise, I understand that this is the very first project by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority—even though we tried to get that detail when we passed the legislation establishing that authority and we were not given that information, now it seems to be their first project. Some of the individuals who sit on that authority are the ones who proposed the plan, assessed the plan and now are implementing the plan. I ask members: what has happened to our system of checks and balances when the same individuals are the judge, jury and executioner? I do not think that this planning system is standing up, and that is why there are so many people concerned about this development and why we have a metropolitan region scheme amendment disallowance motion before us now. I would rather be in this place debating the nature of the development: whether it is honouring our heritage values; whether it is standing up to sustainability principles; whether we have enough public open space; whether we have activated the waterfront; whether we are using the ferry system; and whether we have made it safe and accessible for all pedestrians of any age or ability. I would love to be here talking about those issues; instead, I have to argue whether the government is allowed to rezone crown land— public land which was vested in the state for our enjoyment for recreation—and to sell that off to developers and potentially, miraculously, develop something that we want. Frankly, that is not good enough! Our planning system was set up in a much better way, with checks and balances; but those checks and balances have been systematically removed from our planning system in the vain hope that the government could somehow get something done around this town and get—I hope—iconic, beautiful and useful developments in this city in a time frame that was acceptable to developers and investors. What we have here is the first example of that, and it seems to have fallen down. I really look forward to hearing how the minister can defend not only this plan and the aspects of this plan but also the protests at how it is being rolled out in the city. That is why we have constituents who are not traditional Labor or Greens supporters who are very frustrated with how this whole plan has been rolled out. The Perth Waterfront project should be rejected, not because it is not a brilliant idea—there are lots of people who think it is a brilliant idea—but because the way it has been rolled out, unfortunately, is letting us all down and letting our checks and balances down. That is why the Greens are going to support this disallowance motion. HON MAX TRENORDEN (Agricultural) [5.44 pm]: I have great interest in standing up to speak to this motion. From time to time we get an opportunity for great humour. The fact that the Labor Party is opposing its own plan is providing me with substantial humour! This motion has got to be a joke! I have press releases here that I am going to have great pleasure reading out. The first one was on 13 February 2008 by Alan Carpenter, MLA, Premier of Western Australia, and then, Hon Alannah MacTiernan, MLA, as Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Can anyone remember her? She was the superstar! She was the guru of planning in the world! She was the world‘s best planner! She flew above the Swan River like a golden swan! And now she is a feather duster— gone! All of her plan—gone! This is just a miraculous piece of Western Australian history. I hope you can stay in your seat, Mr Deputy President (Hon Col Holt) as I read some of this press release of 13 February 2008 — Premier Alan Carpenter … today committed the State Government to a spectacular redevelopment of the CBD‘s Swan River foreshore. … set to create an exciting business, tourism, residential, entertainment and activity hub for locals and visitors to enjoy. I will not read all of the press release. The comments are selective but I will table it for the information of members if any member wants to read the rest of it. It continues — Mr Carpenter said Stage One of the Perth Waterfront project would transform the Esplanade and waterfront between William Street and Barrack Square. — Sounds familiar — Specifically, the State Government would undertake significant engineering and earth works, — Sounds familiar — road realignments, — Good grief, ―road realignments‖ in the press release! Amazing stuff — landscaping and create a new water‘s edge in preparation for private sector investment.
596 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
The concept designs … reorient the city towards the waterfront and bring new life to this under-utilised area … Planning for the Waterfront project will begin immediately — Immediately; this is in 2008 — … It is expected that major works for Stage One will commence during 2011–12 … The total cost is estimated at this stage to be about $300million — Is that figure familiar? Does anyone recall that sort of figure? It is very familiar to me — … and is expected to be recouped through land sales. … ―The first stage of the project will transform the Esplanade and the waterfront between William Street and Barrack Square into a round-the-clock activity precinct. … The new Esplanade precinct features two major public places: Esplanade Square and — Lo and behold — Esplanade Circle. Guess what the Esplanade Circle does? It takes Riverside Drive away. What we heard from Hon Ken Travers today was precisely the opposition‘s plan. I will go on and refer to what the opposition said about that — Together, the square and the 500m circumference circle will give the best of the river experience and the best of the city in the same place. — What has changed in the past year? It may be that going from government to opposition has caused the change. I cannot think of any other change — The Premier said public transport was the key — The key, Mr Deputy President — to the success of the project. This is a wonderful line; members will appreciate this — ―This project has the advantage of brilliant public transport access with a bus port and ferry terminal both on site,‖ … Can I ask a question of the Labor Party? Where did that brilliance vanish to in 2012? It was ―brilliant‖ in 2008 when no vehicles would use Riverside Drive. It was brilliant then because no cars would be there; the project would be serviced by a busport and ferries. There is no mention of vehicles. That is therefore the answer to Hon Ken Travers‘s question. It was Labor that put up this — Hon Peter Collier: Dubai by the Swan. Hon Helen Morton: Dubai on the Swan. Hon MAX TRENORDEN: Yes, Dubai on the Swan. Nevertheless, what was Labor‘s plan in those days? It was not a problem in 2008, and all of a sudden in 2012 it is an amazing problem. Back in 2008 the Esplanade was not required because we had ferries and buses—what else did we require? The press release continues — Planning and Infrastructure Minister Alannah MacTiernan said the State‘s stellar economic performance was attracting people to Perth from cities all over the world, many with their own active waterfront precincts and bustling central business districts. ―The quality of the city experience is crucial to our continued growth and economic success,‖ … I wonder where that has vanished to. It continues — ―If we are to be a competitive global city we have to deliver first class public space. — Where also has that vanished to? It states further on — ―Perth is changing and more high intensity active spaces are needed to meet community aspirations. Where have the community aspirations vanished to? It states further on — ―The future development of Stage Two will offer a mixture of hotels, apartments, offices, restaurants and cafes linked by footpaths and bike lanes along Mounts Bay.‖ That is the other form of transport.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 597
There was a brilliant plan in 2008, which did not include vehicles or the Esplanade. All of a sudden in 2012 it does. I will read a couple of other press releases, one of 25 March 2008, which reads in part — Western Australians have responded strongly to the opportunity to have a say on initial concepts for a spectacular new waterfront for their capital city. ... ―Of these, 67 per cent have been positive and 20 per cent against; other comments have been neutral or unrelated to the project. ―Our aim is to have the final plan ready by the middle of the year, — This is 2008. so we can then begin statutory processes for planning and environmental approval,‖ ... ―Development of the waterfront circle — That is the crucial part of it because that cuts the road. would then begin the following year, with Stage One of the project, which does not include building construction, completed by 2013. ―It is estimated Stage One will cost about $300million … The only other press release I will quote from is of 6 May 2008, which begins — Environmental testing into soil and groundwater conditions has begun at the Perth Waterfront development. Hon Lynn MacLaren—she is not here but she can read this later—there is no mention of vehicles and there is no mention of heritage. As Hon Lynn MacLaren said, we need a microscope to tell the difference between the Labor plan and the current government plan. This has to be a joke. There has to be something happening here that I do not know about. Some tricky manoeuvring must be going on somewhere because what I have been listening to has no relevance. The current plan was developed by former minister Alannah MacTiernan—agreed, marginally altered—all the rest is the plan of the members opposite. Here we are today being asked to vote against their plan. Who is asking us to do that? Members opposite are. That has to be a joke. The National Party will not support this motion; clearly, it is a joke. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [5.53 pm]: I rise to speak on this issue, not because it is in my electorate, but because I have an interest in heritage. As a member of the Australian Archaeological Association, I quite often get to look at these sorts of issues. Like many members, I have received lots of submissions from members of the public. One that I will speak to shortly is the submission from Jenny Gregory, AM, Winthrop Professor of History. I had the pleasure of working for Jenny at the National Trust some time ago, so I greatly value her contribution. I think a holistic view needs to be taken in the development of any plan—an engineering plan, a new town plan, or part of a town plan—and what I see here is a bit of a monolith. It is a plan of the moment, a plan of the time, and in my view it really does not take into account a whole range of issues, including the future development of the city‘s transport mechanisms such as light rail. From an archaeological perspective, one of the things we deal with is establishing what has been on the ground before. Around Perth, around the river, are plains that were part of the riverine system about 2 000 years ago; we know that the area was inundated with water as recently as 1 500 to 2 000 years ago. About 17 000 years ago, the sea level was about 140 metres lower than it currently is, and then there was a major inrush of water that started to slow only in the last part of the previous century. Sea level reached a peak about 2 000 years ago, and South Perth and the foreshore area in Perth was inundated with water, but when the waters receded we could tell what went on by evaluating shell material in the foreshore and other areas. We now know that the ocean is rising again, and, over recent times, rising at about 3.4 millimetres a year; sea level rise has been exponential over the past four or five years. Interestingly enough, the sea level around Derby is rising significantly, more caused by tidal amplitude. Sea level is rising again. Recently, when talking to somebody about this development, I raised the subject of the rise in sea level, and they basically said not to worry about it because a seawall could be built. It seems really rather funny to me that part of the consideration of this development is that we will build a seawall, should there be a problem. I find it a bit funny that that is part of the long-term strategic planning. We need to remember that the area has significant heritage value. In 2003, Esplanade Reserve was recognised as having significant heritage value to Western Australia and was included on the Register of Heritage Places. In
598 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
1881, Esplanade Reserve was established as a park for recreational use. It has been associated with a number of important and historic events and activities, including the proclamation of self-government in 1890. The Perth Anzac Day parade has been held there since 1916, and the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the foundation of Swan River Colony was held there. Over time, it has been an important place of recreation and a traditional rally point for many public protests. The proposed creation of a waterfront inlet and surrounding buildings will impact on the cultural heritage values of Esplanade Reserve. These impacts could be mitigated by reducing the space removed from the public domain. Following on from what my colleague said, we are not necessarily opposed to the development, but the community values of the area should be recognised. It is proposed that the Florence Hummerston building will be relocated from Esplanade Reserve to the Supreme Court Gardens, which flies against a basic premise of heritage. Heritage is an association with a place; we do not pick up Stonehenge and move it somewhere else. Hon Helen Morton: You do in Esperance! They have done that; apparently it is fantastic! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Do not get me going on that one either, please! I think that is one of the greatest sacrileges the state of Western Australia has had foisted upon it! Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Col Holt): Good evening, members. Let me add my welcome back to a new parliamentary year. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Just before the dinner suspension I was going to remind people in the house about the principles of the Burra charter. The Burra charter is the guiding principle that deals with heritage at a state level, as well as nationally and internationally. We are talking about the location of things such as the Florence Hummerston building and considering other issues about this relocation. The Burra charter, article 9.1, reads — The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival. Leaving the Florence Hummerston building at its location is now required under the Burra charter because nothing threatens that building. Article 9.3 reads — If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance. The relocation of the Florence Hummerston building to the Supreme Court Gardens will lead to the loss of the heritage values of the building and significantly impact on the garden‘s capacity as a community venue. The objectives of the Perth Waterfront master plan do not necessitate the relocation of the Florence Hummerston building, and therefore its retention at that location should be considered. The relocation of the Talbot Hobbs Memorial has been under consideration for a number of years. If the memorial is to be relocated, it provides an opportunity to restore its ceremonial role on Anzac Day. I do not think the issues involved with this development have been thought through in great detail, and the public may or may not have had input into the process over a limited time. But when dealing with the redesign of a significant proportion of our city and a very, very important heritage icon for the community—I would assume that all members have received the hundreds of emails and letters from community members concerned about this issue—we must consider that we need more time to strategically develop what will be our foreshore into the future. We must look at this proposal not within a four-year election time frame, but as a long-term developmental process that includes the development of the whole of Perth—it is not just the foreshore, but the city, the use of its freeways, and the use of what was referred to as the tunnel, the Graham Farmer Freeway—and the way we will develop Perth into the future. In my view, to do things in isolation is not good strategic planning. We have Professor Peter Newman out there saying that we really need to look at the whole development of Perth and the way that we have transport, the way we access the city, the way we use our city and how to make it more vibrant and people-friendly. Just having — Hon Donna Faragher: We‘re trying to make it vibrant by having the Perth Waterfront—you‘ve got to live a little! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: But it is not in the concept of a complete design of the city; it is an isolated issue. We are selling off valuable assets—which have been community assets from the very, very beginning—to, in essence, the big end of town, to get a cash refund for the state government. If we really want to have a plan that involves the whole of the city, let us have some strategic long-term planning for the whole of the city that deals with transport, liveability, inner-city living —
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 599
Hon Helen Morton: Have you been asleep? Haven‘t you been noticing what is going on? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I have not seen much, I must admit. Hon Helen Morton: Don‘t you know about the Northbridge — Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I know about the sinking of the rail line, yes. Hon Helen Morton: Don‘t you know anything that is going on at the moment? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: But strategic planning is more than just isolated issues; it is having a plan in which the community is involved, and embraces, for the long term. This is not long-term thinking; long term is 50 to 75 years. Hon Helen Morton: It is 1 000 years according to you—thousands of years. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Sorry? Hon Helen Morton: Thousands of years, 2 000 years you‘re talking about. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, I am not talking about 2 000 years, I am talking about 75 to 100 years. This plan is nothing to do with that. The issues that have been raised with me and with many other members, as members would know, came from a whole range of people. I really want to point to the comments made by Winthrop Professor of History Jenny Gregory who I think articulated some of the really serious points in her correspondence to us. She states — … After it was reclaimed during the 1870s, the Esplanade was given to the City of Perth in permanent trust in 1880 as a reserve for the recreation of the people of Perth. Since that time it has continuously used by the people for that purpose. In this plan it will be handed over to the private sector and dug up. … The proposed 36 storey high rise towers to the north will overshadow the development and will block the sun in winter … The 36 to 24 storey high rise towers around the inlet will trap the prevailing southwesterly winds ... The proposed development of high-rise towers overshadowing a windy inlet will not create the hoped-for urbanity that has been talked of. The experience of any European city — This is where I go back to the words of Peter Newman, who has visited those cities and promoted designs for Western Australia, and this has not been talked about — and the most urbane parts of our own city make it clear that urbanity is found in places where the buildings are of human scale and where interactive activities are encouraged. … The cutting of Riverside Drive will have a major adverse impact on city traffic. Only limited traffic studies have been undertaken. … There are large quantities contaminated materials under the Esplanade, including asbestos. Documents show that only a small number of test sites have been drilled and that scientists are alarmed about the expected contamination of the river once dredging begins. … If the Esplanade is dug up much of the exposed material will be toxic and will have to be handled with extreme care. The contaminated material will need to be trucked to landfill sites thus adding to the cost. ... The project costs are $900m, with expected long-term revenue of $500m from the sale of public land to developers. Cost overruns are likely. … The proposed development ignores the reasons for the permanent registration of the Esplanade Reserve on the State Register of Heritage Places. The Esplanade Reserve is of immense historical importance. It was the site of the proclamation of self-government in 1890. Six thousand people (eighty per cent of the then population of Perth) gathered here to hear the acting Chief Justice, Sir Henry Wrensfordsley, read the preamble to the Constitution Act, in the presence of the Governor Robinson, and to celebrate the birth of Western Australia—now a self-governing state with two houses of parliament. In 1881 the Perth International Exhibition, which encouraged the search for gold in the colony, was held there. With the exception of two years, when the William Street was being constructed, Anzac Day parades have been held there since 1916. Over many years it has been a site of protest—the great rallies at the height of the 1930s depression, secession meeting in the 1930s, scores of union meetings, nuclear disarmament meetings of the 1980s, and the recent rally protesting against the mining tax were all held on the Esplanade. It has also been the site of much celebration—for Federation in January 1901,
600 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Armistice Day at the end of WWI in 1918, George V‘s jubilee in 1935, the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts in 1968, the America‘s Cup celebrations in 1983 (which attracted 100,000 people), and the recent CHOGM Barbeque for the Queen (attended by 120,000 people). And of course the Australia Day Skyshows when people have packed the Esplanade every year since 1985. It is those sorts of historic heritage issues that Jenny Gregory attested to in the letter that she wrote to me and I assume to all other parliamentarians. She urges me and other members of this house to vote to disallow metropolitan region scheme amendment 1203/41, Perth Waterfront, so that the current plan can be rethought. Certainly, I am sure that Jenny, like us, supports the development of the Perth Waterfront, but let us do it in a way that reflects the heritage values of the area and the values that we as Western Australians attribute to our foreshore on the Swan. HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Minister for Mental Health) [7.43 pm]: One of the most enjoyable moments that I had when I was parliamentary secretary to the Premier was when he asked me to sit on the working group for the Perth Waterfront development. I had a really terrific briefing because I needed to be brought up to date with what people were already doing. Unfortunately, I did not last very long with the working group because I went on to do other things. However, the time I had there was a revelation to me because I had not taken as much notice of the waterfront development as I started to at that point. I want to really make sure that people are aware of what we are talking about because I know for a fact that there are still a lot of misconceptions in the community around what precisely is being talked about. One of the things I think worthwhile noting is—I have a diagram with me that I am happy to table if members would like—that all this land that we are referring to is reclaimed from the river. All the land we are talking about was actually part of the river at one stage. I do not know whether members can see it from their seats, but all this land up to the dark yellow line on the diagram is reclaimed. The Perth coastline is more than 300 kilometres. However, the total distance along the Perth foreshore that people are generally discussing is about nine kilometres, which is, I guess, the distance from Mounts Bay Road across Riverside Drive and up to the Causeway. The distance that people are overly concerned about is 300 metres. The distance that will be taken out of ―The Drive‖—if members want to put it that way when they see the diagrams that I have seen of how the route will be realigned—is minimal, and I am told that there will even be improvement in terms of the distance for getting from the Mounts Bay Road area through to the Causeway if that is the way that anyone wants to go to the airport from the western suburbs. However, I assure members that if I lived in the western suburbs that is not the route I would take to get to the airport. I would go through the tunnel. The issues around the amount of distance — Hon Ken Travers: Do you have the times as well as the distances? Hon HELEN MORTON: The time and the distance. I assure you, Hon Ken Travers, that if you went through the tunnel, you would get to the airport quicker than by going along Riverside Drive. Hon Ken Travers: As well as the difference in distance, do you know the additional time it will take during peak times? Hon HELEN MORTON: A person who wants to travel to the airport during peak times would not go along Riverside Drive. Who would go that way? They would go through the tunnel, which is by far the most appropriate way. I am hearing from opposition members just how all over the place they are on this development. Amazingly, as Hon Max Trenorden has said, there was a time when the opposition supported this major redevelopment, although not this particular version. The opposition, the then government, wanted a much bigger, more complicated development with similar impacts on the redirection of traffic and changes to the skyline. Those skyscraper changes were the reason that plan was dubbed ―Dubai on Swan‖. Minister John Day told Parliament that our government wanted a more modest redevelopment than Labor had proposed, and we started to scale back the development to a more appropriate size for Perth, Western Australia. The opposition‘s planning spokesperson at the time, Mark McGowan, said that Labor‘s plans for the waterfront were more exciting, that we should have progressed those plans and that he feared Perth would end up with something far less imaginative. I do not believe that is so. When I looked at the plans for ―Dubai on Swan‖ I thought the proposed development was absolutely abhorrent. Now we have something that is far more realistic and will be a fantastic celebration for generations to come. Undoubtedly, the majority of young people in and around Perth are saying that this is what they want. The key points are that Western Australia is experiencing a once-in-a-lifetime period of unprecedented economic and population growth. Each year more than 30 000 people move to our state, and by 2026 the state‘s population is expected to grow to more than three million; that is more than 600 000 additional people on today‘s projections. Perth will face critical shortages in residential, office, retail and hotel accommodation over the next 10 to 15 years unless the government takes action. The Perth waterfront is just one such opportunity to meet Perth‘s future needs. It is also a project that is supported by a majority of Perth‘s residents. When members understand the information around some of the submissions, they will recognise that this project development
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 601 has majority support. People not only recognise that Perth and Western Australia cannot stand still and cannot go back to how it was many years ago because it has already significantly changed, but also that it is both necessary and possible for the state to mature and yet retain a uniquely Western Australian feel. The state government is continuing to work on a range of statutory and land assembly milestones that will see major site works begin in April this year. The state government has fully and transparently addressed all matters raised by departments and agencies as detailed in the metropolitan region scheme report on submissions. The MRS process is an extremely transparent process that affords all agencies and community members an opportunity to make a submission. They can also request to attend a hearing subsequent to the submission being made, and some people did that. All the submissions via the MRS amendment report on submissions are subsequently tabled and considered by Parliament. Hon Ken Travers: No, they‘re not. Your members haven‘t read them; you haven‘t even read them. Hon HELEN MORTON: Is that right? How would the member know that? Hon Ken Travers: Because I asked. Hon HELEN MORTON: Yes, but I do not have to answer the member. Hon Ken Travers: So have you read them? Hon HELEN MORTON: Does the member realise that every one of those things goes — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Col Holt): Order, members! Perhaps if the minister would like to direct her comments to the Chair, there would be a better outcome for everybody. Hon HELEN MORTON: I would like to remind members opposite that these things are also tabled in cabinet. I can assure them that there has not been a cabinet submission that has gone forward that I have not had a good look at since I have been there. Hon Ken Travers: So she hasn‘t read the submissions. Hon HELEN MORTON: I have actually read most of those submissions. I do not know whether there are some I have not read, but I have certainly read the report. The project has attracted a high degree of interest across the development sectors—commercial, residential and hotel—and there is a growing anticipation of land release. The state government has consistently outlined that it will commence construction work in April 2012, and we are well and truly on track to achieve that, with the works to create the public domain expected to continue until mid-2015. The government‘s new waterfront will become a major destination for locals and visitors and will help to ensure that Perth remains a contemporary, liveable and globally competitive city. I want to talk for a few minutes about the amendments to the MRS. Submissions on the MRS were open for 90 days from 22 February to 27 May. As Hon Lynn MacLaren mentioned, one person had difficulty getting some documents but that person did get those documents. The report on submissions provides the Western Australian Planning Commission‘s general response to key issues raised through the consultation process, but also provides a planning comment on aspects of individual submissions that were not covered under general submissions in the main submissions report. Further to the comments of Hon Lynn MacLaren, she would note that submissions noted in the report are taken into account and that the commentary sits underneath the section by the Department of Planning prior to the word ―noted‖. There is a commentary on every one of the submissions that have been made. Hon Ken Travers: But some of that commentary acknowledges the problem, but it does not provide a solution. Hon HELEN MORTON: That is the member‘s take on it and that is fine because he is in opposition; I understand that. The report on submissions is provided to all submitters and is made readily available to the general public. I have answered many questions in Parliament on this issue — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! The Minister for Mental Health has the call. Hon HELEN MORTON: I will continue to direct my response through you, Mr Deputy President. I have answered many questions in this place on behalf of the Minister for Planning, and all parliamentary questions posed by members about the budget and time frames have been answered transparently. Amendment 1203/41 to the metropolitan region scheme was tabled in Parliament on 18 October 2011. This designates the Esplanade and the surrounding area as public purpose special use, reclassifying the land to enable the development to proceed. There is a legislative requirement to conduct a public consultation process, and the results of the process are freely available on the Department of Planning‘s website. It provides an opportunity for
602 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] all interested parties to comment on the fundamental proposition to change the use of the land on which this important new part of the city will be built. Importantly, the amendment process also provides an opportunity for individuals or organisations to comment on aspects of the proposal that they either support or have concerns about. As I said, the amendment was advertised for 90 days, from 22 February to 27 May 2011, and the WAPC received—wait for it—56 submissions, all of which have been published and can be found on the Department of Planning‘s website. Moreover, two hearings were conducted, on 28 July and 2 August. Out of those 56 submissions, 26 submissions supported the amendment, with some conditions; 10 submissions were entirety neutral; and 20 submissions objected to the amendment. Given the scale of this project and the number of people who could have submitted if they had any violent objections to the project, this is seen as a very positive result. The Department of Planning is working closely with key government agencies to address any issues to ensure that the project achieves the long-held aspiration of reconnecting the city to the river. One of the other elements of my new understanding of the Perth Waterfront project when I went onto the working group was an understanding of how long the city has stretched from an east–west perspective, and how this project will enable the city to start to develop along a north–south axis. This element will join up with the sinking of the railway and the connection of Northbridge to the city. It is all part of a total scheme, which, to my mind, is exactly what we need to be doing in Perth. I do not know how anybody could assume that something like the Darling Harbour development in Sydney is not a wonderful advantage to that city. If we can achieve half as much as that in Perth, I think we will be doing a fantastic job. The main issues in the submissions were the removal of roads and the impact on local roads; the high density and form of the buildings; the loss of the Esplanade; the heritage issues on the Esplanade; and the Swan River water quality. As I have said, the whole point of this process is to consult key stakeholders, both private and government, in order to identify any potential areas of concern and attention. I understand that the member opposite who moved this motion is the shadow spokesperson for transport, and he would have wanted to make this issue a transport issue if he could have. However, I would say that he is barking up the wrong tree. The transport portfolio agencies and the City of Perth are working jointly on a central business district transport plan, in close consultation with the Department of Planning. That plan is focused on detailed traffic modelling. I would like to just say that the modelling has been undertaken at regional and local levels to understand the implications of a growing city on the current network. The waterfront modelling was undertaken at three levels—the regional, local and city level. The report on the outcomes, for those people who are interested, is on the website. So if the member wants to know more about that modelling — Hon Ken Travers: So you are going to tell us to go to the website, just like the President told you not to today? Hon HELEN MORTON: Do not get upset! The member has had plenty of time to look at this. I have had just today to know that this is on the website, and the member can go and get it if he wants it. Hon Ken Travers: Where is it on the website, because I have seen some of the modelling on the website, and it is not the detailed modelling; it is a summary? Hon HELEN MORTON: The member can go and check that out or he can ask some more questions about that if he wants to. Hon Ken Travers: At least give me the proper web address! Hon HELEN MORTON: I will give it to the member after we close today, if he likes. The Perth Waterfront will be one of the most publicly accessible parts of the metropolitan area, connected to bus, train, CAT, ferry, cycle and pedestrian networks. Is this not what the opposition is always asking for? This is an amazing situation and the best of public transport will be provided in this area. Hon Kate Doust: We have not yet got the best of public transport. Hon HELEN MORTON: The opposition can get it if it goes along with this. For those people who are overly concerned about a tunnel, the advice I have is that the traffic predictions at this stage do not warrant a tunnel. However, should that prove to be otherwise in the future, it will not be difficult to build a tunnel in the area we talked about. The advice I have is that the traffic requirements do not necessitate it at this stage. The Public Transport Authority has been involved in the planning of Perth Waterfront project for several years and will continue to be closely involved as the project is implemented. The PTA stated that it was supportive of the amendment. It noted that further investigation into the development of the Perth Waterfront area should be undertaken with the PTA; that is already occurring. One of the issues discussed in the submissions was high density and form. That has not been raised today, so I will not spend too much time on it. The project is not at the stage of considering issues relating to form and
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 603 design. These comments will be considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission at the appropriate stage in the process. Another issue that has been raised concerns open space. The Esplanade reserve forms part of some of the most wonderful open spaces along the city‘s foreshore; however, it is not unique. There remains an even larger expanse of open space at Langley Park. The waterfront project will create new sorts of public spaces and domains; that is something that I am looking forward to. The Supreme Court Gardens are to be upgraded as part of the Perth Waterfront project to become one of the city‘s premiere outdoor event spaces. Langley Park, which is currently the main area for active recreation in the city, will remain. It will be there in its entirety. What is the issue with that? I turn to the heritage issues. Sometimes when I hear Hon Robin Chapple talk, I think that, unfortunately, he would like us to go back to the caveman stage and live in caves! The WAPC will work closely with all heritage stakeholders and work will proceed with the necessary approvals in place. Applications have been made to the Heritage Council and the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. Comments were made about water quality. The WAPC document ―Perth Waterfront Environmental Assessment Report — Report on Submissions‖, which is publicly available, has identified water quality risks, which are rated low to medium when managed. Water quality is a key issue and an extensive series of data collection and analysis continues to be undertaken to inform the management response and to militate against any issues that may arise during or after construction. The full outcome of this analysis and associated management strategies will be included in the inlet construction development application to the Environmental Protection Authority. I turn to the issue of cycling. I know that the honourable member who moved the motion is a keen cyclist because I sponsored him once in a big cycling fundraiser. By the way, is Hon Ken Travers doing that again soon? Hon Ken Travers: No, but I brought a number of riders in for lunch the other day to help their fundraising. Hon HELEN MORTON: If the member were to do it again, I would sponsor the member again. Several members interjected. Hon HELEN MORTON: I think he was raising funds for Youth Focus. Hon Ken Travers: Yes. Hon HELEN MORTON: It is a good cause—why would I not sponsor him? Hon Sue Ellery: That is not what you just said—you said you would not! Hon HELEN MORTON: No, I did not. I said I would sponsor him again. Hon Ken Travers: I knew what you meant! Hon HELEN MORTON: I would sponsor him again for Youth Focus. It is also worth adding that planning for the waterfront has focused on the importance of pedestrian and cycling movement. When I heard from the other side about the interruption to cycling and everything, I kept thinking, ―Gosh, something has happened to this development since I last looked at it‖, which was not that long ago. I wondered what happened to the bridge from the island where the cyclists can move across the bridge and continue — Hon Ken Travers: Is that the swinging bridge? Hon HELEN MORTON: No, it is not a swinging bridge. Cyclists can move from Mounts Bay Road, if coming from the western suburbs, across the bridge, across the island, and continue along Riverside Drive, or do it the other way if coming from the eastern suburbs. Cyclists might have to go a tiny bit slower. Cyclists may not be able to cycle at high speed across the bridge because they will probably run into somebody who is walking— such as pedestrians who are enjoying it—but there is still a continuous opportunity for cycling across the bridge. Hon Ken Travers: Is that on that squiggly path? Is that the one you are talking about? It is a slalom course! Hon HELEN MORTON: Some people might enjoy that. It does not have to be speed all the way. Cyclists can actually enjoy the vista and enjoy the waterfront as they cycle across. Hon Ken Travers: Cyclists have to get off and walk over the bridge down in East Perth, which I do not have a problem with — Hon HELEN MORTON: Good; that is terrific. Hon Ken Travers: We do not have that problem at the moment, so you cannot say commuter cyclists will be able to use that path—they will have to go on the road. Hon HELEN MORTON: If the member does not have a problem with it, he should not raise it as an issue!
