Legislative Council

Thursday, 23 November 2000

THE PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash) took the Chair at 10.00 am, and read prayers. FREMANTLE EASTERN BYPASS Petition Hon J.A. Scott presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 456 persons - To the Honourable the President and members of the Legislative Council in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are concerned that the proposed Fremantle Eastern Bypass will:- • fragment and dislocate the communities of Whitegum Valley, Hamilton Hill and Beaconsfield; • increase vehicle emissions, affecting air quality and pollution levels; • remove the school oval and green areas of Whitegum Valley Primary School; • threaten safety of school children and all pedestrians and road users due to increased traffic levels in the surrounds; • create increased traffic in the feeder roads, adversely affecting residents; and • destroy remnant urban bushland at Clontarf Hill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Council examine the promises made by the Minister for Transport in relation to a study being undertaken to compare the alternative Stock Road option with the proposed Fremantle Eastern Bypass and why those undertakings have not been fulfilled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper No 592.] STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Overview for 2000 - Eighteenth Report Hon Kim Chance presented the eighteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, in relation to an overview report for the year 2000, and on his motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the Table and be printed. [See paper No 593.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Perth’s Water Supply - Ninth Report Hon Christine Sharp presented the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development, in relation to the quality of Perth's water supply, and on her motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the Table and be printed. [See paper No 594.] RURAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL 2000 Report from Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs - Standing Orders Suspension HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [10.07 am]: I move - That standing orders be suspended so far as will enable the House to make the order proposed in the following motion - That despite any rule or order - (1) the Constitutional Affairs Committee is ordered to report the Rural Business Development Corporation Bill 2000 back to the House at this day’s sitting, whether or not it has completed its deliberations on the Bill, with any findings or recommendations it may care to make; and (2) on report of the Bill from the committee, it pass through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting.

3624 [COUNCIL]

This motion is to give the House an opportunity to deal with the Rural Business Development Corporation Bill, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In view of the fact that the committee has not finished its deliberations and under standing orders has until, I think, some time in December to report, it will be necessary for this motion to be passed for the House to deal with the Bill. This motion is a little unusual and in the normal course of events it is preferable to have the committee report when it has finished deliberating. However, I understand there is some enthusiasm for this Bill to be passed, so I am asking the House to give us a chance to consider it. However, whether the House will agree to the Bill is up to the House. Question put and passed with an absolute majority. Motion HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [10.09 am]: I move - That despite any rule or order - (1) the Constitutional Affairs Committee is ordered to report the Rural Business Development Corporation Bill 2000 back to the House at this day’s sitting, whether or not it has completed its deliberations on the Bill, with any findings or recommendations it may care to make; and (2) on report of the Bill from the committee, it pass through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting. That sounds as though I am trying to suggest that it be passed, but it is subject to the House’s agreeing to its passing. Question put and passed. TRANSPERTH BUS FLEET Motion Resumed from 22 November on the following motion moved by Hon J.A. Scott - That in relation to a recently published peer review of a study by an expert reference group - Euro II and Beyond - commissioned by former Transport minister Eric Charlton to determine the future fuel needs of Transperth’s bus fleet - (1) This House notes the findings of the peer review of the ERG report. (2) Calls on the Minister for Transport to - (a) explain why flawed and inaccurate data was used to justify the purchase of the Transperth bus fleet; (b) describe the current contractual arrangements between Transperth and Mercedes Benz; (c) identify the number of diesel-powered buses Transperth is bound to purchase; (d) confirm whether Mercedes is able to provide, as an alternative, sufficient numbers of high performance gas-powered buses to meet Transperth’s needs; and (e) state if he is prepared to re-examine the ERG recommendations and reassess the purchase of further diesel-powered buses. HON J.A. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [10.10 am]: I will briefly recap what I said yesterday. There has been a long pattern of misinformation and deception about the relative merits of gas and diesel buses. I was caught out yesterday and did not have the quotes of the people involved, but I now have those quotes and will refer to them. An article in The West Australian states - Perth's new bus fleet would have diesel engines partly because diesel fuel was cheaper than natural gas, Department of Transport official Jim Fitzgerald said yesterday. . . . “Preliminary work we did on natural gas indicated the cost of operating on natural gas in this State was significantly higher than in the eastern States,” Mr Fitzgerald, the department's fleet contract manager, said. “We would pay 25 per cent more for gas here than in the eastern States.” This was clearly not true, and Mr Fitzgerald knew it. Another article in The West Australian states - AlintaGas offered to power Perth's new bus fleet with natural gas at half the cost of diesel fuel - but the State Government opted to buy 128 diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz vehicles. AlintaGas has reacted angrily to Transport Department claims that the new bus fleet would be cheaper to run on diesel than natural gas. The half-price offer was made during two months of negotiations between AlintaGas and the department, which will eventually spend $290 million on 850 new buses. The company agreed to supply the fuel and compression gear at any depot required by the department.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3625

That was part of the misinformation. I also have a document from Mr L.G. Boyle from Mercedes-Benz (Australia) Pty Ltd that was a tabled by the Minister for Transport and states - Dear Jim Further discussions Mercedes-Benz confirm that we will provide electronic fuel injection CNG engines during 1999. Like all Mercedes-Benz products, this CNG engine has been extensively trialled with tests going back 3 years. I want members to remember that statement, because later I will mention how we will now be paying $5m for these trials to be done again. It continues - It should be understood that Mercedes-Benz do not release unproven technology hence the extended testing period for new releases for cars, trucks or buses. The five CNG-powered buses that Mercedes-Benz claimed it would provide in 1999 were not provided. In an answer to a question by Hon Kim Chance about when will the 133 new Mercedes-Benz buses be delivered, the minister said that the first new Mercedes-Benz bus is expected to be delivered in January 1999, and he expected that the initial order of 133 new Mercedes buses would be delivered in January 1999. We now know that never eventuated. It never eventuated because Mercedes-Benz never had the technology for those multi-point fuel injected CNG-powered buses. There has been deception with regard to that matter. I turn now to the review that was done for the minister on the report “Euro 2 & Beyond Fuel for TRANSPERTH’s Bus Fleet.” Hon M.J. Criddle: Is that the original report? Hon J.A. SCOTT: Yes. That review reached a number of interesting conclusions. It states - This Panel addressed data and other technological, operational, economic and environmental information on the latest generation Euro 3 Compressed NG buses and compared them with Euro 2 and Euro 3 diesel buses. The ERG Report has not made this analysis and comparison which was required in its Terms of Reference. The first conclusion was that the ERG report did not do the analysis that was required. The review states also - Further, it does not appear from the evidence that the ERG verified the accuracy of input data or facts. The ERG Report does not appear to have investigated scientific, technical and experienced urban bus operator data on Euro 2 buses using standard diesel with 2000 ppm of Sulphur (0.2 percent S), Low Sulphur Diesel of 500 ppm (0.05 percent S) and Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel of 50 ppm of Sulphur, (0.005 percent S). The ERG Report does not appear to have verified, (although it used) data provided by the petroleum and LPG industries on NG bus emissions and operations. As a result, the ERG Report’s findings conflict with the broader based US Department of Energy (DOE) NG bus experience. In Chapter 2 (p 10) of this Panel review it is noted that the ERG Report used British LPG data which is not relevant to Australian conditions. For example, British LPG is 100 percent propane, whereas Australian LPG averages 60 percent propane and 40 percent butane. Australian LPG powered vehicles, use a different fuel composition which may have different power and emission outcomes to British LPG vehicles. The ERG did not even use the right input data for its studies. The ERG also ignored the long-term use of gas buses in this State. We know, for instance, that it ignored the studies from the Sydney bus company; and I have quite a lot of information from other States with this sort of data. An article on the Sydney buses said, in part - After a series of successful trials, Kingsgrove now operates over 100 CNG buses. Comparative operating figures indicate the CNG buses cost 20 cents per kilometre in fuel, compared to 32.8 cents per kilometre for the diesel buses - a saving of 12.8 cents per kilometre! We need to bear in mind that the price of diesel then was half what it is now. At the time these analyses were done, the price of diesel was around 59¢ a litre. It is now almost double that. Hon M.J. Criddle: What has happened to the price of gas? Hon J.A. SCOTT: The price of natural gas has remained unchanged for the past decade; that is part of the reason this analysis is so poor. It takes no account of the reliability of the price of compressed natural gas compared with the volatile nature of - Hon M.J. Criddle: It is about the reliability of the engine itself and whether it will operate in our environment. We have had to put new radiators in those buses already. We need to experiment with the type of product that we are putting on the road. Hon J.A. SCOTT: The minister is right, because a lot of the testing data that was used by the ERG had no relevance to Australian conditions. The ERG ignored these Australian studies. It ignored the Sydney Kingsgrove bus depot’s

3626 [COUNCIL] findings. It ignored the TransAdelaide experience. An article in the magazine Gas Business quotes a Mr Erdos of TransAdelaide. Hon M.J. Criddle: Is he an expert? Hon J.A. SCOTT: He is the group manager of technical services at TransAdelaide. Hon M.J. Criddle: You are saying the expert group we put together has no idea what it is doing and this bloke does? Hon J.A. SCOTT: I am saying the Government's group ignored the experience of real buses on the ground being run by bus systems in Australia. The article states - Mr Erdos estimated the 1997 savings achieved by running 110 natural gas buses compared with the equivalent number of diesel buses, at $900,000. This is a saving of about $8,200 per bus per year (or $16.2 million over the eighteen-year life of the buses). This easily covers the increased capital cost of $25,000 per bus. Hon M.J. Criddle: We had 50-odd buses running in our fleet. Hon J.A. SCOTT: Yes, we know about that and we know about the comparisons. Hon M.J. Criddle: So do we. Hon J.A. SCOTT: The really sneaky thing about the reference group is that, according to the data I have, it did not look beyond 2000 at all. When looking at the environmental impacts, it used the data on the first and second generations experimental gas buses to compare not only new diesel technology but also new diesel technology running in Germany using lower sulfur fuel. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: So that a relative comparison was totally impossible? Hon J.A. SCOTT: A valid comparison is totally different. Hon M.J. Criddle: What about the bloke in South Australia who relied on the same sort of information from his bus fleet? Hon J.A. SCOTT: The minister will get an opportunity to reply. This matter has just started and I am trying to race through it quickly to raise the main issue. Hon M.J. Criddle: You take all the time you need because I would like to hear your argument. Hon J.A. SCOTT: I shall refer to a few other things that the ERG report said. I shall look at the expertise of the group before I go any further. To consider the health impact was Dr Simon Taggart, a lung specialist at the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, London, United Kingdom who qualified with honours. I will not go through all his qualifications. The report states - He has worked in a number of Centres of Excellence, including London’s Royal Brompton Hospital and Manchester North West Lung Centre. Dr Taggart is a member of the renowned British Lung Foundation’s Executive Committee, and, as spokesman, frequently responds to questions from the media and other groups on a number of separate health issues. Dr Taggart represents the British Lung Foundation on the Expert Air Quality Forum which reviews the United Kingdom’s National Air Quality Strategy. The expert reference group set up by the previous minister had no health expert on it. That group virtually ignored the health impacts of the outputs from these buses, which is, of course, a very important facet. The other members of the ERG expert group included Professor Lidia Morawska. I will not go through all her post doctorates and whatever. The report reads - For over a decade Professor Morawska has been actively involved in the field of air quality, both academically and as an expert consultant and adviser. Chairman, United Nations World Health Organisation . . . Committee setting international standards on fine and Ultra fine particle vehicle exhaust emissions. Professor Morawska is a member of the Environmental Health and Nutrition Standing Committee Reference Group on Air Quality Goals for Particulates PM10 and PM2.5; a member Technical Advisory Committee for the South East Queensland Regional Air Quality Strategy; International Co-ordinator for the Indoor Air 99 International Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland; Member of the Working Group: Environment and Development, European Association and Development Research and Framing Institutes; All the people in that group were at the top of their field in the world in each of the areas from which they were chosen. They were arguably as good as anyone could get. When the minister responded to my question on the findings of this report some time back, he said in part of his answer that there might be a problem because the report had been paid for by the Australian Natural Gas Vehicles Council. However, what he did not say at that time was that in the expert reference group there were people like Mr Brian Bult, managing director of Voith Australia Pty Ltd whose company got

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3627 the contract to build the bus bodies. Therefore, if the minister is talking about conflicts of interest, he should have a look at that other group. Hon M.J. Criddle: No, I was not talking about a conflict of interest. I was talking about the information based on similar sorts of analyses. Hon J.A. SCOTT: I shall continue because the minister wants me to spell out my whole argument, as I would like to. The ERG review said - This Panel has noted the initial 848 Perth bus contract stipulates Euro 2 standard buses whereas the ERG Report recommends that new Transperth buses use Low Sulphur Diesel fuel with a maximum sulphur content of 500 ppm (0.05 percent S). This ERG recommendation will: • Significantly increase Transperth’s fleet operating costs; • Result in significant bus fleet fuel consumption overall • Lead to increased Greenhouse Gas emissions; and • Increase the incidence of adverse toxic, asthmatic, genotoxic and carcinogenic health effects and human lung and respiratory diseases. The ERG Report does not appear to have comprehensively examined: • financial viability and fuel costs of Euro 2 compliant and NG buses; • environmental and health impacts of the various fuel options; • NG buses fitted with current generation OEM electronic fuel injection technology; It ignored the new technology. The report continues - • the large body of data available from international urban bus operators experienced in using both low sulphur diesel and NG fuel; • the urban bus alternative fuel data (both low sulphur diesel and NG) published by the United States of America Government, which is readily available on the internet; • The long term price stability and local availability of Western Australian Natural Gas. This International Scientific and Technical Review Panel concludes that: • That the Western Australian Government re-examine its decision to acquire Euro 2 Standard diesel buses and move to an acquisition programme of buses using the latest Euro 3 Standard NG engine technology; and • That the Western Australian Government urgently initiate fresh and independent economic analyses of the comparative costs of operating diesel and NG buses, taking into account the impact of the Commonwealth Government’s diesel and NG funding programmes in the ANTS Package. • The Western Australian Government include both the additional and more recent information in this International Scientific and Technical Review Panel and recent Australian Compressed Gas technology advances in its management decisions for a choice of alternative fuels for Perth new public fleet; • A comparative analysis of operating diesel and NG buses was not comprehensively examined in the ERG Report and the prices of comparative fuels have altered significantly in the past year. Comparative fuels have altered significantly again since this report came out. The report continues - For example, the price of crude oil per barrel has risen by 87.93 percent and fleet prices have risen by approximately eight to 10 cents per litre. We know that of course that is way under the current price today. The report continues - Additionally, the introduction of the GST and the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grant Scheme have substantially widened the cost disadvantage of diesel compared to NG. As a result, the economic modelling of diesel prices no longer appears to be valid as a basis for decision making on the choice of fuels. The minister answered a number of these claims in this report on Wednesday 16 August in reply to a question from me, when he said -

3628 [COUNCIL]

Almost two years have elapsed between the release of the ERG report and the recent Euro 2 and beyond review. During that time the goods and services tax, the diesel and alternative fuels grants scheme, the alternative fuels conversion program and the compressed natural gas infrastructure program have been introduced. All these programs have a significant impact on the economic evaluation carried out at the time the ERG report was published. All these things have happened and the minister has given his response. I asked some questions about what was happening regarding the buses that Mercedes-Benz was supposed to be providing. On 17 August the minister said - This Government remains committed to evaluating all fuel options for our public transport. Currently it is evaluating ultra-low sulphur diesel, compressed natural gas and hydrogen fuel cells. We already know that the data he is seeking exists on the Internet. Evaluations do not have to be done; the minister can obtain that information instantly. The minister is pretending that he is still looking for information, but a vast amount of information is already available. Following the question about the review of the ERG report on Wednesday, 16 August, the minister also made a number of points in response to matters I had raised about increasing operating costs, the resultant bus fleet fuel consumption, increased greenhouse gas emissions and increased incidence of adverse toxic, asthmatic, genotoxic and carcinogenic health effects. The minister went on to say there were problems with the review of the ERG report, because - (a) The assumed bus delivery is understated in the early years and overstated in the later years. Actual deliveries from DaimlerChrysler are public knowledge and are greater in the early years of the program and reduce as the program progresses. (b) It wrongly assumed all buses delivered under the 848 bus replacement program will be Euro 2. DaimlerChrysler will phase out the Euro 2 engines and commence delivery of Euro 3 engines in January 2003 when Australian design rule 80 becomes available for existing models. The people who compiled that report said they did not get that correct. A whole range of conflicting statements have been made about when these buses would be delivered and how many would be delivered in the early years and in the later years. I have loads of data in my files showing different answers to that question. It is important that the minister evaluate the relative merits of the buses. Instead of delivering five gas buses by January 1999, which date is well and truly past, he has now gone back to evaluating three gas engines and comparing them with diesel and other fuelled engines. They are a backward step from the buses which Mercedes-Benz has extensively trialled and can provide. A worse problem exists. The minister has admitted that most of the buses will be purchased during the early part of this contract, which means of course that by the time the minister finishes evaluating the gas buses, very few will be left to purchase. We will have purchased nearly all of the obsolete Euro II diesel buses which, as we know, are not of the best current standard. By the time we get the Euro 3 buses, Europe will be moving to Euro 4. In effect, we will get the cast-offs, the leftovers, the overruns of Mercedes-Benz. We certainly will not get world best technology. This issue really concerns me and I want the House to consider this issue. One of the answers stated that the Government was evaluating a number of buses -. I think the answer referred to three buses, but it was five buses. I asked the question - (1) Has Mercedes-Benz provided Transperth with the five CNG fuel injected buses, as promised in 1999? (2) Can Mercedes provide the five buses as promised, and when will the buses be delivered? (3) Were Mercedes, the Minister for Transport and Transperth correct in saying that Mercedes had the technical capability to provide Transperth with five electronic fuel injected CNG powered buses, as claimed? Hon Murray Criddle replied - (1)-(3) Transperth is in the process of carrying out experiments with the five engines on the compressed natural gas project, and it will compare the various gas arrangements in place to get a clear indication of the best method to use. We will also compare that with diesel fuel injection - Hon Norm Kelly interjected and said - I thought you had done that already. Hon Murray Criddle continued - I said that we are in the process of carrying out the experiments with the five engines, and will continue with that until such time as we have a result. The Government will then announce the results of that experiment. That is not delivering buses; that is carrying out an experiment. The really sneaky part is where the money is coming from to pay for that experiment. I also asked the following question about that - (1) (a) Who is paying the cost of converting the three DaimlerChrysler - formerly Mercedes - bus engines to compressed natural gas?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3629

(b) What is the total value of this contract and has the cost been subsidised by the Australian Greenhouse Office? (2) What is the total value of the existing contract between the Department of Transport and Advanced Engine Components - or Transcom - to convert 100 Renault buses to CNG? The minister replied - (1)-(2) This Government remains committed to evaluating all fuel options - I do not know what that had to do with the question. It continued - - for our public transport. Currently it is evaluating ultra-low sulphur diesel, compressed natural gas and hydrogen fuel cells. That is still nothing to do with the question. It continued - Financial details of the new compressed natural gas conversion program are currently being completed between the Department of Transport, DaimlerChrysler and the Australian Greenhouse Office and will remain commercially confidential until finalisation in the near future. At that time, I will be in a position to inform the member on this matter. This answer raises a couple of interesting issues. The minister should know by now that in fact he does know that information but he has not informed “the member on this matter”, whereas I understand the Australian Greenhouse Office has made an announcement in relation to that issue. I hope the minister can clarify that matter. Hon M.J. Criddle: I will have to obtain the exact figures. Hon J.A. SCOTT: We know that the firm that will carry out this conversion work is Advanced Engine Components Ltd, formerly Transcom. I asked the minister whether that contract was in exchange for allowing the Department of Transport to get out of the contract for the conversion of 100 Renault buses, 90 of which are still outstanding. This was the information I received. The minister’s answer was not absolutely clear. I want him to tell me whether that contract for the conversion of five buses has been exchanged. Instead of Mercedes-Benz paying to produce this, as it promised, and delivering five compressed natural gas buses by the end of 1999, the Australian Greenhouse Office will be providing funding to carry out five experiments with engines, not buses. We will no longer get 90 conversions. In other words, for $5m, or $1m per engine, we will get five engines tested, really for the benefit of Mercedes-Benz, which should have been providing the buses in the first place. We will be 85-bus losers because instead of getting 90 buses we will be getting five engines and the testing data. The poor old Australian Greenhouse Office will put funds into the project on the basis of getting information. I want to check if that is correct. I understand that the data is already widely available on the Internet. The Department of Transport will get out of its contract for 90 Renault buses. Transcom Engine Corporation Ltd, as it is known by its new name, which was Advanced Engine Components Ltd, will get a pretty good deal. Instead of $60 000 to convert each of 90 buses, taxpayers will be paying it $1m to convert each of five engines, which would normally cost about $20 000. A rip-off has occurred here. Taxpayers have been defrauded. Where are the 90 buses? Have they been exchanged for five engines? If that is correct, it is not good enough. When the minister has an opportunity, I want him to spell out the situation very clearly. I do not think that the public will take too kindly to trading-off 90 buses for five engines. Whether the Department of Transport or the Australian Greenhouse Office has been conned into this, at the end of the day the taxpayers will pay for what Mercedes- Benz said it had already done. It said that, like all Mercedes-Benz products, this CNG engine had been extensively trialled and tested going back three years. We have not been told the truth in this Parliament. Hon M.J. Criddle: Is that the carburettor model? Hon J.A. SCOTT: No, it is not. Specific questions were asked in estimates committees and other places. Mercedes- Benz said that it would provide the electronic fuel injection CNG engines during 1999. The reality is that Mercedes- Benz has given the impression that it could do it when it could not. It could never do it, otherwise we would have the buses right now. Is that not correct? Mercedes-Benz was unable to provide any of the buses. According to Department of Transport data, the price of diesel needed to rise about 5¢ before economies of scale would make CNG a better option than diesel. Instead of a 9¢ rise, a vast rise of about 50¢ has occurred. Obviously the Department of Transport would get a better fuel deal than the average motorist; nevertheless it would still face a vast rise. Not only have we been ripped off by the loss of 90 gas-powered buses operating in Perth and helping to improve the environment, but also we have seen a huge loss in the running costs of the buses. The minister and the Department of Transport are still deceiving us. They are using the excuse of testing again, even though Mercedes-Benz says it has extensively tested its buses. All the data exists on the new CNG multipoint fuel- injected gas buses. The data is on the Internet for people to read. The group I mentioned has been able to collect the data and has pointed out that much of it is on the Internet. It has collected much of the data required for the so-called comparisons that the minister will undertake. The collection does not have to be done. The minister knows full well, because most of these buses will be bought early in the contract, that even if the tests clearly prove that CNG is a better option, it will be too darn late because the deal will be done. Mercedes will have got rid of its obsolete Euro II buses.

3630 [COUNCIL]

The bodies of the buses are very good but the engines are not the best available. If the Government were serious about the latest technology diesel buses, it would not be talking about Euro III halfway through the bus purchase program but would be talking about going from Euro III to Euro IV, because Europe currently has Euro III and is moving to Euro IV. We are getting the same buses as South America. Much more could be said about the misuse of data in the report by the expert reference group. It might be better if I simply tabled the report, because to go through it in detail would take so much time we would be here for another three weeks. I do not want to do that. I seek leave to table the report. Leave granted. [See paper No 595.] Hon J.A. SCOTT: No clear answers have been forthcoming from the Government regarding the misleading information about comparisons of new diesel buses and old-technology gas buses. The old gas buses were compared with the new diesel buses on fuel consumption. The old diesel buses use a high sulfur fuel and do not have the anti- pollution devices of the gas buses, and their clean-up mechanisms are less efficient than those found on the gas buses. Right throughout the analyses conducted, we see a deliberate perversion of the truth. These matters need to be properly examined. When members get together again in the next Parliament, they should consider this very important issue. Many of these bus purchases are still to be made. We need to know whether we have been misled by Mercedes-Benz so it could win the contract. It claimed that it could provide the gas buses, but has been unable to do so. The minister knows that full well. He had meetings with the company in Perth when Mercedes-Benz was supposed to have delivered those buses. I asked the minister questions prior to that meeting as I heard it was to be held. It was confirmed that the meeting was held because the company could not provide the buses. Proof is found in answers to questions on notice and comments made on radio of Mercedes-Benz’s inability to provide the buses, not the engines, it promised. It is important that the next Parliament inquire into this matter thoroughly and find out whether a deliberate fraud was perpetrated on the people of Western Australia. The deception by Mercedes-Benz was its stating that it could provide gas buses when it was unable to do so. The promise was not to purchase only the three buses left to be acquired in the contract in 15 years, but the provision of gas buses now. The previous Minister for Transport gave the impression that the Government could look at operating a greater variation of bus types as new technology came forward. There has also been a deception by the Department of Transport and the minister in stating that somehow a big jump will be made; that is, we will be able to bypass gas technology and move straight to hydrogen fuel cells. The minister knows from his answers to questions asked in the House that most of the bus purchases in the contract will be provided in the early years of the contract. Therefore, most buses will be purchased in the 14 or 15 years before the hydrogen fuel cell buses become a commercially viable option. We will use the hydrogen cells in the next bus contract. I commend the Government for looking at hydrogen. However, to pretend it is a viable option now is simply not acceptable. If the minister is worried about weight ratios and the number of passengers on a CNG-fuelled bus, he should be more worried about that aspect with hydrogen-fuelled buses. The minister knows it is not a commercially viable option at this point, and will not be for many years. I conclude my remarks at this point; I realise it does not give other members much opportunity to speak. Most of the criticisms are contained in the report, apart from those I made about the dodgy arrangement; namely, we will get work done on five engines in exchange for 90 buses. I understand that around $5m is involved, which is $1m per engine. That is an absolute disgrace, minister. HON M.J. CRIDDLE (Agricultural - Minister for Transport) [10.55 am]: I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks, although it is unfortunate that I cannot round out the argument. Hon Jim Scott was talking about the contract with Advanced Engine Components Ltd, and I would like him to come to the Department of Transport to receive a full briefing. A contract was signed recently with which all parties were very happy. As long as the experiments are put in place, the contract could lead to 25 such fuelled buses being put into the network. I was involved from day one in this process. We went to Europe in 1996 to consider options for the bus fleet in Perth, and the Government made a very responsible and much needed decision to look for new buses for the fleet, which was very old. It was decided to sign a contract for 848 buses to replace the current fleet. Everyone should recognise that that was a necessity. The expert reference group believed that the best option, operationally, environmentally and economically, was the Euro II engine. All sorts of assertions can be made two years later. A review has been put in place with the changes made since that time, and one can come up with another conclusion. However, when the decision was made, the Government decided that diesel was the best option. We said we would review it in 2003 and look at other options. The contract allows us to change over, bearing in mind that 70 to 100 buses will already be in the order chain at that stage. It looks like about 65 buses a year will be delivered in the outer years. Some buses have been acquired and are in the chain. We could go to a more appropriate fuel in the contract. Nothing would stop us changing to natural gas aspirated buses, or whatever, if that were considered to be the best option at some time in the future. When I started this process, everyone spoke about gas buses, but surprisingly few are in the Australian bus fleet. Western Australia has carried most of these initiatives to improve the standards of emissions in the bus fleet. That is why we are considering the hydrogen fuel cell. Experiments are in place to compare these cells with diesel fuel. The advances in diesel fuel emission reductions are astronomical, and we will put some of these initiatives in place in WA

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3631 with the low sulfur fuel. Many initiatives have been put in place in Western Australia. The older buses were the big problem, and the Government made the responsible decision to improve the entire bus fleet. The hydrogen fuel cell is the technology of the future as its only emission is water. Hon J.A. Scott: It will not be in this contract. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: The member should let me finish. Hon Norm Kelly: You could extend past the hour to finish. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: The member knew well that I would not have much time. I wanted to hear his story. I said that the member can be given a briefing so he understands the contract with AEC to understand the Government’s intention. The Government wants the best possible outcome in emissions and in the buses provided for this city. We lead the nation in the management of our bus fleet. A group is going overseas shortly to sign an agreement to participate in the hydrogen fuel cell experiment. We are the only group outside Europe and in the southern hemisphere involved in this experiment. We had a bus in Perth recently. Was the member able to see the bus and have a ride? Hon J.A. Scott: I was tied up at the time. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: The bus was in Western Australia for a week and it would have been useful had the member been able to see it. The buses are working in Vancouver and in Chicago in the general transport system; it is not as if they are a new idea. Hon J.A. Scott: They are only experimental. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: They are actually operating in the network! Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

COMMITTEE REPORTS - CONSIDERATION Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair. Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - Environmental Health in Aboriginal Communities in the Kimberley Region - Thirty-second Report The CHAIRMAN (Hon J.A. Cowdell): This is the last opportunity to consider these reports. Members might consider talking for 10 minutes rather than 45 minutes, as that would preclude consideration of three other reports. Hon MARK NEVILL: I move - That the report be noted. The report on environmental health in Aboriginal communities is extremely important. If its recommendations are adopted by the Government, they will make a big difference to Aboriginal health. They probably will not reduce the cost of Aboriginal health because there is a massive need that has not been met in Aboriginal communities. However, the recommendations will allow the Government and the Health Department to get more value for money from the $45m that is spent in the Kimberley every year. The committee formed the view that these people live in very bad conditions. They go into hospitals and clinics, which act like a revolving door and return them to the poor environmental conditions in which they live. Spending more money on acute care is like putting more ambulances at the bottom of a cliff. What they need are a few fences at the top. The continuing poor health status of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley is of great concern to the committee. Aboriginal people in the Kimberley have the additional burden of living in a harsh physical environment remote from quality health services. Darwin has the nearest major hospital. The committee found that current arrangements for providing environmental health services to Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley are ad hoc, poorly coordinated, lacking in both goals and appropriate methods of assessment, and generally ineffective in improving the living conditions, the health and the general wellbeing of Aboriginal people. The general view held by the committee is that the health of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley region has not improved and indeed has significantly worsened over the past 30 years. The committee identified a number of inadequacies in current environmental health programs in the Kimberley. It found that the programs initiated and implemented by the State, Commonwealth and local governments often overlap. There is little cooperation between the three tiers of government and little exchange of information. Local governments either expressly lack statutory powers or are unclear as to what their jurisdiction is in the area of environmental health in Aboriginal communities. The funding for environmental health programs is generally short-term, often less than 12 months, and these programs collapse when funding ceases. Any gain achieved in a short-term program usually dissipates very quickly. The training qualifications, pay arrangements, reporting relationships and career structures for Aboriginal environmental health

3632 [COUNCIL] workers are inadequate. There is a need for local governments to take a more active role in Aboriginal communities in the areas of public health, education and dog control. Two major problems that the committee believes must be addressed are the lack of fresh healthy food and the presence of malnutrition among Aboriginal children in the Kimberley region. The committee is of the view that the expenditure of limited public financial resources on the purchase of expensive acute care facilities and the use of large numbers of highly skilled medical staff is generally not effective. The transport and social problems caused by the remoteness of many of those communities makes it difficult to attract and retain the staff needed. This will always be a problem in those areas, and funding this aspect requires essentially an urban approach to Aboriginal health. The committee believes that both genuine social and economic benefits over both the short and long-terms can be gained by concentrating a greater percentage of total health expenditure in the Kimberley region on programs that are aimed at improving environmental health. The committee made a number of recommendations designed to bring about both legislative and administrative changes and to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government. Central to the committee's recommendations is that local government be given primary responsibility for implementing environmental health programs and enforcing environmental health standards in all Aboriginal communities in their respective shire boundaries. The committee discussed the use of the word “Aboriginal” as a part of the designation of Aboriginal environmental health workers. Although it is not in our report, it is preferable that we refer to those people as environmental health workers. People are not referred to as Caucasian environmental health workers and we should drop the patronising prefix of “Aboriginal” and allow the term to be used across the community. Indeed, some health workers may not be Aboriginal. The first recommendation from the committee is that the Government's primary focus of spending on Aboriginal health be on basic community-based health programs, public health education and environmental health programs. It recommends that the Health Act, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and the Local Government Act be amended to vest in local government the primary responsibility for the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental health programs and standards in Aboriginal communities. The committee recommended that the executive director of public health and the regional public health units have responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the environmental health programs of local government. The regional public health units should continue to provide consultative services and expert advice in managing statewide public health programs, such as immunisation and infectious diseases, and in monitoring Aboriginal stores for prices and content. If a shire council is not pulling its weight, the public health unit can draw its attention to how other shires are better providing programs. Recommendation 4 reads - Local governments have sole responsibility for the employment and supervision of all Environmental Health Officers, Aboriginal Environmental Health Field Support Officers, and Aboriginal Environmental Health workers operating within their shires. The committee also recommended that formal and consistent training courses be developed for the professional qualification of an Aboriginal environmental health worker and a field support officer, that they have standard job descriptions and that a career structure be adopted. It recommended that the four local governments in the Kimberley region be funded to employ at least one environmental health officer on a full-time basis for Aboriginal communities. The committee recommended that the Government provide sufficient funding to the four shires in the Kimberley to ensure enough environmental health workers are employed to provide a permanent full-time presence in each of the large Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley region and a regular visiting service to all Aboriginal communities in the region. Some of the environmental health workers in the large communities can service satellite communities around them. The committee finally recommended that environmental health programs for Aboriginal communities no longer be funded by short-term grants issued at the discretion of the Office of Aboriginal Health, but that they be funded on a triennial basis by the Health Department or whatever other mechanism the Government chooses. Problems are caused by the Office of Aboriginal Health funding a position, then withdrawing the funding and redirecting it. Environmental health in the Kimberley is delivered on an ad hoc basis. It is poorly coordinated and the lines of responsibility are unclear. The committee recommended that there be clear lines of responsibility from the shires to the communities. That can only do good. Finally, I thank members of the committee for their efforts on this report and the two subsequent reports we hope to table. Members have shown great interest in this issue. We thank our advisory officer, Paul Grant, who has done a magnificent job since joining the committee, and our steadfast committee clerk, Lisa Hanna, who, as usual, did an excellent job. Without their support, we would not have been able to complete this report in such a short time. Hon GREG SMITH: I have read the report and agree that most of the recommendations are very good. Anyone who knows anything about indigenous health in the Kimberley will be aware that numerous providers exist, who seem to

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3633 have large administrative teams and many vehicles. However, the delivery of their services seems to be secondary to other functions. In previous speeches in this place I have advocated a major rationalisation of the delivery of health services in the Kimberley, particularly to the indigenous communities. One of the policies proposed by the coalition, both federal and state, is that local government should have responsibility for not only health funding but also almost all the funding to Aboriginal communities. That will ensure that the money is spent on the delivery of services by professional administrators, rather than its apparently disappearing into a bottomless pit. One criticism I have of the report is that it addresses some of the issues, but it glosses over the stark reality of the effects of poor nutrition and hygiene. It does not neglect those problems, but it does not highlight the fact that Aboriginal health problems in many areas in remote Western Australia are due to the lack of good nutrition and hygiene. Reference is made in the committee’s report to the Dog Act, for example. People who do not know anything about indigenous health in the Kimberley will wonder why remarks about the Dog Act are contained in a report on environmental health. On my return from Port Hedland recently, I stopped at the Capricorn Roadhouse at six o'clock in the morning where four young Aboriginal children were having their breakfast, which consisted of a 1.25 litre bottle of coca-cola and two Mars bars. Breakfasts of this nature do not lead to good health. I have told a story in this place previously about a young Aboriginal boy at Mt Magnet who blew up like a toad. No-one knew what was wrong with him, but when he was eventually taken to hospital it was discovered that he had been fed a staple diet of coca-cola. His brothers and sisters had raised him since he was a baby because his mother and father were busy doing other things. By the time he was eight years old, his liver had been destroyed. Those people need some good educational programs. To some extent, we cannot deal with the real issues surrounding Aboriginal health in places such as the Kimberley and communities in remote parts of Western Australia, without calling a spade a spade and addressing basic hygiene and nutrition. That could leave us open to being accused of being paternalistic. In some areas breakfast is provided for schoolchildren by the Education Department. That program has been successful in enticing children to school to get a good meal. There is merit in considering a program along the lines of a semi- boarding school situation for some of the children, so that they can have three good meals a day, wear clean clothes and have a wash each day before they go to school. To some extent that may teach them the benefits of good nutrition and good hygiene, and better prepare them for learning. The recommendations in the committee’s report for implementing and improving the delivery of health services could apply to anywhere within Western Australia. The service at Fitzroy Crossing is a classic example of a shotgun approach to Aboriginal health. Cultural Health is funded by one group, the local hospital services everybody and the Aboriginal Medical Service provides health care. They are all providing different services, although I think Cultural Health was set up with good intentions. In the light of the apparent nepotism in some of the organisations in that area, services are not being delivered. Buses are being driven around Fitzroy Crossing, but nobody knows where they go or what they deliver. Cultural Health was established to educate people about environmental issues and to encourage some people in the communities to help deliver health services. However, it is time we admitted that policies implemented over the past 15 years to deliver services to the indigenous communities have been an abject failure. Despite the increasing amounts of money poured into the delivery of health and education services, education levels have decreased and community health standards have worsened. There is no correlation between the increase in the delivery of services and the standards achieved. The first thing that needs to be done by the people involved with the Aboriginal industry is that they must admit that the way they have been trying to do these things has been an abject failure and they need to find a different way of doing things. The delivery of services by local government is a good way to go. However, local government should get more than just the money needed for the delivery of health services; it should get all the money being spent in Aboriginal communities. In 1997, from memory, there was about $17m of Aboriginal-specific funding in the Shire of Pilbara. If local government in that shire had been given an additional $17m to spend, it would have been able to deliver many more tangible benefits that would have been there in the long term than were ever delivered, because many of the people in that shire have been unable to see where that money went. I commend the committee, and the chairman of the committee, Hon Mark Nevill, for the report, because I know that Hon Mark Nevill has a good understanding of the issues that are confronting indigenous people in the Kimberley. It is typical of the shadow minister for Aboriginal Affairs that he seems to be taking no part in the debate and showing no interest in what should be done. Hon Bob Thomas: He is getting a briefing on a Bill to help you lot out. Hon GREG SMITH: He has given us no indication of the policies the Australian Labor Party is likely to pursue to try to improve the delivery of services to indigenous people. The chairman of this committee must have been right when he said last week that the Opposition has no policies with regard to Aboriginal affairs. I look forward to some comments from the Opposition so we will know whether it does have any policies and what they are.

3634 [COUNCIL]

HON NORM KELLY: I also commend the work of the members and staff of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations. That committee often tackles issues that are pertinent to the Western Australian community. I will add some comments to an issue that has been addressed by other members; namely, recommendation 16 of the report, which recommends that the State Government, through cooperation between the Health Department and the Education Department, examine the feasibility of introducing a school breakfast program for children in Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley region. Hon Greg Smith touched on the need for greater coordination in the provision of services to indigenous people. I can understand why many people who are probably somewhat removed from what is taking place become cynical and complain about what they regard as a drain of funds into this area. I believe we still do not fund Aboriginal health and education services to an adequate degree, and that there is a lot of merit in increasing the funding for Aboriginal programs. However, it is important that the funding be used properly. I am pleased that last week an announcement was made from Canberra that additional funding would be provided for rograms to increase the nutritional value of food eaten by Aboriginal children. This program is one of the successes of the tax package that was negotiated between the Federal Government and the Australian Democrats in acquiring funding to the tune of $15m for the child nutrition program. The announcement stated where some of that money would go, and I am pleased that three of the organisations that will receive funding through this Democrats’ initiative will be in the remote areas of Western Australia. The Yura Yungi Medical Service, which is based in Halls Creek, will receive funding to increase the nutritional knowledge and skills of health workers, individuals, community leaders and the Halls Creek school community; and to address existing chronic malnutrition by targeting young mothers early in their parenting careers and promoting knowledge, skills and attitudes relating to the importance of providing adequate and appropriate nutrition for their children. The Kiwirrkurra Remote Community School will also receive funding. I am not sure where this community is, but its postal address is via Alice Springs, so it is probably in the east Kimberley or Great Sandy Desert region. That school will receive funding to develop a tuckshop to provide nutritious lunches, and to involve parents and community members in training and education programs to ensure that the children receive nutritious meals each day at school. The third organisation that will receive funding is the Lombadina and Djerubdjin Community Council near Broome, and the project description states that the community council, store, health clinic and school will establish a healthy school canteen for breakfast and lunch to prevent obesity, ensure optimal growth and establish good eating habits in early childhood. It is encouraging that as a result of this Democrats’ initiative, there will be a flow of federal funds to this area of great need. This is also an example of how funding can come from a great diversity of sources. We need to combine these funding sources, and the human resources that are involved in the delivery of these funds, and start to deal with Aboriginal health at a regional level. I am sure all members are familiar with the problems we have with a health system that is a mishmash of state and federal government funding. I support the Democrats’ policy of doing away with that style of funding and providing the funding on a regional basis, whereby all the health funding for a particular region is pooled and it becomes the responsibility of that region to divest that funding, and all of the people in charge of the delivery of those services are much closer to the needs of that region. Hon Bob Thomas: Would it be central from Canberra or from Perth? Would it be state or federal money? Hon NORM KELLY: The funding mix would involve the current Medicare levy funding and state funding, and it would be pooled in such a way that it was distributed initially on a per capita basis, but certain allowances were then made depending on the demographics of the region involved. It would also cross state boundaries, so for Aboriginal communities it would probably involve not only the Kimberley but also aspects of the Northern Territory. Allowance would be made for the fact that some areas have a higher than average Aboriginal population and the like. Hon Bob Thomas: What about those areas that have a lower than average Aboriginal population? How would you allocate priority to those areas? Hon NORM KELLY: The funding mix would have a system of checks and balances, so there would be a higher allocation of funding if it was identified that additional funding should be provided for Aboriginal health or aged care, or whatever. This would balance out over the entire country. Hon Bob Thomas: I think you would have a lot of regions that would be reinventing the wheel. Hon NORM KELLY: It would also allow regions to become specialists in providing health services to their area. There could, for example, be a centre of expertise on tropical diseases based in those health regions in the northern part of the country. By doing this, we would be localising the administration. I am pleased that the Australian Capital Territory has given support for this scheme, which was another Australian Democrats’ initiative. The ACT has said that it is willing to trial the scheme as it has a suitably small population in a geographically small area to conduct such a trial. We hope the trial will go ahead as a test case, after which we can consider the pluses and minuses to define the funding mix. We must address that area in future for better cooperation between government departments.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3635

I appreciate the recommendation refers to cooperation between the Departments of Health and Education; however, overall, it is a very good report. It addresses matters that are particularly relevant to the chairman of the committee not only as a representative of that region but also in his long-term understanding of the issues relating to Aboriginal communities in the area. I commend the committee and the committee staff for their valuable report. Hon SIMON O'BRIEN: I was delighted to have the opportunity to participate as a committee member in the research and compilation of this report. The experience was enriching for me and broadened my understanding of some important matters in a remote part of this State. It was valuable to me personally as a member to be able to gain that experience. More importantly than that, though, is the opportunity for the Parliament to consider the matters contained in this report. The report is some 100 pages long; however, I encourage members to read it because those 100 pages are full of information. The report was not compiled in a bulky form to flesh out a report. It deals, in an easy to read layout, with a range of issues of environmental health in Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley region. Before I comment on the contents, I congratulate our committee staff for the way in which they assisted in the inquiry and the way in which they put the report together. I sincerely mean it when I say I am proud to join colleagues in putting my name to this report. It makes a genuine contribution to the people of the Kimberley region and our staff deserves to share in the congratulations. One aspect of the state of public health in the Kimberley region is that it became apparent to me that basic needs remain under-resourced and unmet. One good thing about that is that basic needs can generally be addressed comparatively quickly and cheaply, if there is a will to do so, as they are simple, basic problems. Nothing needs to be reinforced more, when considering public health issues in the Kimberley, than the basic environmental factors that are covered in the report. Often, when one talks to people about their public health needs, they will say they need this and that you-beaut bit of expensive technology, another major hospital at the bottom of the street and expensive and difficult to obtain resources. That is not the case in my and the committee’s view of the Kimberley. Environmental factors form the basis of this report. I am talking about matters such as dog control, hygiene, dental health, basic nutrition, housing and a range of other social factors, including employment, to which I will come in a moment. Hon J.A. Scott interjected. Hon SIMON O'BRIEN: Hon Jim Scott hit the nail on the head when he mentioned prevention. With the current focus on overworked and over-stretched health resources in the Kimberley, health service staff are fully occupied in that wild and remote part of Western Australia dealing with the clinical problems that present themselves. They are so very busy trying to deal with patients who present in extremis and so taken up with acute cases that they do not have the time to implement the preventive programs that they genuinely want to implement. This problem came through time and again from the people who gave us the benefit of their advice. As we all know, prevention and early intervention is a very good policy as it saves much effort and application of resources further down the track. Prevention of health problems also saves a great deal of human misery if people can be prevented from developing the acute medical conditions that prevail in that area. I do not have an opportunity to canvass all the matters raised in the report, and I do not believe the Chamber would want me to. I shall, therefore, illustrate a couple of points in which members may be interested. First, it is interesting to note the gains that have been made in health services in the Kimberley in the past decade or two; they are a moveable feast. It is not that the same old problems have been neglected. Things change as time goes by, as is mentioned in chapter 3 of the report. The committee had the benefit of advice from Dr Stuart Garrow, the Director of the Health Department’s Kimberley Health Service’s Public Health Unit. He is, therefore, well qualified to advise us. From memory, Dr Garrow said he had worked in public health in the Kimberley for 14 years. Expert professionals who have worked in the Kimberley in one field for 14 years are very rare. He was able to tell us how the problems in the Kimberley have evolved over the time he has been there. Elsewhere in the report members will note that one of the problems is the rapid turnover of staff. Dr Garrow was, therefore, a valuable source of information for a number of reasons, including his long exposure to conditions in the Kimberley. He noted that when he first took up his position there, it was comparatively common for babies to die from meningitis, and that constantly babies were placed on drips for gastroenteritis and died from that condition. He said it was at least seven or eight years since he had seen any babies die from meningitis or gastroenteritis, and that diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever and syphilis had also been brought under control. Nowadays there are other challenges. These relate to what could be called lifestyle illnesses, including alcohol-related conditions, renal disease, heart disease and diabetes. It is to those that the medical services now wish to shift the focus. There are still large problems, but they are different problems clinically from those that existed some years ago. Nonetheless, the issue comes back to the same thing: Basic preventive measures can make major inroads in all of these problem areas. One of these problem areas is employment. I have always been of the view that one of the best forms of social welfare is to give people a job, and that the best form of social security payment is the wages packet being put on the kitchen table on a Friday night, for a number of reasons. Employment among Aboriginal people in the Kimberley region is a

3636 [COUNCIL] particular deficiency, which, if addressed, would contribute to resolving not only social problems but also health problems in the Kimberley. I urge members to read that section of the report. Another aspect that gave me a great deal of hope about how we may be able to address some of these problems quickly and efficiently was a fairly mature understanding among those who gave evidence - whether shire representatives, members of the public, health professionals or health employees - of the wish lists that of course everyone has, no matter where they work. They also had a mature understanding that the provision of metropolitan-style levels of health services is an unrealistic expectation. Therefore, they were prepared to look at all sorts of innovations, which could be simple and comparatively cheap. Without wishing to indicate the nature of the committee deliberations on matters upon which we will report in future, education and other preventative programs in a range of areas are the sorts of matters that realistically need to be considered. We have already heard today from other members about nutritional programs, and meals being provided in schools. I would like to see other issues explored, including dental hygiene programs in schools, but there will be time for the House to turn its attention to those issues on other occasions. The difficulties of appropriate resourcing of health services in this remote and thinly populated area are perhaps best illustrated by our visit to the Halls Creek hospital. From memory, that hospital has four in-patient beds, and the day we went there it was running as a very good hospital, according to the Sir Humphrey Appleby formula - it had no patients. I might add it had a thriving outpatient clinic that day, as it has every day - Hon J.A. Scott interjected. Hon SIMON O'BRIEN: There were no in-patients at that time. If they require more than four beds, they may have to put a mattress out in the corridor. For heaven’s sake, this is way up in the Kimberley and sometimes bed places have to be found, but on this occasion the hospital had zero patients out of four. Members will understand that all that is needed is one bad traffic accident and suddenly the completely vacant hospital will become very overcrowded with injured people. That illustrates the problem that exists in deciding the right balance of high-tech equipment - CT scanners, X- ray equipment, operating theatres and so forth - and prioritising where those resources should be located. The central theme of this report offers a great deal and it will no doubt be taken by the Health Department in the constructive and supportive spirit in which it is intended. The environmental factors, the basic issues, hold the key to the reduction of so much human pain and discomfort that may otherwise exist but that hopefully can be relieved by basic measures in some fairly simple areas. It provides a beacon of hope. I also acknowledge the dedication of our chairman, Hon Mark Nevill, who has really driven this inquiry, which I might add was taken up with gusto by all committee members. I commend the report to the Committee. Question put and passed. Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation - Spent Convictions Regulations - Fifty-third Report Hon SIMON O'BRIEN: I move - That the report be noted. I hope this report assists members and the Government by drawing attention to some of the concerns the committee had about the practical working nature of spent convictions legislation. The report raised some items of concern, including specific examples that should give all members cause for reflection. When, as the committee anticipates, amending legislation is put before the House in the not too distant future, the committee hopes that members will be assisted by its comments and research on this matter. I commend the report to the Committee. Question put and passed. Standing Committee on Public Administration - Parliament and Commercial Confidentiality Contracts - Seventeenth Report The CHAIRMAN: As no-one wishes to move any motion of notation, I indicate that we have considered that rather substantial report. Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation - City of Swan Local Law Relating to Prevention and Abatement of Sand Drift - Fifty-fourth Report Hon SIMON O'BRIEN: I move - That the report be noted. This matter was considered by the Chamber yesterday when dealing with a disallowance motion. Therefore, the information contained in the report has already been provided to members and has been used for the purpose for which it was intended. I commend the report to the Committee. Question put and passed.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3637

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1999 Assembly’s Message Message from the Assembly notifying that it had agreed to amendments Nos 1 and 3 made by the Council, and had agreed to amendment No 2, subject to further amendment, now considered. Assembly’s Further Amendment - Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General) in charge of the Bill. The Council’s amendment No 2 was as follows - Page 2, line 22 - To insert after “commitment” - any, subject to subsection (3), are not to be applied in any other way

The further amendment made by the Assembly was as follows - To delete the word “any” where it first appears and substitute the following - and Hon PETER FOSS: I move - That the further amendment made by the Assembly be agreed to. This relates to a typographical error. The word “any” should be “and”, which makes logical sense. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Now that I have seen the message, I agree totally with it. The amendment should be passed expeditiously. Question put and passed; the Assembly’s further amendment to the amendment made by the Council agreed to. Report Resolution reported, the report adopted, and a message accordingly returned to the Assembly.

CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION BILL 2000 CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 22 November. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [11.54 am]: I shall continue the remarks I was making last night. The proposal in the second reading speech was that this Bill would be aimed at people involved in drug trafficking and the drug industry in this State, but of course it is not limited to them and could be used quite widely. As I said earlier in my speech, the community has every reason to expect that people who have come by assets unlawfully should be brought to account and have them removed. The question is at what point in the legal process it is appropriate to do that. One of my concerns with the increased powers of confiscation of property in the Bill is that it is easy to envisage that if the police had a vendetta or issue with a person or persons, the police could use this law to apply a lot of pressure to those people and require them to prove their assets had been lawfully obtained. Another suggestion is that this Bill will operate as widely as possible to try to address the issue of assets that might be held in another State. As much as we can agree with that, one of the consequences could well be that people with those assets would do what one imagines Mr Bond has done, which is to send their assets overseas. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: You suspicious woman! Hon GIZ WATSON: Heaven forbid! Obviously limitations apply to Western Australian law. The trend internationally is that if laws in any one State or country are increased, the affected people’s assets will merely be moved offshore. This Bill will be able to do nothing about that. We have concerns with the creation of the confiscation proceeds account. Proceeds from confiscated property will be paid into this account at the direction of the Attorney General. Money can also be paid out of the account. The second reading speech states - Money may be paid out of this account at the direction of the Attorney General as reimbursements or otherwise for any of the following - This specific provision in the Bill is a very concerning precedent because instead of the value of assets being confiscated, whether it be property or whatever, going into consolidated revenue, it will go into a specific account and could then be spent at the discretion of the Attorney General. Clause 131 covers money that may be spent, and includes “for any other purposes in aid of law enforcement”. That last paragraph concerns me the most. It seems the legislation

3638 [COUNCIL] is creating a substantial fund which will be available to the police. It all seems a little too cosy to me. I have very strong concerns about such an approach. The Greens (WA) view of drug addiction and addictive behaviour is that primarily it should be dealt with as a health issue. If a fund is to be set up using funds from confiscated property that has been gained unlawfully in the trafficking of drugs, some of that money should at least go into health programs rather than law enforcement programs. Unless health aspects of addictive behaviour are dealt with and the legislation is not targeted at only criminal aspects, we will never resolve the issues of addiction and the related crime in this State. I cannot support the creation of a fund that will basically be solely directed towards police and law enforcement-related activities. The Greens (WA) will not be supporting this Bill, which, by the Government’s admission, is novel and far reaching. We are particularly concerned about this part of a package of so-called law and order measures that are being moved at great pace through Parliament. The passage of the Bills is being facilitated by both major parties. It is a concern to see moves to overturn some major principles of law in a pre-election climate; this is about the major parties trying to look as though they are doing something. I ask both the Government and the Labor Party to consider the consequences of this type of legislation and, indeed, whether we are setting ourselves up for future High Court challenges on the operation of this measure. The Greens (WA) cannot support this legislation. We agree with the Government’s sentiment in wishing to remove assets obtained unlawfully. No-one can argue with that objective. However, concerns arise about how this is to be done and what will happen with the confiscated property. We cannot support the Bill as it stands. HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan - Attorney General) [12.02 pm]: I thank all members for their extremely thoughtful contributions to this debate. All the points made are perfectly valid as ultimately it comes down to a philosophical decision. I liked the speech of Hon Helen Hodgson; I am thinking of having it sent out to people to demonstrate what good legislation this is. She succinctly pointed out the salient parts of the legislation that will make it work, and the parts of the previous legislation that did not work. I accuse the member of being like a cigarette addict who has given up: She comes from an area in which such legislation has been around for decades. The Australian Taxation Office has long had the power to assess people. As a person who formerly used these powers to assess people, Hon Helen Hodgson argues against those powers with the resilience of a converted cigarette addict. That precedent indicates that it is not such extraordinary legislation because we have been prepared to give revenue authorities this power for decades. Some countries in the world use this as a standard means of revenue collection. The Italian tax man looks at the apparent wealth of a person, and then gives a tax assessment. The Australian tax laws are stricter in that regard than is the Bill before us. Instead of the assessment being issued by the court, as with the legislation before us, the assessment is issued by the taxation agency. When one receives an assessment in Australia, one must first pay it and then start to argue about it. A penalty is normally added to the assessment as well. It can be draconian legislation. I am prepared to admit that this measure before us is draconian; however, if we are prepared to apply such powers to revenue matters, we should also apply them to stamp out crime and to stop people profiting from crime. Hon Helen Hodgson referred to legal assistance for serious criminal charges. I have an agreement with the Legal Aid Commission by which we are dealing with Dietrich applications in a different way from previously. This is simpler, easier to handle and does not interfere with court time. The agreement will be enshrined in the Legal Aid Commission amendment Bill, which is still under consideration by certain people. Also, that Bill will contain the capacity for Legal Aid, when it grants Dietrich-style legal aid, to have access to frozen assets. That may not make a big difference in the end. If a person’s assets are confiscated, that aid will come from the money otherwise available to the State. It is important to point out that if the assets are released, the State has had access to the person’s assets; therefore, it is not a charge on the State to provide the defence of the case. We thought it was better to address that matter in the Legal Aid Commission Act rather than in this Bill. Hon Nick Griffiths suggested that the timing of this legislation is political. The timing of this measure is the result of at least five years of hard slog. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Timing for you is always political. You are the most political Attorney General in this State’s history. Hon PETER FOSS: I find it gratifying that Hon Nick Griffiths always attributes to me a degree of strategy and planning for things that happen by accident. I would have been delighted to introduce the legislation two or four years ago. It is extremely difficult legislation. As Hon Nick Griffiths pointed out, the New South Wales legislation leads Australia in this area. For a while people were not sure whether the Victorian or the New South Wales measure would be better. A leapfrogging appears to have occurred along the way and the Victorian legislation has not enjoyed the success of the New South Wales legislation. We were for a while contemplating applying a gloss to the New South Wales legislation to speed up the process, rather than conducting a complete write from scratch. We thought of adapting the New South Wales legislation to Western Australia. Discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions and his officers indicated that this process would not achieve balanced and well-drafted legislation that hung together.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3639

We abandoned that as a means of getting legislation before Parliament faster, and we undertook a thorough drafting of the legislation. The Bill has two parts. It has the conviction-based part and the non-conviction-based part, which is equivalent to the Australian Taxation Office’s unexplained wealth provisions. That explains to Hon Nick Griffiths the reasons for the differences from the New South Wales Act. Had we intended to merely grafted our measure from the New South Wales Act, we would have done so. In discussion with the state and federal authorities, our Director of Public Prosecutions - mainly the previous DPP - came to the view that it would be better not to allow the gaps to show up in the process. The difficulty is that all legislation involving criminals is regularly examined in court. Confiscation legislation gets the most thorough scrutiny of all. The money at risk is great. The people involved have enormous quantities of money, and may lose enormous quantities of money; therefore, they are prepared to spend enormous quantities of money to probe and test the law. Hon Helen Hodgson asked: How will they challenge it when the money will be frozen? I tell the member that money appears from nowhere to assist people involved in the drug trafficking trade. It is extraordinary how a person charged with a major drug matter suddenly receives a vast amount of legal assistance from the eastern States. Queen’s counsel assistance is provided. It appears miraculously for people who have no assets. We have a double problem: People have assets which they cannot explain, and people suddenly have assets which they did not have prior to the matter reaching court. We are dealing with a hydra in this respect. I do not suggest it will stop people pursuing the profits of crime. If it does not stop them, at least they will not enjoy them. The New South Wales measure has been self-funding. The confiscated money has come back into the system to fund investigations, which must be of a high calibre. They require accountants, lawyers and other people with considerable professional skill to track these matters. It will not be an amateur operation; nor, I hasten to add, is it an amateur operation now. The Director of Public Prosecutions has officers with considerable skills working under far less effective legislation. In time the measures will be self-funding and self-expanding. Based on the New South Wales experience, money will be left over in substantial amounts to deal with some of the very important social issues involved, as well as the policing issues. I thank members for their contributions. It was a thoughtful debate and useful contributions were made by everybody who spoke. When the legislation is reviewed, each of the speeches made by members in this debate will be helpful to those trying to understand Parliament’s intent. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION BILL 2000 Second Reading - Division Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (25) Hon Kim Chance Hon Peter Foss Hon M.D. Nixon Hon Bob Thomas Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon M.J. Criddle Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ken Travers Hon Dexter Davies Hon Ray Halligan Hon B.M. Scott Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller) Hon E.R.J. Dermer Hon Tom Helm Hon Greg Smith Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon Barry House Hon Tom Stephens Hon Max Evans Hon N.F. Moore Hon W.N. Stretch Noes (5) Hon Helen Hodgson Hon J.A. Scott Hon Giz Watson Hon Christine Sharp (Teller) Hon Norm Kelly Question thus passed. Bill read a second time. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000 Second Reading - Division Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (25) Hon Kim Chance Hon Peter Foss Hon M.D. Nixon Hon Bob Thomas Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon M.J. Criddle Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ken Travers Hon Dexter Davies Hon Ray Halligan Hon B.M. Scott Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller) Hon E.R.J. Dermer Hon Tom Helm Hon Greg Smith Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon Barry House Hon Tom Stephens Hon Max Evans Hon N.F. Moore Hon W.N. Stretch

3640 [COUNCIL]

Noes (5)

Hon Helen Hodgson Hon J.A. Scott Hon Giz Watson Hon Christine Sharp (Teller) Hon Norm Kelly Question thus passed. Bill read a second time. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION BILL 2000 Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 put and passed. Clause 5: Application of Act to confiscable property - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I have a problem with this clause because, as I read it, it places no time limit on when a property that has been acquired can be taken into account. That property may have been acquired 20 or 30 years ago. As I indicated yesterday, the burden of proof may be very difficult, even to the civil standard. The precedents that I have been able to uncover make it clear that the burden of proof is on the person who is trying to disprove the assessment. That is particularly enforced in this Bill, because the onus of proof continually reverts to the person who is the subject of the confiscation order. Civil law generally has a statute of limitations of six years, and other jurisdictions with similar legislation have a limit of between six and 10 years for these offences. Why has no time limit been placed on the acquisition of property under this Bill? It will make it extremely difficult for people to prove their case. Hon PETER FOSS: I know this is a slightly different matter, but there is no limitation period on the recovery of stolen property. If stolen property is recovered, it does not matter for how long the person has had that stolen property. Hon Helen Hodgson interjected. Hon PETER FOSS: That is exactly the rule that does that. I will give a further example which is quite interesting: If a person who lives in Western Australia had property of this nature which should be available to be seized but which was overseas, the only way we could access that property under this Bill would be if that person spent in Western Australia the money that he had derived from that property. Therefore, the Christopher Skases of this world are unlikely to be caught by this Bill. If a person had received a large quantity of money in fraudulent circumstances and had secreted that money overseas, and if that person’s acquisition of that money went back a considerable time, we could not get at that money until such time as that person brought it back into Western Australia. Therefore, it is fairly important that on every occasion that property is brought into Western Australia we have the capacity to make an application for an unexplained wealth declaration. The difficulty is that if a time limit were placed on this matter, it would be easy for a person to stash the money away for six years - the person might actually be in jail during that time - and after six years bring it back into the State, and Bob’s your uncle. From a practical point of view, there must be no time limit. It is important to remember that a person may have acquired unexplained wealth years ago but we are not aware of it, and it is not until something happens to bring it to the attention of the authorities that we think, “Where did all this wealth come from?” People may have had the money, but it is not until they start to spend it that we realise they have it. They may have had the money or property stashed away somewhere, and it is not until they start to become a bit more flamboyant in their use of that money or property that we realise they have it. I remember the great train robber, Mr Biggs, who went to Brazil. He certainly managed to keep his money for a substantial time outside the reach of the British authorities, and I think he eventually spent it all. He has managed to stay in Brazil and father a child, and I understand his life in Brazil is quite pleasant. From the practical point of view, there is no alternative. Clause put and passed. Clauses 6 and 7 put and passed. Clause 8: Drug trafficker’s property - Hon HELEN HODGSON: Subclauses (1) and (2) relate to the property of a person who has been declared a drug trafficker. My concern is that on my reading of this Bill, it appears that if a person is a drug trafficker, all the property that he owns is confiscated even if he can show that it has been acquired lawfully. We may have a situation where a spouse has been working and property has been acquired through the earnings of that spouse, or a person has inherited a property and it can be shown clearly that there is no connection between the unlawful activities of the declared drug trafficker and that inheritance, yet that property is still liable to confiscation. If this is meant to be a criminal penalty for a drug trafficker as punishment for that person’s offence, why is it included in this confiscation regime? Is it not more appropriate for it to be a penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act or the Criminal Code? It seems to me that this regime is incorporating an element of punishment as opposed to confiscation, and I am not sure this is the right Bill under which that should occur. Hon PETER FOSS: It applies only to property that the drug trafficker owns, not property that the defendant may own.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3641

Hon Helen Hodgson: What about joint property? Hon PETER FOSS: That would be caught. One of the things we looked at was the situation in which assets have been acquired using that person’s unexplained wealth, because quite a lot of these assets would be derived from that unexplained wealth. In respect of crime-derived property and crime-used property, that has been allowed for, but it has not been allowed for in the case of drug traffickers. It is similar to the situation that used to exist for felonies, when there was a forfeiture of property and all property was lost irrespective of the basis upon which it had been acquired. The member is right. This is one of the matters that is conviction-based, and it is as a result of a declaration by the court relating to a conviction. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Am I correct that there is an element of punishment as opposed to only confiscation of illegal proceeds? By taking away lawfully acquired properties we are increasing the criminal penalty on the person. Hon PETER FOSS: It is a consequence of the criminal penalty on that person, and it is a civil consequence, similar to the civil consequence that used to follow when a person was convicted of a felony in that his or her property was forfeited. That is exactly what happens in this case. It has an effect on the person’s civil right to property. It is similar to the situation that used to exist for a felony. Clause put and passed. Clauses 9 to 32 put and passed. Clause 33: Seizure of crime-used or crime-derived property - Hon HELEN HODGSON: This clause deals with the power of the police to seize property. It is my understanding that a police officer may seize any property, and there is no requirement for a warrant or any other form of application to a higher authority prior to seizing that property. The clause refers to “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that the property is crime used or crime derived. I have serious reservations about extending police powers once again. Greater safeguards should be in place to ensure that the powers given to the police are vetted and authorised. Because of my other parliamentary duties, members of this Chamber have spent more time than I have looking into these matters. However, it is not unknown for police officers to act improperly for whatever reasons they may have for doing so. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Oh! Hon HELEN HODGSON: I note Hon Derrick Tomlinson is absolutely aghast at that suggestion! However, it is an aspect of which members must be aware. Although the vast majority of police officers will use this power appropriately, it is possible that it will be abused. I have serious reservations about the fact that in many pieces of legislation we are now extending police powers without appropriate guidelines and without appropriate oversight by judicial authorities. To give the police power to seize property on reasonable grounds initiates the whole process of trying to recover that property. To do that, the police must enter into the whole parameter of this legislation; that extension of power is unwarranted. Hon PETER FOSS: I first draw the member’s attention to the fact that the property can be seized for only 72 hours before the court process must start. The capacity to seize crime-used property already exists. However, not only does this Bill allow the police to seize it, which they can do anyway, but also it becomes the first step in the process of forfeiture. Limited rights under the Misuse of Drugs Act can be used to seize crime-derived property and I agree that this Bill considerably extends that right. The member is correct that the ability to seize property that is potentially the property of a drug trafficker is an extension of power. However, it is for only 72 hours and if it extends beyond that time, the other procedures in the Bill must be followed. Clause put and passed. Clause 34: Issue of freezing notices - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I referred to an issue about this clause in my contribution to the second reading debate; that is, whether it is appropriate for a justice of the peace to be responsible for the issue of a freezing notice. Clearly, significant consequences flow from the initial issuing of a freezing notice - for example, automatic confiscation after 28 days if no objection is filed. These ramifications mean that justices of the peace will be placed in a very invidious position when dealing with these applications and may not be appropriately qualified to handle them. I refer to issues that I have come up against in work done on restraining orders and the training of JPs. Will JPs receive adequate training so that they will know the limit of their powers and in what circumstances the freezing notices may be issued? How many applications does the Attorney expect in areas with no magistrate? Although I recognise the Bill provides for a statewide regime, I anticipate most of the notices will be issued in areas where a magistrate is available to issue these orders. Is this clause necessary to have the proposed Act administered efficiently, or will JPs find it an extra onerous duty which has huge responsibilities attached to it but which are never required to be exercised?

3642 [COUNCIL]

Hon PETER FOSS: Hon Helen Hodgson has touched on a subject close to my heart; that is, the role of JPs and their training in Western Australia. Since we introduced the requirement for all JPs to undertake a JP training course, the JPs who attend that course are appropriately qualified for the duties we have already put upon them. I have carried out a rigorous examination of the activities of JPs to get an idea of the real number in the State who are carrying out those duties so that I can determine the training required, work out rosters and consider the appointment of new JPs. The historical data we have is reliable only insofar as it states who is on the JP list, but it does not indicate who is doing hard work. I want to ensure that we have a sufficient, well-trained group of JPs. They do a fantastic job and I do not believe they should be in the justice system purely to save money. I believe they are a vital part of community involvement in justice. I have therefore tried to enhance and improve the role of JPs; however, I recognise that with that comes a need to train them. Regular training courses take place when there are changes made to the law, and I will review those courses when I have a better handle on the number of JPs we have and who needs to participate in them. I would not for one moment suggest that it is a wieldy group. Large numbers of them are spread across the State. There is a very keen core who do most of the work and who are keen to keep up with the law and keep themselves properly trained. I will be giving assistance to those JPs on the implementation of this Bill - what are their duties, what they need to know and the aspects about which they must be satisfied. I express confidence in that task, bearing in mind the limitations of dealing with a rather large and unwieldy group of people. However, given that the system is a good system and given that any good system has limitations, I believe we can do it. Hon HELEN HODGSON: The Attorney General has not addressed one issue; that is, the numbers of applications that would be made outside areas that have a magistrate on duty. I know the Attorney will say that it is an unknown quantity because it is new legislation. However, I understand a magistrate is usually on call if these matters arise in the metropolitan area and other judicial districts. Does the Attorney General expect many of these cases to arise in areas that are so remote that a magistrate would not be available? Hon PETER FOSS: I am not aware that magistrates are always on call in the metropolitan area. There is a duty magistrate for telephone restraining orders. Hon Helen Hodgson probably knows they have been a total failure, mainly due to the police processes that have been put in front of them. However, I do not know whether the cases will occur in the city. I imagine a lot would occur in the city during the day. One could very well go to a magistrate rather than a JP. I would be happy to investigate with the Commissioner of Police some form of internal instruction advising the police to use a magistrate where possible rather than a JP. However, one of the problems in this State is making laws that are not applicable in many parts of this State. The classic example was the Bail Act, in which there was a difference between what happened in the metropolitan area and the rest of Western Australia. We should more frequently recognise the limitations on how we do things not only in the remote areas of this State but also in the country areas. There may be a magistrate for an area who services it by regularly travelling around it but it can be a month between visits. It would, therefore, not be practical to do that. However, I am happy to explore that matter with the Minister for Police. I am certainly happy to look more frequently at the processes we have in and out of the metropolitan area, and having got Parliament to accept that once, it might be something we can look at on a regular basis. Hon HELEN HODGSON: In that case, I hope I am not missing an interconnection with something else. This clause refers to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions or a police officer may apply to a justice of the peace. It does not refer to a justice of the peace or a magistrate. Does that mean that magistrates are always justices of the peace? I believe usually they are. Hon Peter Foss: They are ex officio. Hon HELEN HODGSON: They are ex officio; therefore, an internal instruction could be issued that the JP should be a magistrate. Clause put and passed. Clauses 35 to 44 put and passed. Clause 45: Scope of freezing orders - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I particularly refer to clause 45(e), which states - (e) provide for meeting the reasonable living and business expenses of the owner of the property. During the second reading debate I went into some detail about living expenses, and the Attorney General has responded to that. However, my question relates to the living expenses of a dependant. Does that come under clause 45(e), or would separate provision have to be made? Why are they not specifically provided for in that clause? Hon PETER FOSS: I must confess that this clause does not lend itself to having those words added. It would be appropriate to say at this stage that I believe if that person about whom we are talking has responsibilities for dependants, it would be appropriate within that term to interpret that the living expenses of that person include the expenses for which they are responsible for people who are dependent upon them.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3643

Clause put and passed. Clauses 46 to 60 put and passed. Clause 61: Complying with examination orders - Hon HELEN HODGSON: This clause imposes some very hefty fines if a person fails to comply with an examination order - a fine of $100 000 or five years’ imprisonment. This is a bit of a myth that I would like to dispel. We keep talking about the Mr Bigs and the massive profits, but this legislation is not limited to those people. We could be talking about a relatively minor offence, to which a fine of $100 000 is attached, when the property in question may be worth only a fraction of that. If a person contravenes an examination order or the examiner’s requirements, he commits an offence, he is subject to penalties, an objection has no effect, and he is not entitled to file an objection. Is any flexibility provided there? If, for example, an order is served and the person is unable to attend for some reason, how would the court processes apply to ensure that the person is able to respond and have an alternative time or date set so that he or she does not inadvertently commit an offence, to which this massive potential penalty is attached? Hon PETER FOSS: The member is right in saying that this clause applies to all offences and not just to the Mr Bigs, although certain areas of this legislation are very unlikely to be used unless a substantial amount of money is involved because it would not be sensible for the State to expend vast quantities of money chasing small quantities of money. For instance, there will be confiscable property, whether it has been used for an offence or it is crime derived. As the member knows, the court has discretion. I am sure that if the member is able to see the distinction between a Mr Big, from whom we might be chasing $50m worth of property, and a person who has a small holiday house, and that is all he has, she will see that the ability of the court to decide what the penalty should be is obviously a discretion it has. I am sure the court would see the same sorts of distinctions as the member sees. It is the same as with any matter before the court. If a person is served with a witness summons, for instance, it says, “Turn up”, but if the person cannot turn up on that particular date, he has an obligation to have somebody ask the court to provide an extension of time and to excuse him. If the court believes the person has a genuine excuse, it will usually allow for a change, but if it does not believe what is said, it will deal with the matter accordingly. The legislation contains nothing that deals with those alternatives, in the same way that there is nothing in the legislation relating to the issuing of witnesses’ summonses. The court is able to deal with that issue, and I see no reason for the examiner to not exercise the judicial functions in the same way, and to accord natural justice to people who have no capacity to comply with the order. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I also want to place on record my fundamental concerns about clause 61(5)(a) and (6). These two subclauses completely override existing legal practice and legal rights; that is, legal professional privilege and the right to not incriminate oneself. We think these are two fundamental problems with this legislation. Clause put and passed. Clauses 62 to 81 put and passed. Clause 82: Release of crime-used property - Hon HELEN HODGSON: This clause permits the release of crime-used property. I note that it relates to only crime- used property and not to crime-derived property. This is one of the clauses dealing with third party rights - I probably should say it fails to deal with third party rights - in ways that are adequate. The requirements of subclause (3), for example, are cumulative, so a person must be a spouse or dependant; be innocent or less than 18 years old; be usually resident at the time the confiscation offence was committed; be usually resident at the time the objection was filed; have no other residence; suffer undue hardship; and it must not practicable to make adequate provision for the objector by some other means. Those requirements will eliminate a vast number of people before there can be any sort of consideration under the release of crime-used property provision. For example, under subclause (3)(d) - “usually resident on the property at the time the objection was filed” - if a freezing notice has been placed on the property, what happens? Is the person allowed to continue to live on the property? If he is not allowed to continue to live there, how could he possibly comply? If he is still living on that property, has a guard been put on the property; in which case would the person want to continue living there or would he want to go and live at nanna’s? If the person is living at nanna’s, he no longer meets the requirement of being usually resident at the time the objection was lodged. I can see that there will be many difficulties in a dependant being able to fulfil those requirements, particularly when we look at paragraph (g). If a person has a nanna with a spare room, does that mean that that is adequate provision by some other means, which will prevent the person from getting any relief under this provision? This is woefully inadequate for the provision for dependants; it is, in essence, punishing the family for the sins of the person who has committed the offence. The ultimate effect of this legislation is that it will put the burden of maintaining these people back on the State in the short or the long term, which is a cost to the public that could well outweigh the benefits of having such a strict provision in the legislation. Hon PETER FOSS: The effect of the freezing order is to freeze the property, not to freeze the physical use of that property by those people. The whole idea of this provision is to allow for the unusual case in which the freezing order should be set aside because one can show all these things, in particular that the person is living there. If the person is

3644 [COUNCIL] not living there, there is little point setting it aside. The alternative provisions that could be made are to give people, for instance, a life tenancy or a long lease of the property to guarantee their interest in the property and their right to live in it, notwithstanding that the freezing order will continue to apply to that property. The clause is specifically for the purpose of people who currently live on the property, and lived there at the time it was frozen. That is why they ask that the order be set aside, and say they cannot be provided for by a life tenancy or a long lease. Hon HELEN HODGSON: The idea of a life tenancy or long lease had not been brought to my attention before now. My understanding is that when property is frozen that places an obligation on the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Public Trustee or the Commissioner of Police to maintain and look after that property. How is that consistent with the idea of a life tenancy or a long lease of the property? Hon PETER FOSS: There are two different issues, but I certainly do not think they are inconsistent. If I wanted to maintain a residential property, I would prefer that it not be empty. Anybody who has seen a property which has been left empty for any period of time will know that it is not merely the difficulty of maintaining the property, but also that it loses the feeling of inhabitation. I do not know what it is about a place that has not been lived in, but it is pretty obvious when it occurs. It is not merely a matter of the dust on the shelves or the garden being overgrown; it is that a house that is lived in has a totally different feel from one that is not. Having tenants in the property is in no way inconsistent with that, but I do not think they are two sides of the same coin. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I was thinking more of matters like maintenance, payment of rates and those sorts of practical issues. Effectively, will the State, in the form of the DPP or the Public Trustee, pick up those charges to provide for the dependants when it is their usual residence and a life tenancy or lease has been granted? Hon PETER FOSS: Generally speaking, a life tenant is responsible for those charges. In a tenancy, the conditions upon which people stay in a property are normally determined in the lease. If people were to remain in the property, one would expect them to meet those normal outgoings. That would be useful from the point of view of the DPP, rather than it being necessary to find somebody else to do it. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Clause 82(4) deals with other third parties. It looks as though it is designed to deal with joint and co-owners. I am very concerned about the extent to which an innocent business partner, for example, may be caught up in the confiscation processes. Is it likely that if a business premises were involved with a third party, the other business proprietors would be allowed to continue to manage the business, particularly in light of the provisions later in the Bill which deal with the DPP and the Public Trustee taking an interest in the maintenance of the property? Hon PETER FOSS: I do not think one can lay down any rule other than the rule in the clause. I see no reason that that could not occur. I can also think of possible cases when it could not occur. I do not rule that out as a logical inconsistency, but I do not think one can answer except with the facts. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I would not dare suggest that a property would not be managed properly under the auspices of the DPP or the Public Trustee, but I see the possibility of property losing its value. Depreciating property may have been sold rather than held. This could have a real impact on a third party. Are there any provisions for third parties to receive compensation if they can prove that they genuinely had no role in the offence that gave rise to the freezing notice? Will they get back their share of the money which may come from the profits and potential sale of a business? If the property is devalued as a result of a freezing order, will they have any claim for compensation for the amount by which their equity has been reduced? Hon PETER FOSS: Subclause (4) allows them to get the property back because they can have the freezing order removed. Subclause (5) is virtually like a form of receivership or sequestration in that their interest is realised and they receive it. That may necessarily carry with it the reduced value of having to sell it as opposed to its being an ongoing business, but I believe it is inherent in that clause that if it is sold it is sold for its value. People will get their proportion of that value, not the value as a continuing business but as a business that has been sold. The member asked what were the responsibilities of the DPP or Public Trustee. To a large extent they are not defined in the Bill, and that would be controlled by the general law. In particular, I do not think the Bill deals with the question of waste because there is no reference to waste in the Bill. Clause put and passed. Clause 83: Release of crime-derived property - Hon HELEN HODGSON: The last clause dealt with crime-used property and this clause deals with crime-derived property. The provisions in this clause for third parties are even more restrictive. There is no equivalent of subclause (3) which deals with dependants and family members. I would like the Government to state on the record why it does not think it appropriate for family members and dependants to have any rights to object in respect of crime-derived property? Hon PETER FOSS: It is very simple; crime-used property could very well be property that was properly gained without any involvement of crime and that somebody then decided to use. I see no argument for people being able to use something that has been derived from crime. Had there been no crime, they would not have it in the first place. It

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3645 is a very unworthy argument for someone to ask for his house back when he would not have had the house had the crime not been committed. Nobody is entitled to ask for his house back, if that house has been derived from the proceeds of crime. Hon HELEN HODGSON: My concern is for the dependants to have income, support and shelter during the time the freezing order is in place. Shifting responsibility for maintenance from the person who owns the property to the State is an inevitable consequence of these provisions. The provisions are excessive and draconian, and will end up hurting the innocent victims of crime, who in this case are the family of the person who is the subject of the necessary freezing order. The Government’s attitude is short-sighted, because this is a cost-shifting exercise rather than one that will do anything to aid the general public. Hon PETER FOSS: Most of these matters are dealt with under part 7, in which the responsibilities, rights and duties of the various people involved are set out. I return to my earlier point that the property is not totally incapable of use while frozen. Sitting suspended from 1.01 to 2.00 pm Clause put and passed. Clauses 84 to 86 put and passed. Clause 87: Orders to release confiscated property - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I find clause 87 to be a little anomalous. Clauses 82 and 83 deal with the freezing notice and the freezing order, and the confiscated property is a third step along the chain. The provisions to allow the release of that property are slightly easier to satisfy than are clauses 82 and 83. Why is that the case? For example, with the release of the objector’s share of the property, one need not meet all the requirements. One can get further release without meeting the final requirements. Provision is made by which one can be paid out for the proportion of the property. Why is it handled differently in that situation? Hon PETER FOSS: We are not sure that they are different. Maybe the member’s comments relate to the situation that applied before the other provision was amended. Clause put and passed. Clauses 88 to 101 put and passed. Clause 102: Proceedings - Hon HELEN HODGSON: This provision relates to a briefing I had earlier this week about the issue of costs. I was informed that as it is a civil proceeding, the Director of Public Prosecutions will be liable for such costs if an action failed. I want it clarified on the record that when the DPP does not succeed in a matter, costs can be awarded against the DPP. What is the basis for that situation? Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. As it is civil proceedings, the ordinary rules apply. A provision against the awarding of costs applies only in criminal proceedings. Clause put and passed. Clauses 103 to 130 put and passed. Clause 131: Payments into and out of the Confiscation Proceeds Account - Hon GIZ WATSON: As I said in the second reading debate, I am concerned that the payments out of the account are solely at the direction of the Attorney General as a reimbursement or otherwise. It then lists a range of purposes to which that money can be directed, including any other purpose in aid of law enforcement. I have concern, first, about a healthy slush fund for the Attorney General. Second, if this Bill supposedly deals with drug-related activities, it should say something about money being paid out to deal with the health aspects rather than only the law enforcement aspects of drugs. The emphasis does not address the underlying health issues. I have some serious concerns about how this money will be allocated. Hon PETER FOSS: The clause covers the health aspect. Clause 131(2) reads - Money can be paid out of the Confiscation Proceeds Account . . . (b) for the development and administration of programmes or activities designed to prevent or reduce . . . the abuse of prohibited drugs; That would definitely include health programs to prevent drug abuse. It refers to medical-type programs. Hon GIZ WATSON: Is it intended that some of the money in this account would be directed in that way? Hon PETER FOSS: Very much so. Clause put and passed.

