Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2019

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 16 May 2019

Legislative Council

Thursday, 16 May 2019

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) took the chair at 10.00 am, read prayers and acknowledged country. BIRTHDAY WISHES — DEPUTY PRESIDENT Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [10.02 am]: Members, just before we start today, I want to wish our Deputy President, Hon Simon O’Brien, a very happy birthday today. NATIONAL PALLIATIVE CARE WEEK Statement by Parliamentary Secretary HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.02 am]: National Palliative Care Week is an annual awareness-raising week organised by Palliative Care Australia and Palliative Care WA. The theme for National Palliative Care Week 2019 is “What matters most?”, and it will be held from 19 to 25 May. National Palliative Care Week is a national week to raise awareness and understanding about palliative care in the Australian community. The theme addresses the need for Australians to plan ahead for their end-of-life care and discuss it with their loved ones and health professionals. Palliative Care Australia will highlight how palliative care can help people with a life-limiting illness to have a high quality of life, right to the end. The McGowan government has made a strong commitment to palliative care in Western Australia, with a $41 million investment for extra support and enhanced specialist and community-based care across the state, initially with a particular focus on rural and regional palliative care services. This package brings the total investment by the state government for palliative care services over the next four years to $206.2 million. Hearing the concerns of the sector raised by Palliative Care WA and a number of stakeholders about greater clarity for palliative care reform, the Minister for Health will be convening a palliative care summit to hear from health professionals, consumers and stakeholders. This will explore ideas to improve and strengthen palliative care for all Western Australians. Details of the summit will be announced in due course. These commitments follow the work and recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on End of Life Choices, led by Amber-Jade Sanderson, MLA. Ribbons to raise awareness of National Palliative Care Week have been provided to members to wear, and I encourage all members to support the week and assist in the cause of raising awareness of palliative care. PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. JOINT AUDIT COMMITTEE First Report — “Second Review of the Financial Management Act 2006” — Tabling HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.04 am]: I am directed to present the first report of the Joint Audit Committee, “Second Review of the Financial Management Act 2006”. [See paper 2708.] Hon ALANNA CLOHESY: The report that I have just tabled advises the house of the outcomes of the Joint Audit Committee’s review of the Treasurer’s “Review of the Financial Management Act (2006)—December 2017 Report”. In general, the committee supports the recommendations in the latest Treasurer’s report. The committee does not support recommendation 14, which seeks to remove the need for Parliament to approve spending made under the Treasurer’s advance arrangements in section 27 of the Financial Management Act 2006. This report also reflects on the broader financial management framework, examining matters that arose in the course of the committee’s examination of the Treasurer’s report, the first review of the Financial Management Act 2006, and reports prepared by this committee in the thirty-ninth Parliament. The committee has made a number of recommendations to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of agency operations or refine the existing financial framework. The committee thanks the Department of Treasury and the Office of the Auditor General for their assistance with this review. I commend the report to the house. GST DISTRIBUTION Motion HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [10.07 am] — without notice: I move — That this house acknowledges and congratulates the federal Liberal–National government for its — (a) determination and success in achieving a better GST distribution for Western Australia, including a guaranteed floor, — Several members interjected.

3460 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

The PRESIDENT: Order! We have not even heard the motion being read in, and the member is not getting a lot of help from his own side. Hon Dr Steve Thomas, please read the motion. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Shall I start again, Madam President? The PRESIDENT: Yes, please. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I move — That this house acknowledges and congratulates the federal Liberal–National government for its — (a) determination and success in achieving a better GST distribution for Western Australia, including a guaranteed floor, which has delivered to this state a budget surplus earlier than anticipated; and (b) significant funding of and commitment to the delivery of key infrastructure projects throughout Western Australia. It is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I move the motion before the house today, to have a discussion about the remedy of the GST situation in Western Australia. Of course, as I always have done in this house, I am happy to provide some significant detail and some technical argument to support my case. Let me begin with some things that have come simply from the government’s budget papers. Western Australia’s GST revenue will increase significantly over the forward estimates as a result of the arrangement put together by the federal coalition government. This is a good outcome. Someone on the other side will probably stand and quote my previous comments, when I said repeatedly that we need to be careful when we claim that we want all of our GST back, because, if we do that, we are saying that we will never again share the benefits of a future boom in this state, and we will never again be the recipient of a future boom in another state. However, looking at that, a massive benefit has been successfully delivered to the state of Western Australia through the agreement reached by the federal government—an agreement that enabled the state Labor government to announce a surplus in the budget that it brought down last week. That is because without a change to the GST distribution, and if we simply removed the GST adjustment, there would have been no budget surplus to put forward. Let us look at that in a little more detail. I would expect to hear some gratitude from the other side of the house for the largesse with which it has been blessed. We may hear a little of that gratitude later. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: You might just direct your comments to me and possibly not encourage people to interject, which would be exceedingly unruly, would it not? Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Thank you, Madam President, I take your guidance as always to heart. The PRESIDENT: Let us see how long that lasts. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The best way to examine the process of this benefit to the state of Western Australia is to compare the state government’s 2019–20 budget released last week with its two previous budgets. The two previous budgets, of course, did not have within their figures an agreement struck by Scott Morrison, as Prime Minister of Australia, to deliver a benefit to the people of Western Australia. There was a significant change. We need to remember, for those honourable members who still have an interest in developing what I call “budget literacy”, that the GST component was not static. Before the announcement of the federal government’s compensation package of top-up payments—ultimately, in the fullness of time, a long-term fix—the GST delivery to the state would have declined. This is acknowledged in the statements of the Treasurer. He said that given the total GST pool was declining, the amount available for the state of Western Australia would have declined. I think it behoves us to have a measure of that. As behoves a speech on the budget, I have come prepared to discuss this with a bit of information. Rather than give honourable members the numbers, I would like them to look at this graph—I shall seek in a minute to table these in the interest of the members—and what we currently see as the increase in GST payments to the state of Western Australia. Members will note that from the numbers expected in the 2017–18 budget for the current 2018–19 financial year, the budget year 2019–20 and in the first forward estimate year of 2020–21, we would have got a bit over $11.5 billion in GST. That rose slightly, optimistically, in the 2018–19 budget to not quite $12 billion. The expectation has changed, thanks to the largesse of the Morrison coalition government; there is actually a sharp rise in GST to just over $13 billion. However, we need to look at what would have happened without the intervention, the interference and the boost given by the Morrison coalition government. Madam President, I have a chart. The PRESIDENT: Of course you do. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: This line represents the original chart I just spoke about, which shows some increase, up to $13 billion, in the GST revenue to be received by the state. This line — The PRESIDENT: Member, I will interject. You might want to just talk about the red line or the blue line. That may assist Hansard at a later stage. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Sorry. Thank you, Madam President. I will table the document. Hon Kyle McGinn interjected.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3461

Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: This will be very important for the member to learn. The line rises slightly to 2018. If we were to remove the GST top-up payments from the 2019–20 budget released a week ago, guess what would happen to the GST? It would drop to under $10 billion, a significant decline, without the work done by the Morrison coalition government to boost the revenue available to the state of Western Australia. I seek leave to table these two charts for the education of members. Leave granted. [See paper 2709.] Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I urge honourable members to look at what was going to be and, thanks to the injection of funds and the agreement, what is to be. That is a significant improvement in the GST funding to the state of Western Australia. We can be thankful to the Morrison government and Prime Minister Scott Morrison personally for some of those things. Why should we be personally grateful? Let us look at that. I will not go through the long history of complaints about the GST distribution process, because as members will probably quite rightly point out, I am something of a sceptic of that process and I am a sceptic in life in general—the king of the cynics, if you will. But let us look at what happened in May 2017. In response to all those complaints, the coalition commonwealth government announced a Productivity Commission review of the GST distribution system. Who put that into place and announced that? The Treasurer at the time, Scott Morrison, no doubt with the support of the Minister for Finance, Senator Mathias Cormann from Western Australia. These two wise gentleman decided that we needed to have a review based on all the calls from various people. I understand that across the board, federal members of Parliament were lobbying the leadership team to look at this. I would imagine that we should give some credit to every federal MP from the coalition who would have been working hard to have a review done—and it got up. On October 2017, a draft report dropped. I thought there were a few flaws in the draft report, but at least at that point Treasurer Scott Morrison and Minister for Finance Senator Mathias Cormann had a document on which to base a discussion and a debate. Everybody went back into the process, there were further submissions and everybody was a part of the conversation. What happened next? The final report was released on 5 July 2018. That is an auspicious date because on 5 July 2018, with the release of the final report of the Productivity Commission, which made slightly more toned, muted and some fairly sensible recommendations, the Treasurer of Australia at that point, a man called Scott Morrison, basically announced a new system of GST distribution for Australia in which Western Australia would be the most significant beneficiary. It would be funded—I might say this was quite surprising to me—by the commonwealth government. I thought this was a fairly generous proposition. That was announced on 5 July 2018, when the Productivity Commission report dropped. The coalition government, led by Treasurer Scott Morrison, decided that Western Australia should get a better deal, because, otherwise, as we have seen in the chart, the revenue for Western Australia would drop away. This was a major benefit. What was happening on the other side of politics? Did the federal Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, decide to immediately jump on board and say, “Yes, we agree this is a great outcome for Western Australia and it’s a good outcome for the country”? Is that what we heard? No, we did not. Bill Shorten did not jump on board; he did not support it. He had to be dragged in kicking and screaming. On 29 August, a good month and a half, almost two months, after the 5 July announcement by then Treasurer Scott Morrison, Bill Shorten announced he was on a unity ticket. After six weeks he was on a unity ticket, which means: “I give up. I cannot argue with what the Treasurer of Australia has presented. I am on a unity ticket.” I felt like we were back to the Kevin Rudd days with John Howard–lite. We are all together—Kumbaya! It was great; I thought it was a good outcome. The Labor Party was dragged kicking and screaming to this particular solution, which would, in the not-too-distant future, allow the state government to provide a budget surplus it would not have otherwise had. But there were concerns. Even though on 29 August, the opposition leader Bill Shorten apparently announced a unity ticket, there were concerns. By 3 October, we were potentially looking, as the Labor Party is a bit wont to do, at another lobster-ish backflip—another ministerial miscalculation. I thought this was an excellent piece of work by the state Labor Party. Bear in mind that this is over a month after Bill Shorten announced the unity ticket. An article from The West Australian of 3 October 2018 states — Premier Mark McGowan has made an urgent plea for his Federal Labor counterparts to back new GST legislation and “stop the political bickering”. The Premier’s office was on the phone to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s senior staff yesterday after shadow treasurer Chris Bowen reportedly talked down the long-awaited GST fix, which includes legislation to ensure WA’s GST … does not fall below 75¢ in the dollar. Now it gets to 75¢ and a bit — “Look, Bill Shorten, I stood next to him about a month ago and he said he was on a unity ticket and wanted to make the floor the law and I agree with that,” Mr McGowan said. “I just urge Federal Labor to support the arrangements and let’s move on.” That was not a bad idea. He had to get on the phone and say that these federal members are getting a bit nervous so it may not happen after all. The unity ticket turned out to be a unicycle! There were some concerns that this

3462 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] chance might disappear, but, luckily for us, it was the case that finally, kicking and screaming, the federal Leader of the Opposition, B2, decided to join the hunt, so legislation is now in place. The legislation was passed in November 2018. At that point, Scott Morrison, the deliverer of the largesse and the author, with help, obviously, of the legislation, was no longer the Treasurer. Guess what? He was the Prime Minister! The man, who was the Treasurer, who saw the problem, who sent this issue to the Productivity Commission for recommendations, who delivered the solution to the problem, and who had the legislation drawn up was the Prime Minister late last year who got to announce a major budget fillip for the state of Western Australia. In my view, that is why this chamber, this state and, most importantly, this government, owes a debt of gratitude to Scott Morrison. He fixed a problem about which Labor made an enormous amount of noise and about which its federal leadership had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a solution, with the shadow frontbench tripping over all the way along. That is why this debate is important. A little bit of gratitude would go a long way, because the state will be better off. If members are interested, on 5 July 2018, then Treasurer Scott Morrison issued a press release titled “All better off from fairer way to share the GST”. I was surprised that the redistribution would mean that no state would be worse off. I always thought that was the biggest risk, and I have said so in this chamber many times. That decision has cost the federal government and will continue to cost the federal government. It was Scott Morrison, as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister, who delivered that largesse to the state of Western Australia. Of course, everybody has jumped on board and wants to claim credit for the work of Scott Morrison as Treasurer and, there is no doubt in my mind, Senator Mathias Cormann as Minister for Finance, and the entire federal Liberal parliamentary team from Western Australia. I am sure that not one of them did not agitate for a better outcome. The negotiations between then Treasurer Scott Morrison and Senator Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance, are, in my view, legend. However, everybody jumped on board and wanted to claim credit for the solution. Can members guess who claimed credit? The Western Australian Labor Party claimed credit, despite the fact that B2 was not interested. As far as I can tell, every newspaper, media outlet and business organisation in the state has claimed credit. Apparently, cabals of people made surreptitious deals and they all claimed credit. There were secret meetings and secret handshakes. There must be codes and signals that I am unaware of, because from my occasional conversations with Senator Mathias Cormann, my understanding is that most of these negotiations were conducted aboveboard. That is why in my budget contribution on Tuesday night I asked for a little detail about the correspondence between the federal and state Treasurers to work out some of the finer details. It is important to know where the credit lies for this. I remember we had a debate—I think it was in my budget contribution last year—about all the people who were jumping up and down. The Legislative Council of Western Australia should be the chamber of review and knowledge. We are on a path, I hope, to economic knowledge and literacy. I remember that we had a debate a year ago when many minor parties were jumping up saying that they were going to save Western Australia’s GST. I saw in a news article that former Labor candidate Charles “Chas” Hopkins was going to set up a new micro-party based exclusively on the GST so he could save the day. At the time, I said that we needed to be above that and needed to ensure that the standard of debate in this chamber is high, so that the white noise from people like “Chas” Hopkins would not be listened to. I am pleased to see that “Chas” Hopkins did not form a minor party with which to go to the election. It is probably because Scott Morrison and the federal coalition government—the Liberal Party and its National Party colleagues—fixed the GST issue. I note that Charles “Chas” Hopkins is a candidate in this election and is running in Perth for Clive Palmer. We have moved on. We have dropped this one away. What do we know at the end of this debate? I have restricted my contribution — Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! There is only a very short time. Please let the member finish in silence. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Thank you, Madam President. I am very sad I do not have unlimited time. What do we know about the situation with the GST? We know a few things for sure. We do not know all the wheeling and dealing by everyone who has claimed credit. Nobody has any evidence for that and there is no proof. We know these things as fact: everybody complained that the GST was an issue for Western Australia. In 2017, the now Prime Minister Scott Morrison started the review that fixed it. In 2018, he announced the solution and organised the legislation that fixed it. Where has Bill Shorten been on this? Where is the Labor leader? He has come up shorten! HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [10.28 am]: I stand to enthusiastically support the motion moved by Hon Dr Steve Thomas. It is an excellent motion. I want to make one thing perfectly clear. If it were not for Scott Morrison, my good mate Mathias Cormann and the Liberal–National government, there is no way the state Labor government would have delivered a surplus budget last week. If it were not for the changes to the floor of the GST, there would not have been a surplus for the state Labor government. Over the last four or five years, the state Labor Party has spent its entire time infatuated by the finances of the — Several members interjected.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3463

The PRESIDENT: Order! You do not need to raise your voice, and nobody else needs to interject. That way we will all get to hear what the member has to say and Hansard will be able to do what they need to do. Hon PETER COLLIER: The state Labor Party has been infatuated by the finances of Western Australia over the last five years. It spent its entire time — Several members interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER: Did members opposite listen to the ruling of the President? The PRESIDENT: Order! If you want to seek the call later in this debate, I suggest you listen quietly now; otherwise, that may not happen. Hon PETER COLLIER: The Labor Party spent its entire last term in opposition infatuated with the finances. It has spent the first two years in government still infatuated with the finances of the former Liberal–National government. Let me remind members of the last time the Bolsheviks were in power. Let me remind them of what they did to service delivery in Western Australia. We had mass teacher shortages, we had the lowest paid teachers in the nation, we had criminals running out of the Supreme Court, and we ran out of electricity and gas because that mob opposite could not deliver services. When members opposite came into power, they blamed us. They did not mind going down to Elizabeth Quay arm in arm to open it, or opening the new stadium, Scarborough foreshore or Yagan Square. They did not mind doing that. They just moaned and groaned about the finances of the previous government. The previous government had a seriously flawed GST problem. Western Australia was getting such a parlous amount of GST revenue from the federal government. The members opposite disagreed. Do members know who was most emphatic in their disagreement? It was the now Premier and the Treasurer. Let me remind the house of that. Before the last state election, this is what the now Premier said about the GST — The second point is there is no GST shock. That deal is appalling. We understand that, but each and every year the GST receipts of Western Australia are what was predicted by Treasury. On 15 September 2016, Hon Ben Wyatt said — What we do know—I pointed this out earlier—is that Treasury always gets pretty much right what GST revenue will be each budget year. There has never been a budget shock from the budget GST of each year. We know what we will get. Mr Wyatt also said on 5 May 2015 — There has never been a revenue problem; I have made that point time and again. There has never been a GST shock; we have always known each year what the GST would be. According to the mob opposite, the GST was not an issue. Things changed of course after the last state election. After the election, they changed their mind. They realised that the GST was an issue. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER COLLIER: Members over there have a problem listening to the rulings of the President. The PRESIDENT: That includes you, member, for not yelling. Hon PETER COLLIER: I have to, to be heard over the interjections. The PRESIDENT: Sometimes not yelling, and dropping your voice, might be a bit more effective. Hon PETER COLLIER: After the election, they changed their tune. On 8 August 2017, the Premier said — That was made worse in the last couple of weeks when it became plain to us, following advice from Michael Barnes, the Under Treasurer, that because of the recent census figures, we would have a reduction of $1.9 billion in our GST share. Welcome to the GST world, guys! That is what we had to deal with for the nine years that we were in government. On 18 May 2017, Mr McGowan said — Since the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement, the government’s revenue over the forward estimates has declined in the vicinity of $2 billion. Around a billion dollars of that is GST revenue across the forward estimates. That shows quite clearly that what they said in opposition is completely different from what they say in government. Let me remind members that had we had a GST floor—the current situation that has been established by Scott Morrison and the federal Liberal–National government—the state would be $27 billion better off. The Barnett government would have been $21.8 billion better off with the GST. Let us not be too precious about this, guys. It was all good and well to moan and groan about the finances and say the GST is not a problem, but they

3464 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] have changed their minds since getting into government. In the lead-up to the last state election, the now Treasurer and the Premier said that they would pay off debt just like they would pay off a mortgage. When they were elected, they froze the wages of members of Parliament. That is not going to pay off debt. They froze public servants’ wage increases to $1 000 a year while at the same time nine ministers double-dipped on their car allowance. That was $5 300 overnight. They got more overnight than any public servant got in four years. That is what they did. Is that going to pay down debt? No. They came out last week with their budget. This is extraordinary; I could not believe this. Under “Responsible Financial Management” on page 2 of the Treasurer’s speech, it states in part — The … Government’s breakthrough victory in obtaining a fairer share of the GST for Western Australia ensures that we will never again receive below 70 percent of our population share of the GST pool. As a result, in this Budget we will receive a total of $5 billion in GST top-up payments out to 2021–22. Exposed! You guys have got more front than Myer! They have put in their budget papers that they were responsible for the improvement to the GST. They had nothing to do with it. In 2012, Colin Barnett raised what was happening with the GST. If it were not for Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann, you guys would not have this floor in the GST payments to Western Australia, and they would not have a surplus right now; I can promise them that. Having said that, let us see what Western Australia will do with its new-found wealth as a result of the government capping public servants’ wage increases at $1 000 a year and freezing the salaries of members of Parliament. That did not do much at all. Let us not forget the massive influx of funds the government received from the increase in the price of iron ore. Those two factors alone are directly responsible: the iron ore price and the GST floor that was established by federal Liberal–National governments. It was reported that the Premier stated quite categorically on 27 October 2018 — PREMIER Mark McGowan has warned taxpayers and MPs that a $4.7 billion GST windfall will be used to reduce debt, saying the job of repairing the State’s finances is not yet done. Mind you, it will be a lot more than $4.7 billion now; it will be billions and billions. Members opposite are going to be flush with funds due to Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann. I hope they vote for them on the weekend! A media release dated 14 November 2018, titled “State debt targeted following successful GST campaign”, states — • WA’s GST ‘top-up’ payments will solely be used to reduce WA’s debt burden Let us look at this year’s budget papers to see whether it did go to debt burden. It is stated on page 50 of the budget papers — In line with the Government’s election commitment, a Debt Reduction Account was established in 2017–18 to facilitate the reduction of centrally-held State borrowings using windfall funds. That is what it says. What was said back in 2018 is in these budget papers. All members have to do is turn over the page to see how much sincerity is engaged within that statement. It states — The 2019–20 Budget includes a total of $5.1 billion flowing through the Debt Reduction Account over the four years to 2022–23. Of this amount, an estimated: • $1.4 billion will be used to repay existing debt … So, $1.4 billion of that debt reduction account is going to repay debt, but $3.7 billion will be used to reduce new borrowings. That is not reducing debt. That is like forward paying off the cost of an extension to a house. When these guys over here say they are reducing debt, they are not. Why did they not put that entire amount into debt reduction? We cannot believe a word they say. The Premier has said quite categorically that that money is all going to debt reduction—it is not. It says in the budget papers — • $3.7 billion will be used to reduce new borrowings … That is absolute garbage. If we are reducing debt, why has the amount of interest paid gone up? Look at the total public sector. In 2019–20, it will be $2.073 billion, and then it goes up in 2022–23 to $2.295 billion. Quite clearly, what we are hearing from members opposite is not what they are actually doing. Firstly, they rely almost exclusively on the GST and the price of iron ore to get this surplus and, secondly, they are not actually using that surplus or the increased funds from the GST to reduce debt. It is garbage; it is absolute rubbish. Will we have another Local Projects, Local Jobs program? Is that what it is for? Will it be used to pork-barrel prior to the next election? Debt is increasing, guys. It is increasing under this government’s watch. If the former government had the same arrangement that this government has, the debt would have been reduced by $21.8 billion. Scott Morrison is a genius. He has delivered two surpluses in the last two months: one at the federal level and one in Western Australia. If it were not for Scott Morrison, Mathias Cormann and the federal Liberal–National government, the mob opposite would not have delivered a surplus in the 2019–20 budget. Scott Morrison, quite frankly, should be knighted and we all should vote for him in the federal election on Saturday!

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3465

HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Regional Development) [10.39 am]: Normally, I like to wait until all members on the other side have spoken but, honestly, this unbelievable presentation requires my immediate response. I can only presume that members opposite have been down to Nannup feasting on psilocybin because they are absolutely and completely living in pixie land. Their whole presentation says that the creation of this GST fix was solely the work their fabulous good friends, those great heroes for Western Australia, Scott Morrison and Senator Mathias Cormann. I want to point out that in those five years when Colin Barnett was impersonating Don Quixote tilting at the windmill, constantly talking about GST reform, we had Mathias Cormann and Scott Morrison in exactly the same positions. There were four years in which the opposition’s good friends, their best friends, their best mate Mathias Cormann, could have helped. Did he do it? The debt mountain was increasing, the deficits were going up—he could have stepped in, because it was all them. If they were the really smart people who solved it, why did they hang out the state to dry? What happened during those four years from 2013 to 2017, when the Liberal Party was in government and it was unable to get a cent? They ignored the WA Liberal–National government. They took no notice of the WA Liberal–National government. Of course, we know that was the case and that the argument being levelled about Western Australia, across the entire nation, was: why should we change the GST when this state has record revenues, like no-one had ever seen before, but it is still in deficit? Indeed, when our Treasurer, Ben Wyatt, went to his very first meeting with state and territory Treasurers, the attitude amongst the other states was: why should we help the WA government when it has done such a terrible job managing the finances? Part of the way to obtain a solution to this problem was to have the determination that we would manage our budget and were not going to just go out and be profligate; we would contain our expenses. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition criticised the government side of this house for being concerned about budgets and finances. That says it all. It explains why there was a colossal explosion in the growth of expenditure during the former government’s term, an average of around 6.5 per cent per annum. We are bringing that down to below two per cent—that is the secret. The other day the Leader of the Opposition, quite rightly, was lauding Max Evans for his contribution to careful financing when he was in this chamber. But that all left with Max, and what we have seen is this attitude. I am amazed that even the sensible member, Hon Dr Steve Thomas, would put his name to this rubbish. Today, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition an expression of contempt for those people who are concerned about the detail of finances. We saw the manifestation of that in the former government’s eight deficit budgets, which it managed to craft whilst, nevertheless, in receipt of record revenue. Let us be very, very clear about this: Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann were not the architects of the GST fix. As we know, they were the former government’s mates and friends but they were simply not interested. They shared the view of the rest of Australia that the former government simply was not managing its finances. What changed that situation? It was the very, very comprehensive McGowan government victory, where front and centre was our pledge to get our economy back on track and our finances in order. When we won those 41 seats, a record number of seats, they saw that something was deeply wrong. Indeed, the first thing the Premier did when he came to office, rather than running around tilting at windmills and being ignored, was to call for a review by the Productivity Commission. This did not just happen. It could have happened between 2013 and 2017, when the former government’s mates Mathias Cormann and Scott Morrison could have helped out the former government, but they did not. It was the Premier who called for the review. He actually went to the extent of drafting the terms of reference and then we constructively participated in that review. We built a consensus amongst industry in Western Australia. We had the major mining companies, major property companies and companies from right across the spectrum of Western Australian business working constructively with Premier McGowan and Treasurer Ben Wyatt. We had a constructive relationship. We do not apologise for the fact that we tried to engage with a federal Liberal government—that is part of our job. Clearly, the former government was not able to engage with the federal government. It had its mates but was unable to engage with them. We unashamedly sought that engagement. In fact, Bill Shorten on 28 August pledged a $1.6 billion fund to help WA through the GST shortfall. He was actually criticised at the time by Scott Morrison saying that was just a sugar hit. Malcolm Turnbull came over in mid-2016 and promised something, but when he turned up a year later, in August 2017, he still had not managed to produce anything. Let us get the sequence of events right. After we came to government, we started this process with the Productivity Commission and we fought for it. Mr Shorten was first out of the blocks to start to deal with this issue more comprehensively and then we got into what we might say was a bit of a bidding war and we have ended up with a solution that gives us a GST floor. We are amazed that Hon Dr Steve Thomas has shown rare daring in the motion to raise the issue of the GST floor, but he appears to have forgotten that the current WA Leader of the Opposition opposed the notion of the floor. When we put in our submission, we argued — … a GST relativity floor ensures a minimum level of GST funding, say 75–80% of a State’s population share, would safeguard against extreme outcomes that are unjustified by the approximations that cannot be avoided in any HFE formula.