604 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
With respect to project budget allocations, it is not possible to provide the detailed budget breakdown as this has significant potential to prejudice contract tendering processes that are underway, and the marketing and sale of sites. The budget allocation of $438.5 million covers all costs associated with the construction of infrastructure and the public domain, with the exception of the Indigenous cultural centre and the cable car. Hon Kate Doust: On that plan, that does not exist anymore. On your plan, the Indigenous cultural centre will not be built. Hon HELEN MORTON: It is considered a part. Hon Kate Doust: It is still not there. It is not budgeted for and it is not part of the plan. Hon HELEN MORTON: It is not drawn in, but do not worry; I have said that it is not covered under that budget. The estimated revenue of $170 million will be generated from all land sold to the private sector. The Perth Waterfront development project has an estimated total cost, taking all of those things into account, of around $2.6 billion, with an estimated net cost to the government in the order of only $270 million. This is an amazingly good outcome for government. Hon Ken Travers: What about the $60 million announced on the weekend to widen the Graham Farmer Freeway? Hon HELEN MORTON: Members opposite will probably also want to try to include the cost of the extra length of the freeway up to Brighton, and the extra this and the extra that. It would be very easy for anybody to suggest that any bit of road development or transport development in the metropolitan area at the moment could somehow or other be included in the cost. Hon Ken Travers interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Col Holt): Order, members! If the minister continues her remarks through the Chair, that would be good. It is not a question and answer session; it is a debate. The Minister for Mental Health has the call. Hon HELEN MORTON: I also recall that the mover has a 15-minute reply, which he can use. I will be trying very hard not to use the same bad manners, in terms of interruption, that he is doing to me. Hon Ken Travers: Because you never interjected in opposition! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! We had a good start, but let us go back to the topic and address remarks through the Chair. Hon HELEN MORTON: The comments I have made so far are the ones I most want to make. I would like to add some extra comments that were raised during the session. I think Hon Lynn MacLaren raised the issue of the Mounts Bay main drain. That is part of what will be covered in those costs, and it will be moved west. The issues she raised about that have already been addressed in this process. I have talked about the cyclepath. Another concern Hon Robin Chapple raised was storms and sea levels. This has been addressed and the project is designed to comply with the state policy on sea level rise. I have answered a dozen or more questions on that topic in the past six months. People either do not read the answers or they do not believe them. The star rating and passive energy design will be covered by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority policy on green building. If members want to know more about that, it is also on the website. A question was raised about whether the jetty and pens in the marina would be publicly or privately owned. They will all be publicly owned. That is the last point I would like to make, other than to say again that this is a fantastic opportunity. If the extent of the objections to this development are just the 20 people in Perth who objected so significantly to it that they were motivated to put in a submission, I am absolutely certain that the government is on to a winner. HON KATE DOUST (South Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.11 pm]: I am very pleased to get back in time to say a few words on this disallowance motion and support my colleague Hon Ken Travers who moved it. I will focus in particular on the South Perth part of my electorate. The people who live in that area, particularly those in the south-east corridor of the city, have started to focus on the impact this development will have and what it will do to their access into and out of the city. I listened to only a part of what the Minister for Mental Health had to say. Unfortunately, I was away from the chamber and missed the beginning of her speech, so I will have to read it in Hansard. Although there may have been only a few submissions when this development was going through the process, as we know, today two petitions were tabled on behalf of, I think, 8 677 people and another 662 people. They have signed off on those petitions to say that although they support some sort of development, they are not too keen on this development because of all the problems they highlighted in the key points of the submission. As I move around my electorate and talk to my colleagues about the types of issues that are being canvassed with them, one of the most striking concerns is the shutting down and cutting off of Riverside Drive. I note that
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 605 the submission by the City of South Perth expressed its concerns. Although the city supports the development on the waterfront in principle, it expressed its concerns about the impact it will have on South Perth and on its roads. Earlier today Hon Ken Travers said that he had driven through South Perth, I assume during peak hour, and experienced what it is currently like. I drive through there myself and I know that other members in the chamber who also live there know how chaotic it is and how it is like a car park during peak times when trying to get onto the freeway from Mill Point Road or from Labouchere Road or to get off the freeway in the evenings. That will be exacerbated by the extra 15 000, 20 000 or 30 000 cars that will try to find alternative routes into the city because they will not be able to go along Riverside Drive and disperse into the CBD or go along Riverside Drive to get to the other side of the city to go to university or work, or a business engagement or social activity on the other side of the city. This issue will not impact greatly upon people who live on the western side of the city because they will have a direct connection into the city, but it will impact on the people who live in the south-east corridor in Belmont, Victoria Park, South Perth and anywhere in the electorate of Cannington all the way to Armadale. Those who normally drive up Orrong Road, Shepperton Road or Albany Highway to get into the city will be forced onto Orrong Road once Riverside Drive is shut down, and we all know that even though the government is talking about spending money to widen that road — Hon Ken Travers: Float it. Hon KATE DOUST: Float it, sorry—that is already a pretty crazy place to go to during peak hour, and the traffic is very slow. God help us if a car breaks down or there is a prang. A couple of weeks ago I was caught out when I was taking my son to school. A car had broken down and everything stopped, so I do not know how people will cope when even more cars are on the road in that area. That problem will build up, because at some point soon the government is going to start its Burswood stadium development, so we will have all these trucks going into and out of Orrong Road, which will slow the traffic down even further. It is going to start to build a new train station in that area, which will slow the traffic down further, and in due course, right across the road, the Belmont Park development will commence, which will slow the traffic down even further. So people should forget about coming into the city via Orrong Road, unless they want to walk it or bike it. If people want to go through Riverside Drive, and that is cut off, where else will they go? They will rat-run it through South Perth. As we have already said, that is a very busy area now. A couple of Thursday mornings ago it took me half an hour to get from Onslow Street, I think it is, behind the Zoo, down to the freeway entrance because the traffic just was not moving. I hate to think how bad that is going to get. The South Perth council, in its submission, also expressed those concerns, and it has now come out even more strongly, in conjunction with the Victoria Park council, acknowledging that it will have significant problems. It is going to be a burden on its roads, it is going to cause traffic chaos, and ratepayers will hate it when they are unable to get their cars out of their driveways because the traffic is so great. The South Perth and Victoria Park councils have also collaborated with another five inner-city councils, and those councils have also expressed their concerns. I know that that matter has already been canvassed. However, this is a significant issue, and I know that the member for South Perth has expressed his concern. He has talked about a tunnel. When I raised this with him a couple of weeks ago, he said, ―Good luck. They‘re not listening to me‖—he is the Liberal member—―so you go for it!‖ So we did, and we have had an outstanding response from people who live in the seat of South Perth about the impacts upon their lives and the total lack of consultation—consultation has not occurred—with their council about what is going to happen to them. The City of South Perth refers to that lack of consultation in its submission. It is very clearly written in that submission that the city has not been consulted and it wants to be consulted, and it wants to know what the government will do to take the pressure off its roads. It is all very well to talk about discussions with the City of Perth and how the pressure on the CBD roads will be dealt with, but all the other suburbs that feed into the CBD will also need to be consulted, because it is going to have a disastrous impact upon them. Coming back to the member for South Perth, John McGrath, he took up this matter directly with the minister on behalf of one of his constituents, and that constituent has very kindly provided me with both the letter from John McGrath and the letter from the Minister for Planning, John Day. John McGrath, in his letter, states — … the Minister concludes with his belief that the benefits of the project in improving the vitality of our city far outweigh the ―minor‖ changes in travel habit that some may experience. That is Mr McGrath paraphrasing, I think, what the minister had said. First of all, in his letter to John McGrath, the minister says — With regard to your suggestion of a combined traffic and pedestrian bridge across the new inlet, I note that this option was considered in the earlier stages of masterplanning but was deemed unnecessary. A traffic bridge in this location would have considerable urban design impacts associated with the extent of ramp structures, creation of an undesirable pedestrian environment underneath and adjacent to the bridge, disconnection of the precinct and loss of developable area.
606 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
I know that the minister just said that at some point consideration may be given to building some sort of bridge along Riverside Drive or some sort of tunnel, but that is not what I pick up in the minister‘s response to the member for South Perth. Hon Ken Travers: It‘s not what is in the report on the submissions, so the government speaks with two tongues on this matter. Hon KATE DOUST: Two tongues. The minister then goes on to say — Further, the bridge would serve to continue, and potentially increase, the use of Riverside Drive as a regional thoroughfare, — A regional thoroughfare? It is not as though we are in the bush — thereby reinforcing the current segregation of the city and the river. I understand that there are some members of the community that are concerned about the potential traffic impacts of the project. The minister has that right; a lot of people are very concerned about the traffic impacts. He goes on to say — However, I do believe that the benefits of the project in improving the vitality of our city far outweigh the minor changes in travel habit that some may experience. I think that is pretty pathetic. I hope that in due course this momentum of people‘s anger, now that they really understand what is going to happen when Riverside Drive is cut off, will have some effect. The drawing of the waterfront development that has been put out is not actually what it will look like. People think that it looks nice and that it might bring a bit of vitality back. We all acknowledge that things need to change but people have not thought about how complex this is or the different issues that are involved in this project. I note that the members who have spoken before me tonight have all canvassed those various complex issues, be they related to heritage, environment, water, shading, light, cost, the access to and exit from the area or the use of public space. All of those issues are significant. The issue of access in and exit out of the city is an essential issue for people from the south-east corridor. The government should at least entertain another idea or come up with a better plan for how it will manage that issue and not just be flippant and say that people will adjust or find a different route. We are a growing city and a growing state. People like to drive in Perth. There are more cars on the road every day. If we try to condense them into a narrower line, it will get harder and harder for people to move around this city. The other thing we have found is that as we come into the CBD now, the traffic limit is 40 kilometres an hour. If Riverside Drive is shut off, people will either be forced onto Orrong Road and through the tunnel, which will be bumper to bumper or just a car park, or people might chance their luck and come up St Georges Terrace. Good luck with that because on a good day the traffic travels at a snail‘s pace. Hon Ken Travers: Single lane. Hon KATE DOUST: Absolutely, while the bus lane is in operation. I hate to think what St Georges Terrace will be like when everyone is pushed into a single lane and they are trying to get to work on time, trying to get their kids to school on time or trying to get to the other side of the city for appointments. We can just forget it. The government has to come up with a better way of managing that traffic. I have not heard anything tonight that gives me, or the people who reside in the south-east corridor of my electorate, confidence that they would be able to access and exit with comfort, as they traditionally have. I do not think this government is taking those matters seriously. Over the past few weeks we have seen quite a bit of media on this issue. I want to congratulate the City Gatekeepers. They have done a fantastic job in raising this issue over a short period. The City Gatekeepers is a group of highly skilled people with a lot of experience in a diverse range of areas across planning and design, environment, heritage and so on. They have sat down and had a good look at this and said that they like the idea of doing something here, but that it will not work. They asked if the planners could please come up with another way of doing it that is more manageable and that works better in the area. When we look at the image of the Perth Waterfront project that has been put out for public consumption, it is not what it will look like. If we go down to the foreshore and the Esplanade and pace out where the inlet will be cut, it is very small. We will have these booming great buildings towering over this very small inlet. I do not think that will be terribly attractive at all. Hon Robin Chapple: Is it going to be blue water as per the picture or will it be the normal colour of the Swan? Hon KATE DOUST: I understand there is an issue with one of the City Gatekeepers relating to the flow of water and whether it will move in or out. I imagine it will be a bit pongy at some point because the water may not move in or out as required.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 607
I think the government needs to be honest in its depiction of what the waterfront project will look like. Putting out images such as this is a furphy. It is not true; that is not how it is going to be. It is a big con job that will cost the taxpayers of this state a huge amount of money—$440 million, plus the extra $60 million to fix the tunnel. Fortunately, there are ways to deal with this. One of the big issues is that the government needs to go back and talk to people. It is all very well to say it has put this plan out and it has received submissions. A small number of submissions have come from people who have expertise or a very close interest in these matters, but I will lay good money that the people who live in Armadale, Cannington, Victoria Park, South Perth and Belmont have not had the opportunity to consult with government on how this will impact them. They have not had the opportunity to have a say. They should have a say. In the last week I was fortunate to spend a few days in Hong Kong on private travel. I visited their new parliament house, which I must say is quite spectacular, given it is a legislative council chamber only, so it is always very pleasing to visit that. I noticed a lot of development along the foreshore in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a superb underground train system, and I heard Hon Helen Morton say that Perth has an excellent public transport system, but I say that she should visit Hong Kong, Singapore or any of those places where they really utilise trains and she will understand what an excellent train system is. I asked the person who gave me a tour of the Hong Kong parliament what they were going to do with the land when they finished the foreshore development. I asked whether they were going to build on it. She said, ―No, that is public open space. We are going to lawn it and put gardens in it so that people can have access to the foreshore and enjoy the foreshore.‖ All of the buildings were pushed back so that people will be able to enjoy access to the water. Hon Robyn McSweeney: How many Hong Kongs fit into WA? Hon KATE DOUST: There are eight million people living in Hong Kong, minister. In Hong Kong, people were not happy with the plan they had for their foreshore development. The plan had been put together by a group of developers and not by a community. What happened? People kicked up about it. The Hong Kong government did not say, ―It‘s too late. We‘re about to roll out the tenders. It‘s too late to do anything about it; you‘re just going to have to cop it.‖ The government said, ―Let‘s have a look at this. Maybe we can come up with a better plan.‖ So they had, I think, about 70 different sets of community consultations to get a better plan. They have now got a better plan and they are implementing it, and people are really excited about that plan. Hon Robin Chapple: It is their plan, not the government‘s! Hon KATE DOUST: Hon Robin Chapple is right: it is their plan with their input. I was very impressed, when I visited Hong Kong, with the level of community engagement, not just with their parliament but with their decision making. I will talk another time about a fantastic political rally protesting against the alleged corruption of the chief executive officer that I saw on Sunday. I am really, really impressed that their government was prepared to listen to their community, and say that the community was right and that the government had not consulted; that maybe it was not the best plan and maybe it needed to do it better. Members should keep in mind that when we make these decisions, the development will take 10 to 20 years. We will be living with a dirt bowl on the Esplanade for an extended period. People will be denied access into the city via Riverside Drive, permanently. People will have to find alternative routes in and out of the city, permanently. It is not too late to come up with a better plan—another way of doing this, a plan that the community is happy with, a plan that provides a fully sustainable design in that area. The Esplanade has always been a very important rallying place for our community in Western Australia. It has been a fantastic gathering point for our community. It was the starting point for the Iraq march. I have attended a range of union rallies that started on the Esplanade over the years. I understand that the Esplanade is one of the few places in Western Australia where people can gather without a formal permit—the minister can correct me if I am wrong. What will happen if we lose the Esplanade and go with the design that is currently on the table? Where will people go? There is talk about Supreme Court Gardens and other places, but they are quite small places. Where will people go the next time the Queen of England comes along and we are entertaining 130 000 people at a barbeque? We will not be able to fit them into Supreme Court Gardens, will we? What will happen then? People will not move along to Langley Park. The question to government is: what is it doing with Langley Park? Once the government deals with this plan, will it then move onto Langley Park? I think the government will make it very difficult for people to actually gather. The point Hon Lynn MacLaren referred to earlier, as did Hon Ken Travers, is about people using the Esplanade now for sporting and physical fitness activities. We need only drive past there every night to see people down there on the foreshore near the jetties and on the Esplanade taking part in these activities, and they are there during lunchtime participating in all sorts of corporate fitness events. These are important events. It is an important gathering place for people in the city; it is where people go. Once that access is denied and once fences go up and digging and dredging start, people will have nowhere else to go. I therefore think this is a real issue. The government has not really thought about the long-term implications of this type of design. I am not saying all of it is bad; I am just saying that perhaps it could be designed differently. I agree with my colleagues in that I
608 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] am horrified that the Florence Hummerston Building will be taken apart brick by brick and, as I understand it, put in storage. What will happen with that facility? Will it be rebuilt somewhere else? What a waste of money pulling apart a beautiful facility like that and putting it up somewhere else! There are a range of issues in this very complex issue. I know that we have a Premier who likes the grand vision and likes to put it out there. He is progressive and he has these big ideas and big plans for our state, but I do not know whether he always thinks through the detail. We have seen a number of examples over the past few years when he did not think through the detail. We are already seeing that with the new stadium on which he has not thought through all the detail on cost and other issues. I come back to the other problem of how the government will deal with traffic issues. A lot of people will find it very difficult to get into the city when Riverside Drive is closed off. What will happen with all the trucks that will be required to dig up the dirt and get it out of the city so that this waterfront project can be built? Where will those trucks go? One end of town will be closed off and the other end of town—either heading west up this way or down south on the freeway—will be congested with large trucks moving earth so that they can clear the Esplanade. That also raises another point. Whilst we focus on the south-eastern corridor for traffic management and flow, what will happen further south along the freeway? People will take other ways to get to Perth Airport. There will be issues for people from the north trying to get to the airport, but people coming from the south will not want to come through the city and then onto Orrong Road. People will think about cutting off at Leach Highway and heading out to the airport. There will then be an increase in private traffic competing with heavy- load trucks heading out to and back from Kewdale Road and the airport. Hon Helen Morton: Leach Highway is the way people go to the airport from down there. Hon KATE DOUST: My understanding, from people who work in the industry, is that they might take other ways to get there. Hon Helen Morton: There‘s actually signs up saying ―Roe Highway to the airport‖. Hon KATE DOUST: All I am saying is that this is an issue and people will find other ways. If they think one way is quieter and quicker, they will go through that way. Now that there has been more discussion in the media, people have started to canvass the issue. There have been a number of letters to the editor of The West Australian, particularly about traffic issues, members have received letters from people expressing their concerns, and people have been talking about options. It is a real shame that this government is never prepared to bend, never prepared to look at options and never prepared to say, ―Can we do it better? Is there another way we can manage this so that it works better?‖ Here we are with this government that is prepared to sign off on a very expensive, long-term project. By the time this project is finished, Hon Donna Faragher will probably be sitting where Hon Norman Moore is, and probably at the same age! That is how long it will take before this project is fully completed. Several members interjected. Hon Norman Moore interjected. Hon KATE DOUST: It was very nice; it is okay. That is fine, go back to sleep; you will be fine. Hon Ken Travers: She said you should stay here until they finish the waterfront project. Hon KATE DOUST: That got him! Thank you. Hon Norman Moore: I just can‘t work out what you‘re going on about because with the questions you are asking, you can give the answer in respect of Carpenter‘s proposal. Same with the track; same with the transport. Hon KATE DOUST: I am going to say this quite honestly, and some of my colleagues may not like this, but just because there was a plan in the past does not mean it was perfect then or that all of us agreed to it. I am saying to members opposite that this plan is flawed, and if they want to be good government and want to spend taxpayers‘ dollars wisely, they should rethink the current proposal. Several members interjected. Hon KATE DOUST: Mr Deputy President (Hon Col Holt), I have a really bad cold and I am trying to speak and all these people keep interrupting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, members. I think if you direct your debate through me and not invite interjection, we will carry on. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you for that very sound and good advice, Mr Deputy President. I refer to some letters to the editor, particularly in the western suburbs newspapers. There has been a lot of support for the City Gatekeepers group and concerns coming from the western suburbs. It is always good to see people arcing up on these issues. We live in a democracy and people should have a say. A letter from Mr Barry
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 609
Fehlberg from Shenton Park talks about how we should solve the traffic problem before starting the foreshore work. He writes a very balanced letter, and on 10 December last year, he says in part — Blind Freddy can see that cutting Riverside Drive will cause a massive disruption to east-west city by- pass traffic. That is just one example. Another letter from the Levisons goes into detail about all the problems. They talk about cutting Riverside Drive, selling the Esplanade to private interests, and the high-rise towers. Although the minister said that nobody had really canvassed these high-rise buildings, it is a significant issue. It is one thing to have office space, but why do we need office space down to the river? Why could we not have given thought to perhaps providing affordable housing for people so that they can live by the river? Why did the government not look to make it a mix of public and private housing? Hon Ken Travers: Low rise and high rise. Hon KATE DOUST: That is exactly right. Why not have a mix; why does it have to be high rise? Hon Norman Moore: That‘s exactly what you were going to do. Hon KATE DOUST: As I said, that does not mean it was always right. The City Gatekeepers talk about problems with the inlet and ask the government to rethink. They say — We urge you, do not be a rubber stamp to the Premier. I think this is an issue that will continue until the election. When people get in their cars and realise they cannot drive along Riverside Drive to get into the city, they will think about this and they will ask: how will we vote? They will think about the Liberal–National government that has cut Riverside Drive and forced them to take an alternative route that does not suit them. Members opposite need to think about that. It is a fantastic issue for us to campaign on in the seat of South Perth, and I am certainly looking forward to that happening. I do not think John McGrath will be. It is his Liberal voting constituents who are kicking up the most fuss. They are the ones who are annoyed. They realise what the impact will be and they will be banging on his door asking, ―Why aren‘t you fixing this; why aren‘t you taking this up to government and getting some better outcome with some sort of better plan for us?‖ Hon Ken Travers: Where are the Liberal South Metropolitan Region members tonight? Hon KATE DOUST: They are not in the chamber, I can tell Hon Ken Travers. Hon Ken Travers: I wonder where they are. Out on urgent parliamentary business, I‘m sure! Several members interjected. Hon Donna Faragher: Where are the east metro members on your side? Oh; they don‘t live in east metro! Hon KATE DOUST: I am happy to talk to those east metro members because this is a significant issue for them also. We need to have these discussions. What will attract people to this foreshore plan? We already know that one of big attracters mooted when the plan was first put out—namely, the Indigenous people‘s museum—is not going to happen. It is not on the plan, it is not costed, it is not in the budget—it has been deleted. I know Hon Helen Morton said it will happen, but when? It is not there. Hon Helen Morton: What‘s that you‘re talking about now? Hon Robin Chapple: That‘s what they‘re going to use the stolen wages money for. Hon KATE DOUST: Yes, I had not picked up on that. So, if something like that is not going to be there, what will be the attracter? We note that in the last couple of weeks the government has sought to amend or change the plan—to modify it—so that it might be a bit more appealing to families to come into the city; it is now talking about having some sort of bathing pools and kiddies playground equipment. I do not know whether that will be enough to bring a family into the city. Certainly, if people cannot get into the city, that is a problem, and if the city is to be surrounded by high buildings, why would people come in? I do not believe that is enough to draw people into the city. I do not believe that is going to be enough to bring people in as a tourism attracter; there needs to be more. It is a real shame that the government has not included that museum as part of the development program—a real shame. Hon Robyn McSweeney: Family friendly spaces. Wonderful things in the city. Hon KATE DOUST: There should be! There should be! With an alternative plan, that could be done. It could be done so that it can accommodate people who want to play sport or recreate after work, and it could be done so that families can come in. It could be done so that people can drive in and out of the city from one side to the other—or ride or walk. All those things could be done. But they cannot necessarily be done with this plan because on this plan, if people are coming in from that south eastern corridor they are going to be deviated
