Legislative Council

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 3.30 pm, and read prayers. ENERGY CONSUMPTION — ADVANCED METER TRIAL Statement by Minister for Energy HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Energy) [3.32 pm]: I am pleased to inform the house that on Sunday I launched a trial for advanced meters, which aims to highlight how householders can change their energy consumption behaviour and ultimately reduce the amount they spend on electricity. This is a 12-month trial conducted by Synergy and will involve approximately 500 households throughout a range of Perth suburbs that will be invited to take part. Customers will receive an in-home display device that provides detailed information about their electricity use and costs at any given moment well before the arrival of their next bill. Also, they will have access to a secure interactive website that is updated daily with actual consumption information, giving customers the opportunity to set and track consumption goals while also allowing them to understand consumption patterns of households of similar size and demographics. In addition, they will receive SMS and email notifications if they are heading off track with electricity consumption. The meters will provide peak and off-peak pricing to encourage customers to change their consumption habits and divert electricity use to cheaper, off-peak times, while also educating them about the costs of running appliances. This is an exciting initiative and is the first time such a comprehensive trial has been conducted in Australia by an energy retailer to encourage behavioural change. It provides householders with a visible signal of the electricity they are using, and often wasting, and how much it is costing at any point in time. Householders will have the ability to constantly monitor their energy consumption and thereby change their behaviour to more efficient electricity usage. This will be an opportunity to empower Western Australian householders to take control of their own energy use and to develop long-term positive behavioural changes in their electricity consumption habits. The trial will literally assist customers to reduce their energy use and shift consumption times, potentially saving the average household between 10 and 25 per cent off its electricity bill. To put this into perspective, an overall reduction of five per cent in electricity is equivalent to taking 33 000 cars off the road. Initial results are expected to be released after next summer’s peak, and future trials will be considered after customer behaviour and feedback are assessed. If the concept proves successful, it could be rolled out to more households and drive customer behaviour to substantially reduce electricity use and shift load. This will have a positive impact on the state’s investment requirements in generation and networks, reduce its carbon exposure and, importantly, inform and educate customers on their electricity use. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR TERTIARY EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT Statement by Minister for Training HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Training) [3.35 pm]: On Friday, 12 June 2009, I attended the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education meeting in Hobart. The meeting marked the closure of the council. Ministers committed to work together in the new Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment. This new ministerial council, MCTEE, will have responsibility for higher education; vocational education and training; non-school international education; adult and community education; the Australian qualifications framework, or AQF; employment; and youth policy relating to participation in tertiary education, work and workforce productivity. My cabinet colleague Minister Constable will join me on MCTEE. At this critical time for the vocational education and training system, I look forward to Western Australia’s continued influential and positive contribution to the decisions and direction of MCTEE. My recent launch of “Training WA: Planning for the future 2009-2018” places Western Australia in a prime position. Much of the planning, direction and strategy that is now required at this transitional point in the national vocational education and training system has been undertaken in Western Australia. My distribution at the meeting of the “Training WA” report to other state and territory ministers was well received, and the forward action plan for the work of MCTEE’s senior officials is closely aligned to the “Training WA” report. I am also pleased to report that following on from Western Australian representation, the ministerial council accepted that the various targets that have been and are being agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments are not mutually exclusive and that the changed economic conditions and state differences need to be taken into account; that is, the targets for productivity places, youth and retrenched workers all impact on each other. Recognition of these facts will now allow for all states and territories to negotiate greater flexibility

4970 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] in program delivery to meet the diverse needs of our specific economic situation, and industry and student needs. In addition, COAG recently endorsed in-principle support for a national regulatory body to oversee the registration of providers and accreditation of VET qualifications and courses. There has been much debate about the model that should be adopted; in fact, there was a recommendation for MCVTE to endorse a preferred model that absorbed the functions of the state and territory regulatory authorities. Again, Western Australia successfully gained the support of other state colleagues who accepted our reasoning that the model being presented was just one model and that it was critical that a number of models, including those suggested by state and territory governments, be considered. This motion was formally accepted and a COAG working group will now report back to MCTEE following its consideration of a range of models. Consideration of the statement made an order of the day for the next sitting, on motion by Hon Ed Dermer. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. CITY OF JOONDALUP CATS LOCAL LAW 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Notice of Motion Hon Robin Chapple gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — That the City of Joondalup Cats Local Law 2008, published in the Government Gazette on 2 April 2009 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 8 April 2009 under the Local Government Act 1995, be and is hereby disallowed. BARNETT GOVERNMENT — APPOINTMENTS Urgency Motion THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I have received the following letter — Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 72, I hereby give notice that at today’s sitting I intend to move; That the Council consider as a matter of urgency, its grave concern at the pattern of appointments made by the Barnett government which demonstrate a disregard for proper process and transparency. Yours sincerely Hon Sue Ellery MLC The member will require the support of four members in order to move the motion. [At least four members rose in their places.] HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 pm]: I move the motion standing in my name, and I do so because a very unfortunate pattern is emerging in the actions of the Barnett government. When this government took office, the Premier made, I think, very positive statements about his intention to lead a government of integrity, and his intention that this government would hold in high regard the need for transparency and the application of due process. I have moved this urgency motion because I am concerned that what we are seeing, through a series of appointments—the details of one of which emerged as recently as this morning—is a scant regard to due process and transparency. A couple of issues need to be looked into, the first being the appointments of people who have clear political links to the government of the day. By itself, that is not problematic, because governments are elected with policy mandates and with policy agendas, and they are entitled to employ expertise for special projects from time to time, and to employ people who they know will execute the policy mandate and the policy agenda they were elected to deliver. Indeed, in their ministerial offices, when it comes to the appointment of policy advisers and people who liaise between the executive—that is, the ministers—and the public sector in carrying out the functions and the policies that the government was elected to do, it is reasonable that ministers should be confident that those policy agendas will be pursued according to the mandate they put at the time of the election. By itself, that is not a problem, and it is reasonable that governments should do that to assist them to deliver whatever their policy agendas might be. But I think there are two factors that need to be clearly demonstrated have taken place when it comes to some of those appointments. Appointments that are outside the minister’s office that go to delivery of the policy, I think, need to be done in a way that demonstrate, firstly, that the process was transparent; and, secondly, that any potential perceived or real conflict of interest is declared and eliminated. If those two processes cannot be demonstrated to have taken place in the appointing of people to deliver a policy agenda, then the risk of public

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4971 suspicion will be raised, and I think that the pattern that has emerged over the past eight months or nine months has raised that suspicion. The pattern started at the formation of the government and has continued until as recently as this morning, with revelations about a new appointment. It started with what I might describe as the breaking of the land speed record in the appointment of Mr Peter Conran to the position of Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. A report was tabled in the other place last week that detailed the process of that appointment, and I urge members who have not already done so, to read it. It examined the process of appointment, the appointment of the selection panel, and the circumstances that led to the appointment. The committee that tabled the report investigated the average time taken to appoint a director general. To ascertain the average time, they used 15 appointments—do not quote me on that number—and the average appointment time was about 117 days; it took 36 days to appoint Mr Conran. That followed on from the Liberal Party flying Mr Conran over, before the new government was sworn in, and the Premier-elect inviting Mr Conran to apply for the position specifically and directly. I cannot deny that Mr Conran is a man with skill and expertise. I do not know the man, but on the basis of the information that has been made public about his professional background, he is certainly a man of skill and expertise. He held the position of secretary to the cabinet of former Prime Minister Howard, and to hold a position as senior as that he must be a man of expertise. However, it is worth noting that the position he held was actually not a public service position; it was a political appointment. Therefore, any decision to appoint him to a public service position, attainable through merit only and not on a person’s personal commitment to a particular policy agenda, should have been handled with perhaps greater care than any other appointment to a public sector position, to avoid any public perception that his appointment was conducted without transparency. Once it became clear that the Premier had flown him over to Western Australia and asked him to apply, extra steps should have been taken to ensure that there could be no perception that that appointment was a fait accompli. The selection panel that handled the appointment of Mr Peter Conran comprised three people, two of whom have clear public records of membership of the Liberal Party. They are Mr Barry MacKinnon, former leader of the state parliamentary Liberal Party, and Mr Peter Moore, a former Liberal candidate. I have worked with and know Barry MacKinnon, and I have found him to be a man of personal integrity, about which I make no issue. I do not know Mr Moore. Hon Norman Moore: Which Peter Moore are you talking about? Hon SUE ELLERY: The Peter Moore who was appointed to the selection panel to appointment Mr Conran. Hon Norman Moore: I don’t know who gave you that advice. Hon SUE ELLERY: It is in the report that was tabled in the other house. Hon Norman Moore: I think you might have made a mistake. Hon SUE ELLERY: I will stand corrected if I have. Hon Norman Moore: Do you mean Peter Browne, a former chief executive officer of the Department of Education and Training? Hon SUE ELLERY: The member might be right, and it might be a typographical error, and I apologise if it is. Maybe something else made me think of his connection with Hon Norman Moore—I do not know! Hon Norman Moore: I’m just trying to help you out. Hon SUE ELLERY: I thank Hon Norman Moore. As I said, I know and have worked with Barry MacKinnon, but when dealing with an appointment of that kind it does not look good if the panel appoints people who have got clear political links with the government of the day. It does not look good because it suggests that they were put there for the purpose of ensuring that the outcome is one the Premier spoke to Mr Conran about before the government was even formed. More recently, the appointment of former Senator Chris Ellison to oversee the consultation process to deliver part of the government’s agenda for a science and conservation strategy for the Kimberley and to provide to the government a report of the outcome of that consultation process, I think also raises the same question. It was most unfortunate that when questions were put publicly to the minister about whether any other applicants were considered, the minister took three goes to answer the question. She did not answer. At the end of the third attempt to answer the question, she said that she would refer it to Mr Ellison. That did not give the public confidence that she was able to say categorically that no other people were considered because the government knew that Senator Ellison has X, Y and Z qualifications. The fact that she was not able to answer the question directly raised in people’s minds the idea that something was not right.

4972 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

The issue for Mr Ellison is that he had a perceived conflict of interest. That was dealt with by him removing himself, only temporarily, from the register of lobbyists when the company of which he is an associate director, the Enhance Group, represents a resource sector in the Kimberley. The problem with that is that he has made it perfectly clear that for the period of his engagement he will remove himself but that his connections to that group remain and indeed will be reinstated as soon as he has finished the period of his appointment as a consultant. It could be argued that it still serves the interests of the people he was representing as a lobbyist to have a particular outcome arise from that consultation. If he has not severed his links completely, the question remains about whether he is able to distance himself from the loyalties that apply to his position as an associate director of that group. I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government was very badly advised, which would be surprising, given he is the former mayor of a major regional centre. One would think that he would have some familiarity with his own act. I am referring to the Local Government Grants Commission appointment. The process is set out in the act. It requires that the minister pick appointments to the grants commission on the basis of a list provided by the Western Australian Local Government Association. WALGA provided a list to the minister. The minister apparently was not satisfied with all the names on the list. He wanted to appoint two others who were not on the list. Indeed, he advised WALGA that he had appointed two others who were not on the list. It would be interesting to know—I suspect we never will—whether that appointment went to cabinet for consideration. I would love to have read the cabinet submission on the advice for how the appointment was made and what the compliance with the act was. Even when he was asked during question time in the other place about the interpretation of the act precluding him from appointing his own handpicked Liberal-friendly appointees, he said he did not accept the advice but instructed the department to get a legal opinion. We had revelations today in respect of Minister Hames in his capacity as Minister for Indigenous Affairs and an appointment to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. Again, the act is quite specific about how a minister is to make appointments to that committee. It appears that the minister appointed Mr Haydn Lowe—a former chief of staff to Paul Omodei and a former campaigner, I understand, on Minister Hames’ election campaign committee—as chairperson, in breach of the provisions of the act about how those appointments are to be conducted. I think a pattern appears here. Unfortunately, it is one that is starting to reek of arrogance. Arrogance in government is a slippery path to go down. We have heard from the Premier that Perth is a small town. He is right; it is a small town. Lots of people in Perth know lots of other people in Perth. If people are engaged in the corporate sector, they know lots of other people in the corporate sector and lots of people in government. If people are in government or in politics, they know lots of people in Perth and indeed across Western Australia. I say that is even more reason that the process must be seen to be extra transparent and above board. It seems to me that the pattern that is appearing is one of the acts being breached. If people are told they have breached the act, they do not accept the advice of the people charged with the responsibility for implementing the act and ask them to get a legal opinion. Decisions and advice from departments, acting in accordance with their acts, have been overridden and appointments fast-tracked. I think several ministers have run fast and loose with the process. Conflicts of interest claims have been dismissed on the grounds that Perth is a small town and that everybody knows everybody else and that it cannot be helped; that people will have to be appointed who will not meet the two other criteria, which I say are the reasonable criteria that need to be applied when appointing people to facilitate a policy agenda. It is arrogant. I think that Western Australia deserves more from a Premier who promised accountable government. For those reasons, I think this house needs to express its grave concerns about the lack of transparency and the lack of regard for due process. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [3.57 pm]: I want to read out a list of names and ask members if they can let me know what these people have in common: Jim McKiernan, Ron Edwards, Ian Taylor, Joe Berinson, Tony Cooke, Ben Wyatt, Kay Hallahan, Cheryl Davenport, Mark Cuomo, Sharryn Jackson, Lois Anderson, Ian Taylor—I have mentioned him once already—Kevin Leahy, Clive Brown, John Cowdell, Diana Warnock, Megan Anwyl, Jeff Carr, Michael Barnett, David Smith, Bob Pearce, Dr Judyth Watson, Nick Catania, Malcolm Bryce, Yvonne Henderson, Ron Davies, Jackie McKiernan, Kevin Reynolds, Joe Bullock, Martin Pritchard, Helen Creed, Tony Cooke, Toni Walkington, Mike Kelly and Les McLaughlan. I could find another half-dozen at least. What do they have in common? They clearly have in common the fact that they are all people who got government jobs during the past government’s term. They are all Labor Party people—former ministers, former members, Labor Party apparatchiks or trade union officials. Hon Sue Ellery: You have missed the point. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have not missed the point at all. Hon Sue Ellery began her speech by covering herself, hopefully, on the basis that not all political appointments are a bad thing. I agree with her; not all political appointments are a bad thing at all. Many people of a political persuasion who are appointed to jobs by

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4973 governments do a very good job, and it is a good idea to appoint them. However, the member has come into this chamber and picked out three examples or thereabouts of so-called political appointees, when I have just read out a list of people who were given jobs under the last government, which is probably about a quarter of what I could have read out had I been given an hour and a half to speak on this. Let me pick out a couple of those to emphasise the hypocrisy of the member’s argument today. The member has talked about Peter Conran. This government appointed Peter Conran—properly in my view and in the view of Ruth Shean—to be the head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The member talked about a Legislative Assembly report, but she did not tell us that it was a Legislative Assembly report from a committee with a majority of Labor members on it. There is also a minority report, which disagrees violently with the findings of the majority. What would we expect a Labor Party majority committee in the Legislative Assembly — Hon Sue Ellery: They did not disagree with the evidence. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I did not interject on the member. I have only 10 minutes today. Hon Sue Ellery: You did actually. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Okay; the once. It was to help the member out. The member talks about putting people whom she claims have political affiliations into the public service. What about Sharryn Jackson? What about Helen Creed? Sharryn Jackson was made a level 9 in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Was she not a political appointment and is that not a public service position? Helen Creed was appointed as director of women’s policy in the former Department for Community Development, which is a public servant’s job. Hon Sue Ellery: They were appointed on merit. Hon NORMAN MOORE: There we go. The Labor Party is now arguing that somehow Peter Conran’s appointment was improper. I argue it was proper. He was good enough to get the job in the Premier’s department in the same way that the member would argue, and did, that Helen Creed and Sharryn Jackson were entitled to the jobs that they got. I will now talk about another couple of issues. The member talked about Chris Ellison. Somehow or other a lobbyist cannot be given a job working for government. I have just had a little look through my list. What was Megan Anwyl? She was the former member for Kalgoorlie and is now a lobbyist working for Hawker Britton— she still does. What job does she get? She gets an appointment to the Esperance Port Authority board. Did anybody ask whether there was a conflict of interest when the member’s party was in government? Did anybody ask whether Megan Anwyl had a conflict of interest between her lobbying functions and her role on the Esperance Port Authority? Some people would say that there probably was a conflict of interest, if the truth be known. I am not saying that there was, but people have suggested that to me. Interestingly, Ron Edwards, former ALP federal member of Parliament, is one of those I inherited in my fisheries portfolio. It seems that, to get a job in the fisheries portfolio under Labor, a person must be a former member of Parliament for the Labor Party. About a month after I got the job as Minister for Fisheries, Ron Edwards was accused of having a conflict of interest, because he had an interest in some fishing companies. Who stood up for him and said he did not have a conflict of interest? I did, because I checked it out, and found that his involvement in the fishing industry was sufficiently distant, in my view, from the issues surrounding the Rock Lobster Industry Advisory Committee that as far as I was concerned there was no conflict of interest. The same issue applies with Chris Ellison, but he stood down from his job. Ron Edwards did not, and neither did Megan Anwyl. Chris Ellison has all the attributes required to do the job for which he has been appointed; that is, to give the government an understanding of the views of the people of the Kimberley on this matter. Hon Sue Ellery: You have not been able to prosecute this argument successfully in the mind of the people. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I have not finished yet. I have talked about Sharryn Jackson and Helen Creed being public servants. Hon Sue Ellery: I know the detail of Helen Creed’s appointment, because I was minister during some of that process. Are you suggesting that that was not a process of merit? Hon NORMAN MOORE: Did I say that? Hon Sue Ellery: I am asking whether you are suggesting it. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I did not say that. What I said was that, in my view, Peter Conran was appointed properly. The previous government appointed Helen Creed and Sharryn Jackson to the public service, and now the Leader of the Opposition is telling me that it was done properly. I am not arguing with her. However, she is arguing with me about Peter Conran. She cannot have it both ways. She must accept the fact that these things happen, and that governments appoint people to jobs. Hon Sue Ellery: It was thirty-six days after the Premier asked him to apply.

4974 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon NORMAN MOORE: Peter Conran is an outstanding public servant. He will do a magnificent job for this state and the opposition will be very pleased in due course that he got the job. Some of the other people that are on this list are still around. They have not all been put off yet. Mark Cuomo has more government jobs than anybody on earth. What is his job in the Labor Party? A whole stack of former Labor Party members of Parliament have government jobs—Kay Hallahan, Cheryl Davenport, Bob Pearce, and Ian Taylor. Ian Taylor is another one I inherited in the fisheries portfolio, just to give an example of how the fisheries portfolio works. Jim McKiernan, former Labor senator, is chairman of the Integrated Fisheries Allocation Advisories Committee. Hon Jon Ford probably knows about that, because I am sure he was the one who appointed him. He must have been the only person around who could do the job. Ron Edwards, former ALP member for Stirling, is the Rock Lobster Advisory Committee chairman. Ian Taylor, former minister and Deputy Premier, is chairman of the Abalone Advisory Committee. I understand Joe Berinson also had a job involving some inquiry organised by the Department of Fisheries. When I walked in the door of that portfolio, I asked what a person had to do to get a job there. What was the first requirement to get a job—to be a member of the ALP, and preferably former member of Parliament? That is what was required to get a job under the Labor Party. Those people are all still there, because they were appointed for a fixed period. I have not kicked them off, and at the moment they are doing a good job, and I am pleased about that. As I said, I even stood up for Ron Edwards in respect of a question of conflict of interest. The Leader of the Opposition raised the question about the Minister for Local Government. The minister acknowledged that a mistake was made in the case of two appointments. What did he do? He cancelled those appointments. He was given a list of names by the Western Australian Local Government Association, together with another list of names. He chose the people whom he thought would be best for the job, as ministers do. He was then advised that he could not do that, and so he cancelled the appointments. That is perfectly proper and appropriate. Hon Sue Ellery: But he did not accept the advice. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not think that it is fair to say that everybody should always get everything right on every occasion. People make mistakes. On this occasion, the minister made a mistake and it has been fixed up. Labor Party members are the ultimate hypocrites in all this. The Labor Party has a history of appointing people of its own persuasion, those involved in the party, to government positions, and it started back in the good old days of Brian Burke. Before Brian Burke, there were no such things as government advisers or advisers in ministerial offices. People were appointed to the public service on the basis of their merit, and that merit tended to carry through from one government to another, because they were not political appointments. Brian Burke made an art form of political appointments, and he is still involved in that art form. Up until the last election, he was still involved in making sure that people got jobs in government. Looking at this list of names, as well as those that I have not read out, we see the hand of Brian Burke all over it, because he was deciding who was going to get jobs in government. We have also seen the Corruption and Crime Commission investigations and all the issues surrounding them, and the comments it made about ministerial advisers and certain individuals during the time of the previous government, which demonstrate quite clearly that this motion is the most hypocritical that I have seen in years. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.06 pm]: I will continue the debate on the same tack. On 20 May 2009, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Hon Dr Kim Hames, advised of the appointment of Mr Haydn Lowe to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. I would like to avail the house of the process that led to the appointment. We must first recall the principles contained in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Section 28(4) of that act states — Subject to subsection (3), the appointed members shall be selected from amongst persons, whether or not of Aboriginal descent, having special knowledge, experience or responsibility which in the opinion of the Minister will assist the Committee in relation to the recognition and evaluation of the cultural significance of matters coming before the Committee, and shall be appointed by the Minister from a panel of names submitted for the purposes of this Act by the Registrar. The registrar submitted a list of names to Dr Hames, and Dr Hames sent the list back to the registrar, advising that he would not accept the list of nominees, and wanted a further name put on it. The registrar, who has since resigned, indicated that the list was sent back to the minister with legal advice that the registrar did not have to add any names to the list. The minister then returned the list once more, seeking that Mr Haydn Lowe’s name be included on it. Haydn Lowe, as I have already indicated, was appointed on 20 May 2009 at around 12.30 pm. At the same time, we were advised that the existing chairman, Mr Kenneth Ninyette, would no longer be chairperson and had resigned. There seems to be a quandary here, because Mr Ninyette was not advised until a telephone call at 1.30 pm on 20 May 2009 that he was no longer the chair of the committee. That was the very day that the committee was to meet. Mr Ninyette went to the meeting only to find that the chair had been filled. He was then advised that he could sit on the committee, but could no longer chair it. He subsequently resigned

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4975 from the committee. By implication, the act states that the minister should appoint the chairman of the committee from amongst the committee’s members, and shall do so through ministerial discretion. One would assume, therefore, that if the chairman of the committee is being dismissed, that that dismissal would be by some form of communication from the minister; one hopes it would be by letter! The advice Mr Ninyette got—other than to arrive at the meeting to find that his position had been filled—was by a phone message from a member of the staff of the Department of Indigenous Affairs. Mr Ninyette still has not received advice from the minister that he is no longer the chair. My reading of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 would seem to imply that such a letter should be forthcoming. I want to move on a little further because the Minister for Indigenous Affairs himself has previously provided advice to DIA as a consultant—on 22 occasions—on behalf of various mining companies, exploration companies, Dampier Bunbury Pipeline, and a number of other developments. I will in the time left to me seek some sort of commitment from the Minister for Energy that the minister in the other place will no longer be in a position, as minister, to deal with those corporations that he has worked for as a consultant in providing advice to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee and to DIA, and would stand aside as a decision maker when dealing with those matters. When we go back to what other members of the ACMC have said about the appointment of Mr Lowe and, to a degree, about the operations of ACMC, there seems to be a lack of confidence in the whole process as it stands. That is because not only has the current registrar indicated that she has resigned, but also the former adviser Mike Robertson, who had served on that committee as a heritage adviser for a lengthy period of time, has resigned. When one finds long-serving members of an astute body taking the action of resignation because they feel they can no longer work in those circumstances, the rot has truly set in. A further comment—before anybody on the other side of the house jumps up—is that members of the Greens (WA) have never been appointed to any advisory committee when we have resigned; nobody will have us! HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Energy) [4.14 pm]: Thank you, Mr President. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: I hope you’re not going to talk about integrity! Hon PETER COLLIER: Is Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich going to carry on with her nonsense, or is she going to contribute to the debate? The member will have her time in a minute! Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! I only called the Minister for Energy. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will not be supporting this motion, and it is an unnecessary motion. It is an own goal on the opposition’s behalf. The opposite is asking in tit-for-tat terms — Hon Sally Talbot: Are you going to address the issue? Hon PETER COLLIER: I am going to address the issue in a moment, if Hon Sally Talbot does not mind! If the opposition wants to bring forward an urgency motion, it needs something that is urgent and that has some foundation or substance. This issue has no substance whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition said that it is okay to have like-minded individuals, in a political sense, in ministerial offices or policy offices. She says that that is fine, but it is not okay outside ministerial offices that go to policy development, or if there is a conflict of interest. The problem with that, of course, is that — Hon Sue Ellery: I also said it is all right for specific consulting jobs that require specific expertise for specific projects and stuff like that that are outside ministerial offices. Hon PETER COLLIER: Okay, that is fine. I was about to say that that in itself creates a problem. To a degree, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. In terms of the ministerial office, yes, it is essential because the government sets the agenda. Obviously a government must have people of the same political persuasion because it is setting the policy agenda. I want to pick up on what Hon Norman Moore said on this issue and also what the Leader of the Opposition said about consultants outside the ministerial office. The track record of the previous government is appalling in this regard. That is why this urgency motion goes nowhere! I am not surprised that the media have gone. They probably started yawning five minutes after the Leader of the Opposition started speaking. Quite frankly, all we are doing is hearing the Leader of the Opposition say, “You did this and you did that”, which achieves absolutely nothing. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER: I stayed silent when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, and I would appreciate the same respect. Hon Sue Ellery: I am not going to be silent when you are being pious.