3466 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

But the Parliamentary Liberal Party put in its submission — … many proposals put forward with most revolving around some variation of a floor or at what level a floor should be … While each may improve the situation they all face the criticism of just being a further tinkering with a broken system. So the opposition did not even back the floor. Opposition members come in here and congratulate the federal mob for introducing a floor, which was our submission, but they opposed it! I have to say they have more front than Myer; it is absolutely unbelievable. Several members interjected. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: But I love it. Then there was a great idea from the state Leader of the Opposition to crowdfund lodging a High Court legal challenge to sue the commonwealth. That was their mates, Mathias Cormann and Scott Morrison—their best friends! They were actually going to crowdfund it. I do not know how much they raised—presumably it was not very much. We saw that great ability for them to work constructively with their friends in the commonwealth! The then Western Australian Treasurer Mike Nahan blasted the Prime Minister saying that the government was completely hopeless and not helping WA. I just do not get the narrative of members opposite when they so clearly and utterly failed to attract any solution. They were even unable to work with their best friends to achieve a solution. Labor then came into government and did this, and members opposite want to pretend that it was done by all their friends—all their friends who ignored them for four years! We are very pleased that we have been able to work with the federal Liberal government because we wanted to get a fair deal for Western Australia. One of the things that happened was that the Barnett government systematically failed to engage with the federal regime. When we came into government, we started going to the northern Australia forums and the skills forums and people would say, “Oh my God! Western Australia is here! You haven’t been here for the last five years.” That was an absolutely pathetic way of dealing with things. It was so bad that when I was the Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, chaired by Warren Entsch, a Liberal federal member of Parliament, we sought to come over to Western Australia to get submissions from Western Australians about the needs of northern Australia. Guess what happened? Colin Barnett said that we could not speak with any public servants or go to any state facility. That was the problem. That was an absolutely absurd approach to commonwealth–state relations. We are very proud that we have been able to go in to bat for projects. We are very proud that we are getting $2.6 billion to help fund Metronet. We are very proud that we have finally been able to get the commonwealth government to help us build the Karratha–Tom Price road. We think that is a fantastic outcome. During eight and a half years in government, members opposite did not invest one cent in that road—yet we have. Last time we were in government, we provided the first two rounds of funding, and now we are doing it again. We have been able to get federal government support for the Albany ring-road and the Bunbury bypass, things that the previous government was not able to do. I can tell members opposite that they are making a laughing-stock of themselves with this argument—there is no doubt. We acknowledge that we got the federal Liberal government to take Western Australia seriously for the first time. We also have the federal opposition in that same place. We have done very well. We achieved an outcome that members opposite were simply unable to achieve during their time in government. They did mad things. Their friend Mathias had a meeting with Jamie Briggs and came back with the idea that the previous government was going to build the Perth Freight Link. It was a completely unprepared and un-thought-through idea that turned out to be a colossal failure. We need a responsible, sensible government that is prepared to work on both sides of the political fence with our friends in Canberra for the betterment of this state. We are very proud of what we as a Western Australian government have achieved in that regard. HON COLIN TINCKNELL (South West) [10.54 am]: Today I would like to talk about some actual facts. Once again, we heard the minister mention both sides of politics. There are more than two sides of politics. The number of crossbenchers and parties like One Nation are growing in all Australian states. While people acknowledge only the Liberal or the Labor side of politics, those numbers will continue to grow because people are ignoring most of the facts when they do that. I applaud the federal government for doing something about the GST. That is a very good move. It must have read our submission that also talked about that same GST floor. We sent in two submissions: one from One Nation’s Western Australian branch and one from our federal Senator Peter Georgiou. When Senator Georgiou gave his maiden speech on 16 August 2017, he raised GST as the most important thing to Western Australians. When we look at the facts, we see that Senator Georgiou put forward a motion about the GST distribution, calling for the government to table the Productivity Commission’s report into the equity of GST. He received no support for this from any of his Western Australian colleagues. Let us call out those colleagues: Dodson, Pratt, Sterle, Siewert, Steele-John, Lines, Brockman, Cash, Cormann and Reynolds. The last name I have left out because this gentleman did make an effort on the GST—Senator Dean Smith. Senators Georgiou and Smith were the only two outspoken senators. Why was that? I do not know why Senator Dean Smith was outspoken, but he was brave and he highlighted the GST issue on a regular basis. The other outspoken senator in the house also bravely highlighted that issue and copped a lot of criticism from other parties. Our federal leader backed him 100 per cent. She was

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3467 brave enough to say, “Senator Georgiou, you go for it. You are representing your state and regardless of what will happen in Queensland or other states, to me or other members of our party, you go ahead because it is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do.” Up to that stage, there was an unfair GST distribution. As I mentioned, not one other Western Australian senator backed the motion about the unfairness of the GST. That motion was moved by Senator Georgiou on 26 June 2018. There was some support. That motion was also backed by two senators from Queensland, two from New South Wales and one from South Australia, but it was not backed by any senator from either of the major parties or from WA. That really shows us that they were all under the pump. None of them were prepared to stand up, other than Senator Dean Smith, as I mentioned, and Senator Georgiou, who was the only other senator who had the fortitude and the guts to say what Western Australians were thinking. They are the facts. That list of names is very disappointing. As a matter of fact, the Liberal senators did not even attend the vote. I imagine that Senator Dean Smith asked them not to attend because it was embarrassing. But the Labor guys and the Greens just voted against it—they were not interested. They did not have the guts to stand up and support WA during the time of unfair GST distribution. I would like to also mention that over that period, the federal government boosted many other states. Not only were other states getting our GST, but also $90 billion worth of defence contracts went to South Australia. We could not even get our royalties for gas from the North West Shelf. Other states were getting all the revenue from their pokies, which was not subject to GST—I cannot understand why not. Virtually every other state has pokies, but we do not, thank God, and I am sure everyone in this Parliament would agree with me on that. But why was that not subject to GST? It was also getting $3.3 billion in motoring taxes from Western Australians. WA has the highest road fatality rate. It is 33 per cent higher than other national averages, yet we provided $3.3 billion in motoring taxes to the other states of which only $562 million was returned. It can be seen that WA has been getting a very unfair deal not only with GST, but also with motoring taxes in the state. Although all the normal politics was going on with the major parties during this GST debate over the last two or three years, I would say to the federal government that that was a good decision—but, as the minister pointed out, why did it take so long? Why did it hang the WA government out to dry? That is the main reason it ended up with a $30 billion debt. Why did it take so long? That is the answer that I would like to know. I think it was possibly because not enough members of Parliament from our state were prepared to stand up for their own state. Senator Georgiou was not afraid, but he only came in in 2017, whereas others had been there three years prior to that. It was quite obvious to all Western Australians how unfair it was. Hon Dr Steve Thomas mentioned that Mr Chas Hopkins was talking about starting up another party because of the GST issue. Looking at most of the paraphernalia from other parties during this federal election and the last state election, GST just keeps coming up, so it is a big issue. It is the number one reason why this state’s government is looking at a surplus. There are other reasons as well. I applaud the government’s reduction in spending because, other than the pork-barrelling it has done in other areas, reducing its spending is a good thing. It needs to continue to reduce its spending and prioritise the way it spends money in the future. There are many areas that do not need pork-barrelling money and there are many other areas that do, especially when it comes to frontline police and homeless people. Unemployment has gone from 50 000 or 60 000 to 100 000. Many problems face this current government, and I am hoping that over the next two years it freely addresses these issues. Payroll tax incentives to small businesses would help address this, as would reducing stamp duty for retirees. Many things could happen. Let us not forget that Senator Georgiou in his maiden speech on 17 August 2017 talked about GST as being the most important thing for Western Australia. In June 2018, he moved a motion, and not one single Western Australian senator backed him. I just heard from a Nationals colleague who does not have a senator representing this state; I am sure he would like to have one. He is calling shame because those are the facts. We hope that Senator Georgiou gets up this weekend. He may not, but the facts are that he stood up for Western Australia. He put a motion up, which no Western Australian senator from any side—of what is called both sides of politics—did. There are three sides of politics: other parties, which make up one-third of Western Australians, and the left and the right sides of politics as well. HON COLIN de GRUSSA (Agricultural) [11.04 am]: I thank Hon Dr Steve Thomas for bringing this motion to the house for debate. It was always going to be an interesting debate, and I have been listening with interest to the contributions of other members. It is obvious that this state punches well above its weight in terms of contribution to the Federation. Indeed, buried in the government’s latest budget papers—budget paper No 3, page 300—is a nice little table that illustrates quite clearly the net contribution of each state to the Federation. WA is well above any other state with almost $15.5 billion in terms of its net contribution to the Federation. New South Wales is the next closest to that, but let us have a look at Queensland. Queensland sucks $14 billion out of the Federation. South Australia sucks $6 billion out of the Federation. Tasmania sucks $3.8 billion out of the Federation. Northern Territory sucks $3.6 billion out of the Federation. These states draw on the strong contribution of Western Australia, yet the paragraph underneath the table says that one of the contributing factors to WA’s large contribution to the Federation is driven by — • the State’s low draw on Commonwealth social security and health payments to residents, … We are penalised for that and it does not make a lot of sense to me.

3468 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

I want to focus on one word in the first part of this motion, “determination”, because it has taken determination to actually get a real solution to the GST issue. I want to go back a little bit further in time than other members have been here. I am a big fan of Marty McFly and Doc Brown, so let us jump in to the DeLorean and we will harness some of that 1.21 gigawatts—none of which will have come from wave energy—and jump back in time to have a look at 12 September 2011. I quote from the records of the House of Representatives that say — Western Australia, like any state or territory in Australia, deserves a fair deal from the Commonwealth. Currently, the situation is far from fair for WA. … Western Australians are prepared to contribute more than their fair share to the federal economy, — I have just outlined that — but there must be some limit to the rip-off; there must be some limit to the punishment WA receives for its economic success; there must be some formal acknowledgement of Western Australia’s disproportionate contribution to our national economic prosperity; and there must be some members in this House who are prepared to stand up for their state. That was back on 12 September 2011. I am quoting, of course, the words of the former member for O’Connor and former Western Australia Nationals’ member Tony Crook. Hon Darren West: How’d that go? Hon Colin Holt: You guys voted against him so you should know! Hon COLIN de GRUSSA: That is right. I wonder whether the Minister for Regional Development was in the house at that time as a federal member supporting Western Australia when Tony Crook called on the government to amend the act and stipulate a minimum GST revenue sharing relative of 75 per cent. Did anyone from Western Australia support that? Which Western Australian members supported that motion? The answer is no-one. No-one supported it except for the man in the big white hat, Bob Katter, who seconded the motion. We had to find someone because no Western Australians would stand up for their state. Who was in government at that time? Who was Prime Minister? Can anyone remember? I cannot remember; it was a revolving door at that time. Was it Rudd, was it Gillard, was it Rudd—or was it the faceless man of the Labor Party? Who was that faceless man? Who was that faceless man at that time? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Member! Order! I think the member might want to focus his attention to the motion in front of him. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA: I will talk about this, because it is pertinent to go back in history and look at the debate around this motion and how long it has taken us to get here. Members of this place may well have been present in the federal Parliament at that time, and members of this place, perhaps even the mover of this motion, may have worked for a federal member at that time. I am not sure about that, but perhaps he can confirm that in his reply later. The point is that on the side of the house, we in the Nationals WA fought for this for a very long time. We have continued to advocate strongly for this. It has been difficult to get support from anyone in the federal Parliament let alone from either side—if you want to call them side—of the Parliament. I would have thought that this motion would have been supported by all who represented Western Australia. I am going to refer now to an article from the ABC, by Nicolas Perpitch, published on 5 April 2018. There are some quotes in the article from the Treasurer, Ben Wyatt, attacking the GST top-up at that time. He is quoted as saying — This is now the sixth year in a row that Western Australia has not even received half of its population share of the GST,” he said. “No other state has received less than 67 per cent since 1942–43. “Western Australia’s continued low GST relativity reinforces that urgent reform is needed. It would be a good idea to work in a non-partisan way, working together for this state. It would have been thought that this Parliament could work together for this state. With that in mind, our party and the Liberal Party in the other place authored a letter to ensure that, should any legislation come forward, the federal opposition would support it. The letter reads — As leaders of the three political Parties represented in the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, we believe it is in the best interests, not only of all West Australians but the nation, that the Federal Government’s proposal to reform GST be supported and progressed prior to the next Federal election. We seek an assurance from the Federal Opposition that this proposal is supported. There was room on this letter for three signatures. It has been signed by the Leader of the National Party, Mia Davies, and the leader of the Liberal Party, Mike Nahan, but there is a big blank spot where the Premier failed to sign it. Is he acting in the best interests of the state, when he would not sign something to ask his own federal counterpart to support Western Australia? He did not have the gumption to sign that letter and seek assurances from the federal

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3469 opposition leader that he would support any motion to benefit Western Australia. I wonder why that is. We have heard from the minister that the government has acted in a bipartisan way, and has tried to act in the best interests of Western Australia, but why would the Premier not support this letter, if he was truly doing that? It is quite disgraceful that the state Premier could not ask the federal opposition to support any legislation brought forward by the Liberal–National government, given the comments from the Treasurer of the state that this issue is incredibly important, and given that, at the time, the federal government was moving to make the necessary changes to at least give us some semblance of a floor to make sure that we had a reasonable return on the GST, for the investment this state effectively makes in other states. That letter should have been signed by everyone, and should have sent a clear message to the federal opposition that this state is keen to work with it to support that legislation. In the brief time I have left, I want to reiterate that this is not a new issue. Tony Crook and the WA Nationals took this issue up in 2011. It was not supported by the Labor government or the Liberal Party, and that is a sad indictment on those parties, unfortunately. Hon Colin Holt: It was not supported by the eastern states Nationals either. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA: The eastern states Nationals were not supportive of this motion, which is why we need a Western Australian National over there, and why the Premier should be getting to know “Big” Nick Fardell a little better. I am sure he will make a good senator, and he will definitely stand up for the interests of Western Australia, as we have a good track record of doing. I am sure that those opposite will be clear in their support for “Big” Nick. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon COLIN de GRUSSA: Thank you, Madam President. I note with interest that on the front page of today’s The West Australian there is somebody promising to return 100 per cent of Western Australia’s GST. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [11.14 am]: I appreciate being given the time to speak on this issue, and I will just go straight to the motion. One element is the word “congratulate”. I do not see how we can congratulate the federal Liberal–National government. We have to acknowledge that there is a federal election on Saturday, and the federal government has realised that Western Australia will matter in this election, so in the past year we have seen a few gifts coming our way, and the GST is one of those. The idea of suggesting that this is due to some negotiations that may have happened long ago is ludicrous. We have had a delay for four years; inertia is what has been happening since this became a strong issue. The federal government well knew for many years that we were in this situation, as my colleague Hon Colin de Grussa has said. This is not a new thing. It is just that when we get into boom times we forget that, because we are making our own money off the resources that we sell. We are in Western Australia, and I feel like a Western Australian now, but I also feel like an Australian. If the resources are in Western Australia, do they belong to us or do they belong to the country? We are clearly saying that they are ours; we get the royalties from them and all that, but if that is the case I would also like to say that the distance that we cover should be recognised. We have a huge area to cover, and that makes every one of our services more expensive to deliver, and yet in the GST distribution the size of that area is not taken into account. While I am on this subject, as my colleague Hon Colin Tincknell asked, why are gambling revenues still not included in our GST? One can only suggest that maybe those that profit from the gambling business, rather than through gambling itself, are strong enough to stop our governments from even considering that. That is something that we should still be working on, because the GST is not going to be correct and reflective of the variety of states and territories in Australia until that distance is recognised and gambling is included in it. I would like to see that happen. We have had a good outcome now, and I am really pleased that we have that 70¢ minimum, because that will manage the fluctuations that we normally go through. However, I cannot say that this is due to the good graces of the federal government; it is purely the result of a political ploy to try to get more people voting for them in this election, because Western Australia will count on Saturday. I would like to comment on an issue that Hon Peter Collier has raised many times. I chuckle every time I hear it, because he is absolutely right. It is the idea of the vehicle allowance. If we are to try to balance the budget, and do everything we can to make certain that we address significant debt, why would a minister get a vehicle and an allowance? It just does not make any sense, and it does not look good. Maybe one day that will be addressed. Not too many people remain in that situation, but it is unfortunate that it happened, and it looks bad. I do not need to take all my time on this motion, so I will leave time for others. The second point refers to the significant funding and commitment to the delivery of key infrastructure projects throughout Western Australia. I appreciate this; it is really great to get those funds in. With Metronet, I am really hoping that we get a lot more people using public transport. But I have to acknowledge—I will be speaking later on this—that we really need a general overall transport strategy for the state, so that we do not just keep going off on ad hoc projects saying, “This is a good project, we’ll do this now” or “This one’s been in the pipeline for 20 years and we’re going to get to that now.” Three infrastructure projects happening in the south west are all causing issues. I know that the Bunbury ring road has been on the plans for 30 years, but the choice of route for it is still a challenge. To say just

3470 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] do it, because we drew the lines sometime in the past does not mean that it is the best line now. If we had a real thorough investigation of it, looking at all the important factors involved in it, maybe we could come up with something better. Maybe 30 years ago they did not know all the things that we know now. The next project is the Albany ring road. I talked to somebody who said, “Oh, yeah, that was my idea; I drew that on the back of a serviette back in 1994, or 1993, or something.” It is a great idea. We had plans that we would need this for the blue gum industry, but we have pretty well settled that blue gum industry; it is ticking along and still working, and everything seems to be good. I will acknowledge, knowing this area pretty well, that, yes, the major roundabout in Albany is a problem. We regularly have crashes there, probably daily—just little prangs now and then. It is an issue. Getting a road train through there in the grain season is really difficult. But, as “Albanians”, we really do try to avoid the idea of having a traffic light situation. I am not sure how we are going to address that. The Albany ring-road, which will come along Link Road and George Street, will cost a huge amount of money—$170 million—and the traffic count there is not big. We may push all those trucks to go over that way, but it is an extra number of kilometres that they may want to avoid. It is just one of those things that is causing some issues. On the southern forests irrigation scheme, which was raised a number of times, $80 million is going into a project to benefit 70 people. There we go—$1 million per person for the investment in this dam. This project will take water out of the forest and give it to 70 different people. It just does not make sense from an environmental perspective or from an equity perspective. Why would we spend $70 million? Yes, I know that $40 million is coming from the federal government. But we are part of Australia, too, so just because it is coming from the federal government does not mean it should be wasted here. Maybe we could find a better use for it. Maybe we could really address the southern forests irrigation scheme at some time. That is it—back to the whole premise of the GST. We had three years of inertia. To get excited about something that has been done now, when it could have been done long ago, just seems like a big waste of our time. Thank you. The PRESIDENT: I am going to give the call to Hon Tjorn Sibma, because he has sought the call at every stage of the debate. HON TJORN SIBMA (North Metropolitan) [11.21 am]: Thank you very much, Madam President. It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this excellent motion. In the time available, I hope to be able to address two points, but I will focus on the second part of this motion, which is that this house acknowledges and congratulates the federal Liberal–National government for its — (b) significant funding of and commitment to the delivery of key infrastructure projects throughout Western Australia. Before I go into that, very briefly, it pleases me that probably with the exception of our colleague Hon Diane Evers, every speaker has supported this motion. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon TJORN SIBMA: I am particularly pleased by the full-throated support the Minister for Regional Development gave to this motion as well, because I think she acknowledged the great GST fix. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. Hon TJORN SIBMA: Unfortunately, she did not get to the federal infrastructure funding, which she probably overlooked in the time available to her. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: Madam President, I am having difficulty hearing. The PRESIDENT: Order! Yes, I am, too. Thank you. We are in the last stages of this debate, and sometimes Hon Tjorn Sibma is difficult to hear. So, if everyone else is quiet, we will be able to hear him clearly and Hansard will be able to their job. Hon TJORN SIBMA: For the assistance of Hansard, the last part was that I was warmed by the fact that the Minister for Regional Development appeared to support this motion. I think that was a wise decision to take. I have a lot of respect for the Minister for Regional Development, and I will follow her example here by quoting from a document prepared for me by the government. This is not from the mole—that secret squirrel deep inside the bowels of the state Parliamentary Labor Party that on occasion has fed us information; I do not know where that investigation is going. We do not need to look for a surreptitious agent here, because the author of this document is none other than Hon Mark McGowan, Premier; Minister for Public Sector Management; State Development, Jobs and Trade; Federal–State Relations. This document, which he authored on Sunday, 7 May 2017, seems to speak to the second part of this motion. The Premier congratulates the federal national government for a $2.3 billion jobs and infrastructure boost for Western Australia. I have the document here, and I will table it afterwards. I want to quote some relevant points from this document. Hon Nick Goiran: Who wrote that document?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3471

Hon TJORN SIBMA: The Premier of this state. I am glad that the Premier, as well, supports the motion put forward by my excellent and learned friend. The Premier was particularly pleased that — The significant agreement will provide a major boost to WA’s local economy, with 6,000 jobs expected to be created as a result of the 17 new projects. This goes back a little while, but it reinforces the deep commitment to this state from the federal Liberal–National government. That is a wonderful thing, and we hope it continues post Saturday. Several members interjected. Hon TJORN SIBMA: I will pick out some highlights that the Premier himself wanted me to reflect upon. I take it from the way in which this media statement is crafted that the Premier is drawing my attention to the following projects. The PRESIDENT: Member, I just say that you might want to turn around and face me and talk to me. Thank you. Hon TJORN SIBMA: Sorry, Madam President. No offence intended. I was just taken by the enthusiasm of the Premier for the federal Liberal–National government’s infrastructure spend in this state. I might just cherrypick a number of projects that are directly relevant to the second part of the motion. One is Fiona Stanley Hospital and Murdoch Activity Centre access road from Kwinana Freeway and Roe Highway, project cost $100 million. Another is Wanneroo Road–Ocean Reef Road, construction of grade-separated intersection, project cost $65 million. Another is Kwinana Freeway, Russell Road to Roe Highway, widening of northbound lanes, project cost $49 million. Another is Mitchell Freeway, Cedric Street to Vincent Street, widening of southbound lanes, project cost $40 million. Another is the Outback Highway, sealing of priority sections, project cost $33 million. There is also Metronet. The federal Liberal–National government is a great supporter of Metronet, and I am sure the state Labor government is very pleased about that. Hon Darren West: Are you in support of that, member? Hon TJORN SIBMA: I will speak to it. I am just telling members that the Premier supports the motion and giving the reasons that he supports the motion. I do not know why Bill—what is his name?—Bill Shorten, the man whose name dare not be mentioned by any member in this chamber, probably because of his overwhelming popular support and popularity and winning charisma and all the rest, does not seem to be a feature of their rhetoric. The PRESIDENT: Member, you are getting distracted. Hon TJORN SIBMA: I am getting very excited, Madam President, in the time available. Hon Alannah MacTiernan interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon TJORN SIBMA: It is interesting. The document states also — As part of the overall package, the Australian Government will also provide $44.2 million towards regional road projects to improve regional road safety across Western Australia. I think that is an important point to reinforce, particularly on behalf of regional members in this house. I turn now to the first part of the motion—I thought I would deal with the motion in reverse. It strikes me that not one single member of WA’s federal Labor team has at any stage supported the GST fix for Western Australia. I do not recall Dr Anne Aly supporting the GST fix. I do not recall Josh Wilson supporting the GST fix. I do not recall hearing from Matt Keogh anything resembling support. I do not recall the support that the possum from Perth has provided to the GST fix. Perhaps that is why none of their faces are on the bus—not one single member. The PRESIDENT: Order! Member, if you are going to refer to a member of Parliament, you refer to them by their correct title. You know that. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. METHAMPHETAMINE ACTION PLAN TASKFORCE REPORT Motion HON PIERRE YANG (South Metropolitan) [11.28 am] — without notice: I move — That the Legislative Council notes the McGowan government’s whole-of-government, comprehensive response to the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce report and supports the McGowan government to continue the fight against ice. During this term of Parliament, the issue of methamphetamine use and its devastating impact on users and their families, and, indeed, our community, has come up time and again. I acknowledge the private members’ motion moved by Hon Martin Pritchard on 18 October 2018, noting the decline in the use of methamphetamine in Western Australia. I also note my motion to establish the Select Committee into Alternate Approaches to Reducing Illicit Drug Use and its Effects on the Community, led by Hon Alison Xamon.

3472 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

Methamphetamine use can cause a lot of devastating conditions, including psychosis, cardiovascular problems, kidney failure, stroke, seizure, anxiety and depression. It is one of the most addictive substances we have ever known. Meth releases more than three times of the amount of dopamine that cocaine does, which highlights just how addictive it can be. It is also reported that many users become addicted to ice from a single use. When smoked or injected it produces a rush that is caused by an increase in heart rate, blood pressure and pleasure-inducing neurotransmitters in the brain. Many who use meth take it over a period of several days and stay perpetually high throughout that time. Meth users are known to stay up during that time due to binge use. The duration of the high depends on the mode of consumption. Injecting can produce a stronger high but it wears off more quickly. Eventually, the amount of meth that the addict consumes does not produce the same high, so the addict has to take more ice. However, that increased consumption can lead to overdosing because of the effects of ice on the body, so it can lead to overheating, seizure, loss of consciousness and coma; an overdose can be fatal. Like many other forms of illicit drugs, methamphetamine does not just cause harm to the user themselves. Our community is very concerned about the effects. According to the Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey, in 2016, methamphetamine became the drug of most concern to the community, overtaking alcohol and more than doubling the level of concern in 2013 from 16.1 per cent to 40 per cent. It also found that 6.3 per cent, or 1.3 million Australians over the age of 14 have used methamphetamine and 1.4 per cent reported that they used methamphetamine in the past 12 months. Methamphetamine infects and destroys every community it enters. One threatening fact about methamphetamine is that production is very easy to learn. It is relatively inexpensive and it can be done anywhere. Data from a number of sources indicates that the rate of methamphetamine use is higher in regional and very remote areas, compared with major cities or regional centres. The 2016 survey that I just quoted from indicates that the risk of methamphetamine was 2.5 times higher in very remote areas compared with major cities and regional areas. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s sixth report into the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program of February 2019 reveals that WA continues to have the highest use. Where clandestine labs exist, drug dealers, innocent children and neighbours, and law enforcement personnel suffer. Explosions and fire are a common hazard of these illegal labs. They have a mixture of volatile chemicals in the air and something like tipping over a can or container, lighting a cigarette or switching on an electrical appliance can spark an explosion. When an explosion occurs, neighbours’ properties are put at risk. Let us not forget about the news reports over the last several years about people purporting to be tenants moving into a rental property and then trashing the property by turning it into a drug lab, causing significant pain and expense to the landlord who was trying to do the right thing. Each pound of meth produced leaves behind five to six pounds of toxic waste. These people who produce meth have little regard for other people’s lives, let alone the environment. All toxic waste is generally just dumped into the drainage system, which will stay in the system for a long time and contaminate the water supply for many years. There are other costs to users and non-users alike of methamphetamine spreading to the community at large, including an increased amount of motor vehicle accidents, criminal activities, domestic violence, emergency and other medical costs, and also an increased spread of infectious disease such as HIV, AIDS and hepatitis, and also a loss of productivity for workers. Governments and eventually taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Since being elected in 2017, the McGowan government has worked tirelessly in the field of combatting meth. In 2017, the government introduced and passed the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Methylamphetamine Offences) Bill 2017 in Parliament. The state government has invested $125.9 million to date in the meth border force, with 100 police officers and 20 professional staff working tirelessly to protect our community. They have been provided with sophisticated drug detection technology. In June 2017, the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce was established to provide advice to government on improving how programs can be best delivered and targeted to areas of greatest need, including regional areas, with opportunities for cross-sector collaboration to reduce methamphetamine harm, demand and supply, and also advice on the best ways to measure the performance and success of the government’s initiatives. In November 2018, the meth action plan task force delivered its final report and made a total of 57 recommendations for the government. These recommendations primarily focused on harm and demand reduction. The government has already committed $171.4 million to implement its meth action plan and related initiatives to prevent and reduce methamphetamine-related harm in Western Australia. These initiatives build on the current and comprehensive range of programs and services delivered, including prevention and early intervention, treatment and support, law enforcement, and they are supported through coordination, planning and evaluation. On 7 May 2019, last week, the state government released the “Full Government Response to the Western Australian Methamphetamine Taskforce Report” and outlined a range of targeted functional and practical initiatives that focus on prevention, early intervention, treatment and support, and law enforcement. I am very pleased to see that of the 57 recommendations, 56 were either supported, supported in principle or noted by the state government. The $42.5 million package as part of the 2019–20 state budget will form part of the implementation plan in response to the report, which includes $32.3 million to provide more services where people require them, close to their home and personal supports; $2.3 million to provide evidence-based training for health professionals working with people impacted by

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3473 methamphetamine use and their families; $2.7 million to ensure the continuation of targeted school and public education programs to reduce the uptake of methamphetamine use among young people and encourage access to support for people at risk; and $5.2 million to expand and develop safe places for individuals and families in crisis, with a new 10-bed crisis centre to be established in Midland. I am pleased to see the state government is willing to consider all options, including the consideration of compulsory drug and alcohol services. As Deputy Premier Roger Cook noted the other day, to enable a government to detain someone against their will is a step that cannot be taken lightly. There are complex issues, which we are determined to work through. In the news, we have heard about the effects of meth on users’ families, some of which are truly devastating. A few months ago, I heard a father on the radio speaking about the effect of meth on his adult son. It turned the lives of the user, his father, and those around him upside down. That gentleman said that as a father he would do anything to support his children, but when his son started to use meth, he became a different person. He pleaded for people to support compulsory services for his son. A lot of people have made public their views about compulsory drug and alcohol services. I have not made up my mind about this issue, but it is important for us to debate the necessity of considering all options to combat meth use. I would like to echo the Deputy Premier’s words. The issue of meth is a very complex one. This scourge on our community requires a detailed, comprehensive and coordinated response. I commend the motion to the house and ask members to support it. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Dr Steve Thomas): Before I give the call to Hon Alanna Clohesy, can I confirm that she will be giving the government’s response? HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [11.41 am]: I am about to indicate that, Mr Acting President. I am responding on behalf of the government and indicate that it supports this motion. It is a very important motion, and I thank the honourable member for bringing it to this place. He is right to be concerned about the impact of methamphetamine on individuals, families and our community. It is an insidious drug and its impact is widespread. As the honourable member pointed out, methamphetamine continues to be a drug that causes a very high level of concern to the community. In 2016, the level of concern in the general community about this drug more than doubled from 16.1 per cent to 40 per cent. This drug continues to be consumed in very high levels in Western Australia, which holds the dubious title as the state with the highest meth consumption level in Australia. The government meth action plan works to address that. The effects of this drug are widespread. It has an incredibly devastating impact on individuals because it is fast-acting and highly addictive, and can change people’s lives in a very short time. It impacts on families, typically when, as the honourable member pointed out, a family member uses methamphetamine. Families find it very difficult and confronting. It has a wide range of impacts. Police, hospitals and even school resources are used to address the impact of this drug. Its use is so widespread that I hazard a guess that the life of every single member in this place has been touched in some way by this drug, whether it is by an immediate or extended family member who uses or has been affected by the drug, constituents whom we have come across, or constituents who are concerned about the drug being manufactured in their neighbourhood or police resources. Our communities and all of us have been affected in some way. That indicates the extent of the use of this drug. That is why it was a major election commitment by our party to address the issue by establishing a methamphetamine task force. We knew that more needed to be done and the people who have been affected or are currently affected had to be listened to about what can and should be done. It was obvious that more needed to be done from the 2016 figures about the level of concern about the drug. On taking office, the government set up the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce. I congratulate and thank the members of the task force for the hard work they undertook. They travelled the state and listened to people affected by meth, including families, individuals and workers at the coalface, who deal with this daily in a way that is often very confronting. The task force spent a lot of time listening to a range of people. If members have not had a chance to look at the report, I recommend they read it, because it documents very clearly what family members, individuals and people who work in this area on a daily basis have to say. It is a very good report. The government’s response to the report is couched in three different ways—that is, supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm minimisation. Those are the pillars. The government has committed $42.5 million in the 2019–20 budget towards initiatives, which brings to a total of $244.8 million the funds that will be spent to address meth issues in our state. The full response to the meth task force report focuses on four key points: more support for individuals and families in crisis; more help where it is needed; more workers to provide support; and prevention, education, and harm reduction. To address the supply side, the government aims to prevent meth getting into this state or being produced or distributed across Western Australia. The impact over the last couple of years is that the Western Australia Police Force has been very successful in closing down backyard drug labs. In the past, many labs operated, and getting them closed down has certainly been raised with many of us. With the increased resources provided by