610 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] around the city at 40 kilometres an hour; they are never going to get from point A to point B. People are going to avoid the city and block up all the streets. The streets are already blocked up in those areas, so I hate to think what an extra 15 000 to 30 000 cars a day will be like on Mill Point Road or Labouchere Road, or any of those feeder roads that come off Canning Highway or down through Albany Highway and Victoria Park. People will take shortcuts. Members know that, now, whenever people want to get somewhere fast or if they are running late or if they see a traffic jam, they will think about how they are going to get there: ―How do I get myself out of this position and how do I get to where I want to be?‖ They will find alternative ways to do it and they will rat run it through South Perth. The City of South Perth will be asking the government: ―Why aren‘t you talking to us? Why haven‘t you consulted with us? Why haven‘t you done something to alleviate the pain our ratepayers are suffering and what our roads are dealing with?‖ People will be jammed up and they will not be able to get onto the freeway to come into the city, and they will be jammed up coming off the freeway in the afternoon. This is a significant issue for people out in the suburbs who will be trying to get into the city. The government has not thought about that, probably because it does not really care about the people who live in those sorts of suburbs. The whole point is that the government needs to rethink the plan. It needs to come up with a better plan. It needs to have a plan that will allow people to access the city and that will not result in the city being clogged up with traffic. It needs to take into account all the other projects it is going to have on the boil at the same time that will slow the traffic down even further. The government has not taken those considerations into account. We have a Premier going out with his various ideas—his thought bubbles—saying, ―This is great! We‘re going to do a stadium, we‘re going to do the foreshore, we‘re going to do this, that or the other‖, but he does not think about the implications or the detail. Unfortunately, in due course the people of Western Australia will have to bear the difficulties resulting from his lack of attention to detail. I think that if he wants to be a truly great Premier, he needs to go back and rethink the plan. Hon Donna Faragher interjected. Hon KATE DOUST: Listen, if Hon Donna Faragher wants to get up and have a say, instead of sitting there mumbling like she usually does, she should get to her feet when I finish! Hon Robyn McSweeney: She didn‘t mumble; she said you spent a lot of money when you did Perth Arena. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Col Holt): Order, members! Every speaker in this debate so far has invited interjection, and if you do that, you are going to get interrupted. I suggest you continue to address your remarks to me. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you. I think I have covered quite a bit of my topics. Hon Norman Moore: Yes! Hon KATE DOUST: But I might just go back and refresh. I know that some members of this place have had overseas meetings with people and asked: where else in the world do people have direct access between the city and the water? There is a range of places. I just talked about Hong Kong as one example; there is also Singapore. I am sure that if Hon Norman Moore talked about all the places he has travelled to during his time, he would provide us with a list of places where people can access the waterways directly from the city without being blocked off by buildings or having roads cut off. Hon Norman Moore: I‘m going to slash my wrists after listening to your speech. Hon KATE DOUST: Listen, we know you are leaving. You do not have to leave that soon. Hon Norman Moore: It‘s just absolutely horrendous what you‘re telling me. Hon KATE DOUST: It is not. I would like to see things happen in this city — Hon Norman Moore: I might go and live in some other city—Dubai perhaps, yes. I‘m going to live in Dubai for a while and see what it would actually have been like had you been the government. Hon KATE DOUST: I would have liked to have seen the minister live in London. It is a real shame he is not living in London. He could have accessed the water directly without the buildings in front of it. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Michael Mischin): Order, members! And I mean all members. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It is a real shame the minister is not off to London; he could have enjoyed that. This is about making sure that we have a good plan for the future. This is not about having a short-term plan, something that we can come back and revisit in a couple of years and say, ―Oh, that‘s not quite working; let‘s change it,‖ because when the government ploughs ahead with this, it is going to expend taxpayers‘ money and it
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 611 is going to be too late; we are locked into this forever. We are going to have this big dirt bowl for many, many years. We are going to have all sorts of other implications. Nobody has talked about the asbestos underneath the Esplanade. Hon Ken Travers: Robin Chapple did, actually. Hon KATE DOUST: Thank you for that; I am glad he mentioned that—and whatever other toxic materials that need to be removed that may have been dumped there as landfill. It is one thing to have a really attractive design, and it is one thing to have a design that is real; this design that we have had put in front of us, this concept, is not real—it is not a true depiction for the community. Hon Robyn McSweeney: It is pretty good. Hon KATE DOUST: It is if you are in fantasy land, minister. Hon Helen Morton: Do you wish it was? Hon KATE DOUST: I would like to see exactly what the government is proposing, not some wide inlet and massive buildings. I would actually like to see what it is going to put there. I would like to know exactly what is going to be there, because I think people would go, ―That‘s not what we thought was going to be there. That‘s a bit disappointing. That‘s quite small.‖ Go and pace out — Hon Ken Travers: It‘s marked on the ground. It is one of their media stunts—they have got it painted. I do not know how much that cost them, but they got it all painted. Hon KATE DOUST: They have it painted in yellow. People can walk along it and see it is going to be quite small. So the images that we have been given, I think, are false images. I think people are being conned. That is why I say this plan is flawed. People in the community have not had the opportunity to genuinely explore what is going to happen and have their say; it has been quite narrow. We all know that whenever these types of proposals are put up it is rare to get massive numbers of submissions. It is usually just a small group. It is only after things happen that people go, ―Gee, I didn‘t realise it was going to be like that. Perhaps the government should have thought it through better.‖ All we are saying to the government today is, ―Think this one through better. Think about the long-term implications. Think about what is going to happen when you start this project and when you shut off Riverside Drive,‖ because I know that all those people who have to travel in from those areas—through from Armadale, Belmont and Victoria Park—are the ones who are going to be paying the penalty because they are going to have to find an alternative way into or through the city to get to work or to other appointments. Hon Helen Morton: I just noticed Hon Ken Travers was really looking very tired and yawning. I was just wondering if he was as bored as some others might be. Hon KATE DOUST: Minister, this is a great start to the day. I am sure the minister will be around here for a long time, but I really wish she would grow some generosity of spirit, because she can be as mean as mean when she wants to be. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! Members will direct their comments to the Chair. Hon Ken Travers interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When I am speaking, I would appreciate it if others could be silent. Hon KATE DOUST: I have only a few more minutes, so I just want to go through and talk about the issues that have been highlighted today. A lot of work has gone into the petitions by the City Gatekeepers that have been tabled today. They have highlighted three or four key issues that they would like Parliament to look at. They have expended a lot of time and money of their own to try to educate the community about the implications of this design. I note that although Minister Day said that there were only about 500 people at the rally a couple of weekends ago, Hon Ken Travers, Hon Lynn MacLaren and I were there. I am sure I can count a bit better than Hon John Day, and I would say that there would have been 2 000 to 2 500 people. Hon Ken Travers: How could he know? Hon KATE DOUST: He was not there. Hon Liz Behjat: There were 500 at best; I have a photo of it. Hon KATE DOUST: There were not 500 people. Unless someone was there, they would not know. Hon Liz Behjat: I have a photograph of it. Hon KATE DOUST: I was there and I say it was more. The Gatekeepers have done a fabulous job to educate people. What has come out of that rally is that more and more people are starting to think about this issue. Local governments in and around the city are now starting to directly engage. I note a separate petition was tabled
612 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] today, I think, from the Nedlands council expressing its concern about the implications of the project on its area. Why can the state government not listen to what local governments are saying? These local governments are expressing their concerns on behalf of their ratepayers. I now go back to where I started. My initial concern was about this flawed plan and the fact that there has not been sufficient or appropriate consultation with the community and certainly not with those councils that will be impacted. That is clearly evidenced in the submissions by the City of South Perth, in its more recent press releases and commentary, and by the fact that it has been so actively supportive of the work that the Gatekeepers have been doing. I am not saying that the alternative proposal put up by the Gatekeepers is the be all and end all or is the only other option. All I am saying about looking at alternatives is that the government should look at other options rather than just the plan it has. It should look at whether it can be done differently, whether it can be done better, whether it can be done so it is more accessible or whether it can be done so it is more affordable. Should we be spending this money on this project when we could be doing other things like buying trains, building more schools or building more hospitals? Could this money be better spent in other places? Do we need to do this right now? These are issues that have been canvassed out in the community. If the government is not prepared to actively listen and take on board some of the views now being put out there, in due course it will pay the price, and I certainly hope it does. I know that in seats such as South Perth this will be a burning issue for the Liberal member, when he cannot provide the answers to his community, when they cannot get in and out of their suburb because his government refuses to countenance a tunnel under Riverside Drive or refuses to come back with appropriate responses or basically says, ―Tough luck, sunshine, some people are just going to have to cop it for the greater good of all.‖ That it is the response he gets from his minister and that is the response he feeds back into his community. I am pretty sure that come election time, the response from his community will either reduce his margin or remove him from the seat. All we say to the government today is that we think it can do the plan better. If the government really wants to do this properly for the future of the state, it should listen to the community and rethink traffic issues in and out of the city and their implications for the suburbs in and around the city. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [8.54 pm] — in reply: I was waiting to see if anyone else from the other side of the house wanted to have a chat. They all seem to have a view on it, but clearly do not want to say anything. I will start with the comments of Max Trenorden and I will make the point that — Hon Norman Moore: Order! He has a title. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Max Trenorden. He came into this place and told us that it was time for comedy hour. I was waiting for the punchline, but I did not get it. The real issue is that a bad plan is a bad plan. We can sit here and try to say that it is Carpenter‘s plan or someone else‘s plan, but if there are faults with it, it does not matter who devised it first; it is a bad plan. I think people need to look at some of that earlier documentation because one thing that was very clear, going back to the previous Labor government‘s plan, was that Riverside Drive was still an issue to be determined. I understand why members on the other side want to try to present it politically as Labor being opposed to any sort of waterfront development, but they constantly miss the point that the Labor Party supports a waterfront development. We knocked down the old William Street bridge to have better activity down there. As part of the railway development, we moved Riverside Drive back and made sure that we did so in a way that provided more land between Riverside Drive and the foreshore than was ever there before. If members go there and look, they will see that. Therefore, to put forward an argument that Labor is opposed to a waterfront development is just arrant nonsense. I said it at the beginning, but I constantly heard glib lines being run by members who obviously had been given sheets that will try to say that Labor is opposed to any sort of waterfront development. It is simply not true. We support a waterfront development; we want a good waterfront development. But if Hon Max Trenorden wants to quote people, maybe one person he should quote is the Premier, who we know held the view that we needed to have a bridge or a tunnel. A briefing note obtained under FOI was reported on 17 December 2009. In fact, a copy of the article was included in one of the submissions. If members on the other side had bothered to read them, they would have seen that against the words about redirecting Riverside Drive, with Mr Barnett‘s initials, was the word ―no‖. If members want to talk about other people‘s views, Colin Barnett was out there saying, ―No. Don‘t redirect Riverside Drive; we need to build it.‖ We got this doublespeak from the other side. Hon Kate Doust read a letter that is virtually verbatim what was concluded in the report on submissions and which is completely contrary to what members and the Premier are telling the people of Western Australia today. So which one is it? Can we build a tunnel and not have any of these negative impacts or can we not? We asked that question at the beginning and in its response the government did not give an answer; government members continued to lay out this doublespeak to go on. Is the minister‘s letter right or are the Premier‘s comments right? The fact is that the government cannot have it both ways. This development is either capable of having a tunnel or a bridge—if that is the case, the government should do the honest thing and build it now—or it is not suitable, as the submission and the letter state, in which case do not do it.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 613
Another comment that I want to say about Max Trenorden and he was someone who railed against the Mandurah railway — Several members: Honourable! Hon KEN TRAVERS: For many years when Hon Max Trenorden was in the other place, he railed against the Mandurah railway—a project that this year will be used by something in the order of over 19 million people. The Mandurah railway line cost less than $1.5 billion. This project will cost half a billion dollars before a single building is built—before the Aboriginal cultural centre is built, before the Florence Hummerston building is rebuilt anywhere. Half a billion dollars! Why is the member not railing against that waste of money? The issue is whether the government can build a quality waterfront development and whether it needs to spend half a billion dollars on it. Members on the other side have not made that case today. We are happy to support the development, but get it right. Again, dishonesty has crept into this debate. The minister quoted from the submissions. She talked about the 56 submissions and said that 26 of the submissions supported the amendment subject to conditions. The minister talked about the 20 submissions that objected to the development and the 10 that were neutral. The 10 neutral submissions were predominantly from government agencies, but they included ones such as the Department of Sport and Recreation submission that stated the government can do the development. Of course a government agency will not come out with a submission against a government policy and say, ―Don‘t do the policy‖. It raised issues about where the future playing space is and the minister still cannot answer that question — Hon Helen Morton: Yes—Langley Park, I said. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The department knew where Langley Park was and it still wrote those comments. It knows that Langley Park is not the solution to the problem and it was saying that the government needed to provide new spaces to replace it. In its submission, the Disability Services Commission talked about the fact that the government would want to make sure to slow down cyclists. It stated — That strategies are established to ensure greater awareness and education with a view to reducing the speed of cyclists when they are in close proximity to others. If we accept the government‘s argument that the area will still be accessible to cyclists, why then is the government planning it for a highly activated area? It will increase that conflict. The government is not devising a plan that will separate the conflict between cyclists and people with a disability. The government has not addressed even those things it refers to as neutral. And then there are the 26 submissions that the minister said are subject to conditions. If members opposite were to read those submissions they would understand that the sorts of conditions imposed include how the traffic impacts on the City of South Perth and the rest of the city will be managed. They are all conditional in their support and the government has not met the conditions. To sit there and suggest that these submissions support what the government is doing is arrant nonsense. If the minister had bothered to read them in detail she would know that she has not—even in her comments today—addressed those conditions. I note that the minister did not in any way, shape or form seek to address any of the issues I raised. I asked specific questions and not once did the minister try to deal with them. I look forward to seeing the traffic modelling the minister has referred to. I have looked on the website and seen a document about traffic. It contains detail about the local traffic, but nowhere have I seen the regional traffic modelling the minister talked about today. I want to know where the 25 000 to 30 000 cars that currently use Riverside Drive will go. How many will go to South Perth? How many will go through the tunnel? How many will come out of the tunnel and head up the freeway north? How many will try to get on to Loftus Street? The need to fix up the intersection of Loftus and Cambridge Streets is mentioned even at the time this Department of Transport document was produced. I asked that very question today and the minister failed to answer. Her own department raised it as an issue—one the minister refers to as a ―neutral‖ comment—and today I asked her to explain it to us and she cannot. That is why people are sitting and laughing at the government. Government members can be smug and walk into this place as arrogant as they like, but at the end of the day we will raise these legitimate concerns and if the minister does not answer them it will not be us who find them out. We know we cannot win the debate today. The National Party members will do as they always do in coalition governments. They are loud and they roar like lions as the member for South Perth used to do about his South Perth railway station, but when they get into government they squeak like mice in the background. When in opposition, National Party members rail against money wasted on the Perth central business district, but now that they are part of government they are as quiet as mice. There is no independence. The Nationals will come into this house and agree to do as they have always done, which is to vote with their Liberal buddies because they have no alternative. The arguments and concerns do not matter because the minister has not addressed them. Media commentators—I suspect, fed by government media officers and ministers—argue that these people left it too late. They did not. Government agencies, 26 objectors with conditions, and 20 objecting outright, were, as
614 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] part of the consultation process, raising these in February of last year. They did not leave it until the last minute. The only people who have left it to the last minute, because they believe they can come in and use this place are government members. It is a classic misuse of the house. We are supposed to be a house of review but we know that because of the electoral gerrymander in this state the conservatives, from time to time, get an absolute majority in this house and they use it and this place becomes nothing but a rubber stamp. So members opposite can continue their fixation. Under Richard Court, the Liberals were fixated on wanting to build a fancy big belltower, which everyone says is a complete financial disaster. If the government wants to do something, it should do it properly. It will make the same mistakes again, except that this time it will spend half a billion dollars; money that will not be then available to spend, whether in regional Western Australia or in the suburbs of Perth, to meet the basic infrastructure that people are crying out for. Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: You can sit there and be arrogant about it, but ultimately that is the problem. The government will simply create more problems than it will know how to deal with. I do not think that the government will release the regional traffic modelling because it knows that people will suddenly start to question it. The government must include in the costings the cost to widen the Graham Farmer tunnel, which was announced on the weekend. Again, the suggestion that it is not directly linked is just one of the dishonesties that the government has tried to perpetrate in this debate. The submission from the Department of Transport to the metropolitan region scheme amendment we are dealing with today shows that it was saying back then that certain things will need to be done. The submission, which is towards the back of the document, refers to what will need to be done. It refers to the fact that the Graham Farmer tunnel will need to be widened. If this was not happening, the government would not need to widen the Graham Farmer tunnel. It could use that money to dual Gnangara Road, which members of the East Metropolitan Region would surely agree is in desperate need of fixing. That is $16 million that the government cannot spend on that road because it will have to spend it on this project. It is directly linked to its decision to cut up Riverside Drive. Again, this document refers to the fact that the Mitchell Freeway will need to be widened for the traffic that will come out of the Graham Farmer tunnel. That is why the government is doing it; that is $41 million that the government could spend on more rail carriages so that it orders enough to keep up with the growing demand to service the people in the suburbs who will need to come into the city to go to their jobs because the government is creating this land for employment. Why does the government not create some jobs in the suburbs so that those people do not have to come into the city? The $41 million to widen the Mitchell Freeway will not be of any benefit to anyone currently using the freeway because all these extra cars will be using it. Congestion will not be eased when the freeway is widened because an extra 14 500 cars will be using it. That money could be spent on the Ocean Reef boat harbour to create opportunities for employment in the suburbs. But, no, it is a classic Liberal proposition: let us focus and spend all our money on the city and the western suburbs of Perth. Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The government has not done it. It is missing out on the basic infrastructure. It is spending half a billion dollars on this fancy project in the CBD when it could get a better project for significantly less if only it would listen to the experts who made these submissions with their conditions. The government could then spend that money to do better things in the suburbs, where they are desperately needed. Hon Helen Morton: What‘s happening with the Midland hospital? Hon KEN TRAVERS: What is happening with the Midland hospital is that the federal government is giving the state government some money and the state government is building the hospital according to the plans that were outlined in the Reid review that was commenced by Labor. It is following Jim McGinty‘s plan. Good on the government! The only thing it has changed is that it is privatising the hospital. The government‘s ideology could not let it be run by public servants. No; it has to privatise it, and that will cause other problems. Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: But I digress, Mr Deputy President. Let me make it clear: we support a waterfront development, but the government could do a quality waterfront development. We have made land available so the government can activate the waterfront today. It could be doing it today. But this government has to go for the Rolls Royce treatment and spend half a billion dollars that could have been spent on other important infrastructure in Western Australia. Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Our project was going to be cost neutral. People rejected that; I accept that. But it also was not going to include ripping up Riverside Drive. Several members interjected.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 615
Hon KEN TRAVERS: Members opposite can laugh and carry on. We will see what happens when the final arbiters make the final decision. Members opposite will vote as they have been told to vote. We will wait and see what the final arbiters have to say about this project, but I bet the government will not cut Riverside Drive before the election because it knows the impacts. Question put and a division called for. Bells rung and the house divided. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon Michael Mischin): Before the tellers tell, I cast my vote with the noes. Before we proceed, I alert members, and the tellers in particular, that under the new standing orders, the definition of ―floor of the Council‖ is as follows — means the area from behind the President‘s Chair to the Bar of the House/President‘s Gallery. So, if there are any pairs, they should move out of the chamber entirely. The division resulted as follows — Ayes (10)
Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Kate Doust Hon Linda Savage Hon Ed Dermer (Teller) Hon Helen Bullock Hon Sue Ellery Hon Ken Travers Hon Robin Chapple Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Noes (17) Hon Liz Behjat Hon Phil Edman Hon Col Holt Hon Max Trenorden Hon Jim Chown Hon Donna Faragher Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Philip Gardiner Hon Michael Mischin Hon Mia Davies Hon Nick Goiran Hon Norman Moore Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Alyssa Hayden Hon Helen Morton
Pairs Hon Jon Ford Hon Simon O‘Brien Hon Adele Farina Hon Brian Ellis Hon Sally Talbot Hon Nigel Hallett Question thus negatived. ROAD TRAFFIC (VEHICLES) BILL 2011 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [9.15 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The Road Traffic (Vehicles) Bill 2011 seeks to introduce new national legislation designed to improve compliance with mass, dimension and load restraint requirements for vehicles and to consolidate Western Australia‘s existing vehicle licensing legislation into one act. Its content is based on legislation that was previously considered by the Parliament in the form of the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Bill 2007, which lapsed with the prorogation of Parliament in August 2008; however, a number of that bill‘s provisions have been amended to address concerns that were put to this government during a comprehensive consultation process undertaken with industry during 2009 and 2010. Aside from these variations, which I will describe in more detail shortly, this bill is based on model legislation developed by the National Transport Commission in the form of the Road Transport Reform (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill, which was developed in consultation with all states and territories and was approved by Australian transport ministers in November 2003. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is a uniform legislation bill. It is a bill that ratifies or gives effects to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party. However, as the bill has been previously before the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review and reported and there being no additional agreements in the bill, it should not be referred. It is important to note that this reform has already been implemented in a number of other jurisdictions. Therefore, its implementation in Western Australia will better align this state‘s transport laws with those throughout the rest of Australia.