4976 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon PETER COLLIER: I beg your pardon? Hon Sue Ellery: You heard! Hon PETER COLLIER: No, I did not. The PRESIDENT: Order! Stop the interjections—and, minister, do not respond to them. Hon PETER COLLIER: I do not mind an interjection. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon PETER COLLIER: Let us look at appointments made by the former Labor government and whether those appointments are in ministerial offices or there is a conflict of interest. If the Leader of the Opposition had stood up and cited specific conflicts of interest that had not been addressed, there would have been some foundation in her argument, but she did not. There was no foundation in her argument. Let us look at whether these appointments were in ministerial offices or, in fact, they were policy advisers: Barbara Wiese, deputy chair of LandCorp, a former South Australian Labor minister; Dr. Rick Charlesworth, WA Institute of Sport Board, a former federal Labor member; Mal Bryce, Information and Communications Technology Industry Development Forum, a former Labor Deputy Premier; Kay Hallahan, Child Death Review Committee and Armadale Redevelopment Authority Board State Advisory Committee, a former Western Australian Labor minister; Yvonne Henderson, Commissioner for Equal Opportunity — Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER: I do not want to take the high moral ground on this, and I am not in any way questioning what is going on here. What I am saying is that when a political party is in government, when the government wants some advice, it is absolutely inevitable that it will make appointments of the same political persuasion. I am saying that it has been going on ad infinitum throughout political history. That is the way it goes! If there is any evidence of a conflict of interest and anyone appointed by this government abusing their position, the Leader of the Opposition should have identified it today. As I said, I have pages of this stuff and I will read it into Hansard because it is valid. I am not passing judgement on any of these Labor government appointments; what I am saying is that it is a part of the political process. Hon Sue Ellery interjected Hon PETER COLLIER: This urgency motion is an absolute nonsense! Why are we wasting an hour of our time on this stuff when there are other issues that could have been dealt with? The list of appointees continues: Ian Taylor, Landstart Board, State Housing Commission board, Country Housing Authority, regional housing standing committee of the Housing Advisory Committee, Keystart Housing Scheme Trust, a former Western Australian Labor Deputy Premier; Ben Wyatt, deputy chair, Consumer Advisory Council—he is obviously a current Labor member; David Smith, Bunbury Port Authority, a former Western Australia Labor minister; Megan Anwyl, the only Labor member who lost a seat in 2001 was given a reward for her efforts and was appointed to the Esperance Port Authority; Ron Edwards, Gold Corporation board, a former federal Labor member; Judyth Watson, Council of Official Visitors, a former Western Australian Labor minister; Kevin Leahy, Gascoyne Development Commission, Racecourse Development Trust, a former Western Australian Labor member; and Diana Warnock, Constitutional Centre of Western Australia advisory board. I am not going to use up the 10 minutes allocated to me, and quite frankly I could just by reading these pages of Labor appointees. I will emphasise yet again that I am not casting aspersions on any of these appointees. I am saying that if the Leader of the Opposition had stood up and provided some credible information of a conflict of interest with any of the appointments made by the current government, or if perhaps any decisions had been made that were inappropriate as a result of those appointments, I could understand this motion. However, the Leader of the Opposition has not done that. All I am saying is that political appointees for boards, commissions and advisory bodies are as common as is history is long. As long as we have had a democratic system of government whereby we have parties of different political persuasion, inevitably in the decision-making process they will rely for advice and for support on people of a like-minded political bent. That is the simple fact of the matter. What we have at this stage is a smoking gun. This urgency motion says, “What on earth have we got here”? We have nothing! If the opposition had stood up and fired a shot that hit us, so be it! But there has been nothing in this argument; it is a waste of this Parliament’s time, quite frankly. I will say once again: if there is anything that the Leader of the Opposition can identify as being an inappropriate decision made as a result of a conflict of interest, she should make that accusation now. HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [4.20 pm]: I am very pleased to speak in support of the urgency motion. I thought for one glorious moment that Hon Peter Collier was actually going to engage with the substance of the motion. I thought that he was going to take on board some of the points about what a conflict of interest is and

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4977 what proper process means. Sadly, government members are behaving like a tired mob. Anyone would think that they had been in government for 10 years. We have given the government a chance to defend what it has done. Has it done that even once? Has one government member defended what the government has done? All government members have done is kick a bit of sand around to see whether they can muddy the waters. Did government members read any of the newspapers last week or listen to any talkback radio? I have all the newspaper cuttings and I am happy to table them. In particular, I am happy to table the cartoon from last Thursday — Hon Peter Collier: It must be the truth! The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SALLY TALBOT: It was Hon Norman Moore who raised the name of Brian Burke in the chamber in this debate. The Leader of the House talked about appointments that were not subject to due process. We spent seven and a half years purging ourselves of Brian Burke’s influence and Hon Norman Moore walks in and says that Hon Brian Burke made an art form of this. There is no question about what Hon Norman Moore meant when he said that. I am happy to table the cartoon. It is right. It is the mob opposite that has brought the ghost of Brian Burke back into this debate. I would like to table this cartoon because clearly government members did not have time to read the newspapers last week. The PRESIDENT: Hon Sally Talbot might like to table it, but she must seek leave to table it. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I seek leave to table the document. Leave not granted. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I will keep the document in the chamber for members opposite who would like to look at it. Let us be absolutely clear about what we are talking about. The one thing that is clear to me is that government members just do not get it. They do not understand what the problem is. Let me tell them what one of the problems is. One of the newspapers pointed out that last week we had a feast of little scandals popping up all over the place. The government was exposed on some very basic conflict of interest matters and we saw belated resignations from appointments. Clearly, members opposite have not had a chance to look at the newspaper. The West Australian reported — The bottom line is that there’s a clear perception that the former senator — Chris Ellison — is conflicted both through his lobbying role and through his former close relationship to Environment Minister Donna Faragher, who he once employed. Was that me saying that? Was it the Leader of the Opposition in this place saying that? No, it was the newspaper in this town. The government has a problem and must address it. It does not even understand what the problem is yet. I will tell the government what the problem with the appointment of former Senator Chris Ellison is. The government is about to embark on a process costing it $9 million to put together a strategy for the protection of the Kimberley. At least two-thirds of the stakeholders have no confidence in that process. The government is spending $9 million on a process that is flawed before day one. Who are the stakeholders? According to the Minister for Environment, when she announced that the Kimberley conservation strategy was underway back on 18 March 2009 — … the strategy would protect the region’s natural and cultural values as its economic potential was realised. The three key stakeholders have been identified in that one sentence. The first is the proponents who are advocating for the natural values. We will assume that is the conservation and environmental values. The second stakeholder is those who are interested in the cultural values. Let us say loosely that that is the Indigenous interests in the region. The third stakeholder is the economic potential of the region. The three key stakeholders are those advocating for the environment, those advocating for the cultural values of the region and those advocating for the economic potential of the region. I ask members to play a mind game, although I cannot imagine this mob opposite doing that because they cannot even spell the names of some of the stakeholders. What would have happened if we were in government and set up a similar process? What would have happened if we had put Environs Kimberley in charge of this process? What would members opposite have said? They would have said, with some justification, “How can you do this? You are putting in charge of this process someone with a vested interest in the outcome.” That person would be someone for whom whatever they said — Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SALLY TALBOT: Members opposite would say, “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” That is the point.

4978 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon Norman Moore interjected. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I am not taking Hon Norman Moore’s interjections. I want him to listen. I will send him a copy of Hansard afterwards. What would have happened if a representative of the Kimberley Land Council had been appointed to lead this process? Again, quite rightly, there would have been an outcry because whenever that person advocated for the cultural values of the area, those opposite would say, “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you.” What has happened? This government has appointed to lead this process a person who is a paid lobbyist for the mining — Hon Norman Moore: He is no longer a lobbyist. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I will take that interjection. Hon Norman Moore just said that Chris Ellison is no longer a paid lobbyist. He has taken leave of absence for three months. Do members know what Chris Ellison said when he announced that? He said that he would resign from the company for as long as the process took. He will be back there in two months, three weeks and about six days. How on earth can that alleviate some of these concerns? The government just does not get it. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will stop making interjections across the chamber. Hon SALLY TALBOT: I have absolutely no criticism of former Senator Chris Ellison. I have no doubt that he is a capable person and that he went into this process with every intention of doing the best job he could. However, as of Sunday afternoon, a piece of information was still on the Enhance Group’s website, although it was removed by Monday morning. I would like to know what happened between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning and whether it involved a call from a journalist. The website states — As one of Western Australia’s most senior parliamentary representatives, he — Chris Ellison — was a constant champion for the business interests of a variety of Western Australian companies and industry associations, including those involved with mining and resources. That is what it said on the website. My point is that there are three key groups of stakeholders and the government has appointed a representative of one of those groups to run the process. I was somewhat interested that, according to the newspapers—we do not know whether this is true, but I have not seen any correction of it—the minister herself, who has had some experience with conflict of interest matters, went to the Premier and said, “Hang on, I’ve got some reservations about this, Mr Premier. I think that maybe this isn’t going to work.” It appears that the Premier said, “No, no, no, no.” Certainly last week it appeared that the one person who did not understand this was the Premier. The Premier said, “No, no, no. Go right ahead.” The problem is that we now know that at that stage the Premier thought that Mr Ellison was just a facilitator. There was the glorious sight of the Minister for Environment contradicting the Premier outside in the fern garden or somewhere. When the Premier said that Mr Ellison was just facilitating, she said, “No, no, no. He’s going to write the report.” HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan — Minister for Transport) [4.29pm]: In considering the wording of this motion, is it the pot calling the kettle black or what? What a bunch of phoneys and frauds we have on the other side. If they want to come in here and accuse decent people such as Hon Donna Faragher of being indulgent and pre-eminent in terms of conflict of interest, they will find that it is a gratuitous and stupid allegation that is not borne out by the facts. What I want to know—Hon Sally Talbot might be able to assist me—is whether Hon Sally Talbot is still the state president of the Australian Labor Party. She does not want to interject about that, does she? I have some questions that I would like to ask her just to clarify things. Point of Order Hon SALLY TALBOT: Is Hon Simon O’Brien inviting an interjection, or is he going to sit down and let me respond to the question that he has just asked me? The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Debate Resumed Hon Sally Talbot: Yes, I am still the president. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Okay; good. Hon Ken Travers: It’s on the public record. Hon Sally Talbot: Check the website. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: No, there is nothing wrong with it. I do not spend my time checking websites and googling names of people who work in people’s offices in pursuit of some grubby little agenda. The reason I

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4979 would like to address a couple of questions to Hon Sally Talbot, or madam president, as I may call her, is that I am trying to work out which comes first on her side of the house. Is it the cart or the horse? Which way are they placed? Today we have seen the Leader of the House place some evidence on the record—it is only the tip of quite a large iceberg—of Labor putting many ALP identities into many different taxpayer-funded jobs, without any sort of process, apparently — Hon Sue Ellery interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: — before they come into this house. It is obvious that I am ignoring that interjection, Mr President. Hon Sue Ellery interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: They then come into this house with this sort of pot-calling-the-kettle-black urgency motion. The question that needs to be resolved is: in which order does it happen? Does a person have to be in the ALP to get a job at taxpayers’ expense? Is that how it works? Is that the order of the cart and the horse, or does Labor give a person a nice taxpayer-funded job so that that person can then go and do the ALP’s business? It is a question that needs to be resolved if we are to examine the integrity of this motion, because, given the evidence that we are all aware of, some of which the Leader of the House has reminded us of, it is fair enough to ask that question. We see so many ALP figures being parachuted into jobs as some sort of reward, perhaps for being a factional heavy, or, dare I even say, for being a state president—one who has taken them from glittering success to glittering success, whether it be the 2008 general election or the 2009 Fremantle by-election, which went really well—or whatever a person’s claim to fame might be or whatever sort of hack that person might be that those people must ingratiate themselves with that person by giving him or her a job. Alternatively, is it the case that Labor says, “No, you’re a good person and we want to see you moved into higher things”, and, therefore, that is why Sharryn Jackson, who happened to be the ALP state president at the material time, was given a level 9 government position? Hon Norman Moore: A level 9 position in Premier and Cabinet. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: A level 9 position, right at the very top. The Leader of the Opposition should not give me any of her due process nonsense. These people parachute a ride in as a gift. What is that worth—a couple of hundred grand a year? What a terrific basis upon which to go out and be a candidate. What a brilliant position to be located in so that people can have access to all the resources of the office of the Premier to run their campaigns and, dare I say it, some other campaigns as well. Hon Sue Ellery: Don’t give me any of your due process nonsense. I hope Hansard got that. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The Leader of the Opposition comes in here asking for some due process. I will give her some due process argument. Several members interjected. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: They do not have a lot now, do they? When we turn the — Hon Ken Travers: The cliché kid rides again! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: When we turn the spotlight back on those opposite, they are seen in all their glory. Hon Ken Travers: Hon Simon O’Brien has about 57 clichés, which is almost his record — Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is nowhere near my record! I could do better than that, and these constant interjections from my friend Hon Ken Travers are preventing me from getting to that record, but I will persevere. It just shows what a joke it is when the Leader of the Opposition comes into the house to put this sort of debate on the books and those opposite have such feet of clay themselves. We have seen the ALP state presidents and others. Do members know what? They have the gall to try to attack anyone who is not of their party. No-one who is not inside their tent gets any form of job that they would like to have an eye on themselves, such is their small-mindedness in these matters. Before I sit down—because I would love to hear from other members of the opposition about this very worthy matter—we must look at what happened most recently under the shining knight in white armour’s leadership, under the premiership of Alan Carpenter most recently, when they tried — Hon Robyn McSweeney: The dream team. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, the dream team—when they tried to play footloose and fancy free with ordinary and what would for the ALP pass as respectable and established selection procedures to parachute in a dream team. Can a Labor Premier do that in the ALP? Apparently, Labor Premiers have that power. Do they have to act in concert with the state president, I wonder, to make sure that they are parachuting the right people into the right

4980 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] jobs? Have they been given the right taxpayer-funded level 9 positions to enable them to campaign? Are they going to be rewarded in the right way? Where are the positions for the Reece Whitbys and the Rita Saffiotis— hang on, no, she had her position; she was all right, and still is. Hon Norman Moore: Is she the one who worked for the Premier? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Apparently so. Maybe that is a subject for another day. There was all the glitterati. However, in conclusion, let us not forget—I will sit down—the foot soldiers. Mr President, cast your eye down the list of ALP candidates at the last state election. People must have some prerequisite qualifications to stand for election in this Parliament. They have to be qualified to be electors themselves. A number of other qualifications relate to their status regarding bankruptcy, criminal record, mental competence and so on. However, if a person is going to be a candidate for the ALP, I think there might be another one: he or she must be a paid officer in somebody’s ministerial office. The list of ALP candidates at the last state election shows that that is what a heck of a lot of them were. But it does not resolve that question — Hon Sally Talbot: What a load of nonsense. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: It is a lot of nonsense. It does not resolve, though, that initial question which I posed and which I hope will now be answered: is it cart before horse or horse before cart? Does a person have to be in a taxpayer-funded position to get ALP endorsement, or is it the other way around? Either way, those people certainly get endorsement when that lot on the other side have their trotters in the trough. Therefore, they should not come into this place with this sort of allegation, because, frankly, they do not have anything to back it up with. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [4.40 pm]: I want to get back to the topic, but I first want to talk about the final words said by the Minister for Transport. The Minister for Transport said that every Labor candidate needs to be a staffer in a ministerial office. Hon Simon O’Brien: No. Some of them were electorate officers. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Okay—electorate officers and ministerial officers. I ask those members on the other side who have worked for Senator Chris Ellison to put up their hands. Hon Donna Faragher: You are so funny! Hon KEN TRAVERS: It was a minister on the member’s side who brought that up! Go on! If members opposite want to go down that path — Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Now they say, “So what!” It is now suddenly an issue for the Labor Party, but when we ask how many members on the other side have worked for ministers in the federal government, or for federal members of Parliament, we get silence. That is very relevant to this issue. I have worked for Chris Evans, but I have never appointed him to anything as a minister. That is where this debate needs to get back to. Hon Simon O’Brien was trying to take us away from a debate about the process that members opposite have followed with key appointments. Members opposite made allegations about Sharryn Jackson both now and when she was appointed. There was no evidence of improper behaviour with respect to that appointment. However, there are serious questions about the appointment of Mr Peter Conran. I think the Leader of the Opposition referred to that appointment as a land speed record. In fact, that appointment was almost as fast as the speed of light! Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Absolutely. I can match the clichés any time. We need to focus on the defence from the government today. The defence from government members today is, “Well, you did it as well.” That is their defence. Several members interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: We do not accept that defence. At the very least, members opposite leave themselves open to the allegation that they are nothing but hypocrites, because they tried to attack us for that when we were in government. There are numerous questions that need to be asked. I hope that the “Inside Cover” story this morning that says that a staffer from the office of the Minister for Transport is now a member of the public service is incorrect. I hope that is the case. I hope the Minister for Transport has not allowed one of his term-of- government employees to be transferred to the public sector. I do not know whether the minister wants to tell us whether that is true or not. Is “Inside Cover” incorrect? Hon Simon O’Brien: I think it was the Corruption and Crime Commission bloke who once said of your government that you wouldn’t know a conflict of interest if it came up and bit you on the backside! Hon Helen Morton: And you still don’t! You did it more than once!

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4981

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon KEN TRAVERS: A conflict of interest is not when we absent ourselves for three months from the conflict of interest. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.45 pm]: The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has looked at this issue and has received information that has resolved our concerns. I therefore move without notice — That order of the day 1, “Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Regulations 2008 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. Question put and passed. PSYCHOLOGISTS AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2009 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.46 pm]: The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has looked at this issue and has received information that has resolved our concerns. I therefore move without notice — That order of the day 5, “Psychologists Amendment Regulations 2009 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. Question put and passed. SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2008 — DISALLOWANCE Discharge of Order HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [4.47 pm]: The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has looked at this issue and has received information that has resolved our concerns. I therefore move without notice — That order of the day 7, “Southern Metropolitan Regional Council Standing Orders Local Law 2008 — Disallowance”, be discharged from the notice paper. Question put and passed. ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from 4 June on the following motion moved by Hon Barry House (Parliamentary Secretary) — That pursuant to standing order 49(1)(c), the Legislative Council take note of tabled papers 773A-H (budget papers 2009-10) laid upon the table of the house on 14 May 2009. Debate adjourned until a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House). [Continued on page 4995.] PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER AMENDMENT BILL 2009 Report Report of committee adopted. NATIONAL GAS ACCESS (WA) BILL 2008 Committee Resumed from 4 June. The Chairman of Committees (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) in the chair; Hon Peter Collier (Minister for Energy) in charge of the bill. Schedule 1: Some modifications to National Gas Law as in Schedule to South Australian Act — Progress was reported after Hon Giz Watson had moved the following amendment — Page 33, after line 22 — To insert —

4982 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

5A. Section 23 modified In section 23 after “with respect to” insert: ecologically sustainable development, Hon GIZ WATSON: I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman, on whether I have spoken in favour of this amendment. I believe I have made those comments, but if I have not, I can certainly ensure that the committee is informed of the importance of ecological sustainability. The CHAIRMAN: Hon Giz Watson will be pleased to know that she was the last person to speak on the schedule, so she has spoken to her amendment. Hon Peter Collier: The member has spoken on it. The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the member has concluded her comments. Hon GIZ WATSON: To refresh members’ memories, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that one of the outcomes of regulating access to the gas pipeline is to ensure that there is capacity in the legislation to assess the various tenders and to determine in that assessment whether one tender favours another in delivering environmentally sustainable outcomes. Unless we amend the bill to specifically embed that objective in the legislation, that criterion will not be able to be considered. As members will be aware, the Greens (WA) have a firm commitment to ensure that the triple bottom line is more than just rhetoric and is a functional operation within legislation in Western Australia. I know that the argument is that we need stand-alone laws that deal with ecological sustainability. The Greens have a contrary view that whenever it is appropriate to embed those principles in legal framework, we should take that opportunity. Most members understand the importance of being able to achieve a triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental sustainability. If we are to seriously do that, we should look at amending the laws that we pass through Parliament to reflect that. For those reasons, the Greens seek the support of the committee for this amendment. Hon PETER COLLIER: As I stated earlier, the government will not support this amendment. We feel that the National Gas Access (WA) Bill is not the appropriate legislation in which to include such an amendment. It is an economic bill. I understand the consistency of the argument from Hon Giz Watson and the Greens, but in this instance it would change the intent of the bill. Hon Adele Farina: How? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is an economically generated bill. It all about gas access; it is not about ecological sustainability. Similar suggestions have been made to the Ministerial Council on Energy about the national access bill and they have been rebuffed. The government will not support the amendment. Hon GIZ WATSON: I take this opportunity to ask the minister whether he can indicate which other legislation might deal with a matter such as this. Obviously, if the use and distribution of and access to the means of constructing the economics of one of the primary energy sources of the state are not about ecological sustainability, I am not quite sure what is. Perhaps the minister can indicate whether there is another piece of legislation in the pipeline-excuse the pun-that might provide a similar outcome. It does not seem to me that something that addresses this issue is forthcoming. Perhaps an amendment to an existing act would be useful. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is difficult to put one’s finger on a particular act in which ecological sustainability may be appropriate. I am saying in this instance that there might be something that is not specific to access. This legislation is specific to access. Perhaps there might be something in relation to conservation or retail or something along those lines. This legislation is specifically an economic bill that deals with economic access. Hon GIZ WATSON: This is an interesting discussion to have, because as long as we keep economic matters totally separate from the ecological outcomes that we are seeking to achieve, we will continue to have legislation that does not reflect the triple bottom line. That is the point that I am making. Either we admit that, and admit that economic legislation is paramount and stands alone from any other principle, such as social or environmental outcomes, or we try to shape legislation to achieve all those outcomes. I argue again that if we are not just talking rhetoric about the triple bottom line and we want it to work, it must be meshed in with the economic objectives as well. Hon PETER COLLIER: We are signatories to and enthusiastic supporters of the renewable energy target, and that is a perfect example of ecological sustainability. The Western Australian component of the 20 per cent target is about 15 or 16 per cent. Hon Kate Doust: We won’t reach that without the 330k, will we? Sorry; I couldn’t help myself. Hon PETER COLLIER: No; fair cop. When the Ministerial Council on Energy had a link-up a week or two ago, this is one area that was addressed yet again. It is on the agenda. It is very much a part of the national

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4983 agenda that we are supportive of. However, in that instance, it specifically looked at the ecologically sustainable component of the legislation, whereas this bill is much more an economic component of gas access. Amendment put and negatived. Schedule 1 put and passed. Postponed clause 6B: Interpretation Act 1984 does not apply — The clause was postponed on 4 June after Hon Giz Watson had moved the following motion — Page 4, after line 20 — To insert — (3) Despite subsection (1), section 42 of the Interpretation Act 1984 applies to an order made under section 7A(2) as if the order were a regulation. (4) Despite subsection (1), section 42 of the Interpretation Act 1984 applies to the making of regulations under section 10(1). Hon PETER COLLIER: I will go through the issues with clause 6B raised by Hon Adele Farina. I am not sure whether she has had the opportunity to look at the issue, but it is not actually an issue. The member asked why there is such a concern about allowing Parliament to have an opportunity to scrutinise new orders under clause 6B(1), while at the same time the bill allows, under clause 6B(2), the making of regulations under part 3. In fact, the bill does not, and I will go through why. I will go through the points that I have written down and then I will explain if there are any problems. It does not allow for disallowance provisions to apply to regulations under part 3 as a result of clause 6B(2). Clause 6B(2) provides that section 25 of the Interpretation Act applies only to regulations made under part 3 of the bill. The general rule in clause 6B(1) that the Interpretation Act does not apply to national provisions of the bill is unaffected by clause 6B(2). Section 25 of the Interpretation Act simply allows for regulations to be drafted under the provisions of an act, even if those provisions have not yet commenced. I will go through that in a moment. The exception in clause 6B(2) is provided for expediency purposes only. There are no disallowance provisions in section 25; therefore, regulations drafted as a result of clause 6B(2) will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or disallowance. As a result, there is no conflict between the government supporting clauses 6B(1) and 6B(2). Perhaps after the break, I will give the member an example. However, that is why it is not a contradiction in terms of what the government is arguing for. Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 4991.] QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE TERM-OF-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES — CONFLICT OF INTEREST 615. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: Will the Premier confirm — (1) That all section 68 term-of-government employees employed since 23 September have declared all conflicts of interest they may have because of prior employment or self-employment? (2) If no to (1), what steps will the Premier take to ensure this occurs? (3) Have those staff removed themselves from positions that might produce a conflict of interest with their current role? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) The Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Public Sector Commission have delivered a briefing and information session to all ministerial officers about ethics and accountability obligations in the public sector. These sessions included a detailed discussion and case study work on identifying and responding to conflicts of interest. All ministerial staff were reminded of their obligation under section 102 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 to seek permission from the director general to engage in activities outside their employment with the department. When raised, these matters are assessed by the department, and, when necessary, the director general will require the officers to remove themselves from positions that will divest themselves of an interest. The nature of conflict of interest is such that they may not arise at the time of commencing employment with the department, and consequently the department encourages all staff to constantly monitor and review their private interests and any intersection with their public duties. A number of staff have declared such matters to the director general.