3474 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] the government and the increased focus by the police, a number of drug labs have been closed down before they can supply drugs. However, drug supply into Western Australia by international syndicates that bring material from overseas and the eastern states remains a major concern. That has meant a shift in the operational focus of the Western Australia Police Force. The government has invested an additional $21.2 million in the Western Australia Police Force for the meth border force. That shift in focus has led to record seizures and the disruption of criminal syndicates around the state. As recently as 28 March in Dianella, there was a significant seizure of 32.5 kilograms of methamphetamine and 4.9 kilos of MDMA, which is a significant amount of drugs that have been taken out of the community. Other items were also seized, such as significant amounts of cash, which of course indicates drug supply. In Kalgoorlie on 30 March, eight kilograms of methamphetamine was seized. A 33-year-old man from South Australia has been charged with that offence. There was also a significant seizure in Geraldton on 14 May, during which 110 grams of methamphetamine was seized, along with cash, and implements, including weapons, with a street value of $110 000, which also indicates drug supply. Very recently—I think on Monday—the organised crime squad seized 59 kilograms of methamphetamine and significantly disrupted drug syndicates in their distribution of this drug. Two men from New South Wales and one man from Victoria were arrested; indicating the eastern states link to the distribution and supply of this drug. I thank the Western Australia Police Force for its increased focus, and dedication and work in this area. We have also invested $700 000 for cutting-edge technology, including three police vans for border patrol. That is a significant investment. Our meth action plan, as I said, has four main areas and is really important in addressing the scourge of this drug in our state. I thank all the people involved in the development of the plan and wish everyone the best in the implementation of it. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [11.51 am]: I rise to indicate my support for this motion. One of the reasons I am happy to support the motion is that I appreciate the measured tone that Hon Pierre Yang has taken to this. I think that the government’s investment in this area should be acknowledged. Of course I support the work that has been done towards trying to address what is effectively a meth crisis in this state. I appreciate that there has not been a sense of congratulations or anything like that to perhaps suggest that we are there. As members are well aware, if we are to accurately represent the situation at the moment, we still have a long way to go to address the issue of meth. It is important and valuable that this government has decided to take the issue so seriously. As such, I welcome this. I also want to comment on a few of the measures that have been progressed, and make some comments about areas that still desperately need some attention. I welcome the additional moneys going into prevention, noting that money will be invested in our schools. Early intervention is a key part in trying to address what will happen in the future. It is very welcome that the government has been up-front in dealing with its harm-reduction measures. People who are perhaps not very well informed sometimes try to criticise and maybe get some political mileage out of this issue, which is a desperate shame when talking about saving people’s lives and making sure that people’s health is maintained. I applaud the government for being prepared to look at things like expanding needle exchange programs and those sorts of things. That is good public health policy. I am really pleased to see those sorts of provisions in there. Although additional funding is absolutely welcome and this investment recognises the valued role that our alcohol and other drugs sector is playing, not enough services are provided to meet community demand. We are still not meeting the level of demand that has been articulated in the 10-year mental health, alcohol and other drug services plan. I recognise that we are at least seeing progress towards trying to address this. I will make a brief comment about the issue of supply. I note that $21.2 million has been allocated to the Western Australia Police Force for the meth border force. I will reflect briefly on comments that were made by police at a public committee hearing, which have subsequently received media attention. The comments were made to a committee that I chair. The only reason I am happy to speak about it is that it has already been very much in the public domain. Police made the very clear observation that WA has a largely open coastline that is not being monitored, and that there has been a lack of federal government investment available to enable federal police to monitor our borders for drugs. That really highlighted that although there have been some gains in being able to mitigate it to an extent, the issue of supply has largely not been touched. That is why we have so much meth in our system and why it is effectively so cheap to buy. This remains a massive problem and is why we need to focus on the issue of demand. Quite frankly, if tonnes and tonnes of ice is coming through our borders but no-one wants to take it, or hardly anyone wants to take it, there will be no market. My primary issue will always be how to stop people taking meth in the first place. That should be our number one priority. When people get caught in the devastating cycle of meth addiction, what can we do to ensure that those people are able to recover from their addiction as soon as possible? Once people hit the point of recognising that they have a problem, they need to be able to access services immediately. We know that. This is something that has been researched and recorded over and over again. We need to ensure, during that small window when people say, “I have a problem; I need help”,

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3475 that we can get them into services as soon as possible. Unfortunately, even with the significant investment proposed in this state budget, there is still a significant gap within this space. I am very concerned that we still have an issue whereby the staffing profile within our public hospitals is not able to adequately address these concerns. In my remaining minutes, I am not going to focus on the issue of beds. That is a discussion for another time. We already know that we need more residential care beds. Some are being made available, but of course the demand is huge and we still need to expand. I want to particularly touch on the issue of addiction specialist clinicians within our WA health system. I have been asking some questions about this. I appreciate the government’s fulsome and fairly frank responses to the questions that I have asked. It highlighted that we currently have a shortage of addiction specialist psychiatrists and physicians within the WA health system. In answers to questions that I asked in Parliament, we discovered that we have only two registered specialist addiction psychiatrists and 14 registered specialist addiction physicians employed within the entire WA health system. Further, only a 0.9 full-time equivalent of an addiction psychiatrist position and a 0.6 full-time equivalent of an addiction physician position are currently employed within public hospitals across the whole state. Members, this is deeply concerning and is not remotely in line with the sort of staffing profile that exists in other states. This is a huge oversight. These particular addiction specialists play a vital role when it comes to the issue of treating addiction. Although the government’s investment in the meth action plan is absolutely welcome—of course it is— we need to ensure that special attention is paid to the issue of specialist addiction clinicians so we can ensure we have timely access to treatment services for anyone who turns up in mental health services in our hospital system and says, “I need help and I need it now.” The situation is even worse for people living in the regions. Because there are already far fewer alcohol and other drug services in the regions, it means that our regional public hospitals are playing an even greater role than their metropolitan counterparts at the forefront of presentations by people who have serious addiction. In this context, I have to say that it is absolutely appalling that we do not have even one addiction specialist psychiatrist or physician in any regional hospital across this entire state. That is an appalling position to have found ourselves in. This area needs urgent attention from the government and needs to be addressed urgently by all the area health services, but most notably the WA Country Health Service. They will have to remedy this situation and we need to make sure that we have addiction specialists employed as part of our overall staffing profile. I am very concerned that this is the current situation in Western Australia, particularly considering that we still have per capita the highest rate of meth use in this country. We know that this is a huge issue for us and that we need to provide the capacity for people to access those very clear, trained specialists at the forefront when they present. Unfortunately, we have the specific situation in Western Australia right now whereby the people best trained to address this issue have not been employed. I have not even started on the issue of consultant liaison psychiatrists—that is a whole speech for another time and one that I will pick up on. I suppose what I am particularly pointing out is that we do not have those specialists within our system at the moment. I am really concerned that things have been able to get to this point, because this is a key area that we need to address. Lots more could be said about this issue. I thank the member for bringing this motion to the attention of the chamber because we could be talking about this for a very, very long time. I welcome the investment, but we still have a long way to go. HON NICK GOIRAN (South Metropolitan) [12.01 pm]: I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the motion moved by Hon Pierre Yang. I thank my learned friend for bringing this motion to the attention of the house and for the spirit with which he brings this and other matters to the attention of the chamber. At the outset, before I make my remarks officially on behalf of the opposition, I indicate, on a personal note, that I remain deeply troubled by the sheer volume of Western Australians who continue to take ice. Following on from Hon Alison Xamon’s comments, the demand for this drug is of real concern. I read some information that suggested that in WA hospital emergency departments alone, we are looking at in the realm of 130 meth-affected patients presenting each week. Often when we cite statistics, as we should, to inform debate, we fail to grasp the gravity of those statistics. Every week, 130 meth-affected Western Australians are presenting at emergency departments. That is approximately 20 people a day. There are only 24 hours in a day, so we are almost at the point at which in every hour of the day, on average, a Western Australian affected by meth is rocking up to an emergency department. That really should trouble us. It blows my mind that that many Western Australians are not only taking meth in the first place, but, secondly, to the point of needing to turn up to an emergency department. Those 130 people are not the sum total of all the people who are taking meth because some people will be taking meth and not presenting to the emergency department. Just the number of people going to the emergency department— forget about the others—is deeply, deeply troubling. On behalf of the opposition, as the representative of the shadow Minister for Health, my friend Sean L’Estrange, MLA, the member for Churchlands, I indicate that we are prepared to support the part of the motion in which Hon Pierre Yang asks us to note the “Full Government Response to the Western Australian Methamphetamine Taskforce Report”. There is nothing objectionable about noting that response. I have a copy of that report to hand. It is 45 pages. Indeed, the opposition concurs with other members and agrees to note that response. However, we

3476 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] are not in a position at this time to agree that the response is comprehensive. I draw members’ attention to what the shadow minister had to say on this issue last week. The shadow minister, in communicating with the media last week on 7 May, made these remarks — “Families in this State are being destroyed by meth every day; they cannot wait for this Government to talk and plan for another two years … “The Government’s response to the Methamphetamine Taskforce Report fails to address key community concerns or commit to clear initiatives. “This Government has walked away from its promise for a standalone rehabilitation facility in the South West and has no clear plan to deal with meth-affected patients who present in our public emergency departments. “WA Health Department data shows that between July 2017 and December 2018, an average of more than 130 meth-affected patients presented to WA emergency departments each week. “Emergency departments are already under significant strain, with ambulance ramping reaching another high yesterday — I pause at this moment to indicate that when the shadow minister refers to “yesterday”, he is talking about 6 May 2019. He goes on to say — and most metropolitan hospitals failing to meet the four-hour wait target. “This Government’s response is a 10-bed crisis centre in Midland, which may help the emergency department at St John of God Midland Public Hospital, but will not help emergency departments in our other major metropolitan hospitals.” He concludes by saying — “Before the election Labor also promised there would be whole-of government KPI’s around meth use, yet this morning Minister Cook admitted no meth reduction targets had even been set.” Again, I indicate that the reference to “this morning” is a reference to 7 May 2019. Of course, it is not only the shadow Minister for Health, Sean L’Estrange, MLA, the member for Churchlands, who is concerned about this issue; the Australian Medical Association of WA also shares this concern. I note that in an article in The West Australian of 28 January 2019, the then medical editor, Cathy O’Leary, had this to say — More than 10,000 meth-affected patients have been treated at WA’s hospital emergency departments since reporting started 18 months ago—and the numbers are rising. WA Health Department figures obtained by The West Australian show the big impact of the meth scourge on hospitals, with 10,265 attendances between July 2017 and December last year, or more than 130 patients a week. Seven emergency departments—six metropolitan and one regional—treated a total of 3673 meth addicts between July and December last year, 9 per cent more than in the same six-month period in 2017. The data, considered to be some of the most detailed of its kind, also paints a picture of the typical addict—a male aged 26–35, probably arrived at hospital by ambulance on a Saturday or Sunday night, and triaged as a serious or urgent case. One in five meth patients presenting at hospital had dealings with police or correctional services. The department said the hospitals’ surveillance system meant people under the influence of meth could be identified at any time during their ED stay, not just when they arrived. Separate data from Royal Perth Hospital’s urgent care clinic, which deals with alcohol and drug–related cases, shows it has treated 377 meth patients in the past eight months. Doctors said many more patients could be under the influence of meth and not picked up by the data. Australian Medical Association WA president Omar Khorshid said the impact of methamphetamine on hospitals was a big concern. “But it’s not just the health system, it’s having an impact on crime rates, road toll and broader effects on the community, and we need to be doing whatever we can to address the problem,” he said. “I know the Government has a plan, and there is a lot of resources going to a border force–type process, but we’re a bit sceptical that further investment in policing and reducing supply will really work. “We think there should be a strong health approach to this problem, to ensure there is rehabilitation and medical services available to people who want to get off meth.” Dr Khorshid said being treated at hospital because of meth could be a wake-up for users and their families. “Ending up in hospital can show it’s not a trivial thing they’re doing, so it’s a good time for medical staff and nurses to divert them to rehabilitation and prevent some of the terrible harm we’re seeing from methamphetamine,” he said.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3477

I conclude by thanking Hon Pierre Yang for bringing this motion to the attention of the house. I agree with him that this is a significant issue in our community. I remain deeply troubled by the sheer number of Western Australians who are taking ice and its devastating effects on them and their families. I plead with them to remember that choices have consequences. Every time one of them makes a choice to participate, it will have consequences for not only them but also their families, our hospital system and the government. It is a responsibility for all of us. HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.11 pm]: I add my support to this very important motion brought to the house today by Hon Pierre Yang, as usual. As I have said many times before, Hon Pierre Yang is a quality member of Parliament who brings these very important matters before the house for us to discuss. He is a very thoughtful and considerate man. He is very caring and compassionate towards his community and often brings before us these very important social issues. As mentioned earlier, a person would have to be living under some kind of a rock not to realise the extent of the methamphetamine problem in Western Australia. Sadly, we lead the nation in a statistic that, clearly, we would not like to be leading the nation in: we have the highest methamphetamine use per capita of anywhere in Australia. For many years that figure continued to rise and we continued to get further ahead of the other states. This government has seen a need and reacted: it has set about taking meaningful action against the use of methamphetamine in Western Australia. As a regional member of Parliament, I can say that this problem is bigger in the regions. It is more difficult to detect and intercept shipments of methamphetamine in remote areas, as evidenced by wastewater testing results that show that the people of Bunbury and Geraldton are major users of this hideous drug. If members were to visit the emergency department at Geraldton Health Campus, as I have done, on a weekend—I suspect that it happens on other nights of the week also—they would see firsthand the effect that this drug has on individuals and our broader community. Sadly, we are seeing more of the effect it has on our fantastic frontline emergency department nurses and doctors as they try to treat these people who have, for whatever reason, seen a need to indulge in this particularly dangerous and nasty drug. This is a whole-of-community problem. I will never understand why people turn to a drug like methamphetamine when its harmful effects are becoming so well known. I will never understand why they choose to smoke cigarettes either, and I note that people still continue to do that. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Mr Perfect! Hon DARREN WEST: I still do not understand why people choose to buy cigarettes with all the knowledge and information that we have now. Hon Alanna Clohesy: We will have a discussion about addiction later. Hon DARREN WEST: We will have a discussion about that, member. I know that people disagree with me on that, but my personal view is that I do not understand why people would choose to indulge in methamphetamine at all, and yet they do. We need to attack this issue at that level. We need to educate people about the risks and try to resolve some of the underlying social issues that go with methamphetamine use. I know that this government is making a big push into that mental health space. Often, mental illness is associated with the use of methamphetamine. It is good to see that in areas like Geraldton we are moving towards establishing a step-up, step-down unit and an acute psychiatric unit—real mental health services—to gnaw away at some of the underlying problems that people have and to deal with their mental health in the hope that that may flow onto less reliance on illicit drugs as a way to escape or whatever it may be. We know that methamphetamine continues to be a significant concern within our community right across the state of Western Australia. There is no point in us hiding from that. As a government, we need to take responsibility and to work in the best interests of resolving some of these issues. As I said, its effects on individuals are far-reaching and devastating. We all know of somebody who no longer holds down their job and has spiralled out of control as a consequence of using this awful drug. It is extremely addictive and it has flow-on effects, as I said. It affects frontline first responders. Its effects also flow on to family members who are often relieved of their savings not only by their children or grandchildren obtaining this terrible drug, but also in trying to help them escape its trappings. Its effects move right through our community at a significant cost to the state. The whole-of-government full response to the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce was delivered on 7 May this year. I encourage members to look at that and ascertain how their government is dealing with that task force’s excellent report. The response outlines a range of targeted, functional and practical initiatives that focus on prevention, early intervention, treatment, support and, of course, law enforcement. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier, our police are doing a wonderful job. They are intercepting significant amounts of methamphetamine right across the state. We have seen some very large hauls obtained, which not only takes the drug off the streets, but also indicates to us the extent of the supply problem. This drug is now predominantly coming in from distant destinations. In the latest state budget announced by the Treasurer last week, we have committed $42.5 million towards initiatives as part of a whole-of-government full response to the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce’s report. This reflects the state government’s commitment to providing more help when it is needed. The challenge for us is to work out the best spend of that significant investment by taxpayers and the state. We think the

3478 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce’s report has given us some more than useful information in that regard. In principle, we have supported 56 of the 57 recommendations from that report, such is the quality of that report. We are going to focus on more support for individuals and families in crisis, so extending that to the broader family. Family members can be a useful ally for us to help people turn around their lives. I have been fortunate enough to meet with people who have decided that they want to get off this stuff and who have turned around their lives. Fresh Start Northam runs a cafe at the medical centre in Northam. I have met with people there who have been totally addicted to methamphetamine and have now taken the opportunity provided to them to turn around their lives. They are now making a meaningful contribution to their community. It is really heartwarming to see how people can take their lives from destitution to success, rather than the other way around. I really enjoy working and talking with people who have reformed their lives. We need more help when and where it is needed, and we want more workers to help provide the support. At this point I want to acknowledge all who work in the drug rehabilitation and prevention space. What a great career choice, to be able to touch lives in a way that other professions cannot, and help not only the community but also individuals. Prevention, education and harm reduction are basically at the heart of what we are trying to achieve here. We have also invested $21.2 million in the WA Police Force for the meth border force, which has led to record seizures and disruption of criminal syndicates moving methamphetamine around the state. I want to touch on the kind of person who would be involved in this awful industry. What sort of person would be actively trying to sell this stuff to our young people and users? There is a very special category for those people. I would perhaps label them the scum of the earth, but others may have other names. I have two children aged in their early 20s. This is one thing that parents fear the most, but it does make us think about and despise the cretins trying to actively encourage methamphetamine use. I thank the honourable member for bringing on this motion. Hon Pierre Yang always brings worthy discussions to this chamber. I know that this one will have broad support across both sides of politics, because this problem affects us all, and will continue to do so in the future, as drug use will never be completely eliminated, but we must do everything we can. HON MARTIN PRITCHARD (North Metropolitan) [12.22 pm]: I thank Hon Pierre Yang for bringing forward this motion. We spoke about it during last year’s sittings, but it is a widespread and huge issue. Personally, I think one of the greatest challenges of modern times is to beat this scourge. I thank the Methamphetamine Action Plan Taskforce. It has done a very comprehensive job, and the motion brought forward is measured by its suggestion of a comprehensive response, and I am proud to belong to the McGowan government and be part of that comprehensive response. As with other issues I have talked about in this house, I do not think that only this side of the house wants to beat this scourge; I think it is the aim of every member in this house and the other place. I will not talk too much about the plan, because people have already talked about different parts of it, but I want to try to bring a human face to this, if I can, as I often do, and I ask the forgiveness of members if it is a little off the point. I have actually had to face this issue within my own extended family. I raised this last year. My nephew, although he says he is not, is addicted to methamphetamine. Anybody who knows me well will know that nothing is more important to me than my family. My family is everything to me; everything else comes second. I hope that extends to my extended family as well. When my elder sister’s family broke down—as had my parents’ family— she had two boys, and I wanted to be very involved in their life, try to help as much as I could and assist them as they moved into young adulthood. One of my nephews became involved in using ice. Nothing can damage a family more than having a family member use ice. I continued to try to help him, keeping in mind that I had two daughters. I suppose that the first concern I had was theft. I would worry about him coming over and taking a few things to feed his habit, but that soon gave way to actual fear. I do not know whether members have ever confronted someone using ice, but it is horrifying and scary. They have no empathy and they feel as though they are superhuman. They will just as well thank someone as stick a knife in them; it is as clear-cut as that. The concerns I had about theft and the monetary cost soon gave way to an absolute fear for my immediate family—my daughters. Much to my own disgust in myself, I no longer let my nephew come to my house. I would throw him a few dollars when needed, because he had a girlfriend and a child, and we would try to help the child. That soon broke down, and his partner left him and ran away with the child. I still tried to help, but I would not allow him to come over, not for fear of losing something in the house—that does not worry me in the least—but for fear that he would come over under the influence and attack me, my wife or my two children. Ice is an absolute scourge. I am very pleased when the government of the day, of whichever persuasion, does everything it can to try to resolve issues for society. I am going to run out of time, so I will try to skip through a couple of things. One of the things I am particularly pleased about is that money has been put aside for the training of our frontline services. I feel guilty about the fact that they are actually doing the job that families used to do in helping us with our loved ones. Usually they face what Hon Nick Goiran described as emergencies. I said in my speech on this issue last year that I was once in a hospital emergency department with my mother-in-law when a person affected by ice came through. I think it took about six people to restrain that person. I do not mind admitting that although I am not

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3479 worried about a fight, we cannot tackle these people. They are just out of their heads and extremely strong, regardless of their size. The fact is that our frontline staff have to deal with this, and money has been put aside to train them in dealing with this, which is good. Obviously, as Hon Nick Goiran suggested, it would be best if kids did not take up methamphetamine, in light of the fact that they can get addicted to it very quickly. Money has also been put aside to continue the education in schools and the community to try to prevent the uptake of methamphetamine. The task force has suggested many ways to tackle this problem, and I am pleased that many of them have been taken up by the government. I encourage this government and future governments to continue the fight. I have seen firsthand that it is as scary as all hell, and whatever we can do to make sure that our kids do not take up ice, and come back to a reasonable society, is, in my mind, very good. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. TRANSPORT (ROAD PASSENGER SERVICES) REGULATIONS 2019 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON MARTIN PRITCHARD (North Metropolitan) [12.30 pm] — without notice: I move — That pursuant to recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, order of the day 5, Transport (Road Passenger Services) Regulations 2019 — Disallowance, be discharged from the notice paper. The concerns about these regulations have been resolved to the satisfaction of the committee. I indicate to members that they should not confuse this order of the day with order of the day 4, which has been moved by another member in this house, in similar terms. This is separate from that. Question put and passed. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 15 May on the following motion moved by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) — That pursuant to standing order 69(1), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 2664A–D (budget papers 2019–20) laid upon the table of the house on Thursday, 9 May 2019. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [12.31 pm]: When I spoke yesterday, I had just come to the idea of carbon capture and why what Chevron is doing seems to be such a ludicrous idea. This Clayton’s method of carbon capture is not working and really does not deserve investment when other means are available, such as planting more trees, or improving the soil carbon throughout our agricultural system. There are many other opportunities to do that, and I think those are the things we should be looking at. The other thing I also want to restate from yesterday is the Environmental Protection Authority guidelines. When those guidelines came out, they suggested that major polluters should invest in carbon offsets. I hope that when this comes up again, we find that those carbon offsets are required to be invested in Australia. Although I appreciate that coming up with these things in other countries is a good idea, we really need to reward the people here who are doing the right thing and creating more ways of storing carbon, such as in the soil or in trees and forests. To continue on from that, along the same theme, the renewable projects that were set for Collie have been cancelled— the solar farm and the biomass energy plant. It is disappointing. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: They have not necessarily been cancelled, member. It is more about expanding it to include more possibilities. Hon DIANE EVERS: I will take the minister’s point. The funding has been reassigned and can be used for those sorts of projects. I am pleased to hear that input, because we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. These may be the solutions. I understand there could be other solutions as well, and that is what I am looking for. What I would like to see is something else to develop in Collie. Baby steps are being taken. We are trying to invest wisely. We need to remember the infrastructure in Collie. Even though I believe we are shifting to a more decentralised energy system, we have to admit that the grid system that is based in Collie is a huge and valuable asset and one that we can continue to use so long as we continue with the centralised system. In making use of that infrastructure for decades to come, we could consider things such as pumped hydro. I know that has been looked at. From what I understand, there are about 20 000 places around Australia where this might work, and Collie could be one of those. The benefit of pumped hydro is that the water is pumped to the higher level when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and when we need extra power, or the sun is not shining, we can let that water flow back and immediately get that energy. It is a very natural form of a battery. It is being used in Queensland, and I think we might be able to use that here. I really hope that by using the natural rise and fall of the land and some of the big holes that have been dug for the coal, we might be able to look at pumped hydro.

3480 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

The next step is the agriculture department. I am very pleased to see that one of the key effectiveness indicators of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development is — Percentage change in the spatial extent of the southwest cropping region that maintains sufficient year round ground cover for protecting and improving soil health It is aiming for anything above zero. I am really pleased, because that means improving on what we have. It means that we are at least demonstrating that we know how bad the situation is, and that, first, we have to try to stop things from getting worse, and then we can get on with making them better. If we put in these KPIs that start to recognise some of the benefits we can be doing on our agricultural landscape, maybe then we will be able to develop those regenerative aspects that store carbon in the soil. I am really looking forward to seeing that. One other issue along the lines of climate is the $1 million that has been set aside for a carbon offset program. This is on page 102 of budget paper No 3. I am really pleased. That $1 million for a carbon offset program seems like a token amount, but it is a token that at least addresses the fact that the government is aware that this carbon offset program could be the way to go. I hope that money will be invested in Australia, for the future of our children. The thing is, though, that it is $1 million. The government is in control of a lot more than $1 million—this state goes through $20 billion to $30 billion a year. It is just baby steps. I hope that through good legislation—which is where the government can make a big difference—we will address the climate change effects, and that legislation will improve the situation for us. The $1 million for a carbon offset program is great. Hopefully, it will be money well spent. I hope that many others in the state take up the same challenge and start offsetting their emissions. The next thing I would like to get onto is that my first real awareness of politics in Australia was pretty much based on secrets and leaks. That seemed to be in the newspaper all the time. It is secrets and leaks. It is not really secrets and lies, because many people do not trust what they hear anyway. The secrets come out at the right time and at the wrong time, or whatever, and people get upset about them. But they do not deliver the best outcomes. I am looking for truth. I am looking for facts. Do not tell me secrets. Tell me facts. We need to know the truth. That is what I think Western Australian residents are looking for as well. I will not go too far into that, but, from what I see here and from what I have seen in the past, we need facts. We need truth. We need governments to work together with the opposition and the crossbench, in a bipartisan way, to see whether we can move on from that. As I see it from the facts of this budget, and past experience—this budget has been delivered nearly two years out from the next state election—the budget next year will be the real juicy one. That is the budget that will aim to get the most people to appreciate this government. If climate change is still on the agenda—I can assure members it will be—maybe then we will see some action. We will need one more year of budget nips and tucks, and a little splash of cash here and there, but the budget next year will be the one to address the challenge of climate change so that the residents of Western Australia will realise just how strongly this government recognises that challenge. Next year’s budget is when I expect to see that action. I expect that, by then, our floods, fires, storms and droughts will be hitting us even harder, and maybe then action will be taken. I hope it will not be too late. Maybe it will happen then, when we have had a year of a federal Labor government. The Premier is relying on a federal Labor government. He has stated several times that climate change is a federal issue with regard to carbon credits, emissions trading schemes, renewable energy targets et cetera. The government has been very weak. It is a weak response to say, “No. That’s not our issue. Let the federal government look after that.” I expect more leadership, and I think the residents of Western Australia do also. I hope that we see that difference next year, in the 2020–21 budget. It is interesting to look at this budget and the operating surplus. We are talking about an operating surplus this year, but do not get too excited. It is not really a cash surplus. The cash surplus is next year. That is nice. Keep the level of expectation down. I think an operating surplus is a very good start to being able to control the increase in our debt, but a cash surplus will be nice, too. I will not go into the numbers, as members can read those themselves. We often simply look at the operating surplus, but this government has chosen to focus on the cash surplus, taking into account spending on assets, proceeds from the sale of assets and new loans. We are looking at not only the expenses on a year-by-year basis, but also the investment in assets and what needs to be done to pay for those assets. It is a better indication; although it should be acknowledged that the value of the assets would ideally increase to the amount invested, exceeding the amount borrowed and the value of assets sold, so there would be a reflection on the balance sheet of those transactions. That is not a worry as we can look at it either way, but we need to know what we are looking at. If we are looking at the whole balance sheet, we should see that investment in assets increase as well. I remind the government to keep in mind that when creating assets, as I have said in this house in the past, please consider those assets that provide future revenue or reduce ongoing operating costs. This could be done in many ways and good governance will get us there. That will drive down those operating costs by addressing the issues that are keeping them at such high levels. It is just a thought to make a stronger and more resilient state as we face further challenges presented by the oncoming wave of climate change–induced challenges. Many Western Australians live within their means and often put a bit aside, most often through repayments on the family home, which is fine. It is a good investment. Unfortunately, many others spend what they earn and then some. There is a chart in the budget that shows Western Australians have been saving quite well since the global financial crisis, which is a nice, conservative, pragmatic thing to do when they are under stress. Unfortunately, our