616 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
The model legislation contains the following important outcomes. Firstly, it extends accountability for breaches of mass, dimension and load restraint requirements to all parties in the supply chain, introducing the ―chain of responsibility‖ concept. Secondly, it strengthens the sanctions that apply for such breaches and ensures that enforcement officers have the necessary powers to enable the investigation of alleged breaches. Finally, it encourages all parties in the transport chain to adopt active risk management strategies to prevent breaches of applicable transport laws. What does ―chain of responsibility‖ mean? It means that other parties, including consignors, packers, loaders or consignees—receivers—of goods, who have had control over any step in the process of distributing goods by road, may, in relevant circumstances, be held liable for breaches of mass, dimension and load restraint requirements. It is an expansion of the traditional enforcement focus on drivers and vehicle owners to other parties in the transport chain. It is hoped that this will, in turn, lead to improved compliance outcomes. Presently, simply targeting drivers and vehicle owners often does not have the effect of promoting changes in practice along the transport chain. Under this new regulatory framework it will be possible to target other parties in the transport chain who by their actions or inactions, or because of the unreasonable demands they place on drivers, put other road users at risk. Their behaviour also risks damage to road infrastructure and potentially results in some parties gaining an unfair commercial advantage. Now such behaviour may constitute an offence and the offender may be liable to a substantial penalty. In practical terms, this means that it is essential that all parties in the transport supply chain are aware of their responsibilities and have active systems in place to manage risks, thereby minimising the chance of road transport laws being breached. The reform also mandates special requirements for the transport of containers by road. It will be necessary for the person defined as the responsible entity—namely, the person in Australia who consigns the container for transport or otherwise arranges its transport by road—to provide accurate container weight declarations. Without a container weight declaration, a driver will not be permitted to transport the container. These provisions have been designed to ensure that drivers and road transport operators receive correct information that will enable the selection of the appropriate vehicle to transport the container within the relevant legal mass limits. Liability for a mass, dimension and load restraint offence will apply in relevant circumstances, unless a defendant can establish that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the contravention, and took all reasonable steps to avoid a breach, even though they may not have been physically involved in the breach. In an effort to foster a culture of compliance within the industry, these reforms include a range of new and innovative penalties that have been tailored to address specific types of offences. For example, the legislation recognises that mass, dimension and load restraint offences pose differing degrees of risk to safety, infrastructure or the environment, depending upon the extent to which a load is over-mass or oversize. As a result, it provides for the penalties for such offences to be scaled according to risk. It also distinguishes between first-time offenders and systemic offenders, with more serious sanctions applying for those who persistently break the law. This new penalty regime is anticipated to act as a better deterrent to those who have been willing to break the rules for unfair commercial gain. Some offences may be dealt with by way of infringements. Administrative sanctions and court-imposed penalties will also be available. Administrative penalties that may be imposed will include the issue of improvement notices, which identify improvements a business can make to its systems to ensure compliance. In addition to fines, courts will also have the ability to impose a range of additional sanctions, including intervention orders, licensing and registration sanctions, prohibition orders and, in appropriate cases, commercial benefits penalties. Importantly, whistleblower protection for people who report alleged breaches or who assist with investigations also forms part of the regulatory framework. In order to introduce this reform, it is necessary to restructure the Road Traffic Act 1974. Currently, the Road Traffic Act 1974 contains provisions regulating driver and vehicle licensing, including mass, dimension and load restraint requirements, and traffic matters. Under the restructure, vehicle licensing provisions now form the substance of this bill and will be deleted from the Road Traffic Act 1974; driver licensing provisions will be deleted from the Road Traffic Act 1974 and will form the substance of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008, which has been passed and is awaiting commencement; administrative matters—including provisions I referred to earlier that will confer additional powers upon enforcement officers in order to enable the investigation of alleged offences—will form the substance of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008, legislation that, once again, has already been passed and is awaiting commencement; and traffic regulation matters will be contained in what remains of the Road Traffic Act 1974. Earlier I mentioned that during late 2009 and early 2010 this government undertook further consultation with industry, prior to determining to progress this reform. We did so to ensure that the policy outcomes underpinning it remained relevant both for Western Australia‘s transport needs and to the Western Australian transport
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 617 industry. As a consequence of those consultations, this government resolved that some refinements were needed to the model legislation in recognition of and to cater for Western Australia‘s unique transport environment, which provides for higher productivity vehicles than those utilised on the east coast. Western Australia is a sizeable state and has a very different road network when compared with, for example, Victoria or New South Wales. Let me briefly describe some of those refinements. This bill will extend the availability of the ―reasonable steps‖ defence for drivers and vehicle owners, regardless of whether the level of mass breach is of the minor, substantial or severe category. The model legislation only provides drivers and vehicle owners with this defence for minor mass breaches, which has been determined unwarranted as the reliance on the reasonable steps defence should be applied equally to all liable parties within the transport chain. The bill also includes a variation to the model provisions dealing with improvement notices. The Western Australian variation will enable a person to seek an immediate review of an officer‘s intention to issue an improvement notice. This is designed to ensure that the operations of a business are not unintentionally impacted by the imposition of such a notice. Also included is a provision that recognises that shifting of bulk commodity loads can occur during transport, resulting in unintentional mass breaches. The bill contains different, Western Australian–appropriate break points for width breaches in the minor, substantial and severe categories. This is only fitting given Western Australia‘s very different road network and conditions. Similarly, our legislation will provide for a lower penalty to apply in the case of a load restraint breach that falls within the minor risk category. This is only appropriate as such breaches pose a minimal risk to other road users. The bill also includes provisions that give effect to the continuation of the Commissioner of Main Roads‘ approval of the harvest mass management scheme. This scheme currently provides an extra 10 per cent mass allowance for the movement of grains from paddock to receival facilities. It has been developed specifically to assist farmers and transport operators to manage mass variations associated with the natural changes in the density of grain when it is loaded from paddocks. The intention is that such a scheme will continue to operate into the future, provided that parties continue to comply with the terms and conditions imposed under the scheme. In conclusion, this bill will provide Western Australia with the tools to move to a more systematic and strategic approach to enforcing transport laws, particularly where noncompliant operators within the transport industry are gaining a commercial advantage over compliant operators. Parties in the transport chain other than owners and drivers will now be required to take a proactive approach to ensuring that the road freight task is undertaken in compliance with relevant rules. This will ultimately lead to safer roads and the protection of infrastructure, as well as providing a level playing field for the delivery of the growing freight task in Western Australia. I commend the bill to the house and table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 4290.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. ROAD TRAFFIC LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [9.25 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is part of an important suite of legislation that will enable the introduction in Western Australia of outcomes contained in the model Road Transport Reform (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill unanimously endorsed by Australian Transport Council ministers. As members heard during my speech regarding the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Bill 2011, the reform will broaden liability for breaches of vehicle mass, dimension and load restraint requirements. Too often, targeting drivers and owners does not have the effect of promoting improved practices along the transport chain. For this reason, the reform will enable other parties who have also had control over a step or steps in the process of distributing goods by road to be held responsible for such breaches in relevant circumstances. Introduction of the reform has necessitated a restructure of the Road Traffic Act 1974. Currently, the Road Traffic Act 1974 contains provisions regulating driver and vehicle licensing and traffic matters. Under the restructure driver licensing provisions will be deleted from the Road Traffic Act 1974 by this bill and will form
618 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] the substance of the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008, which has been passed and is awaiting commencement; and vehicle licensing provisions will be deleted from the Road Traffic Act 1974 by this bill and will form the substance of the legislation that is now before this house in the form of the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Bill 2011; and traffic regulation matters will be contained in what remains of the Road Traffic Act 1974; and administrative matters pertaining to all three statutes will be contained in the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008, which, again, has been passed and is awaiting commencement. The Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will also amend the Road Traffic Act 1974 to make terms used in it consistent with terminology in the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008, the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Bill 2011 and the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008; and make necessary consequential amendments to all other Western Australian statutes impacted by the introduction of the reform. Finally, this bill will make a number of minor amendments to the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008. Two in particular are worthy of mention as they have been included in response to industry concerns raised during extensive consultation undertaken by this government. Clause 218 of this bill will amend section 70 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008, which deals with new laws relating to the seizure of evidence. Industry expressed concern that section 70 will not impose any requirement upon an officer to provide copies to a person who is or appears entitled to possession of documents seized as part of an investigation. Such documents could include transport manifests, loading schedules, journey documentation and contracts, all of which can be crucial to transport operations. To address this concern, the bill will amend section 70 to enable an entitled person to obtain copies of any documents seized by an officer in the course of an investigation. Clause 219 of this bill will amend section 105 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008, which concerns who may commence prosecution proceedings for offences created under the reforms. I have already explained that the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Bill 2011 will extend the current liability for breaches of vehicle mass, dimension and loading requirements from drivers and vehicle owners to other parties throughout the transport chain. This is to ensure that all parties with responsibility for activities that affect compliance with these requirements will be held accountable if they do not meet those responsibilities. During the consultation I have referred to, industry expressed the strong view that this policy stance needs to be balanced by measures that will ensure that these new laws are enforced appropriately and in accordance with the spirit in which they have been developed. To address this concern, clause 219 of this bill will amend section 105 to provide the safeguard that a prosecution for a breach of a vehicle mass, dimension or loading requirement will require the approval of a prescribed person or a person of a prescribed class, such as a senior officer. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party. Nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws throughout the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 4291.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. EDUCATION AND CARE SERVICES NATIONAL LAW (WA) BILL 2011 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Robyn McSweeney (Minister for Child Protection), read a first time. Second Reading HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West — Minister for Child Protection) [9.29 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The Education and Care Services National Law (WA) Bill 2011 is the key step forward in achieving nationally agreed standards for the provision of high-quality education and care in long-day care, outside-school-hours care and family day care. Western Australia has also committed to apply the principles of the nationally agreed quality standards to kindergartens and pre-kindergartens on school sites, and will do so through the existing school-specific legislative and policy frameworks. In December 2009, Western Australia signed to become a participating jurisdiction to the National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care. The agreement is to establish a jointly governed unified national quality framework for early education and care and school-age care. The new national quality framework provides for the introduction of legislation based on the national quality
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 619 standards, the establishment of a jointly governed national body, a nationally consistent assessment and rating system and a state-based, nationally consistent approvals system. This will replace all the current separate state licensing and national quality assurance processes. The development of this bill has taken cooperation from every state and territory, as well as input from stakeholders in every jurisdiction, including providers and staff of centre-based child care, outside-school-hours care, family day care providers, parents, and child development experts. The extensive consultation withstakeholders has taken into account the needs of rural and remote area services, including regional centres, agricultural districts and high-growth mining areas. The development of this bill has taken careful consideration of any potential cost of implementation. A review has found that, with their history of high standards, Western Australian services are well placed for affordable implementation of the requirements of the proposed new legislation. The commitment of the sector to these reforms and the collaborative manner of the development of the law are the reasons that we have before us a bill that will produce real benefits for children, parents and service providers. This bill continues the approach implemented in Western Australia with the amendments to the Child Care Services Act 2007 earlier this year. Research has demonstrated the importance of the early years in a child‘s development and on their future potential. The lifelong benefits of quality early childhood education and care are well documented and have created an obligation on all of us to ensure that children are given the best possible starts in life. Research has demonstrated that high-quality education and care services will have a positive impact on developing better self- esteem, better educational outcomes and fewer health and social problems. This bill represents the government‘s continuing commitment to ensure that all children across this state are given the best opportunity to reach their full potentials. The primary objective of the law is that the best interests of children are paramount. The focus of the bill is on ensuring the safety, health and wellbeing of children and on providing the optimal conditions at the beginning of their educational and developmental journey. The bill provides real benefits for families and emphasises the importance of family involvement in their children‘s education and care services. The introduction of a new, nationally consistent and transparent assessment and ratings system will allow all families to have access to information relating to the quality of education and care services covered by this bill so that they can make informed choices about their children‘s care. I refer now to the impact for families. The bill requires centre-based care, outside-school-hours care and family day care providers across Western Australia to provide quality education and care for the children attending their services. Any cost impact for families is dependent on the type of service they attend, the number of hours their child or children are enrolled for, their family income and their personal eligibility for commonwealth government fee support through the childcare benefit and childcare rebate programs. The costs of the new staffing requirements for Western Australia were modelled by Deloitte Access Economics in the report ―Localised Cost Impacts of the NQF‖ in October 2011. This report estimated an increase on current fees of approximately $1.83 a child a day. The increase was found to be due entirely to the new qualification requirements. The Western Australian government will seek a commitment from the commonwealth government to meet any cost increases for parents as a result of the requirements of the national quality framework. The introduction of a single national quality standard for children‘s services will apply the same quality standards across Australia. The new national quality standard will contain seven quality areas that will be defined in the concomitant regulations: educational program and practice, including the development of programs based on an approved learning framework and taking into account each child‘s strengths, capabilities, interests and experiences; children‘s health and safety; physical environment; staffing arrangements; relationships with children; collaborative partnerships with families and communities; and leadership and service management. Services will plan for their continual improvement based on these standards and receive a rating for each quality area and an overall rating. These ratings will be published to inform parents and the community about how well services are providing education and care to their children and inform services about their progress. The broader focus of this bill is on continuing improvement rather than just compliance; that strategy will benefit all services, but especially those in rural and remote areas. The bill provides for a continual improvement style in the regulation of education and care services, requiring planning for improvement at a service level and providing incentives through public recognition of standards of care in the descriptive ratings scale. This represents a different approach from the current regulatory style, and is the result of considerable consultation with the sector. The approach means that the issues faced by services in, for example, rural and remote areas or central metropolitan Perth can be taken into account when seeking a solution to regulatory compliance issues. The bill includes a broad range of tools that vary according to the nature of the issue. This range includes powers for the regulatory authority to issue penalty notices and compliance notices or to refer an action to the State
620 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Administrative Tribunal. The broadest range of tools are available in the State Administrative Tribunal, from requiring mandatory conciliation to support identification of issues and their resolution through to requiring a service provider or staff to undertake education on the issues under examination. The Western Australia–based regulatory authority can, when necessary, seek to prosecute for prescribed offences, suspend or cancel approvals and certifications and undertake emergency actions such as closing or evacuating services. The right to internal and external review of decisions of the regulator ensures that the principles of fairness apply at the same time as ensuring the safety, health and wellbeing of children. For services, eliminating duplication and reducing the regulatory burden is a key objective of the bill. This bill reduces the significant duplication that exists under the current national accreditation and state licensing systems. It will introduce a system of nationally consistent approval processes for providers and services. The national quality framework includes two types of approval: provider approval, by which a person is permitted to provide an education and care service; and service approval, which permits the provision of a service at particular premises. An approval to provide an education and care service is valid in all jurisdictions. This means a person or organisation will not have to receive separate provider approval for each state or territory in which they wish to operate. A service approval is required for each service as it is specific to the service in its location. This allows a tailored examination of the proposed service in the location and environment in which it proposes to operate. In regard to family day care, the scheme or service, not the individual family day care educator, is subject to provider and service approval. Family day care schemes in Western Australia are well placed for this regulatory approach; their current working relationships with individual providers will ensure close support for these family day care providers in the future. A certification process is also in place for supervisors of a service, whereby the holder of a supervisor certificate is deemed fit and proper to manage the day-to-day operation of a service. As with approved providers, these supervisors will have their certification recognised nationwide, which is an important reform as Australia‘s workforce becomes ever more mobile. Nationally consistent approval processes for certified supervisors ensures that the same minimum requirements must be met across Australia for this pivotal position. The administration of the national system detailed in this bill will be an efficient national process in which Western Australia is an equal party. The new national quality framework establishes the national body, the Australian Children‘s Education and Care Quality Authority, which will have a key role in monitoring and promoting the consistent application of the law across Australia. The national quality framework also establishes a national system of state and territory regulatory authorities. The Western Australian regulatory authority remains accountable to the state minister and will continue to be the main point of contact for services through its operational responsibility for the national quality framework. Services that are not currently under the scope of this bill will continue to be regulated under the Child Care Services Act 2007. For those providers that operate integrated services that comprise a service type that falls within the national quality framework as well as a service type that is to remain within the state regulatory regime, approvals will also be streamlined. To further reduce regulatory burden, existing approved providers and services and certified supervisors will be moved over in a seamless transition from the old system to the new. The regulations to accompany this law are currently being developed. They have been subject to extensive consultation and received strong sector support. These regulations will provide further detail on the national quality standard, the assessment and rating system, qualifications, staff to child ratios and fees associated with the national quality framework. This bill provides for a new approach to the regulation of quality education and care services for children and their families. It provides the right balance between quality and affordability of children‘s services. The bill uses a continual improvement focus for the regulation of the quality of education and care services. It provides greater access to information about the quality of services for families. The bill reduces the regulatory burden on services. The cooperative approach to the development of this national law creates a shared responsibility for improving children‘s educational and developmental outcomes. In Western Australia, we have a proud record of commitment to high-quality, safe, affordable children‘s services and in this law we are demonstrating our ongoing commitment to ensuring that children and families benefit from this important reform. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that this bill is a uniform legislation bill. It is a bill that ratifies or gives effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party. I commend the bill to the house and table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 4292.] Debate adjourned and bill referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review, pursuant to standing orders.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 621
DENMARK CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVING — EVICTION Statement HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [9.43 pm]: At question time today I asked the Minister for Education, through her representative in this house, about the eviction from its premises of the Centre for Sustainable Living in Denmark to provide temporary accommodation for classes during the refurbishment of Denmark High School. Members might recall that the minister‘s answer started with the words ―The Minister for Education has not made a decision to evict the Denmark Education and Innovation Centre.‖ I can tell the minister that very many hearts lifted when they heard those words, only to sink again moments later as she went on to explain why the Minister for Education is planning to terminate the centre‘s lease at the end of June. Mr President, I know that you and I, as members for the South West Region, take an interest in these cases. You and some other members of this chamber, such as Hon Robyn McSweeney, may well have visited the centre in the past. It is a truly remarkable place. I want to say to the Minister for Education tonight that eviction may not be what she is intending, but it will most certainly be how she is remembered if she does not step in and have a close look at what is being proposed for this centre. We simply cannot allow the bureaucrats with their desktop studies in Perth to make decisions such as this that will have such a serious effect on the Denmark community. Let me provide a bit of background for members who are not familiar with the centre and its history. Some years ago, going back about 15 years in fact, the WA College of Agriculture–Denmark went through a major refurbishment. As part of the changes that were made to that campus, several buildings that were part of Denmark agricultural college were marked for demolition; that was around 1999. A really forceful community campaign took place during that time. Something like 14 different community groups were involved and some real warriors of political activism, such as the late Clive Malcolm, got their teeth into the issue and worked like stink over many, many years to make sure that those buildings were retained and given to the purpose that they have served now for the past 10 or so years. The dormitory block of the old agricultural college was one of those buildings that were saved by those community groups working together and putting forward an alternative plan. So we saw this building—which is on the corner of that high school site on the drive into Denmark on South Coast Highway—renovated, extended and restored to the tune of something like $1 million over the past 10 years. This building has gone from a very ordinary-looking, crummy, brick building into the most magnificent example of how we can build and operate sustainably in terms of accommodation that we provide for ourselves. All the work was done by local builders and craftspeople. Finally, in 2004, that building was leased from the Department of Education for 15 years. The plan was five plus five; that is, a five-year lease renewable in five-yearly blocks. The leaseholder is the Denmark Education and Innovation Centre—DEIC—and the manager is Green Skills. The Centre for Sustainable Living now forms part of an education precinct. In that precinct sits Denmark High School, the WA College of Agriculture–Denmark and TAFE—you, Mr President, would know it as GSIT, the Great Southern Institute of Technology. They are all on that same campus. The Centre for Sustainable Living has become an environmental educational centre providing training, education, conference facilities and quite substantial dormitory accommodation to support those conference facilities. It has in fact become a national leader in the field of environmental education centres. It has its own website and members can visit the website if they want to see more about how that building is designed with passive solar, active solar, on-site waste water management and organic food gardens; It is all there and is a most impressive set-up. To give members a feeling for how vibrant the centre is, I will quickly refer to the sorts of things that happen at the Centre for Sustainable Living. There are environmental workshops and conferences; field study programs for schools and universities; natural resources management projects; Gondwana youth arts programs; counselling services and workshops; employment and volunteer programs; environment expos, art exhibitions and fundraisers; and sustainable living tours—the list goes on. There are about 5 000 educational visitors every year, 627 accommodation guests a year, 315 meeting room hires et cetera. This is a vibrant part of the Denmark community. On 27 October 2011 the bombshell dropped and the management of the centre was presented with a letter giving the centre notice to vacate by 30 June 2012. There were no warnings; there was no consultation with the Centre for Sustainable Living. I do not know why the answer Minister Hon Peter Collier read out referred to ―lack of clarity‖ in my question about the lack of consultation, when I was in fact quoting the minister‘s own letter to the centre. Why is the centre being evicted? First of all we were told it was because the school needed the buildings for a science block. I understand that is no longer the case. The buildings as I have seen them would not meet the prerequisites for a science building anyway. Then we were told it was for the safety of the children because of the proximity of conference guests to the school. That has now dropped away and we are being told it is needed for temporary accommodation while school renovations are going on. I want to put to honourable members that we are at a moment in time when we have a choice. We can decide, as I think some of the bureaucrats sitting at their desks in Perth have done, that this is just a bunch of hippies
622 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] running some kind of wild green scheme from the back of a school in a building that should have been demolished years ago. Frankly, that is the feeling I get from reading some of the background documents that have been provided to the centre. In that case I suppose we close our eyes, batten down the hatches and wait until 1 July and hope it will all go away. From 1 July, presumably the school will move in and take over that building—I do not know what for; maybe for classrooms or maybe just for administration use—on a temporary basis while renovations are being done at the school. No offers of compensation or alternative venues have been provided to the centre at this stage. If that centre closes, there will be a large hole in the heart of that community and that will be what this government and this Minister for Education will be remembered for in that community. There is another way. As one of the centre workers said to me last week, ―It doesn‘t have to be this way.‖ The centre is offering to negotiate what it sees as, and what I think is, clearly a win–win solution to this problem. The centre is perfectly happy to negotiate on the provision of temporary accommodation for whatever the school needs during the renovations. The centre wants to work with the Department of Education to manage the proximity issue and to do what has been done in Mt Barker on their education campus—that is, to treat it as an opportunity rather than a threat. The centre wants to work out how to build a collaborative relationship with the school. It wants to work out a way of being proud of the way community groups and other education providers can live together to provide services for everyone‘s mutual benefit. The centre wants to work on a joint learning precinct plan. We have thousands of signatures on a petition. I say again to the minister that it does not have to be this way. STOLEN WAGES Statement HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [9.53 pm]: I rise tonight to respond in some way to the insensitive remarks made today by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on the stolen wages issue. We all know this issue has been a historic injustice that has been dealt with by the 2008 report ―Reconciling the Past‖. It is an injustice that has been dealt with in the Senate inquiry. I was seriously distressed by the statement that was read out in this place today and by the minister‘s flippant response on the ABC. This has been a significantly important issue to Indigenous people in Western Australia and Australia. The ministerial statement was, in my view, mean-spirited and an obfuscation of the responsibilities of this government and past and future governments on this issue. The amount of $2 000 being made available to Aboriginal people born prior to 1958 and who are still living is an absolute nonsense. How can any minister of the Crown actually believe that $2 000 will in some way make reparation for the injustices done to people who had 75 per cent of their wages stolen? It deals with neither the interest, nor the value of those dollars in today‘s terms. If we take into account the 2008 report and the Senate inquiry recommendations, and indeed what has been achieved in New South Wales, the offer falls dramatically short. I think it is important to read the principal paragraph of the overview of the 2008 report. The report states — It is important to acknowledge Aboriginal people as the original custodians of the land on which the Colony of Western Australia was founded, and that as descendants of the first peoples they have made an irreplaceable contribution to the State‘s identity. The payment of $2 000 to people who had their wages stolen is an abject insult. I go to paragraph 8.26—recommendation 4—of the Senate inquiry recommendation, which relates to Western Australia. The report deals with the same matters for each state and territory. Recommendation 4 states that — (a) the Western Australian Government: (i) urgently consult with Indigenous people in relation to the stolen wages issue; and (ii) establish a compensation scheme in relation to withholding, underpayment and non- payment of Indigenous wages and welfare entitlements using the New South Wales scheme as a model … I do not think the New South Wales scheme is much better, but at least New South Wales is giving its stolen wages people $11 000. Our $2 000 is absolutely paltry; it will not even pay for a funeral. It will not compensate people for the loss of that money, the interest that could have been earned on that money, or indeed even reflect the value of that money in today‘s wages. Minister, I think it was an appalling announcement, and I do not think it goes nearly far enough, and I think the minister should hang his head in shame. Hon Peter Collier: You‘re an embarrassment. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: No, you‘re an embarrassment. The PRESIDENT: Order!