3646 [COUNCIL]

Clauses 132 to 138 put and passed. Clause 139: Legal professional privilege withdrawn - Hon HELEN HODGSON: The withdrawal of legal professional privilege has been brought to my attention by a number of legal practitioners and other people. It has some serious implications. Although I can understand that the Attorney General may wish to remove legal professional privilege in the confiscation processes, the problem is that the documents and information could become available in the course of the criminal action that may follow the confiscation proceedings. Given that all this can happen within 28 days, it is likely that the criminal processes will follow the confiscation proceedings. I would be very concerned if the withdrawal of legal professional privilege could make further information available to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the prosecution of the criminal offence. We should not allow that to happen. Hon PETER FOSS: It depends what the member is talking about. Generally, legal professional privilege does not attach to criminal activities. A legal activity cannot be concealed by someone trying to hide it under a lawyer’s advice. For instance if a lawyer’s advice related to disposal of criminal assets, it would not be legally protected, nor, I suspect, would the person remain a lawyer for a long period. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Why does the Attorney General believe it is necessary to remove legal professional privilege in these cases? Hon PETER FOSS: For reasons of clarity. Clause put and passed. Clause 140: Regulations - Hon HELEN HODGSON: With regard to what the regulations may do, subclause (2)(f) reads - authorise persons or persons in a class of persons to carry out any or all of the functions of a police officer under this Act. What “class of persons” does the Attorney General envisage being given these powers? I would be concerned if an untrained security officer were given the power to confiscate property. I am sure the Bill is not intended to go that far; it will be useful to have on the record a statement of the Government’s intention. Hon PETER FOSS: Interstate police officers and officers of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the National Crime Authority can be potentially authorised under the Bill. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Is the Attorney General referring to other law enforcement officers who are not sworn police officers under the operations of this State’s Police Act? Hon PETER FOSS: That is the intent. Clause put and passed. Clause 141: Confiscation offences - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I think this has been clarified, but I would like it on the record. Subclause (1)(a) reads - an offence against a law in force anywhere in Australia that is punishable by imprisonment for 2 years or more; Often these offences can be either a summary offence or an indictable offence. Is this intended to include an offence that is dealt with in a summary jurisdiction, but which may have a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment? Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. That is specifically dealt with under subclause (2). Clause put and passed. Clauses 142 to 156 put and passed. Clause 157: Conviction of a confiscation offence - Hon HELEN HODGSON: Subclause (1)(b) in relation to someone who is taken to have been convicted of a confiscation offence reads - the person has been charged with and found guilty of a confiscation offence, but is charged without conviction; In other words, the court may say that although a person is technically guilty of an offence, for some reason it will not record a conviction, but it can still confiscate all of the person’s property. What is the justification for that? Hon PETER FOSS: This legislation does not want to trammel the mercy of the court in criminal matters by also making a consequence of that mercy a person’s being discharged freely of the civil consequences of his act. We must bear in mind the basis for this, which is a well-known common law civil matter; that is, the civil consequences of a matter follow from the delict, not from the conviction. Clause put and passed.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3647

Clause 158: Charges for an offence - Hon HELEN HODGSON: A person is taken to have been charged with an offence if a complaint has been made against the person for the offence, whether or not a summons or a warrant has been issued. Once again, it appears that someone may be taken to have been charged with an offence, and this legislation will kick in before the criminal action commences. Why is that? Hon PETER FOSS: It will not commence the criminal proceedings. It will commence the process as far as the civil consequences are concerned. For instance, if a person absconds before a complaint or a warrant can be issued, that process will be in place to apply as soon as the complaint is made. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Is it a stopgap? Usually, these proceedings do not commence unless there is a warrant or summons, but if, for a technical reason, they cannot be issued, will this clause apply? Hon PETER FOSS: No; it is a timing matter. It will not start the proceedings. The proceedings will proceed in the normal way. Certain matters are based on the fact that somebody has been charged with an offence. This clause will fix that point in time which must be determined as the time a person has been charged with an offence. If a person is to be charged with an offence, the criminal law covering charges and offences will deal with the criminal proceedings, but for the civil proceedings under this legislation, that point of time is established by this clause. Clause put and passed. Clauses 159 to 161 put and passed. Title put and passed. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000 Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General) in charge of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the Bill stand as printed. Question put and passed. As to Report Hon PETER FOSS: I move - That the Bill be reported to the House. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I apologise for the lateness of this interruption. The glossary at the end of the principal Bill is referred to in clause 3 of the principal Bill. Was the glossary adopted when clause 3 was passed, or should that occur before the Committee concludes? The CHAIRMAN: The glossary does not form part of the Bill, therefore it is not necessary for us to formally adopt it. Hon PETER FOSS: I think it is intended to form part of the Bill and be used in its interpretation. It will have statutory effect; it is not like a heading, a marginal note or an index. It is part of the Bill. Sometimes with drawings and things of that nature we assume they are incorporated in the section that incorporates them. I am not sure how this should be dealt with. The CHAIRMAN: I have received advice that it is not necessary for us to formally adopt it. However, if the Attorney General thinks it is necessary, the correct form to follow is to recommit the principal Bill at this stage, because we have gone beyond the glossary. Question put and passed; Bill reported.

CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION BILL 2000 As to Report Bill reported, without amendment. Recommittal On motion by Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General), resolved - That the Criminal Property Confiscation Bill 2000 be recommitted for the purpose of considering the glossary. Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General) in charge of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN: In considering Bill 145-2E, the question is that the glossary be agreed to. Question put and passed.

3648 [COUNCIL]

CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION BILL 2000 CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000 Report Reports of Committees adopted. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION BILL 2000 Third Reading HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan - Attorney General) [2.23 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. HON HELEN HODGSON (North Metropolitan) [2.23 pm]: I thank the Attorney General for his patience in answering the questions I raised. I knew the answer to many of those questions, but it was important to place those questions on record because they might at some stage be used to interpret the provisions of this Bill. Although the detail of this Bill supports the policy of the Bill, as we have said earlier, we do not agree with the policy of the Bill; therefore, the Australian Democrats will once again vote against the Bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and passed. CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000 Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General), and passed. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Extended beyond 6.00 pm Thursday HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [2.24 pm]: I move - That the House sit beyond 6.00 pm. This is simply a precautionary measure in case the House needs to sit beyond 6.00 pm. Question put and passed. TRUSTEE LEGISLATION (GST CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 14 November. HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan) [2.25 pm]: This legislation has the support of the Australian Labor Party. This Bill will enable the Public Trustee and trustee companies to deal properly with the effects of the ghastly goods and services tax. Once again, the effects of the GST inflicted upon the Australian community by the Australian Democrats and its friend the Liberal Party need to be mitigated. The policy of the Bill is clear. I do not believe it is necessary to add to the comments made by the minister in the second reading speech. HON HELEN HODGSON (North Metropolitan) [2.26 pm]: Before I consider this Bill, I need to declare that I have a financial interest in this matter, which is disclosed in the members’ disclosure of interests, because one of the trusts under consideration is a trust which manages my investments. I put that firmly on record so that at no future date can any spokesperson for accountability or media person make any comment on the matter. This Bill is fairly non-controversial. The scheme of the GST is that the cost is ultimately borne by the consumer. This Bill will amend the statutory provisions to ensure that certain trusts and investment vehicles that are governed by this legislation have the ability to pass on the GST in their schedules of fees and considerations. Having made those comments, we support the Bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, proceeded through remaining stages without debate, and passed. WOOD PROCESSING (WESFI) AGREEMENT BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 16 November. HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan) [2.28 pm]: The Australian Labor Party supports this Bill, which ratifies and authorises the implementation of an agreement between the State and WESFI Ltd for the supply of plantation softwood for the manufacture of wood-based panel products. I note what the minister said in his second reading speech, and I may go over some of that ground, but these are important matters because the Bill deals with a number of areas of

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3649 significance to this State. WESFI Ltd is a significant contributor to the wellbeing of the State of Western Australia. It is a manufacturer of particle board at Dardanup, and of medium-density fibreboard at Welshpool. It has an interest in a pine log sawmill and a wood adhesive manufacturing plant at Dardanup. The agreement in this Bill will ensure the supply of softwood in state owned or managed plantations for 25 years. The security that the legislation will provide to WESFI will allow it to operate and expand its operations. WESFI is involved in taking thinnings. Thinnings provide a basis for those trees that are left to grow. WESFI will provide a market for the thinnings. That market will encourage the good practice of thinning the plantation forest; that is good for the growth of the forest and good for the State because it will have a market for that product. The thinnings used are plantation timber. About 20 per cent of the product that emerges is used in Western Australia and I am advised that 10 per cent to 20 per cent is exported overseas and the balance to the eastern States. Apart from the significant encouragement to the State in developing plantation timber, the processes that WESFI engages in have many significant environmental impacts, not the least of which is that 20 per cent of Westrail’s general freight is provided as a result of the activities of WESFI - Hon Norm Kelly: That is general freight. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: That is right, general freight, not all freight. Hon Norm Kelly: No, general freight east-west. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Yes, I had not completed my sentence. I am obliged to Hon Norm Kelly for interrupting my sentence. Those figures relate to freight going from Western Australia to the eastern States, which is a very significant contribution to the operations of our rail system. About 775 Australians are employed by WESFI in Western Australia: 350 in manufacturing and 150 in distribution and selling. The Bill has many worthwhile aspects, not the least of which is the reference - albeit in the preamble to the agreement on page 5 of the Bill - to the company joining with the State by contributing a minimum of $1m per annum for the creation and management of softwood plantations. This Bill is important because it relates to jobs, to the use of softwood rather than old-growth forests, to value adding and to providing a market for the thinnings, which is good for the health of plantation forests. It encourages the growth of plantations, which is relevant to the minimisation of salination and in fact encourages a capacity to deal in part with the salinity problems facing this State. The thinnings process encourages the production of sawlogs. The Bill encourages a worthwhile enterprise, conservation and the creation of wealth. For those reasons the Australian Labor Party is very pleased to support it. HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [2.35 pm]: The Australian Democrats will also be supporting this Bill. As a party we made our feelings clear on a previous occasion in regard to the use of state agreement Acts in these matters; I will not go through them again on this occasion. Clause 7 of the schedule relates to the maintenance of public roads. It states that the State shall maintain roads which are under the control of either Main Roads or local government so that they can be maintained to a standard similar to comparable public roads. On this basis, deterioration caused by the traffic generated by this WESFI agreement will be paid so that the State can bring the roads back to an adequate standard of repair. The clause includes local government roads. I am not sure how the State Government will reimburse local government to provide for the upkeep of such roads. However, road deterioration remains a problem with plantation estates in this State. In recent years the Shire of Plantagenet has had a significant increase in traffic when new plantations are harvested. That traffic will continue to increase and will impact heavily on the shire’s roads. However, it will have the benefit of such production being transported out of the shire to the City of Albany and surrounding areas where the woodchip mill will be located. The shire is understandably concerned about the additional costs it will incur. However, there are benefits to be had from this industry and it is interesting to note that the Bill provides some form of coverage for local government. Questions were asked in the other place about this clause and the standards of the roads, and they remain unanswered. I am unsure whether they will be answered by the minister in this place. I expect I will be offered a briefing later if I want more detail about that. As I said, the Australian Democrats will be supporting the Bill. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [2.38 pm]: I have had little time to examine this Bill. In fact, I read it and the second reading speech only this morning. Since then I have tried to get more information on the implications of the detail of the legislation. I was hoping to have a little more time this afternoon before I had to speak on the Bill. One of the good aspects of this legislation that the Greens (WA) support is the continuity provided to the WESFI company and to its operations at Dardanup and Welshpool. I am pleased to see that the current level contained in the agreement is not a substantial increase on the amount of pine resource that is to be used for particle board. I take some comfort from that, but I also note that in the legislation before us an opportunity exists for the executive director - but presumably from now on the Forest Products Commission - to approve increases in the commitment of the pine resource to this company. I have some concern about that.

3650 [COUNCIL]

The other good news in this Bill is that it makes clear that we are committed to not privatising the pine plantations and the land on which they stand. This means, basically, that for the foreseeable future we will be securing our pine plantations in state ownership. I am pleased about that, but not because I have any in-principle objection to the privatisation of pine plantations. However, I have a real concern, given the extent of the plantations in the south west, particularly in the centre of the south west, that if privatisation were to take place, there would be a serious risk that this land would be sold into foreign ownership. I have serious concerns about that. I am pleased to see that the State is hanging in there and maintaining its commitment to those plantations. Nevertheless, I have some real concerns about this Bill. The first of those concerns is that I feel this legislation has been very rushed; this House has had little time to examine it and there has been no public debate about it whatsoever. I feel that is probably not accidental, because some aspects of this legislation are quite controversial. Difficulties really stem from whether or not this legislation is compatible with the objectives of national competition policy, whether this really is the best long-term use of our pine resource and, in particular, whether we are making this resource over for a long period at stumpage rates which reflect the true value of the resource. These are important matters because we are talking about a large quantity of state-owned resource, and we are talking about making it over to a company the ownership of which is linked not only to the major pine saw miller but also, of course, to the major state hardwood saw miller. I do not see much competition in all this. I see instead a kind of horizontal integration across the whole timber industry about which I have some real concerns, and I have real concerns particularly in the light of the stumpage prices for the pine resource. I note that at page 303 of the report from the Independent Commission to Review Public Sector Finances in 1993, when this Government took office, McCarrey noted the low stumpage rates for both Westpine and WESFI. It was noted that the stumpage rates that Westpine was enjoying at that stage were considerably lower - in fact it was paying about $10 a cubic metre, which was $7 lower than the equivalent logs would be sold for in the eastern States. As far as I am aware, although the royalties have certainly increased during that time, it is fairly difficult to know exactly what prices are being paid for the pine logs which go to the sister company, Westpine, and the rates that are being paid by WESFI for its so-called small logs. This is another matter about which I have some concern, because when one is paying a really low price for a resource like this there are certain ramifications. I remember, as one who lives in the area where there are a lot of radiata plantations, that when the original Dardanup Pine Log Sawmill Agreement Act 1992 was passed in this Parliament, the royalty rates included in the agreement were so low as to make it no longer economic to pay for the pine plantations to be pruned because the State was not expecting to gain enough from the final product to pay for the pruning. As a result, a lot of jobs were lost locally where I live, because employment was no longer available for pine pruners. I do not know how to find out how many hectares are necessary to grow the resource that we are dedicating under this legislation - this 350 000 cubic metres - but we are dedicating it to a very low-value product which provides very low returns to the State and few returns to our district. All this is being dedicated to a company that, as I have already said, has links right across the spectrum of our timber industry. Vexed issues have arisen about whether a stockpile of our pine has been held back to meet the commercial advantage of this comfortable arrangement between the State and WESFI and Westpine, which has been based on the other comfortable arrangement of securing long-term hardwood sawlog contracts at very low royalty rates in the jarrah forests. We really need that pine resource to replace the jarrah. We have very little jarrah left; it is becoming a scarce and high quality, precious resource. Here we are, without any scrutiny at all, simply deciding on what will happen to a large proportion of a potential replacement for that resource. That is why I do not feel entirely comfortable standing here this afternoon facing a deadline, simply saying that it is okay when I am not sure that it is okay; in fact, I have some real concerns about it. Will the minister provide answers to at least two questions? Bearing in mind the level of resource being dedicated in this agreement, what gross stumpage and base stumpage price will the company pay for the resource? Will the minister provide me with more information about whether this arrangement has been subjected to the national competition policy review? My understanding is that every Act in this jurisdiction needs to conform to the national competition policy principles. Will the minister provide some information of how this state agreement conforms and what review has taken place? The Bill that established the Forest Products Commission had a national competition policy draft review, which I read because, if members remember, the Forest Products Bill came before the Standing Committee on Ecologically Sustainable Development. The review of that Bill stated that there had been a review under the competition policy of the plantation industry owned by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I have not sighted that. The second reading speech does not refer to it. I have absolutely no information on it at all, yet very clearly this Bill contains a number of aspects which at the very least are questionable with regard to competition policy. I reiterate, I am concerned that this Bill may be anti-competitive and a misuse of the resource. No public examination has occurred of whether this is the best use of our very precious softwood resource. I question whether the return to the State through royalties is adequate for this dedication of a resource which has been in place for many years. It was originally established by taxpayers’ money through commonwealth grants. Our parents paid to establish it, in order to secure the best future for a sustainable plantation industry. I feel very uncomfortable standing in this place this afternoon with great interest, but very little information, saying that I consider this Bill is adequate to

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3651 meet the needs of the next generation for that resource. Until the minister provides answers to my questions, I am not sure whether the Greens (WA) will support the passage of this legislation. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [2.55 pm]: I thank members for their contribution to this debate. Hon Nick Griffiths, as usual, very succinctly outlined the intent of the Bill and advised the House that the Labor Party supported the legislation, as it has done in the other place, for all the very good reasons that the Bill is before the House. The Bill is to ratify an agreement Act, which will play a very significant role in the timber industry in the south west of Western Australia. Hon Norm Kelly indicated his support, but expressed a view that the Australian Democrats do not agree with state agreement Acts. I guess one of the good things about state agreement Acts is that the Democrats will never have to worry about entering into one, unless events change dramatically, which I suspect they will not. Hon Norm Kelly interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: It was an unnecessary comment on my part. I understand Hon Norm Kelly is asking how the State will reimburse local government for any roads to which the local government may contribute. I do not know, except that part of the agreement is that the Government will ensure that the roads are maintained in a proper condition. The clause provides that if the company or its contractors wish to use a public road which is inadequate for its purposes or it causes damage or deterioration, the company will pay the State an equitable part of the total cost of upgrading and repair, as determined by the Commissioner of Main Roads. The company or its contractors may be required to provide some report from the company in the event that it causes damage to the roads. However, I will provide Hon Norm Kelly with the appropriate information in due course. Hon Christine Sharp has said that this Bill is being rushed and that it is not accidental. I take exception to that. I think she has been on the telephone too long. The Bill has been in the Parliament for quite some time, and has been in this House since last Thursday. A tradition of this House is that we do not deal with a Bill for at least a week after it has been introduced, when that is possible. A couple of Bills at the end of the session occasionally do not meet that requirement. However, this Bill came into the House last Thursday and the member has had plenty of opportunity to read it. The Government always provides briefings to members. It is not correct to suggest that somehow or other the Government is rushing the legislation through. It is also nonsense to suggest that somehow or other the Government is rushing it through because it wants to avoid scrutiny. The member has these conspiracy theories from time to time. She trots them out and indicates that people are trying to do all sorts of terrible things to society, when we all have the advancement of society as our objective. The Greens (WA) continue to say that everybody is trying to ruin everything when it is simply not the case. Hon Christine Sharp asked for the gross stumpage and base stumpage price. I do not have that information with me at the moment, but I hope it will turn up in a moment. The national competition policy agreement was reviewed by the Department of Resources Development and Treasury. Their review was based on advice received from ACIL Consulting Pty Ltd, which reviewed the previous agreement. Clauses in the agreement that conflicted with national competition policy were removed or modified. I guess that means that we have looked at it from the point of view of national competition policy. Hon Christine Sharp: Will you table that? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. Hon Christine Sharp: Minister, why are you not able to table the national competition policy review? Hon N.F. MOORE: I do not have it. That is a pretty simple reason. I was about to say that had the member been as interested in this Bill as she professes to be, she might have read it when it was introduced last Thursday and then asked questions before today. Perhaps she could then have advised us that she had some problems. Had I known that she would want a copy of the national competition review now, I would have sought to get it for her. I do not have it, so I cannot give it to her. This Bill is to ratify an agreement. If the member does not like what is in the agreement, and I suspect that she does not like what is in most of these agreements, she can vote against the Bill. We are not here to decide whether the agreement should be amended. I am here to provide members with as much information as I can on the issues. If Hon Christine Sharp wishes to go into committee and ask me questions, I will have an adviser here and maybe we can then provide more specific answers. Hon Christine Sharp: Given that it would appear that I was very slow on this matter, certainly within the time frame provided, would you be able to provide me with the review for my information even though it will be too late for this debate? Hon N.F. MOORE: I represent another minister in the Government and I will need to seek his advice. If the review is available, it can be provided. I have no problems with that. However, if the member wants to deal with a number of these issues in committee, answers can be provided at that stage. I can assure her that the questions she has asked today will be answered as quickly as possible. However, it is not competent for the House to amend the agreements. State agreement Acts give the House a chance to look at the contents of these agreements and then to agree or disagree on

3652 [COUNCIL] whether the Government should enter into them. It is a process of ratification. If the member wants more details about the amendments, I am happy to try to provide them in committee. I thank those members who supported the Bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1: Short title - Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: I refer to the issues I raised during the second reading debate to which the minister has not yet provided answers. He has given some information about the competition policy review, but I am not sure whether the competition policy review was carried out by the Department of Resources Development and state Treasury in conjunction with ACIL Economics and Policy Pty Ltd consultants. The second question relates to the royalties. I understand this agreement Act will provide for a base stumpage rate and a gross stumpage rate. If they are not the correct categories, perhaps the minister will clarify the matter and indicate the rates that will be in place under the agreement. Hon N.F. MOORE: With respect to the national competition policy, I will ask the minister to provide the member with a copy of the consultants’ report. It is part of a bigger document that reviews a number of state agreement Acts, and I will ask the minister to provide the report when it has been completed. The base stumpage rate is $12.90 a cubic metre, and the gross rate is that figure plus other charges relating to roading, felling, extraction and hauling. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Is $12.90 the base figure? Hon N.F. Moore: Yes Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: What is the gross stumpage rate? Hon N.F. MOORE: The gross cost varies according to the circumstances. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Is that for such things as transport? Hon N.F. MOORE: The rate varies according to roading, felling, extraction and hauling costs. It is dependent on the circumstances and will be added to the base stumpage rate. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Can a figure be given? Hon N.F. MOORE: It varies depending on where the wood happens to be and to where it must be carted. All those variables affect the price at a particular point in time. If the member wants an in-depth analysis and briefing on this matter, I will provide it. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Yes, I do. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 to 4 put and passed. Schedule 1 put and passed. Title put and passed. Report Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted. Third Reading HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [3.07 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [3.08 pm]: I am not in a position to support this Bill, on behalf of the Greens (WA), given that the resource is grossly underpriced in this agreement. This Bill makes a long-term commitment of a very important resource, which is not only valuable in its own right, but also able to take the pressure off the state forest which has been grossly wasted and mismanaged for at least this decade. We should not sell pine logs that will be sorely needed for such a low price and dedicate 350 000 cubic metres of them per annum to the production of particle board, which is a low value product. We would support the legislation if the resource would be used as solid timber to replace jarrah in housing construction, and especially if it would be used to replace aluminium and steel, the production of which uses so much more energy which, in a greenhouse economy, will become ever more important. However, there has been no public debate about whether this is the best long-term commitment for the State to enter into. Not enough information has been circulated about the matter and there are some unresolved issues. Although I am pleased that the competition policy review has been carried out, my experience with the few competition policy

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3653 reviews I have read is that they are extremely subjective documents by and large, which only validate the particular course of action that has been predetermined. These decisions will affect jobs and land management in the district in which I live, will affect a large proportion of resources established for us by the previous generation, and will also constrain our options regarding the future of the timber industry as it moves from hardwoods in state forests to the plantation resources. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a third reading debate. Members must discuss the Bill as it has emerged from the Committee, in which I understand that no amendments were made. It is a limited debate. The member is tending to move back into the second reading debate. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: My point centred on the answers I received during the committee stage. At the third reading stage, I have not received answers to make me feel comfortable about agreeing to the legislation at this short notice on the last day of Parliament. On behalf of the Greens (WA), I will oppose the Bill at its third reading. The PRESIDENT: I put the question that the Bill be now read a third time. I think the ayes have it. Hon Christine Sharp: Divide. The PRESIDENT: I cannot divide the House unless there is more than one voice. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and passed.

ACTS AMENDMENT (EVIDENCE) BILL 1999 Assembly’s Amendment Amendment made by the Assembly now considered. Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon W.N. Stretch) in the Chair; Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General) in charge of the Bill. The amendment made by the Assembly was as follows - Clause 10, page 9, after line 18 - To insert the following subclause - (7) This section does not apply to or in respect of a copy of a document if the copy is admissible under another written law. Hon PETER FOSS: I move - That the amendment made by the Assembly be agreed to. The amendment seeks to insert a new subclause 73A(7) to clarify that the provisions of clause 73A are not intended to override any legislation that allow copies of document to be admitted as evidence in court hearings. Question put and passed; the Assembly’s amendment agreed to. Report Resolution reported, the report adopted, and a message accordingly returned to the Assembly.

GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999 Assembly’s Amendments Amendments made by the Assembly now considered. Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon W.N. Stretch) in the Chair; Hon Peter Foss (Attorney General) in charge of the Bill. The amendments made by the Assembly were as follows - No 1. Clause 18, page 9, after line 1 - To insert the following - (1) Section 119(1) is amended by deleting “parent or person who apparently has the care and control of the person presented for treatment” and inserting instead - person referred to in subsection (3) (2) After section 119(1) the following subsection is inserted -

3654 [COUNCIL]

(1a) A practitioner may provide treatment under subsection (1) without the consent of the person referred to in subsection (3) if in the opinion of the practitioner it is not practicable to obtain that consent. No 2. Clause 18, page 9, line 10 - To delete “subsection” and substitute “subsections (1) and”. Hon PETER FOSS: I move - That the amendments made by the Assembly be agreed to. The Bill had a minor amendment made by the Legislative Assembly in consideration in detail that was recommended by the Deputy President of the Guardianship and Administration Board and was supported by the Office of the Public Advocate. The Bill amends the definition of “urgent medical treatment”. However, section 119(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 maintained that in an emergency a doctor can provide treatment if a parent or person who apparently had care and control for the person consented to the treatment. This was in conflict with the common law requirement on doctors that in an emergency they can operate without consent. This amendment will allow a doctor in an emergency to provide treatment without consent if in the opinion of the practitioner it is not practical to obtain consent. I urge the Chamber to support the amendments. Question put and passed; the Assembly’s amendments agreed to. Report Resolution reported, the report adopted, and a message accordingly returned to the Assembly.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRICING AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 21 November. HON TOM STEPHENS (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [3.18 pm]: The Labor Opposition supports the legislation but recognises that it contains some gaping holes. The ability for retailers to shop around for their petrol is a key to driving petrol prices down. The Government has done nothing in this legislation to address the drafting deficiencies of the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982. I remember when the Bill came through the Parliament in November of that year during the final days of the O’Connor Government, again in response to similar realities in the marketplace as those found today. It was designed to achieve some outcomes to some extent by bluff and bluster, until a court decision of 1991 effectively neutered the Act. Unfortunately the drafting of the legislation is deficient and it cries out for amendment. It effectively leaves that Act worthless. Clearly the transparency of prices aimed at in this Bill will be useless if retailers cannot act on the information. The absence of a provision to allow retailers choice of supply is a major shortcoming of the Bill, which will seriously undermine its capacity to provide greater competition in the marketplace. The amendment in my name on the Supplementary Notice Paper seeks to redress that. The Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia explicitly recognised that major international oil companies indisputably dominate all levels of the industry. The gap between country and city prices has widened since deregulation in 1993. The major oil companies dictate and manipulate retail prices at franchisee sites and country motorists pay more for their fuel due principally to wholesale costs rather than retail margins, high freight costs or lower sales. Through the major oil companies, the wholesalers of fuel utilise that margin for the promotion and marketing of their product, particularly when dealing with their franchised customers, to advantage some retailers of fuel and disadvantage many others, particularly in country areas. A key recommendation of the select committee report was to open up market competition at the wholesale price level. To fully achieve that, the retail market must at least provide the opportunity for retailers to purchase up to 50 per cent of their fuel supplies from any supplier in all new contracts if they are franchise operators. Effectively, white-badged sites have that opportunity. They can do what they like in shopping around. However, franchised sites, particularly in country areas that typically do not have the opportunity to exercise that margin that wholesalers have available to them, are locked into the wholesaler and are left without a chance to competitively access wholesale prices. There will continue to be a captive and non-competitive petrol retail market that will impact on all motorists but which will prolong the situation in which the impact of high fuel prices is greater in the country than in the city. There is no capacity in this Bill to reduce wholesale prices. The select committee recommended that to foster competition, the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act should be amended to ensure that retailers with contractual supply obligations can purchase up to 50 per cent of their fuel from any supplier. This would ensure that retailers have access to the keenest prices for fuel projects and, importantly, can wield a degree of bargaining influence, which is what the ALP hopes to achieve with its amendments.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3655

The select committee also found that franchisee dealers were limited to oil company-preferred or endorsed distributors for liquefied petroleum gas supply sources, notwithstanding that more cost competitive sources may be available elsewhere. The Labor Party's amendments seek to remedy that deficiency. It is not unreasonable that the Opposition has drafted amendments aimed at including in the legislation the four recommendations of the select committee. However, in the light of the way this House operates, members will appreciate that some constraints may prevent the Opposition from moving those amendments. On the basis of previous experience in this House, particularly in committee, members will understand that we can anticipate that all the amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper, in a consistent ruling from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole, will be found to be outside the standing orders of the House. The Australian Labor Party will support the second reading. However, immediately concluding that I will move for the suspension of standing orders to enable the Committee of the Whole to consider the amendments proposed on the Supplementary Notice Paper, which I suggest will otherwise fall foul of the practice of this House. Hon Mark Nevill: You should argue the case. Hon TOM STEPHENS: Historically, I have unsuccessfully argued the case. I remind Hon Mark Nevill that the Opposition lost those arguments concerning amendments to the native title debate. Hon Mark Nevill: You might lose them; but they are worth arguing. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is why I say there is only one opportunity to test whether the House has a resolve to include these amendments; that is, to suspend standing orders, otherwise every one of the amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper will fall foul of our standing orders in committee. As members will appreciate, I am constrained in that process because I require not only the support of the 17 non-government members of the House, but also an additional vote from government members. There is only one path available to members. I am sure that government members are of the same view as the Labor Opposition. Within the time frame left to deal with this issue as we approach the election, they may be constrained to appear unified. However, if they are serving the interests of Western Australians, particularly regional Western Australians, they may acknowledge that they deserve higher priority than the party disciplines that apply to us all. Hon N.F. Moore: Talk about party discipline is good coming from the Labor Party! As you did with Hon Tom Helm, you throw them out when they do not agree. There is no room for anyone to have a different view. The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like a House of discipline! The Leader of the House should allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue. Hon TOM STEPHENS: If this Bill is to have a practical effect on petrol prices, wholesalers will need an incentive to reduce their prices. The ALP amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper will achieve that. The Government has an opportunity to show that it is not captive to the major oil companies. As they manipulate retail prices at franchisee sites, as referred to specifically in the select committee’s report, the Opposition calls on the Government to amend this legislation to allow choice of supply in all new contractual arrangements between retailers and suppliers for up to 50 per cent of their supply. Choice is a mantra of this Government. This is an opportunity to legislate for that mantra for small business people who are otherwise disadvantaged in their efforts to obtain reduced prices. Given the prospective application of the proposal, there is no good reason for the Government to reject such an initiative. I therefore call on the Government to support the suspension of standing orders I have flagged. Failure to take this opportunity will mean that the Government will sacrifice the interests of country motorists out of deference to the big oil companies. As I said, the ALP will support the Bill even if the suspension of standing orders is unsuccessful. There are gaps in the legislation; it does not go far enough and is not as effective as it could be. However, even without our amendments, the Bill is at least a means of starting the process of dealing with the petrol price issue. When this Bill eventually goes to committee, I will raise a few questions about the short title of the Bill. The issues are well and truly understood in the community and have been well canvassed by the select committee report and by members in the other place. The Government knows what to do; it just has not done it. HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [3.31 pm]: It is interesting to note when we debate this issue what a holy place petrol takes in our society these days. I will not speak about the need to look at alternative forms of fuel and to make more efficient use of fuel and greater use of public transport and the like. This Bill emanates from the report of the Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia that was tabled in the other place on 12 October. A mere six weeks later we have before us this legislation, which, as the minister said in his second reading speech, implements most of the recommendations of that select committee report. Unfortunately, the minister did not say why this legislation does not implement recommendation 9 of that report, and I am sure that will be one of the major issues of contention when we get to the committee stage. The Australian Democrats welcome a number of the initiatives in this Bill, primarily those that deal with monitoring fuel prices, improving the transparency of the pricing of petroleum products, and increasing the access of dealers and

3656 [COUNCIL] retailers to petroleum products. I realise that, at the moment, some of the major oil companies are engaging in blocking tactics so that they can maintain their market share. One example that was cited to me on a couple of occasions earlier today is in Port Hedland, where, apparently, Gull Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd is unable to purchase fuel from the local major oil company distributor, hence preventing that company from entering that market. Hon Mark Nevill: It is being discriminated against, is it? Hon NORM KELLY: That is right. It is a limitation on free trade and fair competition. The Bill will extend the definition of “petroleum product” to include liquefied petroleum gas. We welcome that expansion because, as most members would be aware, the restricted market for the retailing of LPG in this State has been a barrier to the greater utilisation of LPG. That restriction has not been assisted by the failure of this Government to take up initiatives to expand the use of LPG in government vehicle fleets; and even in these last days of the second term of this Government it has made no definitive changes to remedy its lack of action on that matter over the past eight years. We have heard statements from the Government about initiating trials to put a large proportion of the government light vehicle fleet onto LPG. That is similar to the promise that was made in April 1998 to trial the use of LPG in 300 vehicles in the government light vehicle fleet. The Government has admitted that that trial was a failure and that less than 20 per cent of that target had been reached more than two and half years after that announcement. I use LPG in my vehicle, and I therefore welcome that part of the Bill, because the increase in the price of LPG in this State has been proportionately higher than the increase in the price of petrol. The history of the regulation of petroleum pricing in this State is well covered in the select committee report. The minister's second reading speech states - I note that the previous Labor administration fixed maximum retail prices for petrol and diesel in the metropolitan area and in nine major regional centres between 1984 and 1993. On being elected, this Government discovered that these regulations were largely irrelevant to price control. This was because the maximum price was invariably fixed above the prevailing market price and therefore did not operate as a true maximum price. We therefore discontinued retail price control because it was ineffective in keeping down prices. The minister did not go on to say that the Government's lack of action has also been ineffective in keeping down prices. As much as we welcome the fact that in these last days of this Government it is taking some initiatives with this legislation, it is bizarre that at this stage of the parliamentary cycle we have a lot of non-contentious legislation that has sat around for months and even years and has not been dealt with, yet this very difficult legislation is being rushed through the Parliament in a matter of a week. I have a concern about the implications of enacting this legislation, because I believe that any legislation passed in haste may inadvertently create problems in the future. However, it appears that the Parliament has the will to have this legislation passed in a hurry. With regard to the previous price controls, the select committee found that the gap between country and city prices has widened since price controls were deregulated in 1993. It seems from that finding alone that the Government's decision to remove those maximum price controls has resulted in generally higher prices in country areas. Hon Ken Travers: It is a damning indictment of the current Government. Hon NORM KELLY: The select committee said also that since fuel price control ceased in 1993, competition in the petroleum retail market has been limited principally to the metropolitan area. Of course, we would naturally expect a higher degree of competition in the metropolitan area. The difficulty is in getting competitive pricing to occur in the smaller regional centres. Although I am critical of the lack of action by this State Government over the past eight years, the fact that we are in this situation now can be attributed to both coalition and Labor Governments, not only at the state level but also at the federal level, in allowing the increased vertical integration which has occurred in this industry over the past few decades. One of the major problems now is the lack of regulation to prevent the oligopoly that has formed, with the major oil producers becoming the major petroleum distributors and retailers in this country. It is a problem that Governments of both persuasions have failed to address. The Australian Democrats have taken a different approach to the idea of market control, such as was expressed by this House for putting a cap on retailing so that one retailer does not get an inordinate market share. I was glad to see that all parties in this Parliament supported that legislation. I welcome such support of petrol retailing. There are problems in the industry that cannot be solved only by this Parliament. The Democrats believe the provisions of this Bill are a step in the right direction. The Prices Commissioner already has powers to implement price controls, maximum price limits and the like. I believe that as the new legislation comes into effect, the reintroduction of price setting by the Prices Commissioner will become a reality. Hopefully, if this legislation works in the way it is intended to work, there should be no need to establish maximum price limits. Time will tell. The amendments that appear on the Supplementary Notice Paper about the 50:50 legislation deal with an area that is fraught with problems if it is not handled correctly. I am sure the oil companies are already working to counter any new provisions that may allow franchisees to purchase up to 50 per cent of their supply from sources other than their

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3657 franchisor. If we do not pass strong and effective legislation today, or in the next couple of days, I am sure the oil companies will work very hard to secure their position and their control over franchisees in the next couple of months. I would like to get a response from the minister in his reply to the second reading debate about why the Government has failed to implement recommendation 9 of the Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia, which reads - • That the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act be amended to ensure that the discretionary 50 percent purchasing objectives are met. • That the Petroleum Rights and Liabilities Act be amended to also apply to LPG autogas. As I said, there are problems when entering into the area of franchise law. However, the Democrats believe that the Parliament needs to break the domination of the three or four major oil companies in this area. We must break the vertical integration that occurs in the industry and free up a more competitive retail market. I would also like to hear from the minister in his response about why this legislation does not have a proclamation clause. It is the first time I have noticed the lack of a proclamation clause in any legislation I have dealt with in my time in this place. I am not saying it has not occurred in the past three to four years. However, I would like to know why the Government has decided on this occasion not to have a proclamation clause. It has been suggested to me that the Government wants to be seen to be doing the right thing prior to the election by not seeking the assent of the Bill which, in turn, will not invoke a later proclamation. Because the legislation is being rushed through the Parliament, it is difficult to be adequately prepared to deal fully with all the ramifications of this legislation. I have done my best to consult not only with the major oil companies but also minor independent traders and various aspects of the industry that will be affected by the legislation. The progress of this legislation and the minister’s response will determine the Australian Democrats’ position on the Bill. Debate adjourned until a later stage, on motion by Hon M.D. Nixon. [Continued on page 3667.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Rural Business Development Corporation Bill 2000 - Sixty-first Report Hon Murray Nixon presented the sixty-first report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in relation to the Rural Business Development Corporation Bill 2000, and on his motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the Table and be printed. [See paper No 596.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES AND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS Provision of Health Services in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia: Dental Health Services - Thirty-third Report Hon Mark Nevill presented the thirty-third report of the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, in relation to the Provision of Health Services in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia: Dental Health, and on his motion it was resolved - That the report do lie upon the Table and be printed. [See paper No 597.] Sitting suspended from 3.45 to 4.00 pm

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

SCHOOLS, CAPITAL UPGRADES 527. Hon TOM STEPHENS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Education: (1) Will the parliamentary secretary table - (a) a list of all Western Australian Government schools awaiting capital upgrades and the anticipated cost of those upgrades; (b) the current prioritised order for carrying out those upgrades; (c) the criteria used for that prioritising? (2) How many government schools -

3658 [COUNCIL]

(a) still require funding for provision of covered assembly areas; (b) are considered not to have covered assembly areas meeting criteria and quality now considered standard? (3) Why has the $40m from the sale of AlintaGas earmarked for capital upgrades in government schools been allocated over a four-year period and not one year? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) There is no such list available. However, the need to continue to upgrade the facilities in a number of existing schools is acknowledged. All school upgrades are processed through each district education office, which reviews their assessment of capital works needs at schools in the district on an annual basis. These assessments are then ranked and prioritised in relation to other schools with competing needs. Subsequently, all capital works submissions received from the 16 district offices are considered and assessed from a statewide perspective. (2) It is estimated that 160 primary and district high schools, mostly with enrolments of fewer than 190 students, have not yet been provided with a covered assembly area. (3) The $40m secondary schools refurbishment program was scheduled over a four-year period to enable projects to be coordinated in an orderly fashion. A four-year program also enables schools to prepare for educational change; for example, to develop and introduce alternative organisational patterns such as middle schooling, prior to the design and completion of new physical facilities. SCHOOLS, CLEANING CONTRACTS 528. Hon TOM STEPHENS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Education: (1) What is the current value of contracts for school cleaning in Western Australian government schools? (2) What, if any, variations and additional costs have been made to the contracts since they were signed? (3) What is the current total expenditure on contract cleaning in state schools? (4) What was the cost of cleaning state schools before contracting out? (5) How many state schools do not have cleaning done by contractors? (6) What is the current total cost of cleaning schools where the cleaning service has not been contracted out? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Education Department has numerous cleaning contracts in place. The time remaining on these contracts varies, but can be as long as five years. The total value over the life of all current cleaning contracts is $174m. (2) Contract variations occur due to the movement of transportable classrooms, annual contract reviews and, in some cases, as a result of capital works. (3) The expected total contract cost for 2000-01 is approximately $29m. (4) The total annual cost of the day labour work force prior to the commencement of contract cleaning in 1996 was $37m. (5) At November 2000, 174 Education Department sites. (6) The current cost of cleaning in schools through day labour is $226 000 a fortnight. The total expected expenditure for 2000-01 is $5.9m.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA, ACACIA PRISON 529. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS to the Minister for Justice: I refer to the contract that Corrections Corporation of Australia has to operate the new Acacia Prison. (1) Has CCA sought to recruit staff from people formerly employed in privatised prisons in the eastern States of Australia? (2) Did some of the people sought to be recruited by CCA lose their jobs when the privatised prisons were judged to be below standard and the operators sacked? (3) Did some former employees of the eastern States privatised prisons receive job application forms from CCA before the jobs in the privatised prison were advertised in this State?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3659

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Of course, the activities of CCA with regard to hiring are matters for CCA, but I would be happy to take that question on notice and make inquiries of the company. PORT KENNEDY PROJECT 530. Hon J.A. SCOTT to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Planning: (1) Will the minister provide details and table any relevant documents of the default notice under section 24(2) of the Port Kennedy Development Agreement Act, including the grounds for issuing the default notice? (2) Does the minister plan to assign the project before ensuring changes, such as enforceable time limits for the development, are brought before Parliament? (3) (a) Is the minister aware of any plans to build houses in the north-east corner of the leasehold land issued to Port Kennedy Resorts in July of this year; and (b) can such housing be built at this site? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The State has identified nine separate grounds of default that fall into three broad categories - (a) Port Kennedy Resorts has failed to develop the project in accordance with the timeframes set by PKR and approved by the State. (b) PKR does not have the financial capacity to proceed with the project. (c) PKR has charged its rights under the state agreement on two separate occasions without the approval of the State. (2) In the event that PKR under administration does not remedy the defaults within 90 days, one of the options available to the State is to assign the project. Should the State elect to pursue this option, and should such assignment require variations to the state agreement, the proposed variations will be tabled in Parliament in accordance with clause 21(2) of the state agreement. (3) (a) The minister is aware that there has been speculation about the future use of land in the north-east part of the project area, including residential development. However, that remains speculation. (b) The Port Kennedy Development Agreement Act 1992 and the golf course lease issued pursuant to that Act require the land to be developed for golf course purposes only. CLARKSON RAIL EXTENSION 531. Hon HELEN HODGSON to the Minister for Transport: (1) Have tenders for the earthworks for the infrastructure work on the Clarkson rail extension been awarded; and, if so, when and to whom? (2) When will infrastructure work commence on the rail extension to Clarkson? (3) Has the Government taken any steps to acquire all of the land necessary for completion of the rail extension to Clarkson; and, if so, what steps have been taken? (4) Have the plans for the new stations at Currambine and Clarkson been completed? (5) Will public toilet facilities and/or parenting rooms be included at the railway stations to be constructed at Currambine and/or Clarkson? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. Tenders for earthworks will be advertised on 25 November 2000 and it is planned that a contract be awarded in February 2001. (2) The earthworks will be the first package of the infrastructure works and will commence soon after a contract is award in February 2001. (3) Yes. The Government has given approval to proceed with acquisition of the land. The reserves Bill is currently in the upper House for approval. Negotiations are in progress with the landowners. (4) No. Concept plans were prepared for the master plan for the extension of the railway to Clarkson. Architectural consultants are to be engaged to carry out the detailed design of both stations. The consultants will complete the design work by March 2001.

3660 [COUNCIL]

(5) Yes. Public toilets are already available at Currambine station. The design for Clarkson station will include public toilets, including disabled toilets, and parenting facilities.

MUTUAL RECOGNITION (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) ACT 1995 532. Hon J.A. COWDELL to the Leader of the House: Can the Leader of the House provide the House with an outline of the flow-on effects that will arise with the expiry on 28 February 2001 of the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 1995? I ask the question in the sense that the Government is presumably aware of its importance because it was intended to be included with the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Bill, which the leader announced yesterday would not be proceeding. What are the consequences of not proceeding with the passage of that Bill? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I do not have ministerial responsibility for that legislation, so I cannot provide an answer at this time. Hon Ken Travers: You are the Leader of the House. Hon N.F. MOORE: What a dork! Why do I have to put up with that sort of drippy stuff? The legislation is the Premier’s responsibility. A major scare campaign has been launched in the south west of Western Australia that the whole fruit industry will be destroyed in five minutes flat if this Bill is passed. The Government is re- assessing the situation, and the Premier will advise in due course what will happen.

“REVENUE THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES”, DOCUMENT 533. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Attorney General representing the Treasurer: (1) Does Treasury have a working document titled “Revenue Threats and Opportunities”, as produced prior to the last election, or a document similar in scope or nature? (2) If yes, will the Attorney General table this document; and, if not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question, along with another seven going back to about August. (1) No. (2) Not applicable.

BUILDING BLOCKS PROGRAM 534. Hon KIM CHANCE to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: I refer to Building Blocks, the joint initiative by the Health Department and Family and Children's Services. (1) Will services under the Building Blocks program be provided, at least in large part, by early childhood educators and parent support workers who have attended only a two-week course in child health service delivery? (2) Is it correct that the key service delivery units of the program include antenatal and postnatal health and postnatal depression; family health and contraception; the physical and environmental needs of young children; parenting skills; parenting and child health and development outcomes; minimisation and management of potential health risks, including sudden infant death syndrome, and immunisation; management of family and partner relationships; and confidentiality? (3) What attention has the Minister for Health given to the appropriateness and ethics of employing persons who are not qualified child health nurses in these roles which are clearly the province of highly trained health professionals rather than educators? (4) What attention has the Minister for Health given to the negative aspects of the way in which some families feel threatened by Family and Children’s Services, particularly given the highly sensitive nature of this service? Hon PETER FOSS replied: Before answering this question, I should point out to those members who may not appreciate how important the Building Blocks program is, that this is a vital program as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned. The ultimate method of prevention of crime in the community is support to families. Ample research worldwide shows the first five years of life are the most vital, and in some cases the first two years, in developing those skills and protective factors that prevent criminality. Hon Kim Chance: I could not agree more, but are those the right people to deliver the service?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3661

Hon PETER FOSS: I will get on to that. I wish to assure Hon Kim Chance. Some people think it is solely a Family and Children’s Services program, whereas it is a fundamental matter in addressing the risk and protective factors which may lead to later criminality. (1) No. The Building Blocks initiative employs a range of qualified professionals. These may include child health nurses, staff with early childhood qualifications, social workers and psychologists. (2) Yes. The Building Blocks initiative includes all the components listed and delivered by a range of appropriately qualified professionals. The Health Department and Family and Children’s Services are working collaboratively to achieve the outcomes of the initiative. (3) Under the Building Blocks initiative, professionals with a range of qualifications, including child health nurses, are employed to deliver the programs in accordance with program requirements. (4) Family and Children’s Services advises the Minister for Health that the department delivers a range of programs accepted by customers as non-threatening. Current services include the Parent Help Centre; the Parenting Information Line; children’s services programs - child care; parenting information centres; the parent link home visiting service; and the early education program. PORTS, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS 535. Hon GIZ WATSON to the Minister for Transport: With regard to Western Australian ports regulated under the Port Authorities Act 1999 - (1) In the recent annual reports for these ports, how many reported on their environmental management plan? (2) Are the port authorities required to report on their environmental performance in their annual report? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister table these environmental management plans? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) There is no requirement under the Port Authorities Act for a port authority to report in the annual report on its environmental management plan. (2) There is a requirement under the Port Authorities Act for a port authority to provide in the annual report a summary of the performance of the port authority on its function “to protect the environment of the port and minimise the impact of port activities on that environment” - see sections 69(1)(f) and 30(1)(f). (3) I have answered this question before in Parliament in response to a question from Hon Giz Watson. WESTRAIL FREIGHT ROLLING STOCK, CROSS-BORDER LEASING 536. Hon TOM STEPHENS to the Minister for Transport: (1) When was the Westrail freight rolling stock first placed under cross-border leasing arrangements? (2) What is the value of the rolling stock under such leases? (3) What is the annual cost of the leases? (4) What is the length of the leases? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) In 1990 and 1992 Westrail entered into a cross-border lease for the supply of urban railcars. In December 1998 Westrail entered into another cross-border lease for freight rolling stock and urban railcars. (2) The value of the rolling stock under the cross-border lease is part of the sale process, and I am happy to advise the member of this once the sale is finalised. (3) None. The lease is fully defeased. (4) The expiry date of the basic lease term varies from January 2011 to January 2018.

JARRAHDALE ROAD, B-DOUBLE TRANSPORT 537. Hon NORM KELLY to the Minister for Transport: (1) Given that a 1998 Main Roads’ report stated that Jarrahdale Road was unsuitable for B-double livestock transport, will the minister explain why he granted 35 B-double permits last month? (2) Were Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale councillors present at the 4 October meeting, when he made his decision?

3662 [COUNCIL]

Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: (1)-(2) I met with representatives of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. I cannot remember the exact date, but I think it was 4 October. At the conclusion of the meeting, people were left in no doubt about the decision made. I will not go into the detail of the conversation, but there was a clear understanding about the arrangements; that is, a report is to go the council in the near future, which will give an outline of the requirements of the road structures in the area and the future requirements for the roads. We have agreed to upgrade the roads to a suitable standard if that is required. An agreement was made that there would be some upgrading to one particular section. I understand the basis of the report is that some discussion will be held about a road around the Jarrahdale town site. We will have those discussions with representatives of the shire, probably in the next two or three weeks. Hon Norm Kelly: The trucks are travelling down there now. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: Road trains have been travelling in that area for a long, long while.

CONTRACT BIDS, SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES 538. Hon MARK NEVILL to the Minister for Transport: Will the minister consider extending from three to four the number of bids to pre-qualify for contracts when two of those bidders are subsidiaries of the one holding company? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: This issue has come to my notice; namely, a parent company and a number of its subsidiary companies bidding for a contract. We want to maintain real competition. The Commissioner of Main Roads will meet with representatives of an industry group in January. I understand that no decisions will be made on big contracts before that time. We had already taken on board the basis of the question when it was received yesterday. The issue had been considered some time ago as it was brought to our notice by a number of people. I keep in close contact with the construction industry and know it very well, and people in the industry understand the Government’s position.

BUNBURY PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICE 539. Hon BOB THOMAS to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: Some notice of this question has been given. In relation to the Bunbury palliative care service, which was recently put out to tender by the Health Department, I ask - (1) Will the Attorney General table - (a) the names of the organisations which applied to take over the service; and (b) the names of the people on the panel who will make a decision on the future of the service? (2) Have all applicants had access to the panel to present their case? (3) Has a decision been made on who will supply the service; if so, who is the successful tenderer? (4) If no to (3), when will a decision be made? (5) Have the current staff of the Bunbury palliative care service been giving assurances that their employment will continue under similar wages and conditions; if so, was it in writing? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Names cannot be released until the tender process is complete. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) The contract is being negotiated with the preferred proponent and a decision should be made within this month. (5) Yes. The staff have been given an assurance, but not in writing. Employment will be included in the contractual arrangement with the new provider.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES 540. Hon B.M. SCOTT to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Commerce and Trade: Can the minister advise of any recent initiatives by the Government to assist the general public to access information technology?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3663

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: The Government revealed earlier this year a far-reaching strategy to put Western Australians at the leading edge of the digital age. The strategy aims to ensure that our schools are equipped with state-of-the-art technology and that students, teachers, parents and households have access to, and are trained in the use of, technology. Government and private sector services will be brought online in a user-friendly way, delivering benefits to the community through a coordinated approach to information provision and service delivery. The four phases of the strategy are, first, technology in schools and teacher training; second, educating parents and other groups to utilise the technology; third, connecting homes to the Internet and providing tuition; and, fourth, providing government and private sector services online. On 25 October 2000, the Deputy Premier launched the communities online program which promotes further development of online communities. As part of the program, a number of publications have been produced. These are the “Get Online WA” and the “Online WA Champions Kit”. The Office of Information and Communications in the Department of Commerce and Trade produces the booklets as part of the State Government’s strategy to ensure Western Australians learn about the online environment and gain maximum benefits from these services. BANDYUP WOMEN’S PRISON 541. Hon CHERYL DAVENPORT to the Attorney General: (1) How many women prisoners have been accommodated at Bandyup Women’s Prison over the last month? (2) How many women prisoners was Bandyup designed to accommodate? (3) In the past three months, what is the largest number of prisoners accommodated in a cell at Bandyup? (4) How many cells are allocated to convicted double murderer Maggie Wilson for herself and her artwork? (5) Why have the cells allocated to Maggie Wilson not been used to house more prisoners? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The average daily muster has been 140 prisoners, with the peak figure being 143. (2) Bandyup was originally designed to accommodated 85 female prisoners. The modified operational capacity is 131 prisoners. (3) It is six in a multi-occupancy cell. (4) Maggie Wilson is not a prisoner accommodated at Bandyup Women’s Prison. (5) Not applicable. TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS, FUNDING 542. Hon E.R.J. DERMER to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Education: How does the Minister for Education propose that the purposes of integrating technology into teaching and learning; developing teacher competencies in learning technology; accessing and acquiring electronic education resources, such as software, CD-ROMs and Internet resources; technical support; and developing school connectivity-local area networks and Internet access will be funded for those schools which, once they have demonstrated a capacity to achieve the target computer-student ratios and standards, will have insufficient technology funding available to meet the purposes? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: I am advised that the Education Department expects all schools to meet the target ratios, and that most schools will have learning technologies funding remaining for other information technology related purposes. In addition, school grant funding includes funds for these purposes. STATE FOREST BURNING, DENMARK REGION 543. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Is the minister aware that 10 000 hectares is planned to be burnt this spring in the Denmark region, including the proposed Sheepwash National Park, William Bay National Park, Walpole-Nornalup National Park and the Harewood State Forest? (2) Is the minister aware that the exceptionally dry spring weather across the southern forest region has given rise to seasonal conditions four to six weeks ahead of a normal spring? (3) Has any senior personnel at the head office of the Department of Conservation and Land Management instructed southern forest regional district offices to plan and implement prescribed burning with caution due to the drought?

3664 [COUNCIL]

(4) What operational changes have been made to the planning and implementation of the prescribed burning program in the Denmark-Walpole region as a result? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Department of Conservation and Land Management advises that the proposed burning program for the Denmark area for this spring-early summer period is approximately 9 120 hectares. (2) Yes. The dry weather that has occurred since July 2000 throughout the south west forest region has given rise to seasonal conditions that are up to six weeks ahead of normal conditions. (3) The southern forest regional staff are very aware of the need to plan and implement prescribed burns in accordance with the seasonal conditions and the availability of suitable burning days and resources needed to achieve a safe and satisfactory outcome. (4) Unless there is some significant rainfall in the next week or so, it is planned that those burns containing large areas of jarrah forest fuel types will be cancelled this year. Burns with karri and tingle fuels are still relatively moist and will be monitored for their fuel moisture conditions to ensure that they meet the burning prescription criteria.

GREAT NORTHERN HIGHWAY, HALLS CREEK 544. Hon TOM STEPHENS to the Minister for Transport: (1) What is the total cost of widening of the Great Northern Highway north of Halls Creek? (2) What funding is allocated to be used between now and 2004 for the project? (3) What funding is allocated to be used beyond 2004 for the project? (4) What is the anticipated completion date for this project? (5) Has the Federal Government committed funds to this project; if yes, how much? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: (1) The majority of the highway within the Halls Creek to Bow River section is 30 years old and is unsuitable for a widening process. The widening of the road would require some pavement reconstruction or rehabilitation. The estimated cost of this work, excluding the upgrade of the floodway crossings and bridges, is $102m. (2)-(3) No funding for this project has been allocated at this stage. (4) The anticipated completion date of the project will depend upon funding. (5) The Great Northern Highway forms part of the national highway and as such is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. No funds have been committed at this stage.

GREAT ESCAPE WATER PARK 545. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: I refer to the extensions and additions currently under construction at the Great Escape Water Park, Hillarys Boat Harbour. (1) Has planning approval been given; if so, on what date? (2) Were the plans made public; if not, why not? (3) Was the Hillarys Boat Harbour harbourmaster’s original recommendation that these extensions not be approved? (4) Why was that recommendation not followed? (5) Can the minister confirm that the executive director of transport, maritime division, is now responsible for negotiations with the Great Escape; if so, why? (6) Will the Great Escape be required to meet the same conditions with regard to the provision of additional parking as other tenants of Hillarys Boat Harbour; if not, why not? (7) Has the member for Hillarys been involved in any of the negotiations between the Great Escape and the minister's office or departments? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3665

(1) Transport has supported a development application. However, planning approval is a matter for the city of Joondalup and the Western Australian Planning Commission, which are responsible for processing development applications. (2) Any decision to make plans available to the public rests with the relevant planning authorities. (3) Assessment of the proposal was carried out by the Department of Transport, including the executive director, maritime and in consultation with Transport’s property consultants, Colliers Jardine (WA) Pty Ltd. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes, as for many lease-related matters at Transport’s marine facilities throughout the State, the executive director, maritime, has been involved in discussions. (6) Yes, as per (1) above. (7) No. ADAMS, MS JUDITH, CAR 546. Hon G.T. GIFFARD to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: (1) Has the Metropolitan Health Service Board member Judith Adams been provided with a government car? (2) If so, is that car notionally allocated to King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women-Princess Margaret Hospital for Children? (3) Which other board members are provided with a vehicle? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The car is leased by KEMH-PMH which recoup the leasing costs from the Metropolitan Health Service Board. The use of a car by Judith Adams, whose residence is in a rural part of the State, was approved by the chairman and the director of finance following a review by them of the comparative economics of providing a car or expenses on a kilometre basis. The provision of a car under lease, with the specific condition that it be used for board business, with some personal usage while in Perth, rather than paying a per kilometre rate, is the cheaper option. (3) Andrew Weeks. MINES FUTURE ACTS MATTERS, NUMBER 547. Hon TOM STEPHENS to the Minister for Mines: (1) What is the total number of mines future act matters for which the right to negotiate applies on which negotiations have not yet commenced? (2) Why have they not commenced on these matters? (3) What is the total number of matters involved in the right to negotiate process that have exceeded the minimum period of six months good faith negotiations? (4) How many of these matters have been referred to the national Native Title Tribunal for arbitration? (5) Why have all such matters not been referred for arbitration? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Negotiations will commence on 2 855 applications for mining tenements while they are being examined against the Full Federal Court decision of the Miriuwung-Gajerrong case. (3) 283. (4) 23. (5) The parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith. CENTENARY OF FEDERATION CELEBRATIONS Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): The Council of Australian Governments has established the National Council for the Centenary of Federation to oversee the centenary of federation celebrations and commemorations. In each State

3666 [COUNCIL] and Territory, committees are charged with delivering the opportunities for participation and involvement to all Australians. The national program is built upon centrepiece events in each State and Territory at different times throughout 2001. The national program commences in Sydney on 1 January 2001 with “Federation Day” which will commemorate and celebrate the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia. In Western Australia there are two separate occasions on which the national spotlight will fall on our State: First, the Centenary of Youth Festival - to be held from 21 to 30 September 2001 - a national youth symposium supported by a series of federation youth festivals; and, secondly, “Tracks to Federation” to be held in October 2001, in conjunction with the South Australian Government, the east-west rail commemoration. Importantly, as well as the national events within each State and Territory throughout the year, there will be a whole array of events and activities within local centres and communities. This will ensure broad participation by Western Australians. In May 2001, the national focus will shift to Victoria where, on 9 May 2001, there will be a very significant event to mark 100 years of nationhood and the centenary of the Commonwealth Parliament, the commencement of the journey of our parliamentary democracy. On 9 May 1901 at the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, 12 000 Australians gathered to celebrate the launch of the Australian democracy. On 9 May 2001, over 7 000 Australians will be invited to gather to commemorate and celebrate the centenary of our democracy and to be part of a wonderful national event to herald our nation’s most significant milestone. In 1901 the Parliaments of the States were represented in Melbourne. In 2001, it is planned that the focus of the events will be the participation by all the senators and members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth as well as the participation of the entire state and territory legislatures. These plans also include the presence of the mayors of every municipality in Australia, together with representatives of all and every sector of Australian society, including representatives of the public. The celebration is structured as a specifically Australian celebration both in content and attendance. This Parliament, along with all other Australian Parliaments, has been invited by the Federal Government, the Commonwealth Parliament, the Victorian State Government and the Parliament of Victoria, to become a full partner in the May 2001 celebrations. The Victorian Government has constructed a three-week celebration, which will surround 9 May 2001. We have been asked to consider the passage of a resolution by our Parliament to embrace formally the centenary celebrations and to be a full participant in the happenings of 9 May. In short, the objective of the National Council for the Centenary of Federation is for the Parliament in its entirety to attend. However, the Parliament may wish to consider a delegation comprising all political parties with costs met by those members attending. The nature of the involvement is focused on the two core days of 9 and 10 May, although blanket invitations will be issued to attend each of the very extensive ancillary events. On 9 May at 2.00 pm at the Royal Exhibition Building, there will be a full joint meeting of the Commonwealth Parliament attended by all members of Parliament nationally. This formal ceremony will acknowledge the centenary of the Commonwealth Parliament. Then there will be a seamless transition to a commemoration of 100 years of nationhood and celebration through performance and representation of the journey of Australia across these 100 years and the contributions of many Australians to that milestone will be recognised. This will be followed by the federation reception to be held in the new Melbourne museum. The ceremonies are part of a dynamic celebration of our past, acknowledgment of contemporary issues and achievements and an embracing of our future and our potential. The Victorian and Commonwealth Governments are jointly funding the events in Melbourne in a very significant undertaking. We have been requested to contribute to this through the attendance of all our members, the entire Parliament. In common with all of the 7 000 participants who represent myriad organisations and institutions, we are asked to consider meeting the travel, accommodation and related costs to facilitate the participation in Melbourne of all members. It is envisaged that a motion be put to the House in due course to consider endorsing formally the partnership agreeing to participation and declaring the events as official parliamentary occasions. The arrangement which underpins this proposal is to encourage the use of existing parliamentary allowances and services available to members rather than seek additional appropriations. Should the motion be passed, our participation and involvement will be conveyed formally. In late March 2001, formal invitations from the Prime Minister, the Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth Parliament and the Premier of Victoria will be issued individually to each member who is expected to hold office on 9 May 2001. The invitations will entitle members to be accompanied by their spouse or partner. At around the time of issue of the invitations, extensive briefings on all details of the involvement will be provided. Importantly, the organisers have negotiated a very extensive accommodation guide which offers attendees generous discounts in a range of accommodation options across the Melbourne central business district. Arrangements are in place for members to access these directly should they wish.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3667

In conclusion, this enormous national celebration will provide Western Australia with a significant opportunity to herald our vital contribution to the Australian nation and our parliamentary democracy. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRICING AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage. HON MARK NEVILL (Mining and Pastoral) [4.41 pm]: I support the Bill. There are four components of effective competition in wholesale petrol retailing. Those components are outlined clearly in the report of the Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia. The first component is price transparency; that is, a terminal gate price that discloses a base price, excise component, goods and services tax component, and transport and distribution costs to the public and to resellers on a daily basis. The second component is access to terminals, provided that dangerous goods legislation, health, environmental and Australian Standards safety conditions are met. The third component is price monitoring and public reporting on the wholesale price of fuel. Those three components are in the Bill. What is missing from the Bill is the 50 per cent legislation. In my view, the Bill requires amendment to ensure that we have a scheme that will work. That amendment for the 50 per cent legislation will outlaw the 100 per cent tie arrangements in supply and franchise agreements to make it lawful for retailers to purchase fuel from other than their primary supplier. The proposed amendments to this Bill provide for those three components. However, to bring about effective change, we must ensure that the 50 per cent rule is included in this legislation. That is the only way we will get competition in country areas and bring about cheaper fuel and less volatility in prices. One of the problems with the petroleum industry is the extreme volatility in prices, which bewilders people, and the irrationality in prices, where often fuel is more expensive closer to the terminal than it is at a distance from the terminal. In Esperance, the price of fuel is higher than it is in Kalgoorlie, yet the fuel is shipped into Esperance and is then taken up to Kalgoorlie. We have all these anomalies which do not make sense, and the volatility causes a lot of problems. Hon J.A. Scott: Do they offload it in Esperance so they can get it directly to Kalgoorlie? Hon MARK NEVILL: It is sent by rail to Kalgoorlie. The major oil companies have put it to us that they will be at all sorts of competitive disadvantage if this 50 per cent law is introduced. They have suggested that it will result in the end of franchising and many other things. I am not sure that is necessarily bad. BP Australia Ltd has also advised us in the Press that the Kwinana refinery may close. BP has said that its Kwinana refinery is the FJ Holden of oil refineries. However, this morning I looked at BP’s web site, which states with regard to the Kwinana refinery - Kwinana, with a capacity of 138,000 barrels of crude oil a day, is Western Australia's only oil refinery. It supplies most of Western Australia's fuel needs, and employs almost 500 people. BP's investment program in improved technology and environmental controls has led to Kwinana becoming one of the region’s most modern refineries. It is a major exporter of lubricants to South East Asia, and regularly exports petrol to New Zealand. That puts paid to any suggestion that the Kwinana refinery is out of date. The Kwinana refinery may not make the margins that BP would like, and refining is a low margin activity; BP sold its refinery in Hawaii because it failed to make much money out of it. However, I do not think a major oil company like BP can look at one refinery in isolation. It makes money out of franchising and producing oil. A refinery is only one part of the chain, and costs can be shifted around. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has said that a 50 per cent rule will have no drastic effects on oil company investment. This matter has been the subjects of much debate at the national level. The Senate Economic References Committee inquired into various petrol matters in its deliberations on the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum Bill) 1999. If that Bill were passed by the Federal Parliament, it would provide service station operators nationally with the right to shop around for up to 50 per cent of their fuel. Professor Allan Fels, the head of the ACCC, said in evidence to that inquiry on 15 March 2000 that he thought one of the effects of the 50:50 rule would be that it would put a little more pressure on the oil companies to give a good deal to their franchisees, and then the franchisees would not all be running off to get supplies from other sources. If the suppliers were giving their service station operators the best available wholesale price, there would be no need for those operators to source their fuel from other areas. The 50:50 rule would allow them to get fuel from those other operators in order to introduce competition. In the smaller country areas, if people cannot source fuel from other suppliers, we will continue to have discrimination against independent service station operators. One supplier who operates a service station in West Kalgoorlie charges 110¢ a litre for petrol. He then sells it to a Caltex operator in Boulder for 110¢ a litre, who retails it at about 113.5¢ a litre. The Ampol service station over the road gets fuel from the same company for 114¢ a litre and has to retail it at 117.5¢. All of that fuel comes from the same distributor, but

3668 [COUNCIL] with a mark up, and the independent is clearly discriminated against by the pricing policy of that distributor. That is why we need a 50:50 rule in the Bill. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Where would the retailer go when there is only one wholesaler? You are talking about the second largest city outside the metropolitan area. Take, for example, Mt Barker or Mingenew where there is one fuel supplier. Where does the retailer then go? Hon MARK NEVILL: Is the member talking about a supplier from Geraldton? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Any town. Hon MARK NEVILL: I think there is more than one supplier in Geraldton. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: You would have them drag their fuel down from Geraldton? Hon MARK NEVILL: I know there is more than one in Esperance; there is Caltex, BP and Shell. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: You are talking about the larger towns; what about the smaller towns? There are many more small towns in regional Western Australia than there are larger ones such as those you are referring to. Hon MARK NEVILL: If there is that option, it should be available and the retailers should not be made to pay a premium simply because they are independent. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: That does not solve the problem of creating competition by a 50:50 system where there is only one source. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon MARK NEVILL: It may not; however, in towns where there is more than one source, it would help to produce a much more competitive environment. Hon Tom Stephens: It would be cheaper for them to truck it in from another place, if they can get competition. Hon MARK NEVILL: All the problems in small towns will not be solved with this Bill. In some small towns the fuel outlets have such a low turnover that they must have a fairly high mark-up. Recently I made some public comments about the store in Wiluna that is leased by the Aboriginal community to a trucking company in Perth. I think the trucking company has been in a financially difficult situation for some time; there is hardly any toilet paper in the store. The fuel is dropped off from drums to an underground tank in thousand litre lots; for a start that is a breach of the Dangerous Goods (Transport) Act. I think the company’s credit has disappeared. However, the police in Wiluna are considering putting in their own bowsers, as they cannot get a regular supply from the store. That will make the store less viable and if there are three or four separate fuel tanks around the area, the price must go up because they cannot get a return on their investment if their fuel is low. This Bill will not get rid of those problems. However, hopefully, if the Government has four legs to this regulation, it may result in only one or two service stations in those smaller towns, but at least there will be competitive pressures to keep the price of fuel down. The price of diesel in Wiluna when I went there, if one could get it, was $1.40 a litre. I have an amendment on the Supplementary Notice Paper to address the 50:50 rule and I will be moving that amendment in committee. The argument for the 50:50 rule is strong and the Government should be standing up to the threats of the oil companies. The Government should not baulk at making this amendment just because the oil companies say they will close down the refinery. This amendment will ensure that once and for all we bring in a regime that increases competition in order to keep our fuel prices low. HON J.A. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [4.53 pm]: The Greens (WA) find themselves in a difficult position with this Bill. We are concerned about the effect of the fast-rising fuel prices on regional communities, particularly those that have not had a very good season this year. Many regional areas are struggling economically. We, therefore, agree with a system that brings some accountability into the marketing arrangements of petroleum products. We would like that system to be extended to other products and a similar attitude taken to a range of areas where large monopolistic organisations are able to control markets to the extent they can fix prices. We support the Bill but are concerned that it has been rushed through the Parliament, I would say for electoral purposes as much as anything. The Bill does not deal with the fundamentals of the problem in this State, which has little to do with the pricing mechanisms currently in place and the lack of power of small fuel retailers and a large amount to do with the simple law of supply and demand. The fuel crisis has been a long time coming. We have gone through about a decade of extremely low world oil prices at about $11 a barrel. During that time there has been a lack of investment in refining capacity around the world. Since the steep rise in the United States economy, in particular, and the gradual climb out of recession by the Asian economy, we have come to a situation where not enough petroleum products have been produced to meet the market requirements. It is interesting, now that the refineries have moved into top capacity, that they are still struggling to provide the amount of fuel needed to supply the market. Hon Mark Nevill: I think some of the discounting that has happened in this State is because Kwinana over-supplies.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3669

Hon J.A. SCOTT: I am talking about world parity pricing and so on, that applies to a world situation rather than a Western Australian situation. We are obviously linked to world prices. The subsequent taxation rises are a direct link to those price rises, particularly with the goods and services tax being based on a percentage. Therefore, the lack of investment has caused this rise. I understand it will be some three years before that refining capacity will be able to meet the demand, unless there are downturns in economies, which might well occur because of the high oil prices. My concern with this type of Bill is that it is fiddling with a small part of the system rather than dealing with the demand and supply side of the equation. In other words, the best way in which to reduce the price of oil is either to reduce the demand or increase the supply. As there can be no increase in supply in the next three years, we should be working on the demand side. That becomes imperative when we look 10 or 20 years into the future because there will be a constantly rising world demand for fuel. The trend line for demand is constantly going upwards. We have come to the zenith of supply and in the future we will have increasing prices for world oil whether we like it or not. It is a shame we have not moved further. I know people are not seeking instant relief in some areas, but we are really avoiding the main issue. I believe we are putting our heads in the sand by hoping that this legislation will achieve what it sets out to do. I believe that in the long term it will have the opposite effect. The pity with this legislation is that it does not contain a provision for the examination of alternative strategies to deal with current prices. One of the issues dealt with in the Bill is an alternative fuel; that is, liquefied petroleum gas. I understand that today LPG prices went up further to 68.9¢ a litre. The price has jumped from 38.9¢ in less than a month. This increase is completely and utterly unjustified. The oil companies are able to get that price because LPG is tied to the world parity price for oil on the false assumption that the LPG we get in Western Australia is a by-product of petroleum, when in fact it is not. The vast majority of LPG in this State comes from natural gas, and that natural gas has been at a pretty constant price for around a decade. Perhaps the minister can inform me how we can break that linkage between the world parity price for oil and the price for LPG that is produced from natural gas. If the producers want to put up the price of that LPG which is a by-product of petroleum, that may be fair, because clearly the world oil price has risen, but it is not fair to do that when the majority of our LPG comes from natural gas. I would like a provision in the legislation dealing with that issue. If we are to tackle the supply and demand situation, we must throw out a challenge to the oil companies and reduce our reliance on liquid hydrocarbons. If we were to move a large part of our economy over to LPG or CNG, we would be helping to achieve that aim, and that would be the way to push down the price of oil - not by artificial means. We are neglecting the proper way to do this. This Bill deals with petroleum products; I understand compressed natural gas is dealt with under different legislation. This Bill has not dealt with compressed natural gas, but we should have looked at CNG because that is the fuel we should be using in this State. I do not know whether members are aware, but LPG has a much lower octane rating than petrol and it produces about two-thirds of the power, whereas compressed natural gas does not lose that octane rating compared with petrol. I understand the octane rating of CNG may even be slightly higher than that of petroleum. If we were really looking for cheap alternatives, we should be moving towards and trying to base our economy on CNG or natural gas. If we developed the infrastructure and the technology to use CNG, we would be doing a great deal for the whole community, particularly farming communities. Farmers could access CNG for their tractors and heavy trucks, because we have been told that Advanced Engine Components Ltd has contracts with a number of major trucking companies - MACK and Fiat - which are conglomerates for a number of other motor companies, and it will be producing compressed natural gas engines for those conglomerates. Today the price of compressed natural gas to households is significantly lower than the price of either LPG or diesel. If we are to get serious about dealing with this crisis that is the direction we should take, because with this legislation we are fiddling around the edges. I am not saying that this is not a small, short-term lever on the major oil companies to encourage them to clean up their act, but I am concerned as to whether the Bill can really tie these companies down. My understanding is that rather than have money change hands, the fuel companies operate on a sort of barter system. In Western Australia, BP supplies Caltex and others with fuel from the refinery here; in the other States, the reverse is true and Caltex supplies BP. I understand this is done in order to avoid taxation, which is a matter the Federal Government should be having a good look at. If we were to charge the oil companies taxation for bartering, perhaps the price of fuel and LPG would go up even more. At the end of the day, the best way to get fuel prices down is to reduce demand. I am concerned that the companies that barter for fuel can very easily collude to artificially fix prices, not simply to avoid taxation but to distort the picture so that this legislation is not able to tie them to a fair price. Schedule 1 of the Bill contains a list of exclusions from the definition of “petroleum product”. If I were a farmer, this would be rather worrying, because the schedule lists a number of products such as anhydrous ammonia fertiliser, ammonium sulphate, ammonium phosphate fertiliser, chemical fertilisers, nitrates, phosphates, potash and urea - all of which are used by the farming community. A whole raft of chemical fertilisers are used by the farming community, as well as a whole lot of synthetic resins, rubbers, industrial and organic chemicals, and so on. It would be a reasonably simple matter for those companies that have those items excluded from this Bill simply to pick up money they would be losing on fuel products by increasing the cost of those other products. How will the Government deal with those companies which simply transfer the amount lost from petroleum onto other products, thereby not making any change

3670 [COUNCIL] to the overall economy but in effect maintaining their status quo? As I have pointed out, some of the major users of petroleum are also major users of those products. A number of amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper propose, in particular, to create the ability to buy a proportion of fuel from other than the major franchise suppliers. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition will probably be moving to suspend standing orders at the end of this debate to allow those amendments to be debated because otherwise they could not be passed. The people pushing the 50 per cent rule are correct because that would really give this Bill teeth. The Premier is wrong in bowing to the pressure of BP because it is quite clear that we have but one refinery in the State and the total amount of those products will remain a constant. My concern is that if the long period of low oil prices has prevented investment in infrastructure for refining, maybe the same thing will happen again. I am concerned that there should be a very close look at what effect this Bill might have; in fact, there should be a review to ensure that the passage of this Bill does not result in a lack of investment in modern refining technologies which would help reduce the overall price. I reiterate that we should be doing many things if we want to deal with the fuel price crisis from which we are supposedly suffering. As some members have correctly pointed out, other countries are paying much higher prices than we are, but it is also correct to say that our nation is far more reliant on energy because of its vast distances and the types of industries which currently dominate its economy. Until the nation changes its focus on industry and develops new types of industries, the price of energy will be a critical factor for the Australian economy. We can take many other actions with urban design, public transport and infrastructure. Although that is not being dealt with in this Bill, I put on record that I believe those sorts of changes will result in improvements in our handling of fuel prices. Although I will be supporting the Bill, I have no confidence that in the medium to long term it will be at all beneficial; it may in fact have the reverse effect of what we are trying to achieve. It is very important that we follow up this Bill with measures that really deal with the issues of bringing into play alternative fuels and reducing our wasted areas of fuel usage, such as single-car use in the metropolitan areas. The Prime Minister’s measure of spending on roads the extra windfall from the goods and services tax on fuel is wrong. If we want to help country people, we should be reducing our urban use of fuel in the private car. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [5.16 pm]: I thank members for their contribution to this debate. Much of the debate was about what is not in the Bill and what members thought should be in the Bill. As members are clearly aware, this Bill is in response to the report of the Select Committee on Petroleum Products Pricing in Western Australia. The Government has made the decision it must bring forward to this House those amendments to legislation that are based upon many of the recommendations of the committee. We have not determined at this time to proceed with all the recommendations of the committee. I will go into that aspect in a moment. The Leader of the Opposition will be moving to suspend standing orders shortly, as I understand it, to try to have his amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper apply to an Act that is not before the House. It will be an interesting exercise. I indicate to him in advance that the Government will not be supporting that suspension of standing orders. However, we will hear what he has to say when he puts his point of view. Hon Norm Kelly has suggested we are doing this in a hurry. There is no question about that. The select committee report has come in and the Government has made a decision to respond to it as quickly as possible; in fact, the Government has been criticised in some quarters for not being quick enough. Some people have promoted the idea in the community that simply by having a select committee report, suddenly the price of petrol will come down, ignoring the fact that reports of this nature need to be considered carefully by Governments and that to produce legislation takes some time. The legislation is not being hurried in the sense that some people say it has been. The select committee spent a lot of time and energy researching the issues surrounding the price of petrol. A lot of work has been done on the issue. The question really comes down to what people’s philosophical views are about price control and whether they will be fair about why the price of petrol is high at the present time. Fundamentally, the price is high because of world prices. I remember that not many years ago - probably about three - I went to a conference in Norway to talk to oil and gas producers to encourage them to come to Western Australia. I had to explain to them that I realised it was not a good time because the price of oil was so low. From memory I think it was between $15 and $18 a barrel. Trying to encourage investment and exploration in Western Australia was hard because the price was low. Hon Jim Scott referred to that aspect, and he was right. The price of oil suddenly went over US$35 a barrel, which put enormous pressure on the price of petrol around the world. Nobody likes high prices, but we are fortunate to have relatively low petrol prices when compared with those found in other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. That should be remembered by those who argue that the State Government is responsible for the current high price of petrol. Hon Norm Kelly asked why we had not introduced a proclamation clause. Specifying a date was not considered necessary for the Bill as most of its provisions will require an administrative decision by the prices commissioner - for example, declaration of terminals, maximum wholesale price fixing and regulation making. Dates are normally inserted to allow agencies time to prepare for new legislation. By virtue of the Interpretation Act, these amendments will come into operation 28 days after royal assent anyway.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3671

Hon Norm Kelly: I realise that. When making regulations, a proclamation date is normally included. This one seems unusual. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is the explanation. It is not being done, as suggested by the member, so that the Government cannot proceed with this measure. It has every intention to proceed. Hon Jim Scott accused the Government of introducing this Bill for electoral purposes. We are told the Government is not going far enough, so it is negative electorally for the Government. Why the member should think that way is beyond me. The Opposition seems to see an electoral purpose for the measure, as it argues that we are not doing the right thing and are not going the whole way. The member raised some interesting questions on world parity pricing and liquefied petroleum gas. I will have those matters looked at. The Government has taken some action in respect of encouraging the use of LPG in motor vehicles, and we will continue in that regard. Returning to the 50:50 rule, I found it fascinating that The West Australian carried a headline this morning “Court ‘cave-in’ on petrol” because the Premier took notice of a letter from BP. The letter, which has been seen by many people, is from a major oil producer to the Premier. I now quote a couple of points to demonstrate the issues which need to be considered. The letter reads - Our concerns are:- The implications of this Bill are profound for both BP and Western Australia. If enacted, it would destabilise the franchising industry and make it unviable for BP (and others) to franchise. As BP under Federal law is largely confined to operating under this framework, BP would be forced out of marketing. And if this were to happen, this would lead to the closure of Kwinana refinery because we do not operate refineries without a marketing outlet. In other words, BP would be forced to exit WA and close the refinery. Any Government that ignored those comments would take a significant risk. I thought that the people who work for BP would be nervous about a Government which took a precipitous action which could see the closure of a refinery in Western Australia. For The West Australian to say it is a “cave-in” because we take into account the issues raised by BP is irresponsible. Hon Mark Nevill said that there is no way that BP would close down its refinery, but that is a matter of opinion: The company said it would, and the member said it would not. The Government must be responsible with such remarks made by a company of the magnitude of BP. To ignore them would be grossly irresponsible. I am sure the employees of the BP refinery would say to their former union leaders that they want the Government to assess that threat carefully before people are thrown out of their jobs. It is an important issue. The Government has made the decision not to proceed down that path of retail price fixing. We are not an interventionist Government in that sense. It would take a lot of hard persuasion for the Government to go down the path of fixing retail petrol prices, or any other price for that matter. In respect of the 50:50 question, the Government is concerned about the attitude of BP as expressed in the letter just quoted, and the impact the 50:50 rule would have on contracts already in place. However, the Government is prepared to consider these issues once the effect of this Bill has been felt. We take the view that we are bringing in legislation which is effectively about making the price of petrol more transparent. We want to see how well it works. In the event that down the track we feel the need to take further action, the 50:50 rule would be contemplated at that time. The Labor Party back in 1991 was preparing to go down that path and legislate in this way. However, it was talked out of it by the oil companies at the time. This proposition has been around, and caused a lot of concern, for a long time. Once the impact of this Bill has been felt in the petrol market, the Government is prepared to consider whether further action is necessary. I thank members for their support of the Bill, which is proposed for a good purpose. We are concerned about the price of petrol in Western Australia, particularly the differential between city and country prices. However, it is very unfair for people to criticise the State Government for this situation, as it is a very small player in the overall scheme of things concerning the price of petrol at our bowsers. This legislation is an attempt to make various parts of the cycle transparent, from wholesale through to retail, so people know who is making money from the end price of a litre of petrol. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Suspension of Standing Orders HON TOM STEPHENS (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the Opposition) [5.28 pm]: I move, without notice - That standing orders be suspended so far as would enable the Committee of the Whole House on the Petroleum Products Pricing Amendment Bill 2000 to consider and, if desired, adopt as part of the Bill any amendment that would amend the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982.