4984 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

VOLUNTEER RESOURCE CENTRES — STATE BUDGET 616. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Seniors and Volunteering: (1) Was any additional money allocated to volunteer resource centres in the 2009-10 budget? (2) If yes to (1), how much? (3) Can the minister guarantee that the reductions in non-government sector payments of $1.296 million over four years referred to in the budget will not result in cuts to the existing volunteer resource centres? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) As I have previously advised, the member is assuming that the reduction of $1.296 million over four years will result in a reduction in non-government funding. The Department for Communities will undertake a review of all funded services, in accordance with State Supply Commission requirements. However, I can assure the member that the review is focusing on current and future community needs, and may identify efficiencies that could be secured in relation to non-government funding. Contractual service agreements are in place for all state-funded volunteer resource centres, with all expiring at the end of June 2010. All of these contractual arrangements will be honoured. There are 22 resource centres in Western Australia, and the state funds 16 of them. The state would not run as well as it does without volunteers; they are the backbone of our community. Western Australia has the highest volunteer participation rate of volunteers of all the states and territories. SQUARE KILOMETRE ARRAY PROJECT 617. Hon KATE DOUST to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Science and Innovation: I refer to Western Australia’s Square Kilometre Array bid. (1) Has any new funding been provided in the 2009-10 state budget to support the bid; and, if yes, what is the amount? (2) Will the minister commit to ensuring that an adequate slice of funding earmarked for high-performance computing infrastructure will flow to Geraldton and the mid-west? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) An existing allocation from the 2008-09 provision of $3.6 million will see $2.758 million in the 2009- 10 financial year, and an additional expenditure of $0.721 million in the out years; $0.121 million has been expended in 2008-09. Additionally, in the 2008-09 financial year, a special allocation of $20 million was provided over a five-year term to establish the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research. ICRAR is an international research facility, with one of its roles being the analysis of data from the Australian SKA Pathfinder project. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation finalised the purchase of the Boolardy pastoral lease on 3 June 2009. The Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory is located within the Boolardy pastoral lease. The Murchison region has been short-listed as one of two sites in the world to house the SKA; the other is in Southern Africa. CSIRO purchased the Boolardy lease to enable it to manage radio quiet on the MRO. The purchase price was $5.42 million, with the state providing $4.2 million to fund the purchase in 2008-09. The state and CSIRO have entered into a collaboration agreement to outline the mutual benefits that will come from the funding of the station purchase. An Indigenous land use agreement has been negotiated with the Wadjarri Yamatji native title claimants for granting the MRO lease to CSIRO for radioastronomy purposes. Execution of the ILUA will be finalised by late June 2009, and then submitted to the National Native Title Tribunal for registration. Registration will take approximately four months, and, once registered, CSIRO will be able to commence ground-disturbing activities on the MRO. In the 2009-10 budget, the commonwealth government announced a provision of $80 million for an Australian national centre of SKA science. The centre will effectively be a high-performance computer to access SKA data, but will also be used by researchers in a range of disciplines such as mining,

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4985

minerals and chemistry research. The centre will complement existing initiatives such as ASKAP and ICRAR. The interaction of the centre with the ICRAR is still being addressed at officer level. Funding is for infrastructure only—that is, no funding is available for staff, operations or ongoing maintenance costs. Further discussions between the state, commonwealth and industry are needed. (2) Funding has been allocated from the 2009-10 commonwealth budget, and it will be the commonwealth government’s decision on how funding will be expended. However, the state government intends to work with the commonwealth to determine how the infrastructure funding will be expended across the state to gain the best outcomes for the state. WASTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY LEVY ACT 2007 — AMENDMENTS 618. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the Minister for Environment: (1) When will the minister be introducing amendments to the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act 2007? (2) Will the minister confirm the advice provided by the Western Australian Local Government Association that the proposed 300 per cent increase to the landfill levy is in fact an illegal move because the income is being directed to consolidated revenue rather than recycling initiatives? (3) If this levy is illegal, will the minister confirm that the budget for the Department of Environment and Conservation will experience a $39 million black hole this year? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for her question. (1)-(3) With respect to the legislation that will be introduced shortly, and with respect to the advice provided by WALGA, the advice that we have is that it is valid. CHESTER FOREST RESCUE CAMP — REPARATION ORDERS 619. Hon GIZ WATSON to the minister representing the Minister for Police: I refer to the process currently being conducted at the Chester forest rescue camp. (1) In what circumstances do the police seek reparation orders? (2) What guidance is available to police to assist them in deciding whether to seek a reparation order? (3) How are actual potential conflicts of interest addressed in the police decision-making process regarding whether or not to seek a reparation order? (4) Is it current police policy to use or threaten to use reparation orders as a tool to deter peaceful public protest? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police has provided the following response — (1) Generally when a concise quote for costs incurred is available, or when those costs are linked directly to the actions of the accused person or persons. (2) Statute law, WA Police management directions, requests from the complainant and in the circumstances described in the response to question (1). (3) Time, place and circumstances and reference to common law principles. (4) No. PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — ADVERTISING REVENUE 620. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Transport: I refer to the Public Transport Authority’s annual report for 2007-08. (1) Does the revenue listed as advertising in note 18 on page 115 include all the revenue received from billboard advertising on PTA land and advertising on buses? (2) What other forms of advertising are included in this amount? (3) Does the PTA know how many billboards it has on its land; and, if yes, can the minister advise how many? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question.

4986 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

(1) Yes. (2) None. (3) Yes, there are 190 active billboard sites on the Public Transport Authority’s land. DAMIAN CALLACHOR — FREMANTLE PORTS OPTIMUM PLANNING GROUP 621. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Transport: I refer to the appointment of Mr Damian Callachor to the Fremantle Ports Optimum Planning Group, which was set up to help guide the critical future expansion of the Fremantle port. I understand that the group will make recommendations on port and associated planning matters to meet the state’s needs over the next 50 years. (1) What is Mr Callachor’s current position in government and for how long has he held that position? (2) What technical expertise does Mr Damian Callachor bring to the Fremantle Ports Optimum Planning Group? (3) Does Mr Damian Callachor have any formal qualifications in transport or planning; and, if yes, what are those qualifications? (4) What was the selection process used to appoint Mr Callachor to the Fremantle Ports Optimum Planning Group? (5) Why was Mr Callachor chosen to be on such an important group? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(5) I was a little disturbed to receive some notice of this question. I do not know why we have some on the other side of the house who want to play the man and not the ball, but if they do want to do that, let them come and have a go at me. Rather than come up with some, quite frankly, puerile little question that was sourced from no better source than “Inside Cover” in The West Australian of this morning, which I understand is where the question came from — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Anyway, just give me an answer. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: There is no denial of that. That apparently shows the level of research that we are receiving about serious issues of the day. Now that Mr Damian Callachor has been questioned in those two august forums—namely, “Inside Cover”, which I am glad to say I have appeared in five or six times, though never too grievously, and from the mouth of Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, who needs to reassess what is important in the way she spends house time—let me tell members this about Mr Damian Callachor. His current position is as a principal policy adviser in my ministerial office. He was appointed to that position in December 2008. The reason he was appointed to the position is that he brings the skills that I need to help me discharge my ministerial role. He came directly from a position as a senior policy officer with the National Transport Commission. Immediately prior to that, he was a senior policy adviser with Hon Warren Truss, the former federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Other ministers he served immediately prior to that include, I believe, Minister Vaile, Minister Tanner and one or two others — Hon Max Trenorden: Minister Anderson. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Yes, Minister Anderson was another one. I thank Hon Max Trenorden. Mr Callachor is well thought of in transport circles. That is why he was appointed as my policy adviser, not because he is a hack of some party or other—not the Liberal Party, I might add—but because he is a damned good officer and the sort of person I need to do my job. He stays in that job because he is bloody good at it. That is the reason he is in there. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no need for a point of order. That language is unnecessary and unparliamentary. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: Regrets and apologies, Mr President. My staff will know that I stand up for them when they are attacked publicly from a position to which they have no way of responding. The technical expertise that Mr Callachor brings to the Fremantle Ports Optimum Planning Group is forged from that past experience. I cannot tell members exactly what qualifications he has got. I know that he is currently working towards a Bachelor of Commerce degree. I do not know if he has other formal qualifications. He has years of practical expertise. He has been appointed to that position as my liaison officer; that is what he is there for. The question of whether he has planning qualifications does not matter. He is doing the job in that and a number of other areas because he enjoys my complete confidence, and ultimately the people of Western Australia and the clients of the Department of Transport will be the beneficiaries.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4987

RAIL FREIGHT NETWORK — POTENTIAL CLOSURE 622. Hon ALISON XAMON to the Minister for Transport: I refer to the proposed closure by WestNet Rail of several of its freight lines. (1) In the event of the potential closure of sections of the rail freight network currently used for grain haulage, are there any safety implications for all road users of more grain being carried by road; and, if so, what are they? (2) How many major crashes involving heavy goods vehicles have occurred on Western Australian roads in each of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? (3) How many of the crashes resulted in fatalities, serious injury and/or hospitalisation? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) I would like to advise the member that this government has no plans to close sections of the rail freight network. However, a potential closure of sections of the rail freight network currently used for grain haulage would have some road maintenance and upgrading implications for both state and local governments. The exact nature of these road implications will be assessed by Main Roads, in conjunction with local government, in the event of any specific closure of the rail network. (2)-(3) I would direct the member’s attention to the information in a tabular form, which I now table and seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 874.] The following material was incorporated —

Crashes involving Heavy Vehicles, 2001-2008

Year Fatal Hospital Medical Total

2001 13 36 90 563

2002 12 49 56 512 2003 15 41 63 519

2004 18 54 62 613

2005 12 61 60 656

2006 13 51 74 656

2007 17 61 66 720

2008 10 52 91 706

Heavy Vehicles include Truck & 1 Trailer, Prime Mover & 1 Trailer and Road Train.

IAN LONGSON — RETIREMENT FROM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD 623. Hon MATT BENSON-LIDHOLM to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: I refer to the recent departure of Mr Ian Longson as the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food and a media report on the ABC website dated 29 May 2009, which stated that the minister thought it would be time to get a good fresh team in place. (1) Did the minister ask Mr Longson to resign as the director general of the department? (2) Was Mr Longson offered a management-initiated redundancy? (3) Was this option of moving Mr Longson from the position of director general being canvassed by the minister prior to the September 2008 state election? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: The minister has responded —

4988 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

(1) No. Mr Longson and I discussed and agreed that having regard for the proposed future direction of the Department of Agriculture and Food and to facilitate the appointment of a new director general, it would be an appropriate time for him to retire from the department. (2) No. However, Mr Longson was provided with a compensation payment under section 59 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, in recognition of his contract being brought to an end prior to the normal expiry of his contract. The payment made was for three months’ compensation, and was less than that which Mr Longson would have received had he remained until the expiry of his contract. (3) No. GRAIN RAIL NETWORK — LINE CLOSURES 624. Hon ADELE FARINA to the Minister for Transport: Four lines on the state-owned grain rail network have been closed today, putting 300 000 tonnes of grain onto roads. (1) What steps has the minister taken to determine what these rail closures will mean to the affected communities? (2) What steps has the minister taken to ensure that the impact on these communities can be properly managed? (3) What is the minister doing to stop the proposed closure of a further 1 000 kilometres of line by the end of the year? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1)-(3) The member asks an interesting question, but the way in which she asks it is also quite interesting. I do not know where the figure of 1 000 kilometres comes from. Has that figure been plucked out of the air? A lot of figures have been plucked out of the air over the past — Hon Ken Travers: You tell us the right answer then. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: The member should go back to Google and try to find gossip on people. This is a serious issue. Since about 2004, various propositions have been put about the future of the narrow-gauge grain rail network, which is about 2 300 kilometres long in its entirety. The propositions have included claims that perhaps 1 000 kilometres should be closed under some proposal or other to concentrate various routes. I have heard all sorts of other proposals, some under the banner of the Grain Infrastructure Group study, and varying lengths of rail line have been mentioned as possible candidates for closure. I am familiar with the four lines that the member is talking about today. The decision on the closure of a rail line actually rests with me, but technically an operator can choose not to operate on a particular piece of line, so that becomes a little semantic. I want to keep as much of our grain freight task on rail, as opposed to road, as is possible, so I have been taking a number of actions in recent times to guarantee that. Firstly, I have been in dialogue with the relevant stakeholders. Indeed, I have had a meeting here at Parliament House in the past couple of weeks to consider an earlier proposal that had come forward from the Freight Logistics Council, which was to have a subgroup look in a strategic way at the future of grain rail. It has been shown that, as economic circumstances have unfolded, including the recent deregulation of the wheat market, the scenario has constantly changed. If the promised investment of $400 million proposed by the GIG study, which never eventuated, had been made, the change in the market would have meant that that money had been misspent. That shows the changing picture. In relation to the immediate matter that the member raised, we need to make that strategic assessment, but in particular we need to quite quickly make some initial decisions that are impacted on by the announcement by WestNet Rail, the rail leaseholder, that it intended to close those four lines. Firstly, we obviously want to avoid any form of chaos on the roads, and I have said that consistently. I hope I have given the member some information that is of use. What are we doing about it right now? I am continuing to talk with WestNet Rail. I have had discussions throughout today. I take this matter seriously. Officers from my ministerial office are meeting with WestNet Rail representatives, I think, at this very moment. The government is desperately keen to make sure that we find a productive way forward, and we will work in partnership with the affected parties to make sure that we do that. Hon Adele Farina: Are they also meeting with Main Roads? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN: I mentioned the Freight Logistics Council. Implicit in any examination of the road-rail equation for grain freight in future is the involvement of Main Roads, but for now it is primarily a concern that the government has with WestNet Rail as the leaseholder.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4989

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL MATERIAL COMMITTEE — DISMISSAL OF CHAIRMAN 625. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs: I refer to the dismissal of Mr Ken Ninyette from the position of chairman of the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. (1) Did the minister inform Mr Ninyette, in writing or in person, of the cessation of his role as chairman of the ACMC prior to 20 May 2009? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Is the minister required to personally inform ACMC chairpersons of either their appointment or dismissal, as per section 28(5) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972? (4) What were the grounds for Mr Ninyette’s disqualification from the position of chairman of the ACMC? (5) How was Mr Ninyette informed that he was no longer the chairman of the ACMC, by whom, by what method and at what time and date? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No, but a draft was requested. (2) There is no fixed term for the chairperson. The appointment period was to be reviewed by 14 April 2009, in line with the expiry of the terms of appointment of some members. (3) No; the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 is silent on this process. (4) Refer to the answer to (2). (5) Notwithstanding that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs had requested draft letters to be prepared for his consideration, the timing of events resulted in all members being advised by the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites of the new appointments via email, attaching relevant Hansard extracts of the minister’s announcement of newly appointed ACMC members, dated 21 May 2009 at 12.19 pm. It should be noted that the Hansard extracts include the minister’s thanks to Mr Ninyette for his service as chairman. PUBLIC RENTAL HOUSING — ELIGIBILITY 626. Hon ED DERMER to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Housing and Works: (1) Is the Minister for Housing and Works concerned that a single person earning a gross weekly income that is $113.78 less than the federal minimum wage as set in July 2008 is not eligible for metropolitan or country public rental housing? (2) Will the minister explain how the figure of $430 gross weekly income, which precludes a single person from access to metropolitan or country public rental housing, was determined? (3) When does the minister intend to adjust the income rates that determine eligibility for public rental housing? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) Assistance is consciously targeted to those in greatest need, based on the applicant earning less than 50 per cent of average weekly earnings. Existing income thresholds were set in August 2006 and the department is currently reviewing them. NGURRAWAANA COMMUNITY — RELOCATION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS 627. Hon HELEN BULLOCK to the minister representing the Minister for Education: (1) When, where and how was the Ngurrawaana community informed that its remote school would be closed and the buildings relocated? (2) Which school buildings have been removed from the site and where have they been relocated? (3) What was the total cost for removing, transporting and relocating those buildings? (4) Did the department receive any application from the Ngurrawaana community to purchase these buildings? (5) If yes to (4), was any consideration given to that proposal and why was the proposal not successful?

4990 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1) The school is not closed. Surplus buildings have been relocated, which is standard practice. Since May 2008, Department of Education and Training representatives have regularly consulted with Ngurrawaana community members, including weekly school-based meetings. (2) The manual arts building was relocated to Roebourne District High School, and the secondary composite room to Eden Hill Primary School. (3) The total costs were: manual arts building with associated equipment, $243 000; and secondary composite room, $78 000. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. [See page 5118 for correction of answer.] LIVE EXPORTS — ABATTOIR CLOSURES 628. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food: In reference to the number of live animals sent to Middle Eastern abattoirs increasing by 11 per cent last year, I ask — (1) Is the minister aware that Geraldton Meat Exports, an employer of 94 staff, was forced to close indefinitely two weeks ago as a direct result of its inability to compete with the live export industry for a viable supply of stock? (2) Is the minister also aware that in the last month three abattoirs in the south west were also forced to close due to supply issues, costing the jobs of around 200 people in the Tammin and Beaufort River area? (3) In a time of economic downturn and significant job losses around the state, can the minister explain why we are sending 4.1 million live sheep and 860 000 cattle every year to be slaughtered in the Middle East when every abattoir in WA is halal certified? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: The Minister for Agriculture and Food has responded — (1) Geraldton Meat Exports has closed for an indefinite period as it is unable to source sufficient sheep and goats at this time. The abattoir has a history of closures in the past due to seasonality and inconsistency of supply. The sheep flock in Western Australia has contracted from the southern rangelands, Gascoyne and Geraldton region to the south west of the state in the past 15 years. Goat supply is always seasonal in the Geraldton and rangelands regions. I am informed that the reopening of the abattoir will depend on increased supply of stock. (2) I am aware that the abattoirs at Tammin and Beaufort River closed for the winter months and other sheep/lamb abattoirs are operating at reduced throughputs. (3) Western Australia exports sheep meat to a range of countries, including those that import sheep livestock. In 2007-08 Western Australia exported three million sheep and 252 000 cattle. Western Australian sheep are exported principally to the Middle East, whilst the cattle are exported principally to Indonesia. Whilst meat exports to these countries are growing, the markets in both the Middle East and Indonesia have a strong interest in sourcing livestock for a number of reasons, including religious practices, a high percentage of wet markets in these regions and the absence of refrigeration. The livestock exports cannot be replaced simply by increasing the supply of meat to these countries. Sheep and cattle producers in this state are free to choose which market they will pursue. Producers freely decide to sell livestock to Western Australian processors or to livestock exporters. Current high prices for producers of lamb and sheep destined for either local processing or livestock export are underpinned by the livestock export market prices. This is a very positive situation for rural industries generally and will be assisting regional economies. The livestock export trade from Western Australia is presently valued at $350 million with a multiplier effect into the economy. POLICE — FLU INJECTIONS 629. Hon JOCK FERGUSON to the minister representing the Minister for Police: (1) Can the minister confirm that police headquarters personnel received flu injections administered by a nurse at their place of work, but that front-line police officers who are in constant contact with the public are not provided with injections and are expected to make their own arrangements and seek reimbursement?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4991

(2) Can the minister also confirm that under existing and prospective enterprise bargaining arrangements, $100 is the minimum claim for reimbursement of medical expenses, and, accordingly, many front-line officers are not getting flu injections? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: (1) It is a policy of the Western Australia Police executive that the provision of influenza injections to all staff in the workplace is a matter for consideration by district or divisional superintendents. (2) WA Police reimburse non-work-related medical expenses for police officers, and this would include the cost of an influenza injection. There is no minimum cost restriction for claiming a reimbursement for individual services; however, officers are required to submit claims only once the total amounts claimed reach $100. DEREK CAREW-HOPKINS — DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND LANDS 630. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Leader of the House representing the Premier: I am asking this question on behalf of Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, who has had to leave the chamber due to urgent parliamentary business. I refer to the announcement by the Minister for Regional Development that Mr Carew- Hopkins has ended a $110 000 consultancy with the minister because he is now an applicant for the job of director general of the new Department of Regional Development and Lands. Given that Mr Carew-Hopkins was engaged for the period 25 September 2008 to 25 September 2009 to provide services associated with the establishment of this new department — (1) Is it a coincidence that Mr Carew-Hopkins completed all the work associated with setting up the new agency just in time to coordinate with the opening of calls for expression of interest for the director general’s position? (2) Will Mr Carew-Hopkins be paid the full $110 000, even though he only took nine months to complete the contract? (3) Will the minister table Mr Carew-Hopkins contract and his termination letter? (4) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I guess I should thank Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich for some notice of the question, and the Leader of the Opposition for asking it in her absence. (1)-(4) Mr Carew-Hopkins was required to provide advisory services to and as required by the Minister for Regional Development on matters associated with the establishment of the new Department of Regional Development and Lands. The consultancy fees were based on the payment of hourly and/or daily rates for time worked to the total estimated cost of $110 000 excluding GST. On 14 May 2009 Mr Carew-Hopkins wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet seeking agreement to conclude the contract. This was acknowledged by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet with agreement that the contract would cease from close of business on 21 May 2009. I table the relevant documents. [See paper 875.] NATIONAL GAS ACCESS (WA) BILL 2008 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage. The Chairman of Committees (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) in the chair; Hon Peter Collier in charge of the bill. Postponed clause 6B: Interpretation Act 1984 does not apply — Committee interrupted after the amendment moved by Hon Giz Watson had been partly considered. Hon PETER COLLIER: I explained that there is no contradiction between the two and clause 6B(2) does not provide a disallowance provision. Aspects of this bill will not come into effect until the establishment of the act; for example, the bulletin board. Under this clause, when the decision is made to create the bulletin board, the regulations will be drafted in an expedient manner and they will come into effect. This is not a contradiction; they are not disallowable. Hon ADELE FARINA: I ask the minister to inform the house whether the advice that he has just given is based on legal advice. If it is based on legal advice, can he tell us from where it was obtained, because I have received a contrary legal viewpoint?