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3481 government did not do that and we ended up being left with a $30 billion debt, which is climbing its way to $40 billion. But now we have possibly joined those Western Australians and are trying to be a bit more conservative with the finances so that we can be resilient and able to spend when we need to. Where does this leave the government? Are people actually going to appreciate the sacrifices of services to achieve a surplus and stop our debt levels from rising? Again, it is a good plan for the first two years to pull back on the reins as much as possible, and to do similarly next year. But then coming into the election year, it will be the government’s role to use the surplus it has to make sure that people recognise that there was a point in making those sacrifices and ensure that there is investment in appropriate assets and appropriate services. Things like Infrastructure Western Australia, which will be debated shortly, make us look at what our needs are and the best way to address them. I am really looking forward to that. The financial prudence of the government, of course, has not been assisted by the make-up of the chamber. Getting any revenue legislation through is a minefield, with seven parties that each have their own expectations of who should cover the costs of running the state. I was disappointed that we could not start with an increase to the gold royalty. Gold and our other mineral exports provide lucrative profits for their owners, here and offshore. We have seen few revenue changes in this budget, as we head toward that upturn that seems just ahead, just out of reach. It would seem that as we go toward that financial windfall position that WA seems to enter every so often, now would be the time to take stock of our natural assets and prepare for the inevitable downturn with a real future fund. I know that we have the Western Australian Future Fund, but as things are improving and as we see that the mines are picking up again and there will be more royalties coming in, maybe now is the time to think about how we are going to put a few of those dollars aside for not only our future but also the future of our children and grandchildren and so forth, because they will be the ones around to clean up the mess. I would love to see a future fund to rival the Norwegian model, which extracts funds from those selling off a piece of Western Australia one shipload at a time. From what I understand, the Norwegian fund is up to a trillion dollars or so, and I would say that is some way off for us, but the thought is that we could be really looking at how we can claim some of those revenues and keep them for Western Australians. Another big change in this budget was the Australian Accounting Standards Board change—AASB 16. Prior to this accounting change, there were two different treatments for leases. Finance leases, which in most cases is when finance is received for the purchase of an item, appeared on the balance sheet and contributed to net debt, whereas operating leases, which more often cover the use of something but not necessarily the ownership, did not appear on the balance sheet and did not contribute to net debt. As members can imagine, organisations often tried to undertake leases that had the least negative impact on their balance sheets. The standard changed for all reporting from 1 January 2019. The impact on WA’s state finances is not significant, although it shows an increase in net debt of about $2 billion, because it does not change the fact that the leases had been entered into. It is a disclosure that will bring all organisations back to a level playing field and, of course, credit rating agencies are well aware of this and will take it into account, with likely very little impact on WA. This change may have some impact on decision-making but only to the extent that the previous method encouraged us to avoid balance sheet impact. As a government body, I suggest that this would not have been as strong a motivation as it may have been for for-profit organisations. As an aside, I recently visited Canada on a parliamentary study tour, and one idea I picked up while there was an accounting change made by the municipal government of Gibsons, near Vancouver. A municipal government is like our local government. Gibsons is pioneering an accounting approach to place nature and the municipal services that it provides at the core of its municipal infrastructure system to influence its decision-making activities for some years. It is working with the municipal natural asset initiative to create a recognised accounting standard that communities can use for the valuation of their natural assets and include them on their balance sheets. Imagine if our future budget included the value of the Yarragadee aquifer and its fluctuations as it faces potential salinity risks or overuse risks. One might also value the liability of the tens of thousands of abandoned mines waiting for clean-up. Maybe then we would enforce appropriate controls on those who exploit our resources and leave their messes behind for future generations to fix. It is an idea to consider. Our balance sheet still measures only the dollars in and out of an organisation. If we could actually put a value on our balance sheet for some of these natural assets, when those natural assets are diminished or damaged in some way so that they need repair or replacement, we could put in a corresponding liability for that. It would be a bit of an accounting nightmare, but I am sure that a few people would be willing to take up the challenge. Although we use finances to make our decisions on what we should and should not invest in, we should also be using the natural assets of the state to assist us in making those decisions, because damage to a natural asset creates a liability for us in the future—just look back at a hundred years of mining and the 60 000 holes around the state that are yet to be fixed. They will probably never be fixed. We find toxic waste that had been dumped decades ago. They are liabilities to us that we will need to address at some point. Maybe one day they will appear on our balance sheet. With regard to revenue, I would like to address the shackles of our own system, whereby large corporations and wealthy individuals can dictate to the government the outcomes they want to ensure their own wealth, prosperity and continuing hold on power. We need a change in the foreseeable future, but this is only going to happen with bipartisan support. We are looking for a massive change—an out with the old, in with the new change—but

3482 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

I cannot see this happening, as our own lawmakers are beholden to the system that puts us here. Until individual greed is displaced as our driver and somehow the people with a care for something greater than themselves are elected and then support each other in our houses of government across the world, our path looks dismal. So, here we are once again, not making substantial changes. There is no change of any substance; the budget tinkers around the edges, nips and tucks, with splashes of cash here and there, but nothing real really changes. It is interesting to note that due to external circumstances, the government did not need to introduce new revenue measures, which is just as well, as we know that this house has been reluctant to increase revenue even from those entities that exploit our natural resources. The first one would be iron ore royalties. When everyone here first saw that horrible event in Brazil with the tailings dam wall breaking apart, who sat here and thought, “That’s interesting. The price of iron ore is going to go up; we’re going to make a lot more money”? Hopefully, no-one here thought that and we all thought of those people who ran for their lives and lost their homes and their town, and the people who lost their lives. But that is a risk. Every place where that sort of industry exists has a risk. We have risks of our own. I will digress for a moment to talk about risks. We are creating these risks every day with the things we do and then blaming the damage from them on unforeseen circumstances. We know that climate change is coming. We talk about risk, but risk is increasing day by day, from not just the climate, but also political volatility. We are all seeing what is happening in other parts of the world, and it is not looking good. Things that happen over there affect us quite strongly. That means that we need to be more resilient and prepared to face those challenges when they come, from whatever direction. Some risks are not necessarily financial. There are health risks to our population; we really do not know what the next big epidemic will be. The commonwealth can put through changes that affect us. Luckily this time the commonwealth government put through the GST change and it is a positive one, but we never know when a change might come through that will really hurt us. There are also social licence risks. People are protesting again. Not only are the environmentalists protesting, but farmers are also protesting; sawmillers are starting to protest as well, saying that they are not happy with how things are going; students are protesting; and the Country Women’s Association is protesting. It is a fact and something is changing. I am saying, “Bring it on”, because we need some serious change very soon. As I said, there is no mention of climate change in our budget’s statement of risks, despite the Reserve Bank of Australia flagging future impacts that are likely to cause economic shocks and declarations of water shortages et cetera. Budget paper No 3, page 59, under the heading “Statement of Risks”, states — The revenue estimates are highly sensitive to changes in key economic parameters, including … exchange rate, commodity prices … employment and wage growth, and house prices and transaction volumes. But there is no mention of the risks associated with climate change, such as droughts and other severe weather events impacting farms and economic outputs, cost of insurances and increasing climate refugees et cetera. We had a debate in here only last week about the cost of insurance in the north of the state. The cost of insurance is increasing in those areas and in some places people can no longer get insurance. That will be a rude shock to people who live there. Of course the state government has investments in certain areas too. It is interesting and it is something that we should take note of. The insurance companies are very well aware of the impact of climate change and it is showing up in the premiums. How are we going to address that? In a recent address to the Centre of Policy Development, the Reserve Bank deputy governor, Dr Guy Debelle, urged governments, regulators and business to understand the wideranging impacts of climate change and take it seriously. Dr Debelle said — … financial stability was “better served by an orderly transition to a low-carbon economy than an abrupt disorderly transition”. … “Decisions that are taken now can have significant effects on future climate trends and can limit or eliminate the ability to mitigate the effect of those trends.” Again, that is something to keep in mind. We have the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank saying that we need to take action now. I could imagine our government might say, “We don’t want to do it so abruptly that it’s a disorderly transition.” That is just one of those things; nobody quite understands “transition”. What does transition mean? It is not like, “I’ll transition in the future.” Transition starts now and builds. We start putting in place the things that we need to see happen. I am really hoping, not so much this budget but next budget, that we no longer talk about the fact that we are going to transition, but that we have actually transitioned. I respect and acknowledge the funding that is being put towards that at this point to make sure that that transition happens. In 2018–19 and 2019–20, we have a significant increase in iron ore royalties and conservative expectations for the forward estimates—conservative in that it is going to come right back off real soon. Maybe it will or maybe it will not. It is always hard. Without a crystal ball working perfectly, it is really tough to know what will happen next; we can only make plans for it. In this case, making a conservative estimate makes a lot of sense. The thing is, though, that we will have a potential windfall should those prices stay up. A prudent government would have a plan to make best use of this windfall, without putting in place expenditure that relies on it, like counting our

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3483 chickens. We are not going to assume we will get the windfall, but should we get it and should those ore prices stay up and we continue to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties, I really hope that there is a plan. If it turns out that Western Australia is going to be doing well, I hope there is a plan in the midyear review and the thought of where we could be investing that. What do we need to do that will make a change today so that we can start to address the things that are causing climate change and work towards mitigating those issues? I am counting on it, guys; I really hope there is a plan. The GST top-up payments are up to 70¢ in the dollar—that is, the GST was divided up by population alone. Say WA made up 10 per cent of the population, we would receive 70 per cent of that 10 per cent, or seven per cent of the total GST distribution. That would be the minimum. The only thing we really need to keep in mind is that the GST fluctuates with the purchasing patterns of consumers. As I said, people in WA have been holding back on spending for about 10 years now. Maybe over in the eastern states they have not been doing that so much, but if they decide that things are not good and they lock up their credit cards, the GST could drop considerably. That means that that whole pie will be smaller. I do not think it is such a risk—I do not see that coming—but then I do not have a crystal ball either. It is very good to see that top-up payment for the GST. I hope we use it wisely. Payroll tax revenue is again rising, as is all mining activity. We are getting more out of the payroll tax and the small change that we are making here shortly to do with traineeships should not put too much of a dent in it. That is another area in which those unexpected windfalls may pop up as we go into a boom. Under the previous government, those windfalls possibly came a little too often; there were too many. The pattern of spending was put in place and that pattern of spending continued even when revenues started to fall back. That was really disappointing for the state. That was in the past; we are looking to the future, and let us make sure that if we do get those windfalls, we use them wisely. I thought that the land tax seemed conservative as well. Some changes have recently been put through that were supposed to close some of these loopholes that we had. We recognise that lower property values are occurring. Our properties are all being devalued, so maybe land tax will stay low, but I would like to assume that when this budget was created, it was based on the figures, not including the changes that we put through in the recent bill. I would expect that the changes that we should get from the revenue and taxation act, if this budget was created before that bill went through, is a midyear adjustment that takes into account the fact that that change was made. It is the same thing with the transfer duty. It seems conservative and I understand that land sales are sluggish, but again with the change to the Duties Act 2008 and similarly with the land tax, we probably would expect a midyear revision based on the fact that that bill has gone through. There is one other area of revenue—our dividends from our government trading enterprises. I will see whether I can get through this in the next few minutes. Appendix 8 of budget paper No 3 shows that the overall impact of revenue and expenses from the public corporations—that is, electricity, water, public transport and the like—is a small subsidy of $43 million. This amount, however, would be close to $1 billion in our favour as a dividend from the GTEs if we were able to recognise that the Public Transport Authority will never recover its costs. It really should be seen as a department and receive similar appropriation to Main Roads, which receives $1 billion. It is just an accounting thing, but that accounting aspect keeps the Public Transport Authority as a government trading enterprise, keeps showing it as a subsidy and drives down those dividends. It should be shown as a department and recognised for what it is—a public service that provides transport services. It does take in some fees, but the few hundred million dollars of fees will never match the $1 billion cost. I pointed this out in previous years. I understand that it cannot be changed by us alone, but I think on a whole federal basis, maybe this is some sort of change that we should look to, because the accounting method for these two entities influences our reaction to their value and the investment that we want to make in them. That is just a thought. A benefit to the road and rail investment in this current budget might suggest that the state would be good tenderers, as building construction is slow. There is more sense in that than the state contracting large projects at the height of a boom with premium tender prices. We will have to wait and see. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm Hon DIANE EVERS: Given the current situation that we are in—we are not in a boom—we should be able to generate some very good responses to tenders for building and construction. I understand that often in this state, construction costs can rise quite substantially, but, hopefully, we will get our orders in before anybody else and all that infrastructure that we are planning to build will come at a good price. I was speaking about another point on climate change in terms of revenue. It is quite ironic that revenue could increase significantly due to climate change because there is stamp duty on insurance premiums. As insurance costs rise, as we know they will, the state will benefit from the stamp duty that applies to those insurance payments, which is interesting. I would like to mention a 13-year-old girl from Bunbury who is doing her bit to change the world. Her name is Bella Burgemeister. Bella launched a book in 2017 to help explain to school students the 17 United Nations global goals for sustainable development. She was also one of the young people who organised the school strike for climate earlier this year. She acts well beyond her years. People like Bella inspire me to keep going, because

3484 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

I know that there are people coming up through the ranks who will be able to take our place one day. Hopefully, they will have a much more forward-looking approach to things. Bella has emerged as a leader amongst the young people who are campaigning for climate change action. This is part of the speech that she gave at the student strike for climate on 15 March — Children are anxious about the changing climate. Children of all ages. Climate change is real and kids know this. Climate change threatens our future. Remember, this is a 13-year-old saying this, so it is very important that we hear it — The science is clear. Scientists who work around climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put that argument to rest. Climate Change is not fake news. And those who deny it are contradicting science. What happens if we do nothing? If left unchecked, climate change will cause average global temperatures to increase beyond 3°C and will badly affect every ecosystem on Earth. Already, we are seeing how climate change can: • cause species worldwide to become extinct at an alarming rate—200 species a day; • cause coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef and Western Australian reefs; Again, I was speaking about all those different things that are happening to our natural resources and how we need to address the cost as we try to fix them. Her statement continues — • increase storms and natural disasters—Tasmania is burning while Townsville is flooding; • cause land to be consumed by rising water levels; and • create threats such as food and water shortage which can lead to conflict and wars on many levels. She spoke very eloquently from the heart and told us where she would like us to do things. She went on to say — Doing nothing will cost us our planet but doing something will give us more jobs and a reduction in greenhouse gases and adverse climate changes for a positive sustainable future. But we need action now! You can help fight climate change — She was saying this to other students — Be aware—Speak up for the Climate and the Planet. Speak up even if you feel scared, because the destruction of our planet is far scarier. Our three main demands are: 1. Stop Adani 2. No new coal or gas mines—No Adani and Frack off 3. 100% renewables by 2030 John F. Kennedy once said that “Our problems are man-made; therefore, they may be solved by man.” The time has come for us to step up and address the greatest threat to our future and the planet. But you must act now! Time is running out. To our Politicians I say: kids are making our voices heard today all around Australia and this action will not stop. We call you to action. The time has come for you to step up and address the greatest threat to our future and the planet. But you must act now! Make no mistake this is the climate change election. We are voting to decide if we have a future worth living We are voting for the survival of future generations We are voting to save our planet! We are giving up our childhood to fight for our future. Will you join us! Politicians, businesses, adults and older people are putting our children in this position. This is what they are thinking at the age of 13. These are the issues that they are finding they need to respect. This budget will do nothing to change that for them. On Bella’s behalf, I would like to list for members the 17 UN sustainable development goals. I thought members might like to know them, as they are becoming increasingly important for members’ children and grandchildren and for the management of this state budget. The sustainable development goals are no poverty; zero hunger; good health and wellbeing; quality education; gender equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation and infrastructure; reduced inequalities; sustainable cities and communities; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life below water; life on land; peace,

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3485 justice and strong institutions; and partnerships for the goals. I suggest that we should be aiming for this, and an act to ensure the rights of nature and all future generations might be one way of going there. It is something to think about; we could put in place legislation that makes us take into account future generations and the rights of nature. Interestingly, our Premier, Mark McGowan, has recently launched his own priorities for the state. I will list these as well, because I imagine that he has made these public. This media statement was made in February, so I assume that these priorities were taken into account in this budget. We can look at them and see whether he has addressed them in this budget. It is interesting that some of these priorities relate to the UN sustainable development goals. I like to see that similarity, because it shows that he is thinking towards that ideal. The first one is to create jobs. Yes, we have heard a lot about jobs in here. The second is to repair state finances. We have heard a lot about that over the last couple of years, and it seems to be getting there; it seems to be going well, especially with the operating surplus for this year. The third is to improve the health and wellbeing of children in their early years. The health and wellbeing of children is definitely important. It would be nice for them to have it all through their lives, but we definitely need to focus on those early years because so much that happens in those early years is vital to their health and wellbeing throughout the rest of their lives. The fourth is to increase student reading and numeracy. One thing I will talk about later in education is that we are seeing more schools open. The fifth is to increase participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I have not really delved too much into that to see how well that is supported in the budget. The sixth is to reduce youth reoffending. The seventh is to reduce illicit drug use, about which we heard a lot earlier today. The eighth is to build Metronet and increase the number of homes close to public transport. This goes to the whole asset strategy. With Metronet getting built, hopefully planning is coming along with it, as well as transport and other areas, so there will actually be space and room, and an incentive to develop housing in that area. The ninth is to increase conservation for future generations. That is nice; it fits. I am not sure that was picked up much in the budget. We really need to focus a lot more on our natural resources and conservation for future generations. The tenth is to make a cleaner, more sustainable environment. Yes, okay; we banned plastic bags—great! We are coming in with a container deposit scheme—yes, wonderful! We had better make sure that Coca–Cola is there to pick them up! I have my doubts about whether much will be able to be done at all, but making a cleaner, more sustainable environment is one of the Premier’s priorities. I would really like to see that picked up in the next budget, because I do not see it happening in this one. The eleventh is to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody. Yes, that is very well said. Let us hope there is something for that too. The twelfth is to deliver stronger regional economies. Members know that I feel strongly about that. I have spoken on it many times. A number of things are happening in regional areas. For instance, through the royalties for regions program, quite a few roads are being built, which will employ a few people for a short time. We will have roads, but I am not sure that is going to make a stronger regional economy. There has been no holding back on roads in the budget. People vote for roads. I understand that and I know how people are driven. They want an easy drive to work or wherever else they go, and when the government says that it is going to put a road somewhere, not too many people will knock it back and ask that that money be spent on a school or a hospital, because they can see it will benefit them. Everyone wants their road, so they are not going to knock back somebody else’s, because they want their road too. It is just a never-ending loop to keep building more roads. There is another $4.2 billion going into roads over the forward estimates to support and encourage people to continue driving fossil-fuelled individual transport. Unfortunately, there is not a plan for the future and a fossil fuel–free transport system. It will happen, so we may as well start planning for it now. Maybe the next budget will have something on that. We really should look at what things will be like in the future, rather than just playing catch-up and continuing what we have been doing and hoping that things somehow will change or get better. I would like future budgets to consider further methods that encourage people to try alternative means of transport. There are a lot of people on bikes, but there is still room for more. The easier we make it for them and the better bike paths and infrastructure there are, the more people will find it is possible to travel that way. We also need to encourage demand for public transport. Three cheers for Metronet! The government is going to get it out there and get people using it. It is going to have people living nearby. We should see an increase in public transport. All these things will lead to fewer cars on the road, and fewer cars will mean that we need to invest less in roads. These things work hand in hand. We do not need to keep building these roads, roads, roads and then just throw some money at public transport. It is not like that. The more money we can throw at public transport and the better we can make it, the fewer issues we will have with people trying to use roads all the time. As I said before, public transport will never cover its own costs. It has to be subsidised. A nice way to do that would be through an appropriation to a department. We need people to realise that by taking public transport, they are helping others who may need to use a car and the trucks that deliver all the stuff that we consume. The other option the government could look at is encouraging alternative travel times and flexible employment hours. I do not know the specifics of what would be out there, but I am sure some businesses have some ideas so that more staff can travel outside of peak periods. All these roads we have are not being used to capacity a lot of the time, and if we could influence that, we would have fewer people on the roads, necessitating less road building. As I have stated before, due to circumstances outside the control of this government, the Public Transport Authority is a government trading enterprise and Main Roads is a department. The accounting distinction is dictated by the

3486 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] theory that the Public Transport Authority should be able to raise revenue on a fee-for-service basis to cover its costs. We all know and must admit that this is unlikely to occur, primarily because roads and other individual vehicle transport infrastructure is provided and they are subsidised by normal government expenditure, at both a state and federal level. I recognise that public transport infrastructure is also subsidised by having it built and put in place. It should be noted that motor vehicle licensing fees are directed through the Road Traffic Act to Main Roads to subsidise the cost of the department. In 2020, three-quarters of a billion dollars will go to operating costs and one-quarter of a billion dollars will go to capital. Keep in mind that in 2020, $1.265 billion will be spent on capital expenditure in addition to this, so that is another $1 billion. Sure, half of the subsidies are from the commonwealth, but the other half is subsidised by all WA residents. We should really be comparing apples with apples. I understand that in the budget, the Public Transport Authority also reports on a return on investment, which is something we asked for in the last estimates hearings. If this government really has a clue about climate change, everything it does must work to change the actions that are driving our world to a quicker death. This does not mean constructing more roads for an ever-increasing traffic count. We need safe bike routes. We need electric vehicle charging stations and renewable energy to be put into the grid so that renewable energy can be used to charge those vehicles. We need electric vehicle incentives, with a real renewable energy target. We even need to encourage flexible working hours to stretch out peak travel times. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the energy transformation strategy. There is $7 billion going to this. It is good to see that this government has finally acknowledged its role in managing the renewable energy transformation that is happening, in spite of government reluctance over past years to be involved. I would now like to look at regional areas. Regional areas are very important and well worth supporting. A long-term strategy should look at increasing populations in small towns rather than decreasing them. If we get more people into regional areas, it will help to address the inequities in our society. Collie is probably one of the primary regional areas in which we are seeing some change—some addition on a regional basis. Earlier I spoke about the $60 million industry attraction and development fund . That money has been pulled back from the solar farm and the bioenergy plant and I have heard that some projects are already being funded through that. I hope they address the issue of Collie trying to transition out of coal while still providing jobs for the people who live there. One thing Collie is getting is funding of $7.5 million for a bushfire facility, mostly for driver training, as well as an incident control centre to address emergency management around Collie. In addition, there will be $5.3 million over the forward estimates for fire management and asset protection. I really appreciate this, because Collie is one area that has adopted the idea of asset protection. Rather than just trying to burn everything at a certain time, it is looking at what assets should be protected. It is trialling the idea of mechanical fuel load reduction to reduce the amount of fuel load without using burning; it is taken out of the forest so that there is less fuel there to burn. As we enter into a more drying climate, of course, the fuel builds up more quickly and we have to find ways to change that. It would be especially useful when we are trying to protect assets that we do not want near a prescribed burn. In addition, Collie will be getting $10 million for bike trails. I have it on good authority that this is an excellent opportunity, because bike trails are already quite popular there. There are very good areas around Collie to cycle. Maybe one day we can put in a historical trail that shows off the past through the repurposed power stations and coalmines. We have a timber museum in Manjimup. Maybe we could have a coal museum in Collie. That could be a few years off, but we can only dream that the end will come for coal and that Collie will continue to thrive and find other methods of keeping its economy going strongly. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity, as I mentioned before, is another option that could address those rare instances when the sun is not shining and the air is still and solar thermal or other batteries are being overdrawn. Many in the community have figured out that we need a decentralised system to address our energy issues. We also need a variety of sources. We should not put all our eggs in one basket. We have a variety of sources so that the system can draw on whatever source it needs to at the time. Pumped hydro is one of those opportunities for Collie. I think I heard wave energy mentioned briefly. I have to put in a plug for that. I know that we had some difficulties and there was an issue with minister ownership, funding, being able to provide — Hon Alannah MacTiernan: The federal government changing their funding. Several members interjected. Hon DIANE EVERS: There were many issues and a number of nails in the coffin, but we need to move on from that, guys. We need to move on and look at wave energy again and keep it going. The Wave Energy Research Centre is still in Albany and it wants to keep doing the research on this energy source. We need to keep going and find more sources of energy so that we have the ability to transition out of coal and do not have to transition through gas, because we do not need to go that way. We have enough renewable sources that we can provide all our energy needs. I have heard of a solar farm up north that will send the energy via cable to Indonesia. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: They have now come around to the view that they would be better off producing hydrogen and exporting the hydrogen, rather than the cable.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3487

Hon DIANE EVERS: We will see. There will be many things in our future that we may not have even considered yet. We should be open to those new ideas, rather than saying no, that we have always dug up coal and burnt it and that that is the only thing we know how to do. We need to move on from that. The planet cannot take the pollution any longer. I look forward to the economic development plan for the Collie–Bunbury region, which will identify opportunities for attracting a diverse range of industries to Collie and providing a just transition plan for Collie workers. That is expected before the end of this year, as I heard in an answer to a question earlier in the year. Royalties for regions is another topic that I would like to address. The funding was intended to be over and above planned normal expenditure. The Royalties for Regions Act 2009 states that the royalties for regions fund can be used for three purposes — (a) to provide infrastructure and services in regional Western Australia; (b) to develop and broaden the economic base of regional Western Australia; (c) to maximise job creation and improve career opportunities in regional Western Australia. However, the budget shows a lump sum for royalties for regions, rather than an amount for each area of the budget as per the act, thereby understating each entity to which the funding relates. About $1 billion is shown in the capital and recurrent budget as one lump sum. It does not really reflect where that money is going. It is just this extra pool of money thrown in there and it could go to any one of a number of departments. This is only $4 billion over four years or so, and we have $1 billion over the forward estimates on a single line saying “Country Water Pricing Subsidy”. I imagine everyone in here is aware that it costs a different amount of money to produce a litre of water in different parts of this state and, by agreement or consensus or whatever, we have agreed that everybody should not have to pay those very high fluctuations, so we would all pay a similar amount for water even if we live in an area that needs desalination or an area where the water needs to be piped in a long distance. This subsidy is interesting. First off, it used to be called “Country Water, Sewerage and Drainage Operations”, which did not really explain what it was, because it is a subsidy to make sure that people in the country do not have to pay outlandish prices for their water, which would make it even harder to live in regional areas. Just a couple of years ago, it was part of the Water Corporation accounts. Now it has been moved into royalties for regions. I can understand that, because when royalties for regions started, it was expected to be around $300 million because that is what our royalties would have allowed—that was a quarter of our royalties. However, it quickly reached the $1 billion cap. Now what? Does the act need to be changed? Do we have to reassess what that money can be used for? What would happen when we got to that $1 billion cap was not discussed when it was first put in. We do not want to use it frivolously. We do not want to create assets that local governments do not have the funds to maintain. We need to look at that. It might be that the act needs to be changed. The state must recognise the contributions and challenges of the regional areas through using this fund and it must support, encourage and even provide incentives for people to live regionally. One thing we should maybe do some research on is what will get people to live regionally. In some ways, our social conversation about it says that if we live in the country, we do not have access to everything we have in Perth. Why would people want to live there? It is so quiet. From the listening I have done, with other people, in the regional areas, I learnt that it often comes back to having quality health care available. The idea of having to travel to Perth every time we need dialysis or something is really difficult on the person, the family and the community. It is good to see an MRI machine going into a regional hospital; I cannot remember which one offhand. There are a couple of major purchases for the health sector and I really appreciate that. When those purchases are for the country health system, it really helps and supports those regional people. It is about quality health care. It is also about equitable educational opportunities in line with the metro-based opportunities. Too often I have heard, even in Albany, people saying, “We are moving to Perth because our kids have entered high school.” The high schools there are very good, but maybe we need something else. Maybe people are looking for something more. I understand that Manjimup has one of the best high schools in the state. It is really quite nice to see that happening. But I think we have to look at all the schools around the state and make sure that we are always delivering quality education opportunities to students. The last thing, too, I heard that regional areas really need is high-quality, reliable communication infrastructure. If we are going to encourage people to live in the regions, they will not all be working on farms because we know that farms are mechanised to the point that not too many people are needed. A lot of people in the creative industries work from home and online; they can do things remotely. If we have really good communication services in the regional areas, people in the creative industries can take the opportunity to move out there. It is another option. If members asked me what to do with the royalties for regions funding, these are the things I would want to do. I would put it into the regions to encourage people to get out there and make those regions stronger, because it is important to have that. Another suggestion put to me by a constituent was to consider tying a percentage of the $1 billion royalties for regions fund to certain things such as investment in natural resource management. I saw that another $6.2 million a year is allocated to natural resource management over the forward estimates. However,