3672 [COUNCIL]

Essentially, this is the only motion that will provide the House with the opportunity to ensure that the Bill before us can have its deficiencies rectified. The motion provides the capacity to amend the legislation so that franchisees have the opportunity to acquire 50 per cent of their supplies from fuel sources other than their contracted supplier. I refer to new contracts entered into after the passage of this legislation. Those retail outlets could then have a chance to access cheaper fuel. In this debate I am unable to canvass the amendments. However, in flagging this motion during the second reading debate I referred to the reasons for moving it. I know the lie of the land; I can have this motion carried only if someone on the other side of the House will join with members on this side to create 18 members. That will open up the opportunity for the people of rural and country Western Australia to have access to a regime that will protect their interests better than that which is currently on offer from the Government. I commend to National Party members that they support this motion. If National Party members continue to turn their backs on country Western Australians they run a grave risk of getting a poor result at the coming state election. I also commend it to Liberal Party members from rural areas, who will appreciate the need to support this motion. I hope against hope, even at this late stage of the sitting, that after four years of doing enormous damage to the lives of country people of Western Australia, they will do the right thing for once and vote with the Opposition to achieve this suspension of standing orders. I commend the motion to the House. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [5.32 pm]: In summing up the second reading debate of the Bill I indicated to the House that the Government would not support the member’s motion and I explained why. The Government is concerned about some of the ramifications of the 50:50 rule. It will be considered much more in the future. It has been considered by previous Labor Governments and rejected. I outlined to the House a letter written by a major international company to our Premier advising that if a 50:50 rule were made mandatory, it would close the BP refinery in Kwinana. That suggestion by BP deserves to be considered thoroughly. Although the Leader of the Opposition rants and raves about the need for the coalition to support rural Western Australia in reducing fuel prices, where are members whose constituents may be employees of the BP refinery at Kwinana? Has the Leader of the Opposition taken into account their concerns on this matter? The Government is not ruling out the 50:50 option altogether. It has introduced legislation that it believes will create transparency in the marketplace, and it will be monitored. If it becomes apparent that we must take further action, the Government has in place a process to ensure we embark on that action. That is the responsible thing to do, although it is probably the least politically sensible thing to do. If we could say we had reduced the price of petrol by so many cents a litre, that would be politically beneficial. However, we must be responsible about these things. As Andrew Mensaros used to say, Oppositions can afford to be a little bit irresponsible. I regret that many people on the opposition side are often very irresponsible. Hon Tom Stephens: You are showing irresponsibility towards the people of your electorate. Hon N.F. MOORE: No I am not. I have an obligation to ensure that law making in this State is properly considered. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has a reputation for rushing off to the Press, screaming his head off and grabbing simple electoral points. Hon Tom Stephens: It was your Bill in 1992. The PRESIDENT: Order! We are not here to debate proposed amendments. As has been pointed out, this is a very narrow debate and comments should be made through the Chair. Hon N.F. MOORE: I gather that the Leader of the Opposition has been advised that the Opposition’s amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper are out of order. To my knowledge that ruling has not yet been made. However, I indicate to the House that the Government will not support the intent of his motion. If the motion to suspend standing orders is lost, we will go into Committee and a ruling will be made concerning those amendments. I look forward to that occurring so that we will know whether the amendments are out of order. HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [5.35 pm]: The Australian Democrats often find themselves frustrated by the limitations on the scope of amendments that can be moved. The Democrats respect the standing orders that apply to those limitations. However, on this occasion, major legislation, which has wide ranging ramifications, was introduced a week ago and we will probably pass it through all stages in the next 24 hours. There is good argument to say that the suspension of standing orders should be allowed to accommodate a wider ranging debate. This debate is not about what is right or wrong; it is about allowing a wider debate than that which we have had, in order to explore other issues such as the 50:50 issue. The House will decide whether to accept the amendments. In his response to the second reading debate, I do not think the minister answered my question about why the Government has not included legislation to reflect that recommendation of the select committee. The only argument the Government has provided so far about the 50:50 issue is that it has received a threatening letter from BP. Hon N.F. Moore: That is not all I said. It is something that is being considered.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3673

Hon NORM KELLY: It is a serious threat. I am not judging whether it is an idle threat or a realistic threat. However, a threat to close the BP refinery is a serious matter. As I said earlier, this legislation should not be considered in haste; it should be carefully examined. However, if the Government were serious about the 50:50 legislation and about undertaking thorough research on whether it should be included, it could elect to return for a day in two weeks after doing its homework. It has been six weeks since the report was tabled, yet the Government has not produced what I consider to be a decent response. In the interests of all concerned, support of this motion will allow a slightly wider ranging debate to entertain these issues and to allow the House to decide whether the amendments should be included in the Bill. HON J.A. SCOTT (South Metropolitan) [5.38pm]: Like Hon Norm Kelly, I agree that this proposal is important because it would provide more impetus to the legislation. It not only is important in that respect, but also, in the fuel industry at least, it would go some way towards addressing the weak anti-monopoly laws in Australia, let alone Western Australia. If we had stronger laws to control these monopolistic situations, we would probably not need to be here today to put this Bill through. Some of the first steps in that regard are contained in these amendments, for which the suspension of standing orders is sought to allow these amendments to go forward. I believe this is an important moment and it sets a precedent for many other areas of this type of control by major corporations. I will be supporting the motion. Question put and division taken with the following result - Ayes (13)

Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon Helen Hodgson Hon J.A. Scott Hon Bob Thomas (Teller) Hon Cheryl Davenport Hon Norm Kelly Hon Christine Sharp Hon E.R.J. Dermer Hon Mark Nevill Hon Tom Stephens Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Giz Watson Noes (12)

Hon M.J. Criddle Hon Max Evans Hon N.F. Moore Hon W.N. Stretch Hon Dexter Davies Hon Peter Foss Hon M.D. Nixon Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon Barry House Hon B.M. Scott Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller)

Pairs Hon Ken Travers Hon Ray Halligan Hon Kim Chance Hon Greg Smith Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Simon O'Brien Hon Tom Helm Hon Murray Montgomery The PRESIDENT: Order! Because the motion did not achieve an absolute majority, it is therefore not carried. SELECT COMMITTEE INTO THE FINANCE BROKING INDUSTRY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Extension of Time HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [5.42 pm]: I am directed to report that the Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry in Western Australia has resolved that the time in which it has to report be extended from 30 November to 7 December 2000, and should the House not sit on that day, the chairman is to present the report to the President, who may direct it to be released. On presentation to the President, the report is deemed to be tabled and ordered to be printed. I move - That the report do lie upon the Table and be adopted and agreed to. [See paper No 604.] Hon KEN TRAVERS: By way of brief explanation, the committee has been working furiously over the past couple of weeks to seek to meet the deadline of 30 November. We had planned to hold a further meeting tomorrow, but because of the decision made the other day that the House would sit tomorrow, those plans have been put in doubt. If the opportunity did arise after the conclusion of the sitting of the House tomorrow, we would again seek to have a meeting and to continue to try to conclude the report as soon as possible. However, it is the view of the committee that an extra week is necessary to enable the committee to conclude the report and put it in a format that will provide assistance to members of the House and the public. I realise that under the standing orders members have not had the opportunity to consider this matter, and I hope that if members are not comfortable with voting on this matter now they move to adjourn it to a later stage of this day's sitting so that it can be resolved today. On motion by Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House), resolved -

3674 [COUNCIL]

That consideration of this report be made an order of the day for a later stage of this day’s sitting. [Continued on page 3730.]

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRICING AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill. Ruling by Chairman The CHAIRMAN: Before I put the question on clause 1, I think it desirable that I advise the committee that I will not accept a motion on those amendments designated as 5/NC, 6/NC and 3/LT on Supplementary Notice Paper No 28-2. Standing Order No 282 confines a Committee of the Whole to a consideration of those matters referred by the House and those matters only. This present Committee is constituted for the purpose of considering a Bill, as the title states, “to amend the Petroleum Products Pricing Act 1983”. Standing Order No 237(a) empowers a Committee of the Whole on a Bill to make amendments otherwise relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. Standing Order No 3 defines “subject matter of a Bill” to mean the Bill as read a second time and, relevantly, referred to a Committee of the Whole. When the question of relevance in relation to amendments to Bills was considered last year by the Standing Orders Committee, it accepted advice that Standing Order No 237 has two primary effects. First, it confines a Committee of the Whole to what the House has required it to consider; that is restated in Standing Order No 282, to which I have referred previously. Secondly, and perhaps not apparent at first sight, it prevents the House itself from adopting a report from a Committee if the report contains matter irrelevant to the matter referred, the reason being that the House is bound to act in conformity with its own rules. I am aware that this House has long construed the words “relevant to the subject matter of the Bill” strictly, thus President Kirwan, in giving a ruling on this expression, stated that although “relevant” does not mean “identical”, it does mean that an amendment that would introduce a new principle falls outside what the rules contemplate. I accept that in some cases a fine line may be drawn between what is relevant and what is not relevant. These issues are decided as they are presented, so that the application of the rules is refined over time and they serve as a guide when another ruling is required. However, the present case is clear. The proposed amendments are not related to the Bill, as it was referred to this Committee. On the contrary, and as some of the amendments themselves admit, they are amendments to the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982. The Bill under consideration does not deal with the place from which fuel is purchased; it deals with pricing and disclosure of petrol prices at wholesale and retail levels. The two principal Acts - that is, the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982 and the Petroleum Products Pricing Act 1983 - have distinct purposes. Whether those purposes might have been enacted in one measure is not a relevant consideration. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the petrol pricing legislation. It makes no mention of the retailers rights and obligations legislation and, although both enactments deal with aspects of the marketing and distribution of petroleum products in the State, each has a different and discrete purpose. The proposed amendments cannot be seen as relevant to the pricing legislation when, clearly, they are designed for a purpose regulated by another principal Act. Accordingly, I rule that the amendments I have referred to are out of order. I add that even were I to permit the amendments to be determined by vote of the Committee, the motion to adopt the report would itself then be subject to challenge.

Point of Order Hon MARK NEVILL: Is it appropriate at this stage to argue against your ruling? I presume I have to do it now. The CHAIRMAN: I have made a ruling. However, if the member wants to bring something to my attention, I will consider it. Hon MARK NEVILL: I want to put an argument before the Committee and then move to dissent from your ruling, Mr Chairman. The ruling you gave is flawed in respect of the amendment I moved. The amendment I moved is not an amendment to the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act. You also said that this Bill does not deal with the place from which the fuel is purchased. My amendment is to insert new section 22H. Proposed new section 22G in the Bill, with the heading “Obligation to supply from declared terminal”, clearly refers to an access issue, not a pricing issue. That new section states that the supplier from a declared terminal is required to sell fuel to a reseller and it refers to refusal to supply. It is unrelated to pricing. It is an access question. The amendment I moved does not amend any other Act. It is an amendment which, in part, refers to access but, more appropriately, access to get the best price. It is, therefore, a pricing issue. In that sense the amendment I moved is clearly within the framework of this Bill. If that is the case, proposed section 22G is out of order as it refers only to access to terminals.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3675

Dissent from Chairman’s Ruling Hon MARK NEVILL: I believe the ruling is flawed. My amendment 5/NC on the Supplementary Notice Paper does not introduce any new principle to the Bill. On that basis, I move - That the Committee dissent from the Chairman’s ruling. The CHAIRMAN: The member has moved to dissent from my ruling in which case I must report to the President to that effect. [The President resumed the Chair.] Ruling by President The PRESIDENT: The Chairman of Committees has advised me that dissent has been moved from the Chairman’s ruling in respect of proposed amendment 5/NC to the Petroleum Products Pricing Amendment Bill 2000. In order that I can give consideration to both the ruling given, and any other matters, I invite any member who wishes to comment on the matter to do so. Hon MARK NEVILL: I moved dissent in respect of proposed amendment 5/NC because the amendment does not amend the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982. The amendment does not introduce a new principle. As part of the Chairman’s ruling, he said that the Bill does not deal with the place from which fuel is purchased. I dispute that ruling, Mr President, because proposed section 22G of the Bill relates clearly to an access issue, not a pricing issue. It deals with the obligation to supply from the declared terminal. The amendment I moved is partly an access issue and partly a pricing issue, in that it allows access by retailers to another supplier to get the best price. In that sense it is a pricing issue. It would be improper to rule out the amendment I have moved, on the basis that it is an access issue. I point out that, unlike the other amendments, it does not amend the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act. Hon NORM KELLY: As Hon Mark Nevill has already said, this is an access and a price issue. Proposed section 22G is also an issue relating to competition. Proposed section 22G has been included in this Bill to create greater competition within the marketplace, so that a bigger range of sellers is available from whom to purchase fuel. Hon Mark Nevill, by way of the proposed amendment, is trying to create a more competitive marketplace for the purchase and sale of fuel. The PRESIDENT: Firstly, I will ask Hansard to provide me with a copy of the comments by Hon Mark Nevill and Hon Norm Kelly as soon as possible. Secondly, the dinner break will provide me with an opportunity to consider the remarks made, and I hope that when I resume the Chair at 7.30 pm I will be able to provide a ruling to the House on the motion of dissent. Sitting suspended from 6.02 to 7.30pm The PRESIDENT: Before the House adjourned I indicated that I would spend most of the dinner break considering the issues raised by both Hon Mark Nevill and Hon Norm Kelly. I am now working on a commonwealth Act and have not finished the ruling. It would be in the interests of the House if the Leader of the House moved to other business prior to my coming back in due course with a ruling on the issues raised. [Continued on page 3689.]

RURAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 7 November. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural) [7.35 pm]: The Australian Labor Party has given an undertaking to support this Bill, and it will. Similarly, I have indicated to the Minister for Transport that I will be as concise as I possibly can be in dealing with the Bill. I promise that I will be. Hansard does not record that I might sound a little embarrassed in saying that. The Bill is designed to repeal the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation Act 1993 and to replace the former Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation with the Rural Business Development Corporation, which is to be established by this Bill. The powers and functions of the Rural Business Development Corporation will be similar to those of the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation, albeit with a much wider scope. Therefore, it is fair to say that all the functions of RAFCOR will be carried out by the Rural Business Development Corporation, as well as many more. Indeed, contained in those last few words is some of the concern that has been expressed by a number of people. Labor’s reason for supporting this Bill arises from discussions it had with the responsible officers and a single comment I made to them at the end of the briefing. My words were to the effect, “Will the passage of this Bill give the Government a greater ability, and more flexibility, to deal with the adverse seasonal conditions farmers are facing now?” The answer to that question was an unequivocal yes, and on that basis alone I undertook to recommend to my party the adoption of the Bill. My colleague Hon Mark Nevill, who was seated behind me a moment ago, commented

3676 [COUNCIL] just before I stood that it is a good idea; it is a bad Bill. Others will perhaps say that later in the evening. Notwithstanding that, this Bill should not have been controversial, but it has become so. The key justification for the Bill was to bring the old Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation Act into line with changes in the way schemes are administered between the Commonwealth and the State - these schemes are aimed at assisting rural industry, and they have a long history. The Bill does that by establishing the Rural Business Development Corporation, which will have more flexibility in its legislative arrangements to provide for the now common type of funding agreement being entered into between the Commonwealth and the States. It should be noted that those funding arrangements have changed substantially over the years. They have been through a process of both general and specific evolution, and I would be the first to agree that the legislative tools that are available to the Government to deal with arrangements of this type are tools which were adequate for the old rural adjustment service- type schemes but which are far from adequate for the type of scheme being administered at this time. The outcome has been that, for some time - we need not speculate about the period, but for at least two years or probably more - schemes administered by RAFCOR on behalf of the Commonwealth and under the current commonwealth-state agreements have been administered without valid legislative support. To a very important degree, the purpose of this new legislation is to address that fact. It is curious, even ironic, that we are dealing with this legislation on what is effectively the last sitting day of a parliamentary session; indeed, possibly the last sitting day for the current Government. I can recall a similar night in 1992 on what turned out to be the last sitting day for the Lawrence Government when we passed legislation similar to this - it dealt with mutual recognition of finance arrangements. I remember the angst that caused. We were trying to address a situation that would have retrospectively corrected arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State in that area. The then Opposition was most unwilling to do that because it could see the problems which had occurred and which may occur in the future as a result of the adoption of uniform legislation. Members know that in those days we did not have the equivalent of Standing Order No 230(c) or (d) and there was much concern. Ultimately - it took a long time that night - the Opposition acceded to the Government’s request and the Bill was passed, but not without some blood letting. We have a similar situation here. This Bill contains elements that should seriously concern a responsible legislator. Other members will address this matter, but those concerns are indicated clearly in the sixty-first report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs which deals with this Bill and which was tabled earlier. As I said, other members will deal with that issue in more detail. The existing RAFCOR Act did not have the flexibility that was required - that is, the necessary legislative provisions - to meet contemporary requirements of the commonwealth-state agreements for financial assistance, many of which stipulate eligibility criteria. The Act does not allow for the inclusion of specific eligibility criteria stipulated in commonwealth schemes. It is in that area that RAFCOR has been acting without valid legislative support. This Bill will also remove restrictions in the Act that limit RAFCOR to supporting persons engaged in rural industry only if the industry involves primary production. The new legislation will have the scope to allow financial support schemes for regional initiatives, and will not be limited to primary producers or individuals. I am keen to support that part of the Bill, although I know it rests at the base of some of the controversy. It is a fact that in a seasonal downturn in particular, but in any economic downturn in a rural area - specifically in those parts of rural Western Australia that are to all intents and purposes monocultural; that is, the scope of economic activity is very narrow - the people who are first and sometimes most seriously affected by drought or any other form of natural disaster are not necessarily the farmers. They are the people who make all of their living out of providing specific goods or services to farmers when those goods or services are deferrable purchases, particularly capital items. Many manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers find that, because those goods or services are deferrable, they are the first people cut out of farmers’ budgets. Since farmers of that class are generally these business people’s only customers, they find that they go very rapidly from operating a normal business to having no business at all. Members will know that before I came to this place I spent a year working for Moylan Silos, which is one such business with a relatively narrow spectrum of economic activity. When Moylan Silos ran into the 1990-91 season, it went from 500 units a year to 100 units a year. One hundred units a year did not provide sufficient scope to go remotely near covering the overheads of that business. That is fairly typical of a number of businesses in the wheatbelt in particular, although I imagine that businesses in the great southern have suffered similarly, even though there is a broader scope of economic activity in the great southern. I also imagine that businesses in Meekatharra would have suffered similarly in the 1994 drought, and the Minister for Transport will be more aware of that than I. It is entirely appropriate that the scope of this Bill be broadened to enable the inclusion of forms of assistance that might be suitable for businesses of that nature. However, I issue a warning, and this is something on which other members will raise issues in more detail: We must be extremely careful in the way we target assistance to businesses of that nature. As I understand it, the concern that people have relates to two areas. People are concerned primarily that this legislation provides to the Minister for Primary Industry in some circumstances, and in other circumstances to the Minister for Primary Industry in conjunction with the Treasurer, huge discretion in the disposal of very considerable amounts of public money. I ask the Minister for Transport whether he will detail in his response what amount of public

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3677 money might be covered by the authority administering this legislation. I gave the minister some warning that I would ask that question, and I ask it particularly because I have been concerned to hear certain figures mentioned. I do not know whether those figures are an accurate reflection and, in the context of the second reading debate, it would be useful for the record and for members to be aware of the scope of finance with which we are dealing. Initially, I was not all that concerned about that aspect, but it becomes an issue because we are now dealing with a Bill that will establish a means of disposing of consolidated revenue which we have not seen in the budget. When the budget was framed, this particular legislation was not contemplated. I fell for the classic error of assuming that we were talking about a budget in the scale of the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation’s budget. Of course we are not; we are now talking potentially about a budget with a wider scope and on a much larger scale. It is important in the context of this Bill that we make some attempt to define that scale. I acknowledge that it will be impossible for the minister to give us with any precision the figure that we are talking about, because a large part of that money is commonwealth money and is undefined. We do not know whether we will have it or not. However, I ask the minister to make a genuine attempt to try to define that scope. Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill give the Minister for Primary Industry, and, as I said, sometimes with the Treasurer, access to sweeping and unaccountable powers. These issues are pointed to clearly in the report. They are powers to spend money without parliamentary oversight. The Australian Labor Party is of the view, notwithstanding our support for this legislation, that the Bill must be reintroduced in an amended form when Parliament resumes. However, we are not prepared to compromise the possibility of the Bill becoming law, because we are not prepared to go into what may be a lengthy recess between now and the next time we gather together, during which time farmers may face a drought. Should this Bill not become law, we would go into that situation without providing the Government with the tools to deal with a very difficult situation. We will certainly not allow that to happen. It is my view - if I said it was Labor’s view I was in error; it is my view - that this Bill must be reintroduced in the next Parliament and amended. However, we will not leave farmers in the lurch, which is what would happen if we were in any way to compromise the Bill. The new Act will contain a standard set of eligibility criteria that will define approved assistance schemes that can be accessed. That is referred to in clause 30 and is also a key part of the sixty-first report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The Bill also gets around the problem of each new state-commonwealth agreement requiring its own legislation. Under the Bill, changes can be made to approved assistance schemes by the minister and the Treasurer; therefore, the need for supporting legislation for each new state-commonwealth agreement of this type is removed. That is the principal reason for this legislation and, as I said, it is those last two functions that have made the Bill somewhat controversial. The Bill also allows the Rural Business Development Corporation to assume the rights and obligations that the previous corporation had under the legislation that is to be repealed. It also contains the usual provisions that the State may sue and be sued in respect of the outcomes of the legislation. Paragraph 5.1.2 on page 8 of the report states - Subclause 7(2) clarifies that an approved assistance scheme administered by a department, agency or instrumentality is not administered on behalf of the RBD Corporation. This means that the RBD Corporation is not accountable for funds provided to another agency for an approved assistance scheme beyond the point of handing over the money. That raises real concern about the devolution of control of public funds. A state agency that takes public funds must account for that money and is responsible for acquitting the funds. However, if those funds are passed to a third party - as is legally provided for within the scope of this Bill - that state agency does not remain accountable for the way those funds are devolved. It is interesting to define whom a third party might be and who actually has responsibility. The minister himself can be one of those parties. The minister, in his role as the corporate body, can be one of the persons who make decisions on how those funds are to be expended. I know there are reasons for all of this and that it is easy to argue that this is already happening. The only difference is that in the future it will happen with the proper force of law and within the provisions of an Act of Parliament. At the moment it is happening outside the force of any law. Even so, it is an extraordinary position for the Parliament to be in. The Government is in a difficult position - it needs to get this legislation up and running. The Labor Party concurs with that view. However, I am disturbed that legislation of this kind has come through on the last sitting night of this Parliament, when the legal deficiencies have been known to exist for at least two years. This is not a complex piece of legislation - it does not represent a major drafting challenge, as other legislation has done. However, Parliament is in this situation. The Australian Labor Party believes, in varying degrees, that this legislation must go through. On that basis, I have given the appropriate undertakings. I am about to honour the second by sitting down, but I cannot do that before I note what I have previously said in this place; that is, I am deeply unhappy about the way in which the State Government has seriously depleted funds available to it, in trust, through the current expenditure of the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation of WA. I have referred, on a number of occasions, to the fact that the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation held in trust some $43m. The current budget shows that by the end of 2002, that $43m will be totally depleted. In itself that may not be a problem; however, when the expenditure of that money and the reason that money was accumulated in the first place are considered - and it was largely commonwealth money - serious questions arise about where that money went. It is reasonable to say that Farmbiz was one program supported

3678 [COUNCIL] by that money and it was an appropriate means of spending that money. However, Farmbiz represents only a very small proportion of that $43m. Other uses of those funds are highly questionable if they are lined up against the original purpose for which the Commonwealth accumulated those funds. As recently as this year I inquired as to the amount of the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation reserve which was being expended specifically on the Gascoyne-Murchison strategy and I was told that the RAFCOR component alone, setting aside the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the National Heritage Trust components, was $8.5m, representing one-fifth of the total reserve. I suppose one could argue that the Gascoyne-Murchison strategy is a legitimate use of those funds. What worries me is that we did not get a chance to argue it; we did not get a chance to look at the scheme and analyse it and the sources of its funding to determine whether this was an appropriate way to spend that money. That might have been an entirely appropriate way to spend that money, but Parliament did not get a say in it. That disturbs me, because we all know it is relatively easy to determine how and for what purpose the money was accumulated in that trust fund in the first place. I do not believe that the Gascoyne-Murchison strategy would have remotely fitted within the criteria that were determined in that instance. The new Rural Business Development Corporation will have much less of a role as a farm support agency, and this is significant given the depleted level of funds which are held by RAFCOR in trust accounts and the significant financial difficulties which are emerging in primary production throughout Western Australia. We have a dairy industry in major trouble, so deeply in trouble that the commonwealth minister has said that we should go back to the drawing board and have a review. That is the most amazing statement I have heard come out of the Commonwealth for a long time. We have come through a major process of review at commonwealth and state levels and we have just had the biggest expenditure of what could be called public funds - $1.8m - on industry restructuring arrangements for the dairy industry nationally. We have been back at work for a few weeks and the commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry has said that he thinks we had better have a review. I am not being critical of the commonwealth minister - he is dead right, we do need a review - but the fact that we need a review now is a real indictment of the public administration processes of the Commonwealth and the States in their handling of the dairy industry. I will set that issue aside because I am straying from the point. We have a problem in the dairy industry, we have a 10-year recession in the wool industry, we have grain producers facing both financial and climatic problems and we still have the carryover of the seasonal problems resulting from flooding in parts of the State last year and earlier this year. We can handle all those issues with the proper public administration process. I question whether the administrative process we had was being used properly - and I am referring to the trust fund money - although I have no doubt at all that this legislative prescription is potentially a vast improvement. This legislation is worthy of support, but it has such glaring deficiencies that the new Parliament should come back and have a good look at it. In particular, we need to come back and address the issues that other members will raise and that I have barely touched on tonight. The situation that is being legislated is not desirable. It is my view that there is no other choice but to support it, and, on that basis, the Labor Party will support it. HON HELEN HODGSON (North Metropolitan) [8.05 pm]: I thank the Constitutional Affairs Committee for presenting its report this afternoon under very trying circumstances. It is appropriate to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts made by the committee staff, as the report on this Bill took two weeks from the time of referral to when it was tabled due to a motion of the House. During that time, the staff were working on another urgent report. They also had to take hearings. Although I am not a member of the committee in question, I believe the staff should be commended for their efforts. Having read the report, my opinion on the Bill has changed. I have serious reservations about several aspects of the Bill. When I read the report, which was tabled this afternoon, my reservations firmed into real concerns and problems. It is appalling that this legislation has been rammed through at the end of the parliamentary session without the opportunity for full consideration by the committee. The committee acknowledges in the report that it would have preferred to have more time to deal with the issues more thoroughly. Members have been given only an hour to read the report and assess the issues raised in it. I have amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper but I have been advised that, as the Assembly is unlikely to deal with any amendments in the meantime, I have no chance of getting the amendments properly considered in this House. As it is considered important that the Bill be passed, the amendments will not get the necessary support because it would jeopardise the Bill and there is no chance that the amendments would be passed through both Houses. That is an appalling situation. This Bill is seriously flawed and lacking, but members are not given the opportunity to do their jobs properly. I received a briefing on this legislation about 10 days ago as I anticipated that this situation might arise. I expressed my concerns about this legislation at the briefing. Significant changes have been made to the way some schemes are administered since the introduction of the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation Act. The earliest schemes were forms of direct financial assistance by way of loans to ensure that farmers were able to meet their capital requirements in order to keep operating. I was informed last week that Governments in Australia were moving away from that sort of scheme as it is now very easy to get finance from a variety of sources and lender of last resort schemes are no longer needed. When finance is readily available at extortionate rates, farmers find that they are in great difficulty when

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3679 something goes wrong and they are not able to meet their obligations. I question why forms of support such as RAFCOR are being abandoned. I am not saying that forms of support from other schemes are not necessary. However, one of the fundamental reasons RAFCOR was developed was to deal with those sorts of problems. That will now be thrown out of the window. The way in which the provisions of this Bill are tailored to deal with any last remaining aspects of that portfolio have some question marks over them and the proposed operations of the Rural Business Development Corporation. I agree with the need to be able to offer schemes to people other than farmers. I refer to the effects we are starting to see in rural communities that are suffering from dairy deregulation. It has happened to the extent that members of the Government are now prepared to go on the record and make speeches in which they say that they are concerned that they did the wrong thing in this place six months ago when they rammed through dairy deregulation legislation. It was done once again at the end of the session and without amendment because any amendment would prejudice the scheme going through. It is very important that we are able to offer schemes that support communities that are at risk because of circumstances beyond their control. It is due largely to the efforts of my federal colleague, Senator John Woodley, that an increased amount of federal assistance money has been made available for rural communities that are affected by deregulation. However, I note in the committee report that the Western Australian Farmers Federation has reservations about the way in which the schemes will operate. I am sure that Hon Ken Travers, as a member of that committee, has had the advantage of sitting through the hearings and looking at transcripts of the evidence and will be able to expand on that point. The relevant paragraph in the report is one of those very carefully phrased paragraphs. It reads - Mr Carter informed the Committee that WAFF was somewhat cautious about the definition of eligible businesses and persons. In other words, there were reservations. Hon Ken Travers: The paragraph is not carefully worded. He was very cautious because the industry is still not fully aware of the legislation because it has not had time to consider it properly. That is my impression. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I thank the member for that interjection. If the industry is not aware of the ramifications of this legislation - Hon Ken Travers: It is not fully aware of the ramifications. It supports it but it has some concerns. Hon HELEN HODGSON: The industry probably supports it on the basis of a 45-minute briefing on the same basis that most of our members originally meet these pieces of legislation. We have reservations about the extent of these schemes. It was said that the Western Australian Farmers Federation would be very concerned if the new Act was used to provide assistance to regional initiatives when funds from other agencies could be used to finance those initiatives. That is particularly interesting when one looks at the provisions of the Bill which deal with the way in which the Rural Business Development Corporation is able to interrelate with other agencies, which makes the whole meshing of the assistance programs through other agencies even more likely to occur and more likely to end up siphoning out funds for other initiatives which may not meet the original intention of supporting farmers and rural communities. My main concerns are in this next area, which I have headed in my notes “flexibility versus accountability”. We keep being told about the need to be flexible, the need to respond rapidly and the need for the minister and the corporation to be able to respond in certain ways. When I was being briefed last week, I was advised that this is the way that parliamentary counsel thinks that we should be setting up these powers of corporations now because it is a good template and model to follow. I am not saying those are the exact words but that was the sentiment. I am horrified by that thought. The more flexibility we give a corporation and minister to act, the more problems we will have with accountability and transparency. That is my starting point. We need to have absolute transparency. We would not have it in these sorts of arrangements. For a start, these schemes start with an agreement at ministerial council level between federal and state ministers. There is then a press release and big fanfare about what they will do. Do we ever see the detail of the agreement? I have worked out in my mind that there are four levels of parliamentary scrutiny. At one level a scheme is attached to legislation by way of schedule. That is what we are meant to do under the current scheme before us. Interestingly, the committee report indicates that we must act so quickly because the organisation has been acting ultra vires. Two or three schemes have been implemented, yet not appended to the principal legislation. They were not tabled in this place and were not made public. The minister has abysmally failed that test. The other issue which arises with attachments to legislation - I believe that this is a reason for the breach - is that Standing Order No 230 requires that such matters must go to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs. That is why this report is before us now. It is appalling to not comply with the legislation, and to limit parliamentary scrutiny and the committee’s ability to examine this. That strongest level of scrutiny has failed. The next level of scrutiny is the process of disallowance or affirmation, which is discussed in the last section of this report. Basically, the committee has considered both regulations for disallowance and an affirmative resolution process. It commented on each. It is concerned that neither method of parliamentary scrutiny is satisfactory regarding this Bill.

3680 [COUNCIL]

I understand the reasons. A regulation comes into force unless it is disallowed; thereby, there can be inequitable treatment as people can have matters dealt with under the law before the disallowance motion is moved, debated and passed. Those people retain the benefit of that regulation, and other people are denied that benefit once the disallowance motion is passed. Hon M.J. Criddle: Are you saying that Parliament should handle every piece of financial legislation? Hon HELEN HODGSON: I am working through the options. I want that comment on the record. The minister said that it is outrageous to expect this Parliament - Hon Murray Criddle: I asked you whether that is what you wanted. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Yes. That is what this place is for. It is here so arrangements are open and available for scrutiny, whether it be a convention centre, the sale of railway lines or a petrochemical deal. They must be tabled in this place. A disallowance or affirmation procedure makes this place aware of what is going on. We would have the opportunity, if we felt there was inequity in what is presented to us, to disallow or not pass an affirmation motion. Why is this necessary? Members may have been in the Chamber when an urgency motion moved by Hon Kim Chance that related to rural communities was debated last week. I am not aware of the detail of the particular scheme referred to in the debate, as I do not have Hon Kim Chance’s depth of knowledge in that area. However, an issue raised in that debate indicated some clear inequities in the way these schemes are managed. I recall some comments about schemes which differentiated between properties accessed by rail and properties accessed by road; that shows that inequities do occur. Parliament has the obligation to know what is going on, to comment on it and to rectify it if it is wrong. The minister must be told about those inequities, which must be addressed. When disallowance and affirmation procedures arise, the standing orders require the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to examine them. Once again, we have a report, it is put on the record, we know what is going on and we choose not to disallow it. The number of instances in which disallowance motions are moved is minuscule compared with the number of regulations that are passed for various pieces of legislation. Even if a motion is moved, the number of occasions when a disallowance motion is passed is even smaller. The fact that a scheme is disallowable should not cause anybody any concern as long as it is fair, equitable and not ultra vires. In that case, we would not have the basis for a disallowance motion. Nobody has any need to be scared of disallowance procedures. I have already commented on the last of my layers of scrutiny; that is, the arrangement whereby the Rural Adjustment and Financial Corporation operates ultra vires because it is not providing any scrutiny. This Bill will produce a situation in which ministerial councils will come up with a scheme, put out a media statement and release administrative instructions as to how it is to operate and we will have to assume, expect and trust that the instructions are in accordance with the scheme. When a constituent asks a member for the Agricultural Region why he does not qualify under this scheme, the member will want to refer to the scheme to check why the constituent does not qualify. To simply rely on ministerial guidelines and rulings causes some serious problems. Members on the Standing Committee on Public Administration have been dealing with a running sore since 1994; namely, the distribution adjustment assistance scheme. Once again we had a scheme in which the administration was so complex that one could not go back to the detail. That is why things must be tabled, transparent and open in Parliament, because that is our job. The committee has considered whether the definitions of the approved assistance scheme are adequate. I am sure that a later speaker will address this issue in more detail. I note that it is a very broad and general definition. Some issues must be raised to make sure the scheme is within the scope of this Bill. I will leave that to subsequent speakers. Hon Ken Travers: It is not one of the areas I was going to cover. Hon HELEN HODGSON: If I shorten my speech by a couple of minutes, Hon Ken Travers can have that time. The most serious problems I have concern the ministerial powers. The minister has broad powers to issue directions to the corporation; there is only limited transparency, or none at all. The committee is concerned about the possibility that the minister could be the beneficiary of some distributions because of the way in which the approved assistance scheme is defined. It is not something I had picked up on in my own review of the Bill, but I am interested to hear more discussions on that point. The fact that the committee has noted it as a serious issue means that it must be debated. Hon Ken Travers: It is not that the minister personally will benefit, but that the minister will be able to bypass the corporation. We have an Act to create a corporation that allows the minister to bypass it if he so chooses. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Essentially, the minister as a body corporate would receive a distribution, which he can then administer. Hon Ken Travers: He can administer the scheme and ignore the corporation. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I am concerned about the lack of transparency. Hon Ken Travers: It makes the Bill a hypocrisy in some ways.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3681

Hon HELEN HODGSON: Yes. The words “slush fund”, which I think have been used previously today, spring to mind. As members are aware, the Australian Democrats take a great deal of interest in the appointment of boards. The appointment process should be open to members of the public. An amendment on the Supplementary Notice Paper in my name seeks to have positions on the board advertised so that members of the public can apply for them. I note that the minister has the ability to override the conflict of interest provisions set out in schedule 1. The minister can effectively say that the conflict of interest provisions will not apply in certain situations. In line with accountability and transparency and buzzwords of that nature, that is not appropriate in this climate. Having said that I have some serious reservations primarily about the areas of accountability and whether we should be establishing guidelines in a corporation that the minister can bypass. The legislation deals with amounts of money that must be distributed equitably; therefore, the public has a right to know what is going on and whether their applications are being treated appropriately and fairly. These matters must be dealt with by making the information public. Prior to the tabling of the committee report I had an amendment drafted, which is on the Supplementary Notice Paper, and which seeks tabling of the ministerial agreement and its circulation in the Government Gazette. However, the standing committee’s report recommends a form of disallowance or affirmation. If I had had the advantage of that advice a week ago when I gave the drafting instructions, the amendment would have referred to that higher level of accountability. However, I appreciate the complexities of the disallowance procedure. I will move the amendment at the appropriate time. As I said earlier, a problem exists because I have been told that the need to pass this Bill is so great that other people in this Chamber will not support an amendment if it means that the Bill will not be passed this evening. It is important that is on record because it is not reasonable for the legislation to be passed with its attendant problems when other alternatives have been presented. I understand that Hon Julian Grill, the member for Eyre, is on the record as saying that this is good legislation and a superior model. In the light of comments made here this evening by the Australian Labor Party representative it is obvious that further consideration has been given to this Bill. I wish the opportunity were available for members to say that they had changed their minds, because the legislation was inadequate and contained some very big holes that needed to be filled. I therefore throw out a challenge: If time constraints do not allow amendments to be passed tonight, one of the key areas spelt out in the standing committee report can be dealt with by assurance. Another would require legislative amendment. I challenge whoever is on the government benches next year to say that the legislation is inadequate and must include these provisions. The Government must be made accountable; it must comply with what the community has come to expect in the way of transparency in the financial matters of government. At the moment it is totally inadequate, and, although I indicated to the minister some days ago that it was acceptable, having read the report, I no longer hold that opinion. I know the legislation will be passed, because I know the numbers in this place, but I will not support it. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [8.30 pm]: As I am the only member of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs who will speak on this Bill tonight in reference to the report, I concur with the comments of Hon Helen Hodgson about the work of the committee staff, especially Felicity Beattie and David Driscoll, in assisting the committee in preparing this report. I know my two colleagues on the committee share that view. The staff has done an excellent job on this, and on a previous Bill that needed to be reported with haste back to this place, as well as continuing the other work of the committee. I am angry about this piece of legislation, in terms of both the process by which it has come before this House, and its quality. It highlights that the Government is in decline, has lost the plot, and is running around bringing Bills into this House so that it can pull election stunts next year, without having dealt with the real issues over the past two years. By the admission of its own staff to the committee, the Government has known for two years that it was acting illegally. If a bipartisan committee can find, on the advice of the Government’s own staff, that the Government has been acting without legislative authority, that Government stands condemned. The community will get rid of this Government at the appropriate time. This legislation has taken two years to come before this House from the time the problems were first recognised, during which time the Government continued to operate without decent legislation. Then the legislation is brought in two weeks before the Parliament is due to rise. The minister with responsibility for this legislation in the other place is well aware of the processes and requirements of this House. Legislation that falls under Standing Order 230(c) and (d), is required to be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and that committee then has 30 days to report back to this House. Instead, the committee is given two weeks to get the legislation in here. The House is then blackmailed into passing this Bill tonight without amendment, otherwise there will be nothing to assist farmers who are facing one of the worse economic crises that Western Australia has faced in a long time. What has the Minister for Primary Industry been doing for the past two years, and particularly for the past six months, when all the members from the Agricultural Region have been warning the House about the economic difficulties looming? The Government then, at the last moment, races in a very flawed and inadequate piece of legislation, and allows no chances for amendments to improve it. That is an absolute disgrace.

3682 [COUNCIL]

I encourage members to look at paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the report. The representative of the Western Australian Farmers Federation made it clear during the public hearing that WAFF has concerns about this legislation. WAFF, as a key industry group, has not had the opportunity to look at and deal with this legislation to the extent that it would like. It is concerned about the potential implications of this legislation, particularly that money may be taken from the provision of on-farm assistance and be used for the provision of off-farm assistance. I understand the arguments and I support the need for non-farm businesses to be provided with assistance, because machinery dealers and other non-farm businesses are suffering just as much as farmers are suffering as a result of the economic circumstances facing regional Western Australia. However, paragraph 4.6 of the report makes it clear that WAFF is concerned that money that should rightfully go to on-farm enterprises may be transferred to other people. This Bill is also poor from the point of view of the administrative side of government. It will set up a system whereby the Rural Business Development Corporation - as the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation will become known by this Bill - will be able to do work that is currently being done by the Department of Commerce and Trade. It will be able to compete with Commerce and Trade and get its fingers into the same sorts of pies. It will be able to develop new abattoirs, and to set up cooperatives for the dairy industry to try to make some sense out of that industry that has been so stuffed up by this Government. Those are things that have traditionally been done by Commerce and Trade. If the Government wanted the role of providing those services to be transferred to a new organisation, it should have done a proper structural review of that area. However, the Government did not do that. We know what the Government does. It goes out into the community and says that no assistance can be provided for farmers because the Labor Party has failed to pass this Bill, when we all know that is due to its inadequacies and the fact that it really does not care. Half of the members in this House represent regional areas. We have 17 members from regional areas. We have only 17 members from metropolitan Perth, even though there are a lot more people in metropolitan Perth. However, regardless of the fact that we have all these coalition members, they fail to even keep the Minister for Primary Industry accountable and doing anything. Hon Helen Hodgson referred to vested interests. I also have some concerns about that matter. However, I point out to Hon Helen Hodgson that the minister will be required to table in this House the fact that he has ruled that vested interests do not apply. I expect that in the current climate of political debate, and particularly when it involves the Minister for Primary Industry, the people will take action if a minister does act improperly. I can envisage circumstances in which we would say, “It is interests in common; let us ignore it.” However, I understand the member's concerns about vested interests and this current Government. My first concern about this legislation is the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. That matter is outlined in the conclusion of the report at paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3. The committee recognised that whatever way we go, whether we have an affirmative resolution process or a disallowance process, there will be problems; and it recommended that the Parliament develop a new process that will give it the flexibility to respond with some sense of urgency, but at the same time will give this House some control over the process. I am amazed that we are passing this Bill so that the Rural Business Development Corporation can get schemes up and running. Hon Mark Nevill: Why pass it? I intend to vote against it. It is a dreadful piece of legislation. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I agree, but at the end of my comments I will state why we need to pass this legislation; I have touched on it as we have gone through. During the committee hearing, I asked the bureaucrats from RAFCOR what sorts of schemes they had proposed to try to address the crisis that exists in the rural sector as we speak today. Can members guess what the answer was? They had not prepared any draft schemes! Yet the Government tells us we must pass this legislation tonight. That highlights the Government’s total incompetence. If we passed an amendment that required an affirmative resolution process tonight, the result would be the same as killing the Bill. We might as well defeat the Bill! Inserting that clause tonight would mean that over the next five months during the current crisis the minister could not set up new schemes. He could continue to act illegally, as he has done in the past. However, if the Government acts legally - and with an election so close the Government might want to do that for the next three months - it cannot introduce new schemes; therefore, we might as well defeat the Bill. The committee has recommended that a disallowance motion would be an appropriate course of action. I apologise to committee members for raising this now, but it is a thought that has come to me since the committee reported. Rural Western Australia is facing a crisis. I note we shall make valedictory speeches tomorrow, and if the House rises tomorrow it is reasonable to expect that it will not be recalled until after May 2001. If the Government sets up a pork- barrelling scheme and the minister uses his slush fund to pork-barrel the seats the National Party wants to win, the money will already be spent by May next year, so a disallowance motion will not stop that process. Both the options outlined have potential problems. Moving either of them as an amendment and including those mechanisms in the legislation will not address any of the concerns members have. I accept Hon Helen Hodgson’s challenge. Although I am not in a position to give a commitment from the Australian Labor Party, Hon Kim Chance and I have a fairly good chance of success. I will make sure when Labor is in government next year that one of the first things Hon Kim Chance does as Minister for Primary Industry is instigate a review of the legislation, and bring it back

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3683 into this House so this can be done properly. I accept that those things need to be done, and that is what I shall do next year. That is not a formal position of the ALP. Hon Derrick Tomlinson interjected. Hon B.M. Scott interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Listen to - The CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon Ken Travers will address the Chair rather than the interjectors. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I found those interjections particularly humorous coming from those two members. Over the past two days as the Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Bill was debated in this House and passed, without providing compensation for residents, those members said they had tried their hardest but they could not get anything through their Cabinet. However, during the passage of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Amendment Bill 1999 some members opposite did the right thing and worked with the ALP, and we were successful in getting compensation provisions enhanced. I digress, and it is not my intention to do so. Hon Helen Hodgson thought I would mention clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill which are outlined in paragraphs 5.16 and 5.17 of the committee’s report about the definition of approved schemes. The committee has made recommendations on how to address this. However, it is interesting that this Bill proposes to set up the Rural Business Development Corporation, yet clauses 30 and 31 provide the mechanism for the minister to ignore that corporation, and to set himself up as the person who will administer the scheme as a body corporate. Therefore, we will pass an Act that the minister can ignore. A corporation will be set up, but under the legislation that sets it up, the minister can completely bypass it. It is my great concern that this legislation is a blank canvas being given to the minister to do whatever he likes. If he cannot get the new corporation to do what he wants, he can just bypass it and do whatever he wants through his office as a minister of the Crown by setting himself up as a body corporate under the provisions of clauses 30 and 31. As members are aware, I am very angry about the process by which this legislation has come to this House and about the situation in which we have been placed. I understand why members in this place want to knock off this Bill and reject the legislation. However, I ask them to think about the implications of doing that. Because of the incompetence of this Government and the minister handling this legislation, those businesses, particularly non-farming businesses, in regional Western Australia will be left to face the economic crisis, with absolutely nothing to assist them, and the minister will say to them that it was this House that stopped the passage of the legislation. Unfortunately, that will be the view that prevails in those areas, regardless of the fact that the minister has been completely incompetent. Those farm businesses, and non-farm businesses particularly, will be left with no legislative mechanism that will provide them with any assistance during what will be a very tough six months. I accept the arguments of members from the Agricultural Region about the severity of the crisis that those industries will face over the next six months. They will be left with nothing. That is a very difficult situation for all members in this House, and I have strong suspicions that it has been deliberately engineered by the minister to get through such an appalling piece of legislation. However, I hold one hope. One thing that gives me some faith in this process is the knowledge that after the next election Western Australia will have a decent Minister for Primary Industry, for the first time since Hon Julian Grill was the Minister for Primary Industry. Julian Grill is retiring; however, he was a great Minister for Primary Industry. I mean that with all sincerity. After the next election, for the first time in eight years this State will have another fine, decent Minister for Primary Industry who cares about people in regional Western Australia and also cares about the processes of this House. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [8.47 pm]: I begin by thanking the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs for providing us with the benefit of its deliberations so that we could have an informed debate this evening. I also thank other members, because I have found their speeches very interesting, and they have only served to fuel my concerns about this Bill. I feel very concerned that here we are, on our last night of real business, faced with legislation that is clearly inadequate. I wonder how on earth we continually manage to get into this situation. The first question that comes to my mind is: Why is it that drafting Bills always seems to take such an extraordinarily long time, and why is it that very often the Bills that are finally drafted and approved are found to be seriously inadequate in various ways? I do not have enough experience to be able to answer that question. However, it seems that, in the process of aiding the work of Parliament, the legal expertise that is necessary to draft adequate legislation appears to be missing. That frequently lets down the process of the Parliament because the Parliament is not being provided with decent legislation. Why is it that drafting takes so long? Why do we find ourselves in this kind of predicament on the last night of sitting? Of course, that predicament is compounded by its being too late to consider amendments. What an appalling situation. When I was looking at this Bill a week ago, I was somewhat comforted by the fact that my colleague from the Australian Democrats, Hon Helen Hodgson, was drafting amendments. I felt that those amendments would make the Bill acceptable. Although that was some days ago, and this Bill could have been debated earlier and those amendments could have been considered and taken through the appropriate course back to the other place, we again find ourselves in this ridiculous predicament of there being insufficient time to do this properly.

3684 [COUNCIL]

The substance of this Bill is very interesting. I have become increasingly obsessed about an issue which seems to escape all attention but which keeps cropping up all the time. I refer to the trend in this jurisdiction and throughout Australia towards a process of government by program instead of government by service. This Bill will accommodate government by program, which is a very unsatisfactory way to govern. It is a mechanism by which to accommodate something that would normally be of great concern to this Government; that is, the Premier’s pet peeve of vertical fiscal inequity. We are designing legislation around the fact that much of our rural funding must come from the Federal Government. This Bill is designed to facilitate that. That may be a reality we must live with, but our response fascinates me. This Bill involves trends that greatly concern me. I am concerned that Governments throw money in one direction for one program and in other directions for other programs. It is usually for bona fide reasons and one can accept the justifications. However, the decisions are very uneven and the priorities are inconsistent. This does not represent sustainable government. We are continually failing to focus our priorities on regular services, and that is being noticed in the community. That trend, which is common throughout all jurisdictions, is the result of relations between the States and the Federal Government. Everyone seems to accept it as a normal part of life. How this Parliament responds to that pressure is very important. As other members have pointed out, we are responding to that pressure in a way that fundamentally undermines the role of this Parliament and accountability. That is the wrong way to respond to this challenge presented by the financial relationship between this State and the Federal Government and the trend towards government by program. Is the passage of this legislation so urgent that we must rush to get it wrong? Given that RAFCOR has no arrangements in place that it is particularly keen to see facilitated under this legislation, perhaps it would be best to get it right slowly. In practical terms, if this Bill does not go through, it probably will not make any difference. We have been muddling along for some time anyway. When I received a briefing on this Bill, the first thing I was told was that we had been getting along without the proper legislation for some time. As Hon Helen Hodgson has already pointed out, that is ultra vires the law. Surely it is better that we accept and come to terms with that situation and ensure that when we amend the Rural Adjustment and Finance Corporation Act, and indeed introduce a new Act, we get it right; and that we ensure our whole response to the pressure of our relationship with the Federal Government is framed in a way which respects the accountability of the use of that funding and ensures that the members in this place are accountable to the community in which that money is spent. I find it a hard call. I understand why the Labor Party finds itself in the situation it does; it feels it is obliged to pass this Bill. I understand that and I sympathise. However, in facing a similar predicament myself and, perhaps for obvious reasons, feeling that I can be more gutsy than the Labor Party, I would really fail in some of my deep beliefs if I did not join with the Australian Democrats and other members of this place in saying that this is a really bad Bill. It is not a precedent that we should be setting in this place. We should muddle our way through until we have the opportunity to get it right. Therefore, the Greens (WA) will not support this Bill. HON MARK NEVILL (Mining and Pastoral) [8.57 pm]: I will not support this Bill. This Bill allows for the provision of financial assistance to eligible people as approved by the minister. The Bill is basically a right for the minister to write cheques as he sees fit, to bypass all the normal channels of accountability and largely to pork-barrel the electorate with state and federal funds as he sees fit, which has been a proclivity of his for the past couple of years. The Bill is basically a good idea. However, it is a bad piece of legislation. It is full of flaws and loopholes, and I do not think it is worthy of passing through this Parliament. Hon Ken Travers and Hon Kim Chance gave us every reason to vote against the Bill, and I will be doing just that. HON M.J. CRIDDLE (Agricultural - Minister for Transport) [8.58 pm]: I thank members for their comments. I understand the concerns with some elements of the Bill, which were outlined in the report, and that some members have with the overall structure of the Bill. I understand the Labor Party will support the Bill and I thank it for that. Hon Kim Chance will have a keen understanding of the requirements of people in the country, bearing in mind that presently they are experiencing a very difficult season. There will need to be an opportunity for businesses to be involved in the funding arrangements that are available, as they are an integral part of country life. Hon Kim Chance outlined the Bill succinctly. I thank the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Hon Murray Nixon, and his team for doing the work. They have been under some pressure in the past day or two, but they have done a pretty good job. I have answered a couple of points that were raised by members. Some of the issues brought up by Hon Helen Hodgson would be more appropriately dealt with in the committee stage of the Bill. The funding available from the commonwealth draw-down will be $7.9m in 2000-01, $3m in 2001-02 and $1m in 2002-03. The state funds draw- down will be $5.8m in 2000-01, $2.5m in 2001-02 and $300 000 in 2002-03. A farm business scheme - Farmbiz - will also be established across Australia next year with a fund of $120m. I understand that Western Australia’s share will be around 17 per cent. Those funds will be administered under the provisions of this Bill, as will other schemes that may come up in exceptional circumstances. The issues raised by members will therefore be covered by those draw-downs.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3685

I understand the comments made with regard to targeting funds. The Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer have that responsibility. Clause 7(1)(c) of the Bill clearly sets out the challenge and responsibilities they face in that area. I understand Hon Helen Hodgson’s concern for more time to deal with some amendments on the Supplementary Notice Paper. One aspect that we must all understand is that business management is a crucial part of this legislation. It is a crucial facet of rural business in Western Australia and this Bill provides the opportunity to get some expertise in that area. As a member of the seasonal risk management committee, it is one essential aspect that must be put in place. Obviously, all members had regard to the requirements for parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. Reference was made to the minister’s heeding some of the comments that were made. I am sure he will listen to those comments and will deal with those issues in future. I thank members for their comments and look forward to the passage of the Bill through the Parliament. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (21) Hon Kim Chance Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon N.F. Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon Max Evans Hon M.D. Nixon Hon Ken Travers Hon M.J. Criddle Hon Peter Foss Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller) Hon Cheryl Davenport Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Tom Stephens Hon Dexter Davies Hon Ray Halligan Hon W.N. Stretch Hon E.R.J. Dermer Hon Barry House Hon Bob Thomas Noes (6) Hon Helen Hodgson Hon Mark Nevill Hon Christine Sharp Hon Giz Watson (Teller) Hon Norm Kelly Hon J.A. Scott Question thus passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon M.J. Criddle (Minister for Transport) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1: Short title - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I want to clarify that Standing Order No 224 does not apply and that the Committee can go through the Bill clause by clause. The CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Committee can go through the Bill clause by clause. Hon KIM CHANCE: I am speaking on the short title clause as a result of the minister’s response to my question at the second reading stage, asking for a reasonable estimate of the funds available to be administered by the corporation. I thank the minister for providing that estimate to the Committee. It is apparent from the quantum of those estimated funds that many of the issues raised by members, who expressed concerns about the corporation, its use, and its potential use, may not be concerns at all. Virtually no substantial funds can be controlled by the corporation. The funds are so limited that a corporation is barely needed to administer them; the funds are minuscule. I did not take note of the sum, but by 2003 there will be virtually nothing to administer. This Bill may be cited as the Rural Business Development Corporation Bill 2000, but will the corporation have anything to administer? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: New programs may be developed in the years to come. Clause put and passed. Clauses 2 to 6 put and passed. Clause 7: Functions of Corporation - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I intend to take up the challenge posed by the committee report in paragraph 5.1.3, which stated - The House might like to consider this clause in more detail. There may be concerns over lack of accountability. This clause lists the functions of the Rural Business Development Corporation. It is my understanding from reading the committee report that one of the problems is that, although the RBDC is set up to do these things, its function cuts out the moment it is handed over to another agency. Once that other agency has the program, it will have the funds for that program and there is nothing the RBDC can do to monitor and administer how those funds are spent. Does the minister envisage any form of accountability from that other agency upwards to the RBDC and ultimately to the Parliament and the people of this State?

3686 [COUNCIL]

Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: A report is presented to the board, with conditions of performance, and indicators and targets are included. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Are those built-in requirements to this legislation or are they administrative requirements? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: They are administrative requirements. Clause put and passed. Clauses 8 to 11 put and passed. Clause 12: The board - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I move - Page 7, after line 23 - To insert the following new subclause - (3) The Minister is to invite applications for appointment as a director by publishing a notice in a newspaper circulating in the State. The notice is to include the selection criteria on which appointments will be made. The members in this Chamber will be familiar with this amendment, having seen it on a number of previous occasions. We are concerned, when appointments are made to public corporations fulfilling public functions, that the appointments are seen to be open and accountable and that means they have to advertise for the best applicant and let people know that these appointments are taking place. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: The minister can seek applicants for the position. On that basis, he can obviously seek a wide range of talents in appointing these people. The Government does not see any necessity for this amendment. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Without prolonging this debate, because we have heard it before, why does the minister think he knows who is available at any time across the breadth and range of talent of every resident in Western Australia? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: The minister can also advertise. Amendment put and negatived. Clause put and passed. Clauses 13 to 20 put and passed. Clause 21: Consultants etc. - Hon HELEN HODGSON: The committee report raises an issue relating to the corporation being allowed to engage a consultant under a contract of services to enable the RBDC to perform its functions, but it does not specify whether that contract should be in writing. We all know that contracts can be made orally or on the basis of actions, so I was hoping that the minister would be prepared to give an undertaking that any such contracts would be in writing to enable those contracts to be reported to this place in the report that is tabled periodically for consultants engaged by government agencies. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: The Financial Administration and Audit Act and the State Supply Commission Act both require it. Clause put and passed. Clauses 22 and 23 put and passed. Clause 24: Rural Business Development Corporation Operating Account - Hon KIM CHANCE: I might have raised this point when clause 7 was dealt with; however, I have left it to this stage as this clause deals directly with the development corporation’s operating account and its relationship to the Financial Administration and Audit Act. This clause deals with the administration of the Act and moneys within the purpose of the Act for advice on the circumstances contemplated in clause 7; that is, the administration of a scheme may be carried out by a third party. Since those third parties can only be agencies, the third parties would also be required to comply with the provisions of the FAAA. Is there some comfort that the Chamber can take from that in respect of the accountability for those moneys by the third party? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: Yes. Whatever moneys are spent can be audited by the Auditor General. Clause put and passed. Clauses 25 to 29 put and passed. Clause 30: Approved assistance schemes - Hon KEN TRAVERS: It may be hard for members to follow the recommendations of the report. I must apologise for that, but as members are aware, the committee had to act with haste. Recommendation 3 seeks an assurance from the

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3687 minister in relation to clauses 30 and 31. I refer the minister to paragraph 5.16.4 of the committee’s report that deals with clause 30. A similar comment is made at the conclusion of clause 31. It states - The Committee is concerned that this clause appears to be wide enough to allow the Minister administering the Act to direct the distribution of funds under an approved assistance scheme to him or herself as the body corporate known as the Minister for Primary Industry. I said as much during the second reading debate. The clause provides that the minister could effectively bypass the corporation and create a scheme that is administered by the minister himself as a separate body corporate. Is the minister able to give a commitment to the Chamber, on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry, that the Minister for Primary Industry will not use the provision as provided for by this clause and clause 31? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: I am advised that it is not the minister’s intention to do that. Obviously we will confirm that with the minister. Clause put and passed. Clause 31: Schemes established under agreements between Commonwealth and State taken to be approved assistance schemes - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I move - Page 18, after line 3 - To insert the following new subclause - (2) The full text of any approved assistance scheme is to be — (a) published in the Gazette within 14 days of the day on which it was approved; and (b) laid before each House of Parliament within 6 sitting days of that House after the day on which it was approved,

under section 30(1)(c) or section 31(a). As I may have said in my second reading speech, instructions were given before the committee report was available otherwise I may have taken a harder line option and had an amendment drafted which dealt with the disallowance of these schemes. However, the amendment is a soft option which requires two things: First, the publication of the details of the scheme and, second, tabling in this place. My reasons are purely to do with transparency. With this version of the amendment, the Chamber would have no powers in respect of a scheme but it would tell people what is going on and allow them to measure up their own circumstances against the full text of the scheme. It is the very least that we should do when matters to do with the financial administration of this State come before this Chamber. Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: Under the Financial Administration and Audit Act, the corporation already prints the full text of all approved schemes in its annual report. The annual report is tabled in Parliament as required by the FAAA, so the Government will be opposing the amendment. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I am pleased to have the advice that it is covered in the FAAA, but I do not think it is adequate. An annual report can appear as much as 15 or 18 months after the operation of some of these schemes. Annual reports are generally required to be tabled within six or nine months - I cannot remember without looking it up - of the end of a financial year. This means that if a scheme is approved at the start of a financial year, it can be a very long time before the details are made publicly available. In some circumstances people will be applying for assistance under these schemes from the date that they are told the schemes take effect. It is not acceptable to say that the full text of the scheme will not be publicly available for 15 or 18 months. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: These schemes are invariably short term and topical. An annual report is not an adequate response for enabling this Parliament and via Parliament the community to have in-depth information of the detail of the schemes. Therefore, I do not find the minister’s responses adequate. Hon KIM CHANCE: The Labor Party will not support this amendment. This goes to the original undertaking that we gave to the Government of support. I believe that in any other circumstances we would have supported this as a minimalist measure, which it is; and Hon Helen Hodgson has identified it as a minimalist measure. Hon Ken Travers and I have tried to give what assurance we can, which is necessarily limited, about what a Labor Government would do in this regard with this Bill next year. Whether we are in government or in opposition, I believe that we would still be doing our utmost to ensure that is the outcome. The Government has a problem here, notwithstanding our assurance that we will not support the amendment. The Government can address that problem and save its integrity, or at least protect itself from challenges made to its integrity, by the simple expedient of providing an undertaking to table at the first opportunity assistance schemes approved by the minister. The legislation does not require that procedure, and the amendment seeks to impose that legal requirement. Our problem is that Labor members cannot support the amendment. The Minister for Transport is not in a position to give that assurance, and I understand his position. However, I would be grateful, if not entirely satisfied, if the Minister for Transport would undertake to take that view back to the Minister

3688 [COUNCIL] for Primary Industry as an expression of very genuine opinion from the Opposition. The Government owes us a little on this one. At the very least, the Minister for Primary Industry should be able to say to the Chamber, “Yes, we will table the approved assistance schemes and make every effort to advise members of Parliament that that tabling has taken place.” Hon M.J. CRIDDLE: I will pass on those remarks to the minister and ensure that he understands the points raised by Hon Kim Chance. I cannot speak for him, but I will make the point to him. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (6) Hon Helen Hodgson Hon J.A. Scott Hon Giz Watson Hon Norm Kelly (Teller) Hon Mark Nevill Hon Christine Sharp Noes (21) Hon Kim Chance Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon N.F. Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon Max Evans Hon M.D. Nixon Hon Ken Travers Hon M.J. Criddle Hon Peter Foss Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller) Hon Cheryl Davenport Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Tom Stephens Hon Dexter Davies Hon Ray Halligan Hon W.N. Stretch Hon E.R.J. Dermer Hon Barry House Hon Bob Thomas

Amendment thus negatived. Clause put and passed. Clauses 32 to 44 put and passed. Schedules 1 to 3 put and passed. Title put and passed. Report Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon M.J. Criddle (Minister for Transport), and passed. STATE FORESTS NOS 4, 7, 14, 16, 22, 32, 33, 35, 58, 63, 54, 65 - PARTIAL REVOCATION Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon W.N. Stretch) in the Chair. Message from the Assembly requesting concurrence in the following resolution now considered - That the proposal for the partial revocation of State Forest Nos 4, 7, 14, 16, 22, 32, 33, 35, 58, 63, 54 and 65 laid on the Table of the Legislative Assembly on the twenty-first day of November 2000 by command of His Excellency the Governor be carried out. Hon PETER FOSS: I move - That the Council concurs with the resolution passed by the Assembly as contained in Message No 49 from the Legislative Assembly. Hon J.A. COWDELL: The motion moved by the Attorney General is for excisions from state forests of land required for road purposes. I have had a look at the maps and the explanation in each case, and taking them at face value I accept the argument in favour of each of the revocations. I indicate the support of the Labor Party for these revocations. Hon NORM KELLY: The Australian Democrats accept that these are relatively minor amendments to the state forest areas, and support them. The only comment I make is in regard to the excision from State Forest No 16, which is a narrow strip of land parallel to the Old Coast Road, near Yalgorup. This excision is to extend the dual carriageway on the Old Coast Road from Bunbury to Mandurah. In previous widening work on this road a large amount of timber has been unnecessarily burnt, rather than recovered and used. When these areas are cleared - and we must be careful about how we clear our road verges - the timber logged should be utilised in the most efficient manner. This area abuts Yalgorup National Park. The Australian Democrats support these excisions. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: I have received a briefing on these proposed revocations, and I am satisfied that they are appropriate. Question put and passed

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3689

Report Resolution reported, the report adopted, and a message accordingly returned to the Assembly. STATE FORESTS NOS 22, 29, 49, 36 AND 56 - PARTIAL REVOCATION Committee The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon W.N. Stretch) in the Chair. Message from the Assembly requesting concurrence in the following resolution now considered - That the proposal for the partial revocation of State Forest Nos 22, 29, 49, 36, and 56 laid on the Table of the Assembly on the twenty-first day of November 2000 by command of His Excellency the Governor be carried out. Hon PETER FOSS: I move - That the Council concurs with the resolution passed by the Assembly as contained in Message No 50 from the Assembly. Hon J.A. COWDELL: The Labor Party supports these proposals for revocations, land swaps and purchases on the basis that is outlined in the papers that were presented to members. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: I have again received a briefing on these proposed revocations. I did have a concern about the revocation at Kirup. However, this afternoon the officer of the department obtained further information for me about that proposal, for which I thank him, and I am now satisfied that all of these revocations are appropriate. Question put and passed. Report Resolution reported, the report adopted, and a message accordingly returned to the Assembly.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRICING AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Dissent from Chairman’s Ruling - Ruling by President Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. THE PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): I want to deal with an earlier dissent motion in respect of a ruling by the Chairman of Committees in respect of amendment 5/NC to the Petroleum Products Pricing Amendment Bill 2000. Hon Mark Nevill’s dissent has two grounds: First, that it is not the case that the amendment is proposed to the Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982; and, secondly, that the chairman's ruling misconceives the intent of the amendment and proposed section 22G. The member submits that each of them is concerned with matters of access rather than pricing. I can dispose of ground 1 by saying that although the member may have gained the impression, because the ruling commenced by saying that it applied to both sets as numbered, that everything that followed applied equally and in all cases, I am satisfied that the ruling severs the amendments and applies to them according to context. In dealing with ground 2, I need to dispose of questions relating to the statutory intent of the amendment and section 22G. When the member uses “access” to characterise the two provisions, he means it in the sense that there is greater ability to obtain something than was previously the case. If enacted, section 22G will not afford greater access by resellers to the motor fuel available from a declared terminal. It may be the case that no terminal becomes a declared terminal. What it does, in my opinion, is to prohibit a declared terminal from discriminating between members of the same class of purchasers on other than objectively-assessed grounds under subsection (3). I believe my view is assisted by proposed section 22A(3), which completes the “offer and acceptance” aspects of supply. The amendment, as I read it, makes a statutory modification to “tied” agreements that are formed after 22 November - that is, as of yesterday - if such an agreement prevents a reseller from purchasing a greater percentage of its supplies than the agreement allows from another supplier. It relies on other provisions in the Bill to determine the “lowest displayed price”. However, the “50:50 split” is a result, rather than the cause, of the amendment's intent. It is the prospective modification of supply arrangements that allows the 50:50 split. I therefore agree with the Chairman of Committees that the Bill concerns itself principally with the pricing of petroleum products. Proposed new section 22G is directed towards providing a consistency of approach to the application of the pricing regime introduced by that part of the Bill. In my view, the amendment introduces a new principle; that is, statutory modification of enforceable agreements. Arguably, the modification may affect adversely property rights. I cannot find any provision in the Bill under consideration that operates on existing property rights. As the Chairman held, the Bill is not concerned with the place of purchase and, as I would hold, matters of “access” as I have described them. Proposed new section 22G is ancillary to the pricing regime created by the Bill, and cannot be read as a stand-

3690 [COUNCIL] alone provision unrelated to division 1. Additionally and separately, the member’s amendment would introduce a matter that, on any reading, is not now present in the Bill. I therefore cannot uphold the dissent. Committee Resumed The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1: Short title - Hon TOM STEPHENS: The Opposition wanted to create a different result. We cannot amend this Bill in a way that would enable it to do the job it needs to do. This Bill probably does half the job it is supposed to do; it is deficient. Even at this late stage we wanted to explore avenues for opening up opportunities. However, it appears nothing is available to us that would require the Government to amend this legislation to better protect the consumers of fuel within our community. The end result is that the Bill will advance without the amendments that would have improved it dramatically. Having said that, the Opposition supports the legislation. Hon NORM KELLY: Serious problems have been created, given the President’s ruling against the proposal to include a new section relating to the 50 per cent rule. Oil companies can now see the possibility of change, if not now, maybe in a few months. I know that there are very serious concerns throughout the retail oil industry that oil companies will now move swiftly to tie up their contracts with franchisees, owner-dealers and commission agencies - the different varieties of petrol retailers in this State - so that future legislation does not trap them. Hon Mark Nevill’s amendment on the Supplementary Notice Paper, which proposes to identify a date from which any further contracts will be signed, is very worthwhile. I will be interested to hear the minister’s response regarding what the Government has planned. The Government said earlier tonight that it had not been able to work out exactly how to deal with the 50 per cent issue. However, I hope it will introduce legislation early next year, if it is in government; and if it is a different Government, hopefully the Australian Labor Party will do the same. Any legislation introduced next year should reflect the fact that this issue was first officially raised in the Supplementary Notice Paper of 22 November. Therefore, any future legislation that frees up franchisees and the like to access 50 per cent of their fuel from other than the franchisor at the lowest displayed price should refer back to 22 November. The minister said earlier that the Government did not include such clauses in the legislation because of the enormous task of deciding how this situation could be brought about, and because it did not know whether the threat in BP Australia Ltd’s letter to close the refinery was real. I want the minister to tell us what the Government has planned. Is the Government planning to put forward legislation containing the 50 per cent provision? If so, is it willing to make a commitment that any legislation introduced next year will impact on contracts signed from 22 November? Hon MARK NEVILL: I will not dissent from the President’s ruling, but I note that the long title of the Petroleum Products Pricing Act refers to the regulation of the prices or rates charged for petroleum products, or certain services related thereto, and for incidental and other purposes. This Bill has been drafted very narrowly. The scope of the Bill has also been interpreted very narrowly. The truth of the matter is that the fuel companies have organised themselves in such a way with franchises that they can get around the intent of the federal legislation, which states that they should have a limited number of service stations. They have set up holding companies with a whole array of franchises, some of which they operate themselves and some of which are operated by others. It is disappointing that the Government is not prepared to take on the fuel companies. It is not true that the Kwinana refinery has ancient equipment and is just about ready to be phased out. It is a modern refinery. It is tuned to refine rather dirty Middle East crude oils. That is where it has a competitive advantage. All our clean oil from the North West Shelf goes straight to Japan; it does not go to Kwinana. I do not think there is any prospect of Kwinana closing down. One cannot judge the profitability of BP or Shell Australia Ltd by what they say is the operating margin of Kwinana or other refineries It would not be very healthy because the margins for refineries around the world are very lean. We must look at their overall profitability, and it has not suffered. In fact, the recent spike in oil prices will see them returning very healthy profits. I am disappointed that the Government has not bitten the bullet and included the fourth component of this package, which must be included for the legislation to have any effect. The positive impact on country fuel prices resulting from this measure will be dissipated. The absence of this 50:50 rule means that small retailers will be required to buy from their current supplier. The suppliers will not be put on notice; no consequence will flow from their discriminating between fuel retailers. They will be able to continue to do that. The rejection of this amendment - based as it is on a very narrow reading of the legislation - will result in our not reaping these benefits. The legislation will now have only a modest effect. Hon N.F. MOORE: I do not propose to continue repeating myself ad nauseam. The Government has made a decision not to implement the 50:50 rule at this time. I have already indicated that we will monitor the effect of this legislation. Unlike members opposite, members on this side believe the effect will be significant. It will provide transparency in pricing structures that determine how much motorists pay for a litre of fuel at the bowser.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3691

As I said, the Government will look at the 50:50 rule, not only because BP has said it might close down the refinery but also for many other reasons. Obviously, restricting the rights of cartage in respect of contracts must be carefully considered. For many reasons people say we should introduce legislation that will achieve what seems to be politically advantageous. However, a range of other principles arise. The question of the Government’s interfering in the marketplace is important. While BP might be having us on, any Government that did not take such a letter seriously would be derelict in this duty. I would be very interested to see what would happen if this amendment were put and passed. What would happen if BP closed the refinery? Who would take the blame? This is a serious issue. This Government is wary of being involved in legislation that interferes too much in the marketplace. That is part of this Government’s basic philosophy. It has made a decision, although it is not the most politically smart decision. It would be far easier to introduce legislation providing that fuel must be sold for 50¢ a litre. That would send everyone broke, but that is beside the point. The Labor Government tried that in 1983 - it recalled Parliament urgently to fix the price of petrol. The legislation was passed before the signature on the writs was dry. Hon Mark Nevill: Parliament was recalled to deal with a firearms legislation amendment. Hon N.F. MOORE: We were recalled for many extraordinary reasons in those days. The bottom line is that it did not achieve much. Members opposite are now saying that somehow the State Parliament of Western Australia can have an impact on the price of fuel. Our effect is marginal at best. Members know that the price of fuel is determined by the price of oil. The price of oil is determined by people who have far more clout in the world than we have. It is time that was recognised. I get a little irritated when, for political purposes, people like the Leader of the Opposition try to blame the State Government for the price of petrol, when in fact it has a very small input. I did not hear him complaining that there should be much lower prices when the price of oil was between $11 and $15 a barrel. I have already indicated that the Government has decided not to implement recommendation 9 for the reasons I have outlined. However, through a cabinet subcommittee, it will monitor the effectiveness of this legislation. If it is necessary to do something about the 50:50 issue further down the track, the Government will reassess it on the basis of the experience it gains from the implementation of this legislation. Hon TOM STEPHENS: Before this debate finishes, it is important to set the record absolutely straight. There was multi-party support for a select committee report that said that the combination of State and Federal Governments and Parliaments could have an interface with this issue and could have a substantial impact upon the price of fuel within our community. That is the recommendation of my parliamentary colleagues and those of the minister, and it is the conclusion in the select committee’s report. It does them, the minister and his colleagues a disservice to try to reinvent that reality. There is a way to advantage our community; that is, to accept the recommendations of that select committee. Hon W.N. Stretch: That is your judgment. Hon TOM STEPHENS: And the judgment of Hon Bill Stretch’s colleagues who served on that select committee, so he should not attack them. Several members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call, not the Attorney General. Hon TOM STEPHENS: An opportunity was available to this Government, which it has chosen not to accept. It could have had a significant impact upon the price of fuel within our community, but it has chosen not to do so. When presented with a unanimous report of that select committee, the Government basically blinked in the face of threats from the industry, which the Government should not have taken on board. It should have taken into consideration the interests of all the citizens of Western Australia. Instead, the Government has looked after that section of the community it always looks after - the big end of town. Hon J.A. SCOTT: I mentioned the shape of the Bill in the second reading debate, but I do not think it was addressed. One of my concerns with the Bill is that it will take out a range of petroleum products and put them in the first schedule. How many of those items are produced in WA, and if they are sold in this State what will the Government do to ensure that the cost is not shifted from fuel onto these products in the first schedule? That would just shift the cost to another section of the community. Hon N.F. MOORE: There is no change to the products that are excluded from the definition of “petroleum product”, except that it is intended to bring liquefied petroleum gas into the current definition. I hope that answers the member’s question. Hon J.A. SCOTT: It does not answer my question. The first schedule of the Bill specifically excludes those matters from the pricing arrangement set up by the Bill. How will we ensure that the products in the first schedule do not become the beneficiaries of a price shift to make up for the amount lost on petrol, especially products that are produced and sold at the terminals? As I pointed out, many of those products are fertilisers and so on. No great benefit will be achieved by reducing the price of fuel to farmers in regional areas if the cost is shifted onto fertilisers such as urea, and so on.