4992 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, it was based on legal advice. Hon ADELE FARINA: Would the minister mind explaining to the house where that legal advice came from? Hon PETER COLLIER: I am sorry, but that is legal professional privilege. It was based on legal advice. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am sorry, but I do not think that we can allow that to go through to the keeper without responding. The content of the legal advice may be legal professional privilege, although that is questionable in itself if we are asking about matters to do with a bill, but to not even provide information about where the legal advice came from is an outrageous proposition by the minister. He should hang his head in shame if that is his serious answer. We have a right to know from whom he is getting that advice. Is it from the State Solicitor’s Office, is it from a private legal firm, is it from his mate down the road or is it from a former minister in the federal government? If the minister wants this bill to be passed, he will start answering questions like that. That is outrageous. Hon PETER COLLIER: The advice came from the State Solicitor. Hon Kate Doust: Why couldn’t you say that in the first place? Hon PETER COLLIER: It would prefer it not be known. Hon ADELE FARINA: I am staggered to hear that the State Solicitor’s Office would actually say, “This is our advice to you, but please don’t tell anyone we told you.” I find that extraordinary. It raises in my mind the immediate question about whether this advice was heavily qualified or whether it was given by a very senior officer or a very junior officer. I do not think we can let that sort of statement rest in the chamber without being given a detailed explanation. Perhaps the minister should table the State Solicitor’s advice, given the statement that he has just made. This chamber no longer has any confidence in that advice, given the qualification that the minister has just placed on it. Hon PETER COLLIER: I say at the outset that I am sorry if I caused offence by my response. The advice that I was provided with was that the State Solicitor would prefer that that advice not be given. I have stated that there was no issue with the advice. The advice was very sound. I am saying now that the advice from the State Solicitor is exactly what I have provided. Hon Adele Farina: Will you table it? Hon PETER COLLIER: No. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I must say that I find this extraordinary. The plot thickens. Is the minister seriously saying to this house that the State Solicitor gave him advice not to advise the chamber — Hon Peter Collier: No. I said it “preferred”. I have now said that the State Solicitor’s Office gave us the advice. It said that it preferred it if I did not disclose who gave that advice. What more do you want me to say? You can stand up and be as indignant as you like, but the simple fact of the matter is that I have provided what you wanted. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Only because we — Hon Peter Collier: I said it “preferred”. You asked for it, and I said, yes, he did give us the advice. What else do you want? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want to know why the State Solicitor would prefer not to provide advice to this place that it had provided that advice. That is one of the most amazing statements that I have heard a minister give in answer to a question asked in this place. I have heard plenty of ministers in this place say it is legal professional privilege and that they will not give the advice even though it relates to a matter of legislation that we were being asked to pass in good faith. In most cases, the minister gives us at least a precis of the advice and the basis for it, even if the minister does not go into the detail of the advice. I want to know why the State Solicitor did not want this place to know that it was the one that was providing the legal advice. It is an extraordinary proposition to put to this house. It is a good thing that Hon George Cash has retired as a member of this chamber, because I can imagine his response to the proposition being put by the minister if he were standing on this side of the chamber. Hon Kate Doust: Or Hon Peter Foss. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Peter Foss too, but Hon George Cash was a man of integrity on these matters. That might be taken the wrong way. Hon Peter Collier: We have been through it. What else do you want? You have made your point. What else do you want? I have given you what you wanted. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want to make the point — Hon Peter Collier: You’ve made your point.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4993

Hon KEN TRAVERS: The minister can say tritely that I have made my point, but I do not have the answers that I want from the minister. Hon Peter Collier: What do you want? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I want a precis of the advice. Hon Peter Collier: I will not table that advice. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I am not asking the minister to table the advice. Hon Peter Collier: I have given a precis of that. I gave it before question time, if you were here. I gave a precis. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If the minister gave a precis but is saying that he would prefer to not tell us who it is — Hon Peter Collier: We were told they preferred not to. I said, “Fine.” You pushed it and I said that is fine; we got it from the State Solicitor. Hon KEN TRAVERS: That raises the question: what is it about the advice that made the State Solicitor’s Office not want to own up to it being its advice? That raises a very serious question that this place must consider before it passes this bill. I will labour the point, because I want to make sure that ministers on the other side know that if they give those sorts of answers to this chamber that they got advice from the State Solicitor that the State Solicitor would prefer that its name not be put to the advice, ministers need to go back to the State Solicitor. When I was a parliamentary secretary and was given advice that I did not think would be acceptable to the chamber, I would harass the office and make sure that I got a decent answer that I could give to the chamber; I would not just accept what was given to me by the bureaucrats — Hon Norman Moore: Perhaps that is why you didn’t survive in the job for very long. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I survived in the job for as long as I wanted to survive. Hon Norman Moore: Perhaps you were just too good at your job and they didn’t recognise your talents. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Maybe some of us do not necessarily aspire to it at a certain point in our lives. Hon Norman Moore: You always have, and you know it, so don’t give us that rubbish. You had no ambition at all, is that what you are saying? Hon KEN TRAVERS: At that time in my life, no. I will not get into a debate about my personal circumstances at any particular point in time. Hon Norman Moore: You were just telling us how good you were, that’s all, and wondering why no-one else recognised it. Hon KEN TRAVERS: If Hon Norman Moore wants to keep the debate going for a long time, he should feel free to interject on me. I will not go into my personal circumstances — Hon Kate Doust: It might be quite interesting. The CHAIRMAN: Order, members! I would like Hon Ken Travers to make his point and move on. Hon KEN TRAVERS: It was certainly my desire to make my point but I was rudely interjected upon by the Leader of the House and I was responding to those interjections. I understand that when a member interjects, we should not take the bait, but sometimes the nature of the interjection requires a response. I think that I have adequately responded. If the minister has a bit more information to give us, it would be very good. I will sit down and wait to hear it. Hon PETER COLLIER: I appreciate the member’s contribution. However, it is standard practice that the State Solicitor’s advice has legal professional privilege. That is standard practice. Its preference was for that advice to be kept confidential. As I have said, I have provided a thorough precis of the reasons for that advice and I stated that it came from the State Solicitor. I do not know how much more transparent I can be. I have provided the member with everything he has asked for. Is there anything else he needs? Hon KATE DOUST: The point is that when the minister initially spoke, the question was about who had provided the advice. That is where things came undone for the minister. That is the question that the minister did not answer. Hon Peter Collier: I have answered it now. Hon KATE DOUST: The minister has answered it now. The point my colleague was trying to make was that if the minister had simply provided that information in the first place, we would not be having this discussion now. Maybe that is a lesson for the minister in the future. Hon PETER COLLIER: I appreciate that. As I said, that was the State Solicitor’s preference. All I can say is that I provided the advice. There is nothing more that I can add.

4994 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon ADELE FARINA: I refer the minister to the committee report on this bill. At page 26, paragraph 8.22 reads — Section 25 of the Interpretation Act 1984 is titled: “Some powers in Act may be exercised before it commences”. It is a lengthy provision which essentially states that the power (for example, “to make an instrument of a legislative character” such as a regulation) “may be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act to the extent that it is necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act, or provisions of the Act, into operation, or giving full effect to the Act”. Paragraph 8.23 states — This means that in the limited circumstance described above, (that is, a “necessary or expedient purpose”) regulations would be subject to Part VI of the Interpretation Act 1984. That is, to publication, tabling, scrutiny and disallowance by the Western Australian Parliament. The Committee finds that this single exception enhances the role of the Parliament in the legislative process. In putting his brief to the State Solicitor about this matter, did the minister provide that information to the State Solicitor? Hon Peter Collier: Yes. Hon ADELE FARINA: Can the minister run through the State Solicitor’s response to that again? Hon Peter Collier: I have provided it. Hon ADELE FARINA: I know. I am asking the minister to run through it again, because I do not think the State Solicitor addresses in his advice the application of part VI. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will go through it again. I understand where the member is coming from. The advice states — - Clause 6B(2) provides an exception to the general rule in clause 6B(1) that the Interpretation Act 1984 does not apply the national provisions of the Bill. - There is nothing in clause 6B(2) to suggest that any other provision of the Interpretation Act applies to regulations made under part 3 except clause 25. - Section 25 of the Interpretation Act simply allows for the Governor to make “anticipatory regulations” under part 3 of the Bill at any time after the passing of the Bill (but before the commencement of part 3). The exception in clause 6B(2) is provided for expediency purposes only. That is what I said, and I used the bulletin board as an example. It continues — - The disallowance provisions in section 42 of the Interpretation Act would not apply to regulations made under part 3, therefore regulations would not need to be tabled before each House of Parliament and would not be subject to disallowance. - As a result, there is no conflict between the Government supporting clause 6B(1) and clause 6B(2). Hon ADELE FARINA: I suppose the committee and the State Solicitor will have to agree to disagree on that point. That still brings us back to the whole application of clause 6B. The minister himself stated that he believes that parliamentary scrutiny is important and should be protected, yet this bill avoids it. I think that to date the minister has not provided any reasoned explanation of why this house should not require the processes that have been suggested in the amendment put forward by Hon Giz Watson, which stands on the supplementary notice paper in the name of Hon Paul Llewellyn. In view of the minister’s own personally stated views on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, and understanding full well that approving the amendment that has been suggested will not in any way harm the bill or the national scheme, I ask the minister to again address this issue and to agree to the amendment, because the amendment does not do any harm to the bill, and it does absolutely no harm to the national scheme. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will address the issue again. No, we will not support the amendment. I am sorry; we will not. As I said earlier, there are issues with this bill. The high-stakes nature of the bill and the streamlined approach in having a national uniform bill are exactly why we cannot support the amendment. The WA provisions of the bill will be disallowable. It is the national provisions of the bill that are not disallowable, and that is for very real reasons. The amendment proposes 14 sitting days. That, in effect, could be anything up to three, four or five months, which, in itself, is extremely problematic. Therefore, we will not support the amendment for those reasons. It is a uniform bill. Hon Ken Travers: How is that problematic, minister?

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4995

Hon PETER COLLIER: It could take six months for it to take place. Hon ADELE FARINA: Again, the minister is missing the point. The amendment that was moved by Hon Giz Watson and stands in the name of Hon Paul Llewellyn will not stop the regulations coming into effect immediately; it just allows for disallowance. Hon Peter Collier: But that causes uncertainty. Hon ADELE FARINA: It does not create any uncertainty at all. Hon Peter Collier: No-one is going to do anything then, because it is still 14 sitting days. Hon ADELE FARINA: But it does not seem to be a problem with any other piece of legislation and every other regulation that we deal with. Hon Peter Collier: It is uniform legislation. Hon ADELE FARINA: No, I am sorry, that is not the case, because I have already explained to the minister that with the consumer credit bill, we agreed to a much tougher process, whereby the regulation would not have effect until it was passed by the house. That was still a uniform scheme, yet this house felt it was so important for Parliament to be able to review and have scrutiny over the process that it adopted that set of processes. It has not impacted on that act in any way. Again, if the minister is not going to support this position, he really needs to provide us with a justification for not supporting this position. At this time, we do not understand the minister’s concern. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will take the member up on the consumer credit act. The consumer credit legislation does not involve a national set of rules that are open to the dynamic rule-changing processes of the national gas rules, nor does the consumer credit legislation involve interactions of other administrative and regulatory bodies such as the National Competition Council and the Australian Energy Market Commission. As I have said, the national gas law is complex legislation. As to where we are going, as I have said, because it is uniform legislation, we need to streamline that process. Discrepancies in the national gas rules could lead to an inefficient situation whereby there may be two sets of rules to manage. That would be extremely problematic in this instance. Hon ADELE FARINA: Can the minister explain in what circumstances there would be two sets of rules to manage and how they might impact on a player in the market? Hon PETER COLLIER: Rules would be operating in every other jurisdiction in the eastern states that passed this legislation, and in Western Australia there would be rules that have not come into effect as yet. Therefore, two different, diverging rules would be operating. Hon ADELE FARINA: I am sorry, but the minister is wrong. Under the amendment proposed by Hon Giz Watson, the rules will have effect immediately. At law, they have effect immediately. Hon Peter Collier: But they are disallowable. Hon ADELE FARINA: Therefore, the explanation that the minister has provided to this house is simply inaccurate. Hon Peter Collier: They are disallowable, though. That creates uncertainty. Hon ADELE FARINA: Therefore, I again ask the minister to explain to us why there would be a problem. Also, it is the case that we have not fully adopted the national scheme. Therefore, if we can vary the national scheme to the point that we pick and choose which bits we want to adopt in this state, there is no harm in adopting the amendment moved by Hon Giz Watson to allow the scrutiny of Parliament of any future amendments and any future regulations that are made. Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 pm Progress reported and leave granted to sit again at a later stage of the sitting, on motion by Hon Peter Collier (Minister for Energy). [Continued on page 5012.] ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Consideration of Tabled Papers Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I call Hon Philip Gardiner. Before the member begins, I remind members that it is his inaugural speech and the usual courtesies should be followed.

4996 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

HON PHILIP GARDINER (Agricultural) [7.32 pm]: Mr President and honourable members, I acknowledge the traditional ownership of the Nyoongah, whose ground I stand on, and it is my privilege to have you here while I make my first address in this chamber. As I was crossing the crosswalk approaching Parliament House this morning, on the top south-west corner of the building were two kookaburras belting out the strongest laughs I could have hoped to have heard. I thought, “Is this an omen?” I am making a speech that will not be 90 per cent presentation and 10 per cent content, of which most speeches are made; this speech will be the opposite, and I request members’ indulgence. For me politics is not an endgame in itself. Instead, like business, where, with hard work, profits fall out the bottom if the business strategy and implementation is sound, my goal in politics is to advance the interests, issue by issue, for the people of Western Australia. This was the oath that I made in the presence of the Governor and upper house colleagues. If this can be done with honesty, fairness and equity, the benefit to our state and country will similarly emerge. I am here because of the ruthless exercise of democratic power to achieve a political balance of power that has placed me in a position in which I can assist in making a difference. Even without my physical absence, this difference has begun to be made. It will particularly benefit regional Western Australia from where the bulk, as we all know—37 per cent—of Australian exports originate. It is rewarding because I agreed to Brendon Grylls’s request to stand as No 2 on the National Party’s Agricultural Region upper house ticket on the outside possibility that the party could gain the balance of power. History records the outcome and the positive consequences to date. The dilapidated plight of regional Western Australia became evident to me during my campaign for the federal seat of O’Connor, which encompassed most of the Agricultural Region in Western Australia, during the 2007 federal election. This region has expanded a bit now to encompass Kalbarri in the north to Albany in the south, from the Indian Ocean north of Cervantes in the west, to Mullewa, Merredin, Lake King and Hopetoun in the east. It struck me most objectively on the Friday before the federal election when I was reading The West Australian and I noticed the list of polling booths in O’Connor. There were two and a half columns of them. I thought that that was a lot but there would probably be more in Kalgoorlie. There were only one and a half columns of polling booths in Kalgoorlie. All the other electorates in this state had fewer. The interesting thing about polling booths is that they are located in towns and suburbs that each require basically the same social and physical infrastructure, be it primary schools, pools, sporting grounds and so on—not all of them but most. When I got back to Moora that evening, I looked in the Australian Electoral Commission report to check the other electorate polling booths. To my surprise, O’Connor had 17.5 per cent more polling booths than any other electorate in the country. The relevance of this is that the incumbent was saying how the electorate was doing so well by getting fourth highest expenditure for this and one-tenth for that and so on, which I thought was pretty good too. That regional part of Western Australia was being underdone because we should have had 17.5 per cent more than any other electorate. This was the clearest factual base that supported the hearsay impression that I had gathered as I was campaigning and doorknocking throughout the O’Connor electorate. The royalties for regions strategy to which I had already been privy was not a stunt; it was genuine and very much needed. Being raised in a farming family in the country in a regional district such as Moora, community self-help permeates the value system that is so critical to the survival and growth of country communities. My late father, Warren Gardiner, was an ex-serviceman in World War II. He was denied a proper education following his father being unfairly hit by the effects of the Depression when the partner in his firm left him with all the debts. With the support of his wife, Lillian, nee Kingston, now called Betty, who took the brave road of leaving the city for the isolated yet strong community of the country, my parents were determined that their two children would have the education he missed. As a consequence, they commenced their sons’ primary education at Moora and then at Guildford Grammar School for their secondary schooling. They did not have any material equity, yet they were able to buy Noondine, which was part of the original Gardiner land taken up as early settlers of Moora, from my father’s uncle against 100 per cent vendor finance very generously given. They lived reasonably comfortably, sent two boys to board at a private school and supported one at university, all the while holding their family firmly together. Real incomes in agriculture were different then. It is very difficult to achieve that from agriculture now without further adding seriously to debt. My father’s grandfather, James Gardiner, served as a member of the Western Australian Parliament during the early 1900s, first as Colonial Treasurer in Sir Walter James’s government in 1902. In 1913—I was pleased to have this confirmed tonight by Mr Del Willmott—he became the first parliamentary leader of the Country Party, the predecessor of the Nationals, anywhere in Australia. His parliamentary record included a short period as Speaker of the lower house in 1917 before resigning due to his own deteriorating health and that of his wife. I have read some of his speeches in Hansard recently. I trust that I can serve with the valour and honesty that he brought to the Parliament in the interests of the people of Western Australia. My brother, Colin, after a distinguished school career at Guildford Grammar School, forsook a scholarship to the University of Western Australia to return to the family farm at Moora, where he farms today. Each of us faces different forks in the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4997 road we traverse as part of life, as we have heard from those who have already made their first speeches. Allow me to give members a little of my background. I will then briefly address five topics—the role of the upper house; the relevance of regional Western Australia; regional social infrastructure needs; rural crime and family dysfunction; and climate dynamics and agriculture. After graduating from Guildford Grammar School in 1964, I was fortunate to receive scholarships to study agricultural science at the University of Western Australia. I completed agriculture economics in 1969. During this time I was also fortunate to have been a resident at St George’s College with a number of current parliamentary colleagues, and a playing member of the University Football Club during a particularly distinguished period of its history. Having been educated this far, I thought that it would be a waste to return to farming forthwith. Following graduation in 1969, I obtained a trainee position as a computer programmer with the commonwealth Department of Trade and Industry in Canberra. This path was cut short when I was awarded a Rotary graduate fellowship that allowed me to attend Harvard’s European centre at the time, Institut pour les Methodes de Direction de l’Enterprise—with the acronym IMEDE—in Lausanne in French-speaking Switzerland. I completed a Master of Business Administration in 1972. It was here that I found another serious fork in the road. After three to four months of the program, a research associate at IMEDE, an Australian, asked me what I was thinking of doing after graduating. We had been doing case studies about cost—cost control and cost accounting—which I found concise, compartmentalised and important for managing a business. So I said “cost accounting”. With some dismay, he said that I should consider finance, about which I knew virtually nothing. I began investigating this subject area. As a consequence, it was there that I learned about the basics and some of the intricacies of the foreign exchange market and banking principles. I will never forget the occasion of the discovery that the calculation of forward exchange rates had nothing to do with exchange rate expectations; it was all to do with mathematical differences between interest rates of the currencies involved. Returning home to Moora at the end of 1972, I proceeded to apply for positions in merchant banks, as non-bank organisations were then termed, after the British model. The best offer I got was from a Citibank offshoot in Sydney. The person said to me over the telephone—I was in Moora at the time—“Next time you’re in Sydney, call in for an interview.” This I did, and it was my good fortune to procure a trainee marketing officer position. The real implication of telling members about this is that, while I was talking to a prospective client in Sydney in 1974, he asked about a new transaction structure for covering the foreign exchange exposure of non-trade items. The market was extremely regulated in those days. The Reserve Bank took all the net risk from the trading banks and the banks had a very easy time, but capital commitments could not be covered. My education and research about foreign exchange all came home to roost. However, this time it was frustrated by a senior executive at City National Securities who declined to spend money on senior legal opinion to clear the way through the maze of the Reserve Bank’s authorisation letter, the commonwealth of Australia’s Insurance Act, the Gaming and Betting Act of New South Wales and the Stamp Duties Act of New South Wales. It was clear to me that foreign exchange was neither insurance nor gaming and betting in that defined sense. Similarly resiling from this perception were two firms that I had learned about from my English brother-in-law—GH Michell and Sons, a wool broker and top wool manufacturer in Adelaide, and Meares and Philips, a former medium-sized stockbroker in Sydney. They hired me. We found the legal way through and we developed a sustainable hedge contract document based on a mix of language and law prepared by well-known Sydney lawyer Alexo Vrisakis and his assistant, now Justice Robert Macfarlan. This currency hedge market developed well in Australia between 1975 and 1978. At this time Meares, Michell, Elders—as the firm had become—and I separated over what I felt was an ethical issue. I was fortunate that merchant banks had now recognised that currency hedging was a valid instrument for corporations to manage their exchange risk. In early 1978 I accepted an offer from Hill Samuel Australia Ltd, becoming a director in 1981. In 1985, when Hill Samuel became Macquarie Bank, I was a founding director of the main board. At Macquarie, I have had the privilege of working with many fine people. I remained on the board until 1994—I had returned to farm at Moora six years earlier. It was an experience where we had taken on the large Australian commercial banks; the Australian dollar had become part of the world’s foreign exchange market giving Australia’s exporters and importers, foreign currency borrowers and Australian investors with overseas assets the ability to manage their foreign exchange risks; I had assisted my friend and colleague Clive Carroll build the bullion and gold arbitrage market in Australia and overseas; and played a collective part in building the Hill Samuel-Macquarie culture. It had been a career accident, but a good one. In 1988 I was back doing what I most enjoyed, the challenge of one of the most difficult professions—farming grain and sheep for wool as well as sheep breeding. I continued my eastern states board involvement for a further 10 years with midnight flights, at times up to three times a week, but outside the system I was losing touch and, in the end, it just became too difficult. I turn now to the relevance of the upper house of the Western Australian Parliament. There have been times I have watched political proceedings where I have despaired at what I had identified as democratic dictatorship, where the executive has become so strong and party discipline so complete that I felt there was a political failure in the essential principles of democracy. I have also despaired with the party lines along which much of the

4998 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] upper houses of Parliament across the country operate. I am aware of frustration as felt by members of the lower house when the composition of upper houses cause simplistic political obstructionism and power plays rather than working to make effective, sound law from the bills submitted. Rigid party discipline applying to the upper house defeats the purpose of that chamber. I recommend all parliamentarians read the recent book published by University of Western Australia Press entitled Restraining Elective Dictatorship: The Upper House Solution? by Aroney, Prasser and Nethercote. One commentator, James Madison, wrote — When the legislation is unified it wields a dominant, unbalanced power over the other branches of government. This is too dangerous for true democracy. I am committed to the upper house being a house of review which can work openly with legislative framers in the lower house and make independent judgement to bring effective law to the people of Western Australia to enhance their lives. How relevant is regional Western Australia to the state and the country? Regional Western Australia contributes around 23 per cent of the state’s economy but 90 per cent of the state’s and 37 per cent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings. Without foreign exchange earnings, the state and the country could not afford the consumer and capital imports that underpin Western Australia’s and Australia’s standard of living. These Western Australian foreign exchange earnings are at a level much higher per head than those in any other part of the country. The relevance of regional Western Australia to the state is more recognised, especially since the election of 7 September 2008. This economic relevance is important to Western Australia but it is just as important to Australia. Like the royalties for regions strategy, it is important to the citizens of Western Australia that the state receives a true share of the tax distribution from national revenue collections under our federal system. This has been a difficult realisation to achieve over a number of state governments, but it was gratifying when the Gallop-led state government and Eric Ripper-led Treasury negotiated with a Liberal-led federal government an additional nearly $250 million distribution to the state. I know that there is significantly more work to be done in this area and that Treasurer Buswell is pursuing this with renewed vigour, and I shall try to give him every support. How much of this output revenue contributes to net wealth in regional Western Australia? Not a lot. Despite the mining company contributions, mining revenue mostly flows out of the regions exacerbated by fly in, fly outs and the non-regional shareholding of mining companies. Agriculture in particular is unable to compete for labour at the levels paid by the mining industry. Historically, surpluses generated by agriculture mostly leave the outlying regional areas and gravitate to Perth or coastal cities where, in general, there is less risk, and tax-free capital appreciation is much more likely. With a capital gains tax incentive for principal residences, rational economic behaviour causes the movement of capital to these places where there are generally more buoyant and more liquid property prices. Homes built on farm properties rarely add value to the property, a discouragement to make large capital investments in on-property homes. Men and women who seek to make a mainstream contribution have a much higher degree of difficulty than their city counterparts: extra travel at all hours of the day and night, unreliable telecommunications, particularly mobile phone coverage, and limitations on health and education. Universal mobile telephone communication and internet access across regional Western Australia should now be considered a basic need. It is the first plank of a health policy. Indeed, it is the first platform of health treatment, security and information and participatory equality with city counterparts. These deficiencies also explain the huge volunteer contribution of citizens living in regional Western Australia. Some of this regional volunteer contribution would, if calculated, be material I believe to the state’s gross national product. The third area is crime, the symptom of core social infrastructure deficiency. Petty yet serious crime is endemic in many towns across agricultural regional Western Australia. My experience, as a result of extensive doorknocking throughout country areas, is that the cause is the high level of family dysfunction in many of these towns among both non-Indigenous and Indigenous families. Typical of these towns are the Cities of Geraldton and Albany and the towns of Narrogin, Mt Barker, Kellerberrin and Moora and more. Crime is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is much deeper and the amazing feature of this is that we as a society and previous governments that have meant to act for society have failed to recognise the intimacy of this relationship. People are not born criminals. If it were so, we would have to believe that Indigenous people, who in Geraldton comprise something like 90 to 95 per cent of the incarcerated population, are born criminals. There is absolutely no foundation for believing this. What we can believe is that they, like their non-Indigenous brothers, do not have the same access to opportunities that many of the rest of us have as a result of the circumstances through which they have grown. We may be born equal of flesh and blood, but we are not born having equal access to opportunities. Each of us in these regional communities shares the responsibility for such dysfunction arising. The same could be said for city dysfunction. For the most part up to now, the community has not felt responsible. We have considered it to be someone else’s problem and often looked too much towards government. The genesis of the solution I outline is bottoms up from information that surrounds the reality of pressures of everyday living. It will not work if it comes from the top, as it has often in the past, even with the best of intentions. The solution must feel these pressures if it is to make the difference we all believe needs to be

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 4999 made. Individually, we can work hard but make only a small difference. The whole community must become involved to develop a plan. Police doing very good work comprise only part of the answer. Dealing with this issue across regional Western Australia, and Perth demands different approaches in different places. In agricultural terms, it is like the problem our land has with salinity. It is deep and ingrained. One solution does not fit all. Learning continues unmitigated. Different solutions are required for different circumstances and solutions are difficult to realise. The solution to social dysfunction in the Kimberley will be quite different from the solutions in each of the towns or cities in the agricultural belt of Western Australia, which will be different again from those of Perth.