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 623
INTER DOMINION 2012 HARNESS RACING CHAMPIONSHIP Statement HON MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM (Agricultural) [9.58 pm]: I rise tonight to speak about the 2012 Inter Dominion harness racing championship. I would like to preface my remarks by declaring my interest in racing and wagering issues as, firstly, an owner–breeder of standard bred horses, and, secondly, a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Review of the Racing and Wagering Western Australia Acts, 24 September 2009; I am also a member of a number of harness racing clubs. In 2009, the joint standing committee, of which I was a member, travelled throughout Western Australia, as well as Queensland and Victoria, in an effort to review the operations and effectiveness of the Racing and Wagering Western Australia Act 2003. The information gathered proved invaluable in framing the many findings and recommendations contained within the 2010 report to Parliament. The report not only highlighted racing and wagering issues associated with the 2003 act, but also acknowledged Racing and Wagering Western Australia‘s great successes since its inception under the then minister, Hon Nick Griffiths. Racing and Wagering WA has given great certainty to Western Australia‘s three racing codes. Those successes were clearly demonstrated last Friday night, 2 March, when harness racing held its Inter Dominion final at Gloucester Park. The racing series proved to all that Western Australian harness racing can stage a world-class event, with local wonder horse, Im Themightyquinn, taking out the $1 million final. Horses, trainers, connections and devotees from all around Australia and New Zealand turned up in big numbers to continue the grand tradition that started in Perth in 1936. Major sporting and tourism events such as the 2012 Inter Dominion series do not just happen. They require very detailed and lengthy planning, together with expensive and targeted marketing strategies. Coordination of the series was undertaken by Gloucester Park Harness Racing. I would particularly like to acknowledge the contributions of the president, John Burt; vice-presidents Gino Monaco and Bob Pettigrew; the committee; CEO Rob Bovell; marketing manager Michael Radley; various media outlets; and a big team of committed and hardworking locals and staff. Their combined efforts delivered a series and final the envy of all in the harness racing world in Australia and New Zealand. Gloucester Park is a unique harness racing venue. Many interstate visitors, such as Ballarat and District Trotting Club‘s chief executive officer Paul Rowse, and Sky Racing‘s Adam Hamilton, were loud in their praise of Gloucester Park and the support of local fans. The comment was made that, whilst Gloucester Park attracted something in the vicinity of 20 000 patrons on grand final night, tracks in the eastern states would struggle to attract 10 000. Gloucester Park can justifiably feel proud of its history and involvement in the Inter Dominion Championship ever since hosting the first series in 1936. My hope is that Gloucester Park is always the centre of harness racing in Western Australia. I would also like to think that, despite impending changes to the Inter Dominion format, Gloucester Park will one day resume its rightful place as home of the Inter Dominion Championship. The enormous success of the 2012 Inter Dominion would seem to demand a rethink on the proposed series change— something that will not be decided for another four years or so. In Western Australia we can only hope that is the case. The PRESIDENT: Members, further to that contribution I might add that I also had a passing personal interest. My eight-month-old grandson is named Quinn, so I was rather interested in the performance of Im Themightyquinn. I am delighted to see he is such a good winner. SCHOOLS — PARENTING HUBS Statement HON LINDA SAVAGE (East Metropolitan) [10.03 pm]: On 21 February this year in his Premier‘s Statement the Premier said — We will shortly provide the details of our previously announced plan to co-locate children and family services on school and other community sites, particularly in low socioeconomic areas. These centres will provide services such as immunisation, child health nurses, occupational and speech therapy, and parenting programs in an integrated way, providing local solutions to local problems. This is not the first time that the Premier has made such a promise. On 15 December 2010 a front page article headed ―Children the winners in State‘s mining boom‖ in The West Australian reported — The ―social dividend‖ from the State‘s mining boom will see schools turned into one-stop parenting shops to help WA‘s most vulnerable children, Premier Colin Barnett revealed yesterday. Schools will get big increases in resources to add nurses and dental clinicians, daycare and kindergarten classes for children as young as three to their services.
624 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
… ―Child health services such as immunisation, child health clinics, GPs visiting school sites. Childcare facilities on the school site. ―Health services for young mothers, parenting services and even justice services. … Mr Barnett said the next Budget would include money for capital works to begin turning schools into parenting hubs. ―This is a prosperous State and people say, where is the social dividend,‖ he said. There was no money in the next budget, the 2011–12 budget. It led to an editorial on 10 June, also in The West Australian. Headed ―Little trace of plan for early childhood hubs‖ in part it stated — Little more than six months ago, Premier Colin Barnett was making much of his intention to ensure the wider WA community enjoyed some of the fruits of the State‘s mining boom. In an interview with this newspaper in December he outlined his plan to make children the big winners as royalty returns rolled in from the feverish activity in the resources industry. At the centre of Mr Barnett‘s promised social dividend was a plan to set up early childhood hubs in State primary schools, where a range of services could be provided in one-stop parenting shops. … Mr Barnett said at the time that money would be set aside in the next State Budget for capital works to put the policy into action. … Certainly, in the State Budget papers last month there was no mention of any money to begin the process, despite what amounted to a promise by the Premier in December. That was in 2010. Last year I asked a number of questions about this. Just by way of context, I would like to refer to a question I asked about the Early Years Collaborative Project Team. According to the answers I got, this team reported in August last year. I received the following answer about the work of that team in response to one of the questions I had about the issue — The Liberal–National government is continuing to focus on progressing more early childhood centres on school sites, particularly in geographic areas where more children require early intervention and support. The report of the Early Years Collaborative Project Team proposed a draft outcome framework to assist and support on-the-ground collaboration between service providers, the community sector and other stakeholders in the health, education and care sectors. That was in November 2011. That report has not been tabled, although the government received it in August last year. The team was made up of a high-powered committee, including a large number of non-government organisations, and had the resources of government. It is also more than three years since the 2008 election and the teams under the Putting the Public First initiative began their work. It makes me wonder why this project team‘s report has not been tabled. I hope that when it is tabled, the report will have some substance, but I have some reservations. I have a concern that perhaps it will be a rather lightweight document that will be light on specific commitment and costings. Although I do not like to be cynical, I say that in the light of some other reports that have eventually been tabled since I have been a member of Parliament. I am obviously now waiting to hear whether this latest promise will be honoured. There are naturally not only expectations, but, understandably, in the light of what has gone before and the broken promise of December 2010, there are some concerns about what will happen. One concern I have, which I raised in a question I asked today, is that rather than new centres being announced, some existing centres will merely be rebadged. I asked a question today about whether the Premier would give an undertaking that the centres that will be announced will not include existing centres such as Challis Parenting and Early Learning Centre, Midvale Early Childhood and Parenting Centre and Roseworth Primary School. The answer I got was — The Liberal–National government will be making an announcement relating to this issue shortly at which time more information can be provided. I have been waiting a while for that information and I would like to make just a few comments, because I think it would be a cynical exercise to re-badge existing centres or to use—I will probably not have a chance to talk about this tonight—federally funded centres that are yet to come online as part of that promise. Obviously, the Challis and Midvale centres would welcome money. They have been operating for quite some time, without the help of government, to provide these services for the early years. I am sure that they would be delighted to finally get some assistance. They have needed money and yet they have not gotten money in the past. Challis Parenting and Early Learning Centre is an integrated site that provides services such as health and social services. In fact, it is often referred to by the government as a model, and it was opened by the Minister for
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 625
Education in 2009. It is a centre desperately in need of expansion and urgent money to upgrade the facility and meet demand. In answer to a direct question I asked in estimates in June 2011, I was told that there was no money in the 2011–12 budget for any upgrade or assistance for Challis. The centre gets only a 0.5 full-time equivalent position from the government and it uses that to pay part of the coordinator‘s salary. Challis continues to operate with a rearranging of budget funding it receives, in particular from national partnership money and donations. It also received a very significant donation from a philanthropic group last year. As I said, the centre would welcome money from the state, but it would be highly cynical to suggest that if the government re-badges this centre, it is its initiative. As I said last year, Challis had to resort to fundraising and selling the paintings of children in the preschool and year 1 to try to raise funds to employ a speech therapist, occupational therapist, creche worker and education assistant. I also spoke about this in Parliament. It would really be disgraceful, given the failure of the government to fund Challis Parenting and Early Learning Centre since it opened, to try to piggyback on that centre. There is also the Midvale centre, which this evening I will not have the time to talk about; however, I will talk about it in the future, as I will talk about the federally funded centres under Closing the Gap and the early learning and care centres, because I am concerned that this new announcement will not be a commitment to new centres. I think the general public seems to almost take it for granted that politicians will break promises. There are all sorts of promises that Politicians may break and think little of it, but I think that when we are talking about promises to children, promises for the early years—for that crucial period when we need to try to ensure children get a fair chance to grow up and become the contributing and responsible adults that they need to be—it would be a promise, if broken again, too far. DRAFT MENTAL HEALTH BILL Statement HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [10.13 pm]: Tonight I rise to speak on the matter of mental health and specifically to make some comments about the draft mental health bill that was put out during the summer break not long after we rose. One of the criticisms that have come to my attention is that many people who have a copy of the legislation have not had sufficient time to deal with the volume of information contained in the draft mental health bill. There is clearly a need for additional time to allow them to go through the detail of that legislation. It is a draft bill and has been a long time coming to this place. The draft bill was much awaited by the mental health sector, the health sector, people with mental ill health and their families and carers, and of course other professionals. I have to say that on the first reading of this bill I have very, very grave concerns about it indeed. I must advise the house that most of the stakeholders in the mental health sector also have very, very serious concerns about this draft legislation. We can only hope that what we end up with is significantly different from what I have in front of me—that is, the draft mental health bill 2011. I want to put on the public record that my office has received many emails in relation to concerns about this bill. Certainly the issue of child consent to sterilisation has to be of major concern, and is of major concern. The notion that a child can consent to sterilisation is absolutely abhorrent to me, is absolutely abhorrent to the people who have seen this draft legislation and needs serious investigation. On top of that, 12-year-olds will be able to consent to electroshock treatment and psychosurgery. The minister should not be smiling at this point. I want to put those matters to one side and comment on the way that this bill has been put together, which is most unacceptable. The drafting of the bill is particularly poor. There are lots of problems with the bill and there is no doubt that it needs a major rewrite. Most concerning to me of course are the provisions within the bill. It is not only that the bill is poorly drafted, but that the explanatory memorandum is even worse. It looks as if it is cobbled together. I want to put on the public record the provision in relation to the sterilisation procedure. This is word for word from the ―Explanatory Guide to the draft Mental Health Bill 2011‖ — 12.3.1 A sterilisation procedure is medical or surgical treatment that is intended to make a person, or to ensure that a person is, permanently infertile. 12.3.2 It is not sterilisation if a person received medical or surgical treatment which was not intended to make them infertile but incidentally had that result. That is a concern, and the explanatory guide continues — 12.3.3 Sterilisation must not be performed on a child unless authorised by the Family Court. 12.3.4 The exception to this rule is if the child — That is, anyone aged 18 years or under — has sufficient maturity and understanding to make reasonable decisions and therefore has the capacity to provide informed consent.
626 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
12.3.5 An adult who has capacity to give informed consent may consent to sterilisation. 12.3.6 The guardian of a person, having received permission from the State Administrative Tribunal, may consent to sterilisation on a person‘s behalf if the person does not have the capacity to consent. And — 12.3.7 As soon as practicable after a sterilisation procedure the psychiatrist must report to the Chief Psychiatrist and in relation to mentally impaired accused the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board. That is a very, very concerning provision. I find it offensive that here we have a provision whereby sterilisation is seen to be some sort of treatment for mental illness. I do not know when sterilisation became a treatment for people with mental ill health. I do not know; maybe I have it wrong. I am certainly not—I do not profess to be— an expert in this field, but I have to say, on the face of it, that I find it quite horrific that this provision should be in this legislation. I think some questions need to be asked: Who specifically recommended including the permanent sterilisation of boys, girls, adolescents and adults as a treatment for mental illness? Who provided the drafting instructions for these provisions? Who drafted the legislation? Indeed, are similar provisions contained within the mental health legislation of other states and territories? I notice the minister shaking her head. Hon Helen Morton: No; I was nodding. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: She is nodding. That would indicate that there are similar provisions. I find that hard to believe. But I do want to put my concerns on the public record, and I thank the house for the opportunity to do that. This is an area that will require some additional canvassing. On the face of it, I would take a lot of convincing to support a provision along these lines. NEW STANDING ORDERS — DAYS AND TIMES OF MEETING Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): Just before we adjourn, because we are dealing with new standing orders—I certainly do not want to provoke further debate late into the night—I point out to members a new provision under standing order 5, ―Days and Times of Meeting‖. It states — (5) At the conclusion of Members‘ Statements, no further business shall be transacted by the Council, except — (a) at the discretion of the President, a further 10 minutes of Members‘ Statements, during which a Member who has not made a Member‘s Statement may respond to a matter raised by another Member during Members‘ Statements; Using tonight‘s members‘ statements as an example, I indicate to members that I would consider requests from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in response to the remarks made by Hon Robin Chapple, the Minister for Mental Health in response to the remarks made by Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, and perhaps even the Minister for Child Protection in response to elements of the remarks made by Hon Linda Savage. I will consider that if members want to make that request. House adjourned at 10.23 pm ______
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 627
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS — HOSPITAL BEDS 4831. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Mental Health I refer to the answer to question on notice No. 4508 asked on 16 August 2011 about mental health inpatient beds in public and private hospitals, and I ask — (1) Of the adult mental health inpatient beds that are authorised to hold involuntary patients under the Mental Health Act 1911 (‗authorised beds‘), how many are in locked wards? (2) Of the available authorised beds, how many, on average on any given day, are occupied by — (a) voluntary patients; and (b) involuntary patients? (3) When voluntary patients occupy authorised beds, are the wards locked, or are the patients detained or in some other way restrained from leaving the ward without permission? (4) When voluntary patients occupy adult mental health inpatient beds designated for voluntary patients only (‗designated beds‘), are the wards locked, or are the patients detained or in some other way restrained from leaving the ward without permission? (5) What is the average length of stay for adult mental health inpatients that are — (a) voluntary; and (b) involuntary? (6) What fees are charged to — (a) voluntary patients occupying designated beds in public hospitals; (b) voluntary patients occupying authorised beds in public hospitals; (c) involuntary patients occupying authorised beds in public hospitals; (d) voluntary patients occupying designated beds in private hospitals; (e) voluntary patients occupying authorised beds in private hospitals; and (f) involuntary patients occupying authorised beds in private hospitals? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: In reference to further questions (1) to (6) to the questions on notice No. 4508, the Licensing and Accreditation Regulatory Unit does not collect specific/detailed data or information relating to mental health inpatient beds in private hospitals throughout Western Australia. Therefore, we are unable to answer this question for private hospitals in WA. For public patients please see below: (1) North Metropolitan Area Health Service NMAHS Area Mental Health Graylands Hospital: 176 Authorised Beds (excluding State Forensic Beds). Of these, 100 are locked beds across 8 wards. Swan Valley Centre: 25 Authorised Beds. Of these, 6 are regular locked beds, although the Swan Valley Centre has capacity to ―swing‖ two extra beds from the open side to become part of the locked ward — this takes the total capacity for locked beds to 8. King Edward Memorial Hospital KEMH: The Mother and Baby Unit (MBU) has eight inpatient beds that are authorised under the Mental Health Act 1996, which are occupied by either involuntary or voluntary patients. Joondalup Health Campus JHC: 10 inpatient beds. South Metropolitan Area Health Service Mental Health There are authorised beds in secure wards at:
628 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Armadale 5 beds Bentley 12 beds Fremantle 10 beds Rockingham 4 beds There are 31 beds in secure authorised wards. WA Country Health Service All WACHS specialist mental health inpatient facilities are authorised under the Mental Health Act 1996. The capacity for locked beds is: Albany: Two beds within the 9 bed authorised mental health inpatient unit can be locked to create a secure area. Kalgoorlie: The seven bed Mental Health Inpatient Unit is locked practice but is not defined as a locked unit. Bunbury: Six secure beds within the 27 bed authorised mental health inpatient are located in a separate locked ward. (2) (a) 142 (b) 291 (3) North Metropolitan Area Health Service NMAHS Area Mental Health Involuntary patients under the Mental Health Act 1996 may be cared for either on secure or open wards, depending on their clinical and risk assessment. Therefore Authorised Beds may be either secure or open. In the open wards patients can leave the wards freely, although staff have a clear duty of care to track patient whereabouts at key periods during the day, and the frequency of observations will depend on patient needs. It is uncommon for a voluntary patient to be cared for on a secure ward — this may be at the request of the patient themselves, or if there is temporary unavailability of an open bed. Voluntary patients are not prevented from leaving secure wards — staff let them out promptly on request. King Edward Memorial Hospital KEMH: Voluntary patients can come and go freely, and this is managed when involuntary patients are in the unit by a controlled exit and entrance that is operated by staff swipe card. The controlled entrance/exit is also an added security feature to control who enters and leaves the unit to ensure care and protection for the babies. Joondalup Health Campus JHC Wards are not locked during the day, however they are locked between 10pm and 6am. If a voluntary patient threatens to leave the unit to self-harm the staff lock the doors to the unit to prevent the patient leaving, however the door is temporarily opened to allow other patients to exit when required. South Metropolitan Area Health Service Mental Health Patients are treated in the least restrictive environment. On occasion (if the clinical risk is high), open authorised wards will be locked but there are protocols for access in and out of the wards. Open authorised wards are locked at night for safety of staff and patients. WA Country Health Service Albany: The ward is sometimes locked if there is a patient admitted who is wandering. In this instance staff control egress out of the ward so that patients that have permission to leave are able to do so without putting other patients at risk. Kalgoorlie: The ward remains locked as involuntary and voluntary patients are mixed. Staff control egress out of the ward so that patients that have permission to leave are able to do so without putting other patients at risk. Bunbury: The ward is sometimes locked if there is a patient admitted who is wandering. In this instance staff control egress out of the ward so that patients that have permission to leave are able to do so without putting other patients at risk. (4) North Metropolitan Area Health Service Mental Health NMAHS Area Mental Health There have been rare occasions where Authorised open wards have temporarily been locked because of the high acuity of the patient group on that unit — this is to maintain safety for high risk patients who
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 629
may be transiting to locked wards. All voluntary patients on these wards are allowed access to move in and out of the ward, and those units have been unlocked as soon as the risk has settled. King Edward Memorial Hospital KEMH: As indicated in question 1, involuntary and voluntary patients are housed in the same unit. If a patient is involuntary it is explained to them and their next of kin that they will not be allowed to leave the Unit unless permitted to by the psychiatrist, following a risk assessment that does highlight any areas of concern. The exit from the building is controlled if there are any concerns that a patient who is under the Mental Health Act may try to leave. The exit is not controlled if the Unit is only occupied by voluntary patients, and if controlled voluntary patients come and go freely. Joondalup Health Campus JHC does not have beds designated voluntary only, they are all authorised. South Metropolitan Area Health Service Mental Health The only non-authorised facility in SMAHS is Royal Perth Hospital (Ward 2K). Voluntary patients can leave the ward at any time. They are requested to advise staff of their destination and likely return time. WA Country Health Service Albany: Albany does not have beds designated for voluntary patients only. Kalgoorlie: Kalgoorlie does not have beds designated for voluntary patients only. Bunbury: Bunbury does not have beds designated for voluntary patients only. (5) (a) 7 days median length of stay (LOS); and (b) 13 days median LOS. (6) North Metropolitan Area Health Service Mental Health NMAHS Area Mental Health (a) At the time of admission an eligible person (not being a compensable inpatient or a war service veteran) must elect to be classified as a public inpatient or a private inpatient. For public patients there is no charge but for private patients there is a standard schedule of fees relating to the type of room and length of stay. Patients who have been in hospital for more than 35 continuous days and no longer require acute care may be deemed to be a Nursing Home Type Patient (NHTP) and charged as per the standard schedule of fees. They are not deemed NHTP until the clinician (Psychiatrist) authorises a change in care type. All Compensable, Motor Vehicle Third Party Insurance, and Ineligible patients are charged in accordance with the standard schedule of fees. (b) The rules that applied in (a) are the same for voluntary patients occupying authorised beds in public hospitals. (c) As from 1 Apr 2007 it was confirmed by the Minister for Health that all involuntary patients detained in an authorised mental health facility are now excluded under the Health Insurance Act (1973) from paying board and lodgings. (d) The rate charged is a standard charge agreed with the patient and/or private health insurance company. Fees are protected by contractual confidentiality. There is no differentiation between designated and authorised. (e) The rate charged is a standard charge agreed with the patient and/or private health insurance company. Fees are protected by contractual confidentiality. There is no differentiation between designated and authorised. (f) There are 54 designated authorised private beds and their charge is protected by contractual confidentiality. King Edward Memorial Hospital (a)–(f) None. Joondalup Health Campus (a)–(c) Not applicable. (d) Not applicable. All authorised. (e) No fees are charged to public patients and private patients are charged the normal fees pertaining to a private admission.