3488 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

$6.2 million does not go very far. Something more significant is needed. One of the Premier’s 12 priorities was to create a cleaner more sustainable environment. We will have to put a lot more money into our environment; $6 million will not do it. I suggest that one or two per cent of the $1 billion royalties for regions fund—I think it represents 25 per cent of all royalties—be put towards natural resource management to help all the unpaid workers or volunteers who are working on natural resource management in the Landcare associations and the societies of friends of different national parks, state forests and other places. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: I think you should vote for a Labor government federally because that is the only chance of getting Landcare money restored. Federal Liberals have taken the money out. Hon DIANE EVERS: We will see. I will be pleased to see that. Hon Simon O’Brien: I am sure the honourable member will race straight out of the chamber and down to a polling booth this afternoon and vote Labor. Hon DIANE EVERS: That sounds like a great idea; I appreciate hearing Hon Simon O’Brien say that! Several members interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon DIANE EVERS: We need more funding for natural resource management at state and federal levels. I would really like to see that figure increased from $6.2 million. Someone might need to do some research to see what it was, but in the early days of about 2000, when John Howard sought to sell off Telstra, he got the legislation passed by saying that the money from the sale would go into the environment. A flood of money came through and it worked. A lot of management plans and reports were written at that time that need to be implemented really soon. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: Member, just for your information, you are aware, of course, that $6.2 million is just what we’re spending in regional WA. There is an additional $1.2 million for the metropolitan area. Hon DIANE EVERS: That is good; I am pleased to hear that. I would still like to see those figures multiplied by about 10. I am putting in my wish list for the next budget. We have to get in early sometimes, and this is one of those times. I refer back to supporting community groups. There are a lot of volunteers across the board in many areas. I like the idea of supporting volunteers. They assist us in delivering services that are needed across the state and volunteering assists them to be part of their community and to feel appreciated. That would be something we could put towards that. I thank the government for the money that will go to the community resource centres. They are excellent places for groups to meet and build on their strengths and the jobs they can undertake. I would like that funding to be set at a fixed amount that is higher than what it is, so that the community groups have the certainty of ongoing funding. It would demonstrate commitment to the environment, and recognise the extensive decline we are experiencing in biodiversity with numerous species falling further from vulnerable to endangered, from endangered to critically endangered and from critically endangered to extinct. I am really pleased to see funding for the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development has increased. It is great to the see that it is back on the agenda after many years of funding cuts and generally being overlooked as a potential driver of change. The bulk of our exports may come from mining but agriculture is the staple that remains level in the mining peaks and troughs. Agriculture provides the food that sustains us and provides the rationale and employment for people so they can live in the regions. We need people in the regions. As I said, WA will become more and more inequitable and dysfunctional if regional populations fall. There must be supports and incentives to get people to move to the regions. There is $131.5 million additional expenditure for the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. I notice that regenerative agriculture is included in that. I am really pleased to see this because it is not just one thing that makes up regenerative agriculture—it is not just the cover crops—it is a mix of things that all have to work together. The soil and the moisture have to be right and the microbes have to grow. The microbes help to release nutrients to the plants. As they live and die, the microbes create carbon in the soil, which will make it much more able to absorb water and hold onto the moisture so that more things can grow. It is a whole cycle. Microbes in soil have a very similar effect to the microbes in our gut that keep us healthy. If we kill them off, we have struggles and become less resilient. I am really pleased that extra funding is going to regenerative agriculture. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development will also deliver a primary industry strategy and aquaculture plan. I am very interested to see how this plays out. I have a small concern about the yellowtail kingfish plan. The amount of $6 million in infrastructure will go to develop the industry near Geraldton. I appreciate that it is a new industry and we should get more people up there to be involved with it. I note that the Environmental Protection Authority has given approval for aquaculture development in that zone. I assume that the kingfish proposal will need to be assessed as a specific project, because we know that problems can occur in marine-based aquaculture. In Albany, our herring fishery collapsed because South Australian fish farms were using some imported fishmeal for their fish and the contamination from that spread across the ocean to Albany and killed

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3489 off our herring fishery for some time. I have heard of similar issues and even broader issues happening in the industry in Tasmania. I would really appreciate it if this is avoided in any marine-based fishing industry that starts up north in Geraldton. On the other hand, a word with a Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development staff member last week taught me that a particular quick-breeding fly species might easily become a healthy, simple and cost-effective method of providing clean food for the fish. If we can create food through this fly larvae, maybe we would not have to import the fishmeal and the contaminants it might contain. Of course, many risks are attached to bio-farming and that is why I expect precaution will be the driver in any new fish farming proposals. I move on now to the asset investment program. This program appears to continue to be in the $5 billion to $6 billion range through the forward estimates. It is interesting because it has been in this range for some time and seems to be staying there. It is almost as though we worked out that this was what the population will accept to provide for its never-ending needs and the state’s requirements or maybe it is just the amount that the construction industry can absorb. I do not know, but $5 billion to $6 billion is pretty constant. That is probably a good thing because it gives us some reasonable expectations of what might happen in the future. Under the asset investment program, I was pleased to see that for health and education, in some cases, refurbishment or repairing what we have makes more sense than building new. I hope that through our asset management plans — Hon Alannah MacTiernan: It is very hard to get that culture happening. Hon DIANE EVERS: It is extremely hard. We all know that in our own homes, sometimes we just remodel the house and redo the kitchen when it needs it, rather than rebuilding the entire thing. As we found with the new hospital, a lot of problems go with building new that may not have been expected when we initiated the project. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: If you know any good architects or engineers that are into that, please let me know because I am struggling to find people who are in that space. Hon DIANE EVERS: That is interesting to hear. I hope the minister’s words are spread far and wide because I am sure there are people out there. A lot of people are involved in sustainable development. Often sustainable development means making use of what we have rather than buying everything new. It would be good to develop a culture among the people who work in our health system that we do not have to have something new all the time. It is not so much that that will save funds, but it means that funds can be spread further; indeed, we might be able to refurbish five hospitals rather than build a new one. I travelled around Europe some years ago because I wanted to see some castles because, of course, we do not have structures of that age here. It always surprises me to see a building that was built over 1 000 years ago still standing. I know from an accounting perspective that the homes that we build are expected to be around for only 30 or 40 years. We expect cars to be around for seven to 10 years. What has moved us towards this disposal society? I hope that the government is looking to maintain our buildings and infrastructure so that we do not have to build new all the time. In the area of education, four new primary schools and three secondary schools will open in 2020. It would be interesting to know whether these schools have been built as a result of population growth or population movement or whether they will replace existing schools. Are we just tearing down and starting over or have they been built due to population growth or movement to different areas resulting in different populations in different centres? It is an interesting thought. In the area of electricity, $2.2 billion is listed in the budget for the forward estimates to maintain services and infrastructure. Unfortunately, electricity is managed by a government trading enterprise so we get very little detail; I guess we have to wait for the annual reports. It is a bit tricky because one would think that we should be able to see where that money is going, but given that the organisation has been set aside to operate somewhat like a business, basically we just say, “Yes, here’s $2.2 billion. Best of luck, we hope you come up with something.” As I said earlier, that money will be used to maintain services and infrastructure. Of course, maintaining poles and wires means replacing poles and wires. I believe I saw in the budget something about aboveground wires in the Fremantle area being put underground. It would be great to put such infrastructure underground because it makes a great difference to the people living in the area and to their future maintenance because the maintenance is not as expensive if they are underground and does not need to happen as often. Maintenance is not as necessary as it is when poles are above the ground. Hon Robin Scott: Except when a repair is required. Hon DIANE EVERS: Yes, but it does not happen so often. Hon Robin Scott: You know that for a fact? Hon DIANE EVERS: Yes, I know that. Water is also managed by a government trading enterprise so we receive very little information about it. The $2.7 billion in the forward estimates will provide access to water and collection treatment of wastewater. We do not really have the detail of what that will be spent on. I hope that money will be spent well and wisely to ensure

3490 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] we continue to get clean water. The other day I noticed somebody moving into a new house in Perth. I saw them carting in crates of bottled water. What have we come to in our society if we think we can drink only bottled water? The water that comes through our tap is of a quality level that is fit for human consumption and then some but still so many will drink only bottled water. It makes no sense. There has to be some way to reduce plastic waste. It is something that our culture has adopted and it is one of those things that I would like to see change. Roads also come under the asset investment program. Again, is this the best the government can do? The government has allocated three-quarters of a billion dollars for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road and $170 million for the Albany ring-road. As I said earlier today in a different discussion, I do not live far from that road and I doubt the demand for it. It has been on the list for 20 years and its time has come. There you go; the government is going to build it because people have been asking for it for some time. Hopefully, it is built well and sometime in the future Albany’s industry develops. It is a town of only 30 000 or 35 000 or something like that. If the population reached 100 000, I am sure the road would be very useful but I have not seen any population figures suggesting that will occur any time soon. As I said earlier today, the plan for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road is still not supported by the people. The line that was drawn 30 years ago may not be the best, but it just seems as though it has come around and the government is just getting it done. There is nothing that asks whether that line might be better put somewhere else. It is just, “Get it done. We’ve had it on the list. We don’t want to worry about it anymore. Do what has to be done.” That is not great forward planning. I do not understand how that could ever be a reason to continue to do something. We will consider the state infrastructure strategy during the debate on the Infrastructure Western Australia Bill 2019. It is good to see that the government is taking steps to create an overarching strategy for infrastructure because the existing ad hoc method seems terribly inefficient and ineffective. A holistic approach to competing uses of funds will be assessed across departments so that we get the best bang for our buck, the best return on our investment. I only hope that the terms of reference for that body includes overarching factors such as climate change and social issues that will consider the non-quantifiable aspects of human health. As I was saying before about the accounting change, in looking at our natural assets, this infrastructure body will look at costs and possibly the movement of people and vehicles, but will it look at the long-term impacts of infrastructure on our health, the environment and the way we do things? That is something that will hopefully come out during the debate on the bill. I would like the government to start planning for 50 years from now, not just five. We need a long-term view without just relating it back to funding. It needs to relate to the planet and the people. While I am talking about infrastructure, noting that transport makes up a large part of it, I request an integrated transport strategy for the south west. Significant funds are being invested in 20 and 30-year-old plans for the Albany ring-road and the Bunbury Outer Ring Road. Meanwhile, we watch as one rail line after another is closed and year after year it is more difficult to address the increasing transport needs for freight of all sorts and the interaction of such freight transport with human traffic. There is an urgent need for an integrated transport strategy for the south west. I will put that to the new body as soon as possible. The strategy will need the collaboration of community and across-agency development and it will need to consider rail and road infrastructure. The project is becoming more urgent daily with increased activity in lithium mining and Alcoa’s increased activity. If it is designed well, it could also support our forest management activity. There are a lot of opportunities if we look at the infrastructure as a whole across the south west. I acknowledge the $8.9 million worth of funding for infrastructure development at Bunbury port to upgrade the capacity of berth 8. It will include upgrades to the existing access road, conveyer infrastructure, lighting and environmental systems. The upgrade will reduce maintenance costs, improve environmental and operational safety impacts and increase the capacity of berth 8 to meet forecast growth in trade so that berth 8 is a multiuser berth. The berth is mostly used to export woodchips, spodumene, silica, copper concentrate and mineral sands. This should be good for small users, mostly small miners. When we look at a south west integrated transport strategy, it should take into account ports, rail lines and the links between them, roads and the movement of people and how they will move in the future. If we can add the south west strategy to the list of things on the state infrastructure strategy, I could be appreciative. The strategy could extend to a statewide integrated transport strategy because infrastructure across the state could be improved. If we look at it as a whole—where the mines will be in the future to predict what will come up and plan ahead for the movement of people and freight—we can make the best of our resources now. My concern is that the new body will not be strong enough to take on the behemoth that is Main Roads. As everyone here should know, I feel that Main Roads is a law unto itself in some ways, with the rate at which it creates new roads, but the new legislation might ensure that road infrastructure is not the fallback position for every transport question, and that rail and further development of our ports get an equal billing. Then we might get somewhere. Let us hope that no-one currently in government has an interest in the trucking industry. Another issue in this budget that I will mention is the Keystart changes. These changes will increase the level of home ownership for those on lower incomes, and it seems that Keystart clients do well in maintaining their mortgages. In the briefing the other day, I was really pleased to hear that although one per cent of Keystart mortgage holders are in arrears—that is, more than 90 days out—across the wider Western Australian market, it

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3491 is 2.3 per cent. This program to try to help people stay on top of their mortgages seems to be working. These people may not be able to get a mortgage through the normal channels of the banks, but they can get it through Keystart. It turns out that once the mortgages are established, and these people prove that they can manage a mortgage, the banks are quite happy to buy the mortgages from Keystart, and that works out really well. Here we are giving a hand to people who are otherwise neglected by the common market for mortgages. They show that they are capable of doing it, and then we sell those loans on to a bank that is quite happy to work with somebody who has a track record of doing well with it, and that frees up funds so that we can start the process again. This is an example of the government providing a service that is really working and seems to be helping a large number of people. I am really pleased to see that, and really pleased that it has been extended. The next thing I would like to comment on is the Western Australian Future Fund. For 2019–20, we have a balance of $1.4 billion in that fund. Page 250 of budget paper No 3 states — Consistent with its election commitment, the Government intends to introduce legislation into Parliament in 2019 to re-purpose the Western Australian Future Fund and allow the Fund’s interest earnings to be accessed for health and medical research and innovation. As I said earlier, this sounds good—it is great to use that interest on something—but if the interest is not going into the fund to keep it growing, I hope that we use some other funds and make sure that future fund is getting some of the royalty payments. It could be something for that billion dollars in royalties for regions; maybe we could put some of that into the future fund for the regional areas. It is something to think about. We need to make sure that we put something into this future fund so that there is a future fund to repair the damage that we have done up until now—maybe to build that museum at Collie to show how we used coal back in the distant past. The budget lacks significant protection for the environment, and no new natural resource management funding. There are some welcome funds for parks and reserves, and I am really pleased to see that, given a lot of issues recently in the electorate whereby the environment has been disregarded. There are a number of things I have been speaking about here: Nullaki, which was a conservation reserve, and is now going to be used for sand mining; Lake Jasper, where a mining application has been put in—luckily the Premier has said that he intends that that is going to go back into the national park, so here is hoping that his intentions pay off and it actually does—and Lake Mullocullup. It may seem quite insubstantial to a lot of people in here, but to the people who know the lake, the Indigenous people who have stories and history around that lake—also known as Warriup Swamp—it is very serious. If our environmental standards are so slack that we are accepting damage to these places without real benefit, I think there needs to be a change. Constituents are unable to challenge these decisions unless they go through costly measures. We often have decisions made by either local government or the State Administrative Tribunal and they do not seem to take into account the environmental aspects, and definitely not the long-term environmental aspects. I feel it is time that we talked about an environmental court or tribunal—a body outside government, possibly similar to the State Administrative Tribunal, but set up specifically for environmental issues; a body with legal standing to represent the environment. This has been trialled in New South Wales, I believe. It is something that we need to look at seriously if we want to go back to the Premier’s goals for a clean and sustainable environment. If we are actually working towards that, it may be that we need a separate environmental court or tribunal that can clearly state an outcome or decision on an environmental aspect, and that would have to stand. Hon Robin Scott: Is this on top of the Environmental Protection Authority as it exists now? Hon DIANE EVERS: The EPA should be given some real standing, similar to the State Administrative Tribunal, so that if it made a decision, we could state it. In the State Administrative Tribunal, once a decision is made, the only way to challenge it is with court costs of $150 000-plus. This was suggested to the City of Albany when the Nullaki was allowed to be mined for sand or for lime. It said, “Look, we rejected the proposal twice; it was taken out of our hands.” Hon Colin Tincknell interjected. Hon DIANE EVERS: It is a tiny thing. It is just damaging, and it does not need to happen. It would cost way too much for the local government to challenge it. It is just a real, real shame. A report on threatened species from the Wilderness Society called “Abandoned” shows the increase in the number of threatened species resulting predominantly from logging and burning operations. This is another area that has not been addressed. Our environment is being damaged, the climate is changing, and we are still cutting trees faster than we need to—faster than the demand for their timber. We are clear-felling the karri forest, turning it into chips and sending it offshore, and in some cases pelletising it so that we can run the furnaces in Japan, because it has made some changes and has not put in place its own measures to address it. I am pleased that we are using what we could call a renewable resource, but—come on—our native forest, our karri trees? Surely, they must be worth more to us standing than cut, chopped up and turned into pellets. They provide so much for the state and the country, yet we have nothing in place to protect them. I would really like to see serious measures taken to limit the clear-felling of our forests. It makes no sense any more. Like coal, we are still saying, “We’re doing it because we

3492 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] always have done it.” That is not a reason. It is just somebody saying, “Look, I don’t really want to think about it today.” It is not even making us money—we are losing it. It is not even employing many people. There are under 400 people in the whole industry. Now, from what I understand, logs are being sent offshore, and we are giving jobs to other countries. It just makes no sense, and we need to put some serious thought into it. The next issue is insect decline. We are looking at trying to make that environment better—a sustainable environment—but we have insect decline. We have a world decline in the entomofauna—insects. There was a review of insects. The decline is caused by four significant factors. The first is habitat loss. Yes, we are having that problem. We keep clearing, clearing, clearing, whether it is for mining, for housing, or just because we like to cut trees, because that is what we have always done. There has been habitat loss. The second factor is pollution, especially from pesticides and chemical fertilisers that we are putting on our farmland by the tonne. Yes, they help with productivity, but we are also finding, through regenerative practices—we will figure out more about this as the research is done at the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development—that there is another way. We do not have to continually try to kill everything in our environment just to provide a grain of wheat that is of lower and lower nutrient value to us as we progress. It makes very little sense. It is also caused by biological factors, including pathogens and introduced species. I do not want to say the horse has bolted, but on a few things, it has—I mean, cane toads; gee, what are the chances! We do not yet know about some of those pathogens and introduced species. I applaud the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. The more we can try to keep out, especially unknown ones, the better off we will be. Because Australia is an island, the longer we can keep it safe from some of these pathogens and other insects, the better off we will be, because they could have a huge impact on our health, wellbeing and ability to feed ourselves. I have said plenty about climate change, but we are losing a lot of insects. Forty per cent of our insect populations may be gone already, probably some of which we never even knew about. Something has to change soon. I am really hoping to see that in next year’s budget, because I am hoping that this government will want to stay in government and will do what the population is looking for, which is to take action on climate change and the environment. The population is looking for new, good ideas to change how we do things, because what we are doing now is sending us into a downward spiral. I am coming to the end of my contribution. There is $22 million in the budget for the creation and management of national parks, marine parks and conservation parks. I am really happy; it feels like Christmas. I think there will be a couple of people who will be really pleased to see this. There is $4.6 million for the Ngari Capes Marine Park. I think some has been put up for Ningaloo as well. We need to make more of these special places and then encourage people, through our tourism strategy, to get out there and enjoy, appreciate and involve themselves in the environment. They will then realise just how valuable it is, and then will hopefully be able to tell more than just stories to their grandchildren—they will actually be able to show them the same things they learnt to appreciate. Things are changing very quickly and we need to get onto this. I want to say just a little more about the Forest Products Commission. It is not doing so well. I beg all members to give it some consideration. The Forest Products Commission did not exist 20 years ago. It was created to separate the profit-making arm from the conservation and land management organisation at that time. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: But wasn’t that a sensible decision to separate those two things? Hon DIANE EVERS: I do not want to revisit that. It is a sensible decision to get rid of it now, because we are not making a profit out of our forests and we do not need to. In retrospect, it possibly should not have happened, because it allowed forests to be cut much too quickly and to prop up an industry that could have worked better without it. I think even the people who worked in CALM back then, and the staff in the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and the Forest Products Commission now, are, in a lot of cases, very good staff. I think they would be quite willing to work together, but, as it stands, with the Forest Products Act saying that we need to make money out of our forests and return a profit to the government, there are different drivers and motivations. It is like the key performance indicators. If a department has a KPI about how much profit is returned, it will act differently than if the driver for the KPI is having a well-managed forest. That is what we need right now—a well-managed forest. Whether it was or was not a good thing to do back then is not a decision to make now; what we need to do is to change what we have got, because the forests are no longer able to sustain the rate of felling. Those forests are too valuable for us—we need them to help address climate change and biodiversity and habitat issues. The time to change is now. Increasing dividends are forecast, but I could not care less about the dividends; that is not the point. The point is that we need to have the forests in a healthy shape so that people can go and recreate there, and can take their children and grandchildren there to learn stories about it. They need to tell other people about the forests and get them down there too. Those forests are such an asset to this state, yet we destroy them. We need to look after them, and they will look after us. One other area that the FPC is supposed to look after is the plantation estate, but it has done very poorly there. It has been given $200 000 in this budget for retention of a reserve, because of course some of our pine forests have become cockatoo habitat. We are then told that we cannot cut that pine plantation. Maybe if we had more forests and we were not cutting down our native forests, the cockatoos would have habitat there. So many changes can be

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3493 made and we need to start now. We need to develop that plantation industry. We need to make sure that farmers— landowners—are given a reasonable return if they put in a plantation. The way the Forest Products Commission has been treating them, there is no trust that the organisation will treat them well. The price of pine is held lower than it should be by the contracts made by the Forest Products Commission. As long as it continues to do this, there will be very little incentive for farmers to start putting in pine. That is something that has to change. We do not want to be importing trees. We can grow them here and we should be growing them here. We should be able to provide for our own needs. We need to take a holistic approach to climate change and what is happening. How much of that ocean transport is taking a product from one place to somewhere else, and then bringing that same one back? We take our pine from somewhere else and then sell ours overseas—it makes no sense. Why have that going around? We have to look at the cost of transport to the planet. I would like to comment once more on key performance indicators. I know that everyone will have a bit of a glance at the budget so that they can make up their budget speeches. This is a great opportunity for members to look at the KPIs—the effectiveness and efficiency indicators—and ask, “If these targets are met, will they satisfy my expectations?” That is what those indicators are supposed to do. Those indicators are supposed to say, “This is what we are aiming for. If we aim for that, we have done a good job.” Members should look at those effectiveness and efficiency indicators and see whether they represent what they think this government should be looking towards. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Pierre Yang. PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second Reading Resumed from 7 May. HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [3.08 pm]: I am sure the chamber has not heard enough of me this week. Members will be pleased to know that as the lead speaker for the opposition on the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019, I will have unlimited time all over again! I can see the enthusiasm rattling around the chamber. This is a bill in two halves. I am sure Hon Donna Faragher will have a few things to say, particularly about the training end of this bill, but in my view, this is a payroll tax bill. It behoves us to have a few short sentences on the joy of payroll tax. This is a good opportunity to mention to members that as one of the three ugly taxes in Western Australia, payroll tax is an impost on and impediment to jobs. I am probably stealing the speech from Hon Aaron Stonehouse—I can see him scribbling out a few notes as we go. It is a tax on jobs and is anathema to people who believe that businesses, particularly medium-sized businesses, are the driving force of employment and economic growth in any jurisdiction, so it is a problematic tax. It is a tax that we suffer out of necessity rather than a tax that receives any real support. We have had this debate on taxation before, but the problem is that governments always tax the things that are easiest to tax rather than the things that might be best to tax. Property is easy to tax because it is hard to shift; employment is easy to tax because it is easy to measure. That is why those are the things that we tax. We levy royalties on resources because they are very hard to hide. We tax all these things because, firstly, they are easy to measure and hard to hide and, secondly, because we can. People who have land, produce minerals or employ people are the people who might just have the wherewithal to make additional contributions to the coffers of Western Australia. As many members have said, it is not so much about being forced to pay the tax; most people are interested in getting a good return on their investment. There are always question marks about whether that return is good. I would have thought that, given the largesse of the federal government in contributing to significant state budget surpluses in current and future financial years, an effort could well be made to look at payroll tax in general to try to ease the burden on the small and medium-sized businesses that are the engine room of Western Australia. Payroll tax kicking in at $850 000 sounds like a big number, but the reality is that in a lot of industries, eight employees— or 20 employees on a basic wage—will get to that figure. We are not necessarily talking about big businesses. I remember federal debates about what constitutes a small business a decade or so ago, towards the end of the Howard government. We were throwing around numbers of 100 employees perhaps representing a small business, but it is certainly the case that when we get down to 20 employees, or sometimes 10 employees, payroll tax will have a significant impact on those relatively small businesses. In my view, we start this process by acknowledging that payroll tax is anathema to business. It is a tax on jobs and, although we endure it, we do not like it and we certainly would like to see it eased. Perhaps when we examine the government’s 2020–21 budget—the budget that leads to the next election in 2021—I will not be surprised if we see some small alterations to the administration of payroll tax, just so the government can say that it is making a difference. Any small token effort in that regard will, of course, be welcomed by all of us who do not like this particular tax. But let us wait and see whether, in a year’s time, the government makes some sort of effort in that regard. It perhaps missed a small opportunity to do so in the current budget, but there will be a lot more pressure in 2021, I suspect. The government will want to look like it is working closely with business, and that might be the opportunity for us all to see perhaps a slight shift in the thresholds of payroll tax. That generally turns out to

3494 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] be a bit easier to do than to change the rates. The government can move the threshold by a modest amount and say that it is at least making a gesture to the business community, and I guess that would be true. Even a small gesture is still a gesture. When we argue about hamburger-sized tax cuts, for example, having a hamburger is better than not having one, unless one is a vegan, although there are also vegan hamburgers. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 makes fairly minor changes to the changes that have already been made to payroll tax. It is effectively a bill that seeks to put in place funding for a new version of training. The government, as governments are wont to do at times—I think it is a process fraught with danger—picks winners and losers in the education and training sector. In this case, it has decided that apprenticeships are good and that other forms of training are not so good. In each instance, I suspect, we will find examples of both. I have never quite understood the ideological agenda that says that the training we want to primarily support should go through the apprenticeship system; that is the government’s way. As training diversifies and broadens, many more providers are providing many more options. The question is ultimately whether the TAFE system, for example, and the apprenticeship system are the most efficient ways of training the workforce of the future. That is going to be a very interesting question. If the federal Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, gets his way and we have 50 per cent electric cars by 2030, I suspect we will have to change the projections for how many petrol and diesel mechanics might be required and we will be looking at alternative training processes. The system has to become a bit more adaptable than it currently is. We are already seeing a training system that is struggling to adapt to what the future might look like. I want to read in some figures. Without necessarily laying blame at the feet of the government for the decline in training, I want members to be aware that a shifting economy shifts the training process. Training ultimately needs to adapt far more quickly than it currently does. The Department of Training and Workforce Development’s 2017 key enrolment statistics show that from 2016 to 2017, apprenticeships and traineeships declined by 3 059. That is a significant decline, but the biggest change from 2016 to 2017 was for enrolments in the 19-and-under age group—that is, people who have finished high school and are wondering where to go next. Enrolments in that age group dropped significantly, by 1 571—about half of the total decline in apprenticeships and traineeships. That is significant. At the end of 2017, the number of apprenticeships and trainees in the system was 17 012. At the end of December 2018—one year later—that number of individuals in training had dropped to 13 520 in total. That is a drop of 3 500 individuals from the original 17 000, which is a significant 20 per cent drop in the number of people in training. The training system is not being embraced in the way that it was designed to be, and this is not the first time such things have happened. Training tends to be a rather cyclical industry, and not only in the apprenticeship or VET sector. Industries like my own, the veterinary sector, also go through cycles. As demand and wages increase, the popularity of training increases, often to a point at which excess begins to occur, wages growth becomes minimal and training declines. That cyclical process is a fairly long-established pattern, but what is happening in the Australian and Western Australian economies at the moment is a more generalised slowdown in wages growth and economic drive. That has a multiplier effect on training. I am not laying that specifically at the feet of the government; governments of all persuasions try to take responsibility for economic growth that tends to happen irrespective of government policy. We are very good at saying, “We did these good things, and the bad things were the result of economic factors over which we had no control.” In fact, in my view, government has a very limited number of economic levers that it can pull. That is why we look at things like interest rates set by the Reserve Bank. It is one of the few economic levers that the federal government can pull. The reality is that interest rate cuts in recent years have started to have very little impact on economic growth and development. It used to be a very big stimulus; it was up there. Interest rates were cut and a few billion dollars more were printed. We call it quantitative easing now. Today, the impacts of those things are much more muted. This is what I consider to be a conservative right-wing economic philosophy. It is the marketplace adapting itself, despite the intent of government to try to manipulate it. It is a bit like an ecosystem that adapts, ultimately. We can play around the edges, but, in the end, the ecosystem will do what it has always done—I think that is a great line from one of the Jurassic Park movies. With all the best intent to control the environment, most times the environment will not be controlled, and I think the same occurs in the marketplace. With all the best intent to control the marketplace, particularly the training marketplace, the economic situation dominates the marketplace, not vice versa. That becomes the issue that we need to deal with. The training marketplace will have to become incredibly responsive somehow to this remarkably changing economic system. It is not just about electric cars, for example. There will be a significant number of electric cars, but I do not know whether it will be 50 per cent by 2030 or maybe 30 per cent by 2050. It is not the number that we have to get to; it is the fact that economic change is occurring. It is the government’s job to minimise the time that it is in the way, rather than maximise the benefit that it is trying to get for itself, and then let that marketplace establish and grow and try to nurture it, not stomp on it. Having said all those things about the training marketplace, there are obviously some issues with getting people into that training marketplace. I will finish with this figure. According to the Department of Training and Workforce

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3495

Development, at the end of 2017, there were 14 500 commencements. A year later, at the end of 2018, there were 11 500. That drop of 3 000 commencements—that is not the number of apprentices and trainees in the system—is a significant drop; 3 000 out of 14 000 is a significant number. As I say, I do not think the government is directly responsible for those numbers; I think the economy is a bigger driver. The government needs to be aware of, and act as best it can to try to boost, those numbers, particularly if there is another upturn in the resources marketplace as there seems to be at the moment. The current upturn in the resources marketplace is quite significant. I know the government is using very cautious numbers for both price and supply, but even the conservative Treasury estimates for the supply of iron ore, for example, show no contraction and some small growth. Lithium production will expand significantly. Agriculture is starting to have a reasonable impact, as long as it rains—I see there is a bit out there today but, I suspect, not enough—and is starting to have, largely, an upturn. All those things will require trained staff. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: A good minister. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Although governments try to claim credit for all sorts of things in economic growth, ministers claiming responsibility for growth in the marketplace need to be very careful, because if they claim responsibility for the upturn, they have to be responsible for the inevitable downturn. We will remember that. Now that the government has suggested that it is responsible for an agricultural upturn, we might even make the minister responsible for the next drought. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: You will anyhow! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: We will do our very best! If the government claims credit for the economic upturn because the price of agricultural commodities is reasonable, it has to be responsible for the downturn. This also applies to the training sector. I am sure that other members will talk in more detail about the inner workings of the training section, but my component of this bill is really the economic one. The bill amends the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act to remove exemptions for new worker trainees from 1 July 2019. This continues the agenda of the government. Last year, it removed exemptions for existing worker trainees and limited the exemption for trainees earning up to $100 000; this is the next step. Existing workers cannot retrain and the employer cannot claim a payroll tax exemption for their wage. The new workers are joining the party. This will make the government some money, which it will then reinvest. It is, in effect, a de facto increase in payroll tax. The government will argue that this is being done in the interests of fairness. The government has long argued that, because traineeships are much less able to be measured, regulated and managed than apprenticeships, the traineeship system has been abused. In my view, probably both systems are occasionally abused. Hon Sue Ellery: That is the bit we dealt with in stage 1. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The existing employees were stage 1; that is right. It is existing employees now, yes. It is an extension, and for that reason the Liberal Party does not oppose the intent of the bill. But I want to make sure that we have a conversation that says that it is a de facto increase in payroll tax; if a certain number of new employees are put on the payroll and a payroll tax exemption is no longer granted, it is a money-making exercise for the government. The government will convert that money into the system. Hon Darren West: For the taxpayers; it’s their money. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: It is money in one hand for the government and out of the other, effectively. These measures will raise funds that will be used to alter the apprenticeship system and then, in effect, to give a payroll tax benefit back to the apprenticeship system. It is going in one hand and out of the other. The government will be able to claim that it is giving a benefit to the apprenticeship system, but it is not the government giving a benefit; it is taxpayers, ultimately, giving the benefit to some other taxpayers. The joy is that government gets to choose winners and losers. That is the joy of winning government; it gets to pick those people that it thinks need to be supported and occasionally it will have to transfer the cost of that to somebody else. I understand that. We understand that. That is the role of government, and that is part of the reason we do not oppose the bill that the government has presented but will allow the government to put its measures in place. It will be interesting to measure this after the fact. Although the bill before the house seeks to raise the money, the government, through the normal system, will give that money back in alternative ways. How successful that will be will be the measure of this bill’s success. As the figures that I have read out indicate, sometimes with the best of intent these things do not work. We shall have to see over time whether this process delivers a better and more flexible outcome, effectively rewarding those who employ new apprentices versus those who employ new trainees. It is an interesting place. The opposition has asked on numerous occasions whether the government would supply examples of widespread rorting of the traineeship system. I have not yet seen that evidence. Perhaps it exists. I suspect that this is more about a philosophical outlook. Hon Sue Ellery: We tabled examples during the last debate.