The plan I have in mind has two parts: first, an integrated, comprehensive generational plan with a time horizon of 21 years, commencing at the time the child is born. The crucial period of our character formation is zero to seven and eight years of age. Second, we need an amelioration plan to deal as best can be done with the community failure we already have and in which we are currently living. For people like me who are beyond eight years of age and closer to 65, we can only ameliorate their behaviour if it has been affected by family dysfunction or in any other way. The drivers of the plan are threefold: firstly, it must be community driven; it must be comprehensive; and it must be integrated and tailored to the community characteristics; therefore, it must be developed by the community. Secondly, it must have delegated authority for implementation to the respective local government authorities. Thirdly, funding must come from the state and commonwealth, with the state having an audit function from prior to commencing the plan to checking against milestones, because we want to know with the plan whether we are progressing or not. This plan will require a unique political time horizon of 21 years, yet it is crucial, I believe, to the wellbeing of our society. I am aware that there are some measures along this way that are already being implemented, but not comprehensively and not in a delegated way.

We already have people in regional Western Australia who have special expertise working with mothers who have children in their formative years. But their new social technology is fighting to be recognised for funding. I contend that such a solution has the capacity to give a high social and financial return to such government investment to improve our society, increase respect for our police services and reduce our need for the scale of jails and detention centres currently envisaged. Calculations I have made suggest that for a regional town of around 2 500 people, expenditure of $500 000 to $700 000 per annum under the plan will save explicit and opportunity costs exceeding $3 million. I do not believe this one country town’s experience to be unique and the model with adaptation could extend to city communities. What are some of the implementation implications? Leadership of this strategy must come from the local government authority. Ownership of the plan will then be by the community and the local government authority. The plan will have as its foundation platform provision of social worker/psychologist resources to assist mothers to manage their homes and bring up their children during the crucial zero to eight years of age to instil into their child the sense to achieve, so that at 18 to 21 years their children will have access to the opportunities that are available to us all. But how useless would it be having resources to assist mothers from the time of their pregnancy or birth of their child to provide a secure, emotional upbringing through the crucial zero to eight years if there was not similar attention being given to alcohol control? I think all alcoholic beverages, by the way, should bear labels confirming alcohol is a health hazard. Assistance is needed to address anger management, drug dependence redirection, employment, long-term unemployment, savings incentives, and mothers becoming pregnant at a time when they are too young and do not have sufficient resources to nurture and rear their children. The former federal government’s baby bonus, for example, stimulates family dysfunction in low socioeconomic areas and needs restructuring. Children born to young women are increasing in many regional towns, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In the lower socioeconomic Geraldton suburbs of Rangeway and Spalding especially, but also Lockyer in Albany, when the issue arose in discussion, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents wanted to do away with the baby bonus in its current form. In low socioeconomic communities it leads to young 14 to 16-year-old women having children to get the baby bonus. For structural reasons, these families are most prone to becoming dysfunctional. Collectively, many of their children are like a storm cloud on the 10-year horizon as far as juvenile crime and subsequently adult crime is concerned. What is the biggest impediment? This is highly relevant to each of us in this place. It is the silo structure, I believe, of our government-managed departments. The plan I describe is predicated on cutting across those silo boundaries, because without having an integrated, comprehensive, appropriately resourced solution it will not work. I have already seen signs that the Premier and some public servants are thinking this way. Much of what I am explaining is encapsulated in the following story. The primary school catchment for Geraldton Senior College has about 2 000 Indigenous students. Recent chronology of Indigenous students presenting through the secondary school years was about 80 students in year 10, 50 in year 11, 32 in year 12—but that was the beginning of year 12; by the end of year 12, there were seven and none of those seven students passed the tertiary entrance examination. Does this have any linkage to the 90 to 95 per cent Indigenous rate of those incarcerated at Greenough Regional Prison? This is a classic example of future crime being the symptom and

5000 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] social infrastructure being the cause. Only when crime becomes sufficiently debilitating for communities will the drive for them to become fully engaged, I believe, occur. It is a community problem, and we are in a position to help solve it. The fourth issue is government and its involvement in agriculture infrastructure. The major economic activity of the Agricultural Region electorate is agriculture and its supporting businesses. Of fisheries, forestry and agriculture, agriculture comprises about 92 per cent of output by value. Government has a distinct role to assist agriculture and fisheries in a catalytic way with its governance, strategic market structures and eradication of diseases and pests. Agriculture is the home of small business. Economic theory of the firm, as Paul Samuelson taught us in his text Economics, portrays agriculture as the closest to perfect competition of all industries—small firms, freely communicated technical information, innovation transparency, nearly always price takers, lack of market differentiation, and a culture of management independence rather than corporate cooperation. No firm has the power to influence its marketing positioning in perfect competition. Individual firms are simply too small to build a sustainable competitive advantage in their markets, especially in bulk agricultural products. Where market differentiation is able to occur, it is precious. Agriculture has always talked of price making to enhance the returns to farmers but has rarely achieved it. When we do, it is often not recognised. I have been involved in both wheat and wool where market differentiation for the producer has been achieved. The former was under a single-desk marketing system—I am sure I will experience views different from that in this place—with a bulk commodity and an integrated paddock-to-market quality assured system. The latter was with a small-sized specialist developed product whereby the wool demonstrated superior processing performance. I have directly partaken in selling both wheat and wool directly to international markets. The sustainable advantage captured by the marketing of our wheat was undermined when the cooperative structure of its marketing arm was dismembered commencing in the early 1990s. As a dissenting member of the Australian Wheat Board, I opposed in writing the corporatisation model developed by investment bankers with industry leaders naive to its implications at the time. As a consequence, my appointment soon after was not renewed. Corporatisation with all its conflicts of interest was concluded in 1999, with final dismantlement in 2008. The most unfortunate part of this decision was that it was made with naiveté and ideology and in the absence of rigorous commercial analysis. Due to a lack of funding to bring together the authors of the various reports about single-desk marketing performance, nearly all of which determined it gave value to wheat growers, the differences between them and those who thought it was a disadvantage for wheat growers could not be analysed to find the reality as facts would best allow. A commercial conclusion falling either way could then have been justified. As a consequence, the dismantlement was structurally and politically driven and lacked commercial justification. A government having commercial priorities serving the industry would have acted differently. The wool industry has languished for 40 to 50 years as a result of the vested interests of growers, auction house agents, exporters and processors. During the late 1980s and early 1990s when the floor price scheme for wool was causing a huge build-up of stock, all I could hear from ministers and senior public servants was that leadership must come from the industry. The problem was that the industry did not have the commercial and market sophistication to understand the implications of its inaction. Again, the resources were not available to fund independent, competent analysis, nor was there catalytic government leadership. I should add that the wool industry, despite being at yet another of its low points, has a future, and I declare an interest here. The solution for wool is simple with two parts—develop a fibre-specific brand strategy, especially one that focuses on next- to-the-skin wear; and develop a value chain quality assurance along one of the longest value chains of any industry in the world. The brand strategy will require investment; the quality assurance will be cheap to implement and will be effective. As an aside, the industry must cease mulesing; in my view, the debate is a current market distraction to the main marketing game. Each of the wheat and wool cases is similar, but not the same. The similarity is that rigorous independent examination was either not sought or could not be afforded. A few voices making loud rhetoric, aided by the press, had the superior impact, together with some fortunate political timing that could win the day. The critical analysis fell short; the truth was not pursued to the point that it yielded a non-ideological commercial solution. Funds to pay for independent analysis were not forthcoming. Catalytic leadership from government was absent. The agricultural constituency was rendered ill-informed. There was no plebiscite process by which the industry could elect options for action. Politics took over commercial decision-making; it is the classic case of a good scorer winning the day over a good player. These cases exemplify the core issue facing agricultural production. Our major problem is not with production. What we are forgoing is the value-adding arising from poor strategic thinking beyond production. All the hard work of farmers is often being sold short. Even with arguably the best production technology in the world, it is governance and strategic market infrastructure that makes the productivity gap. At the extreme contra end, governments spend enormous sums investigating the industry structure and governance of the banking system and financial industry. The banking system in the western world is made up of

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5001 relatively few big players; it is quite different from agriculture. Australia has shown outstanding leadership, as distinct from the USA, in directing governance of the banking system. The Australian model needs to be followed by government for the agricultural industry; not so much in a directing role, but in a catalytic role— when I say catalytic role, I mean like a chemical reaction, in which a catalyst assists two parts to react—such that governments can assist the evolution of key decisions. Only then can the potential of agriculture be realised, and the industry made more attractive for young people to enter. I know that governance and strategic marketing excellence in agriculture can be achieved. The US cotton industry achieved strategic marketing excellence when it restored the proportion of cotton in US apparel from around 35 per cent in 1975 to 60 per cent in 1990, as recounted in the book, Cotton’s Renaissance: A Study in Market Innovation, by Jacobson and Smith, 2001. If the US cotton industry can turn itself around, so can Australia’s wool industry and other industries. Similar remarks about deficient governance practices can be made about the two agro-political farming organisations operating in Western Australia and federally in respect of the National Farmers’ Federation. This has been damaging to the state, in my view. As in the situation to which I referred earlier, industries with larger firms have been more able to get their governance together. Members should look at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and the influence it has on government. None of these three agricultural organisations has the financial strength to hire or contract the resources to provide such analytical rigour for the key commercial decisions that need to be made for the industry. Catalytic leadership from government is similarly important to assist agriculture’s engagement with nature. Nature is unrelenting. It adapts at a much faster rate than we humans, especially farming humans. Tragically, much of the agricultural region has been contaminated by the introduction of pests, diseases, plants and viruses. Almost without exception, these have been introduced from environments foreign to Australia, particularly Western Australia, for which wonderful protection was provided by the Nullarbor Plain for so long. The decision to introduce these pests was largely made by the society of the day—by parliamentarians, through the measures they sanctioned, and through people’s willingness to accept into Australia foreign plants and animals that were not sufficiently well researched prior to their local adoption. Agriculture faces a similar threat from society with the potential introduction of genetically modified Roundup Ready varieties of canola. GM technology and its use in Western Australia are important. However, growing the Roundup Ready GM plants, crop plants with a glyphosate chemical that can be used to kill weeds but not the canola or other grain plants that have been bred to be resistant to the only knock-down chemical available to farmers, places grain growers at even more acute risk of weed resistance. Western Australia is already the world’s capital for crop weed resistance. Once a glyphosate-resistant weed crosses into a paddock, the whole paddock will become resistant to glyphosate within around five years. Roundup Ready grain crops should not be commercially grown until we have a fallback position for glyphosate. Controlling serious diseases and pests in Western Australian agriculture has in the past been attempted by governments with one hand tied behind their back, at expense to the taxpayer. The measures failed because they employed encouragement incentives only; this is not enough. Like nearly all policy measures, the eradication of pest regimes—such as footrot, lice, Johne’s disease, doublegee, Paterson’s curse and skeleton weed—requires a package of elements. The “carrot” approach needs to be joined with the “stick” approach, by which I mean heavy fines for non-compliance and complementary levies applied as appropriate. Members should remember that agriculture comprises the largest small business sector in the state. Most people in the sector value their independence dearly. Most care deeply about the long-term condition of their land, and most have a planning time horizon of five to 20 years. However, there are some who have little regard for the broader implications of their behaviour. This small group can wreak potentially damaging changes when passionately pursuing short-term causes for their own agendas. Unlike an industry composed of a few large corporations, small business needs a mechanism that can give it a template for industry ownership of solutions, given that informed, quality critical analysis is provided. Government can play a role in assisting small business to develop mechanisms of countervailing commercial power. Following a process of critical analysis of any material issue, be it governance, marketing or pest-related, there is a simple mechanism for an affected industry area that is facing these serious issues. It is an electronic plebiscite system, through which a predetermined majority is applied, be it 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 75 per cent. Only a template of this kind will reflect the industry’s commercial and governance desires. I turn now to the topic of climate dynamics. The climate debate is being pilloried in the same way as religion. I remain intrigued about how our most forceful disagreements are on issues as significant as religion and climate change, neither of which can be proved 100 per cent. We believe what we want to believe, regardless of the best knowledge available at a given time. To briefly recount—I apologise if members are already familiar with these details—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations

5002 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Environment Programme, recognises vast complexities and balances of probability in reaching its conclusions. That is important. It bases its assessments mainly on published and peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature. The bad news from the IPCC is that, in its 2007 report—released nearly two years ago—it confirmed that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. These are very strong words. According to my notes, the report observed that of the more than 29 000 observational data series from 75 studies that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, 89 per cent are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming. There is worse news. The report also observes that there is very high confidence—“very high confidence” is defined as a chance of about nine out of 10—that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming. Most of the observed increases in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century are very likely—“very likely” is defined as a greater than 90 per cent chance—due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations; such gases include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The report observes that carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, and that its annual emissions grew by about 80 per cent between 1970 and 2004. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use comprises 59 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions over this period. Furthermore, the IPCC claims that over the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely—“likely” is defined as a greater than 66 per cent chance—have produced cooling. That is something I did not realise. It is the rate of change that is most threatening. Intuitively, it makes sense; it took millions of years for forests to create underground carbon sinks. We are concentrating millions of years into a few hundred as we draw on these sinks and exhume carbon dioxide into the air. We all know that the opposing view is that there is no global warming; that warming is due to climate variation that has always been there; or that warming has nothing to do with human behaviour. Professor Plimer’s best- selling book is the most recent. As a book reviewer said only last Saturday on Radio National’s book review program, Plimer’s unmarked sources for his tables, inconsistencies and lack of substance for his various claims render the book meaningless for the true debate on climate change. There have been others. The public needs to be vigilant. In a recent assessment—regrettably, I have misplaced the source—of the publications for and against climate change in United States newspapers, it was revealed that the number of reports was 50-50 for and against; but whereas the pro-climate change writers all had peer reviews of their scientific papers, barely any of those against had such peer reviews. Peer review is the time-honoured academic way of preserving the veracity of scientific conclusions over rhetoric, yet it seems sadly forgotten in the climate change debate. May I put it to members this way? Would any of us board an aeroplane if there was a nine out of 10 chance of mechanical failure that would cause it to crash? Would any of us eat a food if there was a nine out of 10 chance that it had the potential to kill us? Would any of us place our entire net savings into a business if it had a nine out of 10 chance of totally failing? I contend that each of us would answer no to each of these questions! Therefore, the first consideration of climate change is risk management. Given the unequivocal “chance” of global warming occurring, the 90 per cent chance that it results from greenhouse gas emissions and that 59 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions comprise C02 released from fossil fuels, are we really willing to sit back and do nothing on the basis that it is either not happening or, if it is happening, that it is not caused by us; or do we accept that the do-nothing option is too big a risk? My view is that it is too big a risk for us to ignore. We will have to act in the belief that human activity is the main cause of climate change and global warming. Those who insist on not tackling climate change until it is 100 per cent proven that it is a result of human behaviour rather than sunspots or other solar forces, are taking an unconscionable risk. If in 20 to 30 years it is confirmed that it is caused by us, it will be too late—so late that a turnaround will have the most extreme economic consequences, far beyond those which the world economy has ever experienced. If CO2 emissions are not the cause, we can always unwind the climate abatement measures without irreversible costs. The second consideration is agriculture. Agriculture is yet to be understood by the former Kyoto Protocol architects, in particular the carbon cycle and soil carbon. Soil carbon, following research into lower cost measurement techniques, will take on a new role, as will the value of on-farm trees such as oil mallees, new perennial species on which Australian plant research is just beginning and methane-reducing micro flora for ruminants such as cattle and sheep. All it needs is a carbon price at a level to make this commercially viable. I have done some of this work and it is somewhere between $40 to $50 per tonne CO2 equivalent. Those of us in agriculture and other industries who move first are the ones who are going to apply them to our own environments and new businesses and industries around them. My goal is that all fossil fuels and other costs should be priced to reflect their true cost. We need to accept also that global warming mitigation is going to cost us all initially. Australia must be sufficiently brave to lead with climate change mitigating strategies. Others will quickly follow. We must get an emissions trading scheme as soon as possible that can generate a carbon price. The greatest fault with the federal government’s scheme is that the government is not putting us as citizens sufficiently in touch with it, in my view. It is a big business show at this stage. An emissions trading scheme has to be both a

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5003 household and business show, and I think it is so easy to do. I think that every business and household should be required to calculate their carbon footprint once per year, like filling out an income tax return, with a tax equivalent booklet showing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for inputs we consume based on the science of the day. There will be some goods and services tax equivalent accounting in this as well, but at the same time the government determines the carbon emission target reduction level to which we must conform by the specified time period. The resulting net carbon credits and deficits of each household and business together with the carbon reduction targets set by government will immediately generate a market and carbon price. It will also stimulate innovation. Carbon permit auctions, protection of low-income households and carbon pollution reduction scheme mechanisms can all still operate within this template. The difference is that all households and businesses drive the emissions reduction. The carbon-reducing culture will quickly become deeply ingrained in society. From the current situation of greenhouse gas emissions tracking the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios of increasing CO2 equivalent emissions every year, we will turn it around to greenhouse gas emissions decreasing every year, the objective of Professor Penny Sackett, Australia’s Chief Scientist. Regional Western Australia, of anywhere in the country and possibly the world, has one of the greatest resources of reliable sunlight, wind, wave and geothermal capacity, and proximity to functional towns. It will not take much to make these sources baseload relevant. Solar power, in either its photovoltaic or reflective mirror technology, fits into adding baseload capacity, for example, by storing the resulting steam from daylight generation in geothermal bores from where it can be released to drive turbines during the night. Regional towns are largely aware of the potential they hold. They are waiting for government to recognise the value and opportunity. There are many opportunities for agriculture and the Agricultural Region, with the only condition that where carbon is unable to be measured, those elements of agriculture should be excluded until measurement can be defined. Members will be pleased that I am on my last page. We can make the world a better place for mankind. Outstanding leadership of the Barack Obama kind, and what we have here in Western Australia, will be required at the top, but at the lowest, we each have the actual or latent capacity for degrees of leadership within our immediate community sphere. Like the amount and colour of the hair on my head, I reflect those around me and those who preceded me. They may not always have endorsed or agreed with me—that is where I would have taken over. To my wonderful, courageous and strong wife, Jenny, and similarly our two sons, Charles, with his wife Natasha and their son Lukas working in a human resources consultancy in Melbourne, and James trading bullion and playing both his football and piano in Sydney—they sustain my inspiration. To my late father and mother, who at 91 years is unable to make this evening as she did the induction, I thank them for never displaying any expectation, but for giving me the unconditional love that gives the foundation of emotional security and an example of the capacity for work with little complaint. I thank my dear brother Colin and his wife and family for their sustained support. I thank our close friends who helped counsel me on this career change, notably A.C. Chaudhri, my wonderful friend of India, David Hutt, our English brother-in-law, Hon Wendy Duncan, and especially Brendon Grylls, together with those serving in this house and the other place who have got me here despite myself. I very much look forward to serving with each of you to advance the interests of the people of Western Australia and Australia. Thank you. [Applause.] The PRESIDENT: I call Hon Liz Behjat and I remind members that this is the honourable member’s inaugural speech and the usual courtesies should be followed. HON LIZ BEHJAT (North Metropolitan) [8.29 pm]: Mr President, I congratulate you on your election and I look forward to working closely with you over the next four years as I strive to make a positive and worthwhile contribution to the people of Western Australia as one of their elected parliamentary representatives. I also congratulate Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm on his election as Deputy President and Chairman of Committees and look forward to working with him also. I pass on a huge vote of thanks to the Clerk of the house, Mr Malcolm Peacock, and the Deputy Clerk, Nigel Lake, and all the other officers of the Legislative Council for their expert advice and guidance during our induction sessions and the first sitting weeks, which has ensured that the new members have not made complete fools of themselves straightaway. No doubt, in some instances, that will come later and be of our own making. I do not know whether I can fully express in the time allotted to me what it actually means to me to have been elected to this house and what an honour it is to stand here today introducing myself as an elected representative of the North Metropolitan Region. I thank the electors for entrusting me with their votes. Before I proceed to introduce myself to the house, I will take this opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to two former members of the North Metropolitan Region who have both served this house and, indeed, the state of Western Australia in an exemplary manner over a number of years. I refer, of course, to Hon Ray Halligan and Hon George Cash. If it had not been for the retirement of these two esteemed gentlemen, I would not be standing

5004 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] here today, so, for that, I thank them, but the state of Western Australia owes both of them much more than my thanks. I long admired the energy and enthusiasm with which Hon Ray Halligan undertook his duties, especially in the area of participating strongly in and advocating for a large number of the ethnic communities and organisations based in the North Metropolitan Region and throughout the state. Ray served as shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests for a number of years. It was a role that he undertook with great pride and professionalism. The welfare and wellbeing of migrants and the advancement of ethnic interest groups is a subject that I am particularly interested in. If I can make a contribution in that area that comes even close to that of Ray Halligan’s, I will be very happy. I also know that Ray made a great contribution to the Parliament, serving on and chairing various committees from the day he was elected in 1997 right through to the expiration of his term last month. I wish him well in his future pursuits. I will not say “in his retirement” because he will, I am sure, still make a valued contribution to public life in his future endeavours. With regard to Hon George Cash, it is with much pride that I claim him as a friend, mentor and close confidante. He was a colleague and friend of my father’s, the late John Williams, who was a member of this house for 18 years. I will speak more about dad later, but for the moment I will pay tribute to George and thank him from the bottom of my heart for the advice and guidance he has given me over the years, particularly in the past 15 months when I made my decision to seek preselection for the 2008 state election. I have a very deep fondness for George and have valued the experiences we have shared over a long time. Growing up as a young Liberal in the 1970s and 1980s, George was also an enthusiastic supporter of our causes. I know that a number of my friends who have gone on to serve in Parliaments both here and in Canberra hold George in high regard and still seek out his guidance and counsel today, and will continue to do so for a long time. In fact, George returned to this place only days after his retirement to conduct a most worthwhile session for the newly inducted members of this house. To all new members I can wholeheartedly recommend that they take the time to read George’s valedictory remarks and take good note of what he said about the workings of this chamber and the Parliament in general. We all have a lot to learn. Without my own father here today to give me the advice I would seek about political life, I am lucky to count George as one of my friends and, in some ways, my surrogate father. Again, I will not wish him well in retirement, but wish him well in his future pursuits, which I know will be many and varied. Thank you, George. I also mention George’s daughter, Michaelia, who is today an extremely hardworking and popular member of the Australian Senate, representing Western Australia in the federal sphere. It is evident that the apple has not fallen far from the tree and the comparisons that are made between Michaelia and George are inevitable, but I know they are both very proud of their achievements and neither would mind being compared with the other. Michaelia also gave me invaluable advice and support in the months leading up to my election, for which I sincerely thank her. She is certainly her father’s daughter. Now let us talk about me. As I alluded to earlier, I have a keen interest in the welfare and wellbeing of migrants and ethnic communities in Western Australia. The main reason for this is that I am a migrant with a proud Welsh heritage and I am married to a migrant, an Iranian, whom I met whilst I was living in England and he was in France. The story of how we got together is a story for another time. We were married in Amiens in France and we both came to live in Australia in 1992. In 1994 my husband became an Australian citizen. I had taken citizenship with the rest of my family in 1975. Our son is a first-generation Australian. The most recent statistics from 2007 show that a large proportion of people living in the North Metropolitan Region, well over 55 per cent, originate from Europe. Without doubt, the largest of these groups has an Anglo Saxon-Celtic background, and this is the group to which I belong. Although my parentage is Welsh, I was born in England. Perhaps today it is not politically correct to use the term ten-pound Pom. I do not see it as a derogatory phrase, and it is exactly what I am. I was reminded by my sister a few weeks ago that it was mum and dad who paid the £10 and the three kids came free, so in reality I suppose it makes me a freeloader, and some would say, “Quite appropriate for a politician.” I apologise if I offend anybody by using the phrase “ten-pound Pom”, but honourable members will come to learn over the next few years that I do not always do or say what is politically correct because I sincerely believe that we have gone overboard in the politically correct arena in recent times and we need to return to a time when commonsense and mutual respect automatically prevails, without compulsion or legislation being necessary. I came to Western Australia on board the Castel Felice, arriving on 6 July 1966 as a seven-year-old with my family—mum and dad, my older sister, Bronwen, and my younger brother, Rick, both of whom are in the gallery tonight. I remember our arrival at Fremantle most vividly, especially the excitement amongst all the children on board, when we first saw the lights of the city that was to become our home. The novelty in the very early hours of that morning soon wore off when we realised that in order to go through the necessary migration, quarantine and other sorts of checks, we had to stand in alphabetical order. Being the Williams family, we were waiting in