630 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(f) No fees are charged to public patients and private patients are charged the normal fees pertaining to a private admission. South Metropolitan Area Health Service Mental Health (a)–(c) Mental health patients are not charged in public hospitals if they are Medicare eligible patient, if patients are not eligible for Medicare cover, charges are raised for them. A mental health patient who has been in a public hospital for more than 35 days and no longer requires acute care, and the clinician authorises a change in care type, is classified as a Nursing Home Type patient and they can be charged the nursing home patient accommodation fee. (d)–(f) Not applicable. WA Country Health Service There are no fees charged for mental health care within WACHS public mental health inpatient facilities. CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES — SOUTH WEST 4963. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health I refer to the Minister‘s media statement released on 13 October 2011 announcing $1.6 million for child and youth community mental health services in country Western Australia and $220,000 for two child and youth mental health experts in the South West, and ask — (1) Is the $1.6 million announced in this statement the same $1.6 million referred to in your answer provided on 28 June 2011? (2) Is the $220,000 the total amount of growth funding for 2011–2012 for Department of Health delivered mental health services in the South West? (3) If no to (2), what is the total growth funding made available in the 2011–12 budget for each of the — (a) Department of Health delivered child and youth mental health services in the South West; and (b) Department of Health delivered adult mental health services in the South West? (4) Will the two additional child and youth mental health experts to be employed in the South West include a child psychiatrist and a child psychologist? (5) If no to (4), what qualifications will the two experts have and what is the timeframe for their appointment? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) (a) $222,000. (b) The South West allocation for the Statewide Specialist Aboriginal Mental Health Service (SSAMHS) is $1 million over 3.5 years of which $260,000 is allocated for 2011/12. SSAMHS supports services to all age groups. (4) No psychiatrist but could include psychologist. (5) Psychology, nursing, occupational therapy or social worker. Appointment will occur as soon as possible within public sector employment guidelines. BURSWOOD STADIUM — PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 4964. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the previous advice of the Public Transport Authority that the estimated cost for public transport infrastructure to service the new Burswood Stadium is $300 million, and ask — (1) What infrastructure is included in this estimation? (2) Does this estimation relate only to infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the stadium or does it include changes to the rail network north of the Swan River? (3) If yes to (2), what changes are required? (4) When does the Government expect to make a final decision on what infrastructure is required and its estimated cost?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 631
Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Public Transport Authority advises as at 8 November 2011: (1)–(4) The upgrade will include road, rail and bus infrastructure. Cabinet will make a decision after all planning work is complete. PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — PARKING INFRINGEMENT TICKETS 4965. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to question without notice 749, and ask how can two different versions of a parking infringement notice both comply with the requirement of Schedule 2, Form 1 of the Government Railways (Parking Stations) By- law 1997 and both be valid? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Public Transport Authority advises as at 8 November 2011: Section 74 of the Interpretation Act 1984 states that where a form is prescribed or specified under a written law, deviation there from not materially affecting the substance nor likely to mislead shall not invalidate the form used. The Interpretation Act 1984 further states that it applies to all state legislation unless: (a) Express provision is made to the contrary; or (b) In the case of an Act, the intent and object of the Act or something in the subject or context of the Act is inconsistent with such application; or (c) In the case of subsidiary legislation, the intent and object of the act under which that subsidiary legislation is made is inconsistent with such application. As there is no express intention to exclude the Interpretation Act 1984 from the Public Transport Authority Act 2003 or its regulations; or the Government Railways Act 1904 or its By-Laws, and with the core substance and intent of the infringement notices having not deviated from the core substance and intent of the scheduled form in the Act, those infringement notices are deemed to be valid. In addition, the legal advice provided by the Office of the State Solicitor states that the reference to By-Law 80 alone does not render the infringement notice invalid. Additionally, page 17 of the Government Railways (Parking Station) By-Laws 1997 reads that the Government Railways (Parking Station) By-Laws 80 is not repealed but is now known as the Government Railways (Parking Station) By-Laws 1997.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — PARKING INFRINGEMENT TICKETS 4966. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to question without notice 759, and ask — (1) Does the Minister stand by his answer to part (1)? (2) If no to (1), when did the Public Transport Authority become aware of concerns about the validity of its parking infringement tickets prior to September 2011? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Public Transport Authority advises as at 8 November 2011: (1) Yes (2) Not Applicable PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — PARKING INFRINGEMENT TICKETS 4967. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to question without notice 759, and ask — (1) Do you stand by your answer to part (3)? (2) If no to (1), how many parking infringement tickets issued by the Public Transport Authority have been challenged by someone citing a reference to Regulation 80 as one of the reasons for challenging the infringement notice? (3) Was the infringement notice cancelled following the challenge?
632 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Public Transport Authority advises as at 8 November 2011: (1) Yes. There have been no infringement notices challenged by a member of the public in court. (2)–(3) Not Applicable PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — PARKING INFRINGEMENT TICKETS 4968. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to your advice that the Public Transport Authority (PTA) has instructed their officers to stop issuing parking infringements using the form that refers to By-law 80, and ask — (1) Why have officers been instructed to stop using these forms? (2) Does the PTA still consider they are valid infringement forms? (3) How many unused infringement notices referring to By-Law 80 did the PTA have when they instructed officers to stop using them? (4) What has happened to the unused infringement notices that refer to By-Law 80? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Public Transport Authority advises as at 8 November 2011: (1) To avoid any future confusion to the public. (2) Yes (3) The Public Transport Authority had approximately 1700 unused infringement notices. (4) They have been destroyed in accordance with the Public Transport Authority‘s document disposal procedures. HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — APPLICATION REFERRALS 4969. Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Energy (1) For each month of 2009–10 and 2010–11, and for each suburb and town, how many requests for Hardship Utilities Grants Scheme (HUGS) assistance were referred to the Department of Child Protection (DCP) by each of — (a) Synergy; (b) Horizon; and (c) Alinta? (2) For each month of 2009–10 and 2010–11, and for each suburb and town, how many requests for HUGS assistance were not referred to DCP by each of — (a) Synergy; (b) Horizon; and (c) Alinta? (3) What are the general reasons why requests for HUGS assistance were not referred to DCP? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: Synergy (1) Synergy does not refer customers in financial hardship directly to DCP, rather they are referred to a financial counsellor to be assessed for eligibility for a HUGS grant. If the Financial Counsellor determines the customer is in hardship, they would then apply for a HUGS grant with DCP, advising what utility the payment should be sent to. Synergy‘s record-keeping system does not allow for the generation of a report on the suburb or locality of HUGS referrals. Providing a response to this part of the question would require each of Synergy‘s approximately nine-hundred thousand customer accounts to be individually reviewed, which would require undue resources. Month HUGS Referrals July 2009 443 August 2009 555 September 2009 470 October 2009 470 November 2009 515
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 633
December 2009 604 January 2010 408 February 2010 456 March 2010 608 April 2010 530 May 2010 712 June 2010 699 2009/10 6470 July 2010 550 August 2010 627 September 2010 740 October 2010 677 November 2010 1033 December 2010 1304 January 2011 691 February 2011 1209 March 2011 1422 April 2011 1538 May 2011 1656 June 2011 1610 2010/11 13057 (2) Synergy does not maintain records of how many customers were initially assessed as not being eligible for referral to a financial counsellor. (3) Requests for HUGS assistance may not be referred to DCP if Synergy identifies the applicant is ineligible according to its Financial Hardship Policy and the ―Hardship Utility Grants Scheme (HUGS): Information and Funding Guidelines‖ prepared by the DCP. Horizon Prior to June 2010, the information collected on HUGS referrals was based on Horizon Power‘s total service area. Hence, the total HUGS referrals have been provided for each month in the 2009/10 financial year, with town by town information for June 2010 onwards. Month HUGS Referrals July 2009 89 August 2009 13 September 2009 14 October 2009 13 November 2009 18 December 2009 8 January 2010 8 February 2010 6 March 2010 9 April 2010 70 May 2010 21 For June 2010 onwards — [See paper 4286.] (2) (b) Horizon Power does not maintain records of how many customers were initially assessed as not being eligible for referral to a financial counsellor. (3) Requests for HUGS assistance may not be referred to DCP if Horizon Power identifies the applicant is ineligible according to its Financial Hardship Policy and the ―Hardship Utility Grants Scheme (HUGS): Information and Funding Guidelines‖ prepared by the DCP. Alinta Alinta is a privately owned and operated corporation and, as such, questions should be directed to Alinta. HARDSHIP UTILITY GRANT SCHEME — APPLICATION REFERRALS 4970. Hon Sue Ellery to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Water (1) For each month of 2009–10 and 2010–11, and for each suburb and town, how many requests for Hardship Utilities Grants Scheme (HUGS) assistance were referred to the Department of Child Protection (DCP) by each of —
634 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(a) WaterCorp; and (b) any other water board or authority with figures for each other water board or authority? (2) For each month of 2009–10 and 2010–11, and for each suburb and town, how many requests for HUGS assistance were not referred to the DCP by each of — (a) WaterCorp; and (b) any other water board or authority with figures for each other water board or authority? (3) What are the general reasons why requests for HUGS assistance were not referred to DCP? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: Requests for Hardship Utilities Grants Scheme assistance are not referred to the Department of Child Protection. (1)–(2) Nil (3) Not applicable. PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT — TRAFFIC MODELLING 4971. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Planning (1) Did the traffic modelling undertaken for the Perth Waterfront project include the impact of any light rail routes? (2) If yes to (1), which roads are expected to be impacted by light rail in the future and will the Minister table the modelling? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If no to (1), why does the Government not expect light rail to impact on the road network? (5) Where does the Government expect that the light rail terminus for north–south routes across the city will be in the future? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Modelling undertaken for Perth Waterfront pre-dated the proposed light rail outcomes identified in the Public Transport Plan for Perth 2031. A strategic transport planning exercise for the Perth CBD, led by the Department of Transport and the City of Perth, is currently being undertaken which will include updated modelling to reflect emerging plans for light rail. (4) The State Government expects that light rail will impact on the road network. The Department of Transport is responsible for undertaking planning and modelling exercises to determine future routes, infrastructure and potential impacts associated with the implementation of light rail. (5) The location of a light rail terminus within the Perth CBD is yet to be determined. . PERTH CITY LINK PROJECT — LIGHT RAIL ROUTES 4972. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Planning (1) Has the East Perth Redevelopment Authority identified future north–south light rail routes across the Perth City Link project? (2) If yes to (1), what routes have been identified? (3) Has any agency in the Minister‘s portfolio identified future north–south light rail routes across other parts of the Perth city centre? (4) If yes to (3), what routes have been identified? (5) If no to (1) or (3), why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) Not applicable.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 635
(5) The Department of Transport is the lead agency for the light rail project. It will be taking a collaborative approach with the relevant planning agencies to address issues, including possible routes. GRAFFITI REMOVAL — COST 4973. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport In each of the last three financial years — (1) How much did the Public Transport Authority spend on cleaning up graffiti? (2) Can the Minister provide a breakdown in each year for — (a) buses; (b) trains; (c) bus stations; (d) train stations; and (e) other infrastructure? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Public Transport Authority advises as at 8 November 2011: (1)–(2) The Public Transport Authority does not keep specific figures for graffiti. PERTH CITY BRIDGES — MAXIMUM VEHICLE WEIGHT 4974. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport (1) What is the current maximum weight allowed for vehicles using the — (a) Horseshoe Bridge on William Street; and (b) Barrack Street Bridge in Perth? (2) What is the estimated gross weight of a fully loaded Transperth articulated bus? (3) What is the estimated gross weight of a fully loaded Transperth standard rigid bus? (4) Are there any restrictions on the gross weight of a route bus when they are using these bridges? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: Main Roads WA advises as at 8 November 2011: (1)–(4) Main Roads does not apply any restrictions on the GVM of Transperth buses using the Horseshoe Bridge on William Street and the Barrack Street Bridge. A fully loaded articulated Transperth bus (standard rigid bus 16 tonnes) is permitted with weight up to 21.5 tonnes. 2011 INNOVATOR OF THE YEAR AWARDS — COST 4975. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Science and Innovation I refer to the 2011 Western Australia Innovator of the Year Awards, and ask what the net cost was to Government to run the Awards in — (a) 2011; (b) 2010; (c) 2009; and (d) 2008? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The Industry, Science and Innovation Division for the Department of Commerce advises: (a) Net expenditure to date for the 2011 WA Innovator of the Year Awards program is $282,926.11. (b) Net expenditure for the 2010 WA Innovator of the Year Awards program was $135,660.89. (c) The WA Inventor of the Year Awards program did not run in 2009 due to organisational changes. (d) Net expenditure for the 2008 WA Inventor of the Year Awards program was $546,292. BIRTH DEFECTS — RESEARCH 4976. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the research activities of the Western Australian Register of Developmental Abnormalities (WARDA), and I ask —
636 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(1) Has WARDA (or its precursor, the former Birth Defects Registry of Western Australia) done any research to assess associations between prenatal exposure to chemical spraying, or exposure of parents before they conceive to chemical spraying, and birth defects? (2) If yes to (1), where is this research publicly accessible? (3) If no to (1), will WARDA or the Department commission or conduct research relating to this issue this term? (4) If no to (3) — (a) why not; and (b) how many birth defects in Western Australia are caused by prenatal exposure to chemical spraying, or exposure of parents before they conceive to chemical spraying? (5) If yes to (3), will the Minister please provide full details? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) Two studies have been conducted. Study One: In response to a concern expressed by women in Carnarvon in 1987 about chemical spraying on plantations in the area and birth defects, the Minister for Health requested that the staff of the Congenital Malformations Register (as it was called then — now WARDA) conduct an investigation. Although birth defects overall were slightly less common amongst infants born to Carnarvon residents, neural tube defects were found to be increased. There was a small and non- significant increase in risk of neural tube defects and other birth defects in offspring of parents exposed to the spraying on the plantations. A moderate and non-significant increased risk of neural tube defects, but not other birth defects, was seen in mothers with a low estimated folate intake periconceptionally, and no mothers of infants with neural tube defects took folic acid supplements in early pregnancy. Case parents more commonly reported exposure to a wide variety of pesticides, other than those used on the plantations, compared with control parents. No single substance was common to exposed mothers. Birth defect occurrence in the Carnarvon region beyond the study period showed a neural tube defect rate similar to the rest of WA and no increase in birth defects overall. Study Two: A case-control study of neural tube defects, completed in 2000, collected some information on prenatal exposure to pesticides and/or herbicides. Information on exposure to pesticides or herbicides was provided by mothers of 16 of the 36 cases with neural tube defects included in the study, 220 of the 475 cases with a variety of other birth defects and 287 of the 528 of the infants with no birth defects (controls). Only 29 mothers reported prenatal exposure to pesticides/herbicides. Because of the low response rate to the questions on pesticide/herbicide exposure and the small number of prenatally exposed pregnancies (29), it was considered not to be scientifically sound to undertake any further analysis on these data. (2) In relation to public access to the information, the first study has been published but the second study has not been published because due to the low response rate and the small number of 29 mothers reporting prenatal exposure to pesticide/herbicide, it was not considered scientifically sound to undertake any further analysis on these data. Study One: A report was published by the Health Department of WA (Bower C, Forbes R, Stanley F. Report of an investigation of congenital malformations in Carnarvon 1980–1987. Health Department of Western Australia, Perth, July 1988. Occasional Paper/30). Study Two: This information has not been published. (3)–(4) Not applicable. (5) See answer to question 2. SCHOOLS — PESTICIDES USE 4977. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Education (1) Will the Minister please table, or provide the electronic link for, all policies and guidelines currently applicable in Western Australian schools regarding pesticide use in schools and school grounds? (2) Does the Department of Education oversee the use of pesticides in schools? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2) — (a) which pesticides are permitted by the Department to be used;
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 637
(b) in which schools has Fipromil been used within the last two years; (c) what monitoring occurs to ensure that any breaches regarding pesticide use are identified and appropriate action taken; (d) what monitoring occurs to ensure that any negative health impacts on staff, students or others are identified and appropriate action taken; and (e) which, if any schools use steam or Waipuna treatment or other non-herbicide means of weed control? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: With regard to Western Australian public schools, I am advised by the Department of Education as follows: (1) The attached documents guide the use of pesticides in schools and on school grounds [See paper 4287.] ―Pesticide use in schools and school grounds‖ National Environmental Health Monographs General Series No. 1, 1997 ―Pest Management in Schools‖ Australian Government Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 2008 (2) School administrators are responsible for overseeing the pesticides (insecticides) used on school grounds by the school gardener or by a licensed pest control technician. The Department of Education oversees those pesticides used in broadacre spraying operations such as oval spraying. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) Using the Schedules as formulated by the Advisory Committee on Chemicals Scheduling (previously the National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee), school gardeners are permitted to use Schedule 5 pesticides without referring to the Department of Education. Special permission must be obtained from the Department prior to using a Schedule 6 chemical. School gardeners are encouraged through their training to seek out the least toxic chemical product that is capable of delivering the desired outcome. (b) It is assumed that the Honourable Member is referring to ―Fipronil‖, an active constituent, approved by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, used in many pesticides, including domestic products (e.g. ―Frontline‖ dog flea control). The Department does not keep a central record as to which schools have used pesticides with Fipronil as an active constituent. (c) The Department of Education relies on the professionalism of licensed pest control technicians and approved users such as mowing contractors regarding the use of pesticides. (d) There is no specific health monitoring program in relation to pesticides. However, should an adverse event take place, it would be investigated by either the Principal Consultant Environmental Health or the Department‘s Occupational Safety and Health Unit. (e) The number of schools using steam, Waipuna treatment or other non-herbicide treatment for weed control is not held centrally by the Department of Education. PARKS — PESTICIDE-FREE PROGRAM 4978. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Local Government I refer to the impact of pesticides on vulnerable people (for example, children and people who have multiple chemical sensitivities) and to the pesticide-free program used by various local parks in the United States, and ask will the Minister provide encouragement and/or assistance to local government authorities to make some pesticide-free parks available? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: The Department of Health‘s Pesticides Advisory Committee has produced a ‗Guide to the Management of Pesticides in Local Government Pest Control Programs in Western Australia‘ The Guide comprises the following elements: the development of a written policy for the use of pesticides, which draws on community input; assessment of the risks and benefits of pesticide use, both overall and for each location–pest combination; development of a written plan for pesticide use, including details of timing, chemical and location, which forms the basis for community consultation;
638 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
considerations in the choice of pesticides and pest control businesses, should the work be contracted out; and auditing of the pest control program and outcomes, and subsequent refinement of policy and operational approaches. Whilst following the Guide is not mandatory, I would encourage all local governments to follow the processes outlined in the Guide to ensure good pest control, and avoid unintentional adverse effects. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES — FUNDING 4979. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health I refer to the $6.5 million in growth funding for mental health services in the 2011–12 Budget, and ask — (1) The Minister to provide an itemised account of how the $6.5 million has been spent/allocated, including the following details — (a) the organisation/body delivering the service and to whom payment has been made; (b) the nature of the service purchased (including whether the service is for adults or children and youth); (c) where in Western Australia the service will be delivered, that is; metropolitan area or country Western Australia; and (d) the amount of the growth funding used to purchase the service? (2) How much of the $6.5 million in growth funding has been allocated to purchase mental health services in the South West region? (3) In relation to (2), I ask the Minister to provide an itemised account of the services purchased, including the following details — (a) the organisation/body delivering the service and to whom payment has been made; (b) the nature of the service purchased (including whether the service is for adults or children and youth); and (c) the amount of the growth funding used to purchase the service? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) (a) All of the $6.5 million targeted growth funding will be allocated to the Department of Health. Of this, $4.94 million will be allocated to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and $1.6 million to the WA Country Health Service (WACHS). (b)–(d) Details are as follows: $1.6 million per year will be provided to CAMHS for a metropolitan 24 hour emergency assessment and crisis intervention service for children and young people with mental health problems. This community based service will ensure an improved response to young people experiencing acute mental health problems and reduce the need for young people to be admitted into the hospital system. $2 million per year will be provided to CAMHS to expand the capacity of the existing specialised youth mental health services in the metropolitan area by developing an assertive outreach service for young people. This service will deliver early intervention to assist young people and their families to be supported in the community. $1.6 million per year will be provided to the WACHS for specialised community mental health services for young people in country regions to increase the capacity of services to offer community based support. Two positions in the Pilbara will have a triage role that will support young people as well as adults. $240,000 per year will be provided to CAMHS to support Integrated Services Centres at Parkwood and Koondoola Primary Schools. The Centres provide culturally appropriate and holistic services to support children and families in their psychological, social and community needs. This funding will enable the employment of two additional senior social workers to deliver much needed support to children and refugee families in school settings. The importance of training more psychiatrists who can work with children and their families has also been recognised. An additional investment of $1.1million will be provided to support five Child and Adolescent Advanced Trainee Psychiatry positions to ensure that Western Australia will have the skilled workforce we will need in the future.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 639
(2) $222,000 per year of the targeted growth funding will be allocated to the South West Mental Health Service. (3) (a) These funds will be allocated to the WA Country Health Service and the service will be delivered by the South West Community Mental Health Service. (b) The funds will support specialised community mental health services for young people in the region. (c) See answer to Question 2. BUSSELTON HOSPITAL — FLOODING POTENTIAL 4982. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the new Busselton Hospital, and ask — (1) In the event of a one in 200 year flood, will Busselton Hospital be accessible by road or will the roads to and from the hospital be flooded? (2) What action is the Minister taking to ensure that in the event of a one in 200 year flood the Hospital remains accessible by road? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: Main Roads WA advises as at 8 November 2011: (1) It depends on how high the water level rises, but it is known that the Water Authority have undertaken a flood study of Busselton and implemented flood mitigation in the form of compensating basins aimed at providing a one in 100 year flood protection for Busselton. (2) There are no plans to upgrade roads to a one in 200 year flood standard. SOUTH WEST RADIATION ONCOLOGY SERVICE 4983. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the South West Radiation Oncology Service, and ask — (1) Are patients accessing the service required to make payment in full on the day of receiving the service? (2) What payment options are in place for patients who cannot afford to pay for the service? (3) Will the Minister provide the service arrangements between the Department of Health or the Western Australia Country Health Service and the South West Radiation Oncology Service for the treatment of public patients, in particular if this service is capped in any way? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) There is no payment required to be made by patients. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Radiation Oncology Service at the South West Health Campus is provided by Genesis Care Pty Ltd in accordance with their service agreement with the WA Country Health Service. The service agreement covers both inpatients and outpatients and is not capped. . BUNBURY HOSPITAL — INTENSIVE CARE UNIT 4984. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Bunbury Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (as opposed to the High Dependency Unit (HDU) and the Emergency Department (ED)), and ask — (1) Since the Bunbury Hospital ICU opened — (a) How many patients have been admitted to the ICU since the unit opened; (b) How many of these patients are — (i) Bunbury residents; (ii) South West residents; or (iii) Western Australian residents visiting the South West (resident outside the South West region), (c) what has been the average bed occupancy per week; (d) what has been the average length of stay; and
640 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(e) how many patients have had to be transferred to Perth because they needed a level of ICU care higher than that available at the Bunbury Hospital ICU? (2) How many staff are required to operate the ICU at any time (excluding the HDU and ED)? (3) Please list all ICU positions currently vacant and how long the positions have been vacant? (4) Has the Medical Director position been permanently filled? (5) If yes to (4), when? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) (a)–(e) The Bunbury Hospital ICU has not yet opened. (2) The FTE will be dependent on patient numbers and acuity. The Nursing Hours per Patient Day (NHpPD) for an ICU is 26 hours. (3) ICU Medical Director and ICU Intensivist have been vacant since first advertised. The permanent recruitment for both positions is in progress, but has been unsuccessful to date. In the interim a part time Medical Director has been appointed to progress the policy, protocol and linkages with Royal Perth Hospital required to support a fully functioning ICU. (4) No. The recruitment process is currently underway. (5) Not applicable. HEALTH PLANS — MINISTER‘S REFUSAL TO TABLE 4985. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to my questions on notice Nos 4002 and 4009 and the Minister‘s answers, and ask — (1) Why did the Minister refuse to table the plans ‗at this stage‘ when they are available on the website? (2) Will the Minister be tabling the Minister‘s assessment of the agency‘s performance in delivering the plans? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), when? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) The Minister is not legislatively mandated to table Operational Plans in Parliament. The decision to do so is at the Minister‘s discretion. At the time responses were provided to Questions on Notice 4009 and 4002, it was the Minister‘s decision not to table the documents as the 2010–11 WA Health Operational Plan and the WA Country Health Service (WACHS) Operational Plans 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 were accessible via the WA Health and WACHS websites at: http://www.health.wa.gov.au/HRIT/docs/publications/2011-12_WA_Health_Op_Plan.pdf; and http://www.wacountry.health.wa.gov.au/index.php?id=445. The WACHS 2011–2012 Operational Plan is now finalised and can be accessed at: http://www.wacountry.health.wa.gov.au/fileadmin/sections/publications/Publications_by_topic_type/Co rporate_documents/WACHS_2011_12_Op_plan_public_web_version_Sept_11finalv3.pdf. (2)–(3) The Minister will not be tabling his assessment of the agency‘s performance in delivering the plans. There is no statutory requirement that prevents or requires the Minister to table the CEO performance Plan or Performance Assessment in Parliament. Section 47(4) of the Public Sector Management Act (1994) stipulates that the assessment is between the responsible Authority (the Minister) and the CEO. Tabling the Plan or Assessment in Parliament would be at the Minister‘s discretion. In accordance with Section 61 of the Financial Management Act 2006, WACHS submits an annual report for presentation to Parliament at the end of each financial year. The annual report is an assessment of the agency‘s performance. (4) Not applicable. BUNBURY BREAST CANCER SCREENING FACILITY 4986. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to Bunbury Breast Cancer Screening facility van, and ask —
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 641
(1) How many screenings have been performed for each — (a) 2010–11; and (b) 2011 to date? (2) How many screenings are projected to be performed in 2011–12? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) The current Bunbury screening van commenced operations at the South West Area Health Service, Bunbury Hospital site in May 2010. The total mammography screenings performed at the site to date include: (a) 843 (b) July 2011 to 12 January 2012: 3,190 (2) 5,690 BUNBURY GENERAL DENTAL CLINIC 4987. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Bunbury General Dental Clinic, and ask — (1) How many positions at the clinic are currently vacant (identify the position title)? (2) How long has each position been vacant? (3) What is the current wait time to access a — (a) dentist; and (b) dental specialist? (4) How many people are on the wait list? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: Dental Health Services Bunbury General Dental Clinic is located within the South West region. As at 17 January 2012; (1) Dental Officer position 0.4 FTE vacant. Dental Clinic Assistant 3 FTE vacant. (2) Dental Officer position has been vacant since March 2011. A Dental Officer has been recruited on the basis of an employer sponsored 457 visa, however the process is still under way. Dental Clinic Assistant positions have been vacant since December 2011. (3) (a) Wait list (general) is 17.5 months as at 31 December 2011 to access a dentist. (b) No dental specialists are employed at Bunbury General Dental Clinic. (4) 1,360 people are on the wait list as at 31 December 2011. SOUTH WEST — DENTAL HEALTH SERVICE 4988. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Dental Health Service in the South West, and ask — (1) How many positions are currently vacant? (2) In relation to (1), identify the position titles and where the positions are located? (3) How long has each position been vacant? (4) Which, if any, of the vacant positions has someone acting in the positions? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: Dental Health Services Clinics in the South West region are located in Bunbury and Busselton. As at 17 January 2012; (1)–(3) Dental Officer position, 0.4 FTE, Bunbury General Dental Clinic — vacant since March 2011. Area Dental Officer position, 1.0 FTE, Busselton Area — vacant since November 2011. Dental Clinic Assistants, 3.0 FTE, Bunbury General Dental Clinic — vacant since December 2011.