3692 [COUNCIL]

Hon N.F. MOORE: The definition of “petroleum product” was taken from a commonwealth Act which has been repealed. I do not know the answers to the other matters raised by the member. We can talk until the cows come home about how we might encourage people to use other products. The point is that we are trying to pass a Bill that will give relief from high fuel prices. It would be helpful for a briefing to be arranged for the member if he has a string of questions he wants to ask about parts of the Bill. Hon J.A. Scott interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member can vote against the Bill. The Government has put forward a proposition to the Parliament. If the member does not want the proposition, he can simply vote against it. I shall give the member an explanation to the best of my capacity. However, he asks some rather obscure questions from time to time that do not go to the main thrust of the Bill and it takes a little while to get the answers. Hon J.A. SCOTT: I do not know whether the minister understands what I am asking. Hon N.F. Moore: No, I regret I do not. It is not the first time I have not understood the member’s questions. Hon J.A. SCOTT: I do not know whether that is the minister’s fault or my fault. Hon N.F. Moore: It is my problem. I am not an expert on this legislation. Hon J.A. SCOTT: I understand the definition of the products in schedule 1 may have come from another Act and may be excluded from the definition of “petroleum product”. Are those products produced in Western Australia and, therefore, excluded from the Bill? For instance, if BP Australia Ltd is producing anhydrous ammonia in this State, it could shift the amount it loses from petrol onto the cost of that product; therefore, consumers would not be much in front. I wonder whether, firstly, it produces these products in Western Australia, because if it does not, it cannot shift the cost. However, if it does, is any monitoring intended by the Bill, or in any other way, to prevent oil companies from shifting the price differential loss onto another product? Obviously it cannot be done with LPG as that is included in the definition of “petroleum product”. Hon NORM KELLY: I shall go back to the issue of the 50:50 legislation. Point of Order Hon N.F. MOORE: I do not want to curtail debate; however, much of the debate on clause 1 has been about what is not in the Bill. It has already been determined that any amendments in respect of a 50:50 clause are unacceptable, yet we are having a long debate about that issue and I believe it is out of order. The CHAIRMAN: I will listen carefully to the comments by Hon Norm Kelly. Committee Resumed Hon NORM KELLY: I will speak about three things that relate to the Bill. The Bill contains transparency, access and monitoring provisions. However, it seems that the Government might be creating a three-legged chair because there are no provisions in this Bill - sometimes referred to as 50:50 provisions - to allow retailers to seek the lowest possible price at which to purchase petrol. As much as the Opposition welcomes those first three legs, it has a serious concern that this legislation will topple over because it is not supported by the ability for retailers to seek cheap fuel. I am not one to labour these points, so I will move to my next point. Hon N.F. Moore: You have made the point about 17 times - no-one is listening. Several members interjected. Hon NORM KELLY: I am sure that the minister’s interjections are an attempt to spur me on to keep talking about this point, but I will not be tempted! I mentioned during the second reading debate that this Bill lacked a proclamation clause. It was explained that the Bill would receive assent and, through the Interpretation Act 1984, it would be proclaimed after 28 days. I would like to know when the Government expects to have regulations prepared and in place for the implementation of this new scheme. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am advised that the Government hopes to have the regulations in place by the end of January. Clause put and passed. Clause 2 put and passed. Clause 3: Section 3 amended - Hon J.A. SCOTT: The definition of “petroleum product” is provided on page 2 of the Bill, which states - “petroleum product” means a product derived from petroleum, but not petroleum itself, except that it does not include - (a) a product listed in Schedule 1; or (b) a product that is excluded from this definition by an order under subsection (4), and it includes LPG (whether motor fuel or not, and whether or not the LPG is petroleum);

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3693

Does that cover LPG that is not extracted from petroleum, but is extracted from natural gas? If that definition does not include LPG extracted from natural gas, it might mean that it is not covered in the Bill. Hon N.F. MOORE: My advice is that it does not matter where the LPG comes from - it is included. Clause put and passed. Clauses 4 to 7 put and passed. Clause 8: Part IIIA inserted - Hon NORM KELLY: I understood the Minister would be moving an amendment to this clause. This clause relates to the price fixing and retailers needing to inform the commissioner of the price at which they intend to sell petrol the following day. I understand this is fraught with problems, and I am surprised that the Government’s position seems to be changing faster than a retailer can change his petrol prices. Hon N.F. MOORE: The Government gave some consideration to amending clause 8 to improve it. However, as the member will be aware, the Legislative Assembly has risen and will not be returning. The Assembly made the decision to adjourn on the basis that these amendments were ruled out of order; therefore it did not wait around to see whether we would amend this Bill. Any amendment to this legislation now would mean that it did not proceed further. I am not in a position now to amend clause 8, because if I did it would mean that the Bill would not proceed. I would prefer to proceed on the basis of this legislation being not quite as good as it could be with an amendment to clause 8. The same would apply if Hon Mark Nevill’s amendment had been in order and agreed to by the House - we would have had the problem of the Assembly’s not being in session to consider that amendment, in which case the Bill would lapse. I think the member will agree that it is better to make sure we get in place what is in the Bill rather than nothing. The member raises his eyebrows and all the rest, but - Hon Norm Kelly: It seems silly that the Assembly has passed the legislation for us. We may as well just pack up and go home. Hon N.F. MOORE: I was hoping the member might think it is a good idea shortly. I do not get any satisfaction out of this either. When it was determined earlier that the amendments on the Notice Paper were out of order, and it was about six o’clock in the evening, the Assembly decided to adjourn on the basis that there would not be any amendments to the legislation. The Assembly could have waited all night to see what we did with this legislation, but on the basis of the information available at the time it assumed there would not be any amendments and adjourned. I do not like that process; I have argued against it in the past. However, that is the nature of this place. It is a pity we are rushing through this Bill at this time, but if we were to take it any slower we would be beaten over the head by people such as the member who said we took too long to get it here anyway. People such as the Leader of the Opposition would be out in the electorate claiming that the Government was dragging its feet. That is the dilemma we are in. There is no point proceeding with the amendment because that would have the effect of ensuring the Bill did not proceed. Hon NORM KELLY: As much as I appreciate the minister’s explanation, it seems somewhat bizarre that this important legislation, which the Government appears to be admitting is flawed, will not proceed because the Assembly has risen. It was my understanding that the Assembly could be recalled to deal with this matter. Hon Mark Nevill: Of course it can be recalled. Hon NORM KELLY: That was my understanding; and it was also my understanding that not all the amendments were ruled out of order. I believe the amendments were numbered when they were read out, so 4/8 was not actually ruled out of order. Some people in the other place may not have fully understood what happened in this Chamber. Hopefully, the fact that the Assembly has risen will not have a major effect on the legislation - Hon N.F. Moore: I am advised that the problem that was sought to be overcome by the amendment of clause 8 can be overcome by regulation. Hon NORM KELLY: I was keen to see the amendment passed, because I realised that by including the proposed amendment the prices commissioner will have greater flexibility in implementing this regime. It is disappointing, but this is the sort of sloppy legislation that gets passed at this time of the year. It is being hurried through and there is no desire for the Government to say that the process should be slowed down as there are problems that need to be addressed in order to fix the legislation, whether it be by passing the proposed amendment or including a 50:50 provision, as discussed before. Both Houses could easily rise for two weeks and come back and sit for a day in mid- December, get it resolved and provide good legislation for the State rather than push through this sloppy legislation. Hon N.F. MOORE: The problem that the amendment to clause 8 was designed to overcome can be overcome largely by regulation. It is not a question of what is sloppy and what is not. The bottom line is that the Government is trying to get in place what it regards as a good first step towards doing something about the price of petrol. It has been decided not to go the whole hog - we argued about that all night. If the member does not agree with the Government, he can vote against the clause. The Government has made a decision about the direction in which it wants to go. It is now up to members to decide whether they agree with the legislation. We have to deal with circumstances as they are. This is not the first time we have had to do this sort of thing. Hon Tom Stephens and I discussed the other night how many

3694 [COUNCIL] pre-Christmas periods we have spent in Parliament - there have been a lot of them. I have been in Parliament for 24 pre-Christmas periods. The end to this session is much more genteel and less robust and less likely to produce bad legislation than most of the 24 sessions I have already been through. Clause put and passed. Clauses 9 to 14 put and passed. Title put and passed. Report Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House), and passed.

RESERVES (NEERABUP NATIONAL PARK) BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 21 November. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [10.23 pm]: Several months ago someone told me that as we went into the final session of the Parliament I would be amazed at the legislation that would come before the House. This is the first time I have been in Parliament at the conclusion of a Parliament, and I must say that that comment has proved to be spot on. This Bill is an example of it. When I first heard that this Bill had been introduced at very short notice in the other place, that the Government was seeking to have it passed as a matter of urgency and that I would be asked to comment on it, I was surprised, to say the least! I looked at the Bill for some time and considered the issues it deals with. I could come up with only one simple answer for why this Bill has been brought in at this stage; that is, we have a desperate Government that is keen to go out into the community during the election campaign with a little stunt to try to cover up its failings of the past four years, because it has not met its election commitment to the people of the northern suburbs, particularly those of the electorate of Wanneroo, to provide them with a railway. The first thing that amazed me about this was the procedure. I understood that a metropolitan region scheme amendment is usually dealt with and decided by the House and the House then goes on to the excision process we are dealing with tonight. During the briefing on the Bill, I took the opportunity to confirm my views on that. I was advised by the officers briefing the Opposition that I was right, and that a metropolitan region scheme amendment is usually dealt with by the Parliament before a Bill of this nature comes into the House. On this occasion the Government changed that process. It did so because it needed to get the earthworks started, surprise, surprise, in February 2001. We all know why that date is significant; that is when we will be in full election mode. I have no doubt that after we pass this Bill tonight, the Premier, almost certainly accompanied by the current member for Wanneroo, will travel into the northern suburbs and park himself in front of the media. I hope the media stay away; they should because they know this is nothing but a scam. The Premier and the member for Wanneroo will turn the first sod of soil and say that the new railway to the northern suburbs is under way because this Bill passed through this House. They will not only be turning the first sod but also digging the political grave of the member for Wanneroo. The people of Wanneroo will not be fooled by the sort of cheap stunt that will result from our passing this legislation. They know the Government promised it would have a railway up and running by the time of the next election, which will clearly now be February 2001, and the Government has not delivered. The Opposition supports the construction of the railway line and understands that this land needs to be excised from the national park. We are extremely sceptical about the timing of the Bill. I am a little concerned that the second reading speech delivered in this House by the minister is a little bit misleading. It was only earlier this evening that that was brought to my attention when I spoke to someone who is involved in this issue in the local community, and whom I have been trying to get hold of for a couple of days. In his second reading speech the minister said - All the environmental conditions affecting the railway project in metropolitan region scheme 992/33, yet to be finalised, will be met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority prior to commencement of construction. In fairness, members on this side accepted that statement to mean that all environmental issues that dealt with the metropolitan region scheme amendment for this excision were finalised. As a result of talking to one of the local community activists in the northern suburbs, I became aware that that is not exactly the case and that appeals which touch upon the area to be excised are still before the Minister for the Environment. Those appeals relate to whether the width of the corridor that is being excised is more than required and also to east-west traversing linkages between the Neerabup National Park and the adjoining land at Tamala Park - which is owned by a number of cities - which is on the other side of the railway line. It is intended that it will be an east-west corridor link from coastal land to the national

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3695 park in the east. Some issues need to be dealt with, but people in the local community tell me that they are not significant enough to hold up the passage of this legislation. It was not made clear in the second reading speech that some environmental issues have not been put to bed. It is a shame that the Minister for Transport is out of the House on urgent parliamentary business. I raise a matter concerning the legality of the Government’s proceeding to build the railway line without the MRS amendment in place. I have pursued this issue for some time, and I have had some correspondence with the Minister for Transport. I initially wrote to the minister as follows - Specifically, I am interested in whether the extension of the northern suburbs railway will also require the MRS amendment to be completed before construction commences? I sent the letter on 31 January 2000, and I received a fascinating response from the minister on 21 March 2000 in which he said - The current schedule for progress of the MRS Amendment is to have it tabled in Parliament in early May with passage anticipated by the end of June 2000. Is this not a competent Government? We have seen how good it is at doing things urgently! He further wrote - I am reasonably confident that the Parliament will have the opportunity to ratify the required railway reservation by the end of this Parliamentary session. It was planned for conclusion in June 2000, yet it was rammed into Parliament late in the piece to avoid scrutiny. I was not satisfied with the minister’s response because it did not answer my question; therefore, I wrote again with the same question on 21 May, to which I received a response on 23 June of this year. The minister’s response on whether the northern suburbs railway for conclusion in June requires Parliament’s approval of the Clarkson-Butler MRS amendment was as follows - I have referred this to the Crown Solicitor for advice and will write to you again when I have received his comment. The Government is proceeding to pass this measure, and to start the construction of the railway line without receiving that advice from the Crown Solicitor. I am sure the Minister for Transport would have sent that advice on to me if he had received it prior to tonight. I have not received any correspondence from the Minister for Transport. I can only assume that the Government has not received that advice from the Crown Solicitor. The legality question is outstanding. I look forward to hearing whether the minister responsible for carriage of this Bill can advise the House about that matter tonight. One must question why the MRS amendment has not been brought into this place prior to the passing of this Bill to excise the land. One need look only at the impending election to find the reason. The MRS amendment, which goes hand in hand with the excision motion, also contains a block of land at Burns Beach. Controversy has arisen about whether that land should be allowed to be rezoned for housing. I will not go through the Government’s problem in detail. Suffice to say, the Environmental Protection Authority indicated that only 55 hectares could be rezoned, but the Ministry for Planning has negotiated a settlement with the developers to allow significantly more land to be developed. One can only assume that the Government wants to keep secret until after the election the MRS amendment - which was expected to be before the House and concluded by June this year - and the response to the EPA advice, and the fact that the Government will seek to override that advice. Again, I advise the Government that people in the northern suburbs are not that stupid. The people who do not want that land developed will make sure that the Government’s views are put on the table prior to the election. Depending on its answer, the people will treat the Government with scepticism because of the way they were treated and the promises made regarding the building of the railway line during this current term of government. It is interesting that the Government has raced this Bill into the House and has indicated to the Opposition that it must be passed tonight so that the Government can turn the first sod for the railway line in February next year. Unfortunately, I have not been able to ask the Minister for Transport questions about the time line for the construction of the railway works for Clarkson despite having given notice of it some time ago. I appreciate that the Minister for Transport has provided me with some details of the proposed time lines for the construction, in response to my request for assistance with this debate. They differ slightly from some advice I was given during the briefing on this Bill. I was told that the earthworks would take between four and six months, the construction would take 12 months, and the trialling of the train sets would take three months - a total of 21 months. By that reckoning, even if this Bill were passed in September next year, there would still be plenty of time for the railway to be constructed by the new deadline of September 2003. That deadline is set by the fact that this Government will not be able to access any railcars until that date because when the Government ordered railcars, it did not order those it needed for the extension. Everyone in Perth, bar the Government, knew that it would not meet its election commitments. When I asked during the estimates committee some 18 months ago whether the Government would meet its time lines, the Minister for Transport continually told me it would be tight but that he was sure the Government could complete the construction of

3696 [COUNCIL] the railway line in time to meet its election promise. It is clear that a two-year time frame is all that is required. I note that the information provided to me by the Minister for Transport earlier this evening shows a slightly extended time line. I see no reason that it could not be easily constructed within the two-year time frame. Neither of the most difficult pieces of construction - the bridge over Burns Beach Road and the construction of the new station at Clarkson - require the passage of this Bill. They both lie outside of the area covered by the excision. They currently lie within land that allows the Government to begin straightaway. I have no doubt that this Bill was dreamt up by someone who prepared the 28-day plan the Liberal Party will use during the election campaign. That plan outlines the days on which the Liberal Party will do which stunts and where they will take the Premier. The Government decided to go to the northern suburbs and announce that it would begin the earthworks for the extension of the railway line, to fudge the fact that it has failed on its previous election commitment. The earthworks will probably begin but sit there for another 12 months until the next stage of construction commences. Having said all of that, I understand the way this Government works. I am sure that if this Bill were not passed this evening, the Government would tell the people of the northern suburbs that that was the reason their railway line had not been built. However, members in here, the media and the public would see through that. Nonetheless, the Labor Party supports the construction of the railway line to Clarkson. Had the Labor Party been elected at the previous election, it would be up and running. Hon M.J. Criddle: What was your Government going to do down south some years ago? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Those comments are interesting. I can tell the minister how many kilometres of railway line in metropolitan Perth have been opened and built by the Australian Labor Party in the past 100 years. I challenge members on the other side, when they speak in this debate, to tell me where they have built or opened a railway line in the Perth metropolitan area in the past 100 years. I am sure they can tell us how they closed the Fremantle line and how they wanted to do away with the railway system of Perth. Point of Order Hon N.F. Moore: It must be my irritation, but I do not think the Fremantle railway line has anything to do with land exchange in Neerabup. I ask that the member keep his comments relevant to the Bill. The PRESIDENT: I have been listening closely to Hon Ken Travers. This Bill deals with the need to excise lands from the Neerabup National Park to enable a railway line to pass through that area. To that extent, comment about railways in the metropolitan area could be said to be incidental. However, as Hon Ken Travers knows, he has no great need to dwell on matters that are not directly related to the Neerabup section. Debate Resumed Hon KEN TRAVERS: Thank you, Mr President. I was led astray by the interjections; it was not my intention to spend time speaking on that issue. However, if the Labor Party had not reopened the Fremantle railway line in 1983, the northern suburbs railway line would not have been opened and the extension to Clarkson would not be possible. It would be silly to have a railway line running from simply Currambine to Clarkson; there would be very little patronage. I will not dwell on it, but the issues are interrelated. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House does not want those issues talked about due to the Government’s antipathy towards railway services, as has become clear over the years of conservative rule in this State. Hon N.F. Moore: You must have missed the southern railway announcement. Hon KEN TRAVERS: No; the Opposition has heard all the announcements made by this Government. We heard the announcement about the railway extension to Clarkson five times and the announcement about the extension to Mandurah about three times. We are used to them. However, we have not seen the Government do anything. I have heard all the government announcements on the Clarkson railway, but I have not seen anything happen. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Ken Travers should not let the Leader of the House lead him into temptation and divert him. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It is his natural skills as a leader; he is very effective! As I was saying, the Labor Party supports the extension of the railway line to Clarkson; and, therefore, the excision. The ALP is sceptical about the introduction of the Bill tonight. It is immaterial whether the Bill is passed tonight or when the House resumes in five months and the member for Armadale is the Minister for Transport. There is no point in delaying this legislation. However, the ALP felt it was necessary to place its views on record on the timing of this Bill. The fact that it has been rammed through here at a rate of knots in the dying days of this Parliament and this Government’s life shows that it is nothing but a cynical exercise by the Government. However, the Opposition agrees with the substance of the Bill. I note that the Minister for Transport has returned to the Chamber from urgent parliamentary business. I will reiterate a comment I made earlier so that he can advise the minister, who has carriage of this legislation.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3697

I was referring to some correspondence I had with the Minister for Transport, between January and March this year, in which I was seeking advice on whether the construction of the railway required the MRS to be passed by the Parliament. The final letter I received from the Minister for Transport in June, indicated that he had referred that question to the Crown Solicitor for advice, and he would write to me again when he received that advice. I told the House at the time that I had not received that response, and I would be interested in the minister’s response. If the minister could advise the Leader of the House, who is responsible for carriage of this Bill, whether that advice has been received by his office, and if so when it was received, and what that advice indicated, I would appreciate it. The Labor Party will be supporting the Bill, and will make sure that the people of the northern suburbs are aware of the cynical exercise the Government is engaging in by putting this Bill through the Parliament at this late stage. I have no doubt that the people of the northern suburbs will be well aware that this Government has failed to deliver on its promises. The railway line to Clarkson will not be completed until September 2003 at the earliest. This line is long overdue, and its delay is causing great harm to the social fabric of Clarkson, and disadvantages many people who bought land in the belief that they would be able to commute to Perth by rail. The Labor Party will be supporting this legislation, but I look forward to the comments of the minister in response. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [10.47 pm]: The Greens (WA) will be opposing this Bill. The normal procedure for dealing with excision and rezoning to enable such things as this corridor for the railway extension, is to use an MRS amendment. The first knowledge I had that the House would be dealing with this Bill was on Tuesday. The Bill simply deals with the issue of excising the service corridor from Neerabup National Park, and not with compensation in the form of additional areas that have been promised for inclusion in the park. Having looked at the proposed MRS amendment, in balance the Greens (WA) consider that it is a reasonable proposition, in that there is a net benefit to Neerabup National Park. The areas to be added if the amendment is carried are substantial. I quote from the minister’s second reading speech for this Bill - . . . it is proposed that approximately 525 hectares of privately held land be acquired and, together with approximately 47 hectares of existing “reserved” lands, be incorporated into the reserve. This is well and good, but at this point that is simply a proposal. I have no idea what stage the negotiations have reached. This Bill seeks to allow the excision without receiving the assurance of the compensation. I can see no reason that the Bill could not have been drafted to include provisions for the addition of that land. We do not want to be drawn into the situation where we allow the service corridor to go through without adequate recompense in the form of the addition of that land to the national park. Another matter that is outstanding and was raised by the speaker before me is the east-west corridor, which I understand will be Neerabup Road. There are significant concerns about that service corridor, because it will dissect the park. Members who know anything about the management of natural reserves will know that one of the major things we do not want to do is put a road through a reserve, and particularly not through one of the narrowest parts of a reserve. This is a long, thin reserve, and such reserves are difficult to manage because they have a large edge effect. Therefore, we would like that service corridor not put through. The proposed excision will also cut off the south-west corner of the existing national park, which will break the continuity of the conservation reserve that runs east-west between the various ecosystems from the coast through to Neerabup National Park. We believe that is a pity, but we were willing to consider that as a trade-off for the land that is to be added. However, if we cannot have that proposal in front of us tonight so that we can deal with it at the same time as we deal with the excision, we are not willing to support this Bill. It is obvious that the reason the excision has not been dealt with through the normal means - that is, by the Clarkson- Butler MRS amendment - is that there are outstanding issues about Lot 2 at Burns Beach. That is a significant area of bush, which has been fought for strongly by locals and conservationists statewide; and, as the previous speaker said, the EPA has recommended that only 55 hectares of that area be rezoned urban. I assume that because of the ongoing difficulty of passing that other proposal that was in the MRS amendment, we will now have a stand-alone Bill to deal with the excision from Neerabup National Park. That highlights an issue that has been raised in this place many times; namely, that when we deal with MRS omnibus amendments, we deal with them as a whole. However, it would be a lot easier, when those amendments are controversial, to split them and deal with them as stand-alone proposals. Indeed, we would be happy to deal with this matter as a stand-alone proposal if it included the whole package. However, because it does not, we will oppose the Bill. HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [10.53 pm]: Likewise, the Australian Democrats are disappointed about the lack of notice that we were given that this Bill would be coming on for debate. That meant that I was not in a position to be briefed adequately, because some of the departmental staff were not available to provide a briefing due to that late notice. It is, therefore, difficult to give the full position of the Democrats on this Bill. However, we do support the need to provide the railway infrastructure for the northern suburbs rail line. That rail line has been one of the success stories of public transport in Perth in recent years, and some of the problems that are being experienced on that line - namely, not enough railcar sets, and station car parks that are overcrowded - are due to the success and popularity of that rail line. We support the need for the extension to the northern suburbs rail line to be completed as soon as possible.

3698 [COUNCIL]

However, we are very concerned that we are dealing with this reserves Bill before the MRS amendment has been tabled in this place. I am well aware that that amendment includes other proposals, such as the Burns Beach proposal, which has been a highly contentious matter in its progress through the MRS amendment procedure. If the Australian Democrats’ Bill that was passed by this House a couple of months ago comes into law, we will hopefully have a more effective mechanism to isolate proposals when there is a problem and to allow the other proposals in the amendment to go through. This proposal has unresolved environmental matters, and once again, I have not been adequately advised on its progress. The Australian Democrats support the fact that the changes to the national park boundaries will provide a far more practical shape for the national park and will diminish some of the edge effects of having non-contiguous parcels of land in the national park. At the moment I understand that a parcel of land west of the freeway reserve also has a water treatment plant reserve excised from it. That makes the environmental management of that national park difficult. We also have concerns about the private land that is proposed to be included in the national park as part of this land swap for that to be excised by this Bill. I recall that in 1997, soon after coming into this place, I dealt with a reserves Bill relating to an excision for a water treatment plant. I recall the Government stating that it was progressing swiftly with the purchase of private land-holdings to be incorporated in the national park. It is three years later, and it may be that the Government was not able to progress as swiftly as it would have liked in acquiring that land. Of course, as Hon Giz Watson pointed out, we have nothing to compel the Government into fast action to get those parcels of land included in the national park. The Australian Democrats have serious concerns about the manner in which this Bill has been brought before the House prior to the MRS amendment. I understand that the Government plans to have the first sod turned on 1 February. I am not too sure who is the first sod in those marginal Liberal seats in the northern suburbs. However, it appears to be a blatant political manoeuvre to pull a political stunt during the election campaign. We are disappointed that this is the way the Government has gone about it. At the same time we appreciate that something is happening and this rail extension will be completed as soon as possible. HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [10.58 pm]: I thank the members who have spoken for their enthusiastic support of this very worthwhile project. I am delighted to know that they are as enthusiastic as the Government about the extension of the northern suburbs railway line. I am delighted that they are enthused about the need to progress this quickly. I appreciate their dealing with this Bill at such short notice. I was not aware until a day or so ago that this has a degree of urgency about it, so that we can get on with this project. The Minister for Transport advised me that earthworks will start very soon, and it is important to get this legislation through to ensure that happens. It is interesting that the Labor Party, which has a long history of borrowing for things and expecting the future to pay for them, should be critical of this Government for seeking to ensure that before it embarks on large infrastructure projects such as this and the southern rail line, it has money to pay for them. Hon Ken Travers: Why didn’t you say that to the people of the northern suburbs before the last election? Hon N.F. MOORE: I remember when the northern suburbs railway line was opened. I think every child in the northern suburbs got a glossy book, and one was sent to every household in the place. It was the most extraordinary political exercise I have seen in my life. For the Labor Party to complain about this being a political stunt is ridiculous. Hon Mark Nevill: We used to do things in style. Hon N.F. MOORE: The Labor Party sure did things in style, at great expense. As a quiet aside, it is extraordinary that all the things the Labor Party will pay for, should it win office, will be out of the savings it will make as a result of glossy publications. I think glossy publications were invented by the previous Labor Governments, and they were very good at it - there is no question about that. They did everything in style; it was the only way to operate. The Leader of the Opposition will tell us about that. Hon Tom Stephens: Don’t carry on. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am trying very hard not to. It is just that I was provoked by the Leader of the Opposition’s colleague. Hon Tom Stephens: You put me to shame when it comes to the amount of bloody style you have adopted since you became a minister. Don’t carry on. Hon N.F. MOORE: Style? I am the most frugal minister around. Hon Tom Stephens: Go on. You swan up and down like a - The PRESIDENT: Members, let us return to the debate on the Bill before the House. Hon N.F. MOORE: I guess my problem is that I did not get a chance to sit in somebody’s office and practise for a little while before I became a minister.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3699

Hon Tom Stephens: That jet has never seemed to stop since you have been around. It is flying up and down the countryside. Hon N.F. MOORE: It is important that ministers get out and about in Western Australia, get to places quickly, do the job quickly and then go on to the next place quickly, instead of wandering around like - Hon Tom Stephens: The Premier is jetting up to Broome today to go to a $500 a head fundraiser, at taxpayers’ expense. Hon N.F. MOORE: I thought the Premier was going there to open the Shire of Broome’s office. Hon Tom Stephens: He is going up there for a $500 a head fundraiser tonight; otherwise he could have caught the commercial jet tomorrow, which I am trying to get on, if you would just finish off the session tonight. The PRESIDENT: Members, I will have to assume that those comments have some relevance to the Bill before the House. Hon Ken Travers: The train does not go far enough, Mr President. Hon N.F. MOORE: On the basis of that comment, I expect that the Labor Party may promise a railway line to Broome - Hon Tom Stephens: And on to Bali. Hon N.F. MOORE: - in which case the Leader of the Opposition can keep going. Perhaps the Opposition could make it a one-way railway line. I am happy to buy the Leader of the Opposition the first ticket. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I was provoked by the quite outrageous comments of Hon Ken Travers, who is seeking to make a political issue out of the fact that this Government is proceeding to extend that railway line to provide a better public transport system. He conveniently ignored the fact that the Government has just committed to a very significant railway line in the southern suburbs, which the Labor Party ignored completely when it was in office because there were no votes there for it. That is how it all works, and Hon Ken Travers knows that as well as I do. Hon Ken Travers raised a number of other issues about metropolitan region schemes and environmental requirements, to which I do not have the answers at the moment because, I regret to inform him, the adviser who knows about those matters is not here. However, I will get answers to all the questions he raised as soon as possible. The Minister for Transport has also indicated that he will provide advice to Hon Ken Travers on the matters he raised about letters between the Minister for Transport and him and about the Crown Law advice. The Greens (WA) oppose this Bill because I guess they oppose everything generally. Maybe there is some justification for their concerns. Regarding the purchase of the land to compensate for the excision, the funds are available. It is the intention of the Government to do it. It has said it will do it. The second reading speech states that we will do it, and I am saying that we will do it. The money is available, so it will be done. Hon Norm Kelly raised the issue of lack of notice. I apologise for that. He is perfectly justified in raising that as a concern. However, he will be aware that this Bill was not on the list. I spoke with all members and sought the assistance of the Minister for Transport to ascertain which Bills we could deal with expeditiously tonight. Members agreed to deal with this Bill. I appreciate their consideration of it. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and a division taken with the following result – Ayes (24) Hon Kim Chance Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon Barry House Hon Tom Stephens Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon Max Evans Hon Norm Kelly Hon W.N. Stretch Hon M.J. Criddle Hon Peter Foss Hon N.F. Moore Hon Bob Thomas Hon Cheryl Davenport Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Mark Nevill Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Dexter Davies Hon Ray Halligan Hon M.D. Nixon Hon Ken Travers Hon E.R.J. Dermer Hon Helen Hodgson Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller) Noes (3) Hon J.A. Scott Hon Giz Watson Hon Christine Sharp (Teller) Question thus passed. Bill read a second time, proceeded through remaining stages without debate and passed.

UNIVERSITIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Second Reading Resumed from 17 October. HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [11.04 pm]: The Australian Labor Party supports this Bill. It is a straightforward piece of legislation that aims to do three things: Firstly, to amend the University of Western Australia

3700 [COUNCIL]

Act 1911 in relation to the number of members of the Senate and the definition of the university; secondly, to amend the Murdoch University Act 1973 and the University of Western Australia Act 1911 with regard to the role of the Governor as a visitor; and, thirdly, to repeal the University Endowment Act 1904 and the University Endowment Amendment Act 1927 to incorporate the related investment provisions in the University of Western Australia Act 1911 and to make some consequential amendments to those pieces of legislation. I understand that the proposed amendments have been the subject of considerable discussion within the university’s governing body - the Senate - which undertook a review of these matters. Approximately two months ago, when this Bill surfaced, I took the initiative of approaching the universities to seek feedback about the proposed amendments. There appeared to be very few problems with what was being proposed. Among the changes, there will be a change to the senate structure, which will reduce the number of senate members from 25 to 21. The Bill also attempts to change the definition of a university, because the current definition excludes staff. The definition being sought under this amendment Bill will ensure that students are included and that the university shall consist of the senate, the convocation, staff and graduate and undergraduate students. It is a much more inclusive definition. On the role of the Governor as a visitor, there is some concern that under the current provisions of the respective Acts of the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University, the Governor appears to have no option but to investigate a complaint when it is presented. This is seen as a duplication. As often happens when problems arise, they may also be referred to other bodies, such as the Ombudsman, which have been set up to hear complaints. Another aspect of the legislation relates to providing greater flexibility in how the university can expend its funds. Historically, it has been limited to the purchase of land. The proposed amendments in this legislation will give the universities greater flexibility over where they invest university funds. As I have already put on record, I have been in consultation with the vice-chancellors of all the respective universities. They have given this legislation the all clear. I have received letters of support for this legislation. I have also been in touch with the University of Western Australia’s Academic Staff Association and the national tertiary education of students branch. They expressed some concern with the need to review the whole university sector. The current argument is that Western Australia might have too many universities. There could be some argument about rationalisation; that is, perhaps the opportunity provided in the amendment Bill could have been used to have a broader look at the tertiary education sector and bring about some of these changes. However, the Bill before us tonight does not attempt to do that. I also put on the record the fact that some concern has been expressed about the role of the visitor and the office of the chancellor. However, I have not been inundated with requests from any particular group that amendments be made to the Government’s legislation. Because I believe the legislation to be non-controversial, I have been particularly keen to ensure that it is dealt with in an expedient manner. I have given an undertaking that I will assist the passage of this legislation, because of the degree of consensus that this legislation apparently has. I do not intend to take up more of the time of the House. I simply put on record that the Australian Labor Party will not be supporting any amendments to this Bill. As far as we are concerned, the proposal before the House is more than acceptable. HON HELEN HODGSON (North Metropolitan) [11.14 pm]: It is nice to hear from the opposition benches that this legislation is non-controversial. I think a couple of aspects need to be teased out, and I have already alerted the parliamentary secretary and the Leader of the House that this will require a committee stage, because I have some issues that I want answered. This is another instance of our cooperation. With the very heavy schedule that we have had in the House today, I have gone from not even having the files with me this morning to being prepared not only to debate the Bill but also to raise some very serious concerns I have with a couple of aspects of it. As Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich said, there are three basic issues in the Bill: The issue of the visitor, governance issues and investment issues. Those of us who are members of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, which includes the parliamentary secretary, have done a great deal of work on the role of the visitor. On 1 June we tabled in this House the committee’s report No 15 entitled “Appeals and Review Processes for Western Australian Universities”. The committee undertook a considerable review of the role of the visitor in that report, and the recommendations are there for everybody to read. Whether the Governor is required as a visitor to investigate everything is an issue that was addressed by the committee, which found some problems with the role of the visitor. However, the recommendation of the committee was quite different to what is proposed in this Bill. The committee recommended that the acts empowering all the publicly- funded universities in Western Australia should be amended to abolish the position of visitor in these institutions as it is inappropriate, outdated and unnecessary. Yet, before us is legislation that considers the role of the visitor and, by saying that the visitor need not investigate everything, the Bill affirms the role of the visitor in universities. The committee considered a number of models, including the purely ceremonial models that some universities have in other States. There was some sympathy for the view that a ceremonial function should remain; however, whether that

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3701 ceremonial function should be the role of a person who is appointed as a visitor, or whether it should be carried out by another figurehead of the university, was not a matter on which the committee made a finding. However, there is some discussion on it in the report. The committee found that the visitor is an inefficient means of redress and the person appointed by the empowering legislation, being the Governor, is not in a position to carry out the task at hand. We therefore have some issues with the legislation in that it still refers to the role of the visitor and it amends that role, but not to the extent recommended by the committee. I am not sufficiently concerned by that issue to move any amendments on the point. First, I have not had time to have them drafted; secondly, I have been told that they would not be supported if I were to move them. However, it is important to have on record that the Bill we are debating tonight is not in accordance with a report on which a committee of this House spent a great deal of time, to which other members of the committee can testify. It is a matter that must come back to the Parliament for a full and formal review. I note also that it is the only aspect of the Bill that does not relate only to the University of Western Australia. I was intrigued when I heard of the extensive consultation process that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich engaged in wherein she checked with all the universities - Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I have. I have three letters with me that I can table. Hon HELEN HODGSON: Certainly; I am not questioning that. I am saying that it affects only the University of Western Australia. The other issues before us are the issues of governance, the senate and so on. The second reading speech directed us to the Hoare report entitled “Higher Education Management Review” that deals with a review of the university system. The Hoare report was a national review that looked at a number of issues relating to the university sector, including a number of the matters addressed in this Bill - the issues of governance, the role of the senate, the structure of the senate and issues to do with investment. The recommendations of the Hoare report dealt with the role of the governing body, appointment procedures, accountability and the committee system. On the whole, most of the issues relating to corporate governance and the role and place of the senate are pretty much in line with the recommendations of the Hoare report. I note that there is a change in senate numbers and there is an attempt to make the senate more representative. The Democrats are happy for that to occur. I also note that the appointment procedures and the terms of appointment of the chancellor and pro-chancellor are now more prescriptive than they were in the previous legislation. I would like some clarification on why the Bill seeks to make those roles more prescriptive - is there an underlying policy reason of which I am not aware? I have not been able to pick anything up in the time that I have had available today. On the whole, the Democrats do not have any real problem with the corporate governance issues. The only other comment I wish to make leads to my third point. It was put to me today, quite forcefully, that the reason the Bill was needed was that it would save the university a lot of money if this new structure was in place at the start of next year. That was the reason it was so urgent that this Bill be dealt with today. I put it to the Chamber that the real reason for the urgency of the Bill is more to do with the third aspect of the Bill - the investment issues. This is where this House moves back into the north metropolitan section of the evening, which I think will take up a number of the matters that are still to be dealt with before the House rises. Some members of this place may remember that I made a speech in this place in December last year, which related to a piece of bushland currently owned by the university - the Shenton Park bushland adjacent to Underwood Avenue. This piece of land is to be subdivided and sold for housing; however, there is a lot of community concern about the proposal. A group called “The Friends of Underwood Avenue Bushland” was formed to keep members of Parliament in the north metropolitan region informed about what was going on with this bushland. I am sure that other members have a file of letters, as I do, on that group’s views about the sale and subdivision of that part of university-owned property. There are plans to sell 22 hectares of a 32-hectare area of land that is currently owned by the University of Western Australia, for a housing subdivision. Of the remaining land, it is proposed that 8.5 hectares remain as bushland and 1.5 hectares be cleared parkland. A lot of these problems relate to the fact that this land is part of the Bushplan, which has never been properly implemented by this State Government. I appreciate that this land is part of the university’s endowment, which is why it is relevant to this Bill. This Bill looks at the treatment of land owned by the university as part of its endowment. I believe that the real urgency to get this Bill through is to facilitate the subdivision and future dealing of this land. When this matter was first brought to my attention a year ago I was told that there were future plans - the subdivision that was known about at the time and other matters that were under way. People were still trying to find out exactly what was going on. I have since received more correspondence and it appears that further large-scale subdivision of land holdings is likely to happen in the area, much of which will be within the buffer zone of the waste water treatment plant. I have a copy of a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection stating that it is very concerned about this proposal by the University of Western Australia to subdivide and sell part of its endowment lands. It represents a change to the system by which endowment lands are managed and made available for sale at about the time that the university is seeking to deal with some of its endowment lands in a way that the community finds unacceptable. This is why I find it fascinating that the Australian Labor Party considers this matter to be noncontroversial, because if we are

3702 [COUNCIL] dealing with endowment lands, we are dealing with an area where the community has been vocal about having problems. If anybody else was at the Shenton Park dog home open day a couple of weeks ago - Hon Peter Foss: I never miss it. Hon HELEN HODGSON: We did our bit, and we walked the boxer dog, Emma, that nobody else would take, but a stall was set up there by the community concerned - Hon Peter Foss: How did you get your invite? I missed out. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I happen to know one of the people who were organising the publicity for the event, but the media did not turn up, so I did not get the photograph taken anyway. I will return to the point of the Bill because I do not think that the finding of a home for Emma is a priority in this legislation. The Friends of Underwood Avenue Bushland had a stand set up with all the information about what was going on. They are very active and concerned. The problem is that, because this area is already within the endowment land, it is not a matter that can be dealt with through the metropolitan region scheme and through disallowance of an MRS. I am sure we will be talking more about the disallowance of metropolitan region schemes later this evening, but because it is already zoned residential and within the university endowment area we cannot deal with it in that way. When I saw this provision in the Bill I became curious: Why are we having to change this legislation at a time when something is going on about which the community is upset? That is the main reason I am concerned about this Bill. That is why I signal to the minister that, although I will be prepared to deal with it, I want some more information made available. My concerns are basically whether the changes to investment power which deal with endowment lands will make it easier for the university to deal in a certain way with the lands it currently holds. When I spoke a year ago on this issue I was basically opposing the sale of the lands, but I was willing to say that the main reason the university needed to sell the land was the whole problem of funding, whereby universities now must raise funds internally because their grant system is not adequate to cover the provision of services to students. I was quite supportive, in a sense, not of what the university was doing, but of the lack of funding. I am concerned when I see this provision coming up now for endowment lands and I will be seeking some further explanation during Committee. HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [11.29 pm]: I looked at this Bill several weeks ago and sought some simple consultation with university contacts. I felt satisfied that the Bill was good legislation and that there would not be any difficulty with the provisions. I have, however, noted the comments of Hon Helen Hodgson; she has raised some matters of concern and I will listen with interest to the debate during Committee. HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan - Attorney General) [11.30 pm]: I put on record, because I did not at the time the committee report came out, that I do not agree with the committee’s suggestion that the jurisdiction of the visitor should be moved. I have had some experience with jurisdiction of the visitor. During my time of acting for the various universities I did all the visitorial cases, and I was certainly involved in the only case that has been to the Supreme Court in Western Australia with regard to the jurisdiction of the visitor. I have researched the history and the basis of the visitorial jurisdiction quite thoroughly. It is an ancient, charitable jurisdiction. It is unusual in the way it works. It excludes the jurisdiction of common law courts entirely. The idea that matters of a domestic nature are handled through a visitorial jurisdiction is an excellent way to proceed. All too often when decisions are made to throw out an ancient institution, it is because a modern problem has occurred and people do not like what happens but they do not bother to find out the worth of the thing that has occurred. It is done in various areas. It is done with institutions of a cultural nature, as well as institutions of a physical nature. I remember the 1950s as a time when it was done to physical institutions - they were all knocked down because they were considered inconvenient and ugly. If we had kept most of the things that were knocked down in the 1950s, we would probably have a much richer society. Having read the report, I feel that the basis upon which it treated the visitorial jurisdiction was somewhat superficial given its history. It was very much related to a particular matter that had been dealt with over a period. I have had nothing to do with it and nor have I had any influence over the decision on visitorial jurisdiction. The Bill was in that state when I first saw it. I caution members that merely a committee of this House has recommended that the abolition of something that has worked extremely well in Britain for more than 800 years. I believe it has worked extremely well in this State. The research that went into the report was extremely shallow, and it appears to be motivated by a particular case that I do not think any court would have been able to solve simply. It is an unfortunate recommendation. I would hate to think that the House later would push ahead and ‘fix it’, as that would be like fixing up Westminster Abbey because it is looking a bit shabby. It is a very good jurisdiction and in my role as Attorney General, in which role I have overall oversight of the charities, I think it should be retained. HON BARRY HOUSE (South West - Parliamentary Secretary) [11.32 pm]: I thank members for their support and their comments on the Bill. A section of the Bill deals with the size of the University of Western Australia senate. There is a belief that, even with a reduction from 25 members to 21, the senate will still be quite large. Many people in the university community believe that the purpose of the Bill is to make it more inclusive of the full university community. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Comments on the visitor are pertinent. I was involved with the

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3703

Standing Committee on Public Administration and, before that, with the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, which produced the report earlier this year. As the Attorney General said, it arose from a particular case and it ended with a report on the review processes of the university. With the benefit of hindsight, many committee members would have done it differently. The committee agreed that it got involved in the issues more than the processes. In a sense, the committee delved into aspects that were not the province of the committee. The committee took its role seriously, as there was a case that seemed to have not been handled well by the university. The university would probably admit that. Some issues of justice needed to be pursued. Coming out of that was an analysis of the role of the visitor. This Bill only goes to the extent of bringing the four Western Australian public universities into line. It does not go as far as the Standing Committee on Public Administration report suggested that it might. However, there has already been quite a bit of disagreement in the Chamber about whether that is the correct way to go. I understand that the universities intend to review the matter further, but at this stage they are not in a position to take that extra step. There is a feeling in some quarters that the visitor is an anachronism in modern universities, but the Attorney General put another way of looking at it. My view is that if it suits the university and it comes up with a fair and equitable system of review, and if that is what universities want, fine. They are reluctant to overthrow that age-old institution overnight, because the Governor has much more credibility than the Ombudsman in the eyes of the university community. The investment provision is basically to allow the University of Western Australia to reinvest in assets other than land. Hon Helen Hodgson speculated that the reason for the haste relates to some land in the north metropolitan area. I cannot comment on that because I am not aware of any of the details. It seems to satisfy modern investment practices that an institution with assets at its disposal should be able to reinvest in a whole range of other assets and not be tied simply to investing in land. I do not think any motive is involved in the legislation other than to modernise investment practices. I once again thank members for their comments and commend the Bill to the House. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Chairman of Committees (Hon J.A. Cowdell) in the Chair; Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 7 put and passed. Clause 8: Sections 10, 10A and 10B replaced - Hon HELEN HODGSON: The clause inserts a new section 10, which deals with the new composition of the university senate. I totally agree with the need to make the senate more inclusive, and in most situations I would believe it appropriate that the people listed should be there. My particular concern is about who forms membership under the following paragraph (k). The clause reads - The Senate shall consist of the following members - . . . (k) 3 persons selected and coopted as members of the Senate by the other members of the Senate; This relates to some issues raised in this place continually for three and a half years. What is the reason for the coopting provision? What qualifications would a coopted person require? What are the circumstances under which a person could be coopted? We are moving to a more inclusive system by which the majority of members of the University of WA senate will be elected in a representative capacity. Therefore, what is the need for cooption? Hon BARRY HOUSE: I am advised that the reason is only historical and to fully reflect the university community. Hon HELEN HODGSON: That is a very interesting answer. I wonder whether it means three jobs for the boys on the UWA senate! Clause put and passed. Clauses 9 to 11 put and passed. Clause 12: Section 14A inserted - Hon HELEN HODGSON: I acknowledge the comments of the parliamentary secretary in reply to the second reading debate. If the reasons he gave are the only ones to make the changes necessary, it puts my mind somewhat at rest. I hope we can tease this issue out further now the adviser is here. The parliamentary secretary said there is no provision for the university to hold its assets in anything other than land.

3704 [COUNCIL]

Hon Barry House: In re-investment. Hon HELEN HODGSON: The endowment is given in land. Under what circumstances currently can land be sold, and are circumstances to change substantially as a result of this Bill? Hon BARRY HOUSE: The incorporation of this proposed section in the University of Western Australia Act 1911 deals with the University Endowment Act; it is to be inserted to deal with the sale of endowment land. The university may, with the consent of the Governor, sell any land granted or demised to, or vested in, the university, any land acquired from the proceeds of the sale of that land, or any land acquired under section 2 of the University Endowment Act Amendment Act 1927. The proceeds of the sale of any land referred to above is to be sold analogous to trust funds under part 3 of the Trustees Act 1962. I hope that clears up the matter for the member. Hon HELEN HODGSON: It does not clear it up. The parliamentary secretary stated the new situation. What is the change? Under the existing University Endowment Act, must universities keep all their property as land or can they convert it to cash? If they can make those sales, why do we need a new provision? Hon PETER FOSS: The University Endowment Amendment Act 1927, section 2, reads - Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall be lawful for the University of Western Australia, with the consent of the Governor, to sell any land granted or demised to the Trustees of the University Endowment or to the University of Western Australia by way of permanent endowment, and to transfer such land to a purchaser freed and discharged from any trust. Provided that the proceeds of the sale shall be applied to the purchase of other land, or the purchase and improvement by the erection of buildings or otherwise of other land, or the improvement as aforesaid of land already owned by the University. Provided also that the land and buildings so acquired by investment of the proceeds of the sale of endowment lands, shall be held and used for revenue producing purposes as permanent endowment, upon the same trusts as the endowment lands are held. The university has all types of investments, but its endowment land must go back into land under those circumstances. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Land, buildings or approvals. Hon PETER FOSS: That is right. When the legislation is changed, the land could be sold. Then it must be invested as if it were a trust fund, whereas now it goes back into land or fixed improvements for land. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I accept what the Attorney General said. It goes some way towards proving my case. Currently, if the Shenton Park land is sold, because it is endowment land, that money can be used only for more land or buildings. However, if the university wants to use it for any other form of income-generating investment to provide future funds, this legislation must be passed. If the people who are trying to look after the Shenton Park area are concerned about this sale, they should know that this provision will facilitate the sale because it will make the funds more readily available for the university to use for other reasons. Hon BARRY HOUSE: As I said before, I do not know any details about the land in the north metropolitan area. The words “conspiracy theory” were running through my mind as the member spoke. The advice provided by my advisers, the Attorney General and a former university lecturer behind me, should provide enough information for the Chamber. Hon HELEN HODGSON: I agree that it does provide enough advice to the Committee; however, I do not agree that it will provide any peace of mind to the people who are concerned about the sale of that land. Hon Peter Foss: I agree with the member on that point; nothing would give them peace of mind. Hon HELEN HODGSON: The parliamentary secretary is proving my case that this provision facilitates the sale of university land, including that parcel; that is the real reason for the urgency behind this Bill. Hon PETER FOSS: If that proves something to Hon Helen Hodgson, she obviously has a more convoluted and devious mind than I thought possible. It is clear that it is an archaic provision. I had been a solicitor to the university for a long period. It did not lead to modern investment practices. The idea that that proves the Shenton Park land is the reason for the provision is bizarre. I agree with the member that nothing will quieten the minds of these people. If they see a conspiracy like that, everything tends to prove it. One of the wonderful things about conspiracies is that no matter what is done, the conspiracy is proven to the mind. I totally agree with Hon Helen Hodgson that it does not give her or the conspiracy theorists peace of mind. Anything the Government did would prove the conspiracy; that is the wonderful thing about a conspiracy theory. Hon MARK NEVILL: I have another conspiracy theory. Is the University of WA getting rid of its endowment lands so that it does not have to share its rather grand endowment with other universities? The University of Texas inherited massive land grants because it was the only university at the time, and was challenged many years later by other universities in Texas. The other universities were successful in getting a share of the generous land grants for the University of Texas. Some of the other universities in Western Australia should get a share -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3705

Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Murdoch University tried that and failed. Hon MARK NEVILL: Perhaps the University of WA is trying to flog it before the other universities get their hands on any of it. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I am sure that the University of Western Australia owns many parcels of land. It is an old institution and has been run under archaic legislation since it was established. We must shift the mind set. The issue is not necessarily about that piece of land; it could be about many pieces of land. We do not know. The return on investment in land compared with other more lucrative investment options is probably not very good. I do not know whether UWA is exempt from the payment of land tax. Hon Helen Hodgson: It is. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Nevertheless, I am sure that a range of other investment options could provide a much better return than land. I think that is motivating this amendment. One of my concerns is the extent to which universities might make high-risk investments. That is always at the back of my mind due to my experience in TAFE. However, section 21(3) of the Trustees Act provides the checks and balances to protect the university and the public interest. I am confident that this amendment has been proposed for the right reasons. It will achieve a good outcome. UWA has a long history of effective financial management, which I have no reason to doubt will continue. Hon BARRY HOUSE: It is no secret that UWA is very well endowed with land. The other public institutions, particularly in Western Australia, have been envious of that for some time. People are drawing a very long bow about the purpose of this change. It is merely to update the investment practices available to the university. For instance, it may want to invest in a research institute in which it has an interest. Universities, particularly UWA, are very conservative institutions. Unless there is a massive mind shift overnight I cannot imagine a conservative institution such as the University of Western Australia suddenly becoming entrepreneurial in its investment practices and careless in the process. I hope that will allay some of members’ fears. Clause put and passed. Clauses 13 to 18 put and passed. Title put and passed. Report Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted. Third Reading Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary), and passed.

BUILDING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2000 Assembly's Message Message from the Assembly received and read notifying that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Council.

PRIVATE BILLS STANDING ORDERS Assembly's Message Message from the Assembly received and read acquainting the Council that it had deleted the private Bills standing orders and accordingly inviting the Council to do likewise.

METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME - NORTH WEST DISTRICTS OMNIBUS (NO. 4) Motion for Disallowance Pursuant to Standing Order No 152(b), the following motion by Hon G.T. Giffard was moved pro forma on 18 October - That the Metropolitan Region Scheme - North West Districts Omnibus (No. 4) tabled in the Legislative Council on 10 October 2000 be, and is hereby, disallowed. HON G.T. GIFFARD (South Metropolitan) [11.58 pm]: A number of planning issues characterise the general performance of this Government. I will comment specifically in this debate on amendment No 25 in this omnibus amendment, which relates to the future use of the Scarborough Senior High School site. The approach of the Government in this debate has had a touch of arrogance. It has been deficient in the handling of the process, and has failed to reflect the community’s needs and aspirations or even to listen to the community vitally affected by this decision. In the ministerial statement that was delivered on 10 October, the Attorney General representing the Minister for Planning said with regard to this amendment that the proposal that generated the most public submissions was the

3706 [COUNCIL] rezoning of the Scarborough Senior High School site to urban, which attracted 41 objections ranging from the alternative uses for the facilities to the amount of open space. The Attorney General then said that in response, the Minister for Education has advised that a grant of $2.2m will be made to build the new community facilities, while a minimum of 30 per cent public open space is suggested for the site. I stress that the word is “suggested”, not “committed”. That is the first point I make about that comment. The second point I make about that comment is that, in my view, the Minister for Education’s advice about the grant of 30 per cent public open space was not a genuine response to the 41 objections from the public to the rezoning application but a cynical gesture to make the proposal more politically palatable. I add that those 41 objections came about in a relatively short time, the reason being that the community was not made aware until late in the piece, because of the sham public consultation process that had occurred, that the Government's position on this issue had shifted. The report on the submissions indicates that two submissions supported the rezoning. One submission was from the City of Stirling, which as I understand it has its eyes on this piece of land for real estate purposes, and obviously also for rating purposes. The other submission was from SJB Town Planners. Its submission interestingly said there was no need for any specific recreational or community facility, and there was no demonstrated need for public open space. I am at a loss to understand how it came to that view, because to the best of my knowledge no serious or genuine attempt has been made to properly investigate either of these issues. When the community became aware that the Government was proposing to sell off a fair bit of that land for residential purposes and had shifted its position on this issue, it formed the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group. That group conducted a survey in the short time it had to deal with this issue. The purpose of that survey was to ascertain the community attitude to the closure of the school, the scheduled demolition of the school, and the use of the adjacent facilities and land, and to ascertain the individual preferences for that site in order that it could help retain the integrity of that area for the community. The results of that survey were reported to the Planning Commission. They showed that 93 per cent of respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the land remaining in the public domain. The summary of the survey results showed that the respondents continually expressed their desire for cohesion within the community and their frustration at the perceived lack of genuine concern of both State and local governments for residents of the area. The general feedback was that the community was being unwillingly isolated from within through the closure and removal of not only the high school but also the only significant open space and sports facility in the area. The residents felt they would no longer have any common ground in which they could meet, talk and be part of the community. That survey came about in a short time; it was put together hastily by a group of local activists who were concerned about the future of this site. They were caught unawares, because during the middle of 1998, the Minister for Education, Mr Barnett, indicated a commitment to a gymnasium and a swimming pool on the site and to public open space. I agree that the minister did not specify what percentage of the site these facilities would occupy. However, it was generally understood that the site would be used for public open space, the gymnasium and the swimming pool. That was in the context of the school being closed and demolished. In that sense people were initially reassured that the land would continue to be available to the community for its use. What transpired is that the State Government engaged in discussions and negotiations with the City of Stirling. They proceeded to develop their own plans for this site. In a letter to the minister in September 1998 the mayor of the City of Stirling stated - It is our understanding that the Government would wish to pass to the City of Stirling the land containing the existing gymnasium and swimming pool together with adjacent land now used for recreation so that these amenities will continue to be available for use by the local community. He also stated - In assisting the future development of the remaining site so that the Government will receive adequate funds for the maintenance and works mentioned herein and to also provide funding for other education facility objectives the Council will facilitate a subdivision of the land to produce a mix of R30 and R40 residential lots. This is the situation between the City of Stirling and the Government in September 1998. The letter continues - A concept plan showing the area for transfer to the City of Stirling is attached. The plan also shows a conceptual subdivision which includes subdivisional open space which we also understand will be included as part of any final subdivision design together with 135 residential lots. In September 1998, plans were well under way for the City of Stirling and the State Government to carve up much of this land for a substantial number of residential lots, notwithstanding that the community understood the site would be held for the use of the community. The plans were not well defined, but that is what was understood. There was a general understanding that this valuable piece of land would be available to the community, notwithstanding that the City of Stirling and the State Government were engaging in discussions and had sent correspondence to each other that clearly indicates that plans were well under way to use a substantial part of the land for residential purposes.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3707

The Minister for Education wrote to the mayor on 22 October that year and said - In order to begin negotiations between the Education Department and the City of Stirling on the community use of land - That is interesting - - and some facilities at Scarborough Senior High School, I detail below the key points: The minister then talks about how the City of Stirling’s plans for the use of the land will be supported by the State Government. Interestingly, at that time the Government was still saying that land for community use would include that land containing the hall, gymnasium and swimming pool. However, worse was to follow. This correspondence clearly indicates that reasonably well advanced discussions and negotiations were going on in late 1998 between the State Government and the City of Stirling. The omnibus amendment was advertised from July to October 1999. That clearly indicates that discussions between the city and the Government were well advanced months and months before the omnibus amendment was even advertised to the public. The concept plan for 135 residential lots initially was clearly well under way many months before they bothered to advertise and to draw to the community’s attention that the plans had changed and that the site would include a substantial residential component. On 14 December 1999, after the omnibus amendment had been advertised, the Stirling council resolved to seek confirmation of 20 per cent public open space and confirmation of the offer from the State Government of $2.2m for public facilities. At that point in December 1999, the Stirling council was looking at 151 residential lots, which was post-demolition of the gymnasium and the swimming pool. That was a variation from the amount of $1.3m initially offered by the Government. At that point, a year later, the Government had decided that it probably needed to increase the offer, not in response to any genuine concern from the community, but in an attempt to make it more saleable for the Government politically. As we know, after this public consultation period, the Western Australian Planning Commission gave final approval and referred the proposals to the minister in March this year. It is clear that the community consultation process has been a sham, because the Government and the city had decided before they opened the public consultation period what the outcome would be. Then, lo and behold, they went through the process and the outcome was as it was always going to be. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: Decide first and consult later. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: That is right. Hon Ken Travers: It sounds like the way they closed the school. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: Very reminiscent. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: It was a sham. The changes that occurred regarding the gymnasium, the pool and the amount of money the State Government was offering are all about political manoeuvring. I note that in March this year the Premier wrote a letter to Mr John Quigley, the Labor candidate for the State seat of Innaloo, in which he said that it was originally planned to retain the gymnasium and the swimming pool. The Premier stated - When retention of the gymnasium and the pool was discussed with the City of Stirling, the planned managers of the facility, they advised that the building lacked core facilities, its size and suitability were inappropriate for community use and the cost of refurbishment to current community standards was prohibitive. As a result, it was agreed that the Government would provide the City of Stirling with $1.3 million - Hon E.R.J. Dermer: It was a perfectly fine hall when members of the community filled it to make their point very strongly. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: Yes. The letter continues - - to provide a new purpose-built facility to current community standards, on an alternative site to be selected by the City. The State Government was distancing itself and trying to abandon its earlier commitment to provide facilities on that site. It clearly opened the door in March this year by saying that it would provide the funding for the facility but that it would be on an alternative site to be selected by the council. After initially being told that the site would be available for community use, at each stage the news has been worse and worse for the locals who want this piece of land for community use. More than one year before they sought this community consultation under the MRS process, the State Government’s and council politicians’ plans were well advanced. These people are entitled to demand a proper consultation process. It is clear that they do not trust this State Government or the council. That is why they do not want this MRS amendment to be passed. They want an ironclad commitment about the future use of the site before the MRS amendment is passed. They want the process halted until proper and meaningful community consultation occurs. They have not had that yet - they have had a sham process. They do not want that; they want to be consulted and they want that consultation to be meaningful.

3708 [COUNCIL]

Hon Ken Travers: They deserve it. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: They certainly do. I note that members of the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group are in the gallery. They have sat here patiently listening to the proceedings and anxiously awaiting the outcome of this debate. I ask members to reflect on the enormous energy and commitment that these people have given to this community resource and try to demonstrate some compassion for them. Members should keep in mind how important it is for these people to be able to keep this valuable community resource. I have read through the public submissions, and the 41 objections. Very strong, recurring themes stand out in those submissions. These people want this land for public open space; they decry the lack of community facilities; and they are deeply offended about the lack of community consultation. In response to these concerns, in February the Labor Party indicated to the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group that it supported its campaign to keep this resource for the community. I will read the ALP’s correspondence to the group and a short statement released on 20 February. It says - The Labor Party will move in Parliament to disallow the MRS amendment in which the site of the Scarborough Senior High School is re-zoned from Reserve/High School to Urban, until and unless the State Government: a) sets up a proper interactive consultative process with all the stakeholders in the local community to determine the future use for the site; and b) honours its promise to provide a gymnasium and swimming pool for the local community on the site Labor believes a proper consultation process to determine the future of the site would be similar to that used for the Midland Redevelopment: an intensive, design-based, publicly-interactive planning and design process, which would ensure an outcome that has broad community support. I believe it is still possible to get broad community support for the future use of this site, as long as the Government is prepared to stop, open its ears, listen and talk to people, involve people in a process that values their views and concerns and include them in the final decision. I believe that is still possible. I do not have any faith that this Government wants to do that, but I believe if it had the will, it could still do it. I do not think it is irretrievable. Since the Labor Party made its position clear, and other members of this House have made their position clear - or not so clear - the Liberal Party has been playing fairly divisive politics in the area. I will give members a brief example of what I am talking about. One of the issues that is impacted upon in this issue is the playground facilities at the Newborough Primary School. With the demolition of the high school, the kids at Newborough Primary School have lost access to some of their recreational facilities, hopefully only in the short term. It is clear that the playground equipment at Newborough Primary School - in addition to the loss of oval facilities for the time being - is in a poor state and needs either replacement or major refurbishment. It has become so bad that some parents are indicating that they do not want to re-enrol their kids at the school because they are not happy with the standard of facilities or amenities at the school. It seems to me that if the Government had any compassion for the kids at Newborough Primary School, the solution would be fairly straightforward and simple; that is, essentially, to assess and address the need. Recently, however, the Government has said that it will not provide $12 000 worth of playground equipment unless the land at Scarborough Senior High School is sold. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: It is holding those children to ransom, essentially. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: I am told that this land is worth $14m or $16m; I am not exactly sure of the price that has been put on the land. It seems extraordinary to me that the Government can say that the kids at Newborough Primary School cannot have their playground equipment unless it sells $14m worth of real estate. That is just callous. It is awful, divisive politics. Frankly, this Government should be ashamed of itself. If these kids need playground equipment, they should get playground equipment. It should not be predicated on selling $14m or $16m worth of real estate. It is outrageous. That is the sort of game that the Liberal Party is playing on this issue - if the land is sold, the kids can have their playground equipment. That is the sort of divisive politics I am talking about. As a result of that decision, some members of the parents and citizens association of the school - not all of them - naturally and understandably have said that we should pass the metropolitan region scheme. Some members of the P&C are so very desperate for an improvement to the facilities and standards at the school that they are under pressure and are being lobbied by the Liberal Party into saying that the scheme should be allowed. They do not want to be involved in a political stoush; they want the facilities in their school fixed up. Some have, therefore, said that the Labor Party should not move the disallowance motion, but should allow the scheme amendment. I feel a significant degree of compassion for those people because they genuinely want the facilities for their kids at the school to be brought up to scratch. They are entitled to want that and they are entitled to have it. I call on the Government to meet that demand to address the needs of the kids at Newborough Primary School and not drag the

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3709 school into an argument about the future use of the former Scarborough Senior High School. That would be inappropriate. As I indicated to the House earlier, the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group has been very active since it formed in September last year. I tried to outline to the House tonight the issues it identified, the first being the broken promise of the Minister for Education to provide the high school gymnasium, swimming pool and adjacent land as open space. The second issue it identified was the deal between the mayor of Stirling and the Minister for Education to subdivide the land into residential lots. The community is concerned about the wedge politics being played by the State Government. Pressure is being applied to allow this MRS amendment, and the Government is unwilling to accede to the community’s absolute and demonstrated need for public open space. The submission from the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group was made in the name of Robyn Murphy, the convenor of the group. Her excellent submission outlines some important points of which the House should be aware when it makes a decision on this disallowance motion. The first important point is that the catalyst for the formation of the group was the community’s awareness of this disallowance motion when it received advice from the Scarborough and Districts Progress Association that the Minister for Education had reversed his commitment to retain the gymnasium hall, swimming pool and adjacent land for public open space. The original commitment was made in July 1998. The Scarborough and Districts Progress Association was told by the local member in August 1999 that the commitment had been reversed. It took more than a year for the community to be given that information. That was the first time that the public became aware that the commitment made by the minister in July 1998 would not be honoured. The elected representative did not inform the community until that time. In the correspondence that I referred to earlier - the exchange of correspondence between the city and the minister - it is clear that it spoke of residential lots; however, the minister had announced public open space. It was not until August - 10 or 11 months after those negotiations - that the State Government bothered to tell the public. The second important point that the group made was that it does not want to lose the school land. The group has a vision for the future of this land as community land. The first preference in its submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission was that the land be rezoned as parks and recreation. Given that a sham process was undertaken, there was no prospect that that would occur, as we now know. A group spokesperson said during the public hearings in December 1999 that - If the process does not allow this at this stage then we are asking that the rezoning proposal be withdrawn to enable genuine public consultation to occur regarding the land use. Another important point that the group made was that the policy of the Government's Family and Children’s Services’ policy office was that - Families and children are the most important economic and social resource in our community, that strong families lead to strong communities. We are being asked our views by the Government on ways that families, communities, Government and business can work together to improve the well-being of families. Notwithstanding the Government's policy, the group said that - And yet we have an example of the Government ignoring families’ needs, denying the opportunity for the community to have a real say in what happens in their neighbourhood. It is important that the House consider the next point - There is an opportunity to make a planning decision that meets the needs of the people and that build community. The term “social capital” is relevant to this argument. Families live and recreate in the suburbs in which they live. They can only do this if facilities and spaces are provided. Residential communities provide a support network where the sharing of common facilities in culture, recreation, and schooling strengthen families and prevent social breakdown. These are important values, ones that must be considered when planning decisions are made. The bottom line is not the dollar but the community and we all have a responsibility to ensure that the community is healthy, happy, safe, and secure. The submission concludes with the spokesperson saying that - I urge you to reject the proposal to rezone the Scarborough High School land to urban. If this occurs there is no question that the Government and the City of Sterling will sell the majority of the site for housing and the land will be lost to the community forever. As we know, that is precisely what is now being proposed. The group’s submission was contained in the documents that were previously tabled. The State Government is still the owner of the land. At this stage it will sell 70 per cent of the land as residential lots. The Labor Party’s position continues to be that the State Government should not be allowed to do that until there is a proper consultative process and until it honours its promises to the community. The only way that can be done is by preventing this planning change. If it goes through, there will be no mechanism for the community to prevent the sale of the land. It will not be saleable, and the State Government will not get the money it needs, unless the rezoning goes through.

3710 [COUNCIL]

The open space action group, as I indicated before, has been very active in this campaign and it has spoken to me, to a good number of members of this House - the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA), the independents - and I understand to Hon Mark Nevill. Initially Hon Mark Nevill’s position, as it has been relayed to me - and I do not think Hon Mark Nevill would contradict me - was that he supported the open space action group. On 12 January this year he wrote to the Minister for Planning and spelt out his reasons for supporting the open space action group’s demands. In that letter he said that the group had put a compelling argument and he noted that there was a lack of space in that area, particularly for Doubleview residents; he also noted the overcrowding at the Woodlands and Carine high schools, and quite rightly noted that the site may be needed in future years. He also said in his letter that a significant amount of the area could be bought back for open space by the people who would most benefit from it. Finally, he said he would ask that that particular item be removed from the Metropolitan Region Authority Planning Bill currently before the Parliament - which is something that we would have supported from the outset; I am not sure if it was at that stage, but it was certainly under way - so that some ways of funding this open space could be examined in more detail. A strong emphasis must be placed on this debate. The community needs to stand back, take a breath and really consider in proper detail the future needs for this land. We need to do that before we change the zoning. Hon Mark Nevill concluded by saying that the land kept for open space would be of immense value in the future to ameliorate social problems etcetera. I endorse everything Hon Mark Nevill said in his correspondence of 12 January. He was obviously impressed by the quality of the submissions and the arguments that had been put to him, and he correctly called the important issues in this debate. Regrettably, Hon Mark Nevill indicated in a letter dated 16 November - Hon Mark Nevill interjected. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: I think the member will always make a speech. This is a longer letter but the second one is of lesser quality. He probably tried to fill it up with - Hon Mark Nevill: I put a lot of thought into it. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: He certainly put a lot of thought into it. He used all the arguments that the Liberal Party has been using to run its very divisive - Hon Mark Nevill: To rationalise. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: That could be. It is what one does when one does a complete back flip. One tries to come up with reasons for that back flip. The reasons I can glean from this correspondence are that the Government has made concessions and that he has been contacted by other community groups that, I also believe, have legitimate views. I understand that. I know of two community groups that are very concerned. One is a basketball group and the other is a police and citizens group. I have spoken about the P&C group and I understand the anxieties. I think the way they have been treated is awful. I understand the needs of the basketball club for community facilities. Nothing it wants is incompatible with what the open space action group wants. The open space action group wants to see community facilities on the site. It does not want to deny the basketball club its desired facilities. The problem is the strategy being employed by the State Government. People are being told that they will not get any facilities unless they agree with the rezoning. That is what is so particularly nasty about the debate. It is being driven by an arrogant, nasty, standover approach by the Government. Hon Mark Nevill talks about a range of uses, including community purposes, that can be contemplated under urban zoning. They can be contemplated, but the City of Stirling had to be dragged kicking and screaming to agree to go from 20 per cent to 30 per cent public open space. If this disallowance motion goes down tonight there is no prospect that it will be an easy task to convince the City of Stirling that it needs to increase the amount of open space. It would be an extremely difficult undertaking for the community. I believe we would be cutting the community loose if we told it to sort out the acceptable public open space with the City of Stirling. It would be a harsh attitude. Hon Mark Nevill also states that the Minister for Education is prepared to compromise - he has gone from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. I do not believe it is a sufficient compromise, if it is a compromise at all. When is a compromise a political manoeuvre? Hon E.R.J. Dermer: The other issue is, which 30 per cent? Hon G.T. GIFFARD: That is true. A lot of things about this are still ill defined. It is difficult for people to know exactly what is being proposed. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: They are ill-defined negotiations. If the member’s motion goes down, people will lose their bargaining chip. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: Absolutely. They will be cut loose and they will have to sort it out with the City of Stirling. We will not have any further responsibility. I think it would be quite irresponsible of the House to vote down the disallowance. Hon Mark Nevill went on to discuss the issues about which the minister has compromised. The minister has agreed to rationalise the boundaries to provide for the development of a realigned school oval and relocate play equipment at the school. He also states -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3711

I have received correspondence from community groups who have indicated their conditional support for the proposal on the basis that the recreational facilities which are to be lost will be replaced. That is the truth of it. They want their recreational facilities, which have been lost, to be replaced. I think it is at an entirely reasonable demand and I do not see any reason that the State Government should not comply. Hon Mark Nevill continues and takes a cheap shot at the Labor Party, which, he says, has been very vague about its proposals for the site. The Labor Party is not vague at all; it is crystal clear on this. A final decision cannot be made about the future use of the land until there is a genuine and legitimate consultation process. That is not being vague; it is being very clear. The Labor Party believes the community has been ignored up until now. There is nothing vague about that at all, and it is very defensible. Of course, there must be a future use for the land. The question is what will it be, and what is the best and most appropriate way of achieving it? The most appropriate way to approach the issue is to have a genuine, legitimate consultation process. I refer to two remarks that were made at the public hearings which were held on 2, 3 and 13 December 1999. The first remarks were made by Mr John Quigley, who was representing Susan Hart and Don Adamson, when he said that the Parliament in its wisdom initially zoned this land crown reserve for public usage, and that the designated usage at that time was school. He also said that the Government has declared it no longer needs the public’s land for a school, and it has not consulted with the community to find out what other public purposes that land could be used for. That pretty well sums up that aspect of the argument; that is, this land has been used for a school, and the Government has failed to consult the community about other uses for this land that belongs to the community. Those are very relevant points. I ask members to reflect on those considerations in this debate. The other remarks I refer to are those of Christine Samson, who attended those meetings and was one of the first members of the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group. She made some very good points, some of which I will bring to the attention of the House, when she referred to public open space. She said that the survey and views expressed to her when she petitioned the local residents reflected a strong desire for the site to be maintained as a significant open space. She said that if people looked at the maps of the area, they would see that it is a very significant open space, and it was intentionally planned that way so that area encompassing the school would be available for public access. She also said that the site is used for walking, playing, training and tennis, and it is home to much bird life in the many trees. In addition, population density definitely increases along with housing density, so there is obviously need for more open space rather than less. Towards the end of her submission she pointed out that, in her opinion, this proposed amendment was conceived not necessarily with public interest in mind but perhaps from greed. She believes that it has been pushed forward without due respect for nor honest consultation with the community and must be disallowed. That last comment particularly sums up why we must disallow the metropolitan region scheme amendment that is before the House. The Government’s behaviour has been bad. If we do not pass this disallowance, we will reward bad behaviour. Even if the Government gets away with this little stunt in the small hours of the morning, there will be a swell of community outrage at the arrogance and lack of concern about what the community thinks. Also a swell of public opinion will wash over this Government. The three ministers in the Chamber are in their last couple of days as ministers in this House, because when we return next year they will no longer be ministers but members of the Opposition. They will have only themselves to blame because they are arrogant, do not listen and do not take into consideration the views of the community. The community will punish this Government. In the meantime, I call on this House to support the disallowance motion on this metropolitan region scheme amendment. HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [12.50 am]: I appreciate Hon Graham Giffard’s concise summation of the issues surrounding this motion. I am not the lead speaker for the Australian Democrats on this issue. Once again, we are confronted with a disallowance motion on an omnibus amendment that contains many proposals. We must determine whether one or two of these proposals sufficiently warrant disallowance to knock out 23 or 24 worthy proposals. This House came up with a solution to the omnibus amendments issue, which it passed. We are waiting for the other place to pass the Democrats’ Bill amending the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act. We will then not need to take that aspect into account when considering disallowance motions on omnibus amendments. I listened intently to Hon Graham Giffard’s remarks, and I will be interested in his response outlining the ALP’s proposal for initiating a consultation process that will allow the airing of the concerns of the local community and a planner and produce a solution for the future use of the former Scarborough Senior High School site. When this proposal was released for public comment, 45 submissions were received, 41 of which opposed the proposal. Only two submissions supported the proposal. Interestingly, no submissions from local residents were supportive. The two supporting proposals were from the Stirling City Council and a company representing the Education Department. The report on the MRS amendment stated that the grounds for objection in the 41 submissions opposing the proposal included the need to retain the gymnasium and the swimming pool, as had been proposed by the Minister for Education. The submission alluded to a letter from the Minister for Education, dated 22 October 1998, to the Mayor of the City of Stirling, Mr Vallelonga, in which the minister wrote -

3712 [COUNCIL]

. . . the land for community use will include that land containing the hall/gymnasium and swimming pool; adjacent land for public open space and parking will also be made available; the Education Department will complete any necessary maintenance work to the pool and hall/gymnasium before any handover; The maintenance work done on the pool was extensive; it was bulldozed, which meant it could not possibly have any future use. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: The minister’s promise to retain the school hall and gymnasium was included in his media release that announced the closure of the school. On the same day as the closure of the school he made the promise that he subsequently broke. Hon NORM KELLY: That is right. I can understand there would have been a degree of community support for the closure if they felt there was going to be those valuable assets - Hon E.R.J. Dermer: It was a throwaway amelioration. Hon NORM KELLY: I can understand that a certain portion of the community would have been appreciative that it would have access to some community assets. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: The trouble is that it was false. Hon NORM KELLY: I appreciate that it has subsequently been argued that the hall was inadequate for use by the wider community rather than for the school. The swimming pool was poorly used by the public outside of school hours; however, the gymnasium and the swimming pool as assets were never given a reasonable chance of being upgraded or utilised so that the community could get greater benefit from them. A letter from the Mayor of Stirling, Mr Vallelonga, a couple of years after the minister’s letter, indicates that perhaps the council is not in touch with its local community. In a letter to Dr Gallop the mayor states - There is no community demand for the swimming pool. This is possibly because the residents have ready access to what we believe to be the best beaches in Western Australia. As much as those beaches may be well used, his view trivialises the value of having a swimming pool for exercise and recreation. In recent weeks some beaches have been closed. The alternative of using a swimming pool would have been handy for the local community. A swimming pool would be ideal for people who engage in aquarobics or those who do not feel confident or safe in the surf. Some arguments have been put in opposition to this proposal because it is believed the school should be kept as a public asset; however, the school has been demolished, so that is not an option. It is also argued that the land should be retained for recreational and community use because it is fully utilised by the community for active and passive recreation. It is argued that there must be a combination of active and passive recreation. It is also argued that there must be some green space in a large area - I would not say a densely urbanised area - which has handkerchief-size patches of public open space. The area does not have ovals or grounds in which members of the public can kick a footy or take the dog for a walk. The urban population is increasing in density. There has been an increase in R-ratios - density ratios - in the area. Traffic problems may arise from the proposed housing development. This could have the opposite effect because it could ease the traffic issues that surround a high school, which has intense periods of traffic during the day but is quiet at other times. A housing development would provide more amenable traffic flows through the area. The people I have spoken to from the Ministry for Planning have given me no indication about what changes might occur in traffic flows. In these cases we must come back to the proper planning principles, consider these changes, and base a decision on those proper planning principles. Decisions are being made, instead, based purely on the amount of money that the Government can recover from the sale of a public asset. The community is opposed to the allocation of 20 per cent public open space, so the Government is considering an increase to 30 per cent public open space. The Government may find that the community does not view that as an adequate solution. The issue has boiled down to a bidding war based on what the local community will accept and what effect the sale of the remaining land will have on the Government’s bottom line. The Government is not considering the needs of the community in terms of public open space and urban development. The Australian Democrats are disappointed that the Government has not provided an adequate response on how this site should be used in future. I have dealt with a number of metropolitan region scheme amendments during my time in Parliament, and it has been rare to be briefed more by a department than the Ministry for Planning. That situation probably typifies this disallowance motion. It is being driven by the Education Department for the purpose of liquidating what it sees as its asset, rather than one it should hand to the Ministry for Planning and the Planning Commission to determine on behalf of the Government a more suitable use for the site. The matter is fraught with problems. It is a pity that the success of this motion will result in many other worthy proposals being disallowed. As I have said for the past three years on this matter, the solution has been passed by this House and it is up to the other place to adopt it to avoid that problem.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3713

My colleague, who is the local member for the area, will address more of the issues. I wanted to point out the concerns of the Australian Democrats following its examination of this MRS amendment. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [1.02 am]: I refer to the north west districts omnibus amendment 1012/33. The Greens (WA) oppose four of the 25 proposals contained in this omnibus. The first two have not been the subject of debate so far. The first proposal is the transfer of lot 690 Errina Road, Alexander Heights, from public purpose high school reservation to urban zoning. This proposal is similar to the proposal to rezone the Scarborough Senior High School site. This proposal relates to a Bushplan site, which contains remnant bushland identified in the Bushplan, which, at the very least, is of local significance. It is the subject of 11 submissions from the public, eight of which oppose the rezoning to urban. The land contains banksia woodland, which is in excellent condition. It is also an important ecological link between two important Bushplan sites; that is, the Landsdale Road Bushplan site No 199 and the Koondoola regional Bushplan site No 201. The submissions on this proposal may denote that the implementation of the Bushplan is languishing because this Government is not willing to prioritise it and to allocated the resources necessary to protect the sites identified in the Bushplan. The Errina Road site is owned by the Ministry of Housing; therefore, it would not need to be purchased. It could simply be rezoned for conservation purposes. The Greens (WA) are opposing that proposal. The vegetation type at this site is the Karrakatta complex, central and southern, which is inadequately represented in the Swan coastal plain in the Perth metropolitan region because it has been extensively cleared. Even if all of the identified Bushplan sites that contained this vegetation complex were reserved, it would still represent 8 per cent of the remnant. The Bushplan recommends that wherever possible we should reserve 10 per cent of each of the 26 vegetation complexes that are known to exist on the Swan coastal plain. The Greens (WA) also oppose proposal No 4, which rezones from rural to urban a portion of Flynn Drive road reserve and lot 10 Flynn Drive, Carramar. That piece of land has remnant vegetation in excellent condition that could easily be added to the adjacent Bushplan site No 295. Hon Ken Travers: Is the land part of the Bushplan site? Hon GIZ WATSON: No, the site itself is not identified in the Bushplan, but there is some suggestion that that may have been an oversight, since it is adjacent to an identified site. Hon Ken Travers: Hopefully the minister can answer that in his response. Hon GIZ WATSON: Perhaps, yes. Not all of that site is remnant vegetation, but the northern portion could be included in Bushplan site No 295. Approximately 75 per cent of the vegetation is considered to be in excellent to very good condition, with the remainder considered to be in good to degraded condition with severe localised disturbance. The Greens (WA) also oppose proposal No 17, which involves the rationalisation of the Reid Highway primary regional road reservation from Marmion Avenue to Reid Highway, Carine. This proposal is to transfer portions of the road reserve from primary regional roads reservation to urban zone and parks and recreation reservation, and by transferring portions of the parks and recreation reservation to the primary regional road reservation. This issue has raised community interest in the Carine area, and has a bit of a history, having been on the books since 1963. The original proposal in May 1992 was withdrawn, predominantly because when that proposal was put up the Environmental Protection Authority gave it a public environmental review rating. Main Roads WA subsequently withdrew the original proposal and made a modified proposal, which reduced the impact on Lake Carine but which would still bring the highway extension to within five metres of the edge of Lake Carine. Lake Carine is a gazetted wetland and is identified in the System 6 document. It is also subject to the Swan coastal wetlands environmental protection policies. The unfortunate aspect of the environmental impact assessment of this proposal is that because the original proposal would have had such a drastic impact on the wetland, when the proposal was modified, sections of the conservation movement breathed a sigh of relief. Their opposition was not as vigorous as it might have been had the first proposal been progressed. However, the Conservation Council, for example, still says it clearly would prefer that the highway extension did not go ahead. Another interesting aspect of this proposal is that the Water and Rivers Commission, which now has responsibility for looking after our rivers and wetlands, had not been established at the time the Environmental Protection Authority was asked to make its assessments. Therefore, the Water and Rivers Commission has never been asked directly to comment on this proposal. Members might need to be reminded that we have lost 90 per cent of the wetlands on the Swan coastal plain since European settlement, so few wetlands are left in the metropolitan area. Hon Barry House: We have not lost them. Hon GIZ WATSON: We have lost them. We have either filled them up with rubbish, drained them or built houses on top of them. That is what has happened to the wetlands in the Swan coastal plain. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon GIZ WATSON: If the member wants to go into that, most of Perth is built on a wetland. The current policy for the management of wetlands in the Swan coastal plain is that there should be a minimum buffer zone of 50 metres; and if the wetland is considered to have particular significance, the buffer zone can be extended to 200 metres. There is still a proposition for the extension of the highway to go within five metres of Lake Carine.