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5005 line for quite some time. Apart from being a traditionalist, it is probably one of the reasons I took my husband’s surname when we married because now I am a Behjat, and the Bs are always up there in the front! Thank goodness times have changed, and today migrants arriving in Australia are processed in a much more timely and welcoming fashion, as long as they arrive using the legal channels available to them. Unlike many of our fellow passengers, we did not have to go to Graylands Migrant Hostel, for which I am extremely thankful, having visited families who did go there. We were fortunate to have relatives already in Perth who arranged a house for us to move into straightaway. It was, however, a great source of amusement to us children to learn that the house was in a place called “Innaloo”, a suburb name that for obvious reasons has always been a constant source of amusement to visitors and young children alike. Today I am very proud to say that Innaloo is part of my electorate and I am very happy to represent the good folk of that area. It is something that I certainly did not dream about back in the 1960s when I attended North Innaloo Primary School, which today is known as Yuluma Primary School. I have very fond memories of my primary school years at that school. The rest of my formative years, from 1971 onwards, were spent growing up in Floreat Park, and I attended Churchlands Senior High School for most of my high school years, after one year at Scarborough Senior High School. I have over the years worked in several different areas including the law as a paralegal specialising in conveyancing and commercial law; in the racing industry working in a thoroughbred bloodstock agency; in the hospitality and gaming industry in Tasmania and Perth, where I was the pre-opening coordinator and guest services manager of Burswood Casino. For the past 11 years I have worked as an electorate officer for several federal members of Parliament. As members can see, I have had a varied and quite diverse career path, which I believe will stand me in good stead for this new chapter of my working life. But why the Legislative Council? In 1971, my father, John Williams, was elected to the Legislative Council as a representative of what was then the Metropolitan Province. That entire province is today encompassed in the North Metropolitan Region and I am incredibly proud to say—those members who read “Inside Cover” this morning got the scoop—that I am led to believe that I am the first Liberal Party woman in Western Australia, if not the whole of Australia, to represent the same electorate as did her father. It is a badge of honour that I am very proud to wear. I know dad would be extremely proud of me if he was with us today. As a 12-year-old I sat in the public gallery, where a number of my friends are sitting this evening, and thought that one day I would like to sit down there in one of those big red chairs. Today is the fulfilment of that dream and words cannot describe the immense pride and humility I feel at this moment. Today I join a small group of Liberal women who have been and still are fortunate to serve as members of the Legislative Council. Since the formation of the Council there have been a total of 334 members, and of that number only 38 have been women, and of that 38 only 11 women have come from the conservative side of politics—and I am one of them. I know that that is not a great number, but I am proud to say that our numbers are growing and that we have achieved this, through the Liberal Party preselection process, on our own merits and not subject to any tokenism or affirmative action, as may be the case in other political parties. Although we lost one of our Liberal women at the last election with the retirement of Hon Barbara Scott, to whom I also pay tribute, we have gained two at this election, namely me and Hon Alyssa Hayden from the East Metropolitan Region. It is interesting to note today that the East Metropolitan Region is represented by five women members; the token male representative of the region, Hon Jock Ferguson, who sits on the other side, is therefore in very good company! With the male to female ratio of the house now standing at almost 50-50, we are in for some very interesting times. As I said previously, my family’s early days in Australia were exciting. It was fun growing up in a neighbourhood full of kids in a time when it was safe to run around the streets and local parks without our shoes on and without the fear of treading on a hypodermic needle or of being abducted or assaulted or exposed to “stranger danger”. Growing up in those days a stranger was just a friend we had not met yet; sadly we cannot say the same thing today. There has without a doubt been an increase in violent crime in recent times and I know that law and order is a huge issue in the electorate. I am pleased to be part of a government that intends to address these issues. I do not intend to expand on this area today because the problems are probably larger than the time allotted. I will be working closely with the Attorney General and the Minister for Police to make a positive contribution in the months and years to come. But change cannot be brought about by legislation alone; there has to be a change in attitudes as well. The Huckleberry Finn idyllic childhood has been missing from our neighbourhoods for many years, but I am pleased to say that slowly, in some areas, especially in the streets where we live, in Madeley, there has been a return to the games of street cricket and tennis, and to children playing safely in their front gardens. I think the revival of playing out in the street with friends could be due in part to the welcome return of some of the old- fashioned values, such as respect for elders and peers—values that seemed to have been lacking in the latter part

5006 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] of the twentieth century. If the attitudes and deeds of the generation to which my 11-year-old son belongs are anything to go by, we are starting to see definite change. Attitudes are changing. I am encouraged by some of the programs being run in our schools today, such as the Virtues Project, which I am familiar with through my son who attends Ashdale Primary School—a government school in the suburb of Darch, which is another great area of the North Metropolitan Region. Each fortnight, the students, under the guidance of their teachers and their peer support groups, concentrate on learning and practising one of the virtues from the project. The virtues are too numerous for me to list today in total, but examples include caring, compassion, consideration, diligence, enthusiasm, honesty, humility, humour, loyalty, justice, unity, and so the list goes on. In fact, when I was looking through the list to prepare for today’s speech, it struck me that the virtues that I have just mentioned are ones that we as members of Parliament should adopt and adhere to— especially when it comes to the way in which we frame legislation and deal with each other during our debates and deliberations. I highly recommend the full list of virtues to all members and I am happy to pass it on later as compulsory reading if members wish. Some members may think it is an indictment of parents today that it is our teachers who are teaching our children virtues, and not the parents themselves, but perhaps some parents were not brought up this way and they in turn will now be learning from their children—this is not a bad thing. I pay tribute to all those who have taken up the vocation of teaching. I affirm that they are a precious commodity charged with the education of our future generations and I know that they all undertake their commitment to their vocation with the utmost of pride and professionalism. I know that I still think fondly about a number of my teachers from my schooldays and I thank them for the values that they, together with my parents, helped instil in me. In today’s hectic and electronic society we must ensure that we carry forward those old-fashioned values such as good manners, respect and caring for each other. These are the values that we must all hold dear, no matter what avenues we pursue in our daily life. If we do not maintain respect for ourselves and our fellow Australians regardless of creed, religion or colour, what hope have we got of maintaining the peace and the fantastic lifestyle that we all enjoy today? The lifestyle we enjoy is made richer and more interesting by the influx of the many ethnic groups that today form the diverse community to which we all now belong. It began back in the 1940s and 1950s with the Italian and Eastern European migrants fleeing post-World War II Europe looking for a fresh start. They brought with them their traditional values, love of family and of course the skills and work ethic that saw much of the Osborne Park-Balcatta area of the region quickly transformed into the market gardens and small businesses that flourished for a number of decades. Of course, they also brought with them the wonderful cuisines of their regions and if there is one thing that Australians have embraced wholeheartedly, it is the food and cafe lifestyle that our climate lends itself to so well. The 1960s and 1970s were not only a time for the ten-pound Poms to arrive, but the late 1970s also brought to our shores the Vietnamese fleeing an oppressive regime; unfortunately, the violation of human rights in Vietnam continues today. I acknowledge the tireless efforts of two people from my electorate, Hieu Tran and Dai Nguyen, whom I was lucky to come to know through my immediate-past employer, the hardworking federal member for Stirling, Michael Keenan, when he advocated, along with these men, for members of the Viet Tan who were imprisoned by the communist regime. Once again, people in this ethnic group brought with them family values and a strong work ethic and they continue to develop the market garden industry, which is still going strong today. A visit to the Wanneroo markets, again in the North Metropolitan Region, on any weekend gives testament to this. In more recent times we have seen the arrival of people from the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and India. All of these groups are making a new home for their families whilst passing on to our community their diverse languages, cultural histories, cuisines and skill sets. Western Australia can only become richer for the contribution made by all of these groups. However, it has long been recognised that these different ethnic groups need support from the government in order to not only keep alive their heritage and traditions, but also assist them to integrate into Australian society. It is vitally important that we allow these groups to maintain their own cultural identities, but they must also be recognised as fellow Australians—not just by them becoming citizens but by acceptance by the community and integration into the Australian way of life. Funding for programs offered by the various ethnic associations to assist in migrant integration has been, up until the election of the Barnett government, a bit of a hit and miss affair and it was the squeakiest wheel that seemed to get the most oil. There also appeared to be a lack of accountability for funding received and criticism was levelled at the leadership of organisations that often seemed to have their own personal agendas for advancement and often promoted their own views before representing the views of their membership. Under the guidance of the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, Hon John Castrilli, we have seen long overdue reform to the way funding is delivered to ethnic groups through the advent of the Ethnic Organisations Fund. It is clear to the government that multicultural communities themselves clearly want

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5007 change. After a series of extensive consultations, the funding model has been developed to allow triennial rather than annual funding, which gives the various ethnic groups more time to get on with delivering their programs instead of having to continually focus on applying for funding each year. These changes have been welcomed by the majority of ethnic community groups and are seen as a positive step to assist in the empowerment and advancement of these ethnic groups, something that has been lacking over the past decade. I look forward to working closely with the minister and all ethnic groups in the electorate to deliver the best possible outcomes to help them become more at home in our community.

One of the great things about being a member of the Legislative Council is that we are able to use all of our life’s experiences to add value to our deliberations and decisions concerning the lives of all Western Australians, not just limited to those in the metropolitan area. This brings me to the part of my story that is about the Pilbara, a place that I hold dear for a number of reasons. In 2005 my husband took up a posting with the Australian Customs Service in Dampier, and we were very happy to fully embrace the wonderful lifestyle that can be enjoyed in towns such as Karratha, where we lived. We were very lucky because housing was provided to us at a very reasonable cost as part of the deal. I am fully aware that affordable housing for those who work in areas other than large mining companies and government departments is at a premium, but it is something that I am glad to say is being addressed by our current government in a number of ways. We were originally meant to be in Karratha for three years but we stayed for only 15 months. Our time was cut short for a couple of reasons but the main one was that due to a lack of medical facilities and associated support for families, we were unable to get the treatment required for our son for what was a relatively minor medical problem—minor if one lives in Perth but disastrous if one lives in the Pilbara. We made the only decision that we could and that was to return to Perth. We were lucky because we had the choice. However, many families living in that region cannot make the choice. We need families to stay in the Pilbara. It is incumbent on us as a government to make it better for them. I was delighted to see significant funding committed to the upgrade of Nickol Bay Hospital in Karratha in the most recent budget. No doubt the royalties for regions program will continue to deliver better services in all of those areas in the coming years. I was speaking with friends in Karratha recently, and they are excited about the future under the Liberal-National alliance. I do not bring to this place any fantastic blueprints, plans or grand schemes for the future of Western Australia. I will leave that part to others more qualified than me. However, I am certain that under the guidance and with the foresight and planning of our current Liberal government, I will be able to contribute to the groundwork that will see some wonderful advancements and developments made to both the physical and social infrastructure that will improve our already great way of life. I am extremely excited about the plans to sink the railway line in the centre of Perth in order to join the city to Northbridge. The future for this area is exciting and will certainly help breathe life into an area that can only currently be described as an eyesore in an otherwise beautiful city. I am also excited about plans to develop the foreshore of the Swan River, not in a fantastic or futuristic way as mooted by the previous government but in a way that is in keeping with the relaxed, laidback lifestyle that we cherish here in Perth. I would certainly like to see more places for families to gather and recreate but I would also like to see us develop more than just a Ferris wheel and a belltower to encourage tourists to come here and spend time at or on the Swan River. We need more casual dining and accommodation that utilises what the area has to offer. As the City of Perth is contained within the North Metropolitan Region, I will save more detailed discussions of future plans for another time. I am also looking forward to developments that will be put in place along the coastal areas of my electorate, in particular, redevelopment of the Scarborough waterfront area under the care and guidance of the hardworking popular member for Scarborough, my colleague from the other place Liza Harvey. The proposal for the Ocean Reef marina development is also exciting and one I know that Albert Jacob has worked diligently for in his previous life as a councillor for the City of Joondalup and now as the member for Ocean Reef. All these developments will be good for residents and tourists alike. Ours is a vibrant state that needs to move forward in the way of development whilst remaining conscious of the fragile ecosystem along the coast, but I think we can achieve this through collaboration and cooperation between the various interest groups. What I do bring with me today is a sense of immense pride, gratitude and anticipation. I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party, proud to be part of the Colin Barnett government and incredibly proud to be a member of the Legislative Council. The gratitude I feel is firstly to my parents John and Sylvia for giving me a wonderful start in life and to my sister Bronwen, brother Rick and their spouses James and Sue, who together with their children and my husband and son make up a family that is full of love, laughter, guidance, friendship and the occasional squabble; gratitude, secondly, to my friends, many of whom are here tonight in the gallery, and in particular, I mention my dear personal friends, Kim and Penny Keogh, Wendy Gillan and Rachael Turnseck, Liza and Hal Harvey, Betty and Jack, Mark Trowell and Chris Lawford, thank you for being my friends and for keeping me grounded and in touch with reality, something I hope you will continue to do well into the future.

5008 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

I express my thanks and gratitude to the members of the Liberal Party who sat on my preselection committee and who were willing to listen to my request for them to be bold and to choose a representative who may not have been the one they originally had in mind. I promise not to let them down. Special thanks also to Danielle Blain, Robyn Nolan and the Liberal Women’s Council. Their support is much appreciated. I would also like to pay tribute to two federal members of Parliament whom I previously worked for. I am very proud to say that I worked for the former Senator Chris Ellison and the current member for Canning, Don Randall. To Chris and Don, both of you have played a pivotal role in my journey to this place and I sincerely thank you both for your guidance, friendship and encouragement in seeking my own political career. Thank you also to the members of the Stirling division of the Liberal Party, my home division, especially Marie Grout and Anne Johnson, both wonderful women who continue to amaze us all with their enthusiasm and drive, especially when it comes to elections and fundraising activities. I also acknowledge Hon James Clarko, a former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly who is here tonight and who was a great friend of my dad and one of my referees for preselection. Thank you, Jim. I make mention of my staff—my electorate officer, Lisa Yarwood, and my research officer, Mark Davidson, who have made the leap of faith to join team Behjat. I thank you for the commitment you have shown already and I hope that ours is a long and happy association. There are so many more people that I could thank but time does not permit, and I am frightened that I would leave someone out. One of the drawbacks of being a migrant and married to a migrant is that at times like this not all of your family and friends can be with you. Tonight I send a special message to everyone watching on the internet in England and Wales, especially my great Uncle Arthur—everyone needs an Uncle Arthur—and to my dear friends and family in Nashville and Iran. I love you all and wish you were here. I have saved the most important bit until last. To my wonderful husband, Reza, and my darling son, Ali: without the unfailing and unconditional love and support that you both give to me, none of this would have been possible. You are both my treasured loves and I thank you for believing in me. I promise in front of all these witnesses tonight to never lose sight of the fact that you are the most important people in my life and that without you I am nothing. We are on this journey together as a team and I love you both very much. Finally, the anticipation of what the future holds is enormous as I embark on this latest journey, which is a fulfilment of a lifelong ambition. I promise that I will faithfully serve the people of Western Australia as their representative in this place for as long as they will permit me. I look forward to a long and happy association with you all. Thank you. [Applause.] HON ED DERMER (North Metropolitan) [9.00 pm]: In addressing the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure — Consolidated Fund Estimates 2009-2010, I intend to focus on a matter that amounts to a very small part of expenditure but a matter of great significance to the people concerned. I seek to explain to the house an urgent need that came to my attention because of the location of my electorate office. My electorate office is located on the corner of Collier Avenue and Amelia Street, Balcatta. The corner of my electorate office is opposite the Northlands Plaza Shopping Centre, which runs along the northern side of Amelia Street between Wanneroo Road and Main Street. The need that I wish to address tonight was brought to my attention by my particularly astute electorate and research officers, Dr John Crouch and Mrs Jane Saunders. The need that I am hoping to address is visible from the windows of my electorate office. A large number of people in my electorate have the misfortune of very significant disabilities. Of most concern to Mrs Saunders, Dr Crouch and I is the enormous risk and danger that these people face daily when they endeavour to negotiate Collier Avenue and across Amelia Street to access the Northlands Plaza Shopping Centre. Mrs Saunders, Dr Crouch and I have witnessed many near misses with cars almost colliding with people. Fortunately, we have not yet witnessed a collision. Every time we see this happen, we become very concerned. On a number of occasions we have escorted people back to their homes after they have become very distressed following a near miss or other unfortunate incident. I am talking about many different people with different disabilities—sight, hearing, mobility and, in some cases, intellectual capacity. Often, and most dangerously, the people I am concerned about have a combination of disabilities. This adds to the hazard when they endeavour to negotiate these roads. There are many examples of people with wheelchairs—some propelled by hand, others motorised. A lady whom I see regularly riding a large tricycle endeavours to negotiate Amelia Street, which is a very busy street, to get to the shopping centre. There are two points on Amelia Street, between Wanneroo Road and Main Street where cars can enter and exit the shopping centre. Once people negotiate their way to the shopping centre, they face the shopping centre car park. It is very difficult to illustrate this without a map, but the various lines of entry and exit on Amelia Street and along Collier Avenue towards Amelia Street are difficult for any able-bodied person to negotiate let alone a person with a disability. If we consider a person who has a serious disability, often compounded by more than one disability, it becomes a very frightening and dangerous experience.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5009

I remember on one occasion looking out the window of my electorate office and seeing a car suspended across the median island. It had been going too fast, had broken into a skid and was suspended across the median island that runs down the middle of Amelia Street. I am trying to think what it must be like. It is impossible for anyone to imagine going through this very hazardous environment with disabilities that affect sight, hearing and mobility. It really is a frightening and dangerous situation. I cannot imagine because I cannot experience it. I can only try to imagine the degree of fear; and, sadly, fear that is based on real risk and real danger to the people concerned. On 5 March this year I conducted an on-site examination of the various hazards confronting people who go down Collier Avenue and cross Amelia Street to access the shopping centre. I was joined by one of my staff, Dr Crouch. Mrs Saunders had done a lot of work to make sure that I was fully familiar with all the experiences as well. While she was attending the office, Dr Crouch and I visited each of the points along these two streets that I believe are a hazard. We were joined by officers from the City of Stirling—Mr Geoff Eves, the director of infrastructure management; Mr Paul Giamov, a traffic design engineer; and Mr Terence Pailing, a design manager engineer. We were also very fortunate to be joined by Mr Alex Clark. He is a local resident, a very active citizen and a man who generously gives of his time to fellow citizens in the general community. He is a gentleman who is a very effective advocate for people with disabilities. He is a member of the advisory council to the Minister for Disability Services. Mr Clark is profoundly deaf. He was able to join us for the examination of Collier Avenue and Amelia Street. His wisdom and his personal experience gave the rest of us an insight—as best he could and as best we could understand, without having disabilities ourselves—of how difficult it is for people with disabilities to negotiate Collier Avenue and Amelia Street. I appreciate the attention that Mr Clark and the City of Stirling officers gave to these issues. We were able to identify a number of hazards and potential solutions were discussed at this examination that we conducted on 5 March. Most of the potential solutions are matters for the City of Stirling. They are within the city’s area of responsibility and it has the resources to attend to those matters. The City of Stirling is still considering most of these items, and I am looking forward to the results of its consideration. Three of the potential solutions to help overcome these problems for the people concerned are for the consideration of Main Roads and the Minister for Transport. One concern related to the location of a 60-kilometre-an-hour sign on the section of Amelia Street between Wanneroo Road and Main Street. That sign was right next to the main area where people cross Amelia Street. We were concerned that it was giving the wrong signal. There is a sign on Amelia Street that says “disabled people crossing” but that gave a mixed message. There was also a sign, right near the point where people cross, that indicated it is a 60-kilometre-an-hour zone. The City of Stirling agreed that was a concern, and it raised the matter with Main Roads. Main Roads has agreed to move the 60-kilometre-an-hour sign. It has been moved further away from the main point where people cross Amelia Street. I am pleased that that has occurred. My other big concern is the fact that 60 kilometres an hour is allowed on that part of Amelia Street. My initial request was for a Stop sign where Collier Avenue meets Amelia Street. It was pointed out to me that that was outside the regulations that govern the location of Stop signs. We modified that request to a Give Way sign on the corner, with the appropriate road markings. The City of Stirling recommended the installation of the Give Way sign, as did I. According to a letter dated 4 June that I received from the Minister for Transport, for which I thank the minister, the installation work for the Give Way sign and the road markings will commence in what was described as the next few weeks—that is, from 4 June. The progress with both of these partial solutions is appreciated. However, my third request—I believe this to be the most important request to the Minister for Transport and to Main Roads WA—appears to be still under consideration. On 20 March I wrote to the Minister for Transport requesting consideration by the minister and Main Roads of a reduction in the speed limit to 40 kilometres an hour for that part of Amelia Street that lies alongside the Northlands Plaza Shopping Centre between Main Street and Wanneroo Road. I am looking forward to receiving a reply and hope that it will indicate agreement to a reduction in the existing 60-kilometre- an-hour speed limit because I believe there is a very urgent need for that reduction. The existing 60-kilometre- an-hour speed limit on that section of Amelia Street is entirely inappropriate and highly dangerous. As I have explained before, that part of Amelia Street contains added complexity due to the two connections to the shopping centre car park, both of which allow for entry and exit, and due to the adjoining streets such as Collier Avenue. Given the large number of people in that area with disabilities, a 60-kilometre-an-hour speed limit is, as I say, entirely inappropriate and very dangerous. Northlands Plaza is quite a significant shopping centre. I understand that, technically, the people in wheelchairs and those relying on other devices are regarded as pedestrians, although they tend to go up and down Collier Avenue rather than use the footpath. There are reasons for that. There is concern for people who might be using a wheelchair on the footpath, for example, where the footpath is set against the fences of homes. They are not easily visible and are unable to see vehicles coming in and out of the driveways. They therefore tend to go up and down Collier Avenue, which I am sure may not be appropriate, but that is what they do. They are at risk and we need to do everything we can to attend to it. I am concerned that cars turning into Collier Avenue from Amelia Street are a risk to people coming down Collier

5010 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Avenue in wheelchairs or with the aid of other devices. If we were to lower the speed limit on Amelia Street, the cars coming into Collier Avenue would be travelling at a lesser speed. If 60 kilometres an hour is inappropriate for a regular suburban street where the speed limit is usually 50 kilometres an hour, that 60 kilometres an hour is definitely inappropriate in Amelia Street between Wanneroo Road and Main Street alongside this important shopping centre. If the speed limit could be reduced, naturally, not everyone would comply with it. There is a tendency for some people to drive at some speed in excess of the official speed limit. For some, it is slightly in excess of the limit; for others, it is greater. Obviously, if we lowered the official speed limit—I think the appropriate speed limit for that part of Amelia Street is 40 kilometres an hour—the larger part of the driving population would comply and would certainly travel at less than the current speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour. If the speed limit was lower, there would be less probability of an accident occurring. If an accident did occur, the physical impact on the people involved, bearing in mind that my main concern is for pedestrians, would be dreadful for anyone, but would be less likely to be lethal. My greater hope is, of course, that with a lower speed limit, there would be more chance of people successfully applying the brakes and avoiding an accident. When Mrs Saunders, Dr Crouch and I hear the screech of brakes and see these near miss incidents from the window of my electorate office, we find it frightening, yet we are safe in the office. How much more frightening is it for people who are endeavouring to get to the shops, who often suffer impediments to their senses and lack mobility and for whom what seems like a fairly simple exercise to all of us is a matter of great hazard? It is also a matter of enormous importance. Many of them are not able to drive a car and find that their disability restricts their life in many ways. Access to the Northlands Plaza Shopping Centre is probably a big part of their getting out. There are many of them; it is very important to them; and their life is in jeopardy. I am pleased the Minister for Transport is listening because, obviously, he has that more immediate responsibility. I have received letters from constituents pointing out the difficulty for them. In one instance a letter from a carer points out the difficulty for an elderly lady who is significantly sight impaired. Obviously, the visible evidence is before me and my hardworking electorate officers. But I wanted evidence that I could document, so I wrote to the Minister for Disability Services and the Minister for Housing and Works to see what information they could provide me about this particular concentration of people with serious disabilities in the area around the Northlands Plaza Shopping Centre on Amelia Street. I was very grateful to get sensible replies from both ministers, which I would like to share with the house. On 24 March the Minister for Disability Services, Hon Simon O’Brien, wrote to me as follows — Dear Ed Thank you for your letter dated 6 March 2009 and for your ongoing interest in the safety and wellbeing of people with disabilities in your region. I requested that the Disability Services Commission prepare a statistical profile of the area you indicated, bounded by Main Street, Amelia Street, Wanneroo Road and Morley Drive in Balcatta. I chose those streets because it is a fairly well defined area and, I believe, one in which there is likely to be quite a number of pedestrians, walking, using a wheelchair or using a similar device to access the shopping centre. It continues — Using a combination of data from the Commission and from the Australian Bureau of Statistics I am able to confirm that this area does have a high proportion of residents who have a disability and require assistance. It is a level of disability that requires assistance. The letter continues — Within Western Australia about three per cent of the population has what is described as a ‘profound and severe core activity limitation’ and requires assistance with daily activities. Within the area you indicated, about seven per cent of the local residents — or 99 people, have a disability and require daily assistance including the use of mobility aids. The rate of people with such disabilities in the general state population is three per cent, and in this particular area it is seven per cent—more than double. Seven per cent may not sound enormous, but the other 93 per cent, if we like, are people for whom a trip to the Northlands shopping centre is probably a less significant part of their daily lives because many other people would be driving further afield and have access to activities that many people with such profound disabilities do not have. The letter continues — This is a greater proportion of the population than either Western Australia generally or the Stirling Local Government area in which about four per cent of the population has a disability. The general figure for the state is three per cent, the general figure for Stirling local government is four percent, and in the particular area bounded by the streets I mentioned, seven per cent of people have this level of