642 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(4) The Area Dental Officer position, Busselton has a practitioner acting in the role.
BUNBURY — RENAL DIALYSIS 4989. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the proposed expansion of renal dialysis in Bunbury, and ask — (1) How many additional chairs/beds will be provided? (2) When will the additional chairs/beds be available? (3) What additional staff are required to run the additional chairs/beds? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) 6 additional chairs will be provided in the proposed expansion of satellite renal dialysis unit at St John of God (SJOG) Hospital Bunbury. (2) Anticipated to be operational by mid 2013. (3) The WA Country Health Service is unable to provide this information as the service will be provided by SJOG under contract. .
BUNBURY REGIONAL HOSPITAL — STROKE TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION 4990. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Bunbury Regional Hospital, and ask — (1) What is its stroke treatment and rehabilitation capability and capacity? (2) How many FTEs are employed at Bunbury Regional Hospital in the area of stroke treatment and rehabilitation? (3) What is the position title of each FTE? (4) How many patients have received treatment and rehabilitation for strokes in — (a) 2009–10; (b) 2010–11; and (c) 2011 to date? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) In the WA Clinical Services Framework 2010–2020 (the CSF) Bunbury Hospital‘s role delineation for providing neurological services, including stroke care, is a level 4 now and up to 2020. This means that the Hospital provides neurological care by: A resident general physician; Outpatient consultations by a visiting neurologist — consultations can be via Telehealth (videoconferencing); Links with a level 4 geriatric and rehabilitation services; A Specialist Registered Nurse; and Access to allied health services and some allied health undergraduate education. The role delineation for rehabilitation is currently a level 4 moving to a level 5 by 2014/15. This means that currently the Campus provides: On site salaried allied health services (physiotherapist, occupational therapist, speech therapist and social work); Has a regional referral role; and A limited day hospital type program. When it increases its role delineation it will also provide: A specialised rehabilitation program for inpatient and outpatients with dedicated and experienced staff comprising of a registered nurse and allied health team (physiotherapist, occupational therapist, speech therapist and dietician); and Linkages between the region and metropolitan hospitals.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 643
(2) There is no dedicated FTE at Bunbury Hospital for the specific treatment and rehabilitation of stroke patients. There are a number of medical, allied health and nursing staff that provide treatment and rehabilitation to stroke patients across various areas within the Hospital (Emergency Department, High Dependency Unit, Medical Ward and Subacute Unit). These staff also provide treatment and rehabilitation to patients with other conditions and/or disabilities. (3) Position titles of staff who work with stroke patients within the hospital: Emergency Department Medical Consultant; Geriatrician; Physician; Medical Officer; Registered Nurse; Physiotherapist; Occupational Therapist; Social Worker; Dietician; Clinical Psychologist, Speech Pathologist; and Welfare Officer. (4) Financial Year Acute Care Rehabilitation Care 2009/10 116 <5 2010/11 112 20 2011/12 75 25 Notes on response provided to Question 4: Source: WA Hospital Morbidity Data System. Prepared by: Hospital Morbidity Data Collection, Data Integrity, Performance Activity and Quality Division, Department of Health. Date: 18 January 2012 Notes: All data are preliminary. Data is current as of 18 January 2012. Data for 2011/12 is 89% complete. For patient confidentiality reasons, counts less than 5 have been suppressed. Separations exclude unqualified (healthy) newborns, boarders, posthumous organ procurements, aged care residents, and funding hospital (duplicate) cases. Includes Ambulatory Surgery Initiative cases. SOUTH WEST — AGED CARE FACILITIES 4991. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to all public hospitals in the South West region, and ask — (1) For each public hospital in the South West region, how many patients are waiting for a vacancy in an aged residential care facility? (2) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what is the average length of stay of the patients identified in answer to (1) in each of the hospitals? (3) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what is the longest length of stay for such patients in each of the hospitals? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1)–(3) [See paper 4288.] SOUTH WEST — HOSPITAL CARE 4992. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to hospital care, and ask — (1) What is the average daily cost for a patient in a South West hospital? (2) How much of this cost is covered by the Federal Government? (3) How much of this cost is covered by the State Government? (4) Does this average daily cost include the cost of doctor services? (5) What does this average daily cost include? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) $1,461.40 (2)–(3) Under current funding arrangements, Federal hospital funding is received by Treasury and is not separately identified in the appropriation to WA Health or funding allocations to the WA Country Health Service (WACHS). (4) Yes. (5) The average daily cost includes all direct expenditures incurred by the South West Hospitals.
644 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
DRUG AND ALCOHOL INTERAGENCY FRAMEWORK FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2011–2015 4993. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health I refer to the Drug and Alcohol Interagency Strategic Framework for Western Australia 2011–2015, and ask — (1) Has the Strategic Framework been completed? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) When will it be released? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) Yes (2) Not applicable. (3) The Framework was tabled in the Legislative Council on 17 August 2011 (tabled paper number 3605). WA COUNTRY HEALTH SERVICE — DRUG AND ALCOHOL DRAFT POSITION PAPER 4994. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to Western Australia Country Health Service draft position paper for guiding service development across the continuum of care to promote a ‗no wrong door‘ approach for people experiencing mental health and/or drug and alcohol problems, and ask — (1) Has the draft position paper been finalised? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), will the Minister table the strategic framework? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Under the draft position paper will the practice of turning away people presenting at a country hospital Emergency Department under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and suffering mental health problems and telling them to make an appointment with the Drug and Alcohol team be stopped? (6) If yes to (5), how will doctors be able to access a person‘s mental health problems while they are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs? (7) If yes to (5), will these people be admitted to hospital for observation and assessment? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) No. The WA Country Health Service (WACHS) Position Paper will be finalised during the coming months and is expected to be submitted to the Chief Executive for endorsement in July 2012. (2) A review and further work was required to the WACHS Position Paper following the release of the Mental Health Commission‘s strategic policy, Mental Health 2020: Making it personal and everybody‘s business in mid October 2011. (3) Not applicable. (4) The Position Paper is not a ‗strategic framework‘ but an internal working document to guide services. The Position Paper aligns with relevant National and State Strategic Policies and Plans, such as the WACHS Alcohol and other Drugs Plan and the WA Mental Health Commission‘s strategic policy, Mental Health 2020: Making it personal and everybody‘s business. (5) All patients presenting to WACHS hospitals and nursing posts that provide emergency care services are, and will continue to be, assessed, triaged and provided with the most appropriate treatment that meets their individual needs. (6) All Medical Practitioners working in Western Australia are trained and skilled in assessment and diagnosis, including undertaking a Mental State Examination when a person is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. (7) Admission to hospital for observation and further assessment is, and will continue to be, determined by an individual‘s clinical needs. . WA COUNTRY HEALTH SERVICE — DRUG AND ALCOHOL DRAFT POSITION PAPER 4995. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Minister‘s answers to my question on notice No. 4269 concerning his refusal to table the Western Australia Country Health Service (WACHS) Plan for Drug and Alcohol 2010–2014 and the position paper to guide service development across the continuum of care to promote a ‗no wrong door‘ approach for people
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 645 experiencing mental health and drug and/or alcohol problems on the basis that these documents are embedded in the performance agreement between the WACHS Chief Executive Officer and the Director General, and ask — (1) How can the community and non-government organisations operating in the area become aware of the plan and the position paper if the documents are not made publicly available? (2) Will the Minister table the performance agreement? (3) If no to (2), why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) The Position Paper is an internal working document to guide services. The Position Paper aligns with relevant National and State Strategic Policies and Plans, such as the WA Country Health Services (WACHS) Alcohol and other Drugs Plan and the WA Mental Health Commission‘s strategic policy, Mental Health 2020: Making it personal and everybody‘s business. These documents are easily accessible to the community and non-government organisations. The WACHS Position Paper will be finalised and submitted for Chief Executive Officer (CEO), WA Country Health Service endorsement in July 2012. (2) No. (3) The WACHS CEO Performance Agreement is between the CEO and the Director General of Health. In accordance with Section 61 of the Financial Management Act 2006, WACHS submits an annual report for presentation to Parliament at the end of each financial year. The annual report is an assessment of the agency‘s performance. SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4996. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region, and ask — (1) How many speech pathologist full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with a speech pathologist? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) 10.9 FTE. (2) Bunbury/Harvey — 5 FTE Naturaliste — 3.2 FTE Warren Blackwood — 1.8 FTE Wellington (Collie/Donnybrook) — 0.9 FTE (3) 3.3 FTE are currently vacant. (4) High priority clients are seen in 2–4 weeks. Lower priority clients may wait 4–5 months. (5) 187 SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4997. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region, and ask — (1) How many occupational therapist full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with an occupational therapist? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) 5.6 FTE. (2) Bunbury/Harvey — 2.5 FTE Naturaliste — 1.6 FTE
646 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Warren–Blackwood — 1.0 FTE Wellington (Collie/Donnybrook) — 0.5 FTE (3) Nil. (4) All high priority clients are seen within 2–3 weeks. Lower priority clients are seen within 3–4 months. (5) 72 SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4998. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region, and ask — (1) How many audiologist full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with audiologist? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) 1.0 FTE Regional Audiologist. (2) Located at Bunbury Community Health Centre. (3) 0.1 FTE is currently vacant. (4) Median wait time for the last three months til end of January is 66 days. (5) 147 SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4999. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region, and ask — (1) How many social worker full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with a social worker? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) 2.5 FTE (2) Bunbury/Harvey — 1 FTE Naturaliste — 0.6 FTE Warren–Blackwood — 0.4 FTE Wellington (Collie Donnybrook) — 0.5 FTE (3) Nil. (4) 2–3 weeks. (5) Nil. SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5000. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region and ask — (1) How many physiotherapist full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with a physiotherapist?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 647
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) 2.85 FTE. (2) Bunbury/Harvey — 1.6 FTE Naturaliste — 0.5 FTE Warren–Blackwood — 0.25 FTE Wellington (Collie/Donnybrook) — 0.5 FTE (3) Nil. (4) High priority clients are seen within 2 weeks. Lower priority clients may wait up to 3–4 months. (5) 86. SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5001. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region, and ask — (1) How many child psychologist full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with a child psychologist? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) Within the WA Country Health Service — South West child development services, there are no child psychologists. (2)–(5) Not applicable. SOUTH WEST — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5002. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to child development services in the South West (SW) region, and ask — (1) How many child psychiatrist full time equivalents are currently located in the region? (2) Where in the SW are these positions located? (3) How many of these positions are currently vacant? (4) What is the current wait time for a consultation? (5) How many children are currently on the wait list for a consultation with a child psychiatrist? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) One. (2) The child psychiatrist position is a component of the WA Country Health Service‘s South West Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and provides services in the following locations: Bunbury — 3 days per week; Busselton — 1 day per week; and Manjimup — 1 day per week. (3) This position was vacated in January 2012 and is currently filled by a full time locum service. Recruitment to fill this position has been completed and the successful applicant will commence in July 2012. The locum service will continue until that time. (4) The wait time for consultation with a child psychiatrist is determined by the individual‘s presenting symptoms and level of acuity. The current waiting period ranges from 0 to 3 weeks. Children and adolescents that are acutely unwell are seen by a child psychiatrist within 24 hours. (5) Nil. WA COUNTRY HEALTH SERVICE — NURSING AND MIDWIFERY STRATEGIC PLAN 5003. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Western Australia Country Health Service Nursing and Midwifery Services Strategic Plan, and ask —
648 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(1) Has this plan been finalised? (2) If no to (1), what is the delay? (3) When will the plan be finalised? (4) If yes to (1), will the Minister table the plan? (5) If no to (4), why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1)–(2) No, this has not been finalised as the newly appointed Executive Director of Nursing and Midwifery is currently making adjustments to the plan. (3)–(5) Once the revised strategic plan has been endorsed by the Chief Executive Officer of the WA Country Health Service (WACHS) the plan will be placed on the WACHS internet site and made available to the Member. WA COUNTRY HEALTH SERVICE OPERATIONAL PLAN — EMPLOYEE HOUSING 5004. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Minister‘s answer to my question on notice No. 4276, and ask — (1) Will the Minister table the Service Level Agreement when it is finalised? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), when will it be finalised and tabled? (4) How many permanent Western Australia Country Health Service (WACHS) South West (SW) staff are currently provided with Government Regional Officers Housing (GROH)? (5) Is GROH provided to all SW staff as part of their employment package? (6) What criteria are used by WACHS to determine whether SW staff should be offered or provided GROH? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1)–(2) No. The Service Level Agreement is an agreement between the WA Government Departments of Housing and Health. (3) Not applicable. (4) Nil. (5) No. The provision of staff accommodation is not a component of any Industrial Award for employees of the Department of Health, including the WA Country Health Service (WACHS). (6) WACHS uses the criteria as set out in the Department of Housing‘s Policy in respect to eligibility. BUNBURY HOSPITAL — ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT 5005. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health I refer to the Acute Psychiatric Unit at Bunbury Hospital, and ask — (1) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the bed occupancy for the Unit? (2) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the total number of admissions to the Unit? (3) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, how many of the people admitted had previously been admitted to the Unit? (4) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the average length of stay in the Unit? (5) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the shortest and the longest stay in the Unit? (6) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, how many people living in the South West region and requiring admission to the Unit were transferred to Perth due to no beds being available? (7) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, how many people living in the Perth metropolitan area where admitted to the Unit? (8) What is the nurse to patient staffing ratio for the Unit? (9) Is the nurse to patient staffing ratio for the Unit determined on the basis of the Unit being a low care or high care Unit?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 649
(10) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, how many patients admitted to the Unit where admitted to locked room beds? (11) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the bed occupancy of the locked room beds in the Unit? (12) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the total number of admissions to the locked room beds in the Unit? (13) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, how many of the people admitted to the locked room beds in the Unit had previously been admitted to the Unit? (14) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what is the average length of stay in the locked room beds in the Unit? (15) For each 2010–11 and 2011 to date, what was the shortest and the longest stay in the locked room beds in the Unit? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: Responses for Questions 1 to 7 include both open and secure ward occupancy (1) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 70% 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 74% (2) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 503 admissions 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 273 admissions (3) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 250 people 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 130 people (4) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 14 days 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 11 days (5) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011) Shortest: 3 hours Longest: 144 days 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012) Shortest: 4 hours Longest: 79 days (6) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 1 person 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 4 people (7) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 43 people 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 30 people (8) 2010/2011 Nursing Hours per Patient Day (NHpPD) ratio was 6.16 hours across both the open and secure wards. This was reviewed in October 2011 and is now 6.16 hours for the open ward and 12 hours for the secure ward. (9) Yes, as per guidelines set by the Western Australian Department of Health, the Bunbury Psychiatric Unit requires an NHpPD ratio of 6.16 for the 21 bed low care unit and 12 for the 6 bed high care unit. (10) Number of patients admitted to secure ward is as follows: 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 42 people 2011/2012 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 32 people (11) Bed occupancy at the secure ward was as follows: 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 74.2% 2011/2012 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 71.8% (12) Total admissions to the secure ward are as follows: 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 104 2011/2012 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 42 (13) Number of people admitted to a secure ward who had previously been admitted are as follows: 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 24 2011/12 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 10 (14) Average Length of Stay in a secure ward is as follows: 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011): 14.45 days 2011/2012 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012): 10.52 days
650 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(15) 2010/2011 (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011) Shortest stay: 2 days Longest stay: 144 days 2011/2012 to date (1 July 2011 to 24 January 2012) Shortest stay: 2 days Longest stay: 79 days AUGUSTA — BOAT HARBOUR PROPOSAL — MINISTER‘S ANSWER 5006. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Minister‘s answer to my question on notice No. 4014, and ask — (1) Does the Minister understand the concept of Ministerial responsibility? (2) Does the Minister agree that under our parliamentary system, it is the role of the Parliament to scrutinise and review the Executive? (3) Does the Minister agree that one way of doing this is by Members of Parliament asking Ministers questions? (4) In view of the foregoing, does the Minister agree that it is not appropriate for a Minister to refer a member to a media statement rather than provide the information sought by the Member in answer to the Member‘s parliamentary question? (5) What portion of the funding allocated to the project is — (a) Royalties for Regions funding; and (b) Department of Transport funding? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: (1)–(3) Yes (4) Question on Notice 4014 referred the Member to the following media statement from the Premier on the 2nd of August 2011: The State Government today unveiled plans for a new $25million boat harbour at Augusta, with construction due to start later this year. Premier Colin Barnett said the harbour, to be built at Flat Rock in Flinders Bay, would provide much- needed, safe direct ocean access for recreational and commercial craft between Busselton and Albany. ―The harbour will service the region‘s commercial and tourism fleets while providing a regional and State destination point for the ever increasing recreational boating sector,‖ Mr Barnett said. ―There is an urgent need for a sheltered harbour at Augusta as navigation of the shallow ocean entrance to the commercial boating facility in the Blackwood River is increasingly difficult and prevailing winds and strong ocean currents make launching from the coast unsafe.‖ The project, funded through the Royalties for Regions program, includes the construction of two breakwaters to create a protected harbour basin featuring four boat launching ramps, boat holding jetties, a fixed 40-metre service jetty and associated facilities including at least 160 car/trailer parking bays and 90 car-only parking bays. Further stages of development may include the provision of up to 50 boat pens and commercial development opportunities. The Premier said the project would provide flow-on benefits to local community. ―This is great news for local business operators and the general Augusta community, Mr Barnett said. ―The new harbour is of particular importance to the existing whale watching and fishing industries, which are currently limited by lack of access to safe landing jetties. ―The project delivers on the State Government‘s commitment to provide improved boating infrastructure throughout Western Australia.‖ In the 2011–12 State Budget, $68million was allocated to enhance recreational boating facilities across regional WA. ―I‘d also like to commend the Shire of Augusta–Margaret River for its work in ensuring the success of this project,‖ the Premier said. (5) (a)–(b) 100 per cent funded by the State Governments Royalties for Regions program..
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 651
BUNBURY — OUTER RING ROAD STAGE 1 5008. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Bunbury Outer Ring Road Stage 1, and ask — (1) Have State and Federal Government environmental approvals been secured for the project? (2) If no to (1), what issues are delaying the approvals? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: An event marking the start of works on this project was held on 24 February 2012 with the responsible Government and community members. Main Roads WA advises: (1) Yes (2) Not applicable BUNBURY — OUTER RING ROAD 5009. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Minister‘s answer to question on notice No. 4024 in which the Minister tells me to refer to his answer to question on notice No. 4025 and noting that this does not answer my question, I again ask — (1) What is the current timeframe for the commencement and completion of construction for all other stages (other than stage 1) of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road? (2) What is the expected cost for construction of the other stages (other than stage 1)? (3) What action has the Government taken to progress the completion of the whole project (that is the stages other than stage 1)? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: Main Roads WA advises as at 8 November 2011: (1)–(3) Please refer to Question on Notice 4025. In relation to further steps, these will be subject to future project development and budget considerations. BUNBURY — ROADS TO EXPORT PLAN 5010. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Minister‘s answer to my question on notice No. 4025 and noting that the Minister did not provide a full answer to my question, I again ask — (1) In relation to all projects identified in the Roads to Export Report, being the Brunswick to Port Railway, the Bunbury Outer Ring Road completion and the diversion of the Preston River, what is the commencement and completion dates for each of the projects listed? (2) What action has the Government taken to progress these critical infrastructure projects? (3) Does the Government require funding assistance from the Federal Government to progress these projects? (4) If yes to (3), has the Government sought funding assistance from the Federal Government? (5) If yes to (4), when and how much? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: (1) As noted in Question on Notice 4025, works under the current allocations will be completed in 2013. (2) As noted in Question on Notice 4025, the Government has allocated funding in excess of $27 million. (3) Some projects will require a Federal contribution. (4) This will be part of future discussions with the Federal Government. (5) Not applicable MARGARET RIVER PERIMETER ROAD 5012. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Margaret River Perimeter Road, and ask —
652 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(1) Has an alignment been agreed for the perimeter road? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister table a map showing the alignment? (3) If no to (1), when does the Minister expect the alignment to be finalised? (4) Has the Government secured State and Federal environmental approvals for the project? (5) If no to (4), what is the timeline for securing these approvals? (6) Has the preliminary design for the perimeter road been finalised? (7) If no to (6), when will it be finalised? (8) If yes to (6), will the Minister table it? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: Main Roads WA advises as at 9 November 2011: (1) No (2) Not applicable (3) In the first half of 2012. (4) No (5) Expected in 2013. (6) No, as it requires finalisation of the alignment. (7) Expected in 2012. (8) Not applicable BUSSELTON JETTY PROJECT — FUNDING 5013. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to my question on notice No. 4032 concerning the Busselton Jetty and the Minister‘s answer telling me to refer to question on notice No. 4033 and noting that this does not provide an answer to my question, I again ask the Minister to answer the questions contained in question on notice No. 4032? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: As previously advised, the Member should refer to Question on Notice 4033. It should be noted that Question on Notice 4032 and 4033 are identical and the answer has been provided. BUSSELTON JETTY PROJECT — FUNDING 5014. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Busselton Jetty rebuild, and ask — (1) What was the total funding provided by Government? (2) Did the Government pay the GST component on the project? (3) If yes to (2), what was the GST amount? (4) Was the total grant funding inclusive or exclusive of the GST payment? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: The Member is advised that this question should be referred to the responsible Minister. BUSSELTON JETTY PROJECT — LICENCE 5015. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Busselton Jetty rebuild, and ask — (1) Has the Shire and the Government entered into a new jetty licence since 2008? (2) If yes to (1), will the Minister table the new jetty licence? (3) If no to (1), why not? (4) Has a new reserve management order been issued since 2008?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 653
(5) If yes to (4), will the Minister table it? (6) If no to (4), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Department of Transport advises as at 9 November 2011: (1) Yes (2) [See paper 4284.] (3) Not applicable (4) Yes (5) This request should be redirected to the relevant Minister. (6) Not applicable BUNBURY–PERTH FAST TRAIN — FEASIBILITY STUDY 5016. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the Minister‘s answer to my question on notice No. 4017 concerning the Perth to Bunbury Fast Train, and ask — (1) Does the answer provided by the Minister mean that a decision has been made to terminate the rail line in Eaton and not at Koombana North? (2) Does this mean that planning for Koombana North will not provide for a train station at Koombana North? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: (1) No. These is a broad agreement on the route to Eaton, however investigation is ongoing. (2) Work on the project is ongoing and no decisions have been made. INFILL SEWERAGE PROGRAM — MAPS 5018. Hon Adele Farina to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Water I refer to the Minister‘s answer to my question without notice No. 634 asked on 18 August 2011, and ask — (1) When will updated maps detailing the current proposed infill sewerage program be made available? (2) In relation to the tabled maps, were all the ‗works proposed to be completed in each of the years 2004– 5, 2005–6 and 2006–7 completed? (3) In relation to the areas on the maps shown as ‗areas that may be sewered under the infill sewerage program‘, what, if any, of these areas have been sewered? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The Minister for Water provides the following response: (1) Detailed maps of active projects are available on the Water Corporation website. (2)–(3) Please refer to our answer to Question 3 of Legislative Council Question without Notice 634. BUSSELTON FORESHORE REVITALISATION PROJECT 5019. Hon Adele Farina to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Regional Development I refer to the Busselton Foreshore Revitalisation project, and ask — (1) How many additional new leasehold sites will be created under Stage 1 of this project? (2) What is the expected annual revenue from these new leasehold sites? (3) When does the Shire of Busselton expect to receive lease payment from these new leasehold sites? HON WENDY DUNCAN replied: (1) One. (2) The Stage 1 site is yet to be created or serviced. Leasing proposals will be sought through an expression of interest process which will include negotiation of rental arrangements. It is expected that expressions of interest will be sought in the first half of 2012.