3496 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The word I used was “widespread”, minister. There were some examples tabled— I absolutely give that to the minister—but what I think we are looking at is whether there is widespread rorting. I do not think there is evidence of widespread rorting. Obviously, rorting exists; it exists almost everywhere. I am not convinced that this is not something that could have been funded by the government while still leaving new traineeships with the payroll tax exemption, which to my mind still leaves it as a de facto tax increase, despite the fact that it is in one hand and out the other, handing it back to somebody else. I acknowledge that the government’s major selling point on the traineeship system is that it gives funding to people for whom payroll tax exemption has no impact—those people whose wages bills are under $850 000 and can therefore get some benefit that would otherwise be unavailable to them. That component is welcomed by everybody and is probably, more than anything else, the reason the Liberal Party is supporting here a payroll tax increase in the taxation bill for some people. I remain of the opinion that the tax itself is anathema. I do not like the picking winners and losers part of it whereby a group of individuals will benefit at the expense of another. My preference would be that some of the windfall the state government received from the federal Liberal coalition government might have gone towards this measure. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: We are going to set up a list of all the things that you asked for! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: All the things, absolutely! The Minister for Regional Development should also add to that list the things that I have saved her, such as canning a couple of dud election commitments in Collie. I am making the minister some savings as well as spending some money! I am making the minister savings in the process! We are here and we are happy to help. We are economic rationalists on occasion and we know we sometimes have to make hard decisions. I am happy to assist the government to save more money. If I was given the red pen and the list of Local Projects, Local Jobs, I could probably save the government a few more dollars, and we could probably get to the amount we need to save for this! Hon Peter Collier: Forty million! Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I am sure I could get there, Hon Peter Collier. It would not take me long. I have already saved $60 million in Collie. I am already in front! I have done a fair bit of speaking this week, and it is not my intent to drag out this debate. There is the prospect of payroll tax increases, even though they go to other persons. Although the pain of any change in any increase in payroll tax for any individual is partly offset, the reality is that in an ideal world we would be reducing those payroll impacts on everybody. If the government wished to go down this path and this agenda, it would find the funding from somebody else. From an economic perspective, I think that would be the sensible move. It will be fun to see in a year’s time, when we get to the $2 billion surplus instead of the half a billion dollar surplus, whether payroll tax relief in a minor form might just be in the system. I will then ask the government whether it could have paid for this out of its general revenues, particularly if iron ore prices stay a little higher and there is that extra $400 million to $1.6 billion. If so, then these payroll tax changes will not even be noticed. The opposition will support the changes. Ultimately, the government in winning an election gets to make these decisions. As much as we do not like the winner and loser component of this, we will watch over time the outcome from an economic and training perspective to see whether the proposals are doing the things that they were designed to do. HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [3.34 pm]: It is always a pleasure to follow Hon Dr Steve Thomas. I think we will probably touch on some of the same topics. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 removes the remaining payroll tax exemption for new trainees or new employees undertaking training. Last year—in fact, it is almost a year to the day—we debated the first phase of these reforms. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment (Exemption for Trainees) Bill 2018 removed the payroll tax exemption for existing employees undertaking training and placed a cap on the exemption for new trainees with salaries of $100 000. The government pursued the reforms in stage 1 to address what it claimed was a rorting or exploitation of the incentive, and it provided some examples of this. Revenue was being lost as employers put their staff on training programs—perhaps training programs they did not genuinely need—solely for the purpose of avoiding payroll tax. I remarked then, and I remark again now, that businesses responding to incentives created by government policy is not really any big surprise. Policymakers set the rules and businesses play by those rules. When policymakers then decide that they do not like the outcomes, they make what I think are knee-jerk reactions—changes to a payroll tax incentive that has existed for almost 50 years, since 1971. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 is the second phase of those reforms, removing the remainder of the payroll tax incentive for employers to train new or existing staff. However, the payroll tax incentive remains for apprentices. The government plans to replace the payroll tax incentive with a new employer incentive scheme. The EIS will involve grants paid directly to employers. Perhaps some of the logic behind this is that the Department of Training and Workforce Development is better at monitoring compliance and identifying people exploiting the system than Treasury is. I do not know whether that is necessarily the case. Perhaps with the restricted criteria for the grants and what training might be available, that may be the case, but I remain a little sceptical. The EIS, however, is not part of this bill.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3497

The bill is rather simple; it merely removes the payroll tax exemption. It does not mention the EIS at all, which is too bad, because it does not give us an opportunity to properly scrutinise the scheme that replaces what we are now removing—that is, the payroll tax exemption. No single clause tells us anything about the EIS—how the grants will be administered, eligibility et cetera. We merely have to take the government’s word, through the briefings we have been provided, on what the scheme will look like and how it will function. It probably makes some financial sense for the state to remove this exemption and replace it with a grants scheme. We will save $109 million and then we will spend it on grants. Then through a commonwealth training partnership, the commonwealth will match that spending up to $110 million over four years. From the perspective of Treasury, this is a good idea. My concern is whether it makes micro-economic sense. It seems we are shifting from a decentralised model of training to one that is highly centralised. Decisions about what training is required in what industries will no longer be made by individual businesses and employers, but will be moved to bureaucrats at the Department of Training and Workforce Development. I wonder who has a better idea of what training is required for their business—the people who actually employ the staff or the people’s commissariat for labour. The employer incentive scheme will apply to businesses that fall under the payroll tax threshold. This is a rather welcome change. It will surely be welcome news for those smaller businesses, but do not let that disguise the fact that many businesses will be worse off as a result of the removal of payroll tax exemptions in stage 1 and now in stage 2. There is no longer any incentive for employers to train existing employees. The government has flagged that it is working on a trial of an incentive scheme for existing employees, but we have yet to see the finer details of that and how widespread it will be. I again wonder why bureaucrats from the people’s commissariat for labour are working on an incentive scheme for training existing employees, when we already had a perfectly good incentive scheme just 12 months ago under which we did not tax employers who trained and developed their workforce. As already mentioned, the government picking winners and losers is never ideal. I again wonder why we favour apprenticeships over traineeships, or why we favour new trainees over existing employees receiving training. We have removed the opportunities or the incentives for employers to upskill and cross-train their existing workforces, which I think is important, especially at time when automation is displacing semiskilled and low-skilled employees. When we debated the first of these reforms in 2018, I mentioned an interesting story, and I would like to cover it again now to remind members. I am reading from a piece in The Australian Financial Review by Sue Mitchell, dated 8 April 2014, titled “McDonald’s replaces Catriona Noble with Andrew Gregory”. The article states — She started flipping burgers at McDonald’s at the age of 14 and by 19 was the global fast food chain’s youngest ever female restaurant manager. Now, after four years as chief executive of McDonald’s Australia, Catriona Noble is moving into a new role. … Ms Noble will be replaced as chief executive by McDonald’s Australia chief financial officer Andrew Gregory. Like Ms Noble, Mr Gregory also started working at McDonald’s as a teenage crew member, in 1992, and worked his way through the ranks, in finance and operational roles. … McDonald’s said during her time as managing director and chief executive, Ms Noble achieved many milestones, including growing annual sales beyond $4 billion, implementing a strategic franchising program and lifting McCafe sales to more than $250 million. Those kinds of success stories are made possible by removing barriers to training existing employees. That someone starting as a 14-year-old, literally flipping burgers, can work their way through one of the largest corporations in Australia to become its CEO is quite remarkable. It is the opportunity to train existing staff that makes that possible. I am not saying that Ms Noble or Mr Gregory necessarily benefited from a payroll tax employer incentive scheme. I am not too sure of the individual circumstances that allowed them to receive that training, but the ability to train and promote internally rests on removing barriers for employers to do that, rather than bringing in external people. We are putting up a new barrier by removing incentives to train existing employees. Some details of the employer incentive scheme remain unclear to me. Apparently, the administration cost will be four per cent of the money saved—four per cent of $9 million. There will be loading for special equity groups. I want to know more about what those equity groups might be now and what they might be in the future. As I already stated, the EIS is not included in this bill. It is not part of what we are debating today. We are progressing a little blind, in my view. We are removing a very important incentive that has existed for almost 50 years and replacing it with a scheme that we do not get to scrutinise or to see the finer details of. Maybe the minister can address some of the details of the EIS and illuminate some of that for us in her response. Other than the practical application of this policy shift, what concerns me most is the message it sends. The payroll tax exemption that has existed since 1971 is an implicit recognition of the impact payroll tax has on employment. It recognises that payroll tax is a barrier to employment. It provides an incentive for people to train and upskill

3498 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] their staff and to hire new trainees by providing an exemption to an impost on employers’ payroll. Removing that will remove that recognition. As other members have noted before me, payroll tax is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on payroll and employment. Western Australia has the lowest threshold for payroll tax in the country; it is $850 000. It is all well and good to note that this new employer incentive scheme will apply to businesses that fall short of the payroll tax threshold, but we are talking about very small businesses. A business with an $850 000 payroll might have 10 employees, maybe fewer, depending on their salary; that is a very small business. Again, the government is going down the path of picking winners and losers. What makes a business with nine employees so much more special than a business with 10 employees? I mean, they are both important businesses. I believe that barriers and hurdles should be removed from both of them. But what makes those smaller ones that much more special because they have one fewer staff member? We have the highest rates of payroll tax in the country. In fact, one of the first moves by the McGowan government was to increase our payroll tax rate. Less than a year after that move was made, we had the highest unemployment rate in the country, at 6.9 per cent, and it still floats around the five to six per cent mark. Ultimately, this is a transfer of funds and a removal of a tax exemption for some businesses, with money saved and redistributed through a grants scheme. Ultimately, the amount of money spent on training will potentially double from $109 million, with up to $110 million matched by the commonwealth. However, I believe it is always better to let people keep their own money and spend it how they see fit, as the businesses and employers on the ground have a better idea of their training needs than bureaucrats or policymakers in West Perth ever will. I will always oppose redistribution policies when it comes to incentivising employment and business activity. For that reason, I will not be supporting the bill, as I see it as a de facto tax increase. HON DIANE EVERS (South West) [3.46 pm]: I am speaking as the lead speaker for the Greens. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 amends the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 2002, stating that from 1 July, the payroll tax exemption will be removed for a new worker trainee. That is the remaining payroll tax exemption for new employees with an annual income under $100 000. There is no change for apprentices. Payroll tax exemptions for them will continue to apply. The pre-existing payroll tax exemptions relating to wages paid or payable under pre-existing worker training contracts are preserved. Many of these contracts that have been entered into would have been quite recent—most of them in about the last 12 months. Some may have been entered into six or 24 months ago, but they will still apply until those recent traineeships are finished. That is pretty much it for the bill. That is the change to the payroll tax exemption and the actual impact of it. It is not a significant one. We knew it was coming. It was in the plan all along to raise that $109 million so that we could get matching commonwealth funding to embark on a new scheme whereby we could train up more people. As Hon Aaron Stonehouse was saying, it is good to have people spend their money where they want to on the training they can. Nothing in this bill will stop people from training their employees. I am sure that a number of businesses recognise the value of having well-trained employees and they will continue to do so. This is for the more formal training and apprentice placements, that go through a system that everyone can access, but it is not the same as on-the-job training. These people will be able to continue training their employees so that they can move up and be part of a very valuable skilled workforce for the organisation. That $109 million will allow the government to establish the new employer incentive scheme, which is separate from this bill and other legislation. A new scheme will be established to help with the cost of taking on an apprentice or trainee when employers go through that formal system. There has been considerable consultation with many people in the industry, a lot of positive comments have been made about it, and there is positive affirmation that this is a good idea. A broad consensus has been reached. It seems as though the industry is looking forward to this new scheme. It will be funded by a four-year partnership agreement that WA has entered into with the commonwealth government, and there will be annual reporting requirements and milestones, as we would all expect. The WA budget will show an allocation each year over the four years. A bit of crystal ball gazing is required again to work out how many people will take up this new scheme. It is suggested there will be about five per cent growth in traineeships and apprenticeships, to give us some idea. The funds will be there so that when a traineeship is taken up, the funds for the period of the traineeship or the apprenticeship will be taken from that year’s funds to ensure the funds are available for the full term of that apprenticeship and traineeship. WA’s contribution over that four years will be $109 million, which will come from the removal of the payroll tax exemption as a result of this Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 and the changes made in the bill passed last year. The program is therefore revenue-neutral. The commonwealth government will match that $109 million with a further $110 million from the National Partnership on the Skilling Australians Fund. The commonwealth funding will pay the TAFEs and private providers for training delivery and the WA fund will pay the incentive. The commonwealth funding will be available only if WA puts in the share that it has committed to. From the commonwealth point of view, this is to stop cost-shifting from the states to the commonwealth. We need this funding to enable us to draw down on that commonwealth promise. It is very important that we can do that to maintain traineeships and apprenticeships as needed throughout the state on an ongoing basis. My colleague Hon Alison Xamon will speak further on the national partnership agreement.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3499

I would like to speak more about the benefits of the employer incentive scheme. It will be available to employers who do not currently pay payroll tax, so it will extend the scheme to a much larger group of businesses. It means that 92 per cent of businesses that fall below the payroll threshold will also be able to access this scheme, so small businesses will benefit from it. The scheme will also be available for group training organisations registered with the Department of Training and Workforce Development. I note that the group training organisations will be expected to pass the incentive onto their host employers. The group training organisations will take on the apprenticeship or traineeship and do all the administration stuff so that small businesses will not have to be involved in that, and then they will put their apprentices and trainees with the employers. It is a system that will work and it will mean that more trainees and apprentices will be available to businesses that might not otherwise have been able to take them on their own. The scheme will also be available to government trading enterprises and local government, but not to commonwealth and state government employers. I would like clarified whether it will be available to government trading enterprises but not state government employers. There is a little bit of confusion there. For those below the payroll tax threshold, the incentive will be available for both apprentices and new-worker trainees. People who are not getting any sort of exemption will be able to take this on and have that payment made through the scheme. For those above the payroll tax threshold, the incentive will be available only for new-worker trainees, but the payroll tax exemption will still apply to apprentices. If the value of that exemption is less than the incentive, they will get a top-up at the completion of the apprenticeship so that they are not disadvantaged by this. It will relate only to new-worker trainees. As Hon Aaron Stonehouse pointed out, the workers who have been there for some time will not be in the same situation, but apprentices will be. It will be available to apprentices who are current workers. The current cap on employee trainees who earn more than $100 000 a year will be removed. It is estimated that around 5 900 employers will access either the employer incentive scheme or the payroll tax exemption for apprentices. This is many more than the approximately 2 600 employers who currently access the payroll tax exemption for apprentices and new-worker trainees. There will be an increase, which is what we want to see, of more people being trained and skilled up to be able to do the jobs we need them to do. As I mentioned, the employer incentive scheme will not be available for commonwealth and state government employers, nor for existing worker trainees. In my mind, we would have to see apprenticeships requiring a longer commitment with a more comprehensive program that goes on for three or four years; therefore, the employer and the employee would be making much more of a commitment. It will also not be available to apprentices and trainees who are currently eligible for Construction Training Fund grants. That group already has access to other bigger incentives and excluding them will release around $40 million for other apprentices and trainees who are outside the construction industry. Around 80 per cent of the group are apprentices, so the payroll tax exemption for apprentices will still apply. Those employers that pay payroll tax and have construction industry apprentices will still get the exemption. I should point out that the exemption for an employer who is paying about 5.5 per cent payroll tax will work out to be pretty much the same as the incentive for an employee earning around $38 600; therefore, regardless of whether the employer is getting the scheme payment or the exemption, it will work out the same. Of course, as everyone knows, there also will be extra loadings in some circumstances. The extra loadings on top of that would make it equal to a larger salary base, whereby the employer ends up with the same payment, regardless of whether they were getting the payroll tax exemption or will go through this scheme. The loadings are quite important. We could pick winners but, we are trying to say that it will be directed towards those things that have more value or to things that we are trying to change. There will be a 10 per cent loading for apprentices or trainees in priority occupations, determined in consultation with the industry. An indicative list maps the state priority list. Priorities 1, 2 and 3 are included. The list is available, and I can table it. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon Matthew Swinbourn): Are you seeking leave to table that document? Hon DIANE EVERS: Yes; I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. [See paper 2710.] Hon DIANE EVERS: There also will be a 10 per cent loading for Aboriginal apprentices or trainees and a 10 per cent loading for apprentices or trainees in regional areas. Again, this is really important. I think this will provide good value to businesses in regional areas by enabling them to take on apprentices and trainees. It will give opportunities to young people who may have finished, or be close to finishing, high school to keep them in the regional area with the promise of work. The loading for apprentices and trainees in regional areas will be doubled to a 20 per cent loading for those in the Gascoyne, the Pilbara and the Kimberley to reflect the higher cost of living in those areas. In addition, there will be a 10 per cent loading for apprentices or trainees with a disability and a 50 per cent loading for apprentices or trainees aged between 21 and 30 years to offset the higher wages of adult apprentices. That will be available in the first year of the apprenticeship. It is nice to know that those loadings can be aggregated. A company might pick an Aboriginal apprentice in the northern region and get a 30 per cent loading on top of that, which means it would be the same for the employer as if they were on a $50 000 or $55 000 salary. It comes out at about the same. It will encourage traineeships at the lower income levels.

3500 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

To link the incentives to outcomes, the loadings will be paid at each of the three points during the traineeship or apprenticeship. As members who have worked with trainees will know, they do not all remain till completion time. Therefore, receiving a payment at the beginning of and upon completion of the traineeship will help the employer in the first instance and provide strong motivation to complete the traineeship. The commencement payment will be payable six months after the apprentice or trainee starts. Payments cannot be made during probation or if a worker in the early stages drops out of their apprenticeship or training course, which can also happen. The payment for apprenticeships lasting three or four years will be made at the midpoint of those studies and the completion payment will be paid at the end. The young adult group will get the 50 per cent loading applied to the commencement payment, not the midpoint of the completion payment. It will be paid in the first year because the purpose of the loading is to offset the impact of adult wages in the first year, and to do this, they get the highest loading of 50 per cent. I understand that this model came out of consultation and there seems to be general consensus about it. Although funding is from two sources, state and federal, the employer incentive scheme will operate as one scheme to reduce administration costs. Payment and compliance processes will be online and linked to existing administrative processes to make it as simple as possible for employers to engage in the system. Information sharing will occur between the Office of State Revenue and the construction training fund to ensure that there is no rorting or duplication so that we do not have to plug those holes. Proof of a worker’s current employment with an employer, such as a copy of their latest payslip, will be required at each of the three payment points. For businesses that fall in and out of the payroll tax liability over the period of an apprenticeship, a pro rata insensitive will be available when the relevant criteria are met and there will be reconciliation at the end. Businesses that are near the $850 000 cut-off point will be below that amount in some years and above it in others. This way they can look back at the end to decide which way to manage it and a payment will be made to reconcile that. To pilot the new enterprise training program for existing workers, the employer incentive scheme will not apply to existing worker trainees and it will not be available to help with reskilling. To address this gap, the government is piloting an enterprise training program in 2019 with $9 million over the forward estimates, with the idea being that registered training organisations will partner with employers and apply together, and this will contribute to national partnership targets. All in all, it seems that a lot has gone into addressing what industry and business need. The government has looked forward to figure out possible challenges and gaps and has tried to address them. With that, I state that the Greens will support the bill. HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan) [4.01 pm]: I also rise to make a few comments about the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019. As was indicated by our lead speaker, Hon Dr Steve Thomas, the opposition will be supporting the bill. Essentially, the bill forms the second tranche of changes that were announced by the government in November 2017 and as has been indicated already by other members, the bill introduces a new employer incentive scheme for apprentices and trainees from 1 July 2019. Importantly, the payroll tax exemption for apprentices remains unchanged. This part was a matter of concern when the first tranche of changes was introduced by the government a couple of years ago. Indeed, a number of organisations raised legitimate concerns that apprentices would be affected by these changes. The government listened to those concerns at the time and it appears that it has continued to listen, which is a very good thing, with the government indicating in the second reading speech that the wages paid to apprentices will continue to be exempt from payroll tax. I understand that the new scheme will provide a grant to employers to assist with the costs of taking on an apprentice or trainee. As Hon Diane Evers and Hon Dr Steve Thomas mentioned, the scheme is aimed at assisting a broader range of businesses, including those not paying payroll tax. I thank the minister for the briefing. I had an advanced briefing when I met with the department earlier this year. I thank her for that. The scheme will include all qualifications levels, if I can put it that way, of existing worker apprentices and new worker trainees. All grouped training organisations and, I believe, not-for-profits—the minister can confirm this— registered with the Department of Training and Workforce Development will be eligible to receive the incentive payments. Other members have already mentioned that priority loadings will also occur. I refer to a briefing paper that was kindly provided to us as part of the briefing. There will be a 10 per cent loading for those who fall under the state priority occupation list, which applies to the regions as well; a 10 per cent loading for identified equity groups, which, I think, includes people with disability, and that is recognised; a 20 per cent loading for north regional apprentices and trainees, recognising the additional cost in the northern regions; and a 50 per cent commencement loading for apprentices between 21 and 30 years of age. Furthermore, the scheme intends to provide incentive payments that will be linked to the length of a trainee or apprentice contract. The briefing note provides a table of the nominal terms. For example, a 12-month traineeship will have a commencement payment of $1 063 and a completion payment of the same amount. An 18-month traineeship will have a slightly larger commencement and completion payment and similarly a 24-month traineeship and obviously it goes up in phases. A 36-month and a 48-month apprenticeship will also include a midpoint payment. If I am reading the bill correctly— the minister can correct me if I am wrong—that is a good thing insomuch as one of the issues that has been raised with me, particularly by small businesses, is when an employer takes on an apprentice for an extended period—

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3501 under previous arrangements they might have the apprentice for three years, for example—and very much trains that apprentice up but the apprentice moves to another employer and finishes their apprenticeship with that employer. The employer at the end of the process is the one that gets a larger payment despite being the one, I suppose, that put the least investment into that apprentice. As I understand, the incentive amounts and the way it has been put through in commencement, midpoint and completion, provides more appropriate equity, I suppose. Hon Sue Ellery: It limits the risk that they will lose out. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: That is a good thing and I think it is welcome. One issue that remains of concern and that has also been raised by other speakers is that the scheme does not include existing trainees. Obviously, that was a key element of the previous scheme but the government saw fit to remove it a couple of years ago. Having undertaken consultation when the initial bill came before Parliament, I know that the exemptions provided a mechanism for existing employees to be upskilled, and this was particularly valuable for longer-term employees, particularly older employees—some of whom I met when I went around to a number of businesses—who had the opportunity to be upskilled, some for the first time in many years. That is very important and it is disappointing that the scheme does not acknowledge that in any way. Having said that, will the bill be a panacea for the continuing decline in the number of apprenticeships and traineeships? There is no doubt that they continue to be on the decline; indeed, according to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research and a statistical report that was released on 5 March, the number of apprentices and trainees in Western Australia as at 30 September 2018 was 29 720, which was down 9.1 per cent from September 2017. There were also 17 160 commencements, which again is down 11.6 per cent from 2017. I also noted from the quick stats summary provided on the website of the Department of Training and Workforce Development that there has been a very small increase in the number of apprentices “in training”, increasing 0.8 per cent between December 2017 and December 2018. However, there has been a sharp decline, by 25 per cent, in the number of trainees “in training” over that same period. I presume this can be explained in part by the changes to the payroll tax exemption scheme that took place last year. The minister is nodding in agreement, so she is verifying what I just said. Hon Sue Ellery: I do not agree with those figures and I will point out a different set of figures for you. Hon DONNA FARAGHER: I appreciate that. I am just going off the figures from the department’s website. If the minister has a different view, I would be very keen to hear that. Overall, as put to me by some stakeholders to whom I had the opportunity to speak, there are benefits— Hon Diane Evers certainly raised that as well—particularly for small businesses to take part in this scheme and to take on apprentices and trainees. This is particularly so for those that might not have been eligible under the previous scheme—a broader range of businesses will be eligible. I am interested to hear from the minister how this new incentive scheme will be communicated to those who would be eligible to participate. I am also interested in hearing how the government intends to manage the budget and how it will ensure that it will keep it in check. That was obviously a key concern with the previous scheme, so I am interested in the minister’s response to that. I am also keen to hear what she has to say about the statistics that I referred to, if there is a discrepancy there. Overall, it appears that the new scheme will have benefits. I am interested in the questions I posed at the end there, but, otherwise, as indicated by our lead speaker, the opposition is supportive of the bill. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [4.12 pm]: I rise to make a few comments about the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019. As indicated by the lead speaker for the Greens, my colleague Hon Diane Evers, we are supporting this bill. The bill follows on from last year’s changes to the payroll tax exemptions for trainees, which restricted new payroll tax exemptions for trainees to new employees and also those earning $100 000 or less in regular wages. One of the prompts for the previous bill was the end of one four-year contract for funding from the National Partnership on the Skilling Australians Fund. At the time, the loss of this funding blew a $54 million hole in the 2017–18 training budget. From 2017 onwards, the proposed National Partnership on the Skilling Australians Fund severely restricted the things we could spend this money on and, importantly, did not allow the funding to be used for health, ageing and community service training and required a matching funding commitment from the state. I also know that it potentially had an unstable availability, as it was based entirely on a levy from sponsors of temporary skilled migrants. At the time, the Minister for Education and Training estimated that losing the funding for general training, combined with clawing funds out of the general budget to meet those matching requirements for what was going to be an inappropriate training profile, would cost us 23 000 training places. These would have come almost entirely out of the TAFE system. I think this would have been a terrible outcome. I supported the government holding out on signing the partnership at that time. The Greens also supported, as an interim measure, removing some of the payroll tax exemptions to assist in maintaining the training budget while the government put together the program that is before us today. We are expecting to see the end of payroll tax exemptions for new trainees and a grant program that is accessible to a much wider range of businesses. The bill before us effectively deals with the administrative elements of removing the payroll tax exemptions for new trainees and it also deals with the transitional arrangements for those trainees who signed on to their courses prior to 1 July this year.