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5011 disability. Naturally, I have passed this letter and the letter that I will refer to in a minute from the Minister for Housing and Works to the City of Stirling for them to consider in their deliberations about the other possible solutions that could contribute to enhancing the safety of these people. Returning to the Minister for Disability Services’ letter, he stated — While a proportion of the residents in the area described are people who are ageing, at least half are younger people with disabilities who live in supported accommodation homes immediately within the area around Collier Avenue and Amelia Street. These include homes operated by i.d.entity WA, WA Blue Sky, The Cerebral Palsy Centre and the Brightwater Care facility for younger people. In all there are six group homes north of Green Avenue. Residents from these homes may well be the people you observe from your electorate office. I hope this information is useful to you and I thank you again for your ongoing interest in the wellbeing of people with disabilities in your electoral region. I wrote to these two ministers before I wrote to the Minister for Transport on 20 March to request a reduction in the speed limit, because my original intention was to obtain the information to pass on to the City of Stirling. Having received the information, it reinforced the point even more strongly about the need to also reduce the speed limit in the section of Amelia Street in question. I received a letter dated 6 May from Rachael Turnseck, the principal policy adviser to the minister for various ministries—Treasurer, Minister for Commerce; Science and Innovation—in his capacity as Minister for Housing and Works. The letter states — Dear Mr Dermer On behalf of the Minister, thank you for your letter regarding people with disabilities living in close proximity to Northlands Shopping Centre in Balcatta. The Minister shares your concern for those pedestrians with serious disabilities trying to negotiate the busy intersection and is advised that the Department of Housing owns 230 properties in the vicinity. Of these properties, the Department has identified 107 tenants who receive the Disability Support Pension (DSP). In addition, the Minister is advised that the Department leases 28 properties to external agencies such as Uniting Care West, I.D. Entity of WA, Cerebral Palsy Association of WA, Bridgewater Association, Autism Association, Disability Services Commission, Nascha Inc, WA Blue Sky Inc, Foundation Housing and Wesley Housing. What we are talking about, as I understand it, are organisations that lease their properties from the Department of Housing to provide them as accommodation for people with a range of disabilities. The number of organisations in the area in question gives members an idea of the types of disabilities that people need to deal with in their lives, including when they are trying to negotiate their way to the shopping centre, which is something simple that gives many people great pleasure. I remember the day that Dr Crouch and I escorted a young lady back to her home who had been through a stressful situation—to actually live the experience gives people some understanding. My endeavours to express that to the house tonight are obviously limited, but I will do my best and, again, I am very pleased that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Disability Services—it happens to be the same man holding both those portfolios—is listening tonight. Hon Simon O’Brien: I am taking it all in and I will respond in due course. Obviously, I will not respond by interjection. Hon ED DERMER: Other than that very brief one, which is appreciated, minister. It is interesting that the minister holds both those portfolios. I am sure that is entirely coincidental to the needs of these people who are endeavouring to access the Northlands Plaza Shopping Centre, but it gives me great hope. I know that the minister takes all his work very seriously, and having the disability services portfolio will give him an intimacy in understanding the needs of people with disabilities and having the transport portfolio will give him an understanding of what can be done to make their lives safer and less fearful. I am hopeful and confident that he will bring both those aspects together with a sensible solution, a big part of which, in my view, is reducing the speed limit on that part of Amelia Street. I implore the minister to take into account the understanding that I endeavour to share with the house—an understanding based on direct observation and experience and now evidence that has been very helpfully provided to me by the minister as the Minister for Disability Services and by the principal policy adviser to the Minister for Housing and Works. I am very grateful for getting that hard information that backs up what Mrs Saunders, Dr Crouch and I can see from our office and local residents, such as Mr Clark, who are also aware of this desperate need. I hope and pray that appropriate action will be taken before an impending disaster that we so often anticipate occurs. I do not know how more

5012 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] clearly I can illustrate the gravity of the request that I am making. Hopefully, the minister and Main Roads Western Australia can be persuaded to assist by reducing the speed limit on that part of Amelia Street. I think that I am now finding myself making this point for not the first time, which is a signal to me that I have covered what I wanted to say. Another thing that I would be very pleased to have occur would be if the minister, perhaps with senior people from Main Roads, came to visit us on the corner of Collier Avenue and Amelia Street. I would be delighted to walk the minister and whichever officers from his department or Main Roads he might like to bring along with him, through each of the points of concern that we hold, perhaps, in a similar way to what we did with the officers from the City of Stirling and Mr Clark in March. I am very pleased that today I was able to contact one of the ward councillors, Cr Peter Rose, who will join me for a similar inspection of the area on Thursday morning. Coming out to the site with senior officers from Main Roads would at least probably be more effective than my words tonight in illustrating the desperate need and the importance of doing whatever can be done for these people, for whom life has thrown up special challenges, to enjoy their very basic right of accessing the local shopping centre without fearing for their lives. Hon Simon O’Brien: If I may by way of brief interjection, what the member is saying is an admirable reflection of concern for his constituents, which has been noted. It was my intention to talk to the member privately about that. However, I will just mention briefly that I have asked departmental officers to research this matter. They have been out on-site and have provided me with a report with photos and so forth, and I will communicate their advice to the member forthwith. Hon ED DERMER: I am very pleased that has happened. I think the opportunity to meet those senior officers, hopefully with the minister, and to walk those streets and paths and perhaps even meet some of the people concerned would be of additional assistance in researching and clarifying the urgency and the gravity of the need that I endeavour to bring to the house’s attention. Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Ken Baston. NATIONAL GAS ACCESS (WA) BILL 2008 Committee Resumed from an earlier stage. The Chairman of Committees (Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm) in the chair; Hon Peter Collier (Minister for Energy) in charge of the bill. Postponed clause 6B: Interpretation Act 1984 does not apply — Progress was reported after the amendment moved by Hon Giz Watson had been partly considered. Hon PETER COLLIER: I reply to a point made earlier by Hon Adele Farina about the fact that because we were not accessing components of the legislation with regard to retail and distribution, we could therefore perhaps go it alone with the disallowance component. The government has not gone ahead with the other jurisdictions with regard to the retail and distribution tranches of the national regime because we already have our own arrangements in that area. That is the beauty of the National Gas Access (WA) Bill; we have the opportunity to do that, and we have taken the opportunity. We were party to the previous national gas access regime through the Gas Pipeline Access (Western Australia) Act 1998 and the Gas Code. This has simply replaced that regime. The government has made amendments to the national gas access law to allow for the seamless operation of a consistent national gas law in Western Australia and to accommodate the local regulator and arbitrator. That is what makes it uniquely Western Australian. That is why we have done that. I understand that the member is saying that we have made these allowances with the retail and distribution component, so why can we not do the rest with the disallowance component? As I have said before, I think we are not going to see eye to eye on this matter. I understand the argument, but the government feels that it creates uncertainty. They may come into effect on the day, but they will then be open to disallowance for 14 sitting days, which could potentially stretch into months. It is because of that uncertainty that the government will not support the amendment. Hon KATE DOUST: Part of the concern is that all the way through the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review’s report on this bill, concern was expressed about the lack of scrutiny in a range of Parliaments, including this Parliament. I happened to be reading another very good report from the same committee, and at the back of the report was a list of fundamental legislative scrutiny principles. The list asks a series of questions about what a bill should do to meet legislative requirements. One of the first questions is whether the bill has sufficient regard to the institution of Parliament. I think that that is probably similar to the concerns raised by Hon Adele Farina and Hon Giz Watson. Although the government may be satisfied, I do not think the opposition is satisfied. I know that many of us have sat here for years listening to the likes of

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5013

Hon Norman Moore railing endlessly at the commonwealth government for taking away the powers of the state government and the capacity of the state Parliament to scrutinise legislation. All that is being asked is for the Parliament of Western Australia to have the capacity to look to the needs of the state when considering an amendment to legislation, and if an amendment does not meet the requirements of the state, to take the appropriate steps to disallow it. The Parliament of this state needs to have the capacity to do that. Although this is looking only at the situation of retail in Western Australia, who is to say that at some point down the track that will not change, or who is to say that with the changing environment, particularly in gas — Hon Peter Collier: The retail component is Western Australian specifically. Hon KATE DOUST: Yes, it is Western Australian, but just let me finish my train of thought. Who is to say that at some point down the track we will not need to have other systems or infrastructure in place to look after the variety of gas needs that may come into play in Western Australia? The issue that has been raised here is very important. Should we just hand over the control of this legislation to other states? What will happen if the minister does not get to go to one of these ministerial meetings? Hon Peter Collier: I have a proxy. Hon KATE DOUST: What will happen if the minister—or his proxy—is the only voice who says that he does not like a particular amendment? Hon Peter Collier: It will not go ahead. It must be unanimous. Hon KATE DOUST: The minister said earlier that it must be a majority. Hon Peter Collier: No; it must be unanimous. Hon KATE DOUST: I thought the minister said that it must be a majority. Hon Peter Collier: No; sorry. Hon KATE DOUST: Does this bill as it stands provide for adequate scrutiny by this Parliament? A number of members have expressed the view today that, no, it does not. This bill is taking away from Parliament the capacity to have a voice and to have oversight of any change. Given the comments made by members opposite in the past, that should be a concern for the minister as well. On this occasion, in order to try to strengthen this legislation so that this Parliament will have the capacity to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny, we will be supporting the amendment moved by the Greens. Hon PETER COLLIER: I want to say one more time that this bill was actually a Labor bill. The Labor Minister for Energy actually agreed with this legislation. The member needs to understand that. This is not some clandestine attempt on our part to put something through Parliament that will usurp the parliamentary process. Secondly, the Western Australian specific regulations are open for disallowance. Okay? Thirdly, I emphasise again that any changes that are made to the uniform law must be unanimous. If any change is proposed to this legislation that may remotely hinder or be detrimental to Western Australia or any other jurisdiction, it can be defeated on the voice of one jurisdiction. I do not mean—please understand this—to diminish the member’s right to have a view on this legislation. However, the government will not be supporting the amendment. I do not think I can provide any further justification for our opposition to this amendment. Hon KATE DOUST: I must say to the minister — Hon Norman Moore: Just get on with it and have a vote! Hon KATE DOUST: When Hon Norman Moore was sitting on this side of the chamber and I was sitting at the table, the Leader of the House used to say, particularly when Hon Ray Halligan was speaking , that he was doing his job. I will do my job as well. Hon Norman Moore: You could make a decision, though. Hon KATE DOUST: No; there are a few more things I would like to put on the record. Hon Norman Moore: Then get on with it! Hon KATE DOUST: I will. If the Leader of the House would be quiet, I will talk to the minister and not to him, and we can get on with it. The Leader of the House is the one who is delaying this at the moment. The minister made the comment that this is a Labor bill and it was a Labor minister who put it forward. That is fine, and we know that and we support that bill in principle, because it was formerly a Labor bill. However, that does not mean that with the passage of time, and with new eyes looking at it, we cannot raise questions or seek to improve the bill, just as the Leader of the House would have done when he was sitting on this side of the chamber. I do not accept that argument, and we will continue to scrutinise bills that may formerly have been our bills if there is a way of improving those bills and making them better. In terms of the government — Hon Peter Collier interjected

5014 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Hon KATE DOUST: Let me finish. I have the floor at this time, not the minister. It is fine for the government to take that view. It is fine for the executive to take that position. What we are saying is that Parliament should have the capacity to apply that level of scrutiny. That is the distinction. The minister is saying, no, that is not what he is prepared to accept. I just wanted to clarify that. Hon ADELE FARINA: I am having difficulty with the minister’s position on this amendment. He has stated in the Parliament that he supports the right of the Parliament to scrutinise legislation and subsidiary legislation. We are elected to this house and to the Parliament to represent the best interests of Western Australians, and to protect and uphold the institution of the state Parliament. In passing this legislation without the amendment proposed by Hon Giz Watson, we are failing on all those counts. I do not believe that any Western Australian would regard it in their best interests to have a group of ministers make decisions that cannot be scrutinised by this Parliament in the way it should be done in the normal course of events. The problem that the minister has in the position that he holds is that not only does it push all of that aside, but also he has failed to provide any clear explanation or rationale for why we should do that. Until he does, we will keep having the debate. Hon Peter Collier: What else do you want me to say? Hon ADELE FARINA: I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask the minister to explain to us exactly what sort of harm will be done and why a delay of a couple of months will cause a huge problem in considering this matter. If the minister has an example that he would like to provide, we would be happy to listen to it; but so far we have had this debate over and over and we still have not been provided with any rational argument as to why the amendment proposed by Hon Giz Watson should not be supported. Hon PETER COLLIER: I say at the outset that the whole notion of accountability is paramount; there is no doubt about that. The Western Australian components of the bill are disallowable; I want to emphasise that. If we want to make the national components disallowable, we will be essentially defeating the purpose of Western Australia being part of the national regime. It is uniform legislation. The government feels that there are sufficient checks and balances in place. This is my response to Hon Adele Farina: the government feels that the checks and balances are sufficient. This is the most—dare I say it—Western Australian bill that we could possibly get in terms of the WA component of the national uniform legislation. As we see it, there are checks and balances in place. The WA components are disallowable, as I have said. We have to have unanimous consent. I feel that that, in itself, is overriding evidence that there is a sufficient check and balance. All it takes is one voice of dissent and any proposed change to the legislation will not go through. It is uniform legislation. We want to benefit from the uniform legislation so that there is a seamless transition. That is why we are supporting it without the amendment. Hon GIZ WATSON: I want to thank the other members for their support for this amendment. This issue is a matter of whether the scrutiny should rest with a minister or with the Parliament. Again, I have been a member of this place for a long time and have heard many debates on many bills. The default position is that scrutiny should rest with the Parliament. The Parliament has that role. It is an issue, in my view, about the separation of powers and that is why the Greens (WA) believe this amendment is worth pursuing and why we have put it up. I do not believe that the counterargument that it might cause some delay is sufficient to take away the capacity of the Parliament. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (14)

Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Sue Ellery Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Alison Xamon Hon Helen Bullock Hon Adele Farina Hon Sally Talbot Hon Ed Dermer (Teller) Hon Robin Chapple Hon Jock Ferguson Hon Ken Travers Hon Kate Doust Hon Lynn MacLaren Hon Giz Watson

Noes (18)

Hon Jim Chown Hon Brian Ellis Hon Alyssa Hayden Hon Simon O’Brien Hon Peter Collier Hon Donna Faragher Hon Colin Holt Hon Max Trenorden Hon Mia Davies Hon Philip Gardiner Hon Michael Mischin Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Nick Goiran Hon Norman Moore Hon Phil Edman Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Helen Morton

Pairs

Hon Jon Ford Hon Robyn McSweeney Amendment thus negatived.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5015

Postponed clause put and passed. Postponed clauses 7A and 7B put and passed. Postponed clause 22: Review of Act — The clause was postponed on 4 June after it had been partly considered. Hon ADELE FARINA: Mr Chairman, you will recall that when we were last debating this clause there was an agreement by the minister about an amendment to this clause. We have not seen the wording of that amendment. It is usual practice that if the government and the opposition agree to the amendment, the government drafts the amendment because it has access to parliamentary counsel. I would have expected an amendment to come from the government. I will listen to the minister’s explanation. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will explain the situation. My office did contact Hon Giz Watson and I apologise that the opposition was not advised. Hon Kate Doust: The minister did not bother advising us about the amendment. Hon PETER COLLIER: There is no amendment, and I apologise. Hon Kate Doust: I will remember that. Hon PETER COLLIER: I let Hon Kate Doust’s office know plenty. There is no need for an amendment. The review takes place, but the report of the review is what is important, and that is the advice of parliamentary counsel. It is the report of the review that is tabled. The review is all encompassing, but the report articulates the conclusions of the review. We are not bypassing Parliament at all. We are giving a full and comprehensive report of the review, and I understand that Hon Giz Watson was satisfied with that. Hon ADELE FARINA: I do not read the clause in that way. Clause 22(1) and (2) is a discussion about undertaking a review. Clause 22(3) states that the minister is to prepare a report. Normally, a review is undertaken by an independent review committee. I cannot see how the minister can prepare a report when he has not participated in the review. It is absurd. Clause 22(3) deals with the government’s response to the review. Hon Peter Collier: No, it does not. The review is the process and the report is of that process. That came from parliamentary counsel. Hon ADELE FARINA: The clause needs to go back to parliamentary counsel and be redrafted. Parliamentary counsel needs to look at other legislation that it has drafted in the past, because this is entirely inconsistent and what is meant is unclear and ambiguous. From reading the clause reference is made to a review and the government’s response to the review. It says that the minister needs only to table the government’s response to the review. This needs clarification. Hon Peter Collier: We have clarification from parliamentary counsel. I cannot say anything more than that. The advice from parliamentary counsel is that the review of the act is the process of this carried out and the report is a document giving the information deriving from that process. Hon ADELE FARINA: How can the minister prepare a report when he has not personally undertaken the review? If the minister is personally going to undertake the review, it will take a long time because I do not think that a minister would have the time to devote to personally undertake the review. It simply does not make sense that a body or an individual undertakes a review and then the minister prepares a report. It simply does not make sense. Hon Peter Collier: That is the advice parliamentary counsel has provided. Hon ADELE FARINA: It is not the way parliamentary counsel has drafted it in other legislation. It is unclear that we can have no confidence about what will be tabled in Parliament. Hon PETER COLLIER: I cannot offer any more than that. The advice we received from parliamentary counsel, which is unambiguous, is that the review is the process, the report is of that process and the report, itself, is tabled. There is nothing clandestine about it. That advice comes from parliamentary counsel. That is the advice that we received. Hon GIZ WATSON: I acknowledge that I received further advice on this clause in response to the need for an amendment. I appreciate that I got that information, but I am also not satisfied. I am sorry if that message has not gone back to the minister. I concur with Hon Adele Farina that if that is what is meant, it is not how it is written. I have seen plenty of pieces of legislation that say something along the lines that the report of the review is tabled in the Parliament. I can remember very lengthy debates about various reporting requirements, such as those of the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and about whether the report could go to the minister and was the minister allowed to amend it. A report is either tabled in Parliament or it is not; if it is not tabled

5016 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] directly to Parliament, then it does not achieve its purpose. I say that in our view it does not achieve the outcome of being directly — Hon Peter Collier: But the report is tabled. Hon GIZ WATSON: It states that the minister is to prepare a report based on the review. Hon Peter Collier: Yes, so the report is tabled. Hon GIZ WATSON: And then cause the report to be laid before the house. Hon Peter Collier: Yes. Hon GIZ WATSON: Will the minister clarify that two things need to be done? Hon Peter Collier: Yes. There is the review, which is the process, and the report is of the process, and that report is tabled. Hon GIZ WATSON: I could accept one amendment if it stated that the unamended report be laid before the house. Hon ADELE FARINA: I find it hard to understand how the minister can say that the words which state that the minister is to prepare a report based on the review is the same as stating that the minister is to table the review report. It clearly suggests that something goes to the minister and the minister then has some involvement in the final production of a report which is then tabled in Parliament. That means that Parliament may not actually get to see the recommendations, conclusions or findings of the review committee before the minister may have amended it. Hon PETER COLLIER: I thought that there was some justification in the concerns of Hon Giz Watson when I first read the amendment. Upon re-reading it and getting advice from parliamentary counsel, I do not have those concerns anymore. The review is the process; the report is tabled. Therefore, what Hon Giz Watson wants already occurs; the report is tabled in Parliament. Hon ADELE FARINA: I accept the minister’s position, but clearly we have concerns about it. It would be helpful if the minister proposed some amendments to accommodate our concerns, rather than continually using the government’s numbers in the house to block any issues that we raise. Hon Peter Collier: That is not appropriate at all. Hon ADELE FARINA: It is appropriate because I think that is exactly what the government is doing. Hon Peter Collier: It’s not; that’s a low blow! Hon ADELE FARINA: Perhaps the minister could look at this and come back to us with some suggestions that might accommodate our concerns, as well as satisfy the government’s views. Hon KATE DOUST: Mr Chairman, I want to raise a matter. I am not too sure of the actual standing order, but I might just raise it on behalf of our new members, to just remind them about the standing orders about standing behind seats and conducting conversations during debate. I appreciate it might have been done differently in the other place, but we have rules that need to be adhered to in this place. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders. LOAN BILL 2009 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.00 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks a new Loan Act authorisation of $8 316.197 million—sufficient to meet the planned general government purposes borrowing requirements until 30 June 2013. Borrowing for general public purposes—as distinct from borrowing by statutory authorities with borrowing powers in their enabling acts—must be authorised by Loan Acts. The last authorisation for consolidated account general purpose borrowing was provided in the Loan Act 2004. As the capital works program has been funded in recent years largely from revenue, $446.676 million of Loan Act authorisation remains currently available for use. It is estimated that borrowings of $671.901 million will be required before 30 June 2009 to meet the consolidated account requirements. However, the borrowing of the

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5017 balance of $225.225 million above the existing authorisation required this financial year cannot take place until this bill is passed. The current budget forecasts anticipate that the consolidated account borrowing requirements are: for 2009-10, $2 956.536 million; for 2010-11, $2 166.053 million; for 2011-12, $1 728.463 million; and for 2012-13, $1 239.920 million. In accordance with clause 4 of the bill, the proceeds of all loans raised under this authority must be paid into the consolidated account. The moneys are then advanced to agencies by appropriations in the budget. Details of the capital works program are laid out in the budget papers already tabled in this house. In addition to seeking the authority for loan raisings, the bill also permanently appropriates moneys from the consolidated account to meet principal repayments, interest and other expenses of borrowings under this authority. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) RECURRENT 2009-10 BILL 2009 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.03 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to grant supply and to appropriate sums from the consolidated account required for the recurrent services and purposes for the 2009-10 financial year as detailed in the consolidated account agency information in support of the estimates. Total expenditure is estimated to be $16 285 906 000, of which $1 345 558 000 is permanently appropriated under special acts, leaving an amount of $14 940 348 000, which is to be appropriated to the services and purposes identified in the schedule to this bill. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) CAPITAL 2009-10 BILL 2009 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.05 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The bill seeks supply and appropriation from the consolidated account for capital services and purposes during the 2009-10 financial year as expressed in the schedule to the bill and as detailed in the agency information in support of the estimates in the 2009-10 Budget Statements. Included in the capital expenditure and financing transactions estimates of $3 673 623 000 is an amount of $96 847 000 authorised by other statutes, leaving an amount of $3 576 776 000, which is to be appropriated in the manner shown in the schedule to the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2009-10 Bill 2009. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.06 pm]: I move — That the house do now adjourn. Hospital-Acquired Injuries — Nursing Home Care-Home Care — Adjournment Debate HON HELEN MORTON (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [10.07 pm]: I want to raise a couple of issues this evening about matters that have affected my family in recent times. They are matters that mostly resulted from some care that we provided to my father. As a bit of background for those who are unaware, I raised these matters during the Address-in-Reply debate at the beginning of the year. I need to recap on some of this information in order to raise these couple of matters. My father was an elderly man living at