3714 [COUNCIL]

The other major issue that has been raised with regard to the highway extension is that two major retention basins will be built to take the run-off from the highway and also to take the stormwater that currently runs into Lake Carine unfiltered or unsettled. One of those sumps will be lined and the other will be unlined. In other situations in which retention basins collect stormwater, there is an accumulation of hydrocarbons, heavy metals and all the other materials that run off the highways. Although the first basin will reduce the pollutants that will enter the lake, a problem arises with that basin being located within the current lake reserve. The Greens (WA) have raised in this House the need for this extension. We do not believe it has been proved that this extension is necessary. For example, since the opening of the third lane on Mitchell Freeway, traffic on North Beach Road, which this extension is intended to reduce, has already been reduced by between 25 and 40 per cent. I point out also that with regard to the proposed Stephenson Highway in the western suburbs, a number of the councils in those suburbs employed an independent road expert to check Main Roads’ estimates of anticipated traffic levels and found that those anticipated traffic levels had been overestimated. Therefore, there was no need for the Stephenson Highway proposal to go ahead. I believe that an independent assessment of the estimated increase in traffic loads on this section of the freeway would reach the same conclusion. The Lake Carine Protection Group has been very active in opposing this extension. It has collected thousands of signatures and has also worked with other local groups, such as the West Carine Residents Group and the Concerned Parents for Children’s Road Safety, to gather support to oppose the highway extension. It is also worth noting that the cost of a mere 2.7 kilometres of extended freeway will be $20m. The Greens (WA) argue that with $20m it could do an awful lot to get people off the roads and reduce further the need for freeways. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon GIZ WATSON: That is the figure, so it is a fairly expensive piece of road. The Greens argue that if the Government were to invest that sort of money in public transport and ways to reduce people’s car use, there would be a much more constructive outcome for the community, and it would not further divide communities by putting in four- lane highways. The point has been made also that this extension will facilitate the flow of heavy trucks onto West Coast Highway. The specification for this extension is that it should take B-double articulated trucks. This will greatly increase the use of this piece of highway by heavy haulage vehicles. I inform members of an issue that I have raised here by way of questions; that is, whether Main Roads can legally construct the drainage basins if this metropolitan region scheme amendment is disallowed, which it may be this morning. The Lake Carine Protection Group sought some advice on this matter from the Environmental Defender’s Office. I have a copy of the response it received on whether it would be lawful for those retention basins to be built if the MRS amendment were not successful. The response from the Environment Defender’s Office to Dr Richard Langford of the Lake Carine Protection Group reads - . . . the Main Roads Department is currently undertaking constructing drainage basins in an area that is reserved as Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (“MRS”). The Government has approved an amendment to the MRS to designate the area in question a Regional Road Reserve. However, either House of Parliament may disallow that amendment, and indeed I understand that the Labor Party has introduced a motion to that effect in the Legislative Council. Dr Langford asked whether the current works are unlawful, given that the MRS amendment has not yet been finalised. The response refers to clause 13 of the metropolitan region scheme and states - Except as provided in Division 2 of this Part no person shall commence or carry out any development on reserved land, other than the erection of a boundary fence, without first applying for and obtaining the written approval of the Commission to do so. It goes on to argue that the commission can give permission for works other than the erection of a boundary fence, and states - Clause 16, which falls within Division 2, provides that: (1) Reserved land owned by or vested in a public authority may, except as provided in sub-clause (2) of this clause be used without the written approval of the Commission referred to in Clause 13 if the land is used:- (a) for the purpose for which it is reserved under this Scheme; . . . (c) for the purpose for which the land may lawfully be used by the public authority. The claim that these sumps can lawfully be built relies on clause 16. The letter goes on to say - In my view the Department of Land Administration is a “public authority” within the meaning of clause 16. It was therefore open to the Commission to issue an approval for the works under clause 16(2). The next question is, “Can the Commission’s decision to grant the approval be challenged?” It further says -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3715

A third party, such as a local resident or organisation, does not have the right to appeal against a decision by the Commission to grant development approval. . . . However, a third party may be able to challenge an unlawful decision in the Supreme Court. . . . the Commission does have the power to approve a development that is inconsistent with the purpose of a MRS reserve. However, this does not mean that every decision of the Commission to do so is lawful. In conclusion, the letter says - 1. It is legally possible for the Commission to issue approval for a development in a Parks and Recreation Reserve which is inconsistent with the purpose of that reserve, where the land is owned by or vested in a public authority. However, it suggests - 2. In the present case it appears that the land in question is owned by or vested in a public authority, namely the Department of Land Administration. 3. It follows that in the present case, it was open to the Commission to issue approval for the works even though a proposal to amend the Parks and Recreation Reserve to a Regional Roads Reserve has not yet been finalised, and may be disallowed . . . It suggests - (a) Whether the Commission’s decision to issue the approval can be challenged, e.g. because it failed to have regard to the purpose for which the land was reserved. In order to assess this we would need to have some evidence of the reasons for the Commission’s decision. (b) Whether Main Roads is acting within the scope of the development approval which has been granted to it. In order to assess this we would need a copy of the plans submitted . . . That leaves in question whether it would be legally challengeable that the commission was acting lawfully in allowing the construction of the retention basins to commence on the land that is still currently reserved for parks and recreation. The final proposal within this omnibus amendment on which I wish to comment, although briefly, because I know other members will speak at length about this proposal, is proposal No 25, which concerns the rezoning of the Scarborough Senior High School site from public purposes to urban. From the outset, the Greens (WA) have opposed this rezoning because we oppose the sale of public assets, in particular the ongoing sale of assets of the Education Department, especially bushland sites and sites like the Scarborough Senior High School site, which are of enormous value to the local community. It has been pointed out by other speakers that Scarborough does not have a large amount of open space and public reserves, and the opportunity to use the Scarborough Senior High School site as a community asset is invaluable at this point in history. The local community has every right to expect that this site will remain as a community asset to be used for new purposes and that it will be allowed to play a part in shaping the uses for the site. We note that there has been very vocal and vigorous opposition to the proposed rezoning, as there was to the closure of the high school in the first place. We acknowledge that some very divisive politics have been played out around the proposal to sell off this site. An appallingly cynical exercise has been played out by both the Stirling council and the Government in holding to ransom the Newborough Primary School, for example, and breaking promises that they would re-establish facilities, such as the gymnasium and swimming pool. At the outset, that was not tied to the sale of the land. I will limit my comments about Scarborough Senior High School, because numerous members have spoken on this proposal. It is probably the most contentious aspect of this omnibus amendment. The Greens (WA) have said all along that we would oppose the sale of the site, and we offered to move this disallowance if the Labor Party did not. It has, and we will support it. I am exceedingly disappointed to have an indication that this will probably be unsuccessful because of Hon Mark Nevill’s impending support for the amendment. I know he has not spoken yet, but that is the indication. Hon Mark Nevill: You are a psychic. Hon GIZ WATSON: Yes, I am. I appeal to Hon Mark Nevill to reconsider his position. Having spent an enormous amount of time speaking to people about this issue, attending meetings and establishing the extent of support for retention of the entire site as a public asset, I appeal to him to allow this disallowance to be passed. Its rejection will cause great disappointment, and perhaps even anger and distress, in the Scarborough community. I have a very strong sense that the level of community consensus on this issue is very high. Of all the issues I have dealt with since I have been in this place, this is the most definite in terms of what the community wants. I make a final plea to Hon Mark Nevill to take heed of those community voices and to support the disallowance. I hope that we are able to prevent the loss of this site to that community forever. HON MARK NEVILL (Mining and Pastoral) [1.26 am]: However misguided I might be, I think I am dealing with reality in making my decision on this issue. The passage of this legislation in itself will not determine the ultimate use

3716 [COUNCIL] of the land. However, it will bring the issue and some of the uncertainty to a head. Perhaps a better opportunity can emerge from my decision. The entire Scarborough Senior High School site is worth saving. The reality is that neither of the major parties will save 100 per cent of the site, and neither has said that it is slightly inclined towards doing so. On the one hand, we usually see Governments trying to maximise the revenue to be obtained from a situation. On the other hand, the Opposition is protesting but not really offering anything substantive. Hon Ken Travers: If we commit to saving 100 per cent, will you support the disallowance? Hon MARK NEVILL: Yes, but it will not happen. The submission from the action group said that the bottom line is the dollar. Unhappily, it is. Just last week we passed an amendment to the Financial Administration and Audit Act, which sets up a capital user charge. It is an incentive for Governments to rationalise property that is not earning its keep. I will read an extract from the second reading speech on the Bill we passed last week, which states - The capital user charge provides an incentive for agencies to reduce capital employed by disposing of surplus assets or seeking more cost-effective replacements. These actions lower the charge while allowing agencies to retain the initial level of funding. Such action also contributes to a reduction in the State’s net debt. That is another mechanism whereby assets that might be termed “busy” are sold. Hon Norm Kelly hit the nail on the head when he said that the Education Department is driving this more than the Western Australian Planning Commission. That is clearly the case. Hon Graham Giffard quoted from my letter to the minister, which I wrote after I had met with the action group. He said that I was impressed with the action group. I was and I still am, but I am a realist. The Government has now offered 30 per cent public open space. There is no other offer, and we could delay this until after the next election. If the Labor Party wins, there is nothing stopping it from changing it. It can increase it to 50 or 100 per cent, but that will not happen. The roles will be reversed and there will be an attempt to maximise the revenue from the property. When I wrote this letter to Hon Graham Kierath, I flagged one aspect that Hon Graham Giffard did not mention. I also flagged the same issue when responding to some queries about the Sunset Hospital site. If people want to stop Governments from selling land they want for open space, they must develop a mechanism with their local shires through which they can contribute to the repurchase of that land, otherwise they will not get it. That is the reality we must face when dealing with any Government. Hon Peter Foss: It is not without cost. Hon MARK NEVILL: Exactly. I said in the letter that residents in the area should contribute something towards the cost to the Government of not redeveloping the Scarborough Senior High School site, with a small levy on Stirling City Council rates. A significant amount of that area could be bought back for open space by the people who would benefit most from it. Carine has a system in which blocks cannot be redeveloped. Hon B.K. Donaldson: By differentials or a levy? Hon MARK NEVILL: I do not think so. It is a circle of influence around a certain area. Hon Ken Travers: Like caveats over the property. Hon MARK NEVILL: It is in Menora, not Carine. Certain people who benefit from a town planning decision contribute towards that. That is reality; if people want more than 30 per cent of this site, somehow they must develop a mechanism through their local government to increase it, because whoever is in government will minimise it. The community might end up with 50 per cent. However, it is a good dream if it believes it will get 100 per cent - it just will not happen. I even received a letter today from a fairly prominent person seeking to secure 100 per cent of the site. That just will not happen. Members have referred to most of my correspondence and have outlined my views. There is nothing new to be said about the money that is being offered, the additional area to be set aside for open space and some of the commitments about reconfiguring the land and building closer to the community. The community will have about three months to extract from the Opposition and the Government - it will get not much more out of the Government - the best commitment that it can get. If it does not get a commitment before the election, it will not get much change after it. That is where the opportunity really lies. Voting for the disallowance will make very little, if any, difference to the ultimate outcome. The real benefit can be derived prior to the election, and that benefit will present itself because someone has his or her head on the block. Hon Ken Travers: It will be sold by the time the election comes around. Hon MARK NEVILL: I do not believe it will be. Hon Ken Travers: Do you have a guarantee from the Government?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3717

Hon MARK NEVILL: I want a commitment from the Government that it will ensure that 30 per cent of the area is reserved for open space. Hon Graham Giffard suggested that there was no such commitment. I want the Attorney General to say that publicly if there is no such commitment. Members talk about proper processes. My question is: Will there be a different outcome? If this matter is prolonged, it will just continue people’s anxiety. Members can make a commitment before the election; they can put up their hands and say what they will do. If the Opposition wins government, it can vary the amendment as much as it likes. Hon Ken Travers: But not if the land is sold. Hon MARK NEVILL: It will not be sold before March. Hon Ken Travers: Will you get a commitment from the Government that it will not be sold? Before you support the allowance, ask if it will give you that commitment. Hon MARK NEVILL: Does Hon Ken Travers believe that the Government works that quickly? Hon Ken Travers: Yes; it is ready to go now. Hon MARK NEVILL: I do not think so. Hon Ken Travers: Ask it for a commitment before you support the allowance. Hon MARK NEVILL: I am asking Hon Ken Travers for a commitment. He is the one who said he would give the community 100 per cent of the land. If Hon Ken Travers had said that publicly a week ago, I would not support the allowance. There is nothing on the table. The Opposition has had my letter for a week, in which I said that the Australian Labor Party is vague on its proposals for the site. The ALP has not said that it would not develop the site, only that it would undertake proper community consultation. That is a very vague position. Its most tangible offer was for playground equipment for Newborough Primary School. Every member has read my letter, except for the bits they do not like. Hon Ken Travers: What we are saying is that we should be making a decision - Hon MARK NEVILL: It is not what Hon Ken Travers is saying about the ALP’s position that matters but what I am saying and how I interpret the situation. I do not know whether the ALP will put a pool on the site. If it gets into government, it can vary this area of open space. However, there is an opportunity for the action group to get a better outcome under the circumstances that are developing. I would tell the members of that group not to give up. They should use the situation and the leverage it gives them to their advantage. Some people have a different view. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: That is absolute nonsense. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Mark Nevill has the floor. Hon MARK NEVILL: Earlier tonight I discussed the leverage with Hon Ed Dermer, and we had a different opinion on that. Hon Ed Dermer thinks the leverage is in not passing this omnibus. I think the leverage is with the election. It will be a close election. Hon Ken Travers: It will be gone by then. Mark my words. Hon MARK NEVILL: I think Hon Ken Travers hopes it will be gone - that is the problem. I have made my decision in good faith. Hon Ken Travers: We think the leverage is to get a commitment from the Government not to sell it before the election. You are copping out. Hon MARK NEVILL: I have given, to the best of my capacity, a good hearing to the people who have contacted me on this issue. I have not responded to the hundreds of letters, but many people have phoned me. To my knowledge, I have not refused to see anyone on this matter and I have heard all sides of the argument. I have not come to this decision lightly. The events of the next few months will unfold. I do not think that whatever happens - Hon E.R.J. Dermer: What is your real reason for changing your position? You haven’t offered it tonight. Hon MARK NEVILL: The real reason I changed my position was that other groups from that area lobbied me. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: The Government? Hon MARK NEVILL: No. The Government has not lobbied me. I have not given a commitment to the Government to support this omnibus. I told Hon Peter Foss tonight that there was no point in bringing the Sunset disallowance motion on, because I would support the disallowance. That matter will not come on tonight. I have made no commitment to support the Government’s position. Some people in the Australian Labor Party do not understand that I do not do deals - I try to judge issues on their merit. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: Nonsense!

3718 [COUNCIL]

Hon MARK NEVILL: It would be strange for Hon Ed Dermer. I will not support the disallowance. HON HELEN HODGSON (North Metropolitan) [1.42 am]: I do not intend to unduly prolong this debate but, as a member representing the North Metropolitan Region, I feel it is important that my views on this issue be on record. I do not intend to speak on any technical matters because they were addressed by my colleague, Hon Norm Kelly, and by other speakers in the debate. The technical matters of process and procedure have been extensively addressed. I will refer to two particular aspects of the metropolitan region scheme. The Democrats have taken this step because the party supports the position of the community on those two amendments. The first is the Scarborough amendment, on which the majority of debate has been tonight. I acknowledge that the people involved in the Scarborough High Open Space Action Group are so committed to the cause that they have waited in the gallery until 1.00 am to hear the debate on this matter commence. A number of them are still in the public gallery because they want to know the outcome of this debate. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: They are all still here. Hon Ken Travers: Hear, hear! Hon HELEN HODGSON: That level of commitment shows how deeply concerned those people are about this issue. It is significant that those people went to the extent of developing their own plan for the grounds. That group has mounted its own security watch over the school grounds. They have communicated with the Education Department on any matter that they thought the department should know about. What reward have those people had? The facilities that they were promised would be retained were the first to be demolished. The local council has not committed to replacing those facilities. They will also lose the only large area of open recreational ground within a reasonable distance of that part of Innaloo and Karrinyup. The group’s concerns are well and truly on the record and I applaud their commitment to this cause. Over the past year they have been in regular contact with me and my office; they have shown that they genuinely believe that this is the wrong treatment for that land and they deserve our support. The second community group I refer to and applaud for its actions is the group working to save the Carine area. The Carine issue is a little more complex, because there seems to be a divide within the community as to whether it should or should not be supported. That is why we need to have a debate, because where there is a division of views we must resolve those issues and work them through. Some of the issues relate to the closure of Everingham Street, the concerns about the implications for traffic flow, dangerous situations developing, the community being split by a very large and busy road, and the issues to do with road safety when an open road comes in to a highway as busy as the Reid Highway. Another issue is the truck routes going through that part of the suburb and whether that is part of a larger plan to develop a different truck route through the Northern Metropolitan Region. We also have the environmental issue about the way the Reid Highway proposal eats into the Bushplan area. The newspapers have contained a number of articles about tortoises and the fact that they are a protected species currently being endangered by the heavy earthmoving equipment. I believe the construction workers have been told to watch out for them and to stop if they see any! Main Roads has started construction work in an area that has not yet been assessed through the metropolitan region scheme and we have a very active community group saying that the work should stop, that they want this to be considered separately and properly and that they do not necessarily agree with it. Referring to the one technical issue, this again proves the need to separate the controversial aspects of these metropolitan region planning schemes. I said I would be brief because it is rather early in the morning, but I applaud the community; I applaud their concern and their desire to keep their community whole, with focal points, and with areas in which families and children can gather, play and recreate. We support the disallowance motion. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [1.48 am]: I accept there are a number of amendments within the metropolitan region scheme that we are dealing with tonight but, like other speakers, I will focus on the Scarborough Senior High School site - proposal 25. I join with other members by placing on the record my thanks and congratulations to the local community activists who have campaigned so hard, firstly, in opposition to the closure of the high school and, secondly, in trying to maintain the high school site as public open space. I hope, although I suspect without much luck, that Hon Mark Nevill will give this matter one last thought before he returns to the Chamber to vote. I realise he is away on urgent parliamentary business, but I asked him to make sure he listened to the debate. I certainly appealed to him to reconsider his position. I was probably the first person who brought this site, which required an MRS amendment, to the attention of the local group. After having read the proposals, I spoke to the group and pointed out that there was a metropolitan region scheme amendment out for public comment. It was unfortunate that it was towards the end of the public consultation period when I first noticed it. As a result, the group had only a short time in which to prepare submissions. The group did an excellent job in preparing its submissions at such short notice. I will refer to an area that has not been dealt with tonight. The debate should be put into a historical context. I urge members to read the Stephenson report which was published in 1955 and on which the metropolitan region scheme is based. I accept that there have been changes to the way the metropolitan region scheme is administered. One change is

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3719 that high schools are no longer separately zoned within the metropolitan region scheme in new areas. I think it is an unfortunate change, but I accept that it is the current practice. In the past, when the Stephenson report was first developed, it recommended that there be separate zoning for high school sites. The reason high school sites were zoned separately when the metropolitan region scheme was first established in 1963 is that they were seen as an important and integral part of the district open space that was needed for the community. Professor Stephenson did a scientific analysis of what was required for a community to have the necessary playing fields and the like to service its needs. He set standards in terms of the number of hectares that were required. The standard high school site was about 10 hectares. It was seen as fulfilling part of the needs of a local community with respect to playing fields. When Scarborough and Innaloo were first planned, they were done using that model. However, parts of them were designed prior to that. As a result, they do not meet the standards set by the Stephenson plan for public open space; but the high schools were zoned separately. At a public meeting, the member for Innaloo displayed a map that highlighted the areas in Innaloo that had a shortage of public open space. Before the House allows the rezoning to proceed it needs to see a commitment to public open space with respect to the needs of the local community, as outlined in 1955 in a visionary report that still holds true to this day. I ask members also to take into account the development plans released by the Ministry for Planning that indicate where housing is expected to be developed within the metropolitan area over the next five years. If members were to look at the plan that was released last year, they would see a number of dots on it around the Scarborough Senior High School site that indicate that the land is expected to be subdivided and new, higher density housing will be built. The area immediately north of the site is due to have infill sewerage. That will allow that area also to be subdivided. There will be significant infill growth in and around that area, which is already under serviced by parklands and playing fields. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: It will end up with high density housing and no public open space. Hon KEN TRAVERS: The area already has an under supply of public open space and is undergoing significant gentrification. Young families are moving back into the area as older families move out. The houses are redeveloped as the next generation moves in. The one area of public open space providing playing fields and the like is at the high school site. That is why the area equivalent to the public open space at the old high school site should be kept at the very minimum. This is the point Hon Mark Nevill has missed in assessing the Australian Labor Party’s position on this issue: We take the view that the decision on the future of the site should be made in association with the local community. The local community needs to be the key player in reaching the final decision on what happens to that open space. We have proposed a process which has worked in the Midland area and which will work in this area. The process involves getting the community together and letting people decide how they want the area to be developed. After sitting down and going through a proper process, which will be administered and assisted by a Labor Government, if the community wants 100 per cent of that land to remain as public open space, I can tell Hon Mark Nevill that the Labor Party will commit to saving 100 per cent of the land. If as a result of that process the community said that it would like 10, 30 or 40 per cent of the land sold off to allow other facilities to be built to make the open space more useful for the community, we would support that decision. That is the fundamental difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on this issue. We will work out solutions with the community and listen to its views, respond to them and deliver what the community wants, not what we want, what we think is the best or what this House decides. I say also to Hon Mark Nevill that I firmly believe this land will be sold before the next election, so an incoming Labor Government will not have the option of redefining and redesigning the proposals for this area. I urge Hon Mark Nevill, before he supports this motion tonight, to make sure that he gets a commitment from the mob on the other side that they will not sell the land before the election, and that they will give people the opportunity of making a choice at the ballot box between Labor and Liberal and who they think will best serve them. Hon Mark Nevill: You are going to save 100 per cent? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I have just given the commitment that if that is what the community wants, we will save it. It is not for us to sit here and tell the community what it wants. That is the fundamental difference between the two parties. If Hon Mark Nevill cannot see that, I am probably banging my head against a brick wall. At the very least, we should let people decide at the ballot box. Let the amendment go through tonight, but let Hon Mark Nevill make sure that the mob on the other side gives him a commitment that they will not sell that land prior to the election. That is the least I ask Hon Mark Nevill to do. It is between six and nine months since Hon Mark Nevill left the Australian Labor Party. From where I have been sitting, in many respects I understand why it occurred. However, he made a commitment that nine times out of 10 he would vote with the Australian Labor Party. On a number of issues that have come before the House, he has decided to vote in what he believes are the best interests of his electorate or on the basis of his philosophical position. I do not think his philosophical position has changed, but I accept that the ALP has moved on and that is why he is no longer a member.

3720 [COUNCIL]

Hon Mark Nevill: Are you saying I’m consistent? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, I am. I am also asking Hon Mark Nevill to think long and hard about the commitment he gave to vote nine times out of 10 with the ALP. When he has made decisions to vote against the ALP, they have been made either on the basis of long-held philosophical views or, most importantly, what he believes is in the best interests of his electorate. I appeal to Hon Mark Nevill, as one of the members for the North Metropolitan Region for the ALP, joined by my other two colleagues, Hon Ed Dermer, and soon to be a member for the North Metropolitan Region, Hon Graham Giffard, to let us on this occasion have the opportunity of defending the interests of our electorate. I appeal to him to vote with us on this occasion, in one of those nine times out of 10 votes to which I have been looking forward. The member should vote with us to allow us to represent our electorate. The people of the Mining and Pastoral Region will not care which way Hon Mark Nevill votes on this issue. He should think about the fact that he was put into this place as a member of the Australian Labor Party. I have not said this before tonight: On this one occasion, the member should think long and hard about that fact before he votes on this matter. Hon Mark Nevill: You offered these people 40 per cent, and the Liberal Party’s offer might be up to 50 per cent by now. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I will offer 100 per cent if that is what people want. Can the member tell me what the community wants? No-one can. That is the problem. Can any member tell me what the community of Scarborough and Innaloo around that site wants? Hon Mark Nevill: They want as much public open space as they can get. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That is not right. Certain sections of the community want what the member suggests, but some sections would like to see the land sold off and the proceeds used for community purposes. Without going through a proper consultation process, I do not profess to know the answer to that question. I want the ALP to make those decisions after the election. Hon Peter Foss: How many times do you have to say it? Hon N.F. Moore: Get on with it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We will get on with it as soon as the Government agrees to support the disallowance motion. Hon N.F. Moore: Are you telling us you will stay here all night until we change our mind? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Not really. Hon N.F. Moore: Thank God for time limits on speeches. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We should try to save 100 per cent of this site because in my lifetime, and even in my lifetime in this House, the Government will need to look around for a new high school site in the Scarborough area. The Government made a short-sighted decision to rip down the old high school. Hon Mark Nevill’s letter made comments about Woodlands, although I assume he meant Churchlands, and Carine Senior High School being already overcrowded. When one considers the demographics and infill in the area, a high school will be needed in Scarborough within 20 years. That is why I will advise the community that, when undertaking its consultation, it should think closely about selling any land because it might be required for a high school site. Once this land is gone, no other land in the area could be used for a high school site. The area lacks parklands. I urge other members representing the North Metropolitan Region and Hon Mark Nevill to think long and hard about what Stephenson said, and why high schools are zoned as separate areas in the metropolitan region scheme. Members should think about the shortage of public open space in the area - even the member for Innaloo accepts that fact. Hon Mark Nevill should consider that his former Labor colleagues want a decision made. On this one occasion, Hon Mark Nevill should remember that he was elected to this place as a Labor member. He should support what we think is right for our electorate, as the member has done for his electorate in recent times. Finally, we must ensure we get a commitment from the Government not to sell the land; therefore, the Labor Party can make the ultimate decision. Let the community decide what happens to the site, not a bunch of bully boys in a Government that is out of touch. HON E.R.J. DERMER (North Metropolitan) [2.04 am]: I start by apologising to my colleague and friend Hon Ken Travers. I did not mean to interrupt or anticipate what he was about to say. The clear logic of his argument about the need for children to have decent open space in which to grow and develop caused me, at this late hour, to become carried away and I helped him finish his sentence. I hope that did not disrupt the member’s line of thought. On the strength of the member’s argument that followed, I am pleased to note that I did not appear to do so. As members will be aware, I have followed this issue closely since the defence of the Scarborough Senior High School began. It concerns me that this community has suffered deception and corresponding disappointment on a number of levels. At the end of 1997, the Minister for Education promised a consultation process on the future of the school. That

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3721 was deceptive. It was clear that before the consultation process began he had decided to close it. That was confirmed in the fullness of time when he announced his decision in mid 1998. At that stage he decided that he would promise the continued availability of the pool and gymnasium, but he reneged on that decision. Again, there is reason for disappointment. I have developed an increasing admiration for the community during this succession of events, in which they have essentially been lied to. Rather than become disappointed and allow whatever disappointment may be in their hearts to deter them from their cause, they have grown in strength. I listened with interest to the comments by Hon Norm Kelly in his contribution to the debate. He was correct in saying that the Labor Party had offered a consultation process. We have taken that position consistently since it became evident that the Minister for Education’s intent was to destroy the school and utilise that land to maximise the return to the Government, without regard to the concerns of the people in the community. The Labor Party’s position has been consistent. By consistently putting our position into the public arena from an early stage, we applied pressure to the Government. The proposed 30 per cent public open space at the school site is inadequate. I am concerned that the 30 per cent of the site will comprise a large portion of limited quality land. Even the inadequate 30 per cent on offer from the Government would not have been offered had the pressure not been applied by the non-government members in this House. Until recently, we thought Hon Mark Nevill was among them. The Labor Party applied pressure on the Government by way of an urgency motion and, more recently, by moving the disallowance motion through my colleague, Hon Graham Giffard. Hon Ray Halligan: The member has tickets on himself, it had nothing to do with him. Hon E.R.J. DERMER: The Labor Party has effectively applied pressure. Our position has been consistent. One of the consequences is the move by the Government towards that 30 per cent - albeit an inadequate amount of public open space. Hon Ken Travers: I look forward to Hon Ray Halligan’s explanation about how the 30 per cent came about, if it was not because of our action. Hon E.R.J. DERMER: Hon Ray Halligan would not have been made privy to the intent of the Minister for Education. A gentleman of some honour such as Hon Ray Halligan would not be trusted by someone of the character of the Minister for Education. It has been demonstrated time and again that that minister is relaxed about abusing, lying to and bullying members of the Western Australian public. The facts are on the record, there is no need to believe me if members do not wish to. Hon Norm Kelly indicated that this section of the MRS amendment appeared to be driven by the Education Department rather than by any planning consideration. That was borne out by Hon Ken Travers. From a planning perspective, the idea of replacing that area overwhelmingly with high density residential development is planning nonsense. It is driven by the Minister for Education’s determination to impose his will on the community in Western Australia. I find it interesting that the Minister for Education has determined that the people in Scarborough cannot get at him directly through the election. On the Scarborough high school site, therefore, he is prepared to put up a show of false courage to impose his will and to repeatedly deceive the people in the area. He obviously has no respect for his colleague the Liberal candidate for Innaloo. In contrast, when the Leighton Shores development became an issue - in the Minister for Education’s electorate - all the false courage he demonstrated concerning the Scarborough high school site abandoned him. The minister determined the community strength; quivered, backed down, denied his responsibility for decisions made collectively by the Cabinet of which he is a member and buckled. In that instance, I think the stand taken by Alannah MacTiernan, the opposition spokesperson for Planning, helped bring about a result for Leighton Beach and the surrounding areas. It was interesting to see the Minister for Education buckle under on that issue because the community could punish him through the ballot box. He was frightened of how his constituents would vote, so he caved in. On the other hand, he feels it is safe to treat the people of Scarborough like dirt. I appreciate the lateness of the hour. I am tired, as is everyone else. However, the importance of this issue demands that I persist. I remember when I was in high school reading the various works of George Orwell. His novel 1984 contained an interesting description of how the secret police imposed their will on the people of Oceana. Ironically, the secret police unit was described as the “Ministry for Love” and the propaganda division was described as the “Ministry for Truth”. 1984 may have come and gone, but in this Chamber in November 2000 the spirit of George Orwell lives on with great strength. In one breath, Hon Mark Nevill said that he believed the people in the Scarborough area should retain 100 per cent of the school site as public ownership; however, he is prepared to take away from them the only leverage they have to ensure they get the best possible deal from whichever party wins the next election. He will help take away from them the crown reserve for public use of the Scarborough high school site. I do not like to lose my temper, and I apologise for the second time tonight for losing my temper earlier. However, I had explained to Hon Mark Nevill as clearly as possible that the only vehicle by which the people of that community can achieve a decent outcome for themselves - that is, in the final use of the site - is to retain it as a crown reserve. Any

3722 [COUNCIL]

Government will need to get through this Chamber any proposition to change the use of that land from crown reserve to any other purpose. Obviously, in this instance that use is primarily residential development. The people in the community understand full well that crown reserve on that land gives them the power to bargain for a decent outcome with decent access to public open space and public facilities for their community. That could not be plainer; it is straightforward. Hon Mark Nevill’s claim, in the worst traditions of George Orwell’s creation in 1984, that he wants 100 per cent public open space for the people of that area, while at the same time seeking to take from them the one instrument they have to bargain for the best possible position, is a 180 degree reversal which caused me to lose my temper. Hon Mark Nevill, like the member for Cottesloe, knows that in his electorate, he does not have to face the anger of the people of Scarborough and the surrounding districts. It is a disgraceful decision, compounded by his previous clear indication of support for that community. He has reneged on that promise. I have held quite a degree of respect for Hon Mark Nevill in the past; this was much more so than for the member for Cottesloe. Both show a lack of respect for people, and a preparedness to distort the truth to justify their actions. Hon Mark Nevill has suggested that I am wrong when I put the proposition that a crown reserve on that land gives the people the opportunity to bargain for a good outcome for their community. Hon Mark Nevill, by his vote tonight, will take that bargaining power away from them. To suggest that is not the case is an insult to every member of this House and to that community. Hon Mark Nevill may deny my proposition, but the people themselves are the best judges of what is good for that community. I have spoken to a hall full of people from that community, and to the best of my recollection - Hon Ken Travers may back me up on this - not a single dissenting voice was heard in the hall. Hon Ken Travers: The member for Innaloo was there. Hon E.R.J. DERMER: Of course. The member for Innaloo, a former teacher at Scarborough Senior High School, was happy to see it torn down. The member for Innaloo is comfortable because he is retiring and the voters cannot get him; that position shows scant regard for the incoming Liberal candidate for Innaloo. His was the only dissenting voice. The meeting was held in a very special hall; namely, the gymnasium at Scarborough Senior High School, which was full of people of one voice. It was a historic occasion to see that community with the strength of numbers and a singleness of purpose. Those people wanted that crown reserve for public purposes maintained for public purposes consistent with the wisdom of the people who made those decisions that Hon Ken Travers - Hon Ken Travers: They paid for it with their own money. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Ken Travers is preventing Hon Ed Dermer from concluding his comments. Hon E.R.J. DERMER: The crown reserve was supported by that hall full of people, and the survey to which Hon Graham Giffard referred showed 93 per cent support. I tabled a petition recently signed by more than 500 people urging this house to back the disallowance motion moved by Hon Graham Giffard. An earlier petition was signed by more than 2 000 people. That land is a crown reserve for public purpose. On any logical assessment, that means that crown reserve is the strength the people in that community have. They understand that. The survey had a clear result with 93 per cent of those surveyed supporting the retention of that area for public purposes. The hall was full, with at least 200 to 300 people. The only person with a different view was the member for Innaloo. All those people supported the retention of that crown reserve for public ownership. Two petitions have been presented, with 500-odd names in one instance and more than 2 000 in the other. The people in that area understand the reality. They are very wise. They have fought tenaciously. As they have been lied to, deceived and disappointed, their response has not been anxiety, as Hon Mark Nevill deceptively implies, but has been the opposite of anxiety. The reaction of that community to its repeated mistreatment by this Government is not anxiety, but tenacity. That tenacity will continue. They understand what is good for them. They have demonstrated to us in every way they possibly can - by filling school halls on a Sunday, repeated petitions and sensible surveys - that they understand that that crown reserve is their instrument to achieve a decent outcome for their community. Hon Mark Nevill, in his Orwellian fashion, can say what he likes, but the people understand. We have done our very best to cause this Chamber to understand, and shortly the votes will be cast. HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan - Attorney General) [2.21 am]: The first point I should make is that a matter not dealt with by this Chamber that should have been dealt with is the role of this House in metropolitan region scheme amendments. I am firmly of the view that we should look at that matter. It is wrong for us to try to do planning in this Chamber. We disallow little things like by-laws not on the basis of their content, but on whether they are made inappropriately. The role of this Chamber should be to check the process. Allegations have been made about the process; and it would be fair to disallow a metropolitan region scheme amendment if the process had not been followed properly. I have urged Ministers for Planning to ask this House to look at the process and to come up with the sorts of rules of self-conduct that the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has. Therefore, my first point is that this is not the way in which planning should take place. The debate that has taken place in this Chamber tonight is probably the best example I can come across of why we should not enter into those matters in this place.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3723

The second reason is to some extent found in Hon Ed Dermer’s speech; namely, the idea that we deal with planning matters by using muscle and our capacity to disallow. Again, I do not think that is the way to do planning. We either have the planning right or we have it wrong. It is not a matter of some sort of power play in here. It is a matter of whether it is right or wrong. It is not a matter of whether we have the capacity to use muscle. Planning very much should be that way. Planning is one of the hardest things to do. I do not envy the planners, because in many cases we will not be able to get unanimity; and certainly we will not be able to get unanimity if we are to get a real plan. Often the role of a planner is to have some vision - Hon Ken Travers: As with the Stephenson plan. Hon PETER FOSS: I agree. Often when a plan is presented, it is not welcomed by the people, and it is only with the passage of time that the people see the wisdom of the plan. I am not saying we have all these things with this particular amendment. I am trying to say that I do not believe this process is a good one, and I urge this Chamber at some stage to set up a select committee or ask the Delegated Legislation Committee to sit down and work out an appropriate process. I happen to think that the process in this place tonight is a very negative process for proper planning. These debates get worse as they get more political. That is not the way to carry out long-term planning in this State. Having said that, that is not the basis upon which we have proceeded, and unless we start very early in the new Parliament, it will not be the way upon which we proceed. I will try to avoid the political areas of this matter as much as I can and stick with the planning matters I have in my brief. However, I must first make that protest. Two amendments were referred to in the debate. Hon Helen Hodgson dealt principally with the other amendment that deals with the Reid Highway primary regional road reservation. The southern portion of Big Carine Swamp and fringing native vegetation, which is a System 6 area and draft Perth Bushplan site, is proposed to be transferred from the primary regional roads reservation to the parks and recreation reserve in the MRS. The area to be removed from that parks and recreation reservation included in the primary regional roads reservation is required so that drainage basins can be constructed. The retention basins require land outside the current reservation as they will take water from not only the Reid Highway extension but also the local surrounding residential area. It was a requirement on the City of Stirling that drainage from local streets be collected in the proposed drainage retention basins. Retention basins will filter water run-off with the aim of improving the quality of water entering Big Carine Swamp - draft Bushplan site No 203 - and are to be designed for a one in 10-year, three-day storm event, which is consistent with Department of Environmental Protection policy. The Environmental Protection Authority has advised that it is generally satisfied with the environmental management plan Main Roads WA prepared for this proposal. The environmental management plan contains detailed strategies and procedures for the protection of conservation areas and remnant vegetation and for dieback, fire, weeds and rehabilitation. The EPA has also advised that a positive aspect of the proposal is that drainage from the surrounding residential area, which currently empties straight into the wetland, will be deviated into the proposed basin. Main Roads WA is currently measuring the quality of water directly entering Big Carine Swamp to assist in monitoring the success of the system. The drainage retention basins are to be landscaped and it is anticipated that this may attract bird life to the area, as has occurred with the retention basins constructed near the intersection of Roe Highway and Welshpool Road. The environmental management plan developed by Main Roads WA and accepted by the EPA, combined with the positive effects of the proposed drainage retention basins, is anticipated to provide an increased level of protection maintenance for Big Carine Swamp. The Western Australian Planning Commission on 27 July 2000 received from Main Roads WA an application for approval to commence development to construct the portion of the Reid Highway extension between Mitchell Freeway and Marmion Avenue. The majority of the proposed works are located in the existing primary regional roads reservation, which has been reserved since 1963, and Hon Ken Travers has congratulated Professor Stephenson for that. The proposed drainage swales are an acceptable use of the land that is reserved in the MRS for parks and recreation. The Planning Commission approved the application on 22 August 2000 subject to four conditions. Main Roads WA has recently commenced construction of the proposed extension to Reid Highway. The Minister for Transport has been asked a number of questions in Parliament regarding the WAPC’s development approval, including the requirement for Main Roads to prepare and implement an environmental management plan, which is the first condition. Even if the amendment is allowed, the WAPC’s development approval still remains valid. Most of the time this evening has been spent on the Scarborough Senior High School matter. I will not deal with all the objections, because they have been more than adequately dealt with by other speakers tonight. I wish to go over the Government’s response to those objections. As part of the reorganisation of the high school system in the metropolitan region, the Minister for Education announced the closure of Scarborough Senior High School from the end of the 1999 school year. The school site is surplus to the requirements of the Education Department and the buildings were demolished in January 2000. The Education Department advised in its submission that it did not consider that a private school could be accommodated on the site due to the poor condition of the buildings and the extensive building work that would be required.

3724 [COUNCIL]

The City of Stirling has advised that it considered that the community would be better served by new recreation facilities than by upgrading the gymnasium and pool. The Minister for Education has advised that a grant of $2.2m will be made to the City of Stirling to build new recreational facilities. A range of existing areas of public open space are within walking distance from the school site - that is, within 400 metres or a five-minute walk - providing for passive and/or active recreation. These recreation areas include Deanmore Duke Reserve and Millington Reserve. In addition, Kevan Langdon Reserve to the north-west of the school site and Lake Gwelup Reserve to the north-east are both reserved as parks and recreation in the metropolitan region scheme and provide for both passive and active recreation. The school site does not contain remnant native vegetation, does not serve any regional recreational function and is not considered to be of environmental significance at the regional level, and as such a regional parks and recreation reservation in the MRS would not be appropriate. The Education Department has offered a minimum of 30 per cent public open space to be provided at the school site. The percentage and location of local public open space will be considered at the local town planning scheme amendment and subdivision application stages in the planning process. The subdivision design can take into consideration important viewpoints, and lot and road design can be planned appropriately. The omnibus amendment was advertised for the statutory three-month period. The Western Australian Planning Commission recommended on 8 February 2000 that the school site be zoned to urban in the MRS. The MRS urban zone permits a range of zones and/or reservations to be considered at the local level. Members should keep that in mind. That is the point that I think was made by Hon Mark Nevill. The City of Stirling has initiated amendment No 373 to its district planning scheme No 2. Amendment No 373 proposes to rezone the site which comprises reserve 25656, high school; reserve 25608, footway; reserve 25657, primary school; and reserve 44418, the education resource centre on the corner of Newborough Street, Wilding Street, Jackson Avenue and Grand Promenade, Karrinyup. This will rezone the area from MRS reserve, high school, and public use reserve, primary school, to low density residential R25, public open space and local authority and public use reserve, primary school. Amendment No 373 has been forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration for consent to advertise. It is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of this MRS amendment. Amendment No 373 to the City of Stirling’s district planning scheme will require further public consultation and will enable local issues to be considered through the local amendment process. That is another point that was made by Hon Mark Nevill. As a result of the submissions on this amendment and Perth’s draft Bushplan, it was identified that lot 690 Errina Road, Alexander Heights - the Alexander Heights high school site - contains remnant vegetation considered to be of regional significance. As such, the land should not be rezoned to urban as proposed in the amendment, and the future use of the land should be further investigated. Proposal 1 was therefore deleted from the amendment. I will pick up the point made by Hon Mark Nevill that has come out clearly in this debate; that is, Hon Mark Nevill said that it was open to the Labor Party to make its own undertakings regarding this land. Hon Ken Travers’ answer to that was that the Labor Party intended to consult the people, and then it would give them what they wanted, and not what we decide now. Shortly after that, it was interesting to hear Hon Ed Dermer say that 93 per cent of the people who were surveyed said they wanted the whole site saved. On the one side, Hon Ed Dermer told us that the Opposition has consulted people and that the numbers are in and are clear: The people want the whole lot reserved; on the other side, Hon Ken Travers told us that the Opposition is not satisfied at this stage that it has consulted people enough, and he was being very careful not to say what the Labor Party will conserve. Consistently in the lead-up to this election, the Labor Party is criticising the Government and saying that it would do better, but at the same time it is always very careful not to commit itself to anything. The Labor Party has been very much a policy-free zone on most of these matters. It has been just as equivocal on matters such as workplace - Hon E.R.J. Dermer: If you were game enough to call the election, we would give you the policy. Hon PETER FOSS: Right. Hon Kim Chance: We have more policy in the public domain than you have, my friend. Hon PETER FOSS: We have a lot of policy in the public domain because we have been governing for eight years. Hon Kim Chance: You still haven’t got a policy. Hon PETER FOSS: Our view on issues such as workplace agreements is quite clear. I would love to know the Opposition’s view on workplace agreements. Hon Ken Travers: Read our policy! Hon PETER FOSS: Oh, yes. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition in this place telling us what is the Opposition’s policy. At the end of that, we were not a great deal wiser. We have heard today Hon Ken Travers and Hon Ed Dermer tell us exactly what the situation is in Scarborough, and we now know, one, that the Opposition has

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3725 consulted and knows exactly how much people want; and, two, that it does not know but that it will consult later on. Then they will make up their minds exactly what it is they want done. Hon Kim Chance: You have misrepresented what Hon Ed Dermer said. Hon PETER FOSS: I heard it 10 times. Interestingly, despite constant references to the suggestion that the Minister for Education is a liar - which is most unparliamentary - at least we can understand what the minister is saying when he says he will provide a minimum of 30 per cent open space. He has also revealed the amount that will be given to the City of Stirling to help it build recreational facilities. All we have heard from members of the Opposition today is what I would call equivocation. How many times did Hon Mark Nevill, by way of very parliamentary interjection, invite Hon Ken Travers to give an undertaking about the amount the Labor Party would reserve? Hon Ken Travers refused consistently to reveal any amount because he said the Labor Party had not carried out the necessary consultation. Unfortunately, the member was undermined by his colleague who read out figures showing the contrary situation. Hon Ken Travers: I said we would save 100 per cent if the community wanted that. Hon PETER FOSS: I heard that. Hon Mark Nevill: They want lower taxes, too. Hon PETER FOSS: Yes. I will pick up that very good point. Once again, Hon Mark Nevill has highlighted a fundamental issue relating to the question of the proper use of government property. Government property is not free. When talking about Bushplan, Hon Giz Watson said that reserving Homeswest land would not require any expenditure; we could simply reserve it and that would not cost anything. I do not know why the member thinks government land is not worth anything. We have spent huge amounts acquiring land, particularly for Homeswest. Even if it has not been acquired - that is, if it has always been crown land - it is a valuable asset that cannot be simply handed over or not utilised. The reason that this Parliament adopted the capital charge - not that I am necessarily pleased with the way it operates, but the concept is correct - is that we cannot leave assets lying around. The Government has been trying to give incentives to departments to use assets on behalf of the people of Western Australia. Hon Ken Travers: You are going to force schools to sell ovals. Hon Kim Chance: We are now getting the Education policy. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members should calm down. Hon PETER FOSS: Land can be used for many purposes. It is not a good idea to leave it unused. All departments try to use their assets. However, a Government cannot force the taxpayers to pay more taxes when it has assets that it is not using. That use does not have to be economic; it can be an educational or an environmental use. It does not matter as long as it is being used and that use is supported by the Government. It is irresponsible to leave such assets unused. Governments cannot simply keep increasing taxes. That imposes a burden on taxpayers. Hon Mark Nevill pointed out that the Education Department is keen to see the matter resolved. If that were not the case, we would probably have Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich asking what the Government is doing about that. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: It is no closer to completion. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Ed Dermer should stop interjecting. Hon PETER FOSS: I have sat here quietly during the hours of speeches so far. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would ask why we were not making use of these government assets. The reality of the matter is that it is appropriate for the Education Department, having made the decision that the school is surplus to its requirements, to make the move to do something with that property. Hon E.R.J. Dermer interjected. The PRESIDENT: I will warn Hon Ed Dermer once more, and if he does not stop interjecting, I will see that he leaves the Chamber. Hon E.R.J. Dermer: That is understood, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Good. Hon PETER FOSS: That is another realistic point that must be taken into account. I am not surprised that, under those circumstances, Hon Ken Travers is so equivocal - as opposed to Hon Ed Dermer - about what a Labor Government would be prepared to do. It is very true of Hon Mark Nevill to say that the Labor Party has an opportunity. Instead of misusing planning provisions, members opposite should put them aside. It is a misuse of planning to consider those provisions to be some sort of bargaining tool. The zoning has been done and nothing stops them giving undertakings about what they will do in government. In fact, it takes it out of the area where I do not think it should be, as it is a matter of planning, and puts it in the area of what members opposite are prepared to do with that land as a Government.

3726 [COUNCIL]

If it is rezoned, it does not stop members making that sort of undertaking, if they are so confident they will get into government. I have mentioned a number of reasons for members to support the metropolitan region scheme. Primarily, it is not a function of this House to plan, and the debate tonight has not been a plan; secondly, the process is correct; and, thirdly, what the Government is doing here is also correct; I refer to after the zoning has gone through. I ask members to support the metropolitan region scheme and to oppose this disallowance motion. HON G.T. GIFFARD (South Metropolitan) [2.42 am]: I will briefly raise three points. First, I recall from the comments of Hon Mark Nevill that he insisted in some way on a commitment from the Government to 30 per cent retention of the public land. Nothing I heard from the Attorney General - Hon Peter Foss: I did. Did you not hear what I read out? The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not want members to interject. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: I heard what the Attorney General read out; that is, that the minister has offered 30 per cent. Given Hon Colin Barnett’s performance thus far in this process by promising the swimming pool and then reneging on it, the Attorney General’s saying that the minister has offered 30 per cent is not in any sense a guarantee to the community that it will get 30 per cent. I take little comfort from that clearly deliberate choice of words. I point out to Hon Mark Nevill that the expression that was used in relation to the Government’s view on 30 per cent falls far short of a commitment. I caution Hon Mark Nevill in that regard: If it is a precondition for his support to vote against this motion, he should reflect very seriously on that aspect. Secondly, the Attorney General made the point in his opening comments that it should not be a function of this House to plan. There is a process, and it is appropriate that that process be followed. That is a key point we made repeatedly in this debate, and the Attorney General objects to that. The process was a sham from the very beginning. It was a sham in excess of a year before it started. We are not trying to change planning. We say this consultation process was not a consultation process. The Government did not do it properly. It should take it back and do it again properly. It should genuinely find out what the community thinks because what the Government did was a charade. The Australian Labor Party’s position, and its first precondition for its support for the process, is that a proper interactive consultation process must take place. Finally, the letter to which I referred earlier, written by Hon Mark Nevill to Hon Graham Kierath on 12 January 2000, said that the open space action group put a compelling argument to him on this issue. It was a compelling argument on 12 January 2000; it remains to this day a compelling argument. That is why I ask Hon Mark Nevill to think seriously about supporting this disallowance motion because that would be fair and just. Question put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (12)

Hon Kim Chance Hon G.T. Giffard Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ken Travers Hon J.A. Cowdell Hon Helen Hodgson Hon J.A. Scott Hon Giz Watson Hon Cheryl Davenport Hon Norm Kelly Hon Christine Sharp Hon E.R.J. Dermer (Teller) Noes (13)

Hon M.J. Criddle Hon Peter Foss Hon Mark Nevill Hon Muriel Patterson (Teller) Hon Dexter Davies Hon Ray Halligan Hon M.D. Nixon Hon B.K. Donaldson Hon Barry House Hon W.N. Stretch Hon Max Evans Hon N.F. Moore Hon Derrick Tomlinson

Pairs

Hon N.D. Griffiths Hon Murray Montgomery Hon Tom Helm Hon B.M. Scott Hon Bob Thomas Hon Greg Smith Hon Tom Stephens Hon Simon O’Brien Question thus negatived. PERTH MARKET AMENDMENT BY-LAWS (NO 2) 2000 Motion for Disallowance - Withdrawal from Notice Paper HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural) [2.49 am]: I move - That motion for disallowance No 1 be withdrawn from the Notice Paper.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3727

I withdraw the motion for disallowance because the motion would be moved pro forma on 28 November, when Parliament will not be sitting. If the motion were not withdrawn, it would be automatically disallowed under standing orders. That is not the outcome I intended. Indeed, it would cause the Perth Market By-laws to be severely hampered if that occurred. Question put and passed. FISH RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ESPERANCE ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 2000 Motion for Disallowance Pursuant to Standing Order No 152(b), the following motion by Hon Giz Watson was moved pro forma on 18 October - That the Fish Resources Management Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2000 published in the Gazette on 27 September 2000 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 10 October 2000 under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, be and is hereby disallowed. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [2.50 am]: I moved this disallowance motion on the Notice Paper in a bid to disallow an amendment to the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery Management Plan 2000. I moved this disallowance because some of the crayfish licence holders in that Esperance fishery raised concerns that the amendment would create problems with the sustainability of that fishery, and could lead to an overexploitation of that resource. The principal issue those people have with the amendment that I am seeking to disallow is that in the current situation, if there is a change of ownership of licences in this fishery, a 10 per cent reduction is included in the overall licences held. This is a management process that has operated for a while, and which sought to reduce the number of pots in the fishery. The fishery currently has a large over-capacity - that is, I believe there are 11 available licences, but only four of those licences are actively fished. The other important point is that the current catch rate has dropped dramatically. The catch rate for 1999-2000 is about half that of five years ago. These licence holders are concerned that if this amendment goes through, it will serve to remove the reducing capacity of the exchange of licences. I refer to a letter that I received from a licence holder in that fishery, who said - Fisheries claim that the fishery can’t be over exploited as they believe the recruitment comes from S.A. Vic and Tasmania. There is no evidence to support this. 45,000 lobsters tagged in SA. and not one caught this side of the State border. C.S.I.R.O. could not give an indication that larva from the eastern States would end up in W.A. The letter goes on to say that in - Every single management meeting which is held annually with the Fisheries Dept, the Dept has voiced concerns over over-fishing, including a call to reduce the latent effort in 1995. The current changes mobilise all the unused latent effort - a complete backflip by Fisheries Dept. A change which will lead to a doubling of the fishing effort not a reduction. . . . Proposal is a very short term view leading to a capital gain by majority of the licence holders so they have voted for it. It has nothing to do with sustainability. Basically a get rich quick scheme. There are two aspects to this issue. First, the amalgamation of these licences will serve to be only a financial gain, and the risk is that it will jeopardise the sustainability of fisheries; the second is a challenge to Fisheries WA on its assumption that this fishery is not dependent on local recruitment, that is, the recruitment for rock lobster fishing comes from outside the area. One of the claims by Fisheries WA is that this measure will not jeopardise the sustainability of the catch. I guess sufficient has been put before me to raise enough concern not only for the sustainability of the fishery, but also for the environmental implications of jeopardising stock. If stock is heavily over-exploited, it can collapse to a point from which it will not recover. The licence holders also raised the point that the stock of the same variety of crayfish has been overfished in New Zealand. The Esperance fishery is fairly sparse and it is acknowledged by all that this latent effort remains at that fishery. I cannot support any moves that will prevent a reduction in that latent effort. Hon Mark Nevill: What do you mean by “latent effort”? Hon GIZ WATSON: Pots that are held but are not actively used. A large number of licences are held and the concern is that if they were all used now, it would have a very heavy impact on that resource. Finally, I refer to a section from the 1995 management minutes for this fishery, which refers to latent effort - Latent effort in the Esperance Limited Entry fishery must be closely monitored. The Chairman acknowledged that effort in the Fishery is strongly dependant on weather conditions, but informed the meeting that removing latent effort in a fishery should be the basis for any initial effort reduction.

3728 [COUNCIL]

I ask members to consider supporting this disallowance. Hon J.A. Scott: Is this being done without proper research into restocking? Hon GIZ WATSON: There is conjecture about the source of the larvae for the stocking. Fisheries WA claims that the larvae come in from outside the fishery zone and that the dangers of over-exploiting the resource are not as severe as some claim. Whereas, I have been provided with information indicating that there is no evidence that the larvae come in from outside the area. I ask members to consider supporting this disallowance motion which will require that Fisheries WA not remove this mechanism that seems to be working well by taking that latent effort out of the fishery. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural) [3.00 am]: This is a complicated matter and one that I will attempt to deal with as quickly as I can. I have no disagreements whatsoever with the points raised by Hon Giz Watson. I have consulted extensively on this matter and I went to Esperance to speak to the people who first encouraged us to bring forward a disallowance. In the end, I chose not to move such a motion, but I made that decision only after consulting extensively with parties on both sides of the argument; namely, Fisheries WA and the Western Australian Fishery Industry Council. I discussed the matter with Hon Giz Watson and I told her that, notwithstanding that the Labor Party was unlikely to support a disallowance motion, I encouraged her to move the motion so that the House could explore the issues. I had not expected at the time that debate would be held at 3.00 am. Necessarily, the discussion will have to be curtailed. The points made by Hon Giz Watson are correct. The proponents of the disallowance motion have given cogent and genuine reasons why it should be passed. The Labor Party has two reasons for differing from their view. Although I think the proponents have chosen a matter of principle on which to stand - I agree with the principle - a conflict of principles is operating here. The Labor Party has had to weigh the differing values of principle and it has decided to come down on the side of the original regulation and to oppose the disallowance. The principal reason for that is that the Fish Resources Management Act is a very good statute that enjoys bilateral support in Parliament in both its spirit and letter. Its processes have the support of Parliament. This outcome is the result of an accurate and faithful following of that process. In itself, that is reason to take seriously any attempt to overcome it. In the past, I have sought to overturn regulations in this portfolio, but only when I believed a deficiency of process was involved. This decision has no serious deficiency. On that basis, and on the basis of the assessment of the equity issues referred to by Hon Giz Watson, I felt the weight of evidence fell against this motion. The equity issue is a matter that arose not by any force of argument from either the proponents or the opponents of the plan, but rather it occurred to me that, after having heard the arguments, it was the most serious issue. A proposed new plan sets in concrete a partially completed process of removing pots on transfer. There were 10 licences and each was valid for 60 pots. The requirement of the plan was that when the licences were transferred to another party, the 60 pots were cut down to 50, and it became an ongoing process. That process is approximately half finished. If it is put into place now, the share of the fishery that is owned by those persons who have never transferred their licence comes out larger than the share of the fishery that is owned by persons who started from exactly the same point and have transferred. That seemed to be inequitable, and it is inequitable. Therein lies another conflict of principle. I have spoken extensively with Fisheries on this matter, including the fisheries manager who designed this scheme in consultation with the participants. I am assured that the matter was taken into account. I regret, and I believe they regret, that this matter has been left over. However, it is an unresolved issue of principle, and it is an unresolved inequity, but we must weigh against that admitted inequity the fact that those persons most disadvantaged by that loading are the proponents of the plan, and those most advantaged by the inequity are the opponents of the plan. It turns logic on its head somewhat. This is quite clearly demonstrated by an analysis of the outcomes which was prepared for me by Fisheries. It nonetheless does not detract from the fact that an important principle of equity in fisheries management has been breached. I must set that aside in the hope that this plan can proceed. The issue of science and the lack of research has been raised. Of course, we would all like to see plans generated on appropriate scientific bases. The fact is this is a small fishery. Cost recovery is a fact of life in fisheries management. The fishery is too small to be able to afford the extent of scientific management that we would all like to see. The cost for that in that part of the world would be very high. It would be a hugely challenging task to try to determine the scientific make-up of that fishery. We do not know whether this fishery is under threat because we do not have enough scientific evidence to determine whether the fishery is under threat. Obviously, that threat is of first interest to Hon Giz Watson because of the sustainability question. The proponents of the disallowance motion came to us and sought disallowance, as Hon Giz Watson said, because they feared that the plan would convert latent effort into real effort and thus increase pressure on the fishery They are right. I have no disagreement with that outcome. Our disagreement is that it is an inappropriate way to manage pressure on a particular stock. If a resource quantity argument needs to be addressed, it should be addressed directly. If we are to try to reduce effort, we should be applying it across the board, not simply to people who have, for one reason or another, a need to change the corporate arrangement under which they hold their licences.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3729

That is a much-shortened version of what I wanted to say. I have tried to do justice to the issue, but it is a big issue. In looking at the nature of this fishery, I had to keep correcting myself because my culture in the rock lobster industry is, as it is for most of us, based on the west coast, which is a very different fishery. The argument was put to me that this fishery is so tough, so difficult and so dangerous that it protects itself. This fishery does not entail lolling around in warm, shallow and pleasant waters off the Abrolhos, Geraldton, Fremantle or Bunbury. This is fishing on the shelf in the most dangerous ocean on earth. It is a freezing cold, difficult and dangerous place to be. Sometimes it is impossible to fish there even when the weather is good because the tides start to move. The tides take the ropes and the float markers to such a depth that when recovered with the drag, the float comes up compressed to the size of a cricket ball. That is the kind of depth involved. There is reason to imagine that such a hostile environment may protect the stock numbers, but we cannot quantify that scientifically. Maybe the additional effort, which I admit will result from this plan, may cause deterioration in the stock levels; however, if that is the case, we should handle it in a more appropriate way than retaining the current approach and not amending the plan. Therefore, the Labor Party opposes the disallowance motion. HON M.J. CRIDDLE (Agricultural - Minister for Transport) [3.11 am]: The Government also opposes the disallowance motion. Three main amendments are involved in the plan: The removal of a 10 per cent pot reduction on the transfer of operations; a provision for variation in the season timing; and a correction of a species name. Sustainability is not an issue as recruitment is done from Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Seven rather than 10 licences were being fished in 1999-2000. In fact, Fisheries Western Australia scientists, who are recognised around the world as experts, are confident that sustainability will not be at risk. The majority of recruitment comes from outside Western Australia. The nature of the fishery discourages an increased use of fishing efficiency or latent effort. This sparse, deepwater fishery discourages investment in new vessels and expensive technology to increase catches. The fishery does not generate the returns enjoyed on the west coast fishery, which is wealthy and allows the investment in new boats and technology to increase the fishing efficiency. The removal of anti-competitive pot transfer arrangements will allow operators maximum flexibility in running their businesses. Fishery management cannot be retrospective and must move forward. The Government opposes the motion. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [3.13 am]: I listened with interest to the comments by the minister and Hon Kim Chance. I hope they are right, and that this amendment will not have a negative impact on the resource and therefore the local ecology. Although the disallowance will not succeed, I suggest the Government take a very careful note of any changes in the catch in this fishery. Other mechanisms under fisheries management can be used to adjust the effort if an impact is shown. I suggest the department be very alert to take such measures should the effort be increased. I hear the argument about this being a difficult fishery and the resource being sparse. However, the fact the resource is sparse is exactly why one needs to be careful with it. I conclude on a cautionary note: The southern shark fishery in the same sort of waters is on the brink of collapse. Despite all the claims about Fisheries WA scientists being the best in the world - I know some of them, and they are very good scientists - we kid ourselves if we think we have all the answers. Fisheries management is a difficult area. We already have examples in Western Australia, particularly in the shark fishery and pilchard fishery industries, in which we have overstepped the mark. The consequences of that are yet to be realised. Question put and negatived.

METROPOLITAN RECREATIONAL ABALONE FISHERY AMENDMENT ORDER 2000 (NO. 10) Motion for Disallowance Pursuant to Standing Order No 152(b), the following motion by Hon Giz Watson was moved pro forma on 24 November - That the Metropolitan Recreational Abalone Fishery Order 2000 (No. 10) published in the Gazette on 3 November 2000 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 7 November 2000 under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, be and is hereby disallowed. HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [3.15 am]: This disallowance relates to an amendment to the Metropolitan Recreational Abalone Fisheries Notice 1993. I raise this disallowance because this amendment allows the taking of abalone from within 100 metres of the high-water mark at Penguin Island. Members will be aware that it is within the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park. When this amendment was tabled, it raised my concern because I am aware that the taking of abalone on the reefs adjacent to Penguin Island has been prohibited for the past three years for good reason. The access to those reefs for taking abalone is primarily across the island. Again, members would be aware that it is an A-class nature reserve. It is a significant reserve that provides reef sites for a number of migratory birds and is within the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park. People who access that abalone resource are coming through the island at this time of the year when the seabirds are roosting. They are causing much disruption and potentially severely impacting on the birds’ population. If the birds are disturbed when they roost, their mortality rate is high.

3730 [COUNCIL]

I am also concerned about the impact the taking of abalone has on the marine park. Anyone who has taken abalone knows that apart from the taking of the abalone stock and the impact that has on an ecosystem, there is also an associated impact from people tramping over the reef and prising other shellfish and animals from the reef. Members would have seen the pictures on the front page of the newspapers recently of hundreds of people taking to the reefs around the metropolitan area for the short season when abalone can be taken; the impact of that is unacceptable. The associated impact of taking abalone on the metropolitan reefs is substantial. I know that Fisheries WA measures the impact of whether the abalone resource can be taken in a sustainable way, but it does not look at what is done to the diversity of the reef’s ecosystem. I will not go on at length about this issue but I ask members to support this disallowance motion because the final management plan for the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park is imminent. An important aspect of managing those systems is the safeguarding of those reefs from heavy human impact. I am sure people do not intentionally disrupt roosting sites or trample across Penguin Island, which also suffers a heavy physical impact. However, they are the consequences of opening up the reefs to people to take abalone. I understand that on the first weekend of the abalone season about 50 or 60 people trekked across that end of the island, which is a substantial number of people. The islands are very fragile limestone sand systems and, therefore, vulnerable to the effects of trampling and erosion. When this amendment to the Metropolitan Recreational Abalone Fishery Notice was tabled in this place, I moved to disallow it the next day. However, when I checked with the Fisheries Department, I found that it had allowed the taking of abalone to occur the previous weekend. It makes a mockery of the disallowance of amendments under the Act if they are enacted before we have a chance to deal with them in this place. I understand that occurred with this amendment. The fishery was opened, and the following Tuesday the amendment was tabled in this place. It is of concern that this House is unable to examine matters before they are enacted. I seek members’ support for this disallowance to ensure we protect that area of reef within the A-class reserve and within the marine park of Penguin Island. HON KIM CHANCE (Agricultural) [3.22 am]: Again, the Australian Labor Party will not support this disallowance motion. I came to that view after receiving assurances on the nature of the fish stock from the Fisheries Department. Sadly, I did not have the opportunity to hear Hon Giz Watson’s argument before, and I had somewhat misunderstood the impact on the island. However, I had already given a commitment that we would not support the disallowance motion. The issue of that part of the Cockburn area generally and the comments made by Hon Giz Watson about it have been taken to heart. It is an exceptionally vulnerable and a very rare and beautiful area. However, unfortunately its accessibility to very large population growth in that region and increased traffic from the metropolitan area have created a significant environmental hazard there. I was unaware of the issues involved in the island and with the seabirds. It is a matter we must discuss at greater length some time after the election. There is a pressing need for greater preservation of the landforms in that area as well as the marine environment. However, the Labor Party opposes the motion. HON M.J. CRIDDLE (Agricultural - Minister for Transport) [3.25 am]: The Government will be opposing this disallowance. Penguin Island was closed to recreational abalone fishing in 1996 following concerns over the status of the abalone stocks on the reef platform and signs of localised depletion of mature abalone. The closure of the abalone fishery on the reef top within 100 metres applied only to recreational fishers, as the commercial fishers are not permitted to take abalone on the reef top areas. Monitoring abalone stocks around Penguin Island over the last four years has shown the abundance of mature abalone has improved significantly, and fishing on the stocks in the area is now sustainable. It is just a nine-hour fishery. The Government opposes the disallowance. Question put and negatived. SELECT COMMITTEE INTO THE FINANCE BROKING INDUSTRY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Extension of Time Resumed from an earlier stage. Question put and passed. Report in relation to the Summons to Produce Documents issued Pursuant to Section 5 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 - Motion HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [3.27 am]: I move - (1) In this order, the “committee” is the Standing Orders Committee. (2) The committee is to inquire into the matters contained in the special report of the Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry relating to a failure to produce documents to that committee under summons and report whether, in its opinion, a contempt has been committed and by whom. (3) The committee is to -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3731

(a) examine the grounds claimed as justifying the failure to produce the documents and whether, in the particular circumstances, it was reasonable to rely on them; (b) consider the desirability of inserting in standing orders specific grounds on which compliance with a summons issued by a committee may be, or is, excused without need to report the matter to the House; (c) establish whether, under what circumstances, and the extent to which the House might lawfully permit the President to exercise, with or without reservation of a final decision to the House, a power of the House on report from a committee; (d) determine whether the present power of a committee to send for persons, papers, and records is appropriate in all cases, and may report on any related matter. (4) The committee has power to send for persons, papers, and records including any relevant document or record in the possession, or under the control, of the Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry or the Clerk. (5) The committee may present interim reports and is to report finally not later than Wednesday 14 February 2001. Where the House is not sitting on that day or is adjourned, the report is to be presented to the President and in that case the report is deemed to have been presented and ordered to be printed. The purpose of the Standing Orders Committee’s examining this report is to look at the question of privilege that was raised. At the same time, the committee is to spend some time contemplating some of the issues this report throws up. The Standing Orders Committee is requested to contemplate the standing orders surrounding this matter. I commend this motion to the House. Question put and passed. Order of the Day No 15 - Order Discharged On motion by Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House), resolved - That Order of the Day No 15 on today’s Notice Paper be discharged and the report be referred to the Standing Orders Committee as the committee appointed to inquire into the matters contained in that report.

SITTING OF THE HOUSE - SUSPENSION HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [3.28 am]: Mr President, I propose now to ask you to leave the Chair until the ringing of the bells at 11.00 am today, rather than move the adjournment of the House now, which would then necessitate our going through the formal processes of the commencement of a day’s sitting, which would interfere with the proposal I put the other day, which is that we would spend Friday morning going through the valedictory addresses of members, without trying to get ourselves involved in debates about different issues which could arise by virtue of formal business. The reason for this motion is simply to continue this sitting until tomorrow morning. I will then move the special adjournment, which is usually the motion on which members make their comments at the end of the session. I will then move that the House do now adjourn, and we will then all head off for champagne and crayfish. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has asked me to leave the Chair until the ringing of the bells at 11.00 am today. If it is the will of the House that I do that - and I hear no dissent - I shall do that. Sitting suspended from 3.30 to 11.00 am (Friday)

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE Special HON N.F. MOORE (Mining and Pastoral - Leader of the House) [11.00 am]: I move - That the House at its rising adjourn until a time and date to be fixed by the President. We now reach that stage of the session when we conclude the business of the Parliament and head off to an election to decide who will be the Government for the next four years. It is appropriate today that we express our gratitude and congratulations to a number of people for the contributions they have made to the House, the Parliament and the State, over many years in some cases. Today we can do that without engaging in a political and acrimonious debate. It is important that we pay tribute to those people who deserve our gratitude, and I will go through the traditional list of the people I should thank as the Leader of the House. Mr President, I thank you for your continuing excellent management and control of the House. You have been an excellent President indeed, and I congratulate you on your work, your understanding of the standing orders, your ability

3732 [COUNCIL] to work with all sides of politics and the impartial way in which you manage the House. It is a credit to you and I congratulate and thank you for that. Hon John Cowdell has also been an excellent Chairman of Committees. He has been impartial and has an excellent understanding of way the House operates. I congratulate John on the work he has done and I thank him. Similarly, I thank all of the Deputy Chairmen of Committees for their contributions. I thank my two ministerial colleagues. In the next Parliament I should have three ministerial colleagues, because it is an onerous business in this House having to handle a heap of legislation for ministers in the other House. There being only three ministers has meant a significant increase in the workload for us. I will therefore recommend to the Premier that there be four ministers in this House in the next Parliament. However, I thank Hon Peter Foss and Hon Murray Criddle for the hard work they have put in, for the long hours they have contributed and for the dedication they have shown to this place. I thank them also for their hard work in answering questions about legislation and undertaking all the other responsibilities of ministers in the Legislative Council. As the Government Whip, Hon Muriel Patterson has been outstanding. She made one mistake over the past four years, but as it was on the same day Hon Bob Thomas made one, I suppose it is only fair. Those who have had the opportunity to be the Whip know it is not easy to try to keep people like us, who are all independent and want to do our own thing, in some sort of line. Hon Muriel Patterson has done an excellent job, and on behalf of all government members, I thank her for her great work in keeping us in order. All my colleagues on this side of the House have been extraordinarily patient, and have been prepared to not say all the things they would like to say from time to time so that the due processes of the House can be expedited. The House has changed dramatically since I first arrived. In the “good old days”, there were only two sides to every argument, so there were always two speakers: One for and one against. We had the pleasure of going home at eight o’clock most evenings, after having started at 4.30 pm. There were no questions without notice; nothing political of that nature. It was quite an easy place in which to operate. However, seven different points of view now need to be expressed on every issue: Those of the coalition, the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA), the independent Helm party and the independent Nevill party. The National Party is another factor, if it wants to be different; fortunately, it has chosen not to be. The Liberal Party and I appreciate the National Party’s continued presence in the coalition and that we have been able to work together in this House. There can now be up to seven different points of view on every issue, and everybody needs to express their position. Therefore, debates now take up to six times longer than they did in the “good old days”. That has made it difficult for government backbenchers, as they are often asked to not take up the time of the House. Without being political, I hope the number of different groups is diminished after the election, and that we do not have a situation in which so many people need to speak on every item. However, I thank my colleagues on the back bench for their loyalty to the coalition Government. They know how much I appreciate it. I regret the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Tom Stephens, is not here today. He has an important engagement in his electorate. We all know he is a diligent representative of his electorate and works hard for his constituents. Every year I say that with the family Hon Tom Stephens has, he cannot be all that bad. However, I will not say that this year because it would be tedious repetition. Hon Tom Stephens and I have an interesting relationship. Hon Peter Foss: So does everybody else. Hon N.F. MOORE: If he is in a good mood, there is no more delightful a person. However, it is difficult when he wants to be highly political! I will leave it at that, except to say that I wish him well in the next election and hope he remains the only Labor Party member for the Mining and Pastoral Region. I thank Hon Helen Hodgson, as the leader of the Australian Democrats, for her significant contribution to the House. I do not know why the Democrats always feel the need to speak on every clause and to amend every second one; but I guess that is why they think they are here. They play a major role and, although I hate to say it, the Democrats’ questioning on every clause probably results in better legislation than was produced in the good old days. Hon Peter Foss: Don’t encourage her. Hon N.F. MOORE: I agree with the Attorney General; it is not meant to be encouragement. Hon Kim Chance: I assure you it will be taken as such. Hon N.F. MOORE: It is meant to be a positive acknowledgment of a job well done, and we thank her for that. I am not sure who the leader of the Greens (WA) is; its members take it in turns. However, that makes it much easier to talk to them, because when I ask who the leader is on that day, they say, “Well, I am if you like”, and the message gets through. I thank them also for their contribution to the House. We now have two other parties: The Hon Mark Nevill independent party and the Hon Tom Helm independent party. On an occasion like this, the less said about how they came to be Independents, the better. We have appreciated Hon Mark Nevill’s independent views on a number of issues, and not appreciated them on others. It was only last night that he gave the combined Labor Party-coalition parties a hard time on a Bill. I also thank Hon Tom Helm, who also is in his electorate today, for the contribution he has made over the time he has been a member of the House. I thank all the

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3733 other members of the parties opposite for the work they have done for the Parliament. We all know that being a member of Parliament is not the beer and skittles that we read about in the newspapers; it is a tough job. It is hard on our families. It is hard on one's physical wellbeing and it is tough mentally. I am one of those people who think that members of Parliament deserve significantly more credit than they get in the media and in the community. Most members work very hard and put in long hours, often at great expense to their families and their own lives. Laurie Marquet, Ian Allnutt and all the other staff in the Chamber provide excellent service to members. This would have to be one of the better Chambers of any Parliament in the Westminster system. I can say that without contradiction. This House works exceptionally well. The Clerk has us all under control. We all respect Laurie and Ian and the other staff members for the way in which they carry out their duties in such a professional way. We also know that when they provide advice, it is always good advice, and it is invariably taken. I thank Laurie, Ian, Malcolm, Chris, Jason, Peter, Brian and Donna, who look after us so well. Donna will be leaving shortly for reasons which are becoming more obvious as days go by. We wish Donna the best of luck and hope all goes well for her. Members: Hear, hear! Hon N.F. MOORE: I thank Janeen and Valentina, who assist the Clerk, for the support they also provide to the House and to members; it is very much appreciated. I have two staff in the Leader of the Government's office - Teena Beale and Julie Holmes. Teena has been there for a very long time. She has worked for successive Governments. She is such a delightful person, always so willing to be helpful and so efficient in what she does. Teena is a gem in that office ensuring that all the work that is done for ministers is done properly and well. Julie was from my ministerial office and is now studying part time and working here part time. She is also a delightful young lady. The pair of them together are so supportive and helpful, and I thank them very much. I thank the Hansard reporters, who must write down and record what we say. It is a pretty tough job often, and, I suspect, on the odd occasion, pretty boring and hard to handle. They do it well and we thank them very much. I thank Cathy and Marilyn on the switchboard, who have been here a long time. I guess that they understand us better than we understand them. There are many people at Parliament House whom we know well who provide tremendous support for members. I thank the people in the kitchen. The dining room these days is superb. It is a pity more members do not use it. Hon Bruce Donaldson suggested we should have frequent user points for the dining room to try to encourage more people to use it. The quality of the service, the produce and the experience in the dining room has improved dramatically in recent times. Mr President, I thank you and the members of the Parliamentary Services Committee for all of the work it has done. I also thank the people who work in the gardens, who do a great job; the people in the bar; the security people; and all the other people who work in the Parliament. They all do a very good job and we appreciate their contribution very much. It is not yet Christmas time, but I trust that all those people have a very happy Christmas, and they get the opportunity to spend some time with their families in a positive and productive way. Today may be the last occasion on which at least five members in this Chamber will be able to be here. That will depend on whether the House returns between the election and 22 May 2001 - sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. We are sitting today in case it does not, so that these five members have a chance to say a few words at the conclusion of their parliamentary careers. I will say a few words about each of those members and wish them every success for the future. Hon Cheryl Davenport is retiring. I am not sure how long she has been here. Hon Peter Foss: Since 1989. Hon N.F. MOORE: I have not worked out how long everybody has been here. However, those who are retiring have been here for a long time. Cheryl is a very conscientious member, as we all know. I guess the pinnacle of her career was the abortion debate. She worked extremely hard to get what she wanted to achieve out of that issue. It was a very difficult debate. I think we said at the time that it showed that this House could debate an issue of that magnitude in a very mature way and reach conclusions which reflected the general views of the House, regardless of our political position and our personal view. Cheryl provided great leadership in that debate, and I congratulate her for that. However, Cheryl should not be remembered as having done only that, because she is a conscientious person. She is determined and a bit emotional at times. She told me she might be a bit that way today, but that is fair enough; she is entitled to be. Thank you, Cheryl, for the contribution you have made to the Parliament, to your party and to Western Australia. I hope you have a very happy retirement. Hon Bob Thomas is a fellow who I suspect is a very good local member, because he spends most of his time in this House giving the Government a serve because it is not looking after his constituents well enough. Hon Bob Thomas: Only when it is needed.