654 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(3) The Stage 1 site is yet to be created or serviced. Leasing proposals will be sought through an expression of interest process which will include negotiation of rental arrangements. It is expected that expressions of interest will be sought in the first half of 2012. WA STRATEGIC PLAN FOR FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 2009–2013 5021. Hon Linda Savage to the Minister for Child Protection I refer to the Department of Child Protection‘s ‗Mid Term Progress Report‘ of the Western Australia Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013, where it is stated that the strategic plan ‗aims to achieve state wide systemic reform of responses to family and domestic violence through the implementation of an integrated response across Government‘, recent research showing a striking association between gender-based violence and lifetime mental disorder in Australian women, published in the Medical Journal of Australia 195(8) on 17 October 2011, and answers to Parts (2) and (3) to question without notice No. 961 asked on 2 November 2011 such that ‗The Department for Child Protection is the lead agency for the Western Australia Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013, which is the State-based plan to address gender violence. The Mental Health Commission contributes to this work actively‘, and ask the Minister — (1) In what specific way does the Mental Health Commission contribute actively to the Western Australia Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013? (2) What funds, if any, does the Department for Child Protection receive from the Mental Health Commission? (3) Has the Minister met with the Minister for Mental Health to specifically discuss or address the striking association between gender-based violence and lifetime mental disorder in Australian women? (4) If yes to (3), on what dates? (5) Is the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Mental Health, developing an integrated plan of action to address the striking association referred to? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1) The Mental Health Commission is represented on the Family and Domestic Violence Senior Officer‘s Group (SOG). The role of the SOG is to plan, manage and monitor implementation of the WA Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013. (2) The Mental Health Commission provides no funds to the Department for Child Protection. (3) I haven‘t specifically met with the Minister to discuss only this issue, however I am well aware of the article mentioned by the Member. (4) Not applicable (5) Under the WA Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013 reform of family and domestic violence responses across government and the community sector has commenced. The focus of reform is strengthening integrated responses to family and domestic violence in WA. ‗Integrated response‘ refers to coordinated, collaborative and seamless service delivery for people experiencing family and domestic violence. The Mental Health Commission is an active partner in the reform agenda and workers from mental health services are regular participants in coordinated responses to family and domestic violence in WA. The Mental Health Commission as a representative on the SOG is also involved in the development of the WA Implementation Plan for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — PAY EQUITY UNIT 5025. Hon Linda Savage to the Minister for Commerce (1) How much funding has been allocated to the Pay Equity Unit (PEU) in the 2011–2012 Budget? (2) How many full time equivalent staff are employed in the PEU? (3) What action has the PEU undertaken specifically to address the gender pay gap in Western Australia from 1 January 2011 to 31 October 2011? (4) What exact amount has been spent on each specific action undertaken by the PEU from 1 January 2011 to 31 October 2011? (5) How many non-government agencies or businesses have requested the pay equity audit tool available from the Department of Commerce from 1 January 2011 to 31 October 2011?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 655
Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: (1) $99,744 (2) 1.4 full time equivalent staff (3) Conducted pay equity audit training to ten State government agencies and two Western Australian universities with direct audit assistance provided to three State government agencies, two Western Australian universities, one government agency from another State and one private sector organisation. Statistics are monitored on the gender pay gap and a comprehensive suite of information is maintained on pay equity issues on the Department of Commerce website. (4) The budget covers staff salaries, superannuation and staff training. It is not based on an allocation to specific actions. (5) It is not possible to identify the exact number that have utilised the pay equity audit tool as it is freely available from the Department of Commerce website. However, during the period 1 January 2011 to 31 October 2011, the Pay Equity Unit directly assisted three non-government agencies or businesses with the use of the pay equity audit tool. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES — COMPENSATION PAYMENTS 5031. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Fisheries Further to my question on notice No. 4835 of 18 October 2011 and given that no payment was connected to the State Administrative Tribunal, I ask — (1) Why are one payment made in 2007 and two payments made in 2011 confidential? (2) Were any payments made in connection with the second round of applications for mackerel permits? (3) If yes to (2), why were these payments made? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) In 2007 an Act of Grace payment was made to offset the reduction in the capacity to use a longline to target pink snapper in Cockburn Sound. In 2011 two Act of Grace payments were made to offset the impact of the closure of Geographe Bay to commercial beach seine fishing. The payments were based on individual, confidential catch history and, where one to two payments are made, the amounts are kept confidential to ensure that the provisions of s250 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 are not compromised. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. ABORIGINAL PRISONERS — HEARING IMPAIRMENT 5032. Hon Giz Watson to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General I refer to page 38 of last year‘s annual report of the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre which states that 45 per cent of 104 Aboriginal women at Bandyup Women‘s Prison did not pass a hearing screening process, and I ask — (1) Is the Attorney General aware of this statistic? (2) Has the Attorney General ascertained the proportion of Aboriginal people appearing in court who cannot adequately hear the court proceedings? (3) If yes to (2) — (a) how was this assessed; (b) according to that assessment, what proportion of Aboriginal people appearing in court are unlikely to be able to adequately hear the proceedings; and (c) what steps have been taken to address this? (4) If no to (2), will the Attorney General take steps to obtain this information? (5) If yes to (4), when? (6) If no to (4), why not? (7) Does the Attorney General acknowledge that the inability to hear proceedings in court is likely to severely limit a person‘s ability to self-represent or to instruct their legal representative during the proceedings?
656 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: (1) Yes (2) This information is not collected in court case management systems. (3) (a)–(c) Not applicable (4) No. See part (6). (5) Not applicable (6) It is not possible to collect this information retrospectively. The recording of ethnicity and impairments relies on the voluntary disclosure of this information by the court participant. Court case management systems do not allow for the collection of impairment information. (7) The major courts and tribunals in Western Australia have hearing loops or hearing augmentation systems or portable hearing equipment to assist hearing impaired persons participate effectively in court. In addition, judicial officers check continually for signs that those appearing before them can participate effectively in the hearing, including hearing impaired persons, and particularly so in the case of self-represented persons. REMOTE INDIGENOUS HOUSING — REGIONAL CONTRACTS 5033. Hon Lynn MacLaren to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Housing (1) Referring to Western Australia‘s participation in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, how many contractors won tenders for this work and from what location were those contracts sourced? (2) If none were from the regions, why not? (3) Was any there any fiscal incentive for contacts to be sourced from the regions? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Was any there any fiscal incentive or policy directive for contacts to be sourced from indigenous contractors or companies with indigenous employees? (6) If no to (5), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Department of Housing advises as at 22 November 2011: (1) 18. Contracts were sourced from Perth, Kimberley, Pilbara, Pinjarra, Warburton, Gascoyne and Queensland. (2) Not applicable (3) Tenders are let through the Public Tender and are accorded a 5 per cent preference for regional businesses and a further 5 per cent for regional content. (4) Not applicable (5) Tenders are let through the Public Tender and are accorded a 10 per cent, up to a maximum of $100 000, preference for Indigenous business. (6) Not applicable INDONESIAN PRISONERS — PEOPLE SMUGGLING OFFENCES 5035. Hon Alison Xamon to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General I refer to the Indonesians in custody in Western Australian adult prisons for so called ‗people smuggling‘ offences, and I ask — (1) How many Indonesians in custody in Western Australian adult prisons for so called ‗people smuggling‘ offences since 2006 have received assistance from Legal Aid? (2) How many Indonesians in custody in Western Australian adult prisons for so called ‗people smuggling‘ offences since 2006 have applied for, but not received assistance from Legal Aid? (3) On average, how many lawyers are assigned to, speak to or act for each of the detainees referred to in (1)? (4) Has Legal Aid been offered services by any non-Legal Aid lawyers to act pro bono for the detainees referred to in (1)?
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 657
(5) If yes to (4), how many offers of assistance have been received? (6) Has Legal Aid utilised the pro bono services of non-Legal Aid lawyers referred to in (4) and (5)? (7) If no to (6), why not? (8) What translation and interpretation services, if any, are provided for meetings between the detainees referred to in (1) and their lawyer(s) and legal counsel? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: In responding to this Question, the Member‘s attention is drawn to the fact that people smuggling is an offence under Commonwealth law and that these matters are considered by Western Australian courts, exercising Commonwealth jurisdiction. The legal representation provided to people charged with these offences, through Legal AidWA, falls within those areas of Legal AidWA‘s service delivery which are funded by the Commonwealth Government. Answers to the Member‘s specific Questions are provided below: (1) 200 individuals have applied for legal aid for people smuggling charges since 2006. Of that number, there were 187 Indonesians, 1 Iranian, 1 Iraqi, 1 Japanese, 1 Papua New Guinean, 7 Sri Lankan and 2 with their nationality not stated. All of these individuals remanded in custody received assistance by Legal Aid. (2) No person charged with people smuggling has been refused legal aid. (3) Ordinarily 1 practitioner is assigned per client. However, there may be occasions where a client is initially seen by Legal Aid‘s prison visiting service prior to or at the time of applying for legal aid. There have been 35 cases where a client who has been assigned a lawyer has had their case transferred to another lawyer. The majority of these transfers were necessary due to a conflict of interest arising. For example, a lawyer may discover he or she is acting for a co-accused or the client may change their plea. There were some cases where a lawyer ceased to act as a private practitioner and an assigned lawyer died resulting in a new practitioner being assigned. Of the 35 transfers, there have also been instances where an assigned practitioner has not had capacity to represent their client at a trial due to other commitments necessitating transfer to an alternative practitioner. (4) There have been communications from an interested party suggesting that a pro bono lawyer might act for a client but none were directly offered by a non-Legal Aid lawyer. When the proposed pro bono lawyer was contacted, that lawyer undertook to act pursuant to a grant of legal aid and not act on a pro bono basis. (5) None from a lawyer. (6) None to date. (7) Legal Aid has an inhouse Criminal Law practice and utilises the services of private practitioners who are on Legal Aid‘s panel of practitioners. As no pro-bono lawyer has offered to act for a client charged with people smuggling, Legal Aid has either provided an inhouse practitioner or provided funding for a private practitioner to represent the client. (8) All meetings between inhouse practitioners or practitioners acting pursuant to a grant of legal aid are conducted with the assistance of an interpreter from ONCALL Interpreters and Translators or are provided with funding to enable a practitioner to pay for an interpreter. In addition, the courts provide interpreters where an accused person requires the assistance of one. TRANSPORT BODIES — PERFORMANCE STATISTICS 5040. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to question on notice No. 4307, and ask — (1) Has the Minister tabled a notice under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006 in respect of the information he did not provide? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: Please refer to Question on Notice 5041. RAILCAR PROGRAM — EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE 5041. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to questions on notice Nos 4491, 4492, 4493, 4495, 4496, 4497, 4498, 4499, 4450, and ask —
658 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(1) For each of these questions, has the Minister tabled a notice under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006 in respect of the information he did not provide? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: (1) The answers to Questions on Notice 4307, 4491, 4492, 4493, 4495, 4496, 4497, 4498 and 4499 suggested that the Member should request the information through a more appropriate method, a Freedom of Information request. The information was not withheld, the Member was simply redirected to a more appropriate process. Should the Member prefer to ask questions of a similar nature through the Parliament, the Minister advises that the same guidelines used in the Freedom of Information process are to be expected. In regards to Question on Notice 4450, no. (2) Curiously, Question on Notice 4450 is a question from a Greens MLC to Minister for Mental Health Hon Helen Morton, relating to intermediate care accommodation in Joondalup. The Member would be aware this does not all within the scope of the transport portfolio. If the Member requires assistance identifying issues falling under the transport portfolio (for which he has been appointed Shadow Spokesperson) I am happy to provide guidance through my office. GERALDTON PORT AUTHORITY–MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT — LEAD SHIPMENTS CORRESPONDENCE 5042. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to question on notice No. 3959, and ask — (1) Has the Minister tabled a notice under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006 in respect of the information he did not provide? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: The Minister for Transport advises: The Member should refer to Question on Notice 5041. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND MINISTERIAL OFFICERS — COMMUNICATIONS 5043. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport (1) Will the Minister table a copy of any written arrangements since 14 December 2010 between the Minister and any of the agencies in his portfolio regarding the manner in which, and the circumstances in which, dealings are to be had, and communications are to be made, between ministerial officers assisting the Minister and the employees in that department or organisation? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: (1) [See paper 4285.] (2) Not applicable GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND MINISTERIAL OFFICERS — COMMUNICATIONS 5044. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Electoral Affairs (1) Will the Minister table a copy of any written arrangements between the Minister and any of the agencies in his portfolio regarding the manner in which, and the circumstances in which, dealings are to be had, and communications are to be made, between ministerial officers assisting the Minister and the employees in that department or organisation? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) Yes. [See paper 4282.] (2) Not applicable.
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 659
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND MINISTERIAL OFFICERS — COMMUNICATIONS 5045. Hon Ken Travers to the Minister for Finance (1) Will the Minister table a copy of any written arrangements since 14 December 2010 between the Minister and any of the agencies in his portfolio regarding the manner in which, and the circumstances in which, dealings are to be had, and communications are to be made, between ministerial officers assisting the Minister and the employees in that department or organisation? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: Department of Commerce (1) Yes [See paper 4283.] (2) Not applicable. Department of Finance (1) Yes [See paper 4283.] (2) Not applicable. Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (1) Yes [See paper 4283.] (2) Not applicable. Small Business Development Corporation (1) Yes [See paper 4283.] (2) Not applicable. WorkCover WA (1) Yes [See paper 4283.] (2) Not applicable. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE — CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5060. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to recommendation 35 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People‘s Report on the Inquiry into the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Children and Young People from April this year, which refers to the need for significant investment in State Child Development Services, and I ask — (1) Will the Minister commit to increasing the budget allocation in the 2012–13 Budget to State Child Development Services in Western Australia, including specifically for clinical psychology and social work services? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1) No. (2) In the 2010/11 Budget, the Government committed an additional $49.7 million over four years to State wide Child Development Services (CDS). To date an additional 45 FTE have been filled across major disciplines in CDS including an increase of 13% and 15% in social work and clinical psychology staffing levels. In addition CDS has expanded its partnerships with non-government organisations and is currently developing contracts for the delivery of psychological and social work services. A total of $900,000 has been allocated for contracting of these services over the two year period 2012–13 to 2013–14. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE — DATA COLLECTION 5067. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to recommendation 12 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People‘s Report on the Inquiry into the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Children and Young People from April this year, which calls for better data collection, monitoring and reporting on the mental health of children and young people to better provide services in this area. I refer also to the Barnett Government‘s termination of the Telethon Institute for Child Research‘s Child Development Survey that was planned for 2008, and I ask —
660 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
(1) Will the Government provide funding for the Telethon Institute for Child Research to conduct the Child Development Survey in 2012? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1)–(2) Funding for the 2013 Child Development Study will need to be considered as part of a whole-of- Government response to the recommendations in the Report of the Commissioner for Children and Young People, as well as other budget priorities of Government. . CHILDREN‘S COURT — VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS 5072. Hon Linda Savage to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General I refer to the Children‘s Court of Western Australia, and ask — (1) How many applications for Violence Restraining Orders were received by the Children‘s Court in the years — (a) 2005; (b) 2006; (c) 2007; (d) 2008; (e) 2009; (f) 2010; and (g) 2011 to date? (2) How many of those applications for Violence Restraining Orders were granted in those respective years? (3) How many of the applications were referred to mediation in those respective years? (4) Does the Youth Legal Service receive any funding to conduct such mediations? (5) If yes to (4), how much? (6) Is there any mediation currently offered to the parties in relation to applications for Violence Restraining Orders received by the Children‘s Court? (7) Are statistics maintained as to the reasons sought by an applicant for a Violence Restraining Order in the Children‘s Court? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: (1) (a) 2005 — 454 (b) 2006 — 430 (c) 2007 — 533 (d) 2008 — 566 (e) 2009 — 683 (f) 2010 — 682 (g) 2011 — 682 Note — as at 13 January 2012 the statistics for 2011 indicate 682. (2) The following Interim Orders were granted. Note — an interim violence restraining order may subsequently be cancelled by the court following a successful objection by the respondent or at the request of the applicant. 2005 — 375 2006 — 335 2007 — 387 2008 — 449 2009 — 539 2010 — 509 2011 — 529 (3) Electronic records are not kept for violence restraining order mediation referrals. (4) Not specifically. (5) Not applicable (6) No
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 661
(7) Yes, they are categorised according to the reasons set out in sections 11A and 11B of the Restraining Orders Act 1997. SEX WORKERS AND BROTHELS — DATABASE INFORMATION 5073. Hon Linda Savage to the Minister for Energy representing the Minister for Police (1) Does the Organised Crime Division of Western Australia Police have a database of information relating to sex workers and/or brothels? (2) If no to (1), does any other section of Western Australia Police collect and record information relating to sex workers and/or brothels? (3) If such data is collected and recorded, in what circumstances can this information be accessed and by whom? (4) Are electronic or paper records kept of all accesses to this database? (5) If such data is collected and recorded, since 1 January 2009, how many investigations of incidences of alleged unauthorised or inappropriate access to the database have been undertaken by Western Australia Police or the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC)? (6) Since 1 January 2009, how many queries and/or allegations regarding unauthorised or inappropriate access to the database have been received by Western Australia Police or the CCC? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1) The Serious and Organised Crime Division of the WA Police does not have a specific database of information relating to sex workers and / or brothels. The Serious and Organised Crime Division access a generic database that encompasses all crime types and contains discrete pieces of intelligence. Some of this intelligence may contain information pertaining to sex workers and / or brothels. (2) No. See above response. (3)–(6) Not applicable. HOME INDEMNITY INSURANCE — WAYNE HOWLE CASE 5075. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Commerce I refer to your answer to question without notice No. 929, asked in this place on 1 November 2011, and I ask — (1) What were the restrictions placed on Mr Wayne Howle‘s building license here in Western Australia? (2) How do these restrictions correlate with the restrictions placed on his license in New South Wales? (3) Is the Minister aware of the circumstances in which two families have found themselves due to the unfinished work of Mr Wayne Howle? (4) How was Mr Wayne Howle able to have at least one of those families take out Home Warranty Insurance in Western Australia? (5) Will the Minister admit that the system fails the consumer in terms of the builder being able to ignore the Orders to Pay from the Building Disputes Tribunal? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: (1) Mr Howle‘s registration in Western Australia was limited to class 1, 2, and 10a buildings as classified in the Building Code of Australia. (2) Mr Howle sought registration under mutual recognition principles because he held a building contractor‘s registration in New South Wales. In that state builder registration is limited to residential buildings. Mr Howle was limited in Western Australia to residential buildings (classes 1 and 2) and sheds (class 10a). (3) Yes. Various pieces of correspondence referring to Home Indemnity Insurance matters relating to Mr Howle have been received since January 2010. (4) Home Indemnity Insurance is required under the provisions of the Home Building Contracts Act. A builder is required to provide a consumer with a policy of insurance in the consumer‘s name before commencing building work. Lumley Insurance provided the relevant insurance cover. (5) Orders to Pay made by the Building Disputes Tribunal were enforceable through the Magistrate or District Courts. In response to shortcomings in the previous system of builder registration and consumer disputes this Government has introduced significant reforms though the establishment of the Building Commission.
662 [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012]
MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION — SPORTING EVENT INVITATIONS 5076. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Science and Innovation (1) Since September 2008, on how many occasions has the Minister received invitations to attend major sporting events that incorporated corporate hospitality, including food and beverage? (2) Of those invitations, on how many occasions has the Minister accepted? (3) What were the events and the name of the company hosting the Minister? (4) What are the names of guests accompanying the Minister to the event? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: The date range for answering this Parliamentary Question is 23 September 2008 until 30 November 2011 (inclusive). It is assumed ―major sporting events‖ means international competitions. (1) 10. Please note, I also hosted two government functions at the Hopman Cup. (2) 4 (3) Commonwealth Bank One Day International (Australia v South Africa) — Western Australian Cricket Association; 3 mobile Test Match (Australia v West Indies) — Western Australian Cricket Association; Vodafone Ashes Test Series (Australia v England) — Western Australian Cricket Association; Bundaberg Rum Rugby Series (QANTAS Wallabies v England) — Tourism WA (4) Johan Gildenhuys; Neil Thomson (morning shift) and Johan Gildenhuys (afternoon shift); Nick Bruining; Johan Gildenhuys QUOBBA STATION — RED BLUFF PLAN 5091. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Planning With reference to the area of Red Bluff, located on Quobba Station and photos at http://robinchapple.com/qdata ‗2011–08–01 Shacks at Red Bluff.pdf‘, and I ask — (1) Has planning department given permission for this original shaded lunch area to be converted into a shed/accommodation? (2) If yes to (1), when did this occur? (3) Does this structure conform to the guidelines of the Ningaloo Strategy? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) Does this structure meet the design principles required in the Red Bluff development plan? (6) If no to (5), will the Minister take any action? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I refer the Hon Member to Legislative Council Question Without Notice 632 answered on Thursday 18 August 2011. Additional information is required in order to answer the question. WESTRAIL SALE — UNDERTAKINGS 5094. Hon Max Trenorden to the Minister for Finance representing the Minister for Transport I refer to the sale of Westrail to the consortium of Wesfarmers and Genesee–Wyoming by the State Government, and ask — (1) Was the undertaking given by Wesfarmers and Genesee–Wyoming to spend $400 million on rolling stock and infrastructure in the sale contract? (2) Was the undertaking official or unofficial? (3) What protocols and criteria were put in place to ensure the undertaking to spend $400 million was met? (4) Which agency undertook the audit to ensure the $400 million was spent? (5) If the undertaking to spend $400 million was not met by the consortium by 2006 when it on sold the above infrastructure and business to Queensland Rail and below ground business and infrastructure to
[COUNCIL — Tuesday, 6 March 2012] 663
Babcock and Brown, what protocols were put in place by the Government to ensure the balance of the undertaking was spent? (6) Was the Government a party to the outsourced maintenance agreement between Westnet Rail and John Holland? Hon SIMON O‘BRIEN replied: Insofar as the Public Transport Authority is concerned as at 1 December 2011: (1) No. The undertaking to invest $400 million was never included as a requirement under the sale or lease agreements. (2) The undertaking was included in an announcement by the previous Transport Minister, the Hon Murray Criddle MLC on Monday 30 October 2000. (3) No protocols were put in place to ensure the $400 million was spent as it was not a contractual obligation. (4)–(5) As above. (6) No. WOMEN AND THEIR BABIES — HEALTH GUIDELINES 5095. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Health I refer to the Western Australian Department of Health‘s website address http://www.health.wa.gov. au/havingababy/during/lifestyle.cfm which provides information about lifestyle factors (healthy eating, exercise, smoking, medications and other drugs, and alcohol) to achieve the best health outcomes for women and their babies during pregnancy, and I ask — (1) Will the Minister take steps to ensure that information is included on that website and/or in similar departmental publications about use of or exposure to pesticides, herbicides or fungicides during pregnancy? (2) If no to (1), why not? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable.
______