3502 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

The meat of the employer incentive scheme is not in this bill, but it should be of great interest to every member of this place. The employer incentive scheme is part of WA’s main project in our contract with the feds for the National Partnership on the Skilling Australians Fund. The fund requires that as part of expanding jobs and skills, WA, with national partnership funding, will institute an employer incentive scheme worth over $232 million through to 2022, and create a new enterprise training program to support skills development for existing workers, which will focus on workers in allied health and social assistance. That will be enormously helpful in supporting the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 3512.] Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY — BRIEFING NOTES 508. Hon PETER COLLIER to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I refer to question on notice 2067, asked on Wednesday, 3 April 2019. (1) Which agency, department or statutory authority provided the Premier and his office with advice? (2) On what date was the advice provided? (3) Will the minister table the advice; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation. (2) It was on 21 February 2019. (3) The advice was tabled on 4 April 2019. It is tabled paper 2568. NORTH WEST INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM 509. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Energy: I refer to the comments made by the Minister for Energy in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, 14 May 2019 regarding the contract between Horizon Power and TransAlta that “this agreement was entered into by the last government, particularly when it was not recommended to it by the process it had established to choose a contract partner”. (1) Who advised the minister that this agreement was entered into by the last government, particularly when it was not recommended to it by the process it had established to choose a contract partner? (2) On what date did the minister receive this advice? (3) Will the minister table this advice; and, if not, why not? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Energy. (1) In his 14 May 2019 answer to a parliamentary question, the minister made no reference to TransAlta but to a high-cost, inflexible, long-term contract that is making it very difficult to implement the north west interconnected system reforms. The minister has written to Hon Mike Nahan, MLA to request access to the relevant cabinet documents. (2) On 16 April 2014, by way of a press release by Hon Mike Nahan, MLA, the then Minister for Energy. (3) Yes. I seek leave to have the following information incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See page 3511.] POLICE — BRASS AND COPPER THEFT 510. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to a report of the theft of cabling, which has disabled lighting at a northern suburbs playing field. (1) What is the total value of brass and copper stolen from building sites and other sites for each of the past two years? (2) Has the minister received complaints from the building industry body Builders United to Stop Theft or others about the problem of such theft and the lack of adequate regulation over the sale of such stolen nonferrous metals to scrap merchants?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3503

(3) If yes to (2), what action was called for and what action has the minister taken, or proposed to take, to address the problem? (4) Will the minister implement changes to the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1994 to ensure that transactions involving copper and brass are regulated under the act; and, if not, why not? (5) If yes to (4), when will such action be taken? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The following answer has been provided to me by the Minister for Police. (1) The Western Australia Police Force advises that it is not possible to provide a response to this question within the required time period. If the honourable member puts the question on notice, I will seek further information from the Western Australia Police Force. (2)–(5) The minister has received representation from members of the building industry regarding the operations of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1994. The minister and WA Police Force take each representation seriously and act on available information. The difficulty in identifying stolen copper and other scrap metals without specific identifiers in the scrap metal adds investigative hurdles. Currently, section 47(2) of the act requires second-hand dealers to mark and label second-hand goods with a distinguishing number, and section 61 of the act requires second-hand dealers to keep second-hand goods unchanged for at least 14 days. The act applies monetary penalties to second-hand dealers for noncompliance with the aforementioned requirements. Proposals to add further licence restrictions upon second-hand dealers were not adopted by the previous government. SCHOOL CURRICULUM AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY — SPECIAL PROVISIONS POLICY 511. Hon DONNA FARAGHER to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the School Curriculum and Standards Authority’s special examination provisions policy for Australian tertiary admission rank course examinations. (1) Is this policy currently being reviewed by the authority? (2) If yes — (a) when did the review commence and what is the review’s terms of reference; (b) who is being consulted as part of the review; and (c) when is the review expected to be completed? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) (a) The review commenced on 1 March 2019. The terms of reference are to undertake an independent review of the special provisions process and considerations provided by the School Curriculum and Standards Authority to enable all Western Australian senior secondary students to have opportunities for success in completing their senior secondary studies. The report will document the current special provision arrangements in place for Western Australian senior secondary students, the current special provision arrangements in place in other Australian jurisdictions, and recommendations to SCSA regarding any changes to the special provision arrangements that are currently in place to ensure that Western Australia adopts best practice. (b) Representatives of the following organisations have been invited to participate in consultations. Madam President, it is a very long list, so I seek leave to have that part of the answer incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — Department of Education Catholic Education Western Australia Association of Independent Schools Western Australia The Dyslexia SPELD Foundation Western Australia Developmental Occupational Therapy Western Australia WA Council of State School Organisations Parents and Friends Federation Western Australia Diabetes Western Australia

3504 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

Autism Association Western Australia Deaf Society VisAbility Department of Communities – Disability Services Association of Heads of Independent Schools Australia Western Australia Secondary School Executives Association Youth Focus Past and present Western Australian Certificate of Education (WACE) students Parents of past and present WACE students

(c) The review is expected to be considered by SCSA’s board in October 2019. KIMBERLEY SUICIDES — CORONER’S REPORT — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 512. Hon NICK GOIRAN to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection: I refer to the coroner’s inquest into 13 deaths of children and young people in the Kimberley region, which was delivered more than three months ago and contained 42 recommendations. (1) Is the minister coordinating the whole-of-government response? (2) If no to (1), who is? (3) Further to (2), has the minister had any involvement in the response? (4) If yes to (1) or (3), in which calendar month is the government currently planning to provide its response? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) The Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, Hon Roger Cook, MLA. (3) Yes. (4) The government has not yet settled on a specific release date; however, work is being progressed. TAB — PRIVATISATION — HON DARREN WEST’S COMMENTS 513. Hon MARTIN ALDRIDGE to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I refer to the minister’s budget confirmation that the state government will sell the TAB and to comments made by Hon Darren West, MLC, on 13 April 2016 when he said, and I quote — The sale of TAB will kill off Regional racing. If Barnett and Holt want to make the sale of our TAB an election issue, I say bring it on! And on 28 March 2016, when he said, and I quote — I’m strongly against the sale of the TAB. So is everyone else….except the Barnett Liberal/National Government. A change of Government will keep the TAB in public hands and ensure future funding to WA Racing. (1) Can the minister confirm whether Hon Darren West, a parliamentary secretary in the McGowan government, will now support the very thing he stridently opposed before the last election? (2) Does the minister agree with Hon Darren West that the sale of the TAB will “kill off regional racing”, or was he misinformed on the issue? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. (1) Yes. (2) No. ANIMAL WELFARE — CATTLE — GOLDFIELDS 514. Hon RICK MAZZA to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: Can the minister advise whether she is aware of any recent animal welfare issues emerging on a southern rangelands station that has required an intervention by Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development staff?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3505

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for that question. My department was notified of a potential issue at a station in the goldfields area and it attended that site and saw problems. We are not talking about a huge number of cattle. It has taken action to work with the proprietors of the station. I understand that now a contract musterer has been engaged and we expect that muster to be completed by the end of next week. SCHOOLS — “LET’S TAKE A STAND TOGETHER” ACTION PLAN 515. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to the “Let’s Take A Stand Together” action plan. The plan refers to providing better support and advice for public school staff and advocates a consultative approach. Can the minister please advise whether or not the government is listening right now and learning from the overwhelming community support for teachers who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in a position of having to act against aggressive behaviour; and, if so — (a) will the minister please advise what actions are reasonably expected of education staff in dealing with violence, as per action 4 of the “Let’s Take A Stand Together” action plan; (b) can the minister advise what is currently being done to achieve all 10 actions of the action plan; and (c) can the minister advise, for actions 1 and 2 of the action plan, how many exclusion orders have been made to the director general of the Department of Education, as well as the number of exclusion orders that have actually been approved since the action plan’s inception? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: This is an excellent question and I have an excellent answer, but because part (b) of the question asks what we are doing against each of the 10 actions, if I were to read it all out, it would take a long time. So I will give the member the bits that I can, and then I will ask that the answer to part (b) be incorporated into Hansard; otherwise, it will take up too much time. The government has listened, is listening and will continue to listen to teachers and school communities. (a) The actions required of staff when students engage in aggressive or violent behaviour are clearly described in “Physical Contact With Students”, which I tabled on 11 April 2019. (b) This is the bit that I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The following material was incorporated — (b) To achieve the 10 points of the plan the following actions are being undertaken: 1. Principals to suspend students who attack other students or start fights From the start of Term 1, 2019, principals have been directed to automatically suspend students who intentionally attack, or instigate a fight with, another student, or film fighting between students. 2. Principals to automatically move to exclude any student who physically attacks school staff From the start of Term 1, 2019, principals have been instructed to automatically move to exclude any student who physically attacks school staff. 3. New alternative learning settings for the most violent students Three pilot alternative learning settings have been established, located in the North Metropolitan, South Metropolitan and Southwest education regions. The program delivered in these settings is designed to restore students’ behaviour so they can safely return to school. 4. Clear advice for principals, teachers and education assistants on authority and responsibility to take action This advice has been provided to all staff through the two documents Physical contact with students and Responding to fights between students. 5. Provide training and support for school staff As a first step from 2019, there is mandatory training for every graduate teacher employed in a public school on how to de-escalate and manage aggressive behaviour. 6. New ‘good standing’ requirements to be added to school behaviour policies All schools have been provided with information on how to include good standing into their school behaviour policy. 7. Free parenting program for parents of young children The Triple P – Positive Parenting Program continues to be offered free to all Western Australian parents of Kindergarten children. During 2018, the Positive Parenting Program Stay Positive Campaign ran with a strong focus on parents and carers of Kindergarten children. Two hundred and eighty-one sessions were advertised and parent participation increased by 61 per cent from Semester 1 to Semester 2.

3506 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

8. Review critical incident reporting and monitoring A police liaison officer is being appointed and will be based in the Department of Education’s central office to support response, management and followup of critical incidents involving violence. In addition, consultation has commenced with Western Australia Police Force to station a Department of Education officer at the Police Command Centre, to better connect principals with police despatch when critical incidents occur. 9. Spark a community conversation about violence in schools – with community leaders and others Focus groups with young people, parents and stakeholders have been held and resources for parents, students and principals are being developed. 10. A Premier’s Youth Forum was held at Ellenbrook Secondary College on 19 November 2018, attended by 18 students from both public and non-government schools, including several young people from a local youth organisation.

Point of Order Hon NICK GOIRAN: I just make the observation that standing order 106 says that answers to questions shall be concise and relevant. I say this in the same breath as I say that I recognise that this is not my question; and, if the member wants this information, I am quite happy to support him. I do not think we need to be embarking on a process regularly whereby ministers ask to have their answers incorporated into Hansard, which I, as another member who does not receive it, do not get the opportunity to hear. The PRESIDENT: I have noted that a significant number of excessively long questions that require an enormous amount of detail have been asked during this session. I think, on occasion, that has led a number of ministers to seek to incorporate all the answers into Hansard rather than taking up the whole of question time, which might then deny other members an opportunity. Nothing prevents any other member from asking for a copy of an answer to a question. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SUE ELLERY: Madam President, I make the point to the house that I try to ensure that there is enough time for everybody to get a question. The answer continues — (c) Since the commencement of the 2019 school year, 34 recommendations for exclusion have been made to 14 May 2019. Of these, 24 students have been excluded, five students have not been excluded, two recommendations were withdrawn and three recommendations are pending. PUBLIC HOUSING 516. Hon TIM CLIFFORD to the minister representing the Minister for Housing: Housing affordability continues to be an issue for many Western Australians and, according to the Housing Authority’s Rethink Social Housing website, nearly 14 000 people are on the waitlist. (1) What is the total number of public housing dwellings in WA? (2) How many of these dwellings are currently vacant? (3) How many public housing dwellings were demolished in each year since 2014? (4) How many public housing dwellings were built in each year since 2014? (5) Has there been a net loss or gain in the number of public housing properties since 2014; and, if so, what is the loss or gain? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) As at 30 April 2019, there were 36 323 public housing properties. (2) As at 30 April 2019, there were 1 906. (3) Properties demolished as at 30 June each year were as follows: 2013–14, 114; 2014–15, 141; 2015–16, 169; 2016–17, 102; and 2017–18, 129. (4) Properties completed as at 30 June each year were as follows: 2013–14, 381; 2014–15, 294; 2015–16, 269; 2016–17, 905; and 2017–18, 73. The McGowan government’s $394 million Metronet housing and jobs package will deliver 320 new social housing dwellings. (5) There has been a net reduction in the number of public housing properties since 2014, with 36 668 public housing properties as at 30 June 2014 and 36 323 public housing properties as at 30 April 2019. There are several factors for the reduction in the number of public housing properties, including the sale or demolition of ageing stock that is no longer fit for purpose or required to meet demand, as well as subdued market conditions that have resulted in lower revenue for the Housing Authority to reinvest in social housing construction.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3507

HOUSEHOLD NETWORK SERVICE 517. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Community Services: (1) Has any additional funding been allocated in the 2019–20 budget to expand the Household Network service run by the Perth Inner City Youth Service for trans and gender diverse young people? (2) If yes to (1), how much funding has been allocated? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Communities is currently consulting and developing a whole-of-government 10-year strategy on homelessness, which is due to be launched in the second half of 2019. The strategy is currently being developed in partnership between government and the community sector through the Supporting Communities Forum’s homelessness strategy working group. Future homelessness funding will be informed by the strategy. NAPLAN ONLINE — TECHNICAL ISSUES 518. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN to the Minister for Education and Training: Can the minister advise us what went wrong with the NAPLAN testing earlier this week? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for the question. “Connectivity” is the word that was used most commonly to describe what happened. It meant that students were not able to connect and even when they were in the middle of progressing through NAPLAN Online, they would lose connectivity; essentially, there would be dropouts. I am advised as a result of a ring around of all the states today that the only two jurisdictions where there were not significant technical issues were Queensland and the Northern Territory. Therefore, every other state in Australia experienced difficulties. Western Australia had the highest proportion of its students impacted by those technical difficulties. The member will remember that the trials for NAPLAN Online began in 2016 in Western Australia, so I do not accept the notion that somehow we are still testing the system and transitioning or that they have not had a reasonable period to get this right. FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK — SOIL CONTAMINATION 519. Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the contamination of soil by chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, at the site of the Forrestfield–Airport Link tunnelling project. (1) What is the total volume of soil from the Forrestfield–Airport Link tunnelling project that has now been accumulated at the temporary storage site at 777 Abernethy Road, Forrestfield? (2) Has soil from this project been stored or sent to any other location? (3) If yes to (2), to what locations and in what volume to each location? (4) What is the highest concentration of PFAS that has been measured in this soil? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Transport. (1) As at 3 May 2019, approximately 460 000 cubic metres of soil originating from construction works for the Forrestfield–Airport Link project was stored at 777 Abernethy Road, Forrestfield. This soil is capable of re-use in accordance with the PFAS national environmental management plan. (2)–(3) As at 3 May 2019, approximately 100 000 cubic metres of soil was stored at a site within Perth Airport, approximately 75 000 cubic metres of soil had been re-used within the Forrestfield–Airport Link project works, and approximately 50 000 cubic metres of soil had been re-used on other transport projects within the Perth metropolitan area, including as fill material for two interchanges on the NorthLink WA project. (4) There are over 3 000 types of PFAS. The most commonly detected PFAS compound in the Forrestfield–Airport Link project’s excess fill is perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS. The highest concentration of PFOS that has been measured in the Forrestfield–Airport Link project’s excess fill is 0.007 milligrams per kilogram. This concentration is below the human health and ecological assessment criteria in the NEMP.

3508 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

RACING INDUSTRY — INFRASTRUCTURE 520. Hon COLIN HOLT to the minister representing the Minister for Racing and Gaming: I refer to current racing infrastructure in Western Australia. Please provide a list of all outstanding infrastructure needs for the racing industry including the name of the club, the infrastructure required and the expected cost of the infrastructure. Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I reflect on the comment Madam President made before. The following information has been provided to me by the Minister for Racing and Gaming. The infrastructure requirements for racing is a matter for the industry. That is why we have established an infrastructure fund so that the industry’s infrastructure investment needs can be addressed over time. EGGS — LABELLING 521. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to an article in The West Australian of 14 May, which states that egg producer Snowdale Holdings was fined $750 000 for deceiving consumers through false labelling of eggs in 2017. (1) Is the minister aware if CF Farms, formerly operating as Snowdale Holdings, or any of its brands, including The Good Farmer Free Range Eggs, Bloom Free Range Eggs, Mrs Fischer, Beermullah Egg Co or Hens of the Earth, are the subject of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry in egg labelling in Western Australia? (2) Has the minister raised any concerns with the ACCC in relation to CF Farms, formerly operating as Snowdale Holdings, or any of its brands? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those concerns? Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) The ACCC’s policy is not to release details of its investigations while they are underway, obviously, because of concerns about compromising those developments. It is important to understand that the 2017 ruling from the ACCC was the result of a visit to that property for completely unrelated purposes, by an officer of the then Department of Agriculture and Food, who observed very unorthodox packaging practices and reported it to the ACCC. I want to say this: I think we have a fundamental problem with what we are doing here. This issue of whether an egg is free range is very important to consumers, and it is very important to farmers who undertake additional expense and stewardship in adopting free-range chicken farming and who are finding it difficult to get a fair remuneration. We need a stronger system. The system we have at the moment relies on a statement or some rules around what constitutes a free-range egg—what it has to be to be a free-range egg—but there is no monitoring system. It relies on random reports of suspicions that someone might be acting improperly. I do not think that this is an adequate system. It is not adequate for farmers and it is not adequate for consumers. I want to talk to the industry about a different process whereby accreditation may be required before a producer can sell eggs as free range and a system of compliance monitoring so there is some rigour in the system that will underpin consumer confidence in our agricultural product. EDNA MAY MINE 522. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the Minister for Environment: (1) Did the Appeals Convenor urge Ramelius Resources to submit an alternative proposal during the appeals process? (2) Did the company follow this advice by submitting a proposal with a significantly smaller footprint for clearing 26 hectares, and did the Appeals Convenor then not assess the proposal? (3) Can the minister confirm that Ramelius Resources managing director, Mark Zeptner, has stated that there is $100 million worth of gold sitting in the ground and 100 jobs on standby? (4) Noting that a year has already been wasted, will the government now expedite approval for the alternative proposal? (5) Will the minister confirm that a letter dated 19 February 2019 addressed to the minister and signed by the chief executive officer of the Shire of Westonia contained this statement — Ramelius … has shown a great ability previously to preserve and enhance threatened flora such as Eremophila Resinosa. Several successful translocation sites have been established in and around the Town Common, increasing the E. Resinosa populations within the district.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3509

Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) I am advised that the Appeals Convenor did not ask Ramelius Resources to submit an alternative proposal; but, instead, consistent with her usual practice, encouraged the company to submit any additional information it believed would address the concerns raised by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety in its decision to refuse the permit, including opportunities to reduce the identified impacts. (2) The company did submit additional information as part of the appeal investigation, which included a proposal to reduce the area of clearing to 26.3 hectares. The Appeals Convenor provided this information to me as part of her report. As the information represented a significantly different proposal to the one considered by DMIRS, I agreed with the Appeals Convenor that it was more appropriate that the revised proposal be the subject of a new assessment. (3)–(4) I have encouraged Ramelius Resources to make a new application so that the revised proposal can be properly assessed. Given the work that has already been undertaken to draft this new proposal, I expect that it will be submitted promptly and that it contains high-quality information that substantially addresses the identified environmental risks, and we will ensure that it is processed efficiently. (5) Yes. That letter was received by my office on 26 February 2019. NAPLAN — WRITING RESULTS 523. Hon CHARLES SMITH to the Minister for Education and Training: I refer to last year’s NAPLAN results indicating there has been a significant statistical decline in writing ability across years 5, 7 and 9 and the fact that three in 10 students are dropping out of high school early or completing year 12 without a Western Australian Certificate of Education. (1) What measures is the WA government taking to address declining writing standards in our public schools? (2) Does the government have any plans to review the WA state curriculum? (3) If yes, to (2), which parts? (4) How many student teachers in the last 12 months had to take the Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education more than once? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Effective teaching is the key to improving student writing. Examples of specific actions taken to improve the teaching of writing in Western Australian public schools include a $3.5 million three-year partnership with Curtin University to establish the Centre for Excellence in the Explicit Teaching of Literacy to strengthen and extend the explicit teaching of literacy, including writing; delivery of the three-day leading writing improvement professional learning course to over 500 school leaders and teachers; and development of teaching resources for upper primary and lower secondary teachers to improve year 7 NAPLAN writing results. (2)–(3) The Western Australian government does not have any plans to review the state curriculum. However, during 2019, the School Curriculum and Standards Authority will undertake normal reviewing processes of the following syllabuses: year 11 and 12 integrated science, general; year 11 and 12 animal production systems—Australian tertiary admission rank; year 11 and 12 plant production systems, ATAR; year 11 and 12 media production and analysis, ATAR; year 11 and 12 geography, ATAR; year 11 and 12 drama, ATAR; year 12 Physical Education Studies, ATAR; and year 12 English as an additional language/dialect, ATAR. (4) Neither the WA Department of Education nor the Teacher Registration Board of Western Australia hold technical data on the number of resits of the Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education in the last 12 months. TOURISM — NULLAGINE 524. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Tourism: I refer to the town of Nullagine. (1) Is the minister aware that Nullagine is an ideal place to pause on the long drive between Marble Bar and Newman, making the caravan park a worthwhile place to rest? (2) Is the minister aware that the whole area comes alive with wildflowers in the spring? (3) Will the minister advise what investment has been made by this government to ensure the success of tourism in the town of Nullagine?

3510 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The Minister for Tourism has provided the following information. (1)–(2) Yes, I am aware. Information about Nullagine’s natural attractions, including its wildflowers, caravan park and suitability for travellers seeking a four-wheel drive adventure is promoted on Tourism WA’s consumer website, www.westernaustralia.com, domestically and internationally in five foreign languages. (3) In addition, the McGowan government, through Tourism WA, has invested nationally and in nine international markets to promote the state as an ideal road trip holiday destination. Nullagine is identified on “The Warlu Way” map in the “Welcome to the Road Trip State” brochure and the overall messaging of a self-drive holiday is one that would encompass the Nullagine offering. Nullagine is also promoted on Australia’s North West regional tourism organisation’s website, www.australiasnorthwest.com, and in its 2019 Kimberley and Pilbara holiday planner. The McGowan government provides funding support to the five regional tourism organisations, including Australia’s North West, to undertake more detailed promotion of towns and attractions within their respective regions. CONTAINER FREIGHT SUBSIDY 525. Hon PETER COLLIER to the minister representing the Minister for Transport: I refer to the container freight subsidy on page 521 of volume 2 of budget paper No 2. (1) Will the minister explain why there is only $1.169 million in 2021–22 and no funding in 2022–23 for the container freight subsidy? (2) Will the minister provide a list of the businesses that have received the subsidy and the amount of the subsidy received by each business for each of the following years — (a) 2015–16; (b) 2016–17; and (c) 2017–18; and 2018–19 year to date? (3) Has the department undertaken any assessment of capacity constraints regarding container freight by rail to Fremantle port? (4) If yes to (3), what are the constraints? Hon STEPHEN DAWSON replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) A competitive market process is underway to determine the future operator of the North Quay Rail Terminal. When this process has concluded, the future funding need will be determined. (2) The number of customers receiving the subsidy — (a) in 2015–16, was 30; (b) in 2016–17, was 31; and (c) in 2017–18, was 34; and in the 2018–19 year to date, was 37. I note the member asked for a list of the businesses. It is not there; I will chase up with the minister to see whether that is available. (3)–(4) Supply chain—road and rail—capacity constraints for the Fremantle inner harbour are currently being assessed as part of the Westport project. CHILDREN IN THE CARE OF THE CEO — FOETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDER 526. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Child Protection: (1) Has any funding been allocated in the 2019–20 budget specifically to identify and support children in out-of-home care who may have FASD? (2) If yes to (1), how much funding has been allocated and what programs or services has this funding been allocated to? (3) If no to (1), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3511

(3) Funding to meet the needs of children in care with cognitive impairments and neurodevelopmental disorders, including foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, is provided for in the total cost of service for care arrangements and support services for children in the CEO’s care. This is reflected on page 452 of the 2019–20 budget. STATE MORTUARY — CT SCANNER 527. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Leader of the House representing the Attorney General: What is the status of the acquisition for the State Coroner of a computerised tomography scanner, first announced by the Attorney General in an article in The Sunday Times of 16 July 2017, under the headline “CT scanner to lift morgue work rate”, and then again on 18 December 2017 in an article in The West Australian, under the headline “Scanner cuts need for autopsies”, and which we were told on 10 October 2018 was due to be deployed and operational by February 2019? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I am delighted to provide the following information. The CT scanner was delivered to the State Mortuary in April 2019 and has been installed in the refurbished accommodation within the State Mortuary. A certificate of practical completion was signed on 30 April 2019 and the unit underwent the necessary acceptance testing on 29 April 2019. Staff training commenced on 29 April 2019 and the CT scanner is now in operation. COMMUNITY KINDERGARTENS — ENROLMENTS Question without Notice 487— Correction of Answer HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Minister for Education and Training) [5.04 pm]: I would like to provide a correction to Hon Donna Faragher’s question without notice 487 asked on 15 May 2019. As the question had been provided to my office in PDF format, an existing Word template was used when preparing the answer. That template was dated 12 February 2019. Unfortunately, in answering the question submitted on 7 May 2019, the date on the template was not updated. The information provided in the answer was correct at 7 May 2019, the date on which notice of the question was given. I apologise to the house for the error. FINI GROUP — MEDIHOTEL Question without Notice 484 — Answer Advice HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.04 pm]: As undertaken yesterday, on behalf of the Minister for Lands, I would like to table documents in relation to Hon Peter Collier’s question without notice 484. [See paper 2711.] NORTH WEST INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM Question without Notice 509 — Answer Advice HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral — Minister for Environment) [5.05 pm]: Madam President, I seek your guidance. In answer to an earlier question from Hon Peter Collier this afternoon, I asked that a document be incorporated into Hansard. I have now been given advice from Hansard that suggests that the document is a problem to incorporate and they have asked that I table it. It is a press release. The PRESIDENT: That is fine. Hon STEPHEN DAWSON: I now table that document. [See paper 2712.] QUESTION ON NOTICE 2006 Paper Tabled A paper relating to an answer to question on notice 2006 was tabled by Hon Alanna Clohesy (Parliamentary Secretary). SOUTHERN PORTS AUTHORITY — MINISTERIAL DIRECTION Question without Notice 418 — Answer Advice HON ALANNAH MacTIERNAN (North Metropolitan — Minister for Ports) [5.06 pm]: I refer to question without notice 418, asked by Hon Peter Collier on 8 May 2019, regarding the tabling of various agreements between Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore and the Southern Ports Authority. The Department of Transport has worked with the Southern Ports Authority and Cliffs to redact commercially sensitive material from each of these documents. In this case, Cliffs has agreed and consented to the release of the redacted documents and, on this basis, I seek leave to table the documents. [See paper 2714.]