3734 [COUNCIL]

Hon N.F. MOORE: In that case he has not had much to say! Bob has always impressed me as the sort of person who sees his main role as making sure his constituents are getting the best representation they can from him. He has been a very good Whip for the Opposition, and I know that Hon Muriel Patterson appreciates the relationship they have been able to develop to ensure that each side of the House knows what the other is doing. We have had very few problems with pairs and other issues that arise with which Whips must deal. Bob, I wish you a very pleasant retirement and lots of time on the golf course, which I know you are looking forward to. I am told you have a low handicap, and I hope it gets even lower. When I retire in 14 years, I am looking forward to playing some golf. We should all do more of that. As the Minister for Sport and Recreation, I say to all members that if we do 30 minutes exercise a day, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars on the Health budget. I keep saying that everywhere I go, but, regrettably, I do not practise what I preach. However, I am sure that Bob will take advantage of that advice and enjoy his retirement. Hon Max Evans came into this place with a purpose - he will probably tell us about it later; to straighten out Western Australia. I suspect Max will be best remembered in this Parliament for the huge amount of work he did in opposition on the problems surrounding the State’s finances. I do not propose to be any more political than that. However, Max did an enormous amount of research and work on a number of issues that needed to be researched and examined. He then became the Minister for Finance, and he did an excellent job in that position. Max has the great capacity that all accountants have to look at a set of figures and work out very quickly who is having whom on and whether the figures are written in an appropriate way. Max also was Minister for Racing and Gaming. Having succeeded him in that role, I can say that he is highly respected in the industry. People remember with great affection the contribution he made to the racing and gaming section of our community. I thought that I would be able to follow in his footsteps in some respects, but I discovered there is nowhere else to go! Hon Kim Chance: The Reykjavik Cup. Hon N.F. MOORE: Yes. Max had actually booked to go to that. I think he may well go there after Christmas. Max, I thank you for the magnificent contribution you have made to our party and for giving us some serious strength in the accounting field when we needed it. Your contribution will be long remembered by people who look at the way in which the State’s finances are run and the Treasury of Western Australia is managed. Hon Murray Montgomery is not here today. Like Hon Bob Thomas, his electorate comes first, and that is where he is today. I understand Hon Murray Criddle will say some words on his behalf. Hon Murray Montgomery has been a diligent local member and has worked very hard for his electorate. He has taken up an interest that I would like to share one day; that is, he now has a vineyard. Anyone with that taste has something going for him. I recommend Montgomery’s Hill wine; it is a very good product from the very south of Western Australia. The wine industry is growing dramatically and will be fantastic for Western Australia. I thank Hon Murray Montgomery for his contribution to the House, his party and Western Australia and wish him every success in his endeavours after politics. Hon Muriel Paterson is one of the most wonderful people I know. She has a lovely, sparkling personality. I have never seen her get cross or angry about anything. She is supportive, helpful and encouraging. Everyone should have someone like her to work with. Apart from undertaking the responsibilities of Whip - which she has done superbly over the years - she has been conscientious, supportive, helpful and positive as a team member. If everyone were like her, we would never lose anything. I thank her very much. I also recognise her wonderful values and the way she has expressed them in this place. Muriel is not the greatest talker in the sense of filling in huge amounts of time in this Chamber - it is a pity there are not more like her. Hon Peter Foss: Don’t look at me! Hon N.F. MOORE: However, when she makes a speech, we know that what she has to say is well thought out and based on her very impressive values. When she feels the need to say something, we should all take notice. When she tells us what she thinks, she invariably has it spot on. I thank her very sincerely. We will get a chance between now and her final retirement to share a glass of red wine and to reminisce about her time in the House. I trust that everyone will have a very happy Christmas. Members on this side look forward very much to the next election, which will come sooner or later. I will not say that I would love to see everyone back here after the election, because I hope some members will not be here. That is not said from any personal perspective. When I first came into this place, there were about 30 members and the break-up was 21 coalition members and nine others. The seats allocated for our members stretched around to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s seat and the back row as well. The Opposition occupied the three seats opposite me in the front row and a couple behind. If that scenario is replicated after the next election, I will not be unhappy. However, times and the electoral system have changed and that will never happen again. We must acknowledge that and continue to work together. Consensus generally produces a satisfactory result for the community. However, it also produces a set of compromises, and that can be the worst result. The nature of this House is such that compromise is always on the cards. One of these days I will think seriously about whether that is a good thing. I might make some comments about an issue of that magnitude in my final speech. Today is not the day for that.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3735

I thank members for their contributions during the past four years. Members on this side look forward to the contest and to being back here after the election. I wish the retiring members the best of luck in the future. Once again, I thank them for being members of this House and for the significant work they have done for Western Australia. HON N.D. GRIFFITHS (East Metropolitan) [11.24 am]: On behalf of Hon Tom Stephens, who, unfortunately, cannot be here because of a commitment in his electorate, and on behalf of the Australian Labor Party members, I thank you, Mr President, for your service to this House and the community during this session of Parliament. I also extend my thanks to the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Committees for their difficult work, which has been of great assistance to all of us in carrying out our duty. I thank the Clerks at the Table and our very caring attendants, in particular Donna - I wish her all the best. I also thank the committee clerks and staff, whom we see here from time to time, and who, outside the Chamber, perform exceptional service and cause those extremely interesting reports to be very pertinent. I extend our thanks to Hansard for setting down for history what we meant to say, and expressing it much better than we really said it. I thank the entire staff of the Parliamentary Services Department, in particular the staff at the Parliamentary Library, and the ladies at the post office, who are probably the most patient people in the whole of Parliament House. I also thank the Parliamentary Information Service, and those who have retired from that department, particularly Sheila Mills; the security staff; the catering staff; the staff at the bar; and the gardeners. I extend our thanks to the staff of the Leader of the Government in this place, who do a magnificent job and are most helpful to us in the course of our activities, particularly with that awful business of the lodgment of questions, which leads to comment in the Chamber. I thank the staff of the Leader of the Opposition, Ben, Liz and Steve, and the staff of the Clerk, Janeen and Val, for all they have done for us. I do not think any member of Parliament could cope at all without the magnificent assistance those people give to each and every one of us. Now I have said the thankyous, I will deal with members of Parliament. It is a great pleasure serving in the same Chamber as the Leader of the Government, Hon Norman Moore. He is the father of the House. He has been a member since 1977, and he has now told us that he will leave in 2014. He was here before any of us, and I assure members that if his wish is achieved, he will be here a long time after any of us. We on this side of the House have had some very interesting but, for the most part, very enjoyable moments. I have learnt quite a bit from watching Hon Norman Moore in action, particularly at question time. It is a delight asking him a question without notice and seeing how he responds to it. I think he enjoys questions without notice perhaps as much as those of us who ask those questions enjoy hearing his answers. I make a similar observation about his ministerial colleagues, Hon Murray Criddle and Hon Peter Foss. I think we all particularly enjoy question time. We enjoy their answers and their company. We wish the three of them all the best in their future careers, and we trust it will not be as ministers! I acknowledge the associations that we in the Labor Party have with all members of the government parties. We have a different point of view on many issues. However, we have a lot in common actually, and the things we have in common are more important than those on which we differ. Again, like the Leader of the House, I do not want to be political, because somebody in the electorate might hear it and that would be the end of us. I am unsure whether the Greens (WA) are a party or a collective. Last year their leader, Hon Giz Watson, referred to them as a collective. However, I and my colleagues very much enjoyed their company and valued the contribution they made to the deliberations of this House and, through their ideas, to the deliberations of the Australian Labor Party. Through you, Mr President, I thank our colleagues from the Australian Democrats - Hon Helen Hodgson, the leader, and Hon Norm Kelly, the deputy leader - for their worthwhile and friendly contributions, which we enjoyed very much. I thank Hon Mark Nevill and Hon Tom Helm, who have made worthwhile contributions to public life. I note they are not on the list of speakers to speak shortly; however, whatever may occur, I wish them well and thank them for their contributions over the years to this House and to the deliberations of the Australian Labor Party. I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Tom Stephens, and my colleagues, in particular our Whip, Hon Bob Thomas. Hon Bob Thomas is a person of great political judgment - he knew I would say something about him today. I note some members look as though they have not had much sleep. However, I was paired at quarter to six last night and when I got that message I just kept walking; nobody would have got me back to this place. I took my home phone off the hook and Bob knows I never answer my mobile phone, so I was pretty safe. I thank Bob very much for that and I will refer to him later if he interjects, which he does not do often! A number of members are retiring, as Hon Norman Moore pointed out. A number of members are retiring voluntarily, and we know who they are: Our colleagues, Hon Cheryl Davenport, Hon Bob Thomas, Hon Murray Montgomery, Hon Muriel Patterson and Hon Max Evans. A number of members know they are retiring but have not admitted it to us or to the world. A number of members will be retiring but do not know they are retiring; observations will be made about them in due course. I shall make some brief observations about the five members who are retiring voluntarily. Four are from the class of 1989 and one is from the class of 1986. Two of the four from the class of ’89 are my Labor Party colleagues Hon Cheryl Davenport and Hon Bob Thomas. Hon Muriel Patterson and Hon Murray Montgomery were also elected at the 1989 election. It is interesting to note that three members of the class of ’89 have their electorate offices in the Albany region; the member who does not is Hon Cheryl Davenport. However, I say to Hon Max Evans that he is the odd

3736 [COUNCIL] member out on both counts because he was elected in 1986 and does not have an office in Albany. Perhaps he will have something to say about that in due course. Hon Cheryl Davenport has made a significant contribution to the deliberations of this House and to the work of the Australian Labor Party. Her interests have always been for those who often do not have a voice. In recent years she played a significant role on behalf of the Labor Party in dealing with issues affecting women’s interests and seniors’ interests. Cheryl is a very dedicated person. She believes in what she does, what she has done and what she no doubt will do. She is a very community-minded person and it has been a great honour and a great privilege to have served with her. I wish her all the best indeed. I know that Hon Cheryl Davenport will continue to be very active and will play a major role in the functioning of our society in the years to come. Her experience and the role that she has played in this House will stand her in good stead and will be of great benefit to the community. Hon Bob Thomas has taught me a few things and I think he will continue to teach me a few things in the years to come. He made me half promise to do something for him after his retirement - I will not go into that in detail, but I can assure the Anti-Corruption Commission that it will not be improper. Hon Bob Thomas has been a fantastic Whip in this House for the Australian Labor Party. He has been the most successful ALP Whip in the history of the Legislative Council in Western Australia. I hope that his successor will be even more successful. For the moment, Hon Bob Thomas has that record and has done an exceptional job. Whips have a difficult job. They must be mindful of how members are getting on both in the Chamber and with their colleagues from the other side - note that I used the word colleagues. Hon Bob Thomas’ talent as Whip has been to know when a member has had enough - that he must go home. The great example of that was last night - again, I thank him very much. Hon N.F. Moore: I am sorry it was not our Whip. Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: Hon Bob Thomas will be remembered for many things - his work as Whip and his great advocacy of the south west region, not only in Albany, but also in his role in the Bunbury, Mitchell and Collie areas. Without being political, with a bit of luck the Australian Labor Party may have a lot to thank Hon Bob Thomas for next year. I do not think I can do justice to Hon Bob Thomas in just a few words. I will leave it at that for the moment, but perhaps I might later take up Hon Norman Moore’s advice to play golf and, something that might surprise some members, even have a glass of red wine. Hon Muriel Patterson is also a Whip. I have also served under Hon Muriel Patterson and had her as my Whip. A more courteous, caring person would be difficult to find. I do not know Hon Muriel Patterson as well as I know Hon Bob Thomas, but it has been a great honour to serve with her in this House. She has set a great example for all members on how to behave. She has been a great representative and member - sometimes one runs out of superlatives. I thank Hon Muriel Patterson for the courtesy that she has extended to everyone in this House, particularly to those members on this side of the House. She and Hon Bob Thomas have been a great team. The House could not function without the two Whips working well together. Sometimes members disobey the instructions of their Whips - I will not point anybody out as the member concerned is not about to retire, but I also wish him well. Hon Murray Montgomery is not here today and that is a great pity. I know that I should not refer to him as not being here, but he is away on very important parliamentary business. One of the most important acts of extra-parliamentary business that I performed this week was to obtain from Hon Murray Montgomery, for a proper sum, a case of wine that he produced. I look forward to tasting that over the forthcoming period. Hon N.F. Moore: Weekend! Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: It will be a long weekend. Hon Kim Chance: Have you got one left? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: No, that is not true; I have three left. I was paired last night. However, I have not yet opened it. I have known Hon Murray Montgomery during my relatively short stay here and have had the good fortune to serve on committees with him. When on a committee dealing with the sorts of matters we have had to deal with, a member gets to know other members fairly well. Murray is a gentleman with a particular political point of view, which is a mainstream, conservative point of view, but he advocates his position with reason. He is careful in his deliberations, very courteous and the sort of person that this community and this House needs to be a member of Parliament. He will be sorely missed. I look forward to catching up with him and telling him how good his wine is, which I have not yet tasted, but I am sure the next time I mention Hon Murray Montgomery in a speech I will make the appropriate recommendation. I will remember Murray for the times we have had together on committees and the very good work that he has done. I now come to Hon Max Evans. I have unlimited time, do I not, Mr President? However, I will not use all of my unlimited time or even come close. I will not be like the Attorney General, for example. In August of last year the Leader of the Opposition in the other place kindly asked me to shadow Hon Max Evans; I had that duty for several months and it was an absolute pleasure. Max and Barbara were great hosts to Rhonda and I over the spring and summer

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3737 months of 1999-2000, showing us an area of human activity about which neither of us had much knowledge. It is that sort of courtesy one rarely sees in life, and I personally thank Max very much for that. Hon Max Evans has been here longer than have the other members who are retiring. He has had a very significant innings - if I may use that word; I do not know how we are doing in the test - he was in opposition and he served as a minister for approximately seven years. He has made a significant contribution to the workings of this House and whenever I wanted to know something about matters in which Max had expertise - there were quite a few of those, and I do not want Max to talk about them today because we do have to have lunch soon - he provided me with advice in areas such as superannuation and myriad others dealing with finance. Irrespective of political considerations, when we were dealing with issues of knowledge, Max has been extremely helpful, as I am sure he will continue to be to other members. I note the voluntary service he has performed on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, for example, and matters of that kind. As with Cheryl, Bob, Muriel and Murray, it has been a great honour and privilege to serve in a House of Parliament with Hon Max Evans. Today is 24 November 2000 - it is always good to know what day it is when one is in a House of Parliament - and we are exactly one month short of my birthday, which may be significant to me but not to others, but a more significant event occurs the following day. I wish every member and their families and those I have listed previously a happy and holy Christmas and all the very best for 2001. HON M.J. CRIDDLE (Agricultural - Minister for Transport) [11.45 am]: I will make a few remarks and in particular thank you, Mr President, and acknowledge the respect we have for the work you have done during this Parliament. Members derive great comfort from knowing that you, as President, are in this place. The President handles his duties extremely well. I also thank Hon John Cowdell for the work he has done as Chairman of Committees. Many other members have been recognised by the Leader of the House and Hon Nick Griffiths, who is today representing Hon Tom Stephens. I thank the Clerks and the attendants. I thank all the staff of Parliament House, in whatever capacity they work, for the wonderful work they do. Members sometimes do not appreciate the work done for them. I thank the Leader of the House for his help. I was the new boy on the block about two and half years ago. I also thank Hon Peter Foss for the help and understanding he has given me, and for the work he does for the coalition. I think we have a great team, and the National Party appreciates the great working relationship that we have. I hope it will continue into next year and beyond. I also acknowledge the Opposition and other parties. I have worked with most opposition members on committees. I cannot remember the number of committees on which I have worked, but I have enjoyed working with each and every member of those committees. All members have their points of view and I appreciate that. I believe the committee system is a good example of the way in which Parliament should operate, and it allows members to express their different points of view. I have appreciated working with the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Kim Chance and Hon Nick Griffiths. I thank them and the other parties for the work they have done. I recognise the work done by two other colleagues who left the Parliament during this term. Hon Eric Charlton did not get the opportunity to give a farewell speech, and perhaps some members appreciate that fact! When Hon Eric Charlton first entered Parliament, he was on a mission to fix the roads in country areas. It is coincidental that I am having lunch with Eric today, as I have not seen him for several months. He put in place a mechanism to fund the building and maintenance of roads. The work being done around the State is a clear indication that he has achieved his principal objective. He took on great challenges and he did a great job. He believed the road trains should be allowed to travel on roads across the State. He became quite well known as Reckless Eric. He got on with his job, whether it was building roads, ports or airports or fixing up the metropolitan transport system in the way that he thought fit. He has left a mark on Western Australia that will remain for many years. The advances have been enormous. Eric is a good mate of mine. I remember the circumstances in which I became a member of Parliament. Eric came to see me. There was a pall of dust as he drove over the hill on a gravel road. He came to my front door and told me that I was to stand at the next election. There was no denying him. That is how I became a member. The rest is history. He has given me a great opportunity to get involved in politics. He created the opportunity for me and it has been a great privilege to work with him. I have known Hon Murray Montgomery for a long time. He is a man who sets about his job in a professional manner. He has handled himself very well. He looks after his constituency with great passion. He can be relied on to do a good job. He will retire to his property in the south west. One of his passions is his winery. Hon Murray Montgomery also has some beef cattle. I can see him sitting on Montgomery hill with a glass of red in his hand and enjoying life with his wife Pam for quite some time to come. I must also recognise Eric Charlton’s wife Yvette, who has been of wonderful support to him. I also recognise the other members who will retire at the end of the session. I got to know Hon Cheryl Davenport on some committees. We had many conversations about them. She has done a great job during her time in Parliament. I did not know Hon Max Evans until I came into the Parliament, but we have had many conversations about finance. He and I are not too far apart in our beliefs. Certainly, having been in business for a while, I believe that a lot of the things

3738 [COUNCIL] he has done in this State have been absolutely outstanding. Hon Max Evans came into Parliament to fix the finance, much as Hon Eric Charlton came into Parliament to fix the roads. Max and his wife Barbara will obviously have a great time together for some time to come. I do not know Hon Bob Thomas all that well because he comes from the southern part of the State, but I wish him well. If he likes to play golf, I know that he will have a good time. I have left Hon Muriel Patterson till last on purpose. She has become a great mate and has done a great job. I will leave it at that, and she knows that I am genuine when I say that. I thank her very much for her efforts. I wish everybody well as we go into the Christmas break. We are also heading into an election, and may the best man win! HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [11.53 am]: During the first few weeks after I won my seat in this place in May 1997, I was surprised to learn what a friendly place Parliament is. It is a real surprise to someone who comes into this place from the outside, because the impression from the media - television, The West Australian and so on - about the way members carry on in this Chamber is very different. It is extraordinary that an enormous number of extremely nice, helpful, friendly people work in this place. What a surprise it was! Being in this Chamber is like being on the stage. We are all playing certain roles and, by and large, have our words at least half worked out before we walk into the Chamber and stand up to speak. This opportunity this morning is quite strange because we can drop those roles, speak as unmediated human beings and recognise each other as such. It is quite unusual. I hope that the young people in the gallery take note of that. They must not think that what they see on the television represents all that happens in Parliament House, because the situation is much more complex than that. There is a lot of support for the work of the Parliament, which has such an essential role in government. We all feel very tired this morning from the pressure of the past few weeks. The Greens (WA) speak not from the position of government or opposition, but from a different place. They try to bring a different and new paradigm into the Parliament, from the perspective of ecologically sustainable development and the challenge it poses to Governments throughout the world. It is very difficult for we three to always do justice to the importance of that role, given that we have such limited resources. That was very clear to me as a member of this place, particularly on occasions during the last week when I found myself inadequately prepared because of a lack of opportunity and support to do justice to all the issues I felt my colleagues and I had a responsibility to consider and to bring a fresh perspective to. The amount of research and work involved in bringing our insights to the Chamber is an enormous strain on the minor parties. Therefore, I ask for acceptance by other members that we have a difficult role. Sometimes we may have been inadequate in that role, but members must recognise that we are a few people fulfilling an enormous role. On behalf of Jim and Giz, I thank many people in here. All people here are part of making this a helpful, supportive and friendly place in which to work. To begin at the top, I thank you, Mr President, for your role in this House. Personally, you have been a great source of strength to me. You are enormously fair and bring a balance to this Chamber, which I more fully appreciate when I go into the other place. The Clerk of the Legislative Council has been very helpful on many occasions, usually at extremely short notice, and he is always available and has something amazingly intelligent and helpful to say. I thank him. I also thank Ian Allnutt and Malcolm Peacock who sit at the Table with the Clerk for their help. I also thank all the staff in the Chamber for the invaluable help they provide. I thank very much the Leader of the Government in this place. Although we do not see eye to eye much of the time, Hon Norman Moore is fair and makes sure that everybody has the opportunity that is their deserved role in this place. To that extent, he is an excellent Leader of the Government. I thank him. I acknowledge that in my many dealings with Hon Tom Stephens over the past three and a half years he has never let me down once. He is incredibly reliable and does what he says he will do. I respect that, and I thank him for that approach. I thank Hon Murray Criddle for the occasions when he acts as Leader of the House. I appreciate his way of facilitating the work of this place on the difficult, long nights, and I appreciate his human touch. I have only good feeling towards every member of this place. We are all extraordinarily different - what a group of people! Everyone is a character in some shape or form. It has been an enjoyable human experience working with members, and I thank them all for their friendliness and support. When I first took my seat in this Chamber, I looked at the items of business on the Notice Paper and noted the name of a Bill for which Hon Max Evans had responsibility. My more experienced colleague said that the Bill would be okay; it was one of Max’s and he always presented good Bills. In his absence, I wish Hon Murray Montgomery well and thank him for the drop of cabernet franc - I can also recommend the brewery. I thank Muriel Patterson for her friendliness. I will always remember the speech she made on the night of the great abortion debate. Although the member came to a different conclusion than I, her speech that night

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3739 showed enormous humanity and compassion. It gave me a perspective of the member, which I have not lost. I wish her well in her retirement. I also wish well the children about whom the member spoke that night. On that same night Hon Cheryl Davenport made history in this Chamber on behalf of women throughout Australia; she took them an enormous step forward and she carried herself beautifully. In the time I have been a member, Hon Cheryl Davenport has been a shining example of what women can bring to politics. She is always friendly and supportive. On that night she managed to build consensus across the parties, across the roles of members and across the formalities. She made us address an important humanitarian issue, and she will never be forgotten for that. I will miss Hon Cheryl Davenport. I turn lastly to Hon Bob Thomas in the corner, whom we think of as the Greens Whip. Hon M.J. Criddle: So do we! Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Perhaps I should not have said that! Hon Bob Thomas: I am flattered. Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Hon Bob Thomas made it his business, in his role as Whip and as an experienced member of this place who, therefore, interacts a lot with members, to take Hon Giz Watson and I, as new members, under his wing. He made sure that we were functioning properly and were in the right place at the right time. Bob is an excellent bloke whom I will miss. I hope we have the opportunity to catch up frequently when I visit his part of the world. I wish him all the best. These thanks could go on and on to the library staff, the gardeners and the chefs who cook the marvellous food we eat. All those components make the place extremely supportive. We all need that when it gets tough. It is great for members to walk out of the Chamber and have dinner served by someone with such kindness, and without recognition of our political differences. I do not know whose job it is to employ the staff in this place, but they do an excellent job screening people who are extremely genuine and kind. I thank each and every one of the staff in this place on behalf of the Greens(WA). I wish all members greetings of the season. Do not work too hard for a little while; take a break and have a merry Christmas. HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [12.04 pm]: The Leader of the House said earlier that he could not understand why the Democrats felt the need to speak on every issue. However, I am sure he will not mind on this occasion. Today marks the end of the first parliamentary term of the Australian Democrats’ involvement in this State Parliament. Now is the time for reflection and assessment of our achievements over the past three and a half years. I believe we have achieved a great deal. We have also learnt a great deal and we are looking forward to continuing that learning curve. Finishing the parliamentary year in November is to be highly recommended. It will enable us to take a slight break and enjoy Christmas, rather than being so wiped out that Christmas becomes a bit of a blur. I sincerely thank you, Mr President, for your work in the role that you manage so well. Taking over the Chair after your predecessor, who served in that role for more than 20 years, must have been somewhat daunting. The Australian Democrats appreciate the task you took on, Mr President; not only did you succeed someone who had been in the role for so long, but also you faced extra demands as a result of the different nature and balance of the membership of this House. We appreciate your work, Mr President. We also appreciate the work of the Chairman, Hon John Cowdell, and of the Deputy Chairmen. I am sure the President and the Chairman also appreciate the work of the Deputy Chairmen who share and ease the workload. The Democrats very much appreciate the assistance of the Council staff. As a party with few members in this place, we rely on that assistance and advice, especially from the Clerk, Laurie Marquet. During the past few years, due to the changes among drafting personnel, it has been difficult to find consistent help. It is always tempting, therefore, to refer to Laurie because we know the tasks will be done more efficiently and in a manner that is far more suitable to our purposes. We appreciate his understanding and the work he does. We also appreciate the work of Ian Allnutt and Malcolm Peacock. No matter what time of the day or night we seek help, we always get a helpful response. We also thank the other Chamber staff, Chris, Jason and Donna for their assistance in helping to ease our workload as a minor party. I acknowledge the two new staff, Peter and Brian, in this Chamber. Having previously served on the Joint Parliamentary Services Committee, I applaud the fact that staff have an opportunity to move between the various roles in Parliament so that they become more familiar with its workings. We see Brian each day for afternoon tea, and in the Chamber I am sometimes tempted to ask him for a cup of coffee rather than a glass of water! However, that may be some way down the track yet. Hon Peter Foss: It’s a good idea! Hon NORM KELLY: We wish Donna all the best for what is in front of her! The Australian Democrats entered this place three and a half years ago; Donna later became engaged and is now expecting her first child. Those stages in her life represent the marking of time to me. We wish Donna well.

3740 [COUNCIL]

We also appreciate all the work done by the other staff connected with the Chamber. I refer to Janeen and Val, and Lorraine in your office, Mr President. Although they are very busy people with huge workloads, they are always very professional and willing to assist. Many other staff deserve thanks, especially the dining room staff and the gardeners. I extend particular thanks to the Hansard reporters for the unstinting work they do, even at 3.30 in the morning, and for their ability to do such a good job all the time on what we say. Further removed from the immediacy of this Chamber, I also thank Teena Beale and Julie Holmes, upon whom we rely to do their work well, and we appreciate their assistance. We also appreciate Trevor Whittington for his work in liaising between the Australian Democrats and the Government and assisting the Leader of the House to manage the business of the House. I appreciate the expressions of concern and interest made to me by other members, but I would like to assure members that I will not be giving a valedictory speech today, nor will I be giving one next year. I may consider retirement from this place in years to come; and those members who are retiring today make retirement look very rosy indeed. It may involve spending summers in Italy or on the golf course, or in the case of Hon Murray Montgomery, sampling the wines, maybe at Royal Ascot - who knows? I probably do not know as much about Hon Muriel Patterson, but I do know that it could be just strumming a ukulele, as I found out last night. Hon Ken Travers: She could form a band with the member for Kimberley! Hon NORM KELLY: I express a special thank you to Hon Cheryl Davenport for her support and assistance in my work. I am so thankful that she has been able to achieve what she has in this parliamentary term. People with such a strong moral conscience, no matter what their beliefs, are far better served when they remain true to that conscience. Such people make a House of Parliament far stronger. I convey the disappointment of my colleague, Hon Helen Hodgson, to Hon Max Evans who is retiring. It is very difficult for her to find people who get excited talking about tax issues, and I would not be surprised if Hon Max Evans receives a few telephone calls in the coming years. I have also had an association with Hon Max Evans through my work in the racing and gaming portfolio, one I find very interesting, as did Hon Max Evans in his years as minister. When Hon Nick Griffiths spoke earlier, he mentioned the leadership team of the Australian Democrats - the leader, and me as deputy leader. He forgot to mention that I also happen to be party Whip, a position we hope to be able to delegate to another member of the Australian Democrats after the next election. I thank all those members who plan to retire - Hon Muriel Patterson, Hon Murray Montgomery, Hon Bob Thomas, Hon Cheryl Davenport and Hon Max Evans - for having worked long and hard in this place, and I hope they enjoy a well deserved and successful retirement. When they leave they will take with them collectively more than 60 years’ experience in this place. That experience will be sorely missed, and it will be left to those who remain to become the more experienced members and to continue that work. I know I speak also on behalf of Hon Helen Hodgson when I say that three and a half years ago when we came into this place, in which we did not have any people from our own party, we very much appreciated the support, advice and help of other members of this place. I hope that next year we will be able to help the new class of 2001 establish themselves in this place. Hon Helen Hodgson and I thank all members for a very enjoyable three and a half years in this Chamber. We look forward to taking a bit of a break some time in the next month or so to get ready for the election campaign, and to coming back here after the election refreshed, recharged and committed to improving on the work we have done already. We thank all members and wish them well for Christmas and the future. HON BOB THOMAS (South West) [12.16 pm]: If I had known that so many people would be saying so many nice things about me, I might have left this place earlier! Since the beginning of 1997, I have turned my mind increasingly to my valedictory speech and have come up with a lot of profound things that I want to say today. However, the House will be pleased to know that I have not written down any of those things and cannot remember them; so my comments today will be more brief than had I written down those things. It is just over 11 years since I gave my maiden speech in this place, but it seems to me as though it was just yesterday that I stood here and ever so nervously read out the speech that I had written at midnight the night before. While I was reading out that speech, I kept saying to myself, “What on earth have I done to myself? I have put myself into some pretty risky and difficult situations in the past, but this would have to be the most nerve-racking thing I have ever done.” I felt that way partly because it was my view that a maiden speech should be about 15 minutes’ long, and that I should say a bit about myself and how I came to formulate my political philosophy, and talk in passing about a couple of important issues within my electorate. Therefore, I had prepared a speech that I thought was about 15 minutes’ long. However, at Caucus on the morning that I was to give my speech, Hon Joe Berinson came to me and said, “Bob, we need you to make a long speech. We need you to speak for 45 minutes and take your maximum time.” I think someone had not had a briefing and we needed to delay the debate on a particular Bill. I was nerve-racked. If I had phoned my wife and said. “What can I do; I have to give a 45-minute speech and I have only prepared a 15-minute speech?”, she would have said, “Tell them about your vasectomy; that usually takes two hours, and you don’t get any questions.” Those members who were in this Chamber when I read out my speech would probably have noticed when I was holding up the pages that written across the top of them were the words, “slow down.” As it turned out I spoke for 15 minutes, but I am just as nervous today as I was then. I am a pretty ordinary sort of bloke of about average ability, but for me to

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3741 have been a member of this Chamber and a member of Parliament in Western Australia for 12 years has been an absolute privilege for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has been a privilege to represent the Labor Party in this Parliament as a person with a strong commitment to equity and social justice and a desire to make the Western Australian community a fairer, more equal society in which people can advance themselves based on their ability and willingness to do hard work rather than rely on the affluence of their family. I am proud to have been in this Chamber and to have participated in those debates in which our philosophy has been needed. I have listened carefully to people who have put forward a different point of view and have listened to them expound their philosophies in this House. I have spoken to many of those people opposite in social situations and I have not changed my philosophy one iota. It is my view that Parliament is the clearing house of political tension in Australia; we resolve our conflicts on the floor of the House rather than at gunpoint as they do in other countries. Therefore, I make no apologies for standing and arguing about issues in this place in the same way that members opposite would not make any apologies for arguing their views. I hope that I have made some form of valuable contribution in the time that I have been here. It has been a privilege to represent the South West Region; Albany, Denmark and Walpole would have to be the most special places in the world, and the rest of my electorate, the west coast, Manjimup, Collie etc are not far behind and are great places also. Again, to have represented the South West Region, the most dynamic area in this State, in this Parliament has been a privilege for me. I also would like to say that having worked with Hon Joe Berinson in this place is something that very few people would appreciate the value of. I do not want to demean the contribution and the value of other members in this Chamber but, in my view, Joe Berinson would have to have been one of greatest parliamentary performers in any Parliament in the world. I recall the enormous pressure that was placed on him in our last term of government. However, the special memories that I will take away are of how Hon Joe Berinson used to listen to a debate from the other side and then stand and demolish those arguments by quoting the classics, contemporary literature and contemporary movies. He could talk about any of the Acts of Parliament as if he had a photographic memory and he had a wit that was unsurpassed this place. As much as I have enjoyed working with everyone in this Chamber, Joe Berinson would have to have been the greatest and it was a privilege to work with him. It was also a privilege to have worked with the wonderful people of Parliament House. I refer to the officers of this Chamber, the switchboard, the kitchen, the cleaners, the Leader of the Opposition’s staff, your own staff, Mr President, and the staff of the Leader of the House. I am talking about everyone in this Parliament. Almost everyone is more intelligent than me and has had far more interesting life experiences than me. I have really enjoyed working with those people, and feel I am a better person for my contact with them. I believe I got into Parliament by accident. I worked for the Commonwealth Employment Service in Manjimup between 1985 and 1988. Brian Burke held a cabinet meeting there and was accompanied by my good friend Ted Cunningham, who was one of his staff. I had not seen Ted for a number of years and we rekindled our friendship. I was about to leave Manjimup and move back to Perth for my work, but my good friend Ted, Hon Ed Dermer and Hon Nick Griffiths encouraged me to run for the third south west upper House seat. I did not give myself much chance but, with their encouragement and support, I was preselected. After that, I think I was the only person in the south west who believed I had a chance of winning the seat. I appreciate the confidence they had in me to encourage me to run for the seat. All retiring members look back over their careers and think about their achievements and regrets. I have always believed that politics is about the people who come through the front door and about getting things done for people. I place great store in helping those who need my help, and I have accomplished an enormous number of things for many people. I do not want to bore the House with the details, but I take pride in the things I achieved in Albany during my 12 years in this place, particularly during the Labor Party’s term of government. This Parliament passed the Western Australian Land Authority Act in June 1992. LandCorp was set up in July, and in August 1992 I invited Vince Papparo, the chief executive officer, to Albany. I spoke to him about LandCorp becoming involved in the foreshore development. He then spoke to the combined councils in the area and agreed to fund the project to the tune of $11m. Some of the other things I negotiated with Vince include $100 000 for the further upgrade of York Street and $100 000 for the Albany shire. That was to have been for a bicycle path from Bayonet Head Road to the Lower King bridge, but unfortunately was used for other purposes. Other achievements include helping a local organisation get a grant to carry out work at the south coast community hall, the T/S Vancouver development and the hard but successful work with the surf lifesaving club and the excellent facilities it now has. The list goes on, and I take pride in the things I was able to help various groups in Albany accomplish. However, there are times when I look back on my career and regret some of the things that happened. As a country member, I have had to live away from home for so long. That has placed an enormous burden on my wife Carol. She has had to do a lot of things she would normally have expected me as a partner to do. I refer specifically to many of those responsibilities in bringing up our children. My wife has done an excellent job, and I am extremely proud of my two girls. However, much of the credit must go to Carol because of the amount of time that I have spent away. It is also a matter of great regret to me that I was not at the graduation ceremony in 1997 when my oldest girl Megan

3742 [COUNCIL] graduated from Albany Senior High School. It may not seem important to other people, but we sat on that day and the plane that I caught home got in late, and I got to the ceremony about a minute after my daughter had graduated. I also have a deep regret that I missed my youngest daughter Bronwyn’s graduation from Albany Primary School. My daughter is an actor with the Coco Youth Theatre. She is a very good actor, if I say so myself. Apparently her finest hour was at her graduation. Her class put on a production and she played Steve Urkel, a character from an American television show, and she brought the house down. There were tears all around, and she was at her greatest. I regret that I have missed out on many family things as a member of Parliament. I have gone along and watched many other children accomplish things and be rewarded for their achievements at other schools, yet missed going to my kids’ assemblies and sports days. I also thank the staff that I have had the great pleasure of working with during my career. Ursula Richards worked with me for about five years. Ursula would have to be one of the best operators at putting people at ease. Many people who come into members’ electorate offices are anxious or upset. Ursula was marvellous at putting people at ease. Julie Hooper and Pam Stoney have replaced Ursula. They have similar skills; and their computing skills are second to none. I swear they can make their computers talk, they are so good. They are wonderful people to work with. Guy Wroth is my research officer and also a bit of a brake on me. He is very astute. He is a lovely person to work with. Since 1997 I have had a part-time office in Bunbury and have had the pleasure of working with two lovely people there, Terri-Ellen McKenzie and Eileen O’Sullivan. They were fantastic people to work with. Young Greg White, who now works with me, is an extremely competent and valuable member of my team, and I appreciate the work he does there. I conclude by saying that I wish members opposite the very best. I hope they achieve their ambitions, as long as it is within the context of a Labor Government. I wish members on this side of the House the very best. I recommend that they reach for the stars. I believe in every one of you, and I wish you very well. [Applause.] HON CHERYL DAVENPORT (South Metropolitan) [12.34 pm]: I have the box of tissues, folks. I am notorious, I know; but what you see is what you get with me. Hon Bob Thomas mentioned a prompt to remind him to pause in his first speech in this place. I remember my first speech in this place, on 6 September 1989. All the way through that speech the words “breathe”, “pause” and “have a drink of water” were written. I thought, “God, I suppose I’ll be the same today.” Therefore, I apologise if I get a bit emotional. When I leave in six months, I will not leave behind just 12 years of service in this place but almost three decades of service in the political system. As these valedictory speeches were to be given today, the past week or so has been a time for thinking about those three decades and my contribution to the political landscape of both the Australian Labor Party and the State of Western Australia. I will categorise my remarks into three areas, and leave my thanks to people in this place until the end. The three areas I want to cover are the community and the electorate; the political party and the highs and lows; and also the commitment within the parliamentary sphere. Each term I have served in this place has been very different. I think seven or eight of us came into the House as part of the class of 1989. Hon Bob Thomas and I were the only new Labor members at that time. It is interesting that we have both chosen to leave this arena at the same time. I have been afforded a very big privilege by my political party and by the South Metropolitan Region in being able to serve the people of Western Australia in this place. In the past 24 hours I have gone back and read the speech I made in this place on 6 September 1989. I feel proud of myself, because I think I have achieved a number of the goals I set myself when I was elected. In the whole spectrum of the political process, I have been one of those people who has been commonly referred to by the media as a party hack. There is no doubt that the success I have enjoyed in my career, which has been very much an evolutionary one, can be attributed to my knowledge and work within the Australian Labor Party. I was there when both the Tonkin and Whitlam Governments were in power; I was there when the Hawke-Keating Governments and the Burke-Dowding and Lawrence Governments came to office. I have seen the pendulum move across the political spectrum on a number of occasions. During that time I have also learnt a lot about life and politics. Nothing across the political spectrum surprises me any more, because I have seen it all before and I guess when I leave here I will see it again. Like Hon Bob Thomas, I am a pretty simple person. I left school when I was 15 years of age. I did not have the opportunity that women in later times have had. I was very much a country high school girl. We were streamed very early. If one did not do well, one basically had a few options: One could go on to become a nurse by working one’s way through the system, or one could undertake secretarial studies, and that is what I did. I came to Perth in 1963 when I graduated. That was a very big step in my life. It took me three bites of the cherry to settle in the metropolitan area because I got incredibly homesick. I am proof of the aphorism that “You can take the girl out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the girl.” I remember my colleague to my left saying to me when he was contemplating coming into Parliament that I could go back to my roots. I replied, “I am already here and I’m not about to swap positions.”

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3743

I was one of the first members elected under the regional system that was introduced with proportional representation. I was “parachuted” into this place. I had done most of my political work in the community and for the party in the northern suburbs. The electoral changes introduced at the 1989 election meant there were not enough seats for sitting members. I was campaign director for Hon John Halden when he was elected in 1986 for the North Metropolitan Province. Like me, if he wanted a political career, he had to move to the South Metropolitan Province. That created ructions in the party. I am no novice when it comes to conflict in the party system. Over the past three decades I have seen incredible changes in the Australian Labor Party. When I was first involved there was no formalised factional system, although there were always informal alliances across the party. That has not changed; in fact, over the past 15 years it has been formalised. I must take some responsibility for that - I was the inaugural coordinator of the left faction in Western Australia. I am very proud to say that I lean towards the left in ALP politics. I have worked very hard within that structure to push the boundaries, particularly to ensure that women are much more prominently featured in the political system. It is not about merit; it is about justice. Our population is 52 per cent female. I make no apology for the fact that I have pushed hard to ensure that women are more fairly represented in the political system. Once we get that critical mass, we will not be sitting in this Parliament until 3.30 am. There will be changes in the system. I am sorry there has not been enough of us here to ensure that that occurred before I left. I was very pleased to second the 1993 motion to enshrine the 35 per cent affirmative action rule in the ALP in this State. The motion was moved by the then leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party in Western Australia, Ian Taylor. I am very proud that at the 2002 federal election the Labor Party will be only a couple of women short of achieving the 35 per cent preselection target in Australia. We have also reached that target for the coming state election, in both winnable and marginal seats. I will be very proud to welcome those new women into this Parliament after the next election. It will be a much better place for having a stronger component of women, who bring a very different point of view into Parliament. That does not take anything away from my male colleagues, but we need to even it up somewhat. I will also touch briefly on an organisation called EMILY’s List - an acronym for early money is like yeast; that is, it makes the money grow. It is only in its very formative years in Australia. I co-convene that organisation nationally with my very good friend, the former Premier of Victoria, Joan Kirner. We have worked very hard over the past four years. We do not get involved in pre-selection processes within the Australian Labor Party, but we do support, mentor and train women who are pre-selected for the Australian Labor Party and who subscribe to the principles of equity and justice, self-determination and full participation, are pro-choice and support child care, equal pay and diversity. One of the wonderful things that I take from the creation of EMILY’s List in Australia is that, in the organisation’s four short years of existence, it now has almost 2 000 members Australia-wide and has provided some $260 000 to Australian Labor Party women who are standing for election around this nation. I am very proud of that fact and have been very involved in promoting and assisting women during those four years. I am looking forward to having a little more time to concentrate on that organisation and to further the work it does. One thing that has become very clear is that the only way we can assist in the election of more women is by providing them with support mechanisms and finance so they can compete on an equal footing. I will also talk a little about some of the highs and lows that I have experienced in my years in the Labor Party, in particular within the parliamentary system. It has often been very tough. The year 1990 was a particularly difficult time for our Caucus when we changed Premiers. I also participated in the very difficult election post the release of the WA Inc Royal Commission report. They were very difficult times for us, and that summed up the first four years that I was here. Being a backbencher in government - as I am sure I do not have to remind my colleagues on the other side - is not an easy position to be in. I could probably count on the fingers of two hands the number of speeches I made in this place in those first four years. I had always found public speaking quite difficult, and to some extent that is what held me back from putting myself forward to be a parliamentary representative for so many years. I think I have overcome that in the last two terms. When we were unfortunately relegated to the opposition benches in 1993, I had to learn pretty quickly how to get up and talk about literally anything. However, I have a recollection of the then Whip, Hon Tom Helm, asking me to speak for half an hour on a Bill. I refused and said I would not speak on an issue about which I knew nothing. I made it clear at the outset that I like to know what I am talking about. That is perhaps one of the reasons that when I do speak in this place - although they may not agree with my views - members take a bit of notice of what I have to say. I say to most members in this place that if they want to be taken seriously they must do some preparation and must know what they are talking about. Some members think they are contributing if they simply speak. However, it is far better to be prepared and to know what one is talking about than to talk about nothing. I shall concentrate briefly on what were for me the parliamentary highs and lows. I am a bit sad that I have not achieved more. Obviously, the pinnacle for me was two years ago in May 1998 when I achieved the task I set myself to have the abortion law reform legislation passed through this place. I now look back at the four months that it took from the charging of two doctors to the passing of the Bill on 21 May - the ninth anniversary of my election to this place - and wonder how I survived the pressure of that time, with all the long nights and so forth that every member experienced. I was the proponent of that legislation, which, because it was not backed by any one political party,

3744 [COUNCIL] brought a new way of bringing legislation into this place. I do not necessarily agree with Hon Norm Kelly who said that we should observe more often our conscience. If we did, we would get very little done in this place if more legislation were debated on a conscience-vote basis. I take this opportunity to say to the Leader of the House, Hon Norman Moore, that I appreciate very much the leadership he showed in this place at that time. I know we had a different philosophical perspective on the issue; however, the way in which he managed this place and the way in which you, Mr President, chaired the debate was for me very telling. When one reads the Hansard of some of the debates in the other place, I know where I would rather have been to debate the Bill; it was definitely in this place. Mr President, your charge of this House and the way you conducted us was very much a reflection of your ability to chair this place and I thank you very much for that. At times I thought you were a bit hard on me - you made sure I stuck to the issues. In the last evening of the debate, when three motions were moved and passed, you kept me very much on a narrow path; you did not let me stray off it. Although I endured difficult times during that debate - some of the scars may never heal - I was nevertheless proud of myself for not letting personalities get in the way in which I conducted myself in this House. It was very much an example of how legislation can be made under difficult and trying circumstances, and I am pleased that I and the people who supported me in that process were able to achieve that. I can honestly say that I came into this place with an agenda and I achieved that agenda. As I said at the time, the legislation is not perfect but at least people know where they stand in this State and women can no longer be imprisoned for something that is very much an issue of social justice. I will now speak about two more areas of legislation with which I was involved. In 1994 I was in charge, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, of the adoption legislation that rewrote the Adoption of Children Act 1896. As members know, I subsequently introduced a private member’s Bill based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Legislation. That period was a bit of a low for me because vetoes on information and contact between adoptees and relinquishing parents has not been removed. I know that the 1994 legislation has been reviewed and that new legislation is in the pipeline; I hoped that it might be introduced before I left, but that is not the case. I charge those members who were part of that legislation committee process to ensure that the unanimous position of that committee - which was coalition Government-dominated - is adopted. I was also involved, over a period of eight years, with an attempt to reform the motor vehicle repair industry through licensing and registration of service outlets, and to create a decent mediation regime for people who have problems with accounts. My brother has worked in that industry for a long time. I spoke to him this morning and he said that that was one area of legislation in which I did not achieve the result I wanted. That was not through any fault of mine or either major political party. I served as chairman on the committee appointed by the then Minister for Consumer Affairs, Hon Yvonne Henderson, and was also a member of the committee reappointed under the then Minister for Fair Trading, Hon Peter Foss, which was chaired by the member for Geraldton. Those committees reported their findings. However, throughout the process there was incredible resistance by the Ministry of Fair Trading to the reforms that the committees wanted to introduce. The committee recommended a stand-alone co-regulation model to be supported by industry, government and the Ministry of Fair Trading. The Labor Party, and I am sure the Liberal Party, will take that policy through to the next election. I am hopeful that the legislation will get up in the next term of government. New South Wales is the only State in Australia that boasts that kind of legislation, and has had it for 20 years. Every incoming Government in that State - Labor or Liberal - experiences the same push by the fair trading departments to repeal or amend that legislation. I charge all members to ensure that that legislation is finally successful. They are a couple of things that I have not been able to achieve in my time in Parliament, but I will be watching that situation in the future. I will now thank some people, and here I may become emotional again. My colleagues who sit on either side of me in this House both told me to leave the “Ross” word until last - so I will. For members of Parliament to do their job well, they must have good and loyal staff. In the almost 12 years that I have been a member, I have been blessed with reliable and loyal staff. Carol Treloar was my electorate officer for the first nine and a half years of my service to Parliament. She had worked for a previous member of Parliament. We went through some highs and lows together, but she was a wonderful supporter and a great person to work with. She job-shared for about six years of that time with Julie Kroeber, who remains with me today. Julie is also a trusted and loyal staff member. During that time Julie has had two lots of maternity leave and now has four wonderful children who keep her on her toes, but she works for me just one day a week now, and she is the best financial records keeper any member of Parliament could want to have. I thank both Carol and Julie for their service over the years. I have on my current staff Liz Vivian, who has been with me now for the best part of two years. Liz came to me from the office of Megan Anwyl, the member for Kalgoorlie, who had trained her very well. It was the first time Liz had worked as an electorate officer - she is a former nurse - and I was lucky when she decided to make the move to Perth. She has been tremendous. She has participated in the Seniors portfolio, for which I have been spokesperson for Labor over the past four years, and I know that in my retirement she will be snapped up by one of my colleagues because she is so talented and has been a great source of support over the past couple of years. Helen Mills has been a stalwart worker for members in the Australian Labor Party. Helen joined me about 15 months ago as my research officer. I say thank you to Helen; she is roughly the same age as I am, so we are of the same vintage and I guess we understand each other very well. She is tremendous to have around. I have been blessed and a lucky person to have had over the 12 years of my service only four staff members.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3745

I also pay tribute to my friends. As a single woman with no partner, one of the things we rely on for emotional support and to sustain us is to have a very strong network of friends. I have some wonderful friends, particularly my friends in the Victoria Park area - a crowd of women we call the Victoria Park feminist precinct - and they have been the means of my keeping my feet on the ground. They will tell me when they disagree with things that are happening, and that is a great way to ensure that one keeps in touch with the community. It is easy to come into this place and lose contact with ordinary people and, because of my years of experience in the political system, I knew it was very important to ensure that I maintained those links with the community and I have done that through a great group of friends. I also have a quarter of a century friendship with Val Ferguson, the former member for the East Metropolitan Region. I was very sad about the way Val left Parliament and the tough negotiations that went on in relation to her preselection at the time. I guess that has put some strain on our friendship, but that is mending and I am pleased to say that I can still look forward to many years of friendship with Val. I also thank Pat Tassell. I met Pat in the northern suburbs in 1983 and she went on to work for members of Parliament but now has her own employment and training business in the northern suburbs. Pat has been a great source of inspiration to me and certainly a very close friend. I want to say a few words about special colleagues who have been mentors and friends within the Labor Party. I want to acknowledge my mentor, Pat Giles. I worked for her for eight years before I entered Parliament. She is an inspiration to me. She is now 72 years old and continues to provide incredible commitment to the community - not just at the local level where, in the past 12 months, she has also convened Womens Legal Services Inc (WA). She still has international connections. She is the President of the International Alliance of Women. She is also involved in the Global Women’s Health Commission for the World Health Organisation. She is constantly an inspiration to me. If I can be half the contributor she is when I am her age I will be very proud. I also want to thank the member for Fremantle, Jim McGinty. Jim and I go back a long way. When the left faction formalised in the Labor Party in this State, he and I were the convenor and coordinator of the faction. Jim helped me make the decision to put my name forward to contest the preselection for the South Metropolitan Region in 1988. It was a hard decision for me as I had a lot of self-doubt at the time. Jim knew my history and had faith in me. He continues to have faith in me and has offered me the hand of friendship over a long time. I admire him enormously for his decision to stand down as leader of the Labor Party in 1996. He knew the party was not performing well because of his leadership and that some very good Labor members were in jeopardy of losing their seats. He made the incredibly courageous decision to step down as leader. I admire him even more now for the contribution he continues to make to the Labor Party. Over the past four years he has demonstrated incredible dedication. His work will help ensure that the Labor party will become the new Government after the next election. I also acknowledge the members for Maylands, Bassendean and Thornlie. They are all close friends. I wish them all well for the future and I hope that they will become ministers in the new Labor Government. I acknowledge the member for Kalgoorlie, Megan Anwyl. We have got to know each other well over the past four years since she was elected in a by-election. Megan and I share the same birthday but I have to say I wish I were her age! She is a fighter. It is not easy to represent a seat like Kalgoorlie. She is the first woman to have done so. She does her job very well. She is facing a tough battle in the election. One should not become too political at a time like this but I can understand the coalition strategy. I have been in politics for a long time and I know that, given the current political pendulum, the Government has to win seats to offset those it will lose. I can understand the rationale of targeting Megan. She has shown over the past few years that she fights for her constituency. She knows that her constituency wants good health care and good access to education services and to know that the community is safe and secure. I have seen her grow in her parliamentary career. I think it was a big ask to fill the shoes of the former Deputy Premier of the State, Ian Taylor. Megan Anwyl has done her job very well, and has been a credit to both the Australian Labor Party and women in political life. I wish her well in the next election. I know that she will be a minister in the next Labor Government. I look forward to the contribution that she will make in that role. I turn now to this Chamber and to the many friends I have made during my service of almost 12 years. As people have said earlier - and Hon Christine Sharp mentioned this - it is true that we have very robust debate and some conflict in this place, but across all the parties some very strong friendships will endure. I have enjoyed my years of service with my colleagues on this side of the House, albeit in the past eight years in opposition. I have seen the pendulum swing a couple of times and it is now on the way back. I particularly acknowledge my colleagues on my left and right. I have known Hon John Cowdell for 25 years and I have known Hon Ken Travers for about 15 years. We are lefties! We have come through some pretty tough times in the party system. Over the past couple of years they have given me a lot of stick in this place, largely because I am the shadow spokesperson for Seniors, but they have tried to persuade me to stay. They have told me they will construct some ramps, and they have even promised a silver-plated Zimmer frame, if I stay! I must disappoint both of them. I am very comfortable about the fact that I am leaving this place. I thank them for their support and friendship, and look forward to seeing great things from both of them. I also acknowledge Hon Kim Chance. Kim and I sat together on the government benches for a while. I was thinking last night during one of the divisions, that Hon Dexter Davies now occupies the seat I had when I first came into this place. If the Labor Party is on the other side of the House after the election next year, I would not mind once more occupying that seat until 21 May.

3746 [COUNCIL]

I acknowledge some of my mates in the coalition. I really do class people such as Hon Derrick Tomlinson and Hon Peter Foss as friends. They were also part of the class of 1989. We got to know one another quite early in the piece when we served on the inaugural Standing Committee on Legislation. We did some pretty good work on that committee. I enjoyed my time on that committee and getting to know them. Latterly, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, I got to know Hon Barry House and Hon Murray Criddle very well in that context. I also mention Hon Barbara Scott; there is no doubt that we have had our differences but I class Barbara as a friend and wish her well. I am pleased that she intends to serve another term. As a fellow member for the South Metropolitan Region, I am pleased that she will be leading that ticket. One of my legacies to this place is that the Labor Party ticket for the South Metropolitan Region will be led by three women. Hon Jim Scott may see four women out of five candidates elected for the South Metropolitan Region. That is not beyond the realms of possibility, because I was elected from the No 3 position for the Labor Party when I came into this place in 1989. I also acknowledge my friends in the Greens (WA) and the Australian Democrats. We have been through some tough times in the past few years, but I class them all as good friends. I was very moved by what Chrissie Sharp had to say this morning. Five women members were in this place when I was first elected in 1989. We now have seven women members, and after the next election I am sure there will be another influx, which will be to the betterment of this place. Lastly, I thank the people who serve us very well in this Parliament. I particularly pay tribute to Marilyn David and Cathy Harrison on the switchboard. I give them credit for helping bring up my son in the early years. He was aged only 10 years when I was first elected, and Marilyn and Cathy found me whenever he needed me. I thank them. They are tremendous people and Parliament will be poorer when they leave. One of them has been here longer than I have, and we all owe them a great debt as they are tremendous and do a wonderful job serving Parliament. I also thank the Hansard staff, who have been just incredible. I know when I first came in here I was a pretty awful speaker, and the reporters turned out some wonderful work with my speeches. I highlight one issue: I remember in 1994 the famous trouser debate in this place, and I take some credit for ensuring that, in the cold of winter, female Hansard staff are now allowed to wear trousers in this House. They are some of the little anecdotes from my time here. I thank all the staff in the Chamber, particularly Laurie Marquet and Ian Allnutt. Ian and I have sons of a similar age, and we have compared notes over the past 12 years. Both our sons were pretty young when I arrived, and they are now grown young men. We can both be proud of them. Also, I note the other people who serve the Chamber. I hope another woman will take Donna Artingstall’s place as there are not enough women here. I wish Donna well in achieving motherhood, and I am sure she will delight in that position. I thank the education officers, the dining room staff and all the people who serve us here. It is a pretty daunting task at times and it is done very well. Last, but not least, is my son, who has been an inspiration over the past 12 years. It has not been easy for him being an only child with a parent who has not been around most of the time. I tried to ensure that the time we spent together was quality time. I say to any parent who comes into this place, quality not quantity counts. I said in my first speech that he was my best friend - he continues to be. I am very proud of him. He is a wonderful young man who has a great contribution to make to the future. I wish him well. I hope he achieves his dream to play cricket for Western Australia; I will support him all the way. I thank Ross for making my life as rich as it is. I turn now to the future. As somebody said, “Italy, here I come”, although before I go I must spend a couple of years learning the language. I offer an invitation to any member who can help me pay for it to come with me. I have always loved Italy; perhaps it goes back to my childhood. I was there during summer a couple of years ago and found that it is very much like where I grew up. Something draws me to it and I look forward to going there and spending quality time soon. I now refer to the debate on ageing. The community must acknowledge it and look at it more positively. The focus of the debate seems to be on care, which affects only about 15 per cent of the population. The other 85 per cent of people aged 60 plus are well aged and want to remain that way. Over the next 25 years the percentage of older people in this State will double to 25 per cent. One in four people will be aged 60 and over. We are faced with the challenge to ensure that older people come back into the mainstream political and social systems; currently they are marginalised. I intend to involve myself in the debate. The community can draw on much wisdom and experience from older people. I will be active in the community, worrying the politicians, to ensure their voices are heard. I have always been clear about my time in this Parliament. In March 2001 I will have worked in salaried positions in the political system for 28 years - almost three decades. It is time for me to move on and do something different. I have always subscribed to the view that I wanted to choose my own time to leave, and I have done that, despite some people across this nation having urged me to stay. Members have a finite time to make a contribution. I have made mine and I have enjoyed it immensely. During the time of my service, particularly in Parliament, I have tried to the best of my ability to serve my electorate and my community. I believe I have done that pretty well. I have facilitated progressive law reform through this Parliament, and I have demonstrated my loyalty and worked hard for the Australian Labor Party. I am proud of my contribution. I look forward to the forthcoming election and I will work to ensure the election

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3747 of a Labor Government, as I have done over the past three and a half decades. I look forward to that occurring early next year. I am sure Parliament will return prior to 21 May. If that is not to be, I wish all members well in whatever they choose to do in the future. I noted what Hon Norman Moore said earlier about intending to be in Parliament for another 14 years. Much work needs to be done in the community. With the member’s experience, he has a tremendous contribution to make to the ageing community. I urge members to think about that. I have been privileged to be in some focus groups over the past six months with people who have turned 60 and over. I was struck by the ill-prepared nature of men to contemplate retirement. That is another challenge for the community. Hon N.F. Moore: Do not let this grey hair in any way affect your judgment; I am only 36 years old! Hon CHERYL DAVENPORT: There are many challenges in the community and I look forward to them. I wish all members well. I have thoroughly enjoyed my years in this place. [Applause.] HON MURIEL PATTERSON (South West) [1.25 pm]: I thank all the people who said those very kind words about me. It is rather lovely to think that I did not have to die before they were said. I am very appreciative and very humble. I will share with members the following words - The real freedoms are to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious, to be independent, and to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek reward. These are the real freedoms, for these are of the essence of the nature of man. Those words of great wisdom and direction were spoken in 1949 by the founder of the Liberal Party, Robert Gordon Menzies. I humbly thank members of the Liberal Party south west branches who have allowed me the privilege of representing them during the past 12 years. I have done this with great enthusiasm and worked to the very best of my ability. It has been the highlight of my life. When I was asked whether I could contribute to politics, I replied that a vote for me would be a vote for commonsense and many of life's experiences. My mission has been always to place value on and to give guidance to families, to improve conditions for the rural and country sector and small business and to see a proud and vibrant Australia with all peoples occupying this land and putting Australia first while appreciating their past cultures. I said that in my maiden speech and today I encourage continuation of those goals because they are never fully achieved. One of my most memorable achievements was to chair the ministerial task force for Western Australian families and to see the Government implement many of its recommendations. I have witnessed the Government’s commitment to the rural sector in building new schools, police stations, health centres and sporting facilities and in funding an enormous amount of construction on country roads. Such measures give rural people the quality of life they deserve. With the introduction of workplace agreements, the Government has provided small business with the most effective assistance ever. Many employers are recruiting staff knowing that they can adjust conditions and working hours to suit their circumstances. They are no longer wary of employing new staff. I suggest that this is a contributing factor to the lower unemployment levels. Over the years we have seen and heard many lobbyists, delegations and protests. On one occasion while standing on the front steps of Parliament House with tears streaming down my face, I witnessed an amazing delegation when the disabilities lobby came to Parliament, not to protest, but to give thanks and recognition to the Premier and government members for all they do for the disabled and their carers. They presented the Premier with a large cane basket full of individual posies of flowers to which each person present had contributed. It is difficult for people to imagine the huge effort it took for both the disabled people and their carers to assemble there to make that wonderful gesture. This Government leads the nation in the provision of care to those who need it most. We are a caring government and conscious of our responsibilities. I was recently speaking to Hon Barry MacKinnon, a previous Liberal leader, who I am happy to say is still chairman of the Disability Services Commission and actively engaged in helping others to enjoy a greater capacity for life. This brings me to a personal tragedy my family experienced when our eldest son, Warren, as a passenger in a car involved in an accident, suffered serious neurological damage. It was a difficult time for me, which I did not handle very well. I will be forever grateful to those in this House who showed me great kindness, support and understanding. It was like being part of an extended family. As a matter of fact, I always look forward to returning to this House to be with my fellow members because it has become a second home. As I look around this House and see the faces of my colleagues I can assure them that each one has a story for me! Looking opposite brings back fond memories of the times I shared with Hon Tom Stephens, Hon Nick Griffiths and Hon Ed Dermer when we opposed the abortion Bill, as did Hon Barbara Scott, Hon Greg Smith, Hon Murray Nixon, Hon Murray Montgomery and, at times, Hon Norman Moore. Some say we lost our fight, but I do not consider that we

3748 [COUNCIL] did. The debate on the abortion Bill provided the opportunity to publicise and educate the public on this very important issue. People have the right to make their own decision, but it should be an educated one. Sometimes the debates in this House are profound and important to our constituents and very educational to members. At other times, I wonder why we are here wasting so much time. However, I know this is not a unique situation. Recently, I read an early twentieth century English parliamentary debate on whether women’s hair should be short or long. The House of Lords voted 3:1 in favour of long hair while the House of Commons was divided between 231 for long hair and 217 for short hair. Lord Amphthill said, “A woman with short hair was as unsightly as a woman in prison garb with her nose cut off”. The Earl of Birkenhead said he was “too old to know anything about women’s hair” and the Earl of Southampton diplomatically said that he liked them “all ways”. Sir Ashton Pownall gave the ultimate politician’s reply when he said, “At present, I have 25,000 women voters - I refuse to commit political suicide by commenting on a subject of such grave importance.” The committee system in this House is superior to committee systems in many Parliaments around the world. I have been privileged to sit on a number of committees, the longest being the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, of which I was an inaugural member. At this stage, I thank the members of that committee, one of whom was Hon Bob Thomas, and who are now Hon Ed Dermer, Hon Simon O'Brien and Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich. I give credit and thanks to Hon Mark Nevill for his friendship and chairmanship, which has been fair, intelligent, and of great interest to members. I believe the recommendations made by that committee are seriously worth considering by the ministers involved for the benefit of all Western Australians. I for one sincerely hope that Mark is returned to this House next year. Often when debates are in progress, it strikes me that all members have the same goals, but see different philosophical ways of achieving them. I thank the Opposition Whip, Hon Bob Thomas, for his cooperation and honesty in keeping agreements on pairs. As a member, I am gratified by the calibre of the Clerks of the Legislative Council. Mr Laurie Marquet, the Clerk of the Legislative Council, has vast knowledge and has always been willing to answer my queries with clear, concise explanations. I even enjoy the expositions. The Deputy Clerk, Mr Ian Allnutt, remains forever courteous and helpful, as have each of the attendants of this House, from Malcolm Peacock to other staff members who have come and gone from time to time. They have all made a contribution to our wellbeing. Of course, the silent heroes are the Hansard reporters who miraculously make sense of the words we impart. Over recent years, Parliament House has been restored stage by stage, which work has been encouraged and guided by the President, Hon George Cash, and the Clerk, Laurie Marquet. This is appreciated by many people, as we see this beautiful old building regain some of its past glory. What a wonderful heritage we will leave to our next generation. I give my heartfelt thanks to Teena Beale, the parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the House, for her efficiency, which she delivers in such a delightful manner, and I also thank Julie Holmes. Teena does the loveliest things. This morning, she came into my office and presented me with a little gardenia that she had picked from her garden and said, “I want you to wear this today, Muriel.” I mention also the committee staff; Cathy Harrison and the other staff in the post office; and the staff in all the other services - security, library and gardening - not forgetting, of course, ever, the catering staff, who have helped me keep so healthy. The staff of this Parliament are unique, and I do not believe we could ever wish for more obliging and kinder people. When we go into the Premier's office, there is Wendy Ireland, and when we go into the President's office, there is Lorraine Coogan, and it just gives us such a lovely feeling. No man or woman is an island, and never more so than as a member of Parliament. I pay tribute to my Albany electorate officer, Sandra Scott, who has been a terrific help in my work. I have received credit on occasions, which I accepted at face value, but I passed the credit to Sandra when it was deserved. I have been part of a united south west team with Hon Barry House, our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, and Hon Bill Stretch, our party secretary, and over the years we have worked and supported each other in representing South West Region. It has been my pleasure to enjoy their company and friendship, knowing that each one of us has something different to contribute; therefore, we are dependent on each other and are working for the same goal. The south west is a wonderful part of this State, and I have met some fabulous people. We speak so much about the environment, but it behoves us to remember that people are part of the environment - the most important part - and we should never lose sight of that. We live in a glorious State and are the envy of most other countries, and it is saddens me when I hear negative remarks about Western Australia. This State belongs to us all, and for this reason we must share its bounties. By this I mean we must give industries and people opportunities to work according to their capabilities. Other people view this in the same way. This is not just a Liberal philosophy. I refer to the book Confessions of a Failed Finance Minister that was written by Peter Walsh, a former Labor Senator for Western Australia and Minister for Minerals and Energy and Minister for Finance in the Hawke Federal Government. I am indebted to Peter Walsh, who understands where our wealth comes from and has a vast understanding of the nation's economy, for taking the time to expound this knowledge in the written word. He has written a very powerful book, and I urge members of all persuasions to read it.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3749

At this stage I acknowledge Hon Barbara Scott, my only female colleague on this side of the House. It is gratifying to know that she was elected for her ability and not her gender. Barbara has made a great contribution. Mr President, I had always aspired to the position of Whip and was appreciative of my colleagues for their vote of confidence in me in both the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth Parliaments. No-one could have had a better team than this coalition team. Coalition members have remained courteous, cooperative and obliging to me at all times. As a matter of fact - I do not know whether I dare say it - I have a real affection for each of them, and I sincerely hope our friendship does not end with the closing of this Parliament. I thank Hon Murray Criddle for his outstanding contribution to transport, in freight and roads, which has benefited people throughout the State. I think it is only people who are in industry or who travel a lot who appreciate what a terrific job he has done. I thank Hon Peter Foss for making our homes a safer place with his recent Bill, and for all he has contributed to our justice system. He introduced reforms in prisons and workable methods of rehabilitation. Some of those reforms have been visionary and very successful. When all is said and done, that is our ultimate aim. I thank the Leader of the House, Hon Norman Moore, for his efforts to unite us as a team. He does a good job at that; he even invited us all to the Avon Descent this year. An event like that produces a lovely atmosphere and bonds us all. We all meet once a year for a night out, and it is a pleasant time. We thank him also for his vigorous fight to improve education and sport and recreation, particularly in country areas. We thank him for his fight for a fair deal in mining, our largest export industry. One day he will be recognised as the minister who led the State in the development of a successful convention centre. We thank him. Mr President, you have been a leader in opposition, a leader in government, and now President. At all times you have gained our respect for your ability, fairness and friendship. We are grateful. Life in politics is not all seriousness. The Liberal members of the Legislative Council meet at the end of each fiscal year for a few hours to have a fun time and recognise the work that has been done. Part of the evening includes the presentation of a Whip’s award to a member who has made some contribution to the Parliament. This is expected to be presented with a humorous speech. However, I am not very good at humorous speeches, so I chose to put them in verse. I recite to the House the verses I wrote for the presentation of my first and my last awards. Members can work out who they refer to. He came to us a loyal and trusted one A country chap undoubtedly, Koorda’s favourite son! “I’m here for the good of all and not defined by borders” That was fine before he spied our standing orders. Never one to miss a chance, to gain the upper hand Something he quickly learned while tilling Koorda land. “These rules are old and out of date, let’s get with the time, I will not let it go” became his constant chime. “Committees are the way to go you’ve got to give them range, Before we can do that we have to make the change”. So up came copy number one and soon draft twenty four George said “Get him out of here, before he dreams up any more”. God made heaven and earth and all therein, about a week Without a copy or a draft just common sense, so to speak, No one wants to change the plan we’re more than satisfied You could have knocked me down, when came his motion to be tried. It really begs the question why a motion such as this With all the changes to be made was this really his? One does not doubt his sincerity was there just a tiny fudge? Far from me to say but you may be the judge. Amendments came in thick and fast, and tore the thing apart, And to a lesser man, he would have lost all heart. This man is made of sterner stuff and took it on the chin, I’ve heard he’s offering 10 to 1 these standing orders will stay in! We know but little of what may come next Nor can we follow all his detailed text But now, we do know how to vote and when to pee And thank goodness, he left us our afternoon tea. The award of June 2000 was my last as Whip, and I presented it with the following verse -

3750 [COUNCIL]

As usual this award is couched in rhyme This of course will be for the very last time As I pondered past times - the good, the bad, and some jolly I confess to feeling somewhat melancholy Many struggle to find the meaning of life Where suggestions abound and solutions rife, Searching in places like India, the Orient and Kathmandu Well - I found it right here thanks to you. One enters this place, to serve, and give their all This we all know can be a very tough call During the twelve years has been a huge learning curve To wit survival comes - providing one has the nerve. I know each one of you I'll surely miss Perhaps I should just leave with a hug and a kiss Great memories are mine to take as I depart Memories, that always will have a place in my heart How could I forget Pete's matching ties braces and socks If I were a betting girl - I'd say they matched his jocks And Max with his gift to untangle budgets taxes and tolls And guessing if he'll show up in the Bentley or in the Rolls And Barry's love of cricket and also his neighbour's wine, and Bruce's Lotto knowledge he's always confident we're next in line. There’s Simon in moments like these there's a minty in the dish And Derrick's demise would be the A double C's only wish Of course Ray the reserved one - until his ire is raised, And Murray who remains cool, calm and always unfazed And Bill's passion for the land and at length will extol And Greg's contempt for the Greens oh bless his soul! Barbara's knowledge of health and childhood care She's always ready for her members with time to share And Norman - who spent time with the beautiful Elle Were George's daily prayers for Norman maybe time will tell! Now such a notion would never cross my mind - For Norm's the most honourable chap one would find I recall him once even being called a saint Cos I believe it was he who caused Ljiljanna to faint. George our President with understanding of - things - legal With ecclesiastical demeanour and persona regal Oh yes he's the one who confesses to speeding And addiction to the share market is constantly feeding With the Whip's award there is a tradition Only one person to be named that's the position. But what's to be done, when this I'm unable to do Forget tradition and simply name two. Now having faced the dilemma of no monthly cheque That's no Moore Cash well what the heck - I suppose I could find work as a gardener or storeman and maybe I could get a reference from George and Norman So you know the reason they receive this award Be it anyone else is something I cannot afford. Oh! There's also another reason why this award I bestow - It's in appreciation to two great guys I'm privileged to know. I acknowledge my husband Rol's contribution to my career. When the state president of the Liberal Party telephoned Rol one evening and asked him whether he was stopping me from nominating as a candidate for the South West Region, Rol said he knew nothing about it. Rol is not renowned for his tact. Rol asked whether they had approached me. I said they had been asking me for several years, but I had declined. He asked why, because he thought I would

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3751 love to do it. I said I would, but that I did not think it would do our marriage much good as I would be continually away. Rol said that as our marriage had survived everything else, he was sure that it could cope with politics, and that he would support me. Happily he has supported me, and our marriage has survived. We will celebrate our fiftieth wedding anniversary before I leave this Parliament. I acknowledge my colleagues who are also retiring: Hon Cheryl Davenport - in a democracy we do not always have to agree, I accept that; Hon Bob Thomas and Hon Murray Montgomery - this will only be a farewell from Parliament as they both live in Albany; and Hon Max Evans, who is our most senior member, and, I suspect, one of the fittest. My friendship with Max goes back before politics as we both worked at senior levels in the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I learned to respect him then and I respect him greatly now. To you all, my very best wishes for life after Parliament. For those on this side of the House, whom I expect to remain here and return after the next election, I urge them to carry on with and recall regularly the mission statement of Sir Robert Menzies, and to support Premier Richard Court, who is an honourable man of strength, personal values, compassion and vision. He is worthy of your support. In closing I wish each member of this House and their families a very very happy festive season. [Applause.] HON MAX EVANS (North Metropolitan) [1.49 pm]: I should just say thank you very much, but I have a few things to say. Members were talking before about speed. I said to Murray Nixon last night that I might go too fast and that he should kick me if I did. I said to him a little while ago, “Let me go fast. I might need to.” I have enjoyed the privilege of being a member of this House. For the first 28 years of my life, I lived within three blocks of Parliament House, in Richardson Street and Colin Street. I often used to wander around Parliament House and sit in the gallery. There used to be old wooden steps that led up to the gallery, and they were very treacherous. However, I had an interest in the Parliament. I joined the Liberal Party in 1948. About 400 people attended the last state conference, but I think only 10 people put up their hands to say they were members of the Liberal Party in 1948. I joined what was called the Legion of Liberty for all the young Liberals, with some boys from Scotch College. I have had a close association with the Liberal Party. In 1949 I started working for Sir Charles Court. He was not even thinking of politics in those days. It has been a great privilege for me to be in this place, and I have enjoyed it very much. I thank all the friends I have made here during that period. If I have been successful, particularly during the period when I was a minister, as well as at other times, I owe it to my wife Barbara. I thank her. Barbara has been the most wonderful companion, and I thank Hon Nick Griffiths for his comments about her. What she did for Hon Nick Griffiths she did for many other people at functions - she looked after them all. She can remember faces much better than I can, and she will say that this is so-and-so or that is so-and-so. Over the years when I was the Chief Commissioner of Boy Scouts, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, a backbencher and a minister, I attended and hosted many functions, and Barb was absolutely wonderful. It made my life a lot easier. It is often very difficult for country members whose wives are not in the city. Also, my family has given me great support in that regard. During my time in politics, I have met a lot of people. I have enjoyed the company of all my ministerial colleagues in this House. Hon George Cash started off as a minister, he was then a backbencher, and he is now the President. I also mention Hon Peter Foss, Hon Eric Charlton and Hon Norman Moore. During my ministerial time, I also enjoyed working with my chief executive officers. They had a wonderful dinner for me after I retired as a minister. It was just great. We had a real club spirit. I did not work with policy officers; I worked directly with my CEOs whenever anyone had a problem. Vic Evans of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia and his board did a lot of very good things and made it a good, strong organisation - as good as any in Australia. We were initially presented with a balance sheet with a minus of $330m, so there were a few problems there. Vic has been a great friend of mine. The girls at the front desk said, “Is he your older brother or your younger brother?” I said, “You can pick and choose. I don’t mind.” However, he is not a relation. Peter Farrell, the Chief Executive of the Government Employees Superannuation Board, probably had the most difficult job of all my CEOs. He was responsible for putting the West State superannuation scheme into place, as well as a number of other things over the years. It has not been an easy job. I thank him for his support. Jan Stewart of the Lotteries Commission has done a marvellous job. She was appointed CEO when I became the minister. The results of her work and that of her team can be seen throughout Western Australia. Ray Bennett is another real success story with the Totalisator Agency Board. I appointed him Chairman of the Western Australian Greyhound Racing Authority. When Merv Hill left the TAB, Ray Bennett sought appointment to the TAB - I did not appoint him. He became the CEO of the TAB. He has done a marvellous job and is highly respected by his board. Alastair Bryant of the State Revenue Department has been a great worker. He has changed many things, and he accepted my recommendations to change legislation. Barry Sargeant probably had the hardest job. Before the 1993 election, a large number of highly contentious matters were raised in the racing, gaming and liquor industries. Barry handled those very well, with a lot of diplomacy. He knows the whole industry and is respected by it. Roger Williams,