5018 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] home independently, driving his car, walking with a walking stick, being socially active, going to church and attending voluntary groups, such as the Returned Services League. However, he had diabetes and had very poor circulation to his legs. We managed this situation very carefully. We checked his legs all the time. My sister with whom he lived made sure all the time that he never got any injuries or wounds to his legs. He had a small issue that he needed to go to hospital for. He drove himself to hospital for a small procedure in about September of last year during the time of the election campaign. While he was in the hospital, which is a major hospital of Perth, he initially received some fairly substandard care. No pressure-ulcer risk assessment was done or particular monitoring of his situation. He was not placed on an air mattress until we insisted that it happen. Bedclothes were not kept off his toes by a bed cradle. He was not given assistance to routinely move his legs during the night. Basically, the attitude of the staff was, “Well, he is 90, you know.” Unfortunately, we, the family, noticed that he was starting to develop pressure ulcers on the heels of his feet and across the tops of his toes where sheets had been pulled down and tucked in without the use of bed cradles. Despite all of our attention, this resulted in hospital-acquired injuries to his left and right toes and his heels, resulting in seven operations with general anaesthesia, admissions across four different hospitals without going home and gradual amputations of his right leg until he was left with an above-knee amputation of his right leg and an ulcerated left foot that was never going to heal. Only three months later in December we faced a couple of options. Due to the injuries that he had acquired he was classified as high-level nursing home care, unable to get in and out of bed, unable to get to the toilet and unable to shower himself. He was basically required to go to a nursing home. Rather than send him to a nursing home, we had my father come home to live with me and my husband, and we employed a full-time carer for him. The wound on his left foot was so bad that it required frequent dressings and it was never going to heal. But my father was not going back to hospital to have further amputations, he said. He did not want to have his other leg cut off above his knee. He subsequently died on Good Friday. The matters that I have been following up since then include hospital-acquired infections. The PRESIDENT: Order! There has become a tendency for members to hold loud audible conversations in the chamber; and in view of moving around the chamber, I refer members to standing orders 76 and 79. Read them closely. Thank you. Hon HELEN MORTON: Since then I have found that statewide audits were undertaken by WoundsWest, a Western Australian organisation that is part of the Department of Health, into hospital-acquired injuries or wounds. The audits involved over 6 000 patients across 85 hospitals, and the staggering information is that at any one time about half the patients in hospitals in Western Australia have wounds of one sort or another, and 25 per cent of those people had wounds that were preventable—hospital-acquired injuries such as pressure ulcers and skin tears. This situation is not improving at the moment; it is getting worse. In 2008 and 2009 ulcers and skin tears increased by six per cent across these patient numbers, and the number of those people with one or more pressure ulcers increased by at least one per cent in that year. This is a huge issue in Western Australia. Among the other issues that I looked up was what this is likely to be costing the state at the moment. It is quite staggering to realise that the cost and the length of stay for somebody in a hospital increases by 23 per cent if they acquire a pressure ulcer while in hospital. A study of over 100 elderly patients admitted consecutively to hospital with fractured femurs showed that 66 of those 100 patients developed pressure ulcers and 83 per cent of them had developed them by the fifth day. In the USA, it has been estimated that the cost to heal one pressure ulcer was recorded as ranging from $14 000 to $40 000 a person. A United Kingdom study also suggested that this was rising annually by 13 per cent, and that another $200 000 could be added if the patient decided to sue the hospital. This has been done, such as an incident that occurred in the UK, where a patient successfully sued the health authority for nearly £100 000 after developing a pressure ulcer following hip surgery. The cost of preventing these sorts of ulcers is less by 2.5 times the cost of managing them after the case. The issue is that these hospital-acquired wounds are not diminishing in Western Australia at this moment; they are increasing. The second matter I want to raise about this situation arose as a result of deciding to care for my father at home. Members may not be aware of the number of Australians requiring high-level nursing home care at home. Actually, it is quite a small number of Australians, at about six per cent of the population. All is not well in the nursing home business. Current federal government funding does not cover the capital cost of aged care provision or the day-to-day running costs. According to Access Economics, 40 per cent of all aged-care providers and 70 per cent of not-for-profit providers operate at a loss, and for the first time in Western Australian history operators are refusing to take up the new bed licences, leaving us about 2 500 beds short so there is a virtual halt to the construction of beds. The option for my father was to move to a state-funded care placement facility to wait for who knows how long for a nursing home. However, we decided to manage my father at home, and we were lucky enough, I suppose, to be able to provide a live-in carer to make it possible for us to do that. At the moment, when a patient goes to a nursing home, a fee is paid to the nursing home operator of $123 a day, or $861 a week. If a patient comes home to live with the family, that fee does not apply. There is no mechanism

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5019 by which the family can access that sort of money. Equally, it is almost impossible for a family to get access to capital funds. We did not need it, so the capital cost associated with trying to make that happen at home was not necessary. When bed licences are put out, there is a capital cost that is paid for the construction of nursing homes by the federal government. One thing is absolutely certain—operators will not build new nursing home beds at a loss, which is what is happening at the moment. The state will not manage the ballooning numbers of aged-care people waiting for vacancies. We need to be able to think of something far more innovative and look at alternative arrangements for managing elderly people at home. One arrangement is enabling families to have access to support money to care for people in their homes as though they were in a nursing home. YMCA Youth Parliament — Adjournment Debate HON SALLY TALBOT (South West) [10.16 pm]: I draw members’ attention to the forthcoming Youth Parliament. By googling “Youth Parliament”, members will be taken to the Western Australian site where they will see an indication of how much people in this state are looking forward to this event. One of the first things seen is a little countdown that indicates there are 18 days to go. In case some members are not familiar with this now well-established event in Western Australia, Youth Parliament has been running for 14 years. I will give members a flavour of what it is about by quoting directly from the Youth Parliament website. The Youth Parliament is facilitated by the YMCA. It is a nationwide project that is run in every state and territory with the exception of the ACT. According to the website — In Western Australia the program is developed in conjunction with the Western Australian Government and aims to educate, enthuse and resource young people to take an active role in their community and contribute the views of their electorate at a state level. The Youth Parliament program is a fantastic opportunity for young people to comment on Government policy and make recommendations to the Government on what young people want, whilst engaging in a great personal development program. The mission statement of the Youth Parliament is — The Australian Youth Parliament Programs will educate, empower and unite young people to bring about positive social change. The Youth Parliament organisation runs a program by which it puts an individual member into every seat in the Western Australian Parliament. There will be 57 young people, aged between 15 and 25, sitting in the Legislative Assembly between 6 and 10 July this year representing each electorate. There is a member for X and a member for Y. Young people are assigned to government and opposition. Likewise, I am told that there will be 36 members in this house. There will be six members for Mining and Pastoral, six members for South West et cetera. I have checked the website and it does not seem to have the full 36 there yet. In its objectives for 2009, it says that it will fill every seat in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. This is a program that is very well publicised statewide. On the Parliamentary Library’s media clip site I found articles that go back to 10 January this year. One was titled “Budding politicians wanted” in the Echo — Young people in the electorates of Bassendean, Swan Hills and West Swan are being urged to become part of the Youth Parliament Program … In the Hills Gazette, the member for Swan Hills, Frank Alban, was encouraging students to nominate. There was an article titled “Youth speak” from the Augusta Margaret River Mail; in the Northern Guardian on 28 January 2009 Vince Catania was urging young people to stand up and have their say. There were articles in the South Western Times on 29 January 2009; the Pilbara News; and an article in the Bunbury Mail entitled “Call out to young politicians”. In March, the young people who had applied to participate in Youth Parliament were acknowledged in their local media. Margaret River’s Jasmine Meagher was recently selected to participate in the 2009 Western Australian Youth Parliament. The Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail had an article acknowledging Janey Ip under the heading “Off to the Youth Parliament”. The Hills Gazette had an article on Gidgegannup resident and former Guildford Grammar head boy Zach Cole. The Bullsbrook-Ellenbrook Advocate newspaper ran a story under the headline “Zach likes a yak”, which I am sure young Zachary has cut out and sent to all his relatives. The Pilbara News ran a story headed “Youth to be heard in Parliament” and the Weekend Courier, which is a Rockingham paper, said that Comet Bay College student and head girl Ellie Whiteaker will be Warnbro’s representative. The Fremantle Gazette and Cockburn Gazette community newspapers ran a story about brothers Billy and Lewis Richards. Finally, the Cannington Times had a story on Bill Johnston, the member for Cannington, who welcomed Chris Piggott’s achievement of being involved in Youth Parliament. Hon Adele Farina, a fellow member for the South West, has a particular interest in not only the wellbeing of young people in the south west, but also the participation of young people in non-metropolitan areas in programs in Perth. A couple of weeks ago in this place, Hon Adele Farina asked the Minister for Youth about state government funding for the Youth Parliament for this year. Specifically, she asked whether the minister was aware that 2009 would be the first year that this event had not received funding from the state government. She also asked whether the minister was aware that because of this lack of funding, the young people involved in the

5020 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Youth Parliament would now have to pay an increased fee to participate and that those attending from the country would incur additional costs for their travel. It was not clear from the minister’s answer what the situation was. I notice that the minister has come into the chamber tonight. It was not clear from the minister’s answer whether the state government had provided funding for that program or whether there was a problem. The minister said that she knew that the YMCA, which I have acknowledged is the facilitator of the program, did receive funding from the Office for Youth. The minister said that she would get back to Hon Adele Farina with information about where that funding was up to. As of tonight, there has been no response from the minister. I am on my feet tonight to point out to the house how very significant this program is. I hope that there has been a breakdown in communications and that at some stage in the next short while we will find out that the funding has become available. This program deserves the support of every member of this place. As I said, it will run from 6 July to 10 July, which might turn out to be our first full non-sitting week. I realise that some members might not be in the metropolitan area at that stage, but I urge any member who is to come in and see these young people at work. I have attended every year since I have been a member and made contact with them. It can be very daunting for a young person to put his name forward for a program of this kind. I have always been impressed that the young people do not have to be studying politics or have a qualification in politics at the secondary or tertiary level in order to participate. The people who run the program will harness the young people’s enthusiasm. If the young people can demonstrate that they want to share their views or be an activist for youth matters, the people who run the program will coach and mentor them while they take part in the program. It can be the most fantastically liberating experience. Hon Ed Dermer: It is probably appropriate that it represents a mix in the same way the Parliament does. Hon SALLY TALBOT: Hon Ed Dermer is absolutely correct. I pointed out that the young people are allocated on the basis of their electorates. Hon Ed Dermer: Where they live. Hon SALLY TALBOT: It is where they live and also the electorate they represent. If they represent the electorate of Cockburn, they will be assigned to the opposition, and if they represent the electorate of Jandakot, they will be assigned to the government this year. They talk about a variety of things. It is a development program for young people. It empowers them. The list of alumni indicates that many have gone on to make quite a mark in this state in the field of youth activism. As I have said, I urge every member to come into this place during that time, make contact with the organisers and sit and watch the young people. Members will hear standards of oratory that are truly impressive and they will see remarkable developments in young people during the course of that week. All that young people need to participate is to be passionate about youth issues and willing to share their opinions. Members will certainly see that in action during that week. I very much hope that the government has made funding available to these young people. I very much hope that people from the regions in particular will be encouraged to come to Perth and take part. Electrical Apprenticeships — Adjournment Debate HON LJILJANNA RAVLICH (East Metropolitan) [10.26 pm]: I rise this evening to speak on the issue of apprenticeship training, and more specifically the issue of electrical apprenticeships. Today the Minister for Training tabled a ministerial statement about his participation at the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education. The fact that he made it there is to be commended, as he does not seem to take much of a genuine interest in what happens in the training portfolio. On reading the ministerial statement, I was interested to note that the minister refers to his recent launch of the document titled “Training WA: Planning for the future 2009-2018”. I would have thought that, given that he plagiarised that document and I had marked up a copy and laid it on the table, perhaps he would not continue to revisit it. However, this minister certainly has no shame, because he knows he plagiarised that document. Not only does this minister just accept that, but also he continues to remind the house that he took something that was not his and purported that it was indeed his work when it was not. Having said that, I refer now to the minister’s inadequate performance in the training portfolio. I called for nine months for the training plan. When I finally received it, it was quite clear that it was Labor’s training plan; however, there was a distinct difference. One key difference was our projection that by 2012 there would be an additional 15 500 apprentices and trainees in the training system and the minister’s plan for 10 500 fewer apprentices and trainees by 2012. I must say that anybody who was interested in training certainly would not have included a reduction in apprentices and trainees as part of their training strategy. I am very concerned, because I compiled some statistics the other day and it seems to me that this minister has cut from the budget some $92 million that was allocated to training, and in its place allocated $47.4 million. Anyone who understands anything about mathematics will know that he took twice as much out of the training budget than he put back into it. We will get onto that at another time. Electrical trades are coming under considerable pressure.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5021

There are many students in the Electrical Group Training scheme in Balcatta who simply do not have host employers. The electrical trade is a licensed trade, which means that only those individuals who have received an A-class licence from the Office of Energy are able to work as electricians. There are a number of courses that they can do. The certificate III course in electrotechnology systems is a technician qualification. There is also a certificate I pre-apprenticeship electrical trades course and a certificate II course in electrotechnology for remote essential service operations. I find it hard to believe that according to the national skills needs list, there is a shortage in Australia of both electricians and electrical powerline tradespeople. In Western Australia there are reduced opportunities for young people and older people to take up electrical trades. The Electrical Group Training scheme in Balcatta has not been able to place many of its trainees in recent times, and some 10 to 20 apprentices are on downtime every week. The training scheme suspended 16 new probationary apprentices in February and it is no longer recruiting new trainees unless there are host placements for them. Why? It is partly because it had over-enrolled its courses to the extent that over the past couple of years enrolments went from approximately 350 to 750. When the downturn occurred, it could not place those apprentices. I am particularly concerned about the number of people who have completed pre-apprenticeship courses and would ordinarily have been taken on by employers, but due to the lack of host employers will not be taken on. These young people have completed six months of training and have been advised by the Electrical Group Training scheme that they should hang on, and that perhaps some time this year they may be indentured by the training scheme to continue with their training. I say to the minister that this is not good enough for the students and it is not what their parents expect. It behoves the minister to find some solutions to this problem. This is a major problem for the electrical trade and it is a problem being experienced across other industry sectors. The minister is failing these young people miserably. He is hanging these young people out to dry. Their parents despair over their future, as do the trainees. The minister needs to tell the house what he is going to do to support out-of-trade apprentices and trainees in the electrical trades. He should advise the house about why he has not instructed the agencies that fall under the portfolio of energy, such as Horizon Power, Synergy, Verve Energy and Western Power, to take on electrical apprentices and trainees. He needs to explain why Electrical Group Training has not been able to place all its apprentices and why, over the past few months, it has had 10 to 20 apprentices on downtime a week, given the minister’s constant assurances to the house that there are no problems in the training portfolio, that anyone who wants training can access it, and that there has been no diminishment of opportunities in training. The minister needs to explain to us whether he was aware that, in February, Electrical Group Training suspended 16 new probationary apprentices and what he has done about that. He also needs to explain what he intends to do about the pre-apprentices at Electrical Group Training, including those who have completed their pre- apprenticeship training, and how they can continue their training given the lack of host employers. The minister should advise the house what he intends to do about this. Finally, he should explain to the house how both electricians and electrical powerline trades are deemed on the national skills needs list to be skills shortages in Australia at the same time as people who desperately want to do this trade are simply unable to in Western Australia, given his government’s policy. They are very, very reasonable questions. Quite frankly, the minister has come into this place time and again and spruiked about how wonderful his policies are and how he has taken initiatives to ensure that no apprentice is disadvantaged, yet this is just one group training scheme in one occupational area that I draw attention to this evening. This is a pattern that is being repeated throughout the state. I put the minister on notice because, unless I get some answers from him, I will go through every single occupational area and retell that story over and again. I ask the minister to prepare a ministerial statement addressing each of the points I have listed here. YMCA Youth Parliament — Adjournment Debate HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Youth) [10.36 pm]: I rise to speak tonight on a matter relating to my youth portfolio. I do not intend to delay the house terribly long, but I thank Hon Sally Talbot for raising an issue concerning the YMCA Youth Parliament. She pre-empted my intention, because I was going to raise this tomorrow at the end of question time in response to an answer I gave to Hon Adele Farina during the last sittings. I say at the outset, that I also am very supportive of the work undertaken by the YMCA. Obviously, it is a very well known organisation here in Western Australia and beyond our state. Indeed, I had the opportunity during National Youth Week to participate in the festyhead youth festival at the YMCA Headquarters in Leederville. I am also looking forward to the YMCA Youth Parliament. When I was shadow Minister for Youth, I had the opportunity to attend a number of the Youth Parliament openings and found that it was a very worthwhile program. I have spoken to a number of participants over the years and am pleased that some youth members have already contacted me as a local member. I was very happy to support them.

5022 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

Unfortunately I did not have all the information in front of me when that question was asked of me a couple of weeks ago. I checked with the Office for Youth and I was given some information that the member might care to become aware of. I understand that the YMCA did receive annual funding through the Office for Youth community services grants program to run the Youth Parliament. However, following a review, that funding was withdrawn in 2006 under the previous government. In 2006-07 the YMCA received $10 000 under the Youth Grants WA sponsorship program, so it was successful in 2006-07. However, in 2007-08 it applied again for funding through that program and was not successful. Hon Peter Collier: Who was the government then? Hon DONNA FARAGHER: Again, it was not successful in 2008-09. I am coming to our position, but I want to reiterate to Hon Sally Talbot that I recognise the importance of the YMCA. The reason the funding ceased in 2006 is probably something she will need to raise with the former Minister for Youth, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, who might be able to enlighten her a little more on that. Having said that, this government recognises the importance of the YMCA. Obviously, we have taken office post the 2008-09 budget. Our position is that my office has spoken previously to the YMCA. Subsequent to that, a meeting was arranged with the Office for Youth. I understand that the Office for Youth had a good conversation with the YMCA. The Office for Youth has provided the YMCA with details of the funding programs available and about how it might apply for the next round of funding, which I understand will be looked at in the spring of this year. Unfortunately we seem to be in a bit of a hiatus in terms of the funding for this year. However, I am very keen as Minister for Youth to see what opportunities are available for the YMCA. I am very supportive of the work that the YMCA is doing through the Youth Parliament and outside that. As I said, I have seen firsthand the work that it is doing at YMCA Headquarters at Leederville. It is obviously disappointing that this funding ceased in 2006. We are very keen to see whether we can rectify that for future Youth Parliaments. Like Hon Sally Talbot, I am very keen to encourage all members of this house, as well as those in the other house, to go to the Youth Parliament and see the great things that young people are doing in this state and to support them in what they are doing. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich — Criticism of Minister for Training — Adjournment Debate HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [10.40 pm]: Following the 2001 election, I have to say, having been a minister in the previous government, that I was a bit angry that we lost government, and I was a bit grumpy for a while. Hon Kate Doust: That lasted for eight years! Hon NORMAN MOORE: The best advice I got was, in fact, from Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, who said to me on a few occasions, “Get over it!”. I eventually did get over it. However, the constant carping criticism by Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich about the current Minister for Training really is a reflection of a former minister who has not managed to get over it. It is generally accepted that as the Minister for Education and Training, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich was one of the worst ministers this state has ever endured. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Only next to you! Hon NORMAN MOORE: The former minister was generally regarded by most people as fundamentally incompetent. Indeed, she was removed from the job because of that very fact, which was recognised by her leader. Now, it seems to me that if the member wants to come into this place every night and seek to denigrate the current minister on a regular basis in the most outrageous way, it is time that she accepted the same advice that she gave me, and which I am now giving her; that is, “Get over it!” Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is not the minister any more. She is a member of the opposition. One of the reasons that she is on that side of the house is partly because of her performance as a minister. For the member to come into this place and continue to denigrate a minister who, in my view, is doing a superb job in training simply reflects the fact that the former minister, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich, has a bad case of sour grapes Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE: So, again, I simply conclude by saying to the member that I accepted her advice back in 2001—it took me a little while—but she said, “Get over it!”, and she was perfectly right. I am saying the same thing to the member now. The member should get over it. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is not the minister any more. She is hopeless. She should get over it and let the minister get on with the job that he is doing now, in a way that is significantly better than the job that was done by his predecessor. House adjourned at 10.43 pm ______

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5023

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

COCKBURN CEMENT LTD — ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 738. Hon Giz Watson to the Minister for Environment I refer to the Department of Environment and Conservation’s (DEC) recent request for Cockburn Cement Limited, to investigate dust fall out events and options for prevention. I also refer to the DEC’s current consideration of Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence re-issue, and I ask — (1) Is Cockburn Cement obliged to respond to the DEC’s request? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) If yes to (1), by what date is a response required? (4) Will the Minister please table a copy of the response, if one is received? (5) What environmental guidelines currently apply in respect of emissions and/or discharges from Cockburn Cement Limited? (6) What licence conditions currently apply in respect of emissions and/or discharges from Cockburn Cement Limited? (7) Do the answers given to (5) and (6), set an environmental standard for Cockburn Cement Limited that is, — (a) lower than the environmental standard applicable to Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited; and (b) lower than the environmental standard applicable to any other lime or cement producer that operates in Australia? (8) How frequently does the DEC assess Cockburn Cement Limited’s level of compliance with environmental guidelines, licence conditions and further or other legal requirements applicable to its discharges and/or emissions? (9) By what means does the DEC assess Cockburn Cement Limited’s level of compliance with environmental guidelines, licence conditions and further or other legal requirements applicable to its discharges and/or emissions? (10) On how many occasions has the Department found Cockburn Cement Limited to be in breach of environmental guidelines, licence conditions or further/other legal requirements applicable to its discharges and/or emissions? (11) Regarding each breach (if any) described in (10), please describe, — (a) the environmental guideline, licence condition or other legal requirement that was breached; (b) the nature of the breach; (c) any action taken by the DEC against Cockburn Cement Limited as a result of the breach; (d) any rectification implemented by Cockburn Cement Limited as a result of the breach; and (e) the time taken between the original allegation of the breach and the DEC’s finalisation of the complaint? (12) To the best of the DEC’s knowledge, — (a) what substances are currently discharged or emitted by Cockburn Cement Limited; (b) in approximately what quantity is each substance referred to in (12)(a) entering the environment; (c) what if any adverse synergistic chemical reactions are occurring between the substances referred to in (12)(a); and (d) what if any adverse synergistic chemical reactions are occurring between any substance referred to in (12)(a) or (c) and any other substance already present in the environment? (13) In respect of the answers given to (12)(a) to (d) inclusive, — (a) has this information been provided to the Department of Health; (b) what is the likely impact on the environment; and

5024 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009]

(c) what is the likely impact on human health? (14) Which organisations/interests are currently represented on the Environmental Improvement Plan Group, apart from the Department of Environment and Conservation and Cockburn Cement Limited? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: (1) No. (2) There is no legal requirement for a proponent to respond to a request for information, unless that request is made using the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (3)-(4) Not applicable. (5) The emissions and discharges from Cockburn Cement Limited are assessed against a range of environmental standards, including those set by the Department of Health, National Environmental Protection Measures, World Health Organisation, and Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council Guidelines. These standards are used for the assessment of all prescribed premises in Western Australia. (6) The conditions relating to emissions and/or discharges for Cockburn Cement Limited Kwinana Plant are set out in its licence (L4533/1967/14), which is publicly available on the Department of Environment and Conservation's (DEC) website at www.dec.wa.gov.au. (7) (a)-(b) DEC issues licences for prescribed premises based on its assessment of information specific to that premises in Western Australia to ensure that the environment is protected against pollution or environmental harm. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make comparisons with premises in jurisdictions outside this State. (8) DEC performs an annual compliance inspection of Cockburn Cement Limited against its conditions of licence. In addition, DEC reviews monthly compliance reports and stack testing data from the proponent, and investigates complaints. DEC also reviews Cockburn Cement's annual monitoring reports and its Annual Audit Compliance Report. (9) DEC's assessment includes data analysis, site visits, site compliance inspections, information requests, Annual Audit Compliance Reports, checks on stack sampling, and complaint investigations. (10) A number of investigations have been undertaken by DEC and the former departments regarding alleged breaches of Cockburn Cement Limited's licence conditions. Enforcement activity has been undertaken as a result of these complaints and includes site visits, compliance inspections and active investigation to identify witnesses, and gather information and evidence to confirm the incidents and identify any culpable party. There have been no enforcement prosecutions to date. However, in 2002, the former Department of Environment (DoE) arranged an independent audit of DoE's regulation of Cockburn Cement Limited's operations, compliance with the conditions of its licence and of Cockburn Cement Limited's implementation of its Dust Improvement Action Plan. In the two years immediately after the audit, the Department, in conjunction with Cockburn