3512 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

BILLS Assent Message from the Governor received and read notifying assent to the following bills — 1. Child Support (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2018. 2. Suitors’ Fund Amendment Bill 2017. 3. Suitors’ Fund Amendment (Levy) Bill 2017. PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2019 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [5.07 pm]: As I was saying before the debate was interrupted, as part of expanding the Jobs and Skills WA national partnership funding, we have agreed to create a new enterprise training program, which will focus particularly on workers in allied health and social assistance to support the rollout of the NDIS. That has been valued at $1.2 million. I am not entirely sure what that amount of money will do, given the size of need in this area, but I certainly look forward to finding out. The government has also agreed to a work placement program to provide employment-related training at certificate III and IV level, which is $8.6 million, and to an expanded pre-apprenticeship program, which is $21.7 million. For the 30 April 2019 milestone, WA should have provided the feds with a short report detailing the development of the design of a new incentive scheme and also an outline of information on the industry consultation, design and implementation for the enterprise training program and the expansion of the pre-apprenticeship program. I would very much like to see a copy of that report tabled. I note that this is listed as an element of project 1 of WA’s commitment to the national partnership. I look forward to seeing any additional projects under this partnership. As I stated in the past and I will undoubtedly state on many more occasions, I believe that training is one of the best avenues to assist people to access broader and brighter futures and, as such, I think we have an obligation to ensure that good and targeted training is available to the people who most need it. The employer incentive scheme should result, I hope, in a larger number of businesses taking advantage of the program to employ new trainees. I think that this is a very good thing. It should open up the benefits of this program to more industries and businesses than have been able to access the payroll tax exemption. I hope that the government not only tracks the number of new trainees and apprenticeships, as per the requirement of the feds, but also looks for growth in the uptake of the program across the estimated 5 900 businesses that will now be able to access this scheme. Of course, the Greens also believe that education and training should not cost the student. I understand that the commonwealth funding will cover the tuition costs of the trainees and apprentices enrolled through this program. The revenue regained through lifting the payroll tax exemptions will be used to fund the employer incentive scheme. This is something that we not only support, but also applaud. The loadings for the incentive scheme that assist priority groups to be employed and recognise the difficulty faced by employers and employees in the regions are also welcome. As earlier stated by my colleague, the Greens will support this Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill and look forward to further training initiatives that make more training available and affordable for more people. The PRESIDENT: The minister in reply. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.09 pm] — in reply: I thank everybody for their contribution to — The PRESIDENT: Halt for a second, if you would, minister. Hon Rick Mazza? Hon RICK MAZZA: I want to speak on the second reading. The PRESIDENT: You have come very close. I had given the call to the minister. I am not sure — Hon RICK MAZZA: I thought there was another speaker behind me—sorry, Madam President—and that is why I did not rise immediately, but there was not. Hon SUE ELLERY: I do not want to stop anyone from having a say but it would be helpful if it was a very quick say. The PRESIDENT: The minister is being very generous here. Hon Rick Mazza. HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [5.10 pm]: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the minister’s indulgence in allowing me to make a contribution to the second reading debate. As described by speakers before, this Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 is a relatively simple, small bill of five pages, which seeks to remove the payroll tax exemption for trainees from the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 2002. In December, there was the removal of the exemptions for existing staff who wanted to undertake training. Employers were therefore not able to put them into training and receive the exemption. This bill will remove the ability for new employees or trainees to receive that exemption. Fortunately, apprentices will still be exempt, so they will continue to receive the payroll tax exemption.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3513

As has been mentioned earlier, there is a sliding scale on payroll tax. The first $850 000 is payroll tax free. If a company employs a number of employees who do not exceed the $850 000 threshold, payroll tax is not payable. However, it is interesting to note that payroll tax is not assessed on just their direct salary. There are add-ons such as superannuation payments, fringe benefits or other payments or bonuses which may be paid to an employee and which make up the total amount. A business that has a number of employees may have exceeded that threshold and be paying a high rate of, say, 5.5 per cent—that is one of the scales. It must be remembered that when we remove the exemption, we are removing it from the amount on the top. When people are eligible to be exempted from payroll tax, the exemption is removed based on the top amount. If five employees are each paid $100 000 and they will no longer be exempt, they will no longer receive an exemption on 5.5 per cent of the $500 000. Many businesses will now have to pay a substantial amount of money, given that their employees will no longer be exempt from those amounts. The impetus behind it is that the money raised by the additional tax charged to businesses because they will not receive an exemption, which is estimated to be around $109 million, will be used for the employer incentive scheme. That is to be matched with up to $110 million by the federal government, giving a total of $218 million over the next few years. What is interesting about that is that the administration costs of running the employer incentive scheme will be around four per cent, so there will be an $8.75 million expense in the administration of this scheme. Moneys currently put into direct staff training through companies that were able to manage or direct their own training will now be administered by the government at a cost of four per cent. If someone wants to apply for a building licence for anything over $20 000, they have to pay a percentage of the building contract to the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund, and that money is reinvested into training. Those businesses that receive that amount of money for their trainees or apprentices will not be able to get the employee incentive scheme. The proposed scheme provides that for trainees on a 12-month traineeship, an employer can claim up to $1 063; on an 18-month traineeship, $1 559; and on a 24-month traineeship, $2 125. Incentives for employers will be paid on a 50–50 basis—50 per cent on commencement and another 50 per cent on completion. Employers can receive up to $2 550 for apprentices who have a three-year apprenticeship, and for a four-year apprenticeship, $3 400. Forty per cent of those moneys will be paid at commencement, 30 per cent at midterm, and 30 per cent on completion. Employers will be able to claim those incentives. There is a 10 per cent loading for a state priority occupation list, which Hon Diane Evers tabled; a 10 per cent loading for identified equity groups; a 20 per cent loading for north regional apprentices and trainees; and a 50 per cent commencement loading for apprentices aged between 21 and 30, which is all cumulative. Employers will be able to claim all of those added together, along with the incentive fund. I have always been a critic of payroll tax. It is a very obnoxious tax, but it is something that is with us. I am sure that many state governments around Australia would like to get rid of payroll tax. I would be very interested to see whether any research has been done in any state on the impact of payroll tax on enterprises and the economy and whether it is a barrier to people wanting to employ staff. I am unaware of any research ever being done. However, if the government wanted to undertake that, I am sure it would be interesting to see how many extra jobs would be produced by not having a payroll tax system within Western Australia. I will not oppose the bill. I will be interested to see how it rolls out over the next few months. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.17 pm] — in reply: I had hoped we would be able to progress the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2019 today but that will not happen. I will work my way through addressing each issue that has been raised by honourable members. I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. I wanted to debunk an issue raised in a couple of contributions around whether the decline in the number of apprenticeships and traineeships had been halted. Some reference was made to different sets of figures. The information provided to me indicates that there certainly was a significant dip—no question about it—between 2016 and 2017 in apprenticeship and traineeship commencements. The total number of apprenticeships and new-entrant traineeships in 2016 was 18 036. That dipped in 2017 to 16 177. However, it increased in 2018. This is measured on the 12 months to the end of February. In 2018, it went up to 16 915, and at the same point in February this year it has gone up again to 17 174. It is heading in the right direction. It constitutes a six per cent increase in the number of apprenticeships and new entrant traineeships that commenced over that period. One of the other issues that was raised was that the scheme effectively takes away a benefit by lifting the exemption. In fact, what we intend to do through the employer incentive scheme is to increase the number of employers that receive assistance from the government to take on new employees in the form of apprentices and trainees. The scheme will extend the reach of financial assistance to a greater number of employers. Currently, 2 600 employers benefit from payroll exemptions. This will go up to potentially 5 900 employers who will receive either the payroll tax exemption for apprentices or the new employer incentive scheme for apprentices and trainees. Hon Aaron Stonehouse put the proposition that the employer incentive scheme is not referred to in the legislation. That is quite deliberate; employers made it clear to the government that they want flexibility. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.

3514 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

FINANCIAL EDUCATION — FINANCIAL TOOLBOX Statement HON MICHAEL MISCHIN (North Metropolitan — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.20 pm]: On 5 April this year, I had the pleasure of attending the inauguration of Hon Kerry Sanderson, AC, as chancellor of Edith Cowan University. She takes over from Hon Hendy Cowan, who has been chancellor of that institution for so long that some think that the university is named after that particular Cowan rather than Edith Cowan. Nevertheless, the appointment of Hon Kerry Sanderson—the first female Governor of this state—as chancellor of that institution is an inspired and excellent choice. On that occasion—this is the purpose of my address—I had the opportunity to once again meet Professor Lyn Beazley, former Chief Scientist of Western Australia. She reminded me of an initiative that has been operating now for three years that provides assistance to some of the people in our community who need this particular type of assistance—namely, Financial Toolbox. According to the Toolbox team, it is a sad and little-known fact that this state has the biggest gap between men and women’s superannuation balances in the nation, with the average superannuation balance for a female being 39 per cent less than the average male superannuation balance. To put that in dollar terms, average superannuation balances for female Western Australians is around $84 000, which is $48 000 less than the average superannuation balance for a male. Too many have no savings at all. In fact, 60 per cent of Western Australian women retire with no superannuation, and most lack the financial confidence and skills to invest to protect their futures upon retirement age or when they are unable to seek gainful employment. This brings me to Financial Toolbox, which is a not-for-profit volunteer organisation that was established in 2016 with the specific aim of providing affordable financial education to women from different backgrounds, careers and industries. It also offers vital financial education advice to women and children facing domestic and family violence and financial abuse. It is this aspect of Toolbox’s work that I will highlight for members this evening. The University of New South Wales’ Social Policy Research Centre says that eight out of 10 women who seek support for family violence have been victims of financial or economic abuse, abuse that is particularly malicious because it deliberately sets out to strip a woman of her independence, confidence and ability to manage her personal financial affairs. It is reported that many women who find themselves in this situation are either not aware that they are experiencing abuse or do not have the financial knowledge or confidence to break out of that cycle. This lack of economic security and financial resources is the key reason given by women for returning to abusive relationships or staying within such a relationship. Education, accordingly, is vital if such vulnerable people are to lift themselves out of the cycle of abuse and the prison in which they find themselves through circumstance. As its name would suggest, Financial Toolbox aims to equip women with the tools they need to manage money and get off the treadmill of living from one pay packet to the next, take control of their financial lives by budgeting, make informed decisions and reach their financial goals. These tools are delivered through interactive workshops and online resources. A typical workshop starts with a presentation from a budgeting expert followed by a discussion with friendly specialists. All the workshops, events and resources used by the Financial Toolbox team are prepared through generous pro bono time provided by financially expert volunteers, including accountants, lawyers and financial advisers. Workshop topics include “Money Matters”, which deals with budgeting, financing and forecasting; “Future Fun”, which deals with superannuation and investment; “Taxing Times”, which deals with personal taxes and the like; and “Accidents, Illness and Other Tricky Life Events”. The Financial Toolbox team has so far delivered financial education workshops for over 700 women. Financial Toolbox also helps women online through the Your Toolkit website at yourtoolkit.com.au, which was developed in consultation with the Department of Communities and a wide range of specialists. Your Toolkit, which was launched two months ago, is a comprehensive web-based resource containing information to assist women and children who are the victims of financial abuse to become independent. It is specifically tailored to provide crucial information about personal finances as well as other relevant information that will assist women facing domestic and family violence cope with the challenging financial dimensions of their situations. Your Toolkit guides women through four steps to achieve financial freedom, from setting up a bank account in their name to accessing vital post-separation assistance. Even in its short operating period of about only two months, Your Toolkit has been accessed by some 2 000 women. Like most volunteer organisations, Financial Toolbox would not be able to carry out its work without the hard work of its committee and volunteers. I take this opportunity to place on the record my appreciation to committee members on behalf of my constituents, many of whom have had access to this resource. They are Trisha Lee, chair; Aymee Mastaglia, deputy chair; Vivian Wang, finance director; Professor Lyn Beazley, of course, who is the ambassador for Financial Toolbox; Caroline De Russo, from the marketing subcommittee; Glennda Scully, Penelope Williamson, and Mark Bush, who are directors; Elisa Fear, the risk subcommittee leader; Andrea Bok, the workshops subcommittee leader; and Katharine Honeybul, the secretary. It is also apposite to name and recognise the well-meaning and generous support of interested volunteer organisations that help make Financial

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3515

Toolbox viable and keep it operating. I thank and congratulate its partners—Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Western Australian Department of Communities, Demeter Legacy, Student Edge, AmCham and Curtin University. I mention Financial Toolbox on this occasion to urge members of this place to find out more about it and the services it provides and so promote that resource to constituents who, in their judgement, may benefit from it, and so indicate their support for this very worthy cause. AGRICULTURE — RAIN Statement HON DARREN WEST (Agricultural — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.28 pm]: I rise very briefly tonight to talk about the weather. Anyone who has been outside today will notice that there has been a change in the weather. Winter is here and that is particularly good news for those of us in the agricultural sector. This is the first cold front of the year and it is bringing some much-needed rains to the southern half of the Agricultural Region. I understand that about half an inch, in the old language, or 12 millimetres of rain has fallen around Narrogin and west Kulin. That is very good to hear because it has been a particularly dry 18 months in that part of the world after the floods of early 2017. As members would know, parts of the Shires of Ravensthorpe and Lake Grace have been declared water deficient. The Water Corporation is carting water into those areas so that affected farmers can water livestock. Hon Alannah MacTiernan: The rain arrives the day after! Hon DARREN WEST: Yes; good work, Water Corporation, if that is what it takes to bring half an inch of rain! We will still need more rain, but this is very good news for farmers in that part of the world. Agriculture is a very important industry. As the days go on, our yields are reduced. Our crops will need to be harvested by a certain time at the end of the year, and every day that we wait for rain is a loss of potential yield. It is very good news that the weather is turning around. While anyone who is volunteering on a polling booth on Saturday might be shivering, it is not all bad news. A lot of people in our agricultural sector certainly need the rain. We hope it keeps coming. EGGS — LABELLING Statement HON COLIN de GRUSSA (Agricultural) [5.30 pm]: I would like to make some remarks on a very serious matter, and one that I asked a question about not long ago, in relation to our egg industry. I will start by welcoming the decision by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Commerce to seek an investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into egg mislabelling in Western Australia. I obviously also welcome the recent confirmation from the ACCC that it is investigating this issue as well. I want to preface my remarks by stating my wholehearted support for Western Australia’s egg industry and the vast majority of egg producers who do a damn good job producing a top-quality product for our consumers and who work very hard to do that in a tough market. I have been meeting regularly with the egg industry for the past 12 months on a number of issues, not least of which are the issues of mislabelling and dodgy practices in the industry. Some of their great concerns are about the substitution of eggs. There is great concern that a rogue operator in the market is using dodgy practices to undercut the price of free-range eggs, which has potentially allowed this operator to secure contracts with Coles and Woolworths at prices that legitimate producers are not able to match in any way. They have also raised concerns with me about the importation of fertilised broiler eggs from the eastern states, which are being passed off as fresh eggs in Western Australia. I am told by these guys that it is pretty easy to tell. I have been looking for them for a number of months, every time I get a dozen eggs. If there are white-shelled eggs in the box, they are not laid by an egg bird but by a meat bird. There is a good chance they are fertilised, they are not fresh and they have come from the east. They could be up to 30 days old before they even get in the box and get a date stamped on them, which is completely unacceptable for the consumer and very damaging for the industry. Consumers need to be conscious of checking this when they buy eggs. I am sure the industry would welcome awareness on this issue. The fact remains that there is no identifiable way for a consumer to know whether the egg they are purchasing is free range. The minister talked about this in her answer today. Industry is certainly supportive of the idea that there needs to be some method to understand that the eggs being purchased are in fact what people are being told they are. The actions of dodgy operators are undermining the sustainability of our egg industry and certainly undermining consumer confidence in this industry. Further questions also need to be asked of our supermarkets, particularly Coles and Woolworths, around how they are able to verify that the eggs they are purchasing meet consumer standards, again following on from the answer by the minister today. I would hate to think that those big supermarkets are prepared to turn their heads the other way to make a dollar. I refer to an ABC online news article published on 13 May, which states — Coles and Woolworths said they audited suppliers of their ‘Own Brand Eggs’ to ensure strict traceability requirements were met. However, they did not comment on the traceability standards in place for independent egg brands sold on the major supermarkets’ shelves.

3516 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

That raises the question: if they are not verifying the egg brands they sell, who is? Hon Alannah MacTiernan: The member might be interested in one producer. They were doing the Woolworths budget eggs, and then they would switch on the production range to free range, and presumably sell them to the same company, so there may have been some awareness. Hon COLIN de GRUSSA: Very strict standards are needed. The industry actually wants to improve. It wants to do this better. They know that consumers are demanding top quality and traceability. Coles says that each year it undertakes audits of a minimum of 10 per cent of supplier sites. That is not just egg suppliers; that is all suppliers—10 per cent. Coles has a heck of a lot of suppliers, so I am not sure how it gets around to auditing all these supplier sites. Contract negotiations through the big supermarkets also need to be queried in light of increasing feed costs and grain prices. We all know about the drought in New South Wales last year and what that did for grain prices in Western Australia. It was great for our grain producers, but it was no good for our egg producers, whose feed costs went up drastically. The supermarkets are refusing to acknowledge that that is a problem and are refusing to do anything about it in their negotiations, making it harder and harder for industry to be competitive, especially when there is an operator in the market that is undercutting through dodgy practices. It is hard for farmers to then reinvest in the future of their industry—to expand their businesses, hire new workers or deliver research and development into biosecurity or improving the labelling or traceability of their product. An article published in The Canberra Times of 3 March on the cost of living found, through ABS data, that the price of free-range eggs has risen in every capital city in Australia since June 2011, except Perth. In fact, I have a chart from The Sydney Morning Herald that demonstrates this. I know it is a little difficult to read, but members need only see the spots at the top of the graph, which indicate that prices in those states have gone up, and the spot indicating Western Australia, which is way down the bottom. It is the only place in Australia where the price of free-range eggs has gone down. I would say that as the result is that far away from every other state, it must be an outlier. Why is that happening? Why is the price of a dozen free-range eggs rising by 9.7 per cent in Canberra but dropping by 10 per cent in Perth? How is a producer able to produce them for such a low price? The entity that I talked about in my question today was CF Farms, which formerly traded as Snowdale Holdings. The question referred to previous ACCC actions taken against Snowdale Holdings. CF Farms markets its eggs under several brands in WA, including The Good Farmer Eggs from Gingin, Beermullah Egg Co, Bloom, Mrs Fischer’s, and the pasture eggs brand Hens of the Earth. It also provides eggs for Coles-branded free-range eggs. I believe questions need to be asked about its operations. In 2017, CF Farms, formerly operating as Snowdale Holdings, was fined $750 000 by the ACCC and ordered to pay $300 000 in court costs. The Aus-Meat accreditation website lists CF Farms as having six operations in WA, including three barn and cage egg–production sites, a pullet-rearing operation, a single egg–grading and packing site, and a single free-range egg farm. An independent industry estimate, using best practice, is that its free-range facility could produce 98 000 dozen eggs per week, yet this entity is selling 150 000 dozen free-range eggs through Coles and Woolworths every week. That is 52 000 dozen— 600 000—unexplained eggs each week. Where are those 600 000 eggs coming from? That is over half a million eggs. The industry is rightfully concerned about where those eggs are coming from, as we all should be. I am deeply concerned. An investigation into this needs to happen quickly, because this matter is not going away. What are Coles and Woolies doing to verify the eggs they sell? Does the state government have powers to investigate these concerns itself, instead of waiting for the ACCC? Is that possible? All these questions need to be answered. Does the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development have the ability to gather evidence or investigate the matter itself—to visit the sites and check things out? Consumers deserve certainty about the eggs they are purchasing at Coles and Woolworths. I am sure members would agree with that. The industry deserves certainty about the eggs that are being bought by these supermarkets and sold in the market. Does CF Farms have the capacity to supply 150 000 dozen free-range eggs into the market? What is it doing with the 100 000 dozen cage or barn eggs that it is also producing? Where are they going? How is it that CF Farms is able to continue meeting these low costs when other egg producers state that it is not possible to deliver eggs at the prices that the supermarkets are demanding? This is a very serious issue. I want to see a resolution. I want to see investigations occur as quickly as possible so that the industry and consumers can have confidence that the egg industry in Western Australia is doing absolutely the best it can and that these rogue operators are weeded out of the industry before they further damage an industry that is struggling. INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA, BIPHOBIA, INTERSEXISM AND TRANSPHOBIA Statement HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [5.40 pm]: Members, tomorrow is IDAHOBIT. To refresh members’ memories, that stands for the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersexism and Transphobia. It is an opportunity to celebrate the LGBTIQ community, to acknowledge and honour the hard-fought advancements in the rights of LGBTIQ people and to also recognise that there is still much more work to be done.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3517

And there is of course still more work to be done. I would like to use the opportunity presented by IDAHOBIT to reflect on how trans and gender diverse people, in particular, are faring, which in turn is a reflection on us as a broader community. Nearly 12 000 Western Australians aged between 10 and 24 years are transgender or gender diverse. By that, I mean that their gender identity does not match the sex that was assigned to them at birth. Thanks to a fantastic piece of research undertaken by the Telethon Kids Institute in 2017, we have some excellent, but disturbing, data on a range of indicators. From this, we know that unfortunately trans people are really struggling. A total of 859 trans young people took part in this research. Some of the key findings were that four out of five trans young people have self-harmed compared with 11 per cent of young people of the general cohort; almost one in two have attempted suicide, which is 20 times higher than adolescents in the general population; three out of four trans young people have been diagnosed with depression—again, 10 times higher than their counterparts in the general population; 72 per cent of trans young people have been diagnosed with anxiety—again, a rate 10 times higher than the general population; 23 per cent of trans young people have been diagnosed with an eating disorder; 25 per cent of trans young people have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder; 74 per cent of trans young people have experienced bullying; 79 per cent have experienced issues with school, university or TAFE; 69 per cent have experienced discrimination; 66 per cent have experienced lack of family support; and 22 per cent have experienced accommodation issues or homelessness. This is an incredibly grim picture but it is worth making clear that being trans or gender diverse in itself is not a risk factor for poor mental health and other adverse outcomes; rather, the social exclusion and discrimination experienced by these young people has a negative impact. Given this data, there is no doubt that trans young people face many additional challenges and are in need of urgent targeted support. That is why LGBTIQ people have been identified as a priority population in the 10-year mental health plan and the Suicide Prevention 2020 strategy and by the Commissioner for Children and Young People. Knowing this, I was disappointed by the government’s answer to the question without notice that I asked today, which confirmed the decision not to increase funding to the Perth Inner City Youth Service to expand its specialist homelessness service for trans and gender diverse young people, despite the fact that PICYS presented a clear proposal for better meeting the demand in the community. PICYS has a longstanding service agreement to provide a household network specialist youth homelessness service, and for many years has had an intentional focus on LGBTIQ young people. The service that PICYS offers is further complemented by a Mental Health Commission agreement to provide individualised psychosocial support to 15 to 20-year-old young people experiencing extreme risk factors, including homelessness, risk of self-harm and suicidal ideation or attempts, amongst other serious issues. It is an important service. When putting together its proposal for additional funding, PICYS consulted with and received endorsement for its proposal from a wide range of stakeholders, including from research institutions, local governments, not-for-profit agencies and consumer representatives organisations. PICYS was able to secure this far-reaching support because of the wide acceptance of the vulnerability of trans and gender diverse young people, and because of its excellent track record of service delivery in this space. Really, what more could we ask for? There is a clearly defined need and a widely endorsed plan to address the need and the presence of a reputable, experienced provider to implement the plan. I can assure all members of the LGBTIQ community that the Greens will continue to call on the government to fund important services such as this one. We will also keep working at dismantling the remaining legislation that legally allows private schools to discriminate against pupils, parents and staff from the LGBTIQ community. With LGBTIQ people thought to make up 11 per cent of the population, we as a broader community have so much to gain by getting rid of discrimination and social exclusion and instead focusing on being an inclusive and cohesive community. SUICIDE — MATES IN CONSTRUCTION Statement HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [5.45 pm]: Recently, Mates in Construction, the charity that aims to reduce suicide amongst Australian construction workers, held its annual fundraising lunch. It was the first one in years that I have not been able to attend for personal reasons. I was upset about it, but I understand that Hon Bill Johnston, MLA, Minister for Industrial Relations, ably represented the government. He is a fine man, and follows a good football team. The lunch was attended by over 350 industry representatives. The proceeds raised will go towards suicide prevention in the construction industry. Services such as Mates in Construction and the money raised at this fundraising lunch are vital because we know that each year more than 190 construction workers in Australia die as a result of suicide. Approximately 40 of those people were based in Western Australia or were Western Australian. One of the features of this year’s lunch was the Mates Helping Mates industry awards for outstanding leadership in improving mental health outcomes for workers and their families in the Western Australian building and construction industry. I would like to congratulate Probuild Constructions’ Chris Muir and Dean Brooker, who

3518 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] were joint individual winners. Chris and Dean were recognised for their joint efforts to promote better worker mental health, including rolling out the Mates program to the accreditation standard for over 600 workers at Probuild’s Murray Street project in Perth. I would also like to congratulate PACT Construction for winning the organisation award. PACT was recognised for its ongoing commitment to see workers on all their projects having access to the Mates program and for its strong advocacy for improving mental health and reducing suicide in the construction industry. Congratulations to all involved in the Mates lunch and in the Mates service provision, to the Mates board and to CEO Brad Geatches. To all staff, thank you for the work that you are doing and for your commitment. HON BOB HAWKE — PASSING Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Kate Doust) [5.48 pm]: We have just received the news that a very great Prime Minister of our country, Bob Hawke, has just passed away. We offer condolences to all the Hawke family and his very lovely wife, Blanche d’Alpuget. House adjourned at 5.48 pm ______

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3519

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

WA COUNTRY HEALTH SERVICE — SPECIALIST SERVICES 2006. Hon Martin Aldridge to the parliamentary secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health: I refer to the seven sub-regions of the WA Country Health Service and with reference to public funded or supported services, and I ask: (a) what specialist medical services are available in each sub-region by location; (b) what surgery including elective surgery is available in each sub-region by location; (c) of those services identified in (a) and (b,) which services are procured and funded by the State Government; (d) of those services identified in (b), how many services are provided by specialists resident in the sub-region versus visiting specialists; (e) with respect to visiting specialists identified in (d), please advise the relevant specialty; (f) what are the related patient waiting times for: (i) an appointment with a specialist listed by specialty; and; and (ii) specialist services including surgery listed by specialty; (g) what are the targets for waiting times for (f)(i) and (f)(ii) listed above; and; and (h) where waiting times are outside of those targets, what are the main contributing factors to delays in accessing specialist services? Hon Alanna Clohesy replied: I am advised: (a)–(b) [See tabled paper no 2713.] (c) Specialist services as identified in (a) and (b) are funded predominantly by the State Government with Commonwealth Government contribution towards some specialist medical services, for example through the Rural Health Outreach Fund administered by Rural Health West. (d)–(e) [See tabled paper no 2713.] (f) (i) Detailed information on wait times for non-admitted services by specialty is not currently available. Extensive work is underway in the Outpatient Reform Project in relation to the collection and reporting of outpatient data. (ii) [See tabled paper no 2713.] (g) For (f)(i), patients seen by specialists in the hospital outpatient setting are triaged by medical staff in consultation with general practitioners into three referral priorities depending on clinical urgency: Referral priority 1: to be seen within 30 days Referral priority 2: to be seen within 90 days Referral priority 3: to be seen within 365 days For (f)(ii), patients requiring elective surgery are triaged by the specialist into three categories depending on clinical urgency: Category 1: within 30 days Category 2: within 90 days Category 3: within 365 days (h) All patients accessing specialist services are prioritised according to clinical need. The main contributing factors to delays in accessing specialist services include: Changes in patient circumstance meaning further investigations are required, other specialist services are required or patients are unable to attend their appointments. Service capacity to meet demand.

3520 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019]

FISHERIES — SAWFISH — LIVERINGA STATION 2042. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Environment: (1) Is the Minister aware of recent mass Sawfish deaths at Liveringa Pastoral Lease? (2) If yes to (1), when did the Minister become aware of this? (3) How many Sawfish died? (4) Were any Sawfish saved? (5) At which coordinates did the Sawfish die? (6) Will the Minister table a map of the location in which the Sawfish died? (7) Was the site downstream of any dams, weirs or any type of obstruction that impeded water flow? (8) If yes to (7), what was the obstruction? (9) Has any water been extracted from the same freshwater system as the one the Sawfish died in? (10) If yes to (9), how much water has been abstracted, why was it abstracted and by whom? (11) On what date were the Sawfish found? (12) When and by whom was the incident reported to the department and the Minister? (13) Will the Minister table any reports and/or other forms of written communication on the mass deaths of Sawfish? (14) If no to (13), why not? (15) Has the department and the Minister received photos of the mass Sawfish deaths? (16) If yes to (15), will the Minister table the photos? (17) If no to (16), why not? (18) Is the Minister aware that the Sawfish are critically endangered internationally? (19) Is the Minister aware that the Fitzroy River is one of the last major strongholds of the species? (20) Is the Minister aware that the Freshwater Sawfish is listed as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999? (21) Has the mass deaths of Sawfish been reported to the Commonwealth Government? (22) If no to (21), why not? (23) Has the Ministerial Council on the Fitzroy River been briefed on the mass Sawfish deaths? (24) If no to (23), why not? (25) If yes to (23), will the Minister table the briefing papers? (26) If no to (25), why not? Hon Stephen Dawson replied: Please refer to Legislative Council Question 2043. BUSHFIRE MITIGATION — SHIRE OF MANJIMUP 2069. Hon Diane Evers to the Minister for Environment: The Shire of Manjimup has stated in its annual firebreak and Fuel Hazard Reductions Notice 2018–2019, that subject to the required clearing permit being obtained, a property owner may extend the Building Protection Zone (BPZ) to a maximum of 40 metres, and I ask: (a) what criteria does the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) use to assess the amount of clearing allowable for fire mitigation in: (i) 2017–18; and (ii) 2018 to 30 March 2019; (b) how many applications for clearing for any purpose did DWER receive in the Shire area in: (i) 2014–15; (ii) 2015–16; and (iii) 2016–17; and (c) has DWER ever declined applications to clear within 40 metres and, if yes, for what reason?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 16 May 2019] 3521

Hon Stephen Dawson replied: (a) (i)–(ii) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (Department) assesses all clearing permit applications in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). In assessing an application for a clearing permit under Part V of the EP Act, the Department must have regard to the ten clearing principles listed in Schedule 5 of the EP Act. The Department must also have regard to any planning instrument, or other matter, that is considered relevant. Exemptions from requiring a clearing permit for clearing that is done as a requirement of a written law, or authorised under certain statutory processes, are contained in Schedule 6 of the EP Act. Clause 1 of Schedule 6 of the EP Act also provides an exemption from the requirement for a clearing permit for clearing that is done in order to give effect to a requirement to clear under a written law. A notice issued by a local government under section 33 of the Bush Fires Act 1954, such as the Shire of Manjimup Fuel Hazard Reductions Notice is an example of a notice fitting within the definition of Clause 1 of Schedule 6. (b) (i) 21 (ii) 26 (iii) 31 (c) Since the commencement in 2004 of the clearing provisions contained in Part V of the EP Act, eight clearing permit applications for clearing associated with the establishment of a Building Protection Zone have been refused in Western Australia, as shown in Table 1 below. The assessment of all eight clearing permit applications identified environmental values which would be impacted by the proposed clearing and took into account advice received from the relevant local government authority. Two further applications for clearing associated with the establishment of a Building Protection Zone were declined under Section 51E(3) of the EP Act due to inadequacies with the applications themselves. Table 1:

Clearing Permit System (CPS) Date Application Determined Determination number 168/1 27/07/2005 Refused 454/1 24/02/2006 Refused 1961/1 23/05/2008 Refused 2875/1 06/08/2009 Refused 2872/1 06/08/2009 Refused 3408/1 11/02/2010 Refused 4512/1 31/01/2013 Refused 7933/1 24/01/2019 Refused 7055/1 01/06/2016 Declined 7113/1 19/08/2016 Declined ______