3752 [COUNCIL] the recently retired Valuer General, was a great help to me on many matters, which I will deal with in a minute. I have been involved with a wonderful group of CEOs, and I thank them for their friendship over the years. I also thank their staff. I have also been blessed with two wonderful electorate secretaries. Tina Wallace, who was my electorate secretary during the initial years when we were in opposition, and Paula Kennewell have looked after me very well. We all know how important our electorate secretaries are. Why or how did I get into Parliament? I was a chartered accountant in practice for 28 years with Sir Charles Court at Hendry Rae and Court. I have been President of the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Honorary Treasurer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, President of the Perth Chamber of Commerce, Chief Commissioner of Scouts in Western Australia, chairman of the finance committee of Scotch College and an Australian and state champion athlete. I have four wonderful children. I thank them for the support they have given me over the years. How and why did I get here? I was not looking for this job. I might have thought it would be a good thing in my thirties, but not at the age of 56. I was in a well-established practice doing very well when in March 1985 Richard Court and I flew out to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. We were waiting around at Perth Airport and Richard asked me whether I had considered standing for the Metropolitan Province seat that Hon Ian Medcalf was vacating. I told him I was too old and that it was too late in my life to consider such a step. However, things change after being catapulted in a plane from the deck of an aircraft carrier. After two hours my views had changed. I thought about the criticisms Muriel and I had levelled at Governments during our time at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We found fault with financial management because there was no accrual accounting, decent budgeting and so on. When I arrived home for dinner that night I put the idea to Barbara and Richard. I am very grateful for their positive response. They said that it was reasonable given that I always want to help people and do things. That was the motivating factor. My preselection was a colourful event. Hon Barbara Scott and Hon Derrick Tomlinson were there and I thank them for their support that night and the next night. We had two ballots because the scrutineers were not sure about the first result. It was a great thrill to have Derrick and Barbara join me in this place some years later. When I arrived in this place I had seven staff at Hendry Rae and Court who were being paid more than I was as a parliamentarian. Hon Peter Foss suffered the same economic fate when he arrived here. It was even worse when the tax rules changed on 1 July 1986. I was very conscious of the lack of government accountability at both the federal and state levels during my time as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I hasten to add that that has improved in recent times. My mission in life was to enshrine in government better financial management and budgeting. I cannot say that I have achieved a perfect system; I could have tried harder, but that would have taken me over the borders of other minister’s portfolios. That is another story. I came into Parliament to do that, and I believe and hope I have done a good job. The Racing and Gaming portfolio was great. I have heard that Hon Nick Griffiths asked Barry Sargeant to give him a list of all the places I have visited. When he is minister he wants to visit them too. Hon N.D. Griffiths: It is a big list. Hon MAX EVANS: Some other members will want to accompany him. All jokes aside, I have been to many race meetings and owned the back legs of a few horses. I visited those venues to become a better minister. I did not believe I could do the job properly unless I knew how it was done elsewhere. Travelling to Hong Kong, Stockholm, Paris and London proved very beneficial. On my first visit I met with those involved in totalisator agency boards and lotteries organisations. When Ray Bennett was appointed chief executive officer of the Totalisator Agency Board I told him that within his first six months in the job he must visit Hong Kong, Stockholm, Paris and London to find out what was happening. He knew enough about his own business, but I wanted him to find out about different ways of doing things. That has paid great dividends. We have had a nearly 75 per cent increase in turnover at the Totalisator Agency Board from 1992 to 2000, and we will experience another increase over the next year. In the same period, Victoria’s turnover has increased by 14 per cent and New South Wales’ turnover has increased by only 11 per cent. That would not have been possible if a minister had not visited those places first to open the doors for the chief executive officer. My involvement with the Lotteries Commission has also been a great experience. We have even held a world lotteries conference in Perth. Many changes have been made in that area. Unfortunately, the Finance portfolio did not present many travel opportunities. In fact, that area is pretty dull and boring. I worked in that area as a chartered accountant for many years, but at that time I travelled to visit clients overseas. When introducing me on one occasion in London, the Premier said that he made me the Minister for Racing and Gaming because I do not gamble, smoke or drink. That is pretty well true, too. It was good and worthwhile. I remember going to the Banque Nationale de Paris, the Commonwealth Bank and other banks in London. Deutsche Bank in Germany has also helped quite a bit since then, as has knowing the people. That was my aim.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3753

What have I done? I have tallied all the things outside my portfolios. A minister is supposed to go the races and anyone can do that. However, one of the best initiatives was to stop the $50 levy to be placed on every resident in Western Australia for the infill sewerage program, and Hon Peter Foss will remember that - he was the minister. A great story was put for putting a $50 levy on every household in Western Australia - good, bad and indifferent. The Premier and others thought it was a great idea. Environmentalists said that it was a good idea and that it would cut out the septic tank problems. However, they did not ask the people who could not afford $50. When I was the minister responsible for the Insurance Commission of Western Australia, there was a $50 levy, and I used to sign dozens of letters every week to people who had written in and complained. Luckily for me, I could read a balance sheet. That was referred to earlier, and I thank members for their comments. I knew the Water Corporation balance sheet very well because it had received a gold medal award in the preceding couple of years. The balance sheet covered everything; it was great. It indicated how much money it had. It was a very liquid organisation; it had money coming out of its ears. The developers put in $100m. It had a double rate of depreciation, and I will tell members about that one day; the tax factor is quite interesting. It depreciated on a reducing balance and then depreciated it on a replacement cost, so it was a double whammy. The total was $150m, when it should have been $75m. I knew that the cash was available, and Peter and I changed all of that even though it was seen to be a very good idea. It has borrowed some money in the end, but it will have spent the $800m. That was one of the good achievements. It happened and it was not a great impost on people. Hon Peter Foss: It was all done out of cash reserves. Hon MAX EVANS: That is right; it was. Then we wanted to establish a government property register. Roger Williams, the Valuer General, was a very creative person. I asked Roger to bring the government property register when he came to see me. He said, “I don't know whether it exists.” I said that for 10 years the Labor Government had criticised Liberal Governments for never having created a property register. John Horgan was there - he is now growing grapes down south - and he never created a property register. Both Treasury and the Government Property Office should have been kicked very hard for not creating one. Do members know why they did not do it? They were scared of failure. The biggest trouble with government departments these days is the fear of failure. If people say no, they will never make a mistake and will get promoted. If they say yes, they might make a mistake. Some members will have heard of Stormin’ Norman from Desert Storm. He said that the biggest thing he learnt in his early years after the Vietnam War was that soldiers had to be taught to have a go; they might make mistakes, but they should not be punished if they did. We must do a lot more of this. An amount of $200 000 was put aside for the government property register by the previous Government in January 1992, but no-one was game to start it. Roger and I put it together in about 12 months, no trouble at all. They had only a small personal computer, etc. We had a bit of misinformation, which is typical of Governments sometimes. The President was the Minister for Lands then. We were told that the Government owned 60 000 blocks of land at that stage. God, was that wrong! It had 180 000. We had 136 000 certificates of title and all that information was put on the register. It added up to about $12b. At least we were solvent then, and we brought it into the balance sheet. During the past five years, all these places have been inspected, and a mass appraisal-valuation was undertaken initially. Hon Murray Criddle inherited a bonanza. When the register was created for Westrail - it was in its annual report one year - it found it had $91m worth of land that it did not even know it owned. We should not have told it about that. Westrail owned 22 000 blocks of land. The Education Department is in much the same situation. I do not think any other State in Australia has a government property register yet. I do not know how a business can be run without one. A Government must know what it has and what it will do with it. I was very grateful to Roger Williams and his team for doing that, and it became very valuable to us. Very soon after we came to government, I was invited to a talk for senior chief executive officers at El Caballo in Wooroloo. They all had a common theme; they wanted to see me and speak to me. I met Kerry Sanderson and people from Agriculture Western Australia, the Department of Marine and Harbours, etc. The common theme was their dealing with Treasury. Treasury wanted to control them and made life very difficult for them; things have not changed much! I discovered from Agriculture Western Australia and the former Department of Marine and Harbours that they wanted something called net appropriations. I never knew what a net appropriation was. Hon Helen Hodgson, a tax expert, would not have known about that either. In Valuer General’s language it meant that $10m of expenditure with $200 000 of product sold produced a net expenditure of $9.8m. Before net appropriations were introduced, agencies would get $10m, sell $200 000 of product and Treasury got it all. It was no good making $300 000 because Treasury would take it all. It never provided money from the budget to expand the ability of agencies to increase sales of a product, whatever it might be, but it took all the revenue. So, with net appropriations an amount was deducted from the agencies’ budgets and they got the benefit from it and the incentive to make more money to get better equipment to serve the public a lot better. Net appropriations revenue for the Valuer General has now been lifted to $1m. The former Department of Marine and Harbours - Hon Murray Criddle would know of this - had the problem of getting $2m to

3754 [COUNCIL] dredge harbours two to three years down the line. Treasury would accept the money in the first year and there was never any money in the budget when the department wanted to dredge two to three years later. Agriculture Western Australia was afforded grants for research and so on that went to Treasury. A few months after I became Minister for Finance, I told Hon Ian Taylor, a former Minister for Finance, that I had introduced net appropriations. He said that it was probably one of the best things we had done in government. Obviously, prior to that, Ian had been told that it could not be done. As he is not a bully like I am, he did not know how to belt Treasury over the head and make it do things. I had confidence in what I was doing. I had a lot of trouble with Neville Smith in Treasury as he did not want me to do it. The first legislation in 1993 was wrong and it came back in 1994 in the right form. Now Treasury thinks net appropriations are so marvellous that every agency must comply. However, the initial fight I had for them was amazing; and it was not the only fight I had. Another interesting thing occurred in this House. One day in 1991 Hon Joe Berinson and I discussed the limitations of professional liability. I motivated chartered accountants to write to Joe about the issue, which had been around for some time. Joe, in his wisdom, looked at the problem and set up a select committee, comprising Hon Peter Foss, Hon Fred McKenzie, Hon Jim Brown and me as chairman, to look at the issue of the limitation of professional liability. Insurance premiums for chartered accountants, lawyers and engineers had gone through the roof because they were being sued because they had insurance cover for large amounts. It was better for them to practise asset-bare so that they would be protected. It was a very interesting committee, which did not conclude before the 1993 election. After the election, Hon Mark Nevill and Hon Nick Griffiths joined the committee and made a great contribution. Hon Peter Foss re-wrote the legislation that we started off with, which was legislation designed by Hon John Dowd of New South Wales. The NSW Government asked us to hold back our legislation before its was passed on the last day of the previous NSW Liberal Government. A national standards council is now working on the problem right around Australia. I record my particular thanks to Hon Peter Foss for his work on the legislation. His professional knowledge and experience was great, and this is reflected in so much other legislation he has written in the past two to three years. I believe Hon Nick Griffiths, being a lawyer, would also agree with me. Working on that legislation was an interesting experience. It will be a long time before it gets improvements made from it. It was something that we all had to do together. I have contacted the Attorneys General in Queensland and Northern Territory but I am uncertain about if and when they will do anything. When I came into the House, Hon Norm Kelly was talking about my and Hon Helen Hodgson’s interest in tax. It was a very sad day on 1 July 1986. Members wore black armbands on that day because a tax on our electoral allowances under substantiation laws was introduced. Hon Norman Moore cried for days! He and Ian Lawrence were the best paid members of Parliament. They got about $28 000 tax-free electoral allowance, being representatives of the north of the State. They lived in Perth, it was not taxed, and they did not have to substantiate its use. They then had to substantiate the expenditure. It was a sad day for a lot of members. Unfortunately, I knew too much. Members of Parliament had to substantiate the use of their cars. The Government kindly gave us $1 500 a year for a replacement car. It decided to double that to $3 000 which, after tax, left $1 500. There is no way that $1 500 a year would ever replace a car. However, there was no way that members could claim running costs, such as petrol and repairs, because at that stage under substantiation laws our home was not a place of business but was regarded as private. Hon Mick Gayfer used to drive 200 miles to his office in Parliament House but that was to be regarded as private running. Every time he drove to his electorate it was regarded as private running. We had gone backwards. Therefore, I spent some six to nine months dealing with the Australian Taxation Office in Canberra and got it to make a major change so that our home was regarded as our place of business. Another problem was that country members had to substantiate the money they got for living away from home against their per diem rate. Some lived at the Country Women’s Association, the YMCA, or at their son’s, daughter’s, uncle’s, aunty’s, boyfriend’s or girlfriend’s homes - I do not know, I did not worry. How did a member substantiate his costs against what he was paid? The tax department did not know. I got the tax department to accept the per diem allowance as tax free - which was like the old electoral allowance - so that members could offset the per diem rate with an equivalent amount of expenditure. Therefore, the amount received was not subject to income tax. It was a difficult time. Once I sorted out the problems concerning the home as the place of business matter and the per diem allowance, it was of great benefit to country members. The next big problem that members probably would not all realise - some of the older ones on this side of the House might remember - was that many members were driving rust buckets. Members were given $1 500 a year with which to replace their vehicle, but with their cars going up in value by $4 000 or $5 000 a year they could not afford to buy a new car. Members’ salaries were not that good. At that time, 11.5 per cent of the salary went to superannuation. There was a tax deduction before 30 June. If the employer made a contribution to superannuation it was not tax deductable. Prior to 1986 Hon Norman Moore paid all his superannuation - and he got a tax deduction for it. That does not happen now. He was crying every night when he went to bed. Hon N.F. Moore: I live like a church mouse. Hon MAX EVANS: I put the idea to Peter Dowding that all members should be given a government car. The cars were free of sales tax and I proved that the Government would make a profit on them. Governments were all making a

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3755 profit on cars in those days. Peter Dowding and I had a bit of a tiff - he did not like the proposal the first time and tore it up. What happened was that ministers - who are always like this - became annoyed when the backbenchers, to boost their remuneration, were to be given cars to close the gap between theirs and ministers’ salaries. The ministers could not accept that and also wanted another car. A second deal was done - our Liberal leader would not let us have a second car but most of the others in the previous Government had a second car. That was provided in the terms of employment. From that date, all members had a car or could access a $5 850 allowance plus a petrol allowance - that was the way it worked out. Things have since changed because of fringe benefit tax, sales tax and other things that have come in. Members were allowed $5 850 for a car; however, the current benchmark price of a basic car is around $17 380. Members should not be silly enough to own their own cars. That is why I went back to a government car. A guy called Rod Kemp, who is in Canberra, does not understand tax. He allowed the Australian Tax Office to reverse the whole system about a home being a place of business. However, it does not affect Western Australia and Victoria, where every member has a government car. Other States have not caught up. Members of Parliament in other States will have real problems when they do their tax returns this year and have to substantiate their business mileage allowance. I wrote and warned them, and tried to get the tax department not to change it. It will be a serious problem. Hon Peter Foss: They always do that Max. Hon MAX EVANS: Yes, the tax department always has. I have already talked about Merv Hill, the former CEO of the TAB, who left Western Australia and went to the South Australian Jockey Club. Did any members watch Business Sunday last week about directors with self-interest? The Totalisator Agency Board had the Trotting Club and the Turf Club directors with self-interest. These directors are breeders and owners who are running a business in which they are trying to help their own as much as they can. There is nothing wrong with that - they are helping an industry. However, every time the TAB got a million dollars in the bank, it had to pay it out to the codes so that they could spend it to increase stake money. This had gone on for years and there were no reserves. I had to change the board after I got the right CEO in Ray Bennett, who has been marvellous, as Hon Norman Moore would have discovered. That new board has changed the face of racing industry revenue in Western Australia. This State does not have the benefit of slot machines to assist racing, which Victoria enjoys. The Government sold off the State Government Insurance Office, which was also interesting. It was a very good decision by Geoff Gallop to appoint Ron Cohen to flog off - I mean, float - the SGIO. Thank God we had long delays in that 12 months it took to get to the workers compensation legislation, which made things a lot better. Instead of getting $65m for a $100m asset, the Government got $135m for a $100m asset. Ron was the luckiest employee in this world. He was in a business with huge revenue and he was the only employee. He pinched all he could from the insurance commission and then went out and set up a very good business. There was Paul Aslan from the CSA and another two unionists who met the Premier and me. They thought no-one should leave the Insurance Commission to work for the SGIO. The Premier has said this publicly a few times since then. I said that those fellows must be mad; they would be much better off working for a hard-nosed person like Ron Cohen than working for the Government. It turned out to be true; they have done very well. They took over the SGIO in South Australia. I had known Ron all my life; we were in athletics and we trained together. He is a very good business man. It was a good decision to get him to float the State Government Insurance Office. A new board was set up; we put on Peter Eastwood, Graeme Reynolds, Frank Merry and Frank Daly, all from different parts of the community. I did not know Michael Wright, who was on the board, so I asked Peter Foster about Michael Wright who was a former partner of the member. I knew he had been very sick at that time; Peter gave him a great build-up and he was a hundred times better than the member said he was. He has been fabulous. There were all these court cases and he was chasing all this other money. I have mentioned the WA Inc exposure. One has to be lucky in opposition to have some fun. We deal with Bills, I know that, but I had fun with WA Inc. I thank Brian Burke and all the people who created WA Inc. It was a great experience. I have boxes of stuff in my office to give to Martin Saxon for when he eventually writes his book. He is coming in next week to pick it up from me. One had to read the eastern States papers to find out what was happening with WA Inc; all the information was published over there. Because Burke was a journalist, the journalists’ union would not publish anything here, but if one read the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age one learnt all about it. A lot of the stories came from my office. Ms Hewett and Brad Collis came across to write their stories. It was quite amazing. The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust had put the compulsory third party fund together. The SGIO had cash-based accounting and did not have a clue; it did not have a balance sheet and did not know what its assets or liabilities were. It was pay-as-you-go at SGIO. I must get this in the record too. The compulsory third party Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust had $38m interest earned but not put in the accounts. How would members like that as an asset? An amount of $38m was interest earned and it was not brought into the accounts; it did not want a big profit. Years ago the Perth Mint would buy all the gold it could at the end of the year - gold was about $500 an ounce in those days - and at the end of the year the Auditor General would let the Mint value it at $50 an ounce. So the Perth Mint purchased enough gold to create a loss and on 1 July it

3756 [COUNCIL] was sold again and the Treasury did not take half the profits. It was great. No-one realised what was happening. That is why they did it. It was creative accounting. When they brought the two insurance companies together they had $790m-worth of investments and by 25 April 1988, Anzac Day, next year when Kevin Edwards agreed to a deal, Robert Holmes à Court had received $791m - $1m more than they had the previous June. Now Janet Holmes à Court is one of the wealthiest women in Australia and we are broke. Daryll Jarvis, an old friend of mine with whom I worked for some years, rang up and said, “Max, that Max Trenorden is saying some terrible things about Janet.” I said, “Daryll, it’s true.” He hung up after that. Over the years, and particularly in 1989, a number of speeches have been made about WA Inc; they are recorded in Hansard. They included speeches on account reporting and financial accountability, with comments about the Rothwells scenario - 11 April 1989; and the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill, Petrochemical Industries Co Ltd, Rothwells Bank, SGIC, Teachers Credit Society etc - 12 April 1989. In those days we only got unlimited time on a Treasurer’s advance Bill or another Bill. I spoke for two and a half hours on that one - I might do that today. Another debate took place on the Western Australia Petrochemical Industries Authority Bill and a report by the Burt Commission on Accountability - 13 April 1989; the Acts Amendment (Accountability) Bill, the need for government financial accountability - 19 April 1989; the State Government Insurance Commission, on major investment decisions, which tells all that they did, and the gambles they took were worse than going to the races - 27 June 1990; a comment on the business dealings of the State Government with emphasis on the SGIC - 28 September 1989; the WA Inc Royal Commission - the royal commission we had to have - 1 May 1991; WA Inc, was it for profit or power? - 10 May 1990. I must tell members a joke about the Clerk. I made a request to Hon Joe Berinson for information to be tabled. I wanted the details of all the deals between the SGIC, Warren Anderson and Alan Bond. The initial request ran to about two pages. Laurie Marquet came to see me and told me that I had asked for too much. The next day I put the request in again and it was half the size. The wonderful thing was that the first request went to the State Government Insurance Commission and I got all the information I wanted. Laurie never found out! I do not know why he said that; maybe he did not want me to have it. It shows that the system did not work well, because he sent down the wrong request. The files became very important for the royal commission. That is how it found out about the option that had been given to Warren Anderson on the Westralia Square site. Another good thing I did in recent times involved Homeswest’s financial management. Homeswest had 40 000 houses and several hundred blocks of flats, but it had no idea of the value of the properties, the rents that should be charged or the cost of repairs, rates and taxes. Information on the 40 000 properties was stored on computer, but it could be extracted on only one property at a time. I got Homeswest to change its systems and it can now print out on a region- by-region basis information about rents, the ratio of maintenance costs to rent and so on. It is operating much more like a business. All regional managers must now submit a “Max Evans report”. They also have exception reports, which relate to homes that need repairs worth more than 80 per cent of the rental income. I told Homeswest that it would go broke allowing that to continue. Another exception report lists all the properties valued by the Valuer General at more than $200 000. Homeswest uses it to decide whether the properties should be sold and the revenue used to buy cheaper properties. Hon Peter Foss will remember trying to get a $25m budget for a lyric theatre. He did not get very far. Everyone in the community told him that a big 2 000-seat theatre was needed. Several years later I approached the Burswood Resort Casino, which had a fabulous auditorium. After I convinced it, the resort operators spent $5m replacing all the seats with theatre seats, extending the balcony and installing lighting and pulleys. We got a lyric theatre for nothing, whereas before there were further costs for parking, land and other items and it would have been in competition with Burswood. It is a far better lyric theatre than Star City in Sydney, which has a few hundred seats from which people cannot even see the full stage. People in the audience cannot look over anyone’s shoulder as the seats are too wide; they must take a cushion to sit on to see what is going on. I have a few reflections on why I want better financial management. I have already talked about net appropriation, property registers and other things. I remember working with Hon Muriel Patterson on the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations. Hon Eric Charlton and I taught her all the tricks of the trade. She has carried on from there. Hon Muriel Patterson: I remember you doing all the talking. Hon MAX EVANS: I remember asking Treasury for four-year budgets. I was told that we could not have four-year budgets because the Federal Government would know what we were doing. I said that I did not care about that - I wanted to know what I was doing! Treasury just would not do it - maybe it did not know how to! It was scared that the chief executive officers might be able to run their businesses properly - maybe that is the reason it did not want them. Ministers in this Chamber know it is important to get some certainty so that the agencies know what they will be doing four years down the line. I wanted to give them certainty so that they could plan without changes being made every year by Treasury. A good job has been done on four-year budgets, but Treasury had to be dragged screaming to do it. I also wanted to work on accrual accounting after coming into government. I did not know anything about government property or net appropriation before I occupied the Treasury bench. We had to bring in the assets and Neville Smith

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3757 told me that accrual accounting was not possible as there was no fixed assets register - he had done nothing about it. That did not bother me, and I said we could do it without the register. Long service leave, sick leave and annual leave are now included in the accrual accounting. Debtors and creditors are also included. It is an attempt to make the accounting more meaningful. It does not really make the accounting any better; accounting is only good if people analyse expenses each month to see what they are doing. I may be giving away secrets here: Most people list expenses in alphabetical order; that is, A,B,C expenses and so on. Agencies’ accounts were not grouping accommodation, communications, travel, etc. Our accounting firm never set out accounts in alphabetical order. The accounting fees are always at the top, and clients read that first. The biggest expense is now always at the top, which is wages! I had to get my agencies to break the accounts up into sub-departments. We then started analysing the accounts. Every month agencies were still putting out “balance left to spend”. This was still happening last year. The computer worked it out for them. Chief executive officers said, “My God, we have that much to spend! Let’s go!” Most of them had not even broken down their wages between higher duties allowance and other components. In my day, we performed the higher duties for no extra pay to gain more experience. The components were higher duties allowance, sick leave, annual leave - 48 from 52 weeks and other ratios - and agencies did not have them broken down. The agencies worked out actuarially how much long service leave they should have. Instead of bringing in the amount paid out each month, they brought in the actuarial figure for each month and the pay debited to provision, so we could not measure how they were going. We found that the provision for long service leave and annual leave was getting bigger and bigger, which is correct! The Government told agencies to reduce that figure by 10 per cent. There is nothing as simple as that, so I spent some time on the figures. We needed a ratio benchmark of long service leave and annual leave as a percentage of total wages. Strangely enough, the two biggest budgets of Health and Education had the best ratios because their staff take their leave every year. In some of the other agencies in which the chief executive officers had not taken their leave for years, the ratio was up to 60 or 70 per cent of wages. We now have mechanisms in position to identify the problems. Another aspect was to carry forward expenditure. I had clients who used to build cyclone fences at the end of the year. The Government would spend a fortune issuing them cheques on 30 June to build the fences two or three months later. If people did not spend the money by the next 30 June, the Treasury would take it away from them - even this Government used to do that before I changed the policy. We changed the system so that agencies could carry forward under-expenditure to the next year. It is the simplest thing in the world. With accrual accounting in business, one did not worry about that sort of thing because it increased the profit on which one paid the tax, etc. The Government had worked on a cash accounting basis, and then the carry forward of under-expenditure was agreed to. Treasury had said that on 19 March, agencies must advise what their bank balance would be at the end of the year and how much they would carry forward. Roger Williams told me that it was absolutely ridiculous. I asked John Langoulant if he could tell me precisely what he and his wife would have in their bank account on 30 June. He said he could not and asked me why. I told him that someone in his office said that all the CEOs must tell Treasury on 19 March exactly how much cash they would have at the end of the year, because they were still working on a cash accounting basis. Those are the sorts of traumas I had to go through. It was a very hard life for me when I was handling these matters. However we sorted it out. The next year Treasury said that agencies could carry forward only 3 per cent of their budget. Three per cent of the Education or Health budget is huge. The Valuer General’s Office budget is not very much but probably far more meaningful when one thinks what the agency might want to do with it. We removed the 3 per cent idea as well and came back to commonsense. Those who know anything about accounting would have loved the government accounting system because one could not do any journal or stock entries; it was merely a cash accounting system. How much agencies had spent and how much money was left to spend was summarised. Andrew Weeks said that in New Zealand one branch of Wespac managed all the Government’s accounts and every agency had subsidiary accounts. Every night they would sweep it off and know exactly what was in the bank. They did this 20 years ago when the government accounting system was set up. The Government wanted to get all the interest and not lose it because of money left in other accounts. Thank God for Rob Hurrell, who was the State Manager of the Reserve Bank. He made Treasury move on this one because his bank had the technology and was the only bank that could do it at that stage. It did it very well for three years before the tender went to the Commonwealth Bank. He then transferred his staff to the Commonwealth Bank, and the system has worked very well. The other States are following with something similar. It is commonsense and ensures that government does not lose the interest earned and maintains some control. I was very grateful to Andrew Weeks for giving me the idea in 1993, but it took three or four years to get it through. Rob Hurrell’s involvement was the key. While I was dealing with this matter, I heard on the grapevine that government was calling for expressions of interest on a new accounting software system at a cost of $4m or $5m - this was for the accounting system I was trying to get rid of! The problem with getting money out of Treasury was that agencies such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had to write each month for another $1 000 or $2 000. If money was left over at the end of the year, it was to be paid as levies to Westminster. I said, “For God’s sake; give them one cheque a year and just trust them.” The

3758 [COUNCIL]

Clerk is nodding as he knows what I am talking about. The attitude had to change. I hope that if I have done anything, I have caused a lot of that attitude change. Presenting the budget to Parliament arose as an issue in 1993 for 1994. We had problems after the budget meeting - Hon Peter Foss was present - and I told Treasury that the budget would be presented to Parliament before 30 June 1994. Ron Hazell said that it could not be done. “You cannot do 12 months’ budget in nine months.” I said, “Do it in eight months and you’ll have a month to spare.” I had never heard of a budget taking 12 months to prepare. If one takes 12 months, the budget is out of date before it is finished and one must start again. The budget was in by 8 or 9 June that year. I said two years later that we must get the budget passed before the end of June. That was sacrilege. The Premier would not go along with it. John Langoulant convinced the Premier that I was wrong. He did not know how to cope with it. If the budget is passed before 30 June, one knows what capital expenditure will be and the new capital expenditure can start on 1 July. We used to pass the budget on 24 December on occasions, and under the Westminster system no new capital expenditure could be entered into until the budget was passed. It backfired in the first year because of earlier expenditure. I spoke to John Langoulant for a long time, and eventually we convinced the Premier it was a good idea. It worked out well and is now accepted as normal practice; it is expected that the budget will be passed before the end of June. It dragged on until the end of the year in the old days. I talked about the financial reporting of agencies. A disappointment is not converting them to adopt 13, four-week accounting periods. I said that we should pay all government employees on a monthly basis, as most of the real world does. Blue-collar workers could remain on a two-week pay period. Treasury said it was too hard and did not know how to cope with the notion. If people are to be paid fortnightly, why not have 13 four-week periods? It was too hard. They had not thought of that, as they were all economists. Every four-week period is the same today and 10 years down the line with the same number of days involved, and wages need not be adjusted. Otherwise, one has three two-week pay periods for two months of the year, which throws people out. Hon Peter Foss: Or have 27 pays. Hon MAX EVANS: That was the problem. If I had still been the responsible minister in January, I would have given written directions to my agencies to make them adopt this system, and told Treasury to go to hell. The officers could not work out how to cope with a quarter if one has four-week periods. They had reported, since the Niemeyer statements and the beginning of time, on a quarterly basis. What is a quarter? It is three moons, which has nothing to do with the real world. I will work on it. The Auditor General, Westrail and most mining companies operate on that basis. I wrote to the Premier and indicated that his old man had four-week accounting periods in the financial management system in Brown and Burns Bakery in 1948, which was better than that in most government agencies today. It is a matter of getting people to change. State Revenue has achieved a lot of changes. Chrissie Sharp spoke about legislation. There were many anomalies in the stamp duty and payroll tax legislation, and I wanted to put them right. Mr Fellowes, who was at the State Revenue Department before me, did not write one letter to the minister in 10 years telling him to rectify the anomalies in the system - not one. State Revenue was hated more than the Australian Taxation Office at the time I joined because it was so difficult to deal with. I will give members an example. A group of doctors would get together and share their overheads. The Commissioner of State Taxation grouped them together and charged payroll tax at the maximum rate and penalised them retrospectively for up to five years. That amounted to a lot of money. It took me a long time to convince the commissioner that a medical group was not a group of doctors avoiding payroll tax. Another area involved discretionary trusts. When he was in Opposition, Bill Hassell endeavoured to have passed an amendment on discretionary trusts in the Assembly. A beneficiary of a brother’s or father’s discretionary trust has no financial relationship; however, if the person dies, the department wants the money to go to the family. The commissioner considered that a beneficiary of a discretionary trust should have his business grouped for payroll tax purposes with the discretionary trust. One family was hit with a $124 000 payroll tax bill, including penalties, because it was supposed to be grouped with the others, yet there was no financial interest in it whatsoever. We had to change that legislation. I know of a similar case right now which I cannot do much about. I turn now to intergenerational farm transfers. Hon Peter Foss will have found that this happens. Members have all seen what happens with country people - dad gets to 60, 70 or 80 and marries the local barmaid, and the kids ask when will they get the farm. The father tells them that he is sorry but they might not get it. We brought in intergenerational farm transfers. The family would get it free of stamp duty when the old man died. That stamp duty on the family transfer could be $20 000, $30 000 or $40 000. That is one of the good things. State Revenue created problems by bringing in discretionary trusts, but that is another story. We amended the land tax scales. We have scaled back the land tax every year for the past five years. Self-funded retirees were to benefit on properties valued from $200 000 to $700 000. They would pay less tax if the value of the land had not increased. There have been few objections over the five years. We introduced a land tax exemption for hobby breeders and hobby owners in the racing industry. Commercially, they could not get a tax deduction from the Australian Taxation Office, but we gave them the land tax exemption.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3759

The State Revenue Department needed funds to develop the state revenue collection information system. Mr Fellowes did not have any clues about it. When one complains to the Commissioner of the State Revenue Department, one writes an objection, and he knocks it back. An appeal can then be made to the minister. I asked Mr Fellowes what happens next and he told me that I should take his advice. I told him that his advice was wrong and that I would get legal advice against him. He saw Mr Digby Blight the next week and quit. That is a true story. I asked how much the state revenue collection information system would cost. I was told $10m but it actually cost $14, which worried me. Mr Fellowes left and I spoke to Alistair Bryant. I told him to bring in Martin Thomas of Deyken Industries for help. My advice was to keep a database for the payroll stamp duty and land tax simple. That is the way he designed it. It has been so successful that the licence has been sold to New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. State Revenue officials have visited Washington, Japan and Switzerland to give briefings on the system. It is the type of system that can be designed for larger populations. I was pleased to be able to do that. I have had a lot of fun. The Insurance Commission is suing the banks for the losses that were incurred. Originally it was suing for the rorts that occurred. I will put members in the picture. The banks were owed about $270m by the Bell Group. They found out when the group went broke that they had no security. They took the security and after six months sold all the assets. The lawyers have found all the letters containing different legal advice telling them it could be a fraud. That is why it has is no longer a case of suing for $270m; it is now a fraud case. The current directors of those banks are now becoming aware of what it was all about. That is why the liquidator is suing the banks for $1b on behalf of the ATO, Belgian dentists and the Insurance Commission. I entered Parliament to make many changes to the government on financial matters; these are some of the extra things I was able to do which made my job a lot of fun. I have helped many ministers and I have enjoyed that. Although I have enjoyed my time here I am looking forward to a break. I thank everybody here for his or her friendship, particularly the class of 1989. I keep asking Cheryl how many more days we have to go. Hon Cheryl Davenport: There are 178. Hon MAX EVANS: Hon Cheryl Davenport has the dates worked out. Life in Parliament has been fun and we have done some great things. I always thought that if knighthoods came back Eric Charlton should be the first to be knighted because of his stand on the Western Australian Petrochemical Industries Authority Bill. I can recall the occasion on which I had been stirring up the debate on the Treasurer’s Advance Authorization Bill, because the Labor Government was assuming it could give a government guarantee to the PICL financier. The PICL authority Bill had to come before this House to allow the Government to guarantee the money. In its wisdom, the other House had passed that Bill; no-one had fought against it. The National Party was told that the petrochemical industry project would be good for the State, so it should agree to it, but the Liberal Opposition was dead against it and argued accordingly. Sandy Lewis sat behind the Labor Party and the National Party members were just to the left of Sandy on the other side. The bells rang and while Sandy was slowly wandering across he said, “You guys should be over there; you are voting for it.” They duly went across the Chamber. Then in rushed Eric, who was frantic about the possibility of losing hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars on the PICL project. He convinced his members to vote with the Liberals. Joe Berinson crossed the floor and sat next to Eric to demand the reason for the change of mind. The bells stopped and we instantly said, “Claim him” because he was on our side of the House. So we claimed him. The then President was pretty weak and let him go. I have always said to Eric that he should receive a knighthood for saving the State hundreds of millions of dollars. I have enjoyed my time in Parliament very much and I have been happy to help members with queries on tax or racing issues. I have done exactly what I wanted to do in Parliament, which was largely to sort out the State’s finances. However, there is much more to be done; I could have done a much better job. We will see what happens next year. [Applause.] THE PRESIDENT (Hon George Cash): On behalf of the parliamentary staff I thank all those members who have made very generous comments about the people who work in Parliament House. It is pleasing that the hard work they do is acknowledged by members. The staff are here to serve members and I am sure members will all agree that they do a tremendous job in their daily work. I also acknowledge the work of the Chairman of Committees, Hon John Cowdell. He has been very supportive of me, particularly over the past year. He has a professional manner and demands certain standards in the Chamber, which I strongly support. Working at lifting the standards of this House can only add to the dignity of the place. I thank the Deputy Chairmen, Hon Bill Stretch, Hon Derrick Tomlinson, Hon Murray Montgomery and Hon Nick Griffiths, for always being available to take over the Chair when required. They are long-serving members of the House who have considerable experience and who have always been very willing to accept their responsibilities. I express my appreciation to members for their support of me as President during the past year. As I have said on a number of occasions, in the end they set the standards in this House. They are able to either lift or reduce those standards. In the past four years we have maintained, if not improved, the dignity of this Legislative Chamber.

3760 [COUNCIL]

There was much speculation four years ago about how the House would develop, given its changed composition after the last election. I am pleased to say that the House has matured in its consideration of legislation. It has very much relied on the support of the leaders of the House. In particular I thank the Leader of the House, the Minister for Transport and leader of the National Party in the Legislative Council, the Attorney General, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Australian Democrats and the leader of the Greens (WA) for their support. Without their support as leaders of their respective groupings, this place would not be the place that it is. I was interested to hear Hon Cheryl Davenport’s comments, in respect of the debate on the social reform issue she introduced, as to which House she would prefer to be a member of. As for the parliamentary staff generally, on behalf of all members I thank our senior officers in the Parliament - Laurie Marquet, Ian Allnutt and Malcolm Peacock - for the tremendous job they continue to do and the assistance they will always offer us as parliamentary members. I said earlier that we have a very high standard in this place, and that standard is supported by the very professional way in which our senior officers handle their respective jobs. I also thank Janeen Robertson and Val Di Giusto from the Clerk’s Office; Lorraine Coogan, my personal assistant; and Stephen Sceats from my office for their great contribution in making the President’s Office function efficiently and effectively. I also recognise Chris Hunt, Jason Skinner, Peter Gale and Brian Conn for the work they do in this House. Members will know that Peter Gale and Brian Conn are new additions to the Legislative Council; as has already been said, they are officers from other areas within the Parliament who wanted to make a change in their career and asked to serve in the Legislative Council. I wish them well in their secondment to this Chamber. I certainly have not forgotten our good friend Donna Artingstall. Donna came to us seven years ago as Donna Brady. She was a young, vibrant lady, and during that seven years she has always had a cheery smile and a pleasant word for members as we meet and talk to her in the corridors, and certainly as we go about our work within the House. Donna leaves us today, after more than seven years’ service in the Legislative Council, as an expectant mum who will deliver her first child in February next year. Donna, on behalf of all the members of the Legislative Council, we wish you all the best with the birth of your first child. I know you will be a very experienced mother and will be well able to bring up your child, because you have had seven years’ experience of dealing with 34 members who often acted as children, so you are well skilled in that area. I express the support and appreciation of all members for the work that is done by Mia Betjeman, Nigel Pratt and the other staff at the Legislative Council Committee Office. The committee office comprises very committed parliamentary staff. I think members will agree that the quality of our reports has improved significantly over time, and all members can be proud of the committee reports that are now on the Internet and available to the world. I also express my appreciation to Russell Bremner, Executive Manager, Parliamentary Services and leader of the parliamentary services team, for the work that he has done. Russell has demonstrated great leadership and support for all members of the Parliamentary Services Department. Russell is now well respected by his staff because it is obvious that he adopts a particular style that indicates that he listens to all sides of an issue before making a decision, but once he has made his decision, it is decisive and he insists that it be carried through. As other members have mentioned today, we are blessed in Parliament House with many dedicated and friendly staff. On behalf of members, I want to record in Hansard that we acknowledge the great work that Chris Hall and the Hansard team carry out as part of their parliamentary duties. All members have said from time to time that they admire the great work of Hansard. I need to relate only to the past 24 hours in this place, where yesterday the House sat for about 17 hours. The House got up at about 3.30 this morning. However, Hansard staff did not finish at 3.30; they had to finish their work. Many of them would have been here at 4.30 this morning, but they were back on deck at 11 o’clock this morning for the resumption of the House, and continue to refine the comments of members so they are understandable - in English terms. We recognise the tremendous job Enno Schijf and the catering staff have done in recent years. As I look around the Chamber, the condition of some members is a clear indication of the great food served in the dining room. We say thank you to Judy Ballantyne and the library team for their support and the research they do on behalf of members, and to Jane Gray and the team in the parliamentary education office. It is always a pleasure to see young students in the Parliament learning more about the parliamentary process in Western Australia. I hope the Parliamentary Services Committee considers providing some additional support in that area so that we can expand our activities and get the parliamentary message further out into the wider community. Vince Pacecca and Peter Pascoe lead our building services department. I express our support for the tremendous work Vince and Peter have done in recent times. Significant building works have been carried out in Parliament House over recent years. Given that they have only the mid-year and end-of-year break in which to do heavy construction work around the Parliament, those two members of the staff do a fantastic job in having the Parliament back in working condition after tearing it to pieces for repairs and renovations.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3761

I say thank you to Ken Craig and the security staff for their work. I say that because a number of security incidents occur around Parliament House from time to time about which members may not be aware. We parliamentarians would not be so secure without our dedicated security officers. I am pleased at the professional way in which Ken has lifted the standards of the security staff and encouraged better understanding and recognition of the perils that exist. David Gilchrist leads the finance team in Parliament House and has done a great job over the 18 months he has been here. David is leaving the Parliament today to become a partner in an accounting firm in South Perth. None of us can object to someone wanting to do better things for himself and improve his career prospects. David has done a great job while a member of our finance department and I wish him well in the future. I always want to stay onside with Cathy, Marilyn and the team on the switchboard because they often know more about the members and their activities than some members know themselves. Charlie Di Giacomo has been the head gardener at Parliament House for a number of years. I think members will agree that when we bring guests to Parliament House, we are not always proud of the state of the building - that is obviously a reflection on the lack of funding that has been provided for maintenance for many years - but we can always be proud of the gardens. I thank Charlie and the team for the great job they do. Teena Beale has been mentioned. She works for the office of the Leader of the House. I join with other members in thanking her for her great work in the Parliament, for not only ministers but also other members and me as President. Teena has served under four Leaders of the House, or four Leaders of the Government. She served under Hon Des Dans, Hon Joe Berinson, me when I was Leader of the Government and now Hon Norman Moore. There could not be a more dedicated and pleasant lady, who serves all members of the House irrespective of political parties. I am sure that Teena does not believe there are political parties, and all members of Parliament are the same. One person who retired during the year who served the Parliament for many years, but did not want an official farewell at the time he retired, was Neil Burrell. Neil was the Editor of Parliamentary Debates when he left, and had been the Chief Hansard Reporter for a considerable number of years. Neil served the Western Australian Parliament for 34 years in the Hansard department, rising to the position of Editor of Parliamentary Debates. He led his team in a professional way over a long period. I take this opportunity to put on record the appreciation of all members of Parliament for the great work that Neil Burrell did for the Parliament of Western Australia. I know from advice that has been tendered to me that Neil is enjoying his retirement. However, after Neil’s 34 years in Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not record in Hansard my appreciation for his work over that long period. Five members of Parliament are retiring voluntarily. Hon Max Evans is a friend and colleague who joined the Parliament in 1986, when I was a member of the Legislative Assembly. However, that did not absolve me from Max’s influence in the place. Hon Max Evans has made a tremendous contribution to the Parliament and the State of Western Australia, in not only in matters financial but very many areas. The comments you made earlier, Max, about the budget now having to be passed by 30 June is just one of a huge number of measures you implemented to make the finances of Western Australia not only more accountable but also more realistic in financial terms. You are right, that it would seem highly irregular for any company not to have its budget passed by 30 June, yet for 100 years that was the situation in the Parliament of Western Australia. I say to you, Max, as a friend, that your achievements are now part of the fabric of Western Australia and both you and your family are entitled to be proud of your contribution. Hon Cheryl Davenport is a good friend of all members of the Legislative Council and all members of Parliament. You have clearly been a diligent member of Parliament, Cheryl. You set your goals before you came here. The good news is that you are able to stand up on the day you retire from Parliament and say that you achieved many, if not most, of the goals that you set. I take my hat off to you for the way in which you have carried out your parliamentary duties in your constituency and here in the Chamber. I wish you well in your retirement. The only thing I ask is that perhaps when you are in Italy you let us know where you are, because it is not always easy to get a bed in Italy, and we might be able to come and rent some accommodation for a short time from you. Hon Bob Thomas has been the Whip for the Labor Party for a long period now. That has meant that Bob and I have worked together fairly closely - probably a lot closer than most members would know. Bob has adjourned more debates in this Parliament than any other person sitting in this Chamber. As a Whip Bob has sat through more debates than any other member in this House, perhaps with the exception of Hon Muriel Patterson, who is also required as the Government Whip to sit through debates. It is not an easy task to be the Whip. The Whips are required to listen - even though they appear to be resting their eyes at times - to what is being said, because when an opposition or government member does not jump at the required time the opportunity is there for the Chair to put the question. On a number of occasions Hon Bob Thomas has had to rise to advise the Chair in the first instance that he was not the lead speaker on a matter, but would address the Chair until such time as the member in charge of the Bill entered the Chamber. I will digress a little to say that when I was an opposition member in the Legislative Assembly, Bob, if an opposition member did not jump at the right time, the question was put. That created some angst and anger in the Parliament. I think it is fair to say that Bob, Muriel and I have developed a good association, so that a question would not be put if a member was not here. I might have grumbled a bit, but I never tried to trick anyone into a question. Bob, I appreciate

3762 [COUNCIL] the way you have handled your job and supported me in the position of President. I wish you well in your retirement, and I hope your golf handicap comes down. Hon Murray Montgomery is unable to be with us today because of parliamentary commitments. I join with others in wishing Murray all the best. Murray and I went to school together a long time ago. After leaving school, we did not catch up with each other again until we became members of Parliament. In Murray’s retirement, I intend to visit his vineyard in the south west and remind him of the good times we had together at school, obviously in the hope that he will take the top off a few Montgomery’s Hill bottles of wine. To Hon Muriel Patterson, who is the Government Whip and a very close friend of mine, I say all the best. I trust, Muriel, that you will enjoy your retirement. It is about time you and Rol spent a bit more time together because he has been on the farm most times of the year and you have been here in Parliament. I listened to Muriel’s advice when I was the Leader of the Opposition and when I was the Leader of the House, and I have certainly listened to her advice while I have been President. I appreciate the advice she has given me on a number of areas. Members, we come to the end of this parliamentary session. Christmas is just around the corner, as we have been reminded. It is probably a little bit early to wish everyone a merry Christmas because, as members of Parliament, we have a huge amount of work to do between now and Christmas Day out in our constituencies. However, for those members and officers in the Parliament whom I do not see before Christmas Day, please have a happy and safe Christmas. I look forward to a hard-fought election in the new year and the resumption of Parliament some time during 2001. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 3.03 pm (Friday) ______

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3763

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

CALM, LAND PURCHASE BUDGET 44. Hon John Cowdell to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment:

(1) What was the CALM budgetary allocation for land purchase, and expenditure on land purchase, for the following financial years - (a) 1997-1998; (b) 1998-1999; and (c) 1999-2000? (2) What is the CALM budgetary allocation for land purchase this financial year? (3) What lands were purchased from this fund in the 1999-2000 financial year and at what individual cost?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) CALM's budgetary allocation for conservation land purchases was $200 000 in each of 1997/98, 1998/99 and 1999/00, plus $182 000 that was carried forward from the end of the 1996/97 financial year. In addition, there was an allocation for conservation land purchases under the Gascoyne-Murchison Strategy (GMS) of $1 million for each of 1997/98 and 1998/99 and $1.2 million in 1999/00. While there was no specific allocation of Salinity Action Plan funds to conservation land purchase, some purchases have been funded out of the allocations under the Plan for Crown reserves management and natural diversity recovery catchments. Financial assistance has also been received from the Commonwealth Government under the National Reserve System Program of the Natural Heritage Trust. Expenditure for land purchase in association with costs such as valuation, legal fees and surveys was: (a) 1997/98 $369 291 in State funds and $132 923 in Commonwealth funds. (b) 1998/99 $1 109 111 in State funds and $2 290 241 in Commonwealth funds. (c) 1999/2000 $1 278 304 in State funds and $1 001 216 in Commonwealth funds. Additionally in 1999/00 the Government provided a capital appropriation of $9.5 million for land between Collie and Dardanup purchased as part of the new Wellington National Park. (2) $556 608 (includes $356 608 carried forward from the end of the 1999/00 financial year), plus $2 945 000 (includes $1 745 000 carried forward from the 1999/00 financial year) for the Gascoyne-Murchison Strategy. (3) The following parcels of land were purchased in 1999/2000: Part Mount Phillip Pastoral Lease $297 109 Part Jimba Jimba Pastoral Lease $16 908 Part Dalgety Downs Pastoral Lease $226 368 Lochada Pastoral Lease $300 000 Part Williambury Pastoral Lease $63 183 Waldburg Pastoral Lease $370 000 Part Avon Location 23927 $30 000 Part Williams Location 11057 $50 000 Part Avon Location 23456 $100 000 Part Williams Location 14253 $41 914 Nelson Location 2198 $78 000 Part Victoria Location 10825 $130 000 Part Avon Location 14247 $13 815 Part Nelson Location 12655 $250 000 Portion Swan Location M1371 $20 000 Part Sussex Location 4049 $14 625 Part Sussex Location 3203 $125 175 Part Nanutarra Pastoral Lease $100 000 Portion Wellington Location 56 (Lot 4) $9 500 000 The above prices relate to land purchase price only and do not include associated costs such as valuation, legal fees and surveys.

3764 [COUNCIL]

PARKS AND RESERVES, NATIONAL PARK ENTRY FEES

46. Hon John Cowdell to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment:

(1) What revenue was received from national park entry fees in the 1999-2000 financial year?

(2) What revenue is it anticipated that CALM will receive this financial year from park entry fees?

(3) What national park, under the control of CALM, do not have entry fees?

(4) What national parks have become fee paying in the last two financial years?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) $2,195,105 (2) Approximately $2,400,000 (net of GST). (3) The following national parks do not have entry fees: Alexander Morrison Badgingarra Boorabbin Brockman Collier Range Drovers Cave Drysdale River Eucla Frank Hann Geikie Gorge Goldfields Woodlands Goongarrie Gooseberry Hill Greenmount Hassell Kalamunda Kennedy Range Lawley River Lesmurdie Falls Lesueur Mitchell River Moore River Mount Augustus Mount Frankland Neerabup Peak Charles Rudall River Scott Sir James Mitchell Tathra Torndirrup Tuart Forest Tunnel Creek Walpole-Nornalup Watheroo Waychinicup Wellington West Cape Howe William Bay Windjana Gorge Wolfe Creek Crater Yalgorup

(4) Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3765

HEALTH, ABORIGINES, CARDIO-RESPIRATORY SERVICES 63. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the answer to question on notice number 49 dated September 7 1999, asked in the Legislative Assembly, in which the Minister for Health stated that, for reasons of patient safety, stress cardiographs are not available in remote Aboriginal communities and that a joint Working Party has been established between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Health to progress the development of cardio-respiratory services for non-metropolitan Aboriginal communities in Western Australia - (1) At what point has the Working Party reached? (2) How far has the development of cardio-respiratory services for non-metropolitan Aboriginal communities progressed to date? (3) What is likely to happen in the future in relation to this issue and when?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) A draft proposal has been developed and is currently undergoing refinement in the light of the completion of the Regional Aboriginal Health Plans and other stakeholder comments. (2) The Department has funded heart health initiatives in three non-metropolitan centres through Bega Garnbirringu Health Service, South West Aboriginal Medical Service and Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service. In addition there has been an increase in primary health care services in many non- metropolitan areas. Substantial numbers of Aboriginal people in non-metropolitan areas have been trained in First Aid, thereby equipping family members with skills to assist in the management of cardio-respiratory events. (3) Heart disease remains a significant health problem for Aboriginal Western Australians. The Western Australian Aboriginal Health Strategy seeks to provide an innovative basis on which further development of health services for Aboriginal Western Australians can occur. Increasing Access to Health Services, including services for Cardio-respiratory disease is a critical domain in the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Strategy. The Western Australian and Commonwealth Governments will respond to the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Strategy and the 6 regional Aboriginal Health Strategies in due course. HOSPITALS, EXPENDITURE 69. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: (1) What was the total capital expenditure for each of the following hospitals during the past nine financial years - (a) Broome District Hospital; (b) Derby Regional Hospital; (c) Fitzroy Crossing District Hospital; (d) Kununurra District Hospital; and (e) Wyndham District Hospital? (1) (2) What specific capital projects were the funds allocated to?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) (a) $17 500 000 (b) $12 591 000 (c) $2 543 000 (d) $1 525 000 (e) $693 000 (2) (a) Broome District Hospital Redevelopment Planning Fees Stage 3 Redevelopment Dialysis Unit Steriliser Replacement New residence 96/97 New residence 98/99 Broome Mental Health Clinic (b) Derby Regional Hospital Stage 4 Redevelopment - planning and documentation only Stage 3 Redevelopment

3766 [COUNCIL]

Stage 4a General Ward relocation Laundry Upgrade Endoscopy Equipment Conversion of General/Childrens Ward Numbala Nunga N/H Renovations, wet area upgrade and repairs Mental Health Rooming In Unit (c) Fitzroy Crossing District Hospital Health Centre Development Sobering up Centre Replacement equipment Staff Quarters Upgrade New Accommodation Units Redevelopment 1999/00 (d) Kununurra District Hospital Sobering up Centre New Accommodation Units Staff Unit Upgrade Mental Health Rooming In Unit (e) Wyndham District Hospital Chlorofluorocarbon Gas Replacement in air conditioning Staff Accommodation Upgrade Roads/Carpark Upgrade Kitchen Upgrade HOSPITALS, EXPENDITURE 70. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: (1) What was the total capital expenditure for each of the following hospitals during the past nine financial years - (a) Carnarvon Regional Hospital; (b) Meekatharra District Hospital; (c) Exmouth District Hospital; (d) Newman District Hospital; (e) Mt Magnet Nursing Post; (f) Onslow District Hospital; (g) Yalgoo Health Centre; (h) Coral Bay Nursing Post; and (i) Cue Health Centre? (2) What specific capital projects were the funds allocated to?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) For the financial years 1991/92 to 1999/2000 (a) $1 822 000 (b) $1 039 000 (c) $2 577 000 (d) $2 021 000 (e) $359 000 (f) $1 356 000 (g) Nil (h) $42 000 (i) $214 000 (2) (a) Carnarvon Regional Hospital Staff Accommodation Upgrade Replacement (1995) Theatre/Sterilising Area Upgrade Theatre Equipment Bed Replacement

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3767

Air-conditioning Upgrade - Various Air-conditioning Upgrade Surgical Area PABX and Paging System Upgrade Staff Accommodation (new) (1999) (b) Meekatharra District Hospital Remodelling Laboratory and Treatment Area Floor Covering Replacement/Painting Program Staff Accommodation (new) (1997) Kitchen Upgrade Staff Accommodation (new) (1998) Upgrade Electrical and Hydraulic Services (c) Exmouth District Hospital Conversion of Theatre to Emergency Staff Accommodation Upgrade (1998) Redevelopment (including Roof Replacement & air-conditioning) Staff Accommodation (new) (1999) (d) Newman District Hospital Alterations and additions (Admin, Emergency & X-ray) Bed Replacement Alterations including nurse call & lighting upgrade Emergency Power Provision Air-conditioning Upgrade Laboratory Replacement Theatre Sterilising Area Upgrade Hospital Air-conditioning Upgrade (e) Mt Magnet Nursing Post Upgrade including Roof Replacement Floor covering Upgrade Upgrade Electrical & Hydraulic Services Staff Accommodation Upgrade (f) Onslow District Hospital Emergency Power Upgrade Office Upgrade Staff Accommodation Upgrade (1998) Staff Accommodation (new) (1998/99) (g) Yalgoo Health Centre Nil. (h) Coral Bay Nursing Post On site caravan for Clinic Services (i) Cue Health Centre Additions & Remodelling Floor covering Replacement Upgrade Hydraulic & Electrical Services POLICE, BAIL REMAND CENTRE IN THE NORTH 71. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police What has been the annual cost since 1993 of transferring juveniles from the north of WA to Perth, including police man hours, which would otherwise be avoided if a permanent bail remand centre existed?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: The last sentence of your question is either asking us to make a value judgement or is statement of supposed fact by you. If the latter, it is incorrect, if the former it ignores the fact that if a remand facility were constructed in the north of WA, juveniles would still have to be transferred to that centre and considerable cost would still be incurred. The exact amount that would, be saved, if any, is difficult to calculate. However, the actual costs incurred are calculated as follows: Information available prior to 1997 is considered unreliable. Due to the resources and time required to provide a response to the members Question, I am unwilling to commit the resources needed to extract the necessary information. Police hours spent on juvenile escorts was not recorded prior to 1998. The hours provided are indicative only.

3768 [COUNCIL]

All data relevant to the Kimberley District prior to 1997 was lost during the severe floods in Broome during which time the Kimberley District Office was inundated. The data provided below is current as at 26 June 2000 and refers to the Northern Police Region which incorporates the Pilbara and Kimberley Police Districts. HOURS TOTAL 1997-1998 793 87,144 1998-1999 997 167,927 1999-2000 1431 208,341 $ 463,412 The total cost figures quoted for 1997-1998 and 1998- 1999 have been extracted from manual records. The total cost figures quoted for 1999-2000 have been extracted from finance modules within the Agency’s Resource Management Information System and include Airfares, Travel Accommodation, Travel Allowance, Travel Meals and Travel Bus, Train and Taxis Fares GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FUNDED 94. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: What funds have been allocated from any department or agency within the Minister for the Environment’s portfolios, and for what programs, to each of - (a) Chamber of Commerce and Industry; (b) Pastoralists and Graziers Association; (c) WA Farmers Federation; (d) Unions WA; (e) Chamber of Minerals and Energy; and (f) Association of Minerals and Exploration Companies, for 1999-2000?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of Conservation and Land Management: (a-f) Nil Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority: (a-f) Nil Perth Zoo: (a-f) Nil Department of Environmental Protection: (a-d) Nil (e) $150.00 - these funds were for attendance at a training session. (f) Nil. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING 99. Hon Ken Travers to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: (1) In 1998-1999 what contracts did Government departments and agencies under the Minister for Health’s control award to - (a) O=Keefe & Gee; (b) Picton Press; (c) Frank Daniels; (d) Vanguard Press; (e) Advance Press; (f) Muhlings Print; and (g) Lamb Print? (2) For each contract, what was -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3769

(a) the original tender cost; (b) the actual final cost; (c) the award date; and (d) the completion date? (3) For each contract, how many companies tendered for the contract?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Healthway : 1. Lamb Print. 2. Annual Report. (a) $9,905 (b) $9,923 (c) 2 November 1999 (d) 21 December 1999. 3. Three quotes were obtained. Office of Health Review : (2)(a) (2)(b) (2)(c) (2)(d) (1) (c) Annual Report N/A $3990 18/08/99 30/08/99 (f) Complaints Poster N/A $1200 20/11/98 04/12/99 (g) Reprint of Letterheads N/A $1155 10/05/99 19/05/99 (3) The print jobs concerned were all amounts under $5000, and therefore not subject to the tender process. However, quotations were obtained from selected suppliers. [See paper No 599.] GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PROGRAMS FUNDED 131. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: What funds have been allocated from any department or agency within the Minister for Labour Relations’ portfolios, and for what programs, to each of - (a) Chamber of Commerce and Industry; (b) Pastoralists and Graziers Association; (c) WA Farmers Federation; (d) Unions WA; (e) Chamber of Minerals and Energy; and (f) Association of Minerals and Exploration Companies, for the period February 1993 to June 1999?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission: (a-f) Nil Department of Productivity and Labour Relations: (a-f) Nil Commissioner of Workplace Agreements: (a-f) Nil WorkSafe Western Australia: (a) $324 375 to support participation in tripartite occupational safety and health processes (b) Nil (c) $255 000 to promote occupational safety and health in farming in regional Western Australia (d) $262 625 to support participation in tripartite occupational safety and health processes$61 750 to assist in the implementation of "new-style" occupational health and safety legislation in mining

3770 [COUNCIL]

$744 000 subsidy for safety and health representative training (paid per representative trained) (e-f) Nil WorkCover Western Australia: (a) Sitting fees for the accreditation and monitoring of vocational rehabilitation providers $2 847; training/seminar attendance fees $2 462; and advertising in the Business Report $3 180. (b-c) Nil (d) Sitting fees for attending Board and Premium Rates Committee meetings $2 117; and Occupational health and safety training for staff $4 200. (e) Training/seminar attendance fees for Rehabilitation program $250. (f) Nil.

TIDAL POWER STUDY, STATE GOVERNMENT’S PARTICIPATION 136. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Is the State Government prepared to participate in the joint tidal power study proposed by the Prime Minister? (2) If not, why not?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) The Commonwealth chose to commission its own study which was concluded in early August 2000. The study report has not been released by the Commonwealth. (2) The State has already undertaken two studies that considered the Tidal Energy Australia (TEA) proposal in some depth - firstly through the Regional Power Procurement Process for the West Kimberley and subsequently through the comparison undertaken by the Ministerial Advisory Committee between the TEA "best offer" proposal and the LNG option. As such, the State continues to believe that the TEA proposal has been adequately researched and that it was not necessary to undertake yet another study to confirm the findings of the first two. The State did offer to cooperate with the Commonwealth in its study by offering relevant information, but the Commonwealth did not take up this offer.

COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, NUMBER, RECONSTITUTED AND NEW 188. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) How many governing boards does the Minister for the Environment have under her control? (2) What are they? (3) Have any governing boards been reconstituted since 1998? (4) Have any new governing boards been created since 1998? (5) How many of these boards have representational members? (6) Which are they?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(6) A full list detailing the membership of Government Boards and Committees was provided in response to question on notice 1927 on 13th June 2000. If the Member has a question regarding a particular board it may be possible to provide a response in the detail that has been requested.

COMMITTEES AND BOARDS, NUMBER, RECONSTITUTED AND NEW 193. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: (1) How many governing boards does the Minister for Labour Relations have under her control? (2) What are they? (3) Have any governing boards been reconstituted since 1998? (4) Have any new governing boards been created since 1998? (5) How many of these boards have representational members? (6) Which are they?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3771

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(6) A full list detailing the membership of Government Boards and Committees was provided in response to question on notice 1927 on 13th June 2000. If the Member has a question regarding a particular board it may be possible to provide a response in the detail that has been requested.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ERNST AND YOUNG OUTPLACEMENT SERVICES 325. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: Will the Minister for Labour Relations detail for each department and agency under the Minister’s control - (a) the number of redeployees who have used the services of Ernst and Young; and (a) the cost of the services of Ernst and Young for the provision of outplacement services?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission: (a) Nil (b) Not applicable. WorkCover WA: (a) Nil (b) Not applicable. WorkSafe Western Australia: (a) Nil (b) Not applicable. Department of Productivity and Labour Relations: (a) Nil (b) Not applicable. Commissioner of Workplace Agreements: (a) Nil (b) Not applicable.

HOUSING, MONITORING OF RENTAL RATES

335. Hon Ken Travers to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Is any Government agency monitoring housing rental rates to ensure that there are no unfair increases following the implementation of GST? (2) If yes, which agency is monitoring the rates and how?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is responsible for the monitoring of prices following the implementation of the GST. (2) Not applicable.

SCHOOLS, KIMBERLEY DISTRICT

342. Hon Tom Stephens to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education: (1) Which schools in the Kimberley district were not fully staffed at the beginning of the 2000 school year? (2) Which schools in the Kimberley district were not fully staffed at the beginning of Term 3 in 2000? (3) Which schools in the Kimberley district have been required to fill teaching positions with temporary staff on short term contracts? (4) For each school in (3) above, will the Minister for Education table the number of short term contracts required at each school and the duration of each contract? (5) Can the Minister advise why Wyndham District High School has not been classified as remote or difficult to staff which would provide teachers with incentives to remain in the town?

3772 [COUNCIL]

Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: (1) Wyndham District High School was not fully staffed at the commencement of the 2000 school year. (2) Two schools were not fully staffed at the commencement of Term 3, 2000; · Wyndham District High School with one primary and one secondary vacancy · Fitzroy Crossing District High School with one primary vacancy. (3) The following schools in the Kimberley Education District have been required to fill teaching positions with temporary staff on short term contracts in the 2000 school year; · Bayulu Remote Community School · Broome Primary School · Broome Senior High School · Cable Beach Primary School · Cherrabun Remote Community School · Christmas Island District High School · Cocos Island District High School · Dawul Remote Community School · Derby District High School · Fitzroy Crossing District High School · Halls Creek District High School · Kalumburu Remote Community School · Kimberley School of the Air · Kununurra District High School · La Grange Remote Community School · Looma District High School · One Arm Point Remote Community School · Roebuck Primary School · Wananami Remote Community School · Wyndham District High School (4) School Contract Contract Commenced Ceased Bayulu Remote Community School 04-03-2000 31-12-2001 Bayulu Remote Community School 28-02-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2001 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 19-08-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Senior High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Senior High School 31-01-2000 16-12-2000 Broome Senior High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Broome Senior High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 31-01-2000 20-05-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 17-07-2000 23-09-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Cable Beach Primary School 17-07-2000 21-12-2000 Cherrabun Remote Community School 31-01-2000 21-12-2001 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 06-05-2000 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2002 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 01-01-2002 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 18-12-2002 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3773

Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 01-01-2003 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 08-04-2000 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 08-04-2000 Christmas Is District High School 31-01-2000 01-01-2003 Christmas Is District High School 21-07-2000 21-12-2000 Cocos Island District High School 31-01-2000 31-12-2002 Dawul Remote Community School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Dawul Remote Community School 20-03-2000 10-06-2000 Derby District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 13-05-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 27-04-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 15-05-2000 20-12-2001 Derby District High School 31-01-2000 22-07-2000 Derby District High School 31-01-2000 04-02-2000 Derby District High School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Derby District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 17-07-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 17-07-2000 21-12-2000 Derby District High School 17-07-2000 21-12-2000 Fitzroy Crossing District High 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Fitzroy Crossing District High 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Fitzroy Crossing District High 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Fitzroy Crossing District High 31-01-2000 20-12-2001 Fitzroy Crossing District High 24-02-2000 21-12-2000 Fitzroy Crossing District High 05-05-2000 21-12-2000 Fitzroy Crossing District High 01-05-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 29-04-2000 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 29-04-2000 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 26-04-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 08-05-2000 03-06-2000 Halls Creek District High School 15-05-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 06-06-2000 21-12-2000 Halls Creek District High School 17-07-2000 21-12-2000 Kalumburu Remote Community School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Kalumburu Remote Community School 26-04-2000 02-06-2000 Kimberley School Of The Air 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Kimberley School Of The Air 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Kimberley School Of The Air 08-02-2000 21-12-2000 Kimberley School Of The Air 24-03-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2001 Kununurra District High School 26-04-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 17-02-2000 20-12-2001 Kununurra District High School 24-03-2000 21-12-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 22-12-2001 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 25-09-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 08-04-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 21-12-2000

3774 [COUNCIL]

Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 03-02-2000 04-03-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 07-03-2000 20-12-2002 Kununurra District High School 26-04-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 26-04-2000 21-12-2000 Kununurra District High School 26-04-2000 21-12-2000 Kununurra District High School 26-04-2000 01-07-2000 Kununurra District High School 17-07-2000 29-08-2000 Kununurra District High School 17-07-2000 23-09-2000 La Grange Remote Community School 17-07-2000 21-12-2000 La Grange Remote Community School 26-04-2000 21-12-2000 La Grange Remote Community School 31-01-2000 21-12-2001 La Grange Remote Community School 31-01-2000 21-12-2001 La Grange Remote Community School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 La Grange Remote Community School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 La Grange Remote Community School 07-03-2000 21-12-2000 Looma District High School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Looma District High School 31-01-2000 01-07-2000 Looma District High School 26-04-2000 01-07-2000 One Arm Point Remote Comm School 03-05-2000 23-06-2000 Roebuck Primary School 31-01-2000 31-01-2001 Wananami Remote Community School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Wananami Remote Community School 31-01-2000 20-12-2002 Wyndham District High School 17-07-2000 21-12-2003 Wyndham District High School 31-01-2000 15-07-2000 Wyndham District High School 03-04-2000 21-12-2000 (5) Wyndham District High School is classified as a Difficult to Staff school as part of the Country Incentives Program. Teachers appointed to Wyndham District High School receive the following allowances in addition to the base salary and existing district allowances: a total of $19,017.50 paid over 3 years with 20% of this amount paid on completion of the first year of service, 35% paid on completion of the second year of service and the remaining 45% paid upon completion of the third year of service; permanency on completion of satisfactory service after two years in a Difficult to Staff school; and bonus transfer points for staff for each year of service in a Difficult to Staff school upon completion of three years service in a Difficult to Staff school.

GRAIN SILOS, CYANIDE CONTAMINATION 355. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) What studies have the EPA or DEP carried out on cyanide contamination at the North Fremantle grain silos and will the Minister for the Environment table them? (2) Has cyanide been detected in the grain silos? (3) If yes, how much? (4) Have any studies been carried out by the EPA or DEP on the impact of using cyanide contaminated rubble from the grain silos as breakwater fill? (5) If yes, will the Minister table them? (6) Did the Minister for the Environment inform the Minister for Heritage of this cyanide contamination? (7) If so, when?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) None. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5)-(7) Not applicable.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3775

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 387. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Attorney General’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Attorney General’s control, can the Attorney General advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Ministry of Justice (including the Solicitor General's Chambers and Crown Solicitor's Office) (1) (a) 4904 (b) 0 (c) 1048 Director of Public Prosecutions (1) (a) 118 (b) Nil (c) 15 Office of the Information Commissioner This office is an independent office that reports direct to Parliament, it may not therefore be classed as "under the Attorney' General's control. Legal Aid of WA (1) (a) 216 (b) Nil (c) 55 Equal Opportunity Commissioner (1) (a) There are currently twenty-seven (27) people employed. (b) Not applicable (c) There are currently two (2) staff employed on State workplace agreements. Law Reform Commission (1) The Law Reform Commission currently has: (a) 1 regular contract employee and 8 temporary or casual employees. (b) No employees are on Federal Workplace Agreements. (c) One employee is under a State Government approved Workplace Agreement. All Departments/Agencies (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 388. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Justice: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements?

3776 [COUNCIL]

(2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: I refer the member to my answer given to question on notice 387. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 389. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Premier’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Premier’s control, can the Premier advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I am advised that : Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet (1) (a) 598 (for the pay period ended on 28 September 2000, not including Parliamentary Electorate Officers). (b) Nil (c) 530 Treasury (1) (a) 175 (for the pay period ended on 28 September 2000) (b) Nil (c) 170 Government Projects Office (1) (a) 8 (b) None (c) 6 Anti-Corruption Commission (1) (a) 74 (4 are casual and 1 is temporary) (b)-(c) None Governor's Establishment (1) (a) 21 (b)-(c) Nil Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (1) (a) 33 (b) Nil (c) 33 Gold Corporation (1) (a) 233 including casual and overseas staff (b) Nil (c) 61 including casuals Office of the Auditor General (1) (a) 97 (b) Nil

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3777

(c) 71 WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) 44 (b)-(c) None All Departments/Agencies (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 391. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Employment and Training: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Employment and Training’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: 1. No of people No. of people No. of people employed on AWA on State WPA Training and Employment* 407 Nil 307 Central TAFE 881 permanent/ Nil 232 contract 421 casuals West Coast College of TAFE 623 permanent/ Nil 174 Contract 332 casuals South East Metropolitan College 464 Nil 354 South Metropolitan College 788 Nil 112 Midland College of TAFE 228 Nil 45 South West Regional College 250 Nil 90 Great Southern Regional College 143 permanent/ Nil 62 contract 123 casuals Central West Regional College 171 Nil 86 Eastern Pilbara College of TAFE 117 Nil 88 Karratha College 114 Nil 75 CY O'Connor College ** 126 Nil 58 Kimberley College 93 Nil 48 * Department figures include WestOne, TAFE International and TAFE Central Admissions. ** CY O'Connor College of TAFE's staffing levels are tabled separately from the Department's for the purposes of question one. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 392. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Energy’s control - (a) how many people are employed;

3778 [COUNCIL]

(b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: As at 16 August, 2000: OFFICE OF ENERGY (1) (a) 82 (b) 0 (c) 71 (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. As at 16 August, 2000: WESTERN POWER (1) Western Power employs 2 622 people. Western Power, as a corporatised body, has advised that it operates commercially in a highly competitive energy industry and considers the provision of any further details to be commercially sensitive information. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. As at 16 August, 2000: ALINTAGAS (1) AlintaGas employs 359 people. AlintaGas is a corporatised body under the provision of the Gas Corporations Act and operates commercially in a highly competitive energy industry. Therefore, AlintaGas considers the provision of such commercially sensitive information inappropriate. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 397. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources Development: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Resources Development’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: As at 16 August, 2000: (1) (a) 105 (b) 0 (c) 93

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3779

(2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 399. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Youth: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Youth’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) (a) 27 (b) Nil. (c) 27 (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 413. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Treasurer: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Treasurer’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Treasurer’s control, can the Treasurer advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Please refer to the response provided to question on notice 389 of 10 August 2000. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 414. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Arts: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for the Arts’ control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) (a) The Ministry for Culture & the Arts employs 831 staff. (b) None. (c) 308. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the

3780 [COUNCIL]

introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 417. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Federal Affairs: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Federal Affairs’ control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Please refer to the response provided to question on notice 389 of 10 August 2000.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 424. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Public Sector Management: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Public Sector Management’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Please refer to the response provided to question on notice 389 of 10 August 2000.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS 425. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education: (1) For each Government department and agency under the Minister for Education’s control - (a) how many people are employed; (b) how many employees are on Federal workplace agreements; and (c) how many employees are on State workplace agreements? (2) For each Government department and agency under the Minister’s control, can the Minister advise whether the department or agency is a ‘constitutional corporation’ under the Federal Workplace Relations Act 1996?

Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: As at 15 September 2000. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (1) (a) There were a total of 31,652 staff employed by the Education Department of Western Australia as at 15 September 2000. Staff considered to be employees are those who: were in temporary (fixed term) or permanent jobs; were paid as a casual employee for work done on the 15 September 2000 (this does not include relief teaching staff); were on the Department's unattached list; were on leave (paid or unpaid). (b) None. (c) 1,951 employees. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3781

introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SERVICES (1) (a) 26. (b) Nil. (c) 21. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. CURRICULUM COUNCIL (1) (a) 71 permanent staff. (b) Nil. (c) 68. (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status. COUNTRY HIGH SCHOOL HOSTELS AUTHORITY (1) (a) 3 (head office); 95 (hostels). (b) Nil (head office); Nil (hostels). (c) 3 (head office); 91 (hostels). (2) The status of Government agencies and departments as constitutional corporations for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 requires legal consideration of the financial and trading capacity of each organisation. Agencies and departments would only seek such consideration if they were contemplating the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements or Division 2 Certified Agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. I do not propose to have agencies seek such consideration of their status.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, TEMPORARY STAFF 461. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: For each department and agency under the Minister for the Environment’s direction - (1) How many temporary staff have been engaged through an employment agency since January 1 1999? (2) For each engagement, what was the - (a) level of the position; (b) name of the employment agency; (c) duration of the engagement; and (d) reason why the position was not filled from within the public sector?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of Environmental Protection: (1) 90 (2) [See paper No 600.] Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority: (1) Eight (2) (a) Level 2 Salaries 7 positions Wages 3.1 1 position (b) Placer Personnel Group

3782 [COUNCIL]

(c) Level 2 19/11/99 to 17/12/99 Level 2 29/9/99 to 12/11/99 Level 2 1/11/99 to 5/11/99 Level 2 5/7/99 to 5/7/99 and 6/5/99 to 7/5/99 Level 2 21/4/99 to 21/4/99 Level 2 26/2/99 to 12/3/99 Level 2 19/8/99 to 1/10/99 Level 3.1 7/3/00 to 31/7/00 (d) All seven salaried positions were short term contracts. The wages position is still currently of a temporary nature and is under review. Perth Zoo: (1) 34 employees (2) (a) 27 employees in level 1 positions 2 employees - Retail Supervisor 2 employees - Trade Assistant 1 employee - Carpenter - Building Trades 1 employee - Electrician - Engineering Trades 1 employee - Works Supervisor (b) Four employment agencies were utilised. They are: Drake; Kelly Industrial Services; Retail People; and Work Skills Professionals (c) The duration of the engagements ranged from 1 month through to 19 months. (d) Perth Zoo is open 365 days per year and casual staff are required to cover this requirement. The positions are generally of a short-term or sporadic nature, involving relief for trade staff and casuals connected with seasonal or retail work. The casuals required are outside of traditional public sector work or are of limited duration of the engagement. Department of Conservation and Land Management: (1-2) [See paper No 600.] GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, TEMPORARY STAFF 466. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: For each department and agency under the Minister for Labour Relations’ direction - (1) How many temporary staff have been engaged through an employment agency since January 1 1999? (2) For each engagement, what was the - (a) level of the position; (b) name of the employment agency; (c) duration of the engagement; and (d) reason why the position was not filled from within the public sector?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of Productivity and Labour Relations: (1) 36 employees. (2) (a) 31 employees in level 2 positions 4 employees in level 2 positions 1 employee in a level 5 position. (b) Three employment agencies were utilised. They are: Select Appointments; Choice Personnel: and Information Enterprises Australia. (c) The duration of the engagements ranged from 4 hours through to 3 weeks.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3783

(d) Most temporary placements are of short duration and often at short notice. On some occasions special expertise is required. WorkCover Western Australia (1) One (2) (a) Level 1 (b) Drake International (c) 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001 (d) Least cost option plus having the office fully serviced at all times to ensure continuity of service. For Department of The Registrar, WA Industrial Relations Commission (1) 20 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) Position Agency name Duration Reason not filled from Level public sector Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 2 days Short-term requirement Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 2 days Short-term requirement Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 1 day Short-term requirement Level 2 Select Appointments 3wks 3days No one suitable Level 1 Harvey Recruitment 1wk 1day Short term intermittent requirement Level 1 Harvey Recruitment 3days Short term intermittent requirement Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 4wks 4days Short-term urgent requirement Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 4 hours Short-term requirement Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 4 months No one suitable Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 3 days Short-term requirement Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 2 months 2wks No one suitable Level 1 KeyPeople Personnel 4 days Short-term requirement Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 1 day Short-term requirement Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 3 days Short-term requirement Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 2 days Short-term requirement Level 2 Select Appointments 2 days Short-term requirement Level 1 Select Appointments 1 day Short-term requirement Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 3 weeks Short-term urgent requirement to cover illness. Level 2 Lefroy Employment Gp 1 day Short-term requirement Level 1 Lefroy Employment Gp 3 days Short-term requirement Commissioner of Workplace Agreements: (1) 10 (2) (a) 10 at Level 1 (b) 2 with Select Appointments, 8 with Choice Personnel (c) Select Appointments Week Ending Hours/Minutes 12/3/00 12:50 26/3/00 4:00 Choice Personnel Week Ending Hours/Minutes 01/01/99 22:50 08/01/99 28:25 15/01/99 22:50 23/04/99 8:00 14/5/99 22:50 21/5/99 41:50 28/5/99 40:00 04/06/99 40:00 11/06/99 24:00 18/6/99 40:00 25/6/99 30:00

3784 [COUNCIL]

21/5/99 16:00 28/5/99 40:00 04/06/99 39:50 11/06/99 32:00 18/6/99 40:00 25/6/99 38:00 02/07/99 40:00 10/9/99 12:00 21/4/00 19:50 (d) Unavailability of personnel within Public Sector due to short notice requirements. WorkSafe WA: (1) Two (2) (a) Level 1 (b) Drake International (c) 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 and 1 July 2000 to-date (d) Least cost option plus having the office fully serviced at all times to ensure continuity of service. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, EX GRATIA OR ONE-OFF PAYMENTS 513. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: For each agency under the Minister for the Environment’s control - (1) Has the Minister approved any ex-gratia or one off payments in the years - (a) 1998-1999; or (b) 1999-2000? (2) If yes, how much was the payment for? (3) What was the purpose of the payment?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: The information sought is not held centrally and is, in fact, spread across all agencies in the public sector. The statutory requirements governing act of grace payments are stringent and the Member may wish to refer to Section 58B, Regulation 25 and Treasurer's Instruction 319 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act (1985) for further information. In broad terms, the relevant Minister can approve act of grace payments up to a maximum of $2,000, and the Treasurer can approve payments of up to $50,000, with payments in excess of $50,000 also requiring the approval of the Governor. The request for information on every individual act of grace payment made during 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 would require a considerable amount of administrative effort to collate and, in the circumstances, I am not prepared to devote valuable resources to such a task. However, should the Member require details of a specific act of grace payment or payments, I will arrange for that information to be made available. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, EX GRATIA OR ONE-OFF PAYMENTS 518. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: For each agency under the Minister for Labour Relations’ control - (1) Has the Minister approved any ex-gratia or one off payments in the years - (a) 1998-1999; or (b) 1999-2000? (2) If yes, how much was the payment for? (3) What was the purpose of the payment?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: The information sought is not held centrally and is, in fact, spread across all agencies in the public sector. The statutory requirements governing act of grace payments are stringent and the Member may wish to refer to Section 58B, Regulation 25 and Treasurer's Instruction 319 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act (1985) for further information. In broad terms, the relevant Minister can approve act of grace payments up to a maximum of $2,000, and the Treasurer can approve payments of up to $50,000, with payments in excess of $50,000 also requiring the approval of the Governor. The request for information on every individual act of grace payment made during 1998-99 and 1999-

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3785

2000 would require a considerable amount of administrative effort to collate and, in the circumstances, I am not prepared to devote valuable resources to such a task. However, should the Member require details of a specific act of grace payment or payments, I will arrange for that information to be made available. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, PRIVATISED, CLOSED OR CONTRACTED OUT 541. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: Since the election of the present State Government in 1993 - (1) Which Government departments, agencies and/or enterprises under the Minister for the Environment’s portfolio have been - (a) privatised; and (b) closed? (2) Which services under the Minister’s portfolio, formerly performed by Government employees have been contracted out to the private sector?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of Conservation and Land Management: (1) Nil (2) Fleet servicing and management, computer operations and some gardening services. Department of Environmental Protection: (1-2) Nil Perth Zoo: (1) Nil. (2) The entry ticketing service was contracted out in July 1997. Increased components of cleaning and lawn mowing services have been contracted out during this period. Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority: (1) Nil (2) Waste Removal including rubbish in green bins Internal audit function Creation of plant labels Window cleaning Night-time security Partial contracting out of vehicle maintenance and repair Partial contracting out of weed spraying and lawn fertilizing Partial contracting out of supply of plants for bedding All office and staff toilet cleaning WORK-RELATED INJURY, DISEASE AND FATALITY RATES 550. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: Can the Minister for Labour Relations advise the work related injury, disease and fatality rates for each of the following years - (a) 1994-1995; (b) 1995-1996; (c) 1996-1997; (d) 1997-1998; (e) 1998-1999; and (f) 1999-2000 to date?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: It should be noted that the workers' compensation data from which frequency rates are derived are dynamic and subject to ongoing revision. The frequency rates for work related injury and disease (Lost time injury and disease per million hours worked) for the years in question are:

3786 [COUNCIL]

(a) 26.8 (b) 25.6 (c) 24.4 (d) 23.5 (e) 21.4 (f) Data not yet available The incidence rate for fatalities is calculated according to the number of fatal injuries for every million workers in a given year. The rates for the years in question are: (a) 38.2 (b) 21.7 (c) 23.6 (d) 29.8 (e) 15.8 (f) Data not yet available GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY MEMBERSHIP OR SUBSCRIPTION FEES 590. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: What has been the cost incurred since February 1993 by any department or agency within the Minister for the Environment’s portfolio that pays - (a) membership; or (b) subscription fees, to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of Environmental Protection: (a-b) Nil Perth Zoo: (a-b) Nil Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority: (a-b) Nil Department of Conservation and Land Management: (a-b) Nil. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY MEMBERSHIP OR SUBSCRIPTION FEES 595. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: What has been the cost incurred since February 1993 by any department or agency within the Minister for Labour Relations’ portfolio that pays - (a) membership; or (b) subscription fees, to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission: (a-b) Nil Department of Productivity and Labour Relations: (a) Nil. (b) Subscription fees 1997/ 98 $ 120 1998/ 99 $ 270. Computerised Financial Management Information data is only available from 1997. Subscription fees for the years 1993 - 1997 would not exceed $ 300 per annum and the information is archived.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3787

WorkSafe Western Australia: (a) Nil (b) Approximately $970 for WA Economic Review. WorkCover WA: (a) Nil (b) $70 in 1993 being subscription fees. Commissioner for Workplace Agreements: (a-b) Nil

HEALTH, NORHEALTH 2020 INITIATIVE 608. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: With reference to the April 2000 Report on Norhealth 2020, under the heading “Communicable diseases” (Page 7), why is there no reference to action the health system will take at the hospital/health service level under this heading?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: An examination of the associated risk factors for communicable diseases in the Northwest regions suggests that primary level intervention is appropriate. Examples are the Aboriginal Environmental Health Program, the Sexually Transmitted Disease contact training program and surveillance and intervention programs run by the Northwest public health units. Hospitals in the Northwest already provide secondary level services for patients with communicable diseases or complications when necessary.

HEALTH, PORT HEDLAND DIALYSIS UNIT 610. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: With reference to the April 2000 Report on Norhealth 2020, and the progress being made with renal dialysis (Page 12) - (1) Is the specialised renal dialysis unit in Port Hedland operational, as intended to be by June 2000? (2) If not, why not? (3) If no to (1), when will it be? (4) When will the unit in Broome be established and at what cost? (5) What are the broader elements of the more comprehensive renal disease strategy which are to be developed progressively? (6) What is the project cost and budget for this development? (7) What is the timetable for this development?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Renal Dialysis Unit in Port Hedland has been operational since 19 July 2000. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) It is planned to have satellite dialysis services established in Broome in the first half of 2001. The total cost of the development of the unit is not known. However, the Health Department of WA has set aside $1.068 million for capital works for the development. Additionally, the Commonwealth Government have committed $0.5 million for capital works for the development. (5) A new physician service based in Broome to service the Kimberley region and help lead enhancements to prevention and management of diabetes and renal disease. A resident specialist physician service is already established in the Pilbara region, working out of the Port Hedland Regional Hospital. (6) The establishment and recurrent costs are being detailed at the present time. (7) This new service is scheduled to be commenced in 2001/02.

WASTE CONTROL PTY LTD, BELLEVUE 617. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Does Waste Control Pty Ltd, in Bellevue, handle, recycle, process or store in any way, halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons or PCBs? (2) If yes, when was Waste Control Pty Ltd issued a license to handle these two substances?

3788 [COUNCIL]

(3) Does Waste Control Pty Ltd, emit any substance to air, water or soil during the handling, processing or storage of any goods or materials at its Bellevue premises? (4) If so, would the Minister for the Environment provide details? (5) Is Waste Control Pty Ltd currently licensed by the DEP? (6) If so, will the Minister table a copy of this licence? (7) When was Waste Control Pty Ltd originally established in Bellevue and for what purpose? (8) With regard to the section 73 order served on the company in September 1999, will the Minister provide details of the type and amount of materials removed and the location to which they were taken? (9) How were these materials stored or disposed?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. However, Waste Control Pty Ltd, now trading as Hazardous Waste Solutions, does receive, store, and process the halogenated dry cleaning solvent perchlorethylene and occasionally the solvent trichloroethylene. No PCBs are handled at the Bellevue site. (2) A licence under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 was first issued for the site in January 1990 for the operation of a chemical works. The plant is currently licensed for chemical or oil recycling and as a waste treatment facility. (3-4) The Bellevue site is not licensed for discharges of waste to the environment. However, there may be some small fugitive emissions of solvent vapours during normal plant operations. (5) Yes. (6) [See paper No 601.] (7) The site was originally licensed to a company called Austech (Australia) Pty Ltd for the purposes of solvent recycling. Waste Control Pty Ltd took over management of the plant in 1993. (8) Materials removed from the Bellevue site in 1999 with regard to the section 73 direction consisted of 1,000 200-litre drums of solvent-bearing sludges and solvents, mainly ethanol. The drums were taken to Teris (Aust.) Pty Ltd's premises in Victoria. (9) The materials were re-drummed and transported in containers by rail to Victoria for fuel blending prior to combustion in a cement kiln. ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING CREDENTIALS, ASSISTANCE IN CERTIFICATION 619. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) What forms of assistance is the Government providing to local businesses who wish to get their products certified under ISO 14040 environmental purchasing credentials for the American and European markets? (2) What action is the Minister for the Environment taking to install a similar purchasing system for State Government purchases?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Department of Environmental Protection does not provide assistance to local businesses that wish to get their products or services certified to Australian Standards ISO 14040. The Department of Commerce and Trade provides general advice and guidance to small business seeking accreditation to Australian Standard ISO 14000 series. (2) The responsibility for setting purchasing policy and guidelines for State Government rests with the State Supply Commission. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ARTWORKS 641. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: (1) Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs detail for all the departments, agencies, statutory authorities and corporatised entities under his control - (a) the value of all artworks, which includes painting, ceramics and glassware; (b) who funded the purchase of the artworks; and (c) who owns the artworks? (2) Have any artworks been sold in - (a) 1996-1997;

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3789

(b) 1997-1998; (c) 1998-1999; and (d) 1999-2000? (3) If yes, who to and for how much? (4) Are there any plans to sell any artworks in 2000-2001? Hon M.J. CRIDDLE replied:

(1) (a) $117,000.00. (b-c) Aboriginal Affairs Department. (2) (a-d) Nil. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ARTWORKS 657. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Will the Minister for the Environment detail for all the departments, agencies, statutory authorities and corporatised entities under her control - (a) the value of all artworks, which includes painting, ceramics and glassware; (b) who funded the purchase of the artworks; and (c) who owns the artworks? (2) Have any artworks been sold in - (a) 1996-1997; (b) 1997-1998; (c) 1998-1999; and (d) 1999-2000? (2) If yes, who to and for how much? (3) Are there any plans to sell any artworks in 2000-2001?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority: (1) Artworks owned by the Authority consist of the "Cullity Timbers Kings Park Collection" of prints produced by Patricia J Dundas and presented to Kings Park and the people of Western Australia by WESFI (Westralian Forest Industries) on 31 December 1999. They have an insurance value of $50,000. (2) Nil (3) Not applicable. (4) No. Perth Zoo: (1) (a) $12 745 (b) All donations. (c) Perth Zoo. (2) No (3) Not applicable. (4) No. Department of Environmental Protection: (1) Nil (2-4) Not applicable. Department of Conservation and Land Management: (1) (a) Artworks with individual value exceeding $1 000 are recorded in CALM's asset register. There are 13 items of total value of $35 360. In addition CALM has various prints, photographs and minor artefacts on display throughout the State, each of value less than $1 000.

3790 [COUNCIL]

(b) Most artworks were acquired and funded by CALM in the course of its operations. Twelve of the artworks of value over $1 000 relate to the Astronomical Services output and were acquired during the course of Observatory operations for public education purposes. (c) CALM (2) No (3) Not applicable. (4) No.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ARTWORKS 662. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: (1) Will the Minister for Labour Relations detail for all the departments, agencies, statutory authorities and corporatised entities under her control - (a) the value of all artworks, which includes painting, ceramics and glassware; (b) who funded the purchase of the artworks; and (c) who owns the artworks? (2) Have any artworks been sold in - (a) 1996-1997; (b) 1997-1998; (c) 1998-1999; and (d) 1999-2000? (3) If yes, who to and for how much? (4) Are there any plans to sell any artworks in 2000-2001?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: WorkCover WA: (1-4) Not applicable. Commissioner of Workplace Agreements: (1) (a) $140.00 (b-c) Commissioner of Workplace Agreements: (2) No (3) Not applicable. (4) No. Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission: (1) (a) The Department has 57 pieces of artwork now considered to be of no insurable value, 56 pieces of artwork valued at less than $1 000 and one piece of artwork valued at $1 200. (b-c) The Department of the Registrar, Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. Department of Productivity and Labour Relations: (1) (a) Nil (b-c) Not applicable. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. WorkSafe Western Australia: (1-4) Not applicable.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3791

KWINANA MOTORSPORTS COMPLEX, CONTAMINANTS IN TAILING DAMS 668. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Will the Minister for the Environment name the studies carried out to identify the level of contaminants present in the Alcoa residue red mud tailing dams stored at the proposed Kwinana Motorplex site? (2) What contaminants were found to be present by the studies at the Alcoa residue red mud tailing dams at the proposed Kwinana Motorplex site? (3) Will the Minister table these studies? (4) If not, why not? (5) Do the levels of contaminants found at the Alcoa residue red mud tailing dams at the proposed Kwinana Motorplex site meet the NEPM guidelines set for the proposed use of such a site? (6) If so, what were the levels?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1 - 4) The portion of the residue storage areas being developed for the Motorplex was previously classified as a Mine Site under the Department of Minerals and Energy's Mine Safety Inspection Act and the residue disposal operations were subject to an Agreement Act administered by the Department of Resources Development. The characteristics of Alcoa's bauxite residue can be obtained from the 1993 Public Environmental Review titled Use of Bauxite Residue in the Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain Catchment prepared by Agriculture WA. This document is available in the Department of Environmental Protection's library. (5 - 6) The Motorplex site is being constructed partially over the residue storage areas and their associated embankment walls. Where disturbed during construction of the speedway, reinstatement of the 400mm thick impermeable clay liner and cap enclosing the residue will take place. As a result, there will be no exposure of the public to the residue material.

GAS TO SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBONS PLANT, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 682. Hon Giz Watson to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: With reference to my question (Thursday, August 10 2000) on the proposed Gas to Synthetic Hydrocarbons Plant, Burrup Peninsula, Western Australia, I thank the Minister for tabling the documents, as a result I ask the following. What is the total tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions from this project as a per annum percentage of the current total per annum emissions from Western Australia?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Data on the current tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions per annum from Western Australia is not available. The most recent figures for Western Australia released by the Australian Greenhouse Office in 1998, are for 1995. An update for State figures is expected at the end of 2001.

JARRAH TREE, LOWDEN FOREST 683. Hon Christine Sharp to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Is the large jarrah tree protected in a logging coupe in Lowden Forest in the Shire of Dardanup documented in the register of Trees of Significance? (2) Is the Minister for the Environment aware the jarrah tree mentioned is in a Dieback Risk Area and is located in a 3 km walk from the nearest main road through a recently logged area? (3) Is the Minister aware of an elaborate double corral style jarrah timber fence erected at a 14 metres square distance on three sides from the bole of the mentioned tree and only four metres from the bole on the remaining side? (4) If the building of the fence was a Government tender - (a) when was it advertised; (b) how many companies tendered; and (c) what company won the tender? (5) What was the cost to the taxpayer for the building of this elaborate jarrah fence? (6) Did either the Minister for Forest Products and the Department for Conservation and Land Management’s Head visit the mentioned Jarrah tree in Lowden Forest during March this year? (7) What was the purpose of their visit to Lowden Forest and the mentioned jarrah tree?

3792 [COUNCIL]

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Yes (2) Yes. The tree however is not located on any formal CALM walk trail. (3) CALM is aware of the fence. (4) The construction of the fence was not a government tender. The contract for the construction of the fence was awarded to a qualified contractor on a quotation basis. (5) The contractors (B Rado and B Brittain) were paid $4 775 which included the tree falling, splitting of posts and rails, and erection of the fence. (6) No. (7) The visit to Lowden forest on 1-2 March 2000 was to familiarise participants about the current timber harvesting procedures. WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS, NUMBER 684. Hon John Cowdell to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: I refer to the reference in the Administrator’s speech to the effect that “well over 200 000 workplace agreements have been registered to date, providing Western Australians with more flexibility and improved pay and conditions” and ask - (1) How many of these workplace agreements were registered in - (a) 1995; (b) 1996; (c) 1997; (d) 1998; (e) 1999; and (f) 2000 year to date? (2) How many of the 200 000 workplace agreements referred to in the Administrator’s speech are current? (3) What percentage of Western Australian workforce is covered by State Workplace Agreements? (4) How many public sector employees are currently employed under workplace agreements? (5) What percentage of the public sector workforce does this represent?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Agreements Under Section 30 Agreements Under Section 40 a) 22,729 a) Not applicable. b) 33,414 b) Not applicable. c) 37,832 c) 94 d) 54,142 d) 766 e) 59,651 e) 1,069 f) 45,363 (to 31 July 2000) f) 695 (to 31 July 2000) (2-3) The Administrator referred to well over 200,000 workplace agreements being registered to date. The actual number of agreements registered to July 2000 is 262,212. Employees move between employers and employment instruments and it is not possible to provide information on the number of employees covered by any employment instrument, be it workplace agreements, awards, industrial agreements or common law arrangements. (4) As an employer, the Government has data on the number of employees working under workplace agreements. As at 30 April 2000, 23 600 public sector employees were covered by State workplace agreements (rounded to nearest 100). (5) This represents 22% of the Western Australian public service workforce. (Western Australian public service workforce does not include Western Power, Water Corporation, AlintaGas, or the Ports.) HMAS SYDNEY, FUNDING OF MEMORIAL 691. Hon Giz Watson to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: In respect of the proposed memorial to honour the 645 sailors lost through the sinking of HMAS Sydney II off the coast of Geraldton in 1941 -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3793

(1) Will the Premier advise the status of a funding application by the Rotary Club of Geraldton for $200 000 towards establishing a nationally significant memorial to the men and families of HMAS Sydney II? (2) Will the Premier advise what urgency this matter is receiving, given the aim for completion and dedication of this million dollar memorial is by November 19 2001, the 60th anniversary of the sinking of the naval vessel?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(2) The funding application by the Rotary Club of Geraldton is currently being considered by the Government. The State Government has noted the Commonwealth Government did not support the recommendation of the Federal Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee concerning combined State-Federal funding for the proposed memorial. The Commonwealth Government has not ruled out some level of financial assistance but its decision will place a greater financial burden on the State Government and the accompanying public subscription for the proposed memorial. The State Government is considering the request as a matter of priority, however, it still awaits the details of any commitment to be made by the Commonwealth. MINING, OROYA TAILINGS DAM 695. Hon Tom Helm to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to question on notice 977 of November 25 1999 and question on notice 1750 of April 6 2000 - (1) Can the Minister for the Environment advise whether any part of the entire footage of “videotape No 2” shows leakage and seepage through the walls of the Oroya tailings dam? (2) If not, why not?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. (2) In the earlier footage on video tape No 2 there is evidence of rainfall during the taking of the video. In later footage rainfall is not evident. The surface water run off and accumulations of surface water shown on the land adjacent to the Oroya Tailings Dam are consistent with recent rainfall and do not necessarily provide evidence of leakage and seepage through the walls of the Oroya Tailings Dam.

MINING, MT CHARLOTTE, DUST SUPPRESSION 696. Hon Tom Helm to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to a letter dated June 28 2000 signed by Peter Skitmore, Director Regional Services Division titled “KCGM- Haul Road, Correspondence and Videos” - (1) Did a Kalgoorlie DEP officer, Lucy Rogers, verbally advise the complainant who was concerned about no dust suppression at Mt Charlotte surface operations that KCGM in fact conceded that there was no dust suppression measures in place in the morning when KCGM were operating mining equipment? (2) If not, what did the DEP officer advise the complainant? (3) Can the Minister for the Environment advise how regularly and frequently the DEP officers have maintained regular surveillance of the operations since then? (4) If not, why not? (5) Will the Minister or the Department of Environmental Protection write to KCGM directing them, emphasising that at all times when earth moving and mining equipment is operating that dust suppression measures must be in place and operating to ensure that complainants do not have to contact the DEP given that KCGM has previously made written commitments to the DEP and residents that they will have dust suppression at all times when earth moving and mining equipment is operating? (6) If not, why not? (7) Can the Minister advise what specific matters the “DEP will be taking up” with KCGM to eliminate the concerns about excessive noise from the current operation with haul trucks and other equipment which seriously affects the health, welfare, comfort, and amenity of nearby residents? (8) If not, why not?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Yes. On investigating the dust complaint of 29 May 2000, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was advised by KCGM that dust suppression measures were not considered necessary until about 2 hours after commencing works. When it appeared that dust suppression measures were required, these were commenced. A site inspection at 2.15pm on 29 May 2000 by an officer from DEP, confirmed that dust suppression measures were in place.

3794 [COUNCIL]

(2) Not applicable. (3) Officers from DEP visited the Mt Charlotte surface operations on the following dates: 29 May 2000 30 May 2000 1 June 2000 8 June 2000 23 June 2000 2 August 2000 8 August 2000 17 August 2000 (4) Not applicable. (5-6) Since the dust complaint of 29 May 2000, only two complaints have been lodged with DEP regarding dust from the Mt Charlotte surface operations. Following DEP contact with KCGM on these two complaints, dust suppression measurements were immediately implemented. There have been no complaints on this matter since the last complaint on 23 June 2000. DEP has already requested KCGM to ensure that dust suppression measures are in place, so that dust from these operations does not cause a problem to the public. Given the lack of complaints since 23 June 2000, there is no need to issue a direction in this regard. (7-8) Discussions between DEP and KCGM on the use of haul trucks for this operation has resulted in the number of truck passes being reduced from about 30 per hour in late 1999, to 20 early this year and to 12 after February 2000. In response to DEP requests to KCGM to identify other options to reduce the noise from this operation, KCGM has noise tested all trucks used and now only uses, the quieter trucks. DEP also requested KCGM to build a noise barrier as soon as possible. However, KCGM has been unable to obtain permission from nearby residents to undertake this work. In order to resolve this matter, KCGM now plans to use an overland conveyer system to transport waste rock instead of using trucks. This work is almost finalised and should be transporting waste rock in a few weeks. A search of the complaints register at the DEP Kalgoorlie office back to February 2000, has indicated that no complaints about noise from the use of haul trucks to Mt Charlotte, have been received at that office.

MINING, MT CHARLOTTE, RECEIPT OF CORRESPONDENCE 697. Hon Tom Helm to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: Given the Minister for Environment sent a signed letter titled “Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines- Management of Noise Generated from Mining and Hauling Activities Associated with the Mt Charlotte Pits Mining Project” to the Williamstown Residents Committee (WRC) dated December 16 1999, which stated - “Thank you for your letter of 25 November 1999, concerning the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) issuing of approval for the above proposal.” - (1) Can the Minister for the Environment explain why she sent the WRC a letter dated February 25 2000, and referring to the WRC correspondence dated November 25 and December 21 1999, stating “We have no record of having received either of these pieces of correspondence”? (2) If not, why not?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) This matter has already been explained to the Williamstown Residents Committee (WRC) in June 2000. The earlier correspondence was held at the office of the Appeals Convenor. As soon as the correspondence was located, the WRC was informed and the outstanding matters dealt with. (2) Not applicable.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ANNUAL REPORTS, COSTS 718. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: What cost was incurred by each department or agency within the Premier’s portfolio in - (a) producing; and (b) distributing, their annual report for the financial year 1998-1999?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: I am advised that :

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3795

Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet (a)-(b) The Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet incurred costs of $14,173 in producing the annual report for 1998- 1999. Treasury (a) $19,626 (b) Distribution was effected through normal daily mail Anti-Corruption Commission (a) $6,215 (b) $400 Governor's Establishment (a) The Annual Report for Governor's Establishment is produced wholly in-house using the resources already available within the Agency. (b) Nil Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (a) $3,020 (b) $250.55 Gold Corporation (a) $19,860.49 (b) $3,285.27 Office of the Auditor General (a) $12,736 (b) Normal Mailwest rates undertaken inhouse. WA Treasury Corporation (a) $25,225 (b) $4,660

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ANNUAL REPORTS, COSTS 742. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Treasurer: What cost was incurred by each department or agency within the Treasurer’s portfolio in - (a) producing; and (b) distributing, their annual report for the financial year 1998-1999?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Please refer to the response provided to question on notice 718 of 5 September 2000.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ANNUAL REPORTS, COSTS 745. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: What cost was incurred by each department or agency within the Minister for the Environment’s portfolio in - (a) producing; and (b) distributing, their annual report for the financial year 1998-1999?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority: (a) $8 900 (b) Nil

3796 [COUNCIL]

Department of Environmental Protection: (a) $12 890 (b) $2 040 Department of Conservation and Land Management: (a) $14 485 (b) $2 004 Perth Zoo: (a) $12 787 (b) Postage costs were absorbed into Perth Zoo postage costs. Distribution costs were reduced by the inclusion of the annual report on the Zoo's website. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ANNUAL REPORTS, COSTS 746. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Federal Affairs: What cost was incurred by each department or agency within the Minister for Federal Affairs’ portfolio in - (a) producing; and (b) distributing, their annual report for the financial year 1998-1999?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Please refer to the response provided to question on notice 718 of 5 September 2000. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, ANNUAL REPORTS, COSTS 753. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Public Sector Management: What cost was incurred by each department or agency within the Minister for Public Sector Management’s portfolio in - (a) producing; and (b) distributing, their annual report for the financial year 1998-1999?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: Please refer to the response provided to question on notice 718 of 5 September 2000. LEEUWIN NATURALISTE NATIONAL PARK, HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 761. Hon Kim Chance to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Is the Minister for the Environment aware of housing developments adjacent to the boundary of the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park on lot locations 418 & 1060? (2) Is it correct that prior to the construction of housing pads on Lots 418 and 1060 land was cleared within the boundaries of the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park? (3) Is it correct that the initial construction of housing pads on lots 418 and 1060 actually intruded into the boundaries of the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park? (4) If incursions did occur into the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park what action was taken against the developers responsible for clearing and or building on this land? (5) What are the penalties for the unauthorised clearing of land within national parks in Western Australia? (6) Were any penalties applied to the above instances? (7) If no penalties were applied why was this the case? (8) With regards to the development of housing sites adjacent to national parks are there easements or prescribed distances that should apply between private dwellings and national park boundaries? (9) What are those easements or prescribed distances? (10) Do the housing sites developed on lots 418 and 1060 conform to this requirement?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1-3) Yes.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3797

(4) The land owners removed the sand from within the national park and rehabilitated the small area of National Park that was cleared. (5) The penalties under the National Park regulations Part V - Protection of Flora and Fauna and the environment. Section 25 Penalty $1000 (6) No. (7) The impact on the National Park was minor and those responsible were first offenders and received a letter of warning. (8) The Department of CALM is not responsible for approving building setbacks however CALM staff do provide advice to the local authority on matters such as building setbacks. As a consequence of this issue following advice from CALM building setbacks have been prescribed in the building licences for these properties. (9) In this instance the prescribed setbacks are nominally 30 - 100 metres depending on the fire protection requirements of the site and the buildings. (10) The house sites on the above locations have had setbacks prescribed by the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and it is not known at this stage if building works have commenced but the requirements for setback have been specified in the building licences.

MINING, JANGARDUP MINE 766. Hon Christine Sharp to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: With regards to Cable Sands Jangardup Heavy Minerals Mine and its extension - (1) Will the Minister for the Environment provide a copy of Cable Sands rehabilitation plan for the original mine site area? (2) If not, why not? (3) Will the Minister provide a copy of the Cable Sands mining and restoration plan for the Jangardup mine extension area? (4) If not, why not? (5) Has an audit of conditions compliance been finalised for the year 1999-2000? (6) Has the proponent complied with all its commitments and the conditions set out in relation to the mining operation? (7) Are there any conditions that Cable Sands has failed to comply with? (8) If so, which ones? (9) Will the Minister table a copy of the compliance audit? (10) If not, why not? (11) In the completion of the audit was a site visit undertaken by an officer of the Department of Environmental Protection?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Yes. [See paper No 602.] (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. [See paper No 602.] (4) Not applicable. (5) The DEP conducted a compliance audit of Cable Sands' Annual Environmental Report for the year 1999, and conducted a site inspection in February 2000 in respect of rehabilitation progress. An audit of compliance for 2000 will be carried out early in 2001. (6-7) The DEP has not determined any non-compliance matters, however, additional information was sought with regard to a number of conditions. (8) Not applicable. (9) Yes. [See paper No 602.] (10) Not applicable.

3798 [COUNCIL]

(11) Yes. STORMWATER POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES, INSTALLATION 776. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Have any Continuous Deflective Separation stormwater pollution control devices been installed as part of the environmental protection conditions of any development near coastal or riverine areas? (2) If yes, which developments and how many separation devices in each? (3) If not, why is this proven pollution control method being ignored?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Environmental protection conditions applied in respect of development proposals in Western Australia generally aim to achieve good environmental outcomes by setting environmental performance objectives to be achieved, not by requiring the use of specific proprietary products. I am informed that a number of Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) systems have been installed in Western Australia and several more are planned. For example, one CDS unit is operating in Bunbury as part of the Leschenault Inlet Pollution Free Project which is a Coast and Clean Seas Project, and another two are scheduled to be installed there. Another CDS unit is being installed in Bayswater on the Swan Lake Main Drain. The technology is not being ignored.

FORESTS AND FORESTRY, SAWLOG SUPPLY CONTRACTS 781. Hon Norm Kelly to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Forest Products: (1) For what total amounts in cubic metres and tonnes does CALM have sawlog supply contracts for the supply of - (a) 1st grade jarrah sawlogs; (b) other grades of jarrah sawlogs (please specify); (c) 1st grade karri sawlogs; (d) other grades of karri sawlogs (please specify); (e) 1st grade marri sawlogs; (f) other grades of marri sawlogs (please specify); and (g) other sawlogs (please specify species and grades)? (2) For what amounts in cubic metres and tonnes does CALM have sawlog supply contracts with Bunnings/Sotico for the supply of - (a) 1st grade jarrah sawlogs; (b) other grades of jarrah sawlogs (please specify); (c) 1st grade karri sawlogs; (d) other grades of karri sawlogs (please specify); (e) 1st grade marri sawlogs; (f) other grades of marri sawlogs (please specify); and (g) other sawlogs (please specify species and grades)?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: 1) a) 1st grade Jarrah sawlogs 361,188 m3 469,389 tonne b) 2nd grade sawlog 91,722 m3 119,755 tonne 3rd grade sawlog 49,905 m3 61,884 tonne High Grade Feature Sawlog 723 m3 900 tonne Low Grade Feature Sawlog 2,093 m3 2,600 tonne Premium sawlogs 5,800 m3 7,531 tonne Short sawlogs 2,500 m3 3,100 tonne

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3799

c) 1st grade Karri sawlogs 113,484 m3 140,720 tonne d) 2nd grade sawlogs 21,260 m3 26,362 tonne 3rd grade sawlogs 24,626 m3 30,536 tonne Medium sawlogs 35,000 m3 41,900 tonne Premium sawlogs 2,000 m3 2,480 tonne Small sawlogs 4,032 m3 5,000 tonne e) Marri sawlogs 60,038 m3 74,390 tonne f) High Grade Feature Sawlog 40 m3 50 tonne g) Wandoo 2nd grade sawlog 1,316 m3 1,730 tonne Blackbutt 1st grade sawlog 40 m3 50 tonne Sheoak High Grade Feature sawlog 2500 m3 2500 tonne 2) a) 1st grade Jarrah sawlog 258,000 m3 334,395 tonne b) NIL c) 1st grade Karri sawlogs 80,000 m3 99,200 tonne d) 3rd grade Karri sawlogs 6,000 m3 7,440 tonne Medium sawlogs 20,000 m3 23,800 tonne Small sawlogs 4,032 m3 5,000 tonne e) Marri sawlogs 30,000 m3 37,200 tonne f) NIL g) NIL

COCKBURN SOUND, POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES 783. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: As part of their discharge licence approvals, has the DEP or EPA instructed companies discharging substances into Cockburn Sound to install the pollution control device DTOX ™ or any similar device, which will remove heavy metals, such as cadmium, mercury, lead and chromium from industrial waster water?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has not, as a licence condition, required industries discharging substances to Cockburn Sound to install a "DTOX" system. However, various other pollution control systems exist on prescribed premises that discharge into Cockburn Sound.

WASTE DISPOSAL, PALMDALE ROAD, MANYPEAKS 790. Hon Bob Thomas to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Did the DEP give their preliminary approval to a proposed landfill site at Palmdale Road in Manypeaks with an estimated lifespan of forty years? (2) If so, how does the Minister for the Environment reconcile the decision with the statement in the Albany Advertiser on August 17 2000 that the Waste 2020 strategy would lead to a “shift from waste disposal to resource recovery to achieve zero waste by 2020”? (3) Is the Minister aware that the proposed putrescible matter landfill site is situated directly over an underground aquifer containing large volumes of high quality drinking water just 30 kilometres from Albany? (4) How does the Minister reconcile this with the fact that we are in the middle of an international water summit that is painting an alarming picture of the future scarcity of drinking water across the globe?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. The Department has received an application for works Approval to establish a landfill site in Palmdale Road, but is still assessing the proposal. (2) There is no inconsistency with the statement referred to in the Albany Advertiser on August 17, 2000. The vision of the Waste 2020 strategy is to view and use waste as a resource, rather than as a disposal problem.

3800 [COUNCIL]

(3) The proposed landfill site is in an area of good quality clay material, where groundwater is located some 30 metres below the surface. The Department has been advised by an officer from the Water and Rivers Commission that the site is not in any proclaimed water reserve. (4) Not applicable. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, PETROL-LPG DUAL-USE VEHICLES 794. Hon Norm Kelly to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) How many Members of Parliament currently use a Government-supplied petrol/LPG dual-use vehicle? (2) Who are these members, and when were these vehicles acquired (including previous vehicles that have been replaced)? (3) Is the Premier able to provide information as to the level of fuel savings obtained from the use of these vehicles?

Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) Three Members are currently supplied with petrol/LPG dual use vehicles under the Members of Parliament Electorate Vehicle Scheme. (2) I do not propose to name the Members concerned. However, four vehicles have been acquired as follows: (i) 20/4/1998 - 1/5/2000 (ii) 20/4/2000 to date (iii) 20/1/1998 to date (iv) 20/4/1999 to date (3) Savings are difficult to quantify, as there are a number of variables to consider. However, if LPG is used for the maximum number of fills (approximately 80%), savings in the order of $1,500 - $2,000 over unleaded fuel costs can be achieved.

OMEX SITE, AIR EMISSIONS 796. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: Air emissions in excess of action levels occurred at the Omex site for 11 days during the period May 8 2000 to May 23 2000 - (1) Why did the Minister for the Environment permit air emission action levels to continue to be exceeded at the Omex site during this period? (2) Does the Emergency Response Plan, Appendix 5, 1.5.5, of the Public and Occupational Health and Safety Procedure for the Omex remediation include actions to be undertaken in the event of air emissions exceeding action levels? (3) Were all the procedures adhered to during the above dates when emission action levels were exceeded? (4) If not, which procedures were not adhered to and why were they not adhered to? (5) Has the remediation of the Omex site been managed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan prepared by Thiess Environmental? (6) If not, why not?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Air monitoring and responses to action levels during the remediation of the Omex site were managed by Thiess Environmental Services Pty Ltd on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection. Auditing of compliance with environmental conditions, including compliance with air emission monitoring, was undertaken by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). No matters of non-compliance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) have been advised by the EPA, therefore Ministerial action is not warranted. (2) Section 3.1 of the EMP details an Environmental Management Program for atmospheric emissions. This program specifies controls to limit emissions during operations. The program also refers to specific responses to alert and action levels when these levels are reached. These responses are specified in section 1.4 of Attachment F, Air Emissions Management Procedure. A number of amendments to the Air Emissions Management Procedure were approved by the EPA in the light of operational experience during the remediation.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3801

(3) I am unaware of any instances when procedures as set out in section 1.4 of Attachment F, Air Emissions Management Procedure (and amendments) of the EMP were not adhered to when air emission action levels were reached during the remediation. (4) Not applicable. (5) To the best of my knowledge, the remediation of the Omex site has been managed in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the EMP and amendments, as approved by the EPA. (6) Not applicable. COODARDY STATION, PURCHASE 852. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Has the Government approved the purchase of Coodardy Station as part of the funds made available under the Gascoyne–Murchison program? (2) If so, on what basis was the station purchased? (3) Will the Minister for the Environment table the following details - (a) the purchase price for the station; (b) when the transfer of the lease was or will be completed; and (c) what will be the future use of the lease? (4) Will the current lease-holder have any ongoing arrangements in reference to either the station’s pastoral operations or the homestead? (5) If yes, what are those arrangements?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. (2)-(5) Not applicable. SUNSET HOSPITAL SITE, REDEVELOPMENT 854. Hon Giz Watson to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Lands: With regards to the proposed redevelopment of the Sunset Hospital site in Nedlands - (1) When was the Sunset Hospital site first gazetted as a reserve and for what purpose? (2) How many different proposals for the future use of the Sunset Hospital site have been seriously considered? (3) Is the Minister for Lands aware that at a recent public meeting held at the site, more than 90 per cent of those attending were against the proposal to set up a private retirement village? (4) Is the Minister aware that the same meeting expressed the strong view that the whole site be dedicated to heritage and conservation? (5) If the site, being maintained as an ‘A’ class reserve in public ownership, is leased to a private operator, how does this benefit the public both in financial terms and with regard to access to the site? (6) How do the proposals to build thirty retirement villas within the landscaped open areas, identified as being of heritage value, affect that heritage value? (7) Is the Minister aware that the proposed villas to be constructed at the north western end of the site entail the removal of a heritage listed building, one that was transported to the site from the original Mount Eliza Depot? (8) Is the Minister aware that the eastern end of the site is at present zoned as green for Parks and Gardens under the 1963 MRS and that this area is to be included in the urban zone under Government proposals? (9) Is the Minister aware that it is intended to vest part of the site in the City of Nedlands and that only one percent of reserved land is currently vested in local council? (10) How significant is the heritage value of the landscaped open space surrounding the buildings on the Sunset Hospital Site? (11) How much of the land proposed to be transferred to Parks and Recreation under the current Government proposals consists of escarpment and cliff face? (12) How much of the land proposed to be transferred to Parks and Recreation under the current Government proposals would be useable as public open space? (13) How much of the land proposed to be transferred to Parks and Recreation under the current Government proposals contains good condition bushland and what steps would be required to maintain the integrity of that bushland?

3802 [COUNCIL]

(14) Is the Minister aware that there are empty blocks on Jutland Parade and Victoria Avenue, suitably zoned for urban use, which are effectively competing with the blocks proposed to be excised from the Sunset Hospital Reserve?

(15) Is it not the case that Iris Avenue forms the natural boundary between the upmarket urban development of Jutland Parade and the heritage place of the Sunset Hospital site? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) Land comprising Reserve 1667 was originally set aside on 3 July 1890 under the Land Regulations 1890 for "Recreation". The reserve was classified Class "A" by the Governor on 25 May 1900 pursuant to Section 1 of the Permanent Reserves Act 1899. Section 1 of Act 13 of 1904 changed the reserve's purpose to "Old Men's Depot site". An area on the western side of the site was acquired by the Government in 1911 and incorporated into the reserve. An area on the east, including the site of the 2-storey hospital building, was acquired in 1911 and incorporated into the reserve in 1921. (2) All proposals considered have taken into account the need to retain the heritage buildings and to identify future uses that are compatible with heritage. The 1995 Conservation Plan suggested that the future use of the site for retirement housing is particularly appropriate. An assessment was made of developing a nursing home, self- care and serviced apartments on the site but these uses were subsequently found to be non-viable. In view of the demand for high quality retirement housing in the area, it was felt that a retirement village was appropriate. (3) The public meeting was organized by a group of local residents opposed to the redevelopment yet still a number of people voiced support for the retirement village. None of the invited guest speakers at the meeting represented those sections of the community in favour of the retirement village. There was a high level of interest expressed in the retirement village when the concept plan was released for public comment late last year and the City of Nedlands has also confirmed a need for this type of facility in the area. Market research undertaken in the City of Nedlands between 20 - 24 September indicated that 63% of people surveyed in Dalkeith have an interest in a retirement village in the Nedlands area and 93% of these have an interest in Sunset. (4) The concept plan identifies a viable use for the conservation of heritage and existing landscape elements. (5) In financial terms, the lease payments from the retirement village developer / operator will be used to fund the maintenance of public areas of the site and aged related programs elsewhere in the State. In terms of access, the public will have access to most of the site. It is not intended that the retirement village be a walled compound, fenced off from the rest of the neighbourhood. However, it must be recognized that residents should be entitled to live in a safe and secure environment. These are design and management issues that are currently being addressed. Furthermore, this important heritage site will be conserved at little cost to taxpayers. The alternative would be for Nedland's ratepayers, or taxpayers to fund the considerable expense of restoring, adapting and maintaining a large heritage site. (6) Redevelopment will enhance the heritage value of the site. The buildings and grounds will be put to viable use, protected by heritage agreements. The Heritage Council of Western Australia is supportive of the redevelopment. (7) The concept plan is indicative only and the Mt Eliza building may well stay where it is. This building has a history of being relocated and it could be placed elsewhere with Heritage Council approval. (8) It is no longer proposed to create an Urban zone. The Western Australian Planning Commission recommended, and the Government accepted that recommendation, that the proposed Urban zone be a 'Public Purpose - Special Use' reserve. The eastern part of the site was always used as part of the Sunset Hospital and a number of buildings and improvements are located in this area. It has not been used as a parks and recreation reserve. Only a small portion of that reserve is proposed to be incorporated into the 'Public Purpose - Special Use' reserve. (9) I am aware that some of the buildings may be leased to the City of Nedlands. I am also advised that there are 108 reserves in the City of Nedlands comprising a total area of 572 hectares. 64 of these reserves comprising 227 hectares (or about 40% of the total area of reserves) are under the management of the City of Nedlands. Recreation reserves make up more than 10% of the total land area of the City of Nedlands. (10) A number of landscape elements at Sunset have been identified as having considerable heritage significance. These will be retained. All the existing landscape is considered to have parkland significance and will be kept wherever possible. (11)-(12)All of the parks and recreation reserve, including the escarpment would be public open space.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3803

(13) The bushland in good condition will be retained. Hopefully, some areas of degenerated bushland can also be restored. (14) No (15) Iris Avenue provides legal access to private residential housing and the western end of the Sunset site. However the hospital was built in 1904 before Iris Avenue was constructed and any other residential development in the area. Sunset has been there for nearly 100 years and is on the State Heritage Register. There is already a residence on the eastern side of Iris Avenue. Notwithstanding this, it is now proposed that this area will also be included in the parks and recreation reserve.

FORESTS AND FORESTRY, BAUXITE MINING 864. Hon Christine Sharp to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Forest Products: (1) What area of forest has been mined each year for the past five years for bauxite production? (2) What volume of logs by species have been produced and sold from this mining activity each year for the past five years? (3) What volume of logs by species have been produced but not sold each year for the past five years, from this mining activity? (4) To whom have the log volumes been sold, and under what supply contracts? (5) What area of forest and volume of logs are anticipated as a result of mining for bauxite for each of the next five years?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The following area has been cleared for bauxite production: 1995 560 hectares 1996 920 hectares 1997 820 hectares 1998 870 hectares 1999 690 hectares (2) Delivery Year Species Volume (m3) 1995 Jarrah 21038 1995 Marri 2089 1995 Radiata 18 1995 Sheoak 74 1996 various exotic eucalypts 4499 1996 Jarrah 22023 1996 Marri 2295 1996 Sheoak 265 1997 Blackbutt 11 1997 Jarrah 20044 1997 Marri 400 1997 Sheoak 136 1998 Jarrah 14405 1998 Sheoak 85 1998 Wandoo 38 1998 various exotic eucalypts 3 1999 Jarrah 30002 1999 Marri 221 1999 Sheoak 421 1999 various exotic eucalypts 11 Grand Total 118078

(3) Residue material such as branches and roots which cannot be sold is not assessed. 1995 N/A 1996 N/A 1997 N/A

3804 [COUNCIL]

1998 N/A 1999 Approximately 2500 tonnes of green residue logs have been stockpiled and when sufficiently dry will be sold as charcoal logs or to a range of firewood customers. (4) Delivery Year Customer Contract No. 1995 Ashkate Timber Co 2155 1995 Atwell C & Co 2202 1995 Beaman D G & J T 2201 1995 Beaman G & C 2199 1995 Bungarra Craftwood Supplies 2373 1995 Bunnings Forest Products 2304 1995 Cardoso Pty Ltd 2301 1995 Cardoso Pty Ltd 2307 1995 Cockburn Sawmill 2309 1995 Coli Timber Merchants 2310 1995 Fort A M & S J 2139 1995 Hamilton Sawmills 2319 1995 Inglewood Products Group 2396 1995 Lavery G W 2235 1995 Nettleton B 2205 1995 Pickering Brook Sawmill 2334 1995 Pinetec 2353 1995 Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 769 1995 South West Rural Fencing Supply 2151 1995 Stefanelli Sawmillers Pty Ltd 2341 1995 Taylor B L 2204 1995 Van Chac Nguyen 2337 1995 WA Chip & Pulp Co Ltd 2050 1995 Welsh P 2154 1995 Wesfi Manufacturing Pty Ltd 922 1995 Wesfi Manufacturing Pty Ltd 2400 1995 Wesfi Manufacturing Pty Ltd (Dardanup) 921 1995 White Bros Contracting 2173 1995 Whittakers Ltd (Receiver & Manager appointed) 2349 1995 Zanki I & G 2233 1996 A & B Mulch 2238 1996 Ashkate Timber Co 2155 1996 Atwell C & Co 2202 1996 Beaman D G & J T 2201 1996 Beaman G & C 2199 1996 Bungarra Craftwood Supplies 2373 1996 Bunnings Forest Products 2304 1996 Cockburn Sawmill 2309 1996 Coli Timber Merchants 2310 1996 Creative Milling Co 2411 1996 Fort A M & S J 2139 1996 Hamilton Sawmills 2319 1996 Inglewood Products Group 2396 1996 Jarrah Case Factory 2323 1996 Jarwood Supply's 2412 1996 Lime Industries Pty Ltd 2404 1996 Merenda Transport 2002 1996 Millwood Forest Products 2397 1996 Murphy K L & G 2416 1996 Nettleton B 2205 1996 Pickering Brook Sawmill 2334 1996 Ridolfo V & D 2395 1996 Roper G A 2463 1996 Saunders G W & N L 2338 1996 Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 769 1996 South West Rural Fencing Supply 2151 1996 Stefanelli Sawmillers Pty Ltd 2341

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3805

1996 Taylor B L 2204 1996 The Axemans Council of WA 2125 1996 Thomson C 2234 1996 WA Chip & Pulp Co Ltd 2050 1996 Walsh M 2243 1996 Welsh P 2154 1996 Wesfi Manufacturing Pty Ltd 2400 1996 White Ant Willie 2405 1996 Whittakers Ltd (Receiver & Manager appointed) 2349 1996 Zanki I & G 2233 1997 A & K Joinery 2462 1997 Ashkate Timber Co 2155 1997 Atwell C & Co 2202 1997 Beaman D G & J T 2201 1997 Beaman G & C 2199 1997 Bungarra Craftwood Supplies 2373 1997 Bunnings Forest Products 2304 1997 Cardoso Pty Ltd 2301 1997 Cockburn Sawmill 2309 1997 Coli Timber Merchants 2310 1997 Creative Milling Co 2411 1997 Hamilton Sawmills 2319 1997 Inglewood Products Group 2396 1997 Jarrah Case Factory 2323 1997 Jarwood Supply's 2412 1997 McLean Recycling Industries Pty Ltd 2480 1997 Muller F & Co 2332 1997 Murphy K L G 2416 1997 Nettleton B 2205 1997 Pickering Brook Sawmill 2334 1997 Rogers M C & J H 2236 1997 Roper G A 2463 1997 Saunders G W & N L 2338 1997 Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 769 1997 South West Rural Fencing Supply 2151 1997 South West Rural Fencing Supply 2493 1997 Taylor B L 2204 1997 The Axemans Council of WA 2125 1997 Thomson C 2234 1997 WA Chip & Pulp Co Ltd 2050 1997 Welsh P 2154 1997 Zanki I & G 2233 1998 A & B Mulch 2238 1998 Ashkate Timber Co 2155 1998 Ashkate Timber Co 2552 1998 Atwell C & Co 2202 1998 Atwell C & Co 2563 1998 Beaman D G & J T 2201 1998 Beaman D G & J T 2551 1998 Beaman G & C 2199 1998 Beaman G & C 2565 1998 Bungarra Craftwood Supplies 2373 1998 Capel Timber Sawmilling 2306 1998 Capel Timber Sawmilling 2403 1998 Cockburn Sawmill 2309 1998 Coli Timber Merchants 2310 1998 Creative Milling Co 2411 1998 Hamilton Sawmills 2319 1998 Inglewood Products Group 2396 1998 Jarrah Case Factory 2323 1998 Jarwood Supply's 2412 1998 Keogh Terrance Lenard 2512

3806 [COUNCIL]

1998 Lime Industries Pty Ltd 2404 1998 Malatesta D M 2410 1998 Modern Joinery 2516 1998 Muller F & Co 2332 1998 Murphy Kl & G 2416 1998 Nettleton B 2205 1998 Rogers M C & J H 2236 1998 Roper G A 2463 1998 Saunders G W & N L 2338 1998 Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 769 1998 South West Rural Fencing Supply 2493 1998 Stefanelli Sawmillers Pty Ltd 2341 1998 Taylor B L 2204 1998 Taylor B L 2562 1998 Thomson C 2234 1998 Wake & Beacham Sawmillers 2380 1998 Walsh M 2243 1998 Welsh P 2154 1998 Zanki I & G 2233 1999 A & B Mulch 2238 1999 A L Walliston Firewood & Treelopping 2491 1999 Ashkate Timber Co 2552 1999 Atwell C & Co 2563 1999 Beaman Dg & Jt 2551 1999 Beaman G & C 2565 1999 Bungarra Craftwood Supplies 2373 1999 Capel Timber Sawmilling 2306 1999 Capel Timber Sawmilling 2403 1999 Cardoso Pty Ltd 2307 1999 Cockburn Sawmill 2309 1999 Coli Timber Products 2310 1999 Creative Milling Co 2411 1999 Eddies Firewood Supplies 2365 1999 Hamilton Sawmills 2319 1999 Hunter M 2494 1999 Inglewood Products Group 2396 1999 Jarrah Case Factory 2323 1999 Jarwood Supply's 2412 1999 Keedac 2600 1999 Kelly's Woodyard 2488 1999 Keogh Terrance Lenard 2512 1999 McLean Recycling Industries Pty Ltd 2480 1999 Muller F & Co 2332 1999 Pickering Brook Sawmill 2334 1999 Ridolfo V & D 2395 1999 Ridolfo V & D 2489 1999 Rogers M C & J H 2236 1999 Roper G A 2463 1999 S.P.D. Wood Supplies 2231 1999 Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 769 1999 Specialised Firewood Supply 2492 1999 Stefanelli Sawmillers Pty Ltd 2341 1999 Taylor B L 2562 1999 The Axemans Council of WA 2125 1999 Thomson C 2234 1999 Walsh M 2243 1999 White Ant Willie 2405 1999 Zanki I & G 2233

(5) Approximate area of forest proposed to be cleared for bauxite mining is 700 hectares per year for the next five years. The quantity of logs likely to be produced immediately prior to the mining of these areas has not been assessed.

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3807

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION RESERVES, KIMBERLEY 865. Hon Giz Watson to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: With reference to the national parks and conservation reserves created by the Government in the Kimberley in July 2000 - Why did CALM mislead the Kimberley Land Council in their letter of July 24 2000 by implying that the vesting of these lands was still to happen by stating on maps provided with that correspondence that these areas were to be reserved under the Lands Administration Act 1997 and vested in the NPNCA, when vesting of these reserves had already taken place on the July 11 2000?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: The Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) wrote to the Kimberley Land Council on 24 July 200 advising that senior CALM officers would be pleased to meet with the Wanjina/Wunggurr-Willinggin native title claimants to discuss matters of concern to the claimants and CALM. The map provided by CALM predated the reservation of the Mitchell River and Lawley River National Parks and the Camp Creek, Laterite and King Leopold Range Conservation Parks. The map also predated the 30 June 2000 registration of the Wanjina/Wunggurr-Uunguu native title claim. CALM did not imply anything other than a desire to meet with the native title claimants and discuss matters of mutual concern.

KALGOORLIE EASTERN BYPASS, REALIGNMENT 870. Hon Tom Helm to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to the SMEC August 2000 Realignment of the Kalgoorlie Eastern Bypass Planning Report and the Government’s commitment to fund up to 50 percent of the project - (1) Can the Minister for the Environment provide a scaled, detailed map showing where the - (a) open pit operations; (b) residential areas and commercial premises; (c) several existing power transmission lines; and (d) water services, will be relocated to accommodate the realignment currently located in relative close proximity to the existing bypass road? (2) If not, why not? (3) Will the Minister provide the detailed costings associated with relocating the Eastern Bypass Road for the options - (a) Alternative 1; (b) Alternative 2; and (c) Alternative 3, as shown on figure 3.1 of the report? (4) If not, why not? (5) Will the Minister provide estimates of the tonnage and average grade of gold per tonne that the realignment may enable KCGM to mine? (6) If not, why not? (7) Will the Minister provide a scaled, detailed map indicating where the existing approximately 20 metres high environmental bund located near the current bypass road will be relocated, in relation to residential and commercial properties and state the amount of tonnes of earth, rock material that will be used to construct this environmental bund? (8) If not, why not?

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1 - 8) The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has referred the proposed Kalgoorlie-Boulder Eastern Bypass Road Realignment to the Environmental Protection Authority for a decision on level of assessment under the Environmental Protection Act. No decision has been made by the Environmental Protection Authority at this time. The referral document which was prepared by consultants to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM) does not provide the detailed information sought in the questions and I am advised that the information is not presently available.

3808 [COUNCIL]

LACEPEDE ISLANDS NATURE RESERVE, CLASSIFICATION

899. Hon Giz Watson to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: With regard to the classification of the Lacepede Islands Nature Reserve in the Kimberley - (1) What is the current classification of these islands? (2) Did the Environmental Protection Authority Red Book Status Report (1993) and CALM's Nature Conservation Reserves in the Kimberley (1991) recommend a change to class 'A' classification for these islands? (3) Has this reclassification occurred? (4) If not, why has it taken so long for these islands to be reclassified? (5) Has any department objected to the change to an 'A' class status? (6) Will the Minister for the Environment now act to ensure that these islands are afforded 'A' class conservation status? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Lacepede Islands Nature Reserve (reserve number 7279) is described as not class A under the Land Administration Act 1997. (2) The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Red Book Status Report 1993 noted the recommendation of the EPA System 7 Report 1981 for the Nature Reserve to be upgraded to class A under the then Land Act 1933. The Department of Conservation and Land Management 1991 publication 'Nature Conservation Reserves in the Kimberley' endorsed the System 7 recommendation for a class A classification for the Lacepede Islands Nature Reserve. (3) No. (4) The Department of Conservation and Land Management has arranged for the Nature Reserve to be extended to low water mark and to include Sandy Island and East Island. Classification of the Nature Reserve as a class A reserve under the Land Administration Act has required the approval of other State agencies. (5) Yes (6) Classification of land under the Land Administration Act is the responsibility of the Minister for Lands. The Minister will, through the Department of Conservation and Land Management, again request that the reserve be afforded A class status. WORK FORCE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA, SIZE AND CONDITIONS OF WORK

901. Hon John Cowdell to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Labour Relations: (1) What is the current size of the Western Australian workforce? (2) What percentage of the Western Australian workforce is covered by - (a) Federal Awards and Enterprise Agreements; (b) Australian Workplace Agreements; (c) State Awards and Enterprise Agreements; (d) State Workplace Agreements; and (e) Common Law Contracts? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) 930 800 persons - September 2000. (2) The data requested is not available for any Australian State or Territory. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is however conducting a survey. Findings are due for release during the first quarter of 2001. For Western Australian public sector employees the relevant percentages are: (a) Federal Awards (0.38%) / Federal Certified Agreements (32.81%); (b) Australian Workplace Agreements (0.31%); (c) State Awards (3.38%) / State Industrial Agreements (41.10%); (d) State Workplace Agreements (21.93%); and (e) Common Law Contracts (Not available).

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3809

WASTE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL GUIDELINES

910. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Has the State Government met the national guidelines for waste minimisation? (2) If not, why not? (3) What are the comparative figures for the per capita waste going to landfill for each of the Australian States for each of the last three years? (4) Does the Government plan to address the waste management crisis in Western Australia by establishing an independent Waste Management Authority as it promised to do in its 1993 State Election Policy? (5) If not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1-2) Western Australia is a signatory to the 1991 ANZECC commitment to halve waste to landfill by the year 2000. In 1992 ANZECC also endorsed the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Strategy and the National Kerbside Recycling Strategy, through which a number of material-specific waste reduction agreements have been put in place. Following the renegotiation of a number of these agreements, a National Packaging Covenant has been established, to which the State is also a signatory. Western Australia is still a participant in these initiatives. While the achievement of waste reduction targets has not been at the desired rate, the implementation of the landfill levy in Western Australia has provided funds to direct towards waste reduction and recycling initiatives. The Waste Management and Recycling Fund has already contributed almost $1.7 million to a rebate scheme for council kerbside recycling activities, and $4.9 million towards 176 separate waste reduction and recycling projects. The Fund will also pay for a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling public education campaign. In addition, as Minister for the Environment I recently launched WAste 2020, a strategy to prepare an action plan for waste management in Western Australia. A draft strategy based on the work of the WAste 2020 Taskforce was released on Friday 11 August 2000. The Waste Management and Recycling Fund will provide a source of funds for some of the initiatives that will come out of WAste 2020. (3) The National Solid Waste Database has only released national figures for the period up to 1996. Officers of the Department of Environmental Protection have attempted to obtain the information from agencies in other states. It appears that comparable data is not readily available. (4-5) There is no waste management crisis in Western Australia. The Minister for the Environment initiated the WAste 2020 Taskforce and as part of its work, the Taskforce has critically examined the organisational structure for waste management. Past models which have been proposed and models which have been used elsewhere. There have also been recommendations made on how Western Australia's waste should be managed for the next twenty years. The draft strategy was open for comment until 15 September 2000. A series of public forums are now being held across the State. It is the Government's intention to introduce a Waste Management Bill into the Parliament. The legislation will include the establishment of a Waste Management Council. The draft legislation will be released for public comment in the near future. LONG SWAMP, KWINANA

913. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Is the Minister for the Environment aware that Long Swamp in Kwinana was originally proposed for inclusion in the Beeliar Regional Park in the 1992 Planning Study? (2) Why therefore has it been excluded from the current area which is being managed by CALM? (3) As a result of the FRIARS Report and the Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Bill, will Long Swamp be conserved and protected and included in the Beeliar Regional Park, as originally proposed? (4) If not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Minister understands that Long Swamp was not included in the recommended boundaries of Beeliar Regional Park in the 1992 Planning Study, however, it was proposed as a landscape protection area. (2) Long Swamp is currently not managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management as it is private property. (3) Long Swamp is currently protected under Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992. Its inclusion into the park will be investigated through State Government planning processes.

3810 [COUNCIL]

(4) Not applicable. CONSERVATION RESERVES, YARLOOP

916. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: In relation to Reserves No. 31900, 31901 and A22307 at Yarloop and the Minister for the Environment's intention of vesting them in the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority for conservation purposes in 1997 - (1) Has this occurred? (2) If yes, on what date? (3) If not, what has been the cause of the delay? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Minerals and Energy has not given its clearance to the proposal, and discussions are continuing between CALM and Main Roads Western Australia about the proposed widening of the South- West Highway in the vicinity of the reserves. With regard to reserve 31900, CALM is discussing with the Shire of Harvey and mining interests the proposal that the reserve should be vested in the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority once mining in the reserve is completed and rehabilitation has been carried out. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PERTH ZOO, DISCLOSURE OF ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE

921. Hon John Cowdell to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: (1) Can the Minister for the Environment confirm that the EPA and the Perth Zoo are required to comply with section 175 ZE of the Electoral Act? (2) Have both these bodies disclosed their advertising expenditure for the - (a) 1997-98; and (b) 1998-99, financial years? (3) If not, why not? (4) What was the advertising expenditure for each body in the - (a) 1997-98; and (b) 1998-99, financial years? Hon PETER FOSS replied: Perth Zoo: (1-2) Yes. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $318 008 (b) $292 305 Department of Environmental Protection: (1-2) Yes. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $6 541. (b) $2 464 WA FORESTS TODAY, ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE

923. Hon John Cowdell to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: Will the Minister for the Environment table details of all advertising expenditure (radio, television and print) for the WA Forests Today initiative for the financial years -

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3811

(a) 1997-98; (b) 1998-99; and (c) 1999-2000? Hon PETER FOSS replied: There is no WA Forests Today advertising initiative of the type suggested by the question. There was, however, an 8- page public information and community education publication entitled "WA Forests Today" produced and distributed in 1999/00 and this answer relates to that publication. 1997/98 - Nil 1998/99 - Nil 1999/00 -Radio - Nil Print - No advertising per se. Approximately $110,000 was spent to print and distribute "WA Forests Today" in community and regional newspapers. TV - Cost to produce television commercials where some mention of the "WA Forests Today" publication is made was approximately $42,500 with airtime costing $35,049.33

SWAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FOREST REGIONS, FAUNA IN LOGGING COUPES

925. Hon Christine Sharp to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: Will the Minister for the Environment specify which of Western Australia's 89 conservation priority mammal, bird, frog and reptile species, as set out at pages 148 and 149 of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment, are known or believed likely to occur within each of the 115 logging coupes the Department of Conservation and Land Management has indicated will be logged in 2000-01 in the Swan, Central and Southern Forest Regions? Hon PETER FOSS replied: To answer this question would require considerable research and resources and as such I am not prepared to devote the time to provide the Hon Member with the information, however, if there is a particular concern I will endeavour to have it addressed.

CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, GOVERNMENT’S FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS

937. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Treasurer: (1) What security is being offered by the Government to the financiers of the successful proponent for the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre? (2) If there is no security being offered, what financial obligations are the Government contemplating assuming? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) None (2) I refer the Member to the Expression of Interest document.

CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, ICON STATUS BUILDING

943. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: (1) Is the Premier and his Government still committed to obtaining through the Perth convention centre project a building for Perth that is of "icon status"? (2) In view of the Lend Lease Nexus consortium winning an American Institute of Architects Award for Excellence for its convention centre design, and in view of the popular acclaim for the Leighton Consortium's project designed by the world famous architect Lord Foster, is the Premier satisfied that with the selected convention centre proposal Perth will still have the "iconic and world class status" referred to in the expressions of interest document? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) Icon status was only one of the objectives set out for the project. We remain committed to achieving the highest standard possible against all the criteria. It must be remembered that none of the submissions received met all of the mandatory objectives of this project. (2) Yes.

3812 [COUNCIL]

CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, COSTS OF DEVELOPMENT

948. Hon Tom Stephens to the Minister for Tourism: Will the Minister confirm that all elements relating to the complete development of the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre have been factored into the total cost to the proponent, including all bridges/walkways? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: See answer to Question on Notice 947.

CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE, SELECTION PROCESS

951. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: With reference to the process for the selection of the proposed convention centre, I ask - (1) Was Treasury or any other Government agency consulted as to the amount of money the State should contribute to the convention centre project? (2) How was the sum of $100m arrived at? (3) Were the reports of each of the committees, which judged each of the tenderers submissions, examined and adjusted by the head of the WA Tourism Commission? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) This was a Cabinet decision taken during the annual budgetary process and as such had the usual input from Treasury and other agencies. (2) Based on cost estimates provided in the Pannel Kerr Forster study of 1994 and a further report undertaken by PriceWaterhouse in 1998, the figure of $100m was determined to be the difference between the cost of a world class convention facility for WA and the amount the estimated cash flow of a convention centre would service. The WATC then prepared a process to attract private sector investment in a convention and exhibition centre. This was an expression of interest process whereby the private sector was canvassed for their best offer in response to a Government incentive capped at $100m, and potentially freehold land. All respondents to the EOI sought the entire $100m and land. (3) No.

JANE, GIBLETT AND CAREY FOREST BLOCKS, UNLOGGED KARRI FOREST

960. Hon Cheryl Davenport to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: I refer to the areas of unlogged karri forest in Jane, Giblett and Carey blocks outlined in Legislative Assembly questions on notice 2901 and 2317 of 1995 and ask the Minister for the Environment to advise of - (a) the area of unlogged karri forest that has been identified as disturbed; and (b) the area of unlogged karri forest that has been reserved, in each of Jane, Giblett and Carey blocks since these questions were asked in 1995? Hon PETER FOSS replied: To answer this question would require considerable research and resources and as such I am not prepared to devote the time to provide the Hon Member with the information, however, if there is a particular concern I will endeavour to have it addressed.

SCHOOL CROSSING ATTENDANTS

964. Hon Norm Kelly to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: I refer the Minister for Police to the report commissioned by Main Roads WA titled “Summary of Practice for Supervised School Crossing” of June 1998 completed by independent consultant ARRB Transport Research and ask the following - (1) Does the Government agree with the findings in the report that “Police may not be the best management group for school crossings in WA” (page 6)? (2) Has the minister taken any action to address this concern outlined by the report? (3) If so, what has been done? (4) If no action has been taken, why not?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3813

(5) Does the minister plan to remove the management of school crossings from the Western Australia Police Service? (6) If not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1)-(6) It is understood a working group consisting of Ms Deidre Willmott (Premier and Cabinet), Mr Langoulant (Treasury) and officers from Education are examining the agency responsibility for School Crossing Wardens. The Police Service does not view the School Crossing function as core business of the Agency. Whilst the Police Service fully supports all initiatives to find safer routes to school, the safe passage of school aged pedestrians from their homes to school is not the sole responsibility of police. The community, and in particular parents, have a shared responsibility in this regard. Accordingly, the Police Service has submitted Draft Cabinet Submissions in recent times, concerning the transfer of this function. TEACHERS, STUDENT OUTCOMES, SOFTWARE SUPPORT

968. Hon Ed Dermer to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education: I refer to the software being provided to support teachers in the implementation of the Student Outcomes initiative and ask - (1) Is the Education Department officer responsible for the provision of Information Technology satisfied that this software is the most technologically appropriate for the provision of this support to teachers? (2) Is this officer satisfied that the OMNIS language is the most technologically appropriate language for the software to be used for the provision of this support? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. However, as future strategies are formulated with respect to the overall architecture of technical systems in use within the Education Department, the software company has already expressed a desire to work with the Department to ensure that their product is consistent with the Department's future directions.

GASCOYNE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, APPOINTMENTS

969. Hon Tom Helm to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Regional Development: In relation to appointments to the Gascoyne Development Board - (1) Could the Minister for Regional Development advise how careful consideration of an application can take place when no personal interview is carried out? (2) Does the Minister consider that a ring around will give him an adequate insight into the personal attributes of an applicant? (3) Could the Minister confirm that appointments are made on the basis of the best applicant rather than jobs for the boys? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) Advice on applications received is sought from a number of quarters, including the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Gascoyne Development Commission. Assessments by the Minister for Regional Development take into account the personal attributes of the applicants, the balance of business backgrounds of the existing Board members and geographical representation across the region. Local Members of Parliament are advised of the nominations and their views sought. The Minister advises that the views of the Member in relation to the Kimberley, Pilbara and Gascoyne Boards were received on 21 June 2000. The Minister recommends appointments which are subject to Cabinet endorsement. (2) No (3) Yes

HOMESWEST, WAITING LIST

970. Hon Ken Travers to the Attorney General: (1) Has the Equal Opportunity Commission carried out any investigations into the management of Homeswest's waiting list? (2) If so, what was the nature and outcome of that investigation?

3814 [COUNCIL]

Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Commissioner for Equal Opportunity has not conducted any investigation into the management of Homeswest's waiting list. As part of the investigation of two complaints the Commissioner examined a small sample of files to assess the length of time taken to obtain a transfer from the priority list in one regional office. (2) The investigation report will be sent to Homeswest in the near future. The two complaints have been resolved. KWINANA POWER STATION, GAS-FIRED GENERATING CAPACITY

974. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: (1) Will the Minister for Energy indicate the current status of Western Power's proposal to install new gas fired generating capacity at Kwinana Power Station? (2) Is Western Power's proposal consistent with its obligations under the Electricity Corporation Act 1994 to seek new electricity generation competitively? (3) Has the Government formally agreed Western Power should install this capacity? (4) If not, when is the Government expected to make a decision on this matter? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: 1. This proposal is currently before the Minister for Energy and he is giving it due consideration. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. The Government will make a decision once the matter has been considered by the Minister for Energy. PASTORAL LEASES, PERMITS AND EXTENSIONS

978. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Lands: (1) Will the Minister for Lands table a list of those pastoral lessees who have been granted a permit to use land held under a pastoral lease for purposes other than a pastoral lease, detailing - (a) date permit issued; (b) land use specified under the permit? (2) Will the Minister table a list of those pastoral lessees who have accepted the Ministers offer to have their pastoral lease extended beyond June 30 2015? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: This question is the same as Question Without Notice 329 from the Legislative Council asked on Thursday October 12th 2000 and subsequently withdrawn. 1. Yes, a total of 45. 2. Yes, a total of 453. I hereby table the information the Hon Member requested. [See paper No 598.] NUMBALA NUNGA NURSING HOME, REDEVELOPMENT

979. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Health: (1) Can the Minister for Health confirm that money has been specifically set aside from previous years budgets for the capital works associated with the redevelopment of Numbala Nunga Nursing Home? (2) If yes, can the Minister advise how much money has been budgeted for the redevelopment and in which financial years was the money set aside? (3) When will the Government be calling for tenders for this work? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) In the context of the State Government Nursing Home Restructure Project a Request for Proposal for the redevelopment and transfer to the non-government sector of Numbala Nunga was advertised and closed on 28 July 2000. The one proposal submitted was not accepted as it did not meet all the requirements or the intent of

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3815

the Request for Proposal document and was not consistent with current Government policy requirements for the State to withdraw as a provider of nursing home services. It is intended that consultation recommence with key stakeholders to develop a Residential Aged Care plan for the Kimberley Region as part of Northealth 2020, a strategy for the future of health services in the north west. An amount of $419 976 has been committed in 2000/01 as part of an upgrade and maintenance process that is required for the existing facility to achieve Commonwealth certification and accreditation status with works due to be completed in January 2001.

WESTERN POWER, BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE

983. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to the Minister for Energy’s answer to my question on notice of August 8 2000 stating that Western Power allocated $914 749.34 in 1999-2000 to the CCI and ask - Will the Minister table a breakdown of that expenditure separately detailing the cost of - (a) membership subscription; (b) programs; (c) apprentice training; and (d) other items, and outlining full details of what was purchased with those allocations? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: Moneys paid during the period July 1994 to June 2000 (a) $80,422.00 (b) $27,776.20 (c) $496,740.40 (d) $309,810.74 As a Western Australian business, Western Power is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of WA on the same footing as thousands of business enterprises across the State. Western Power's membership provides access to CCI's full range of services which includes areas such as industrial relations, safety, education and training, economic research, trade, industry development, project information, environment, publications and networking. It also allows participation in the CCI's policy forums. Western Power has representatives on CCI's resource and energy committee and environmental management committee. The majority of the payments made to the CCI in the period July 1994 to June 2000 were applied to the training of apprentices through the CCI Group Apprentice Training Scheme, which facilitated specialist training of young Western Australians in the field of engineering.

KWINANA MOTORSPORTS COMPLEX, PROJECTED PROFIT

988. Hon Tom Stephens to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: (1) Is it projected that the Kwinana Motorplex will operate at a profit? (2) If yes, what is the projected profit? (3) Who will receive this profit? (4) It not, what will be the annual input of the Government into the facility? (5) What fees will be paid by the Claremont Speedway operators and the Ravenswood Raceway to operate from the facility? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1) The WA Sports Centre Trust will manage and operate the Kwinana Motorplex on behalf of the Government. It is projected that an operating surplus will be derived from revenues received from the speedway and drag racing licensee (Kwinana Motorplex Pty Ltd) and from other activities conducted at the venue. (2) It is difficult to gauge the impact the move from Claremont and Ravenswood to the new venue will have on speedway and drag racing attendances however an operating surplus in the order of $100,000 p.a. is projected. (3) This surplus will be received by the WA Sports Centre Trust and will be reinvested in the motor sport industry. Initially any surpluses will be directed towards further enhancement of the Kwinana Motorplex. (4) Not applicable.

3816 [COUNCIL]

(5) The fees paid by the licensee, Kwinana Motorplex Pty Ltd will be made up of an annual base fee indexed to CPI and a percentage of revenue received from gate takings, food and beverage, other events and activities and venue naming rights sponsorship. The actual amount of revenue received will vary in proportion to the revenues generated from these sources.

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2000, BREAKDOWN OF SIGNATORIES

990. Hon Tom Stephens to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education: (1) How many administrators have signed the Government School Administrators Workplace Agreement 2000? (2) What percentage of administrators have signed the agreement? (3) Can the Minister for Education provide a breakdown of the numbers of level 3 to 6 administrators who have signed the agreement? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: 1) As of the 17 November 2000, 1109 workplace agreements have been forwarded by the Education Department to the Commissioner for Workplace Agreements. 2) 39% of all administrators. 3) Level 3 - 412 Level 4 - 229 Level 5 - 201 Level 6 - 81 Total - 923 NOTE: The difference between the total signatories (1109) and the total of the breakdown (923) is due to the fact that 1109 administrators have signed the Individual Workplace Agreement, where as the 923 is the total of registered signatories by the Commissioner at 17 November 2000. JURIEN BAY MARINE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN

992. Hon Giz Watson to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: In relation to the implementation of the Jurien Bay Marine Park management plan and related expenditure by the Department of Conservation and Land Management, I ask - (1) When will this management plan be implemented? (2) What is the estimated cost of implementation of this management plan? (3) What is the estimated total cost of establishment of the marine park? (4) What is the estimated on-going cost of managing the marine park? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1-4) The Government has published a notice of intent to establish a marine park at Jurien Bay. Associated with the notice of intent is an indicative management plan, as required by the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. Upon completion of the public comment period, establishment of the marine park will be considered by the Government, with advice from the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. Costs associated with the marine park will be determined at that time, when the final proposed zoning and management strategies are known. MINING, DISCHARGE OF MINE WATER

997. Hon Giz Watson to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment With reference to the discharge of mine water into the environment - (1) How many mines are licensed to discharge mine water to the environment? (2) How many discharge into playa lake systems and clay pans? (3) Which mines discharge into which playa lake systems and clay pans? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) The Department of Environmental Protection currently has 43 premises licensed under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, on which water is extracted and discharged into the environment to allow mining of ore. [See paper No 603.]

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3817

(2-3) The scope of these questions is very broad and would require extensive resources to answer. If the Hon Member is able to specify which particular mine is of interest a suitable answer could be provided.

ARTS AND CULTURE, OGDEN IFC (PERTH) PTY LTD

998. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Arts: (1) Given that Ogden manages all the major arts venues in Perth and will have been appointed to manage the proposed convention centre, what benefits in terms of competition exist for arts companies? (2) Given the prima facie conflict of interest between Ogden’s two roles, can the Minister for the Arts guarantee that Ogden wont promote the convention centre in preference to Perth’s other art venues? (3) Can the Minister also guarantee, given Ogden’s Australian operations made a $343,000 loss last year, a $1.2m turnaround from the year before, that its charges will remain the same as those charged by the Perth Theatre Trust? (4) Has any analysis been done on the impact of private operators, the proposal to privatise ticketing operations and private catering will have on arts companies putting on shows? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Ogden manages only the Perth Concert Hall, His Majesty's Theatre, Subiaco Theatre Centre and Playhouse Theatre. A wide range of alternative venues are available to arts companies. (2) There is a commitment from Ogden IFC that the management of the Convention Centre will be clearly separated from their contract to act as the managing agent for the Perth Theatre Trust venues. (3) The financial position of Ogden IFC has no bearing on the charges levied by Ogden IFC which are controlled by the Perth Theatre Trust which is accountable to the Minister for the Arts. (4) The analysis undertaken prior to the letting of the contract awarded to Ogden IFC, the catering contract awarded to Encore Hospitality and the proposed sale of BOCS Ticketing indicated long term benefits to arts companies and the public they serve.

BOCS TICKETING AND MARKETING SERVICES, PRIVATISATION

999. Hon Tom Stephens to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Arts: (1) What cost-benefit analysis has been carried out on the privatisation of the BOCS ticketing operation? (2) Why did the proposed sale of BOCS to Ticketek fall through? (3) Why wont such a privatisation result in a private monopoly over ticketing for the majority of shows and other arts events in Perth? (4) Can the Minister for the Arts guarantee that any privatisation of BOCS wont result in its call centre moving to the Eastern States nor increased ticket prices due to a profit factor? (5) When will the Government be putting BOCS ticketing operations on-line, as previously promised, which would reduce costs and consequently ticket prices? Hon PETER FOSS replied: (1) Extensive cost benefit analysis has been carried out on the proposed sale of BOCS. In November 1996 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu conducted a review of BOCS Ticketing aimed at securing a business strategy that would deliver efficient and effective ticketing services for the benefit of the performing arts industry and the public. It recommended the sale of BOCS with a tiered ticketing contract for the Perth Theatre Trust managed venues. This decision was reviewed by Arthur Andersen in its report of March 1999. An analysis of the business position, ticketing market and options available to the Trust indicated that the sale of the business was the preferred option. (2) On the advice of the Crown Solicitor's Office, the State declined a revised offer from Ticketek that was submitted after the conduct of due diligence. (3) It is a condition of the sale that the buyer must obtain all appropriate authorisations including any required under the Trade Practices Act. (4) A condition of the sale is the signing of a detailed Ticketing Agreement, which requires the operation of a call centre in Perth and sets the ticketing charges for the life of the contract. (5) BOCS Ticketing will be providing on-line services within the next month.

3818 [COUNCIL]

EDUCATION SUPPORT FACILITIES, FUNDING 1000. Hon Tom Stephens to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Education: Of the recent allocation of $40 000 for Education from the sale of AlintaGas, how much will be allocated to Education support facilities? Hon BARRY HOUSE replied: The recently announced four-year $40 million Secondary School Refurbishment Program will provide new and upgraded facilities at 32 schools across the State. A major focus of this initiative is improved services and infrastructure to enable schools to implement modern educational practice, together with improved student access to resources, particularly learning technologies. The detailed scope of work to be undertaken at each school will be determined in consultation with the school community. Whilst no funds were allocated specifically for Education Support facilities in the Secondary School Refurbishment Program, the Government has built 19 new Education Support Centres, and a number of Education Support Units, since 1993. Education Support facilities will also be included in many of the new schools now under construction. In addition, the Education Department allocates approximately $1 million in its Capital Works program each year to provide new and upgraded Education Support facilities at existing schools. ROEBUCK BAY MUDFLATS, MINING ACTIVITIES 1002. Hon Tom Stephens to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources Development: I refer to the world famous mud-flats in the area of Roebuck Bay adjacent to Broome on which migratory birds feed and ask - (1) Has the State Government been involved in any negotiations or discussions relating to proposed mineral sands or other mining in this area? (2) If yes, what have they involved? (3) Are any proposals being considered that involve the construction of a processing plant for any such mining on the Thangoo Pastoral Lease? (4) Will the Minister for Resources Development table full details of any proposals or reports that have been made available to Government in reference to this project? (5) If not, why not? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1-2) Yes, the Department of Resources Development (DRD) has been involved in preliminary discussions on a proposed kaolin mining and processing plant project in the Thangoo area. The proponent has applied for six mining leases and two exploration licences for all minerals and these are proposed to be heard in the Warden's Court in late November 2000. (3) No proposals have come forward to Government. (4-5) No proposals or reports are held by DRD. GASCOYNE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, APPOINTMENTS 1003. Hon Tom Helm to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Regional Development: In relation to appointments to the Gascoyne Development Board - Why does the Government insist on rigid selection processes for its public service, but does not adhere to such processes when appointing personnel direct? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: The Minister for Regional Development has advised that the information that applicants include with the nomination application papers, as well as the views of people referred to in the response to the Honourable Member's Question on Notice No. 969, is regarded as being appropriate to allow the formulation for a recommendation to Cabinet. In regard to public service appointments, in the majority of cases, appointments are either for fixed term appointments of up to five years or for full-time employment. This is not the case for Board members whose commitment is usually limited to about one day a month, with the maximum term of appointment being three years. JARRAH FOREST, INVENTORY

1004. Hon Christine Sharp to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment: Further to question without notice 461 of 2000, of the 492 permanent inventory plots recorded in jarrah dominant forest to December 1999, how many have been measured only once?

[Thursday, 23 November 2000] 3819

Hon PETER FOSS replied: To answer this question would require considerable research and resources and as such I am not prepared to devote the time to provide the Hon Member with the information, however, if there is a particular concern I will endeavour to have it addressed. JARRAH FOREST, INVENTORY

1006. Hon Christine Sharp to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment Further to question without notice 461 of 2000, of the approximately 2900 samples plots measured during the strategic jarrah inventory undertaken between 1988 and 1992, how many have been remeasured to maintain the currency of the inventory? Hon PETER FOSS replied: To answer this question would require considerable research and resources and as such I am not prepared to devote the time to provide the Hon Member with the information, however, if there is a particular concern I will endeavour to have it addressed.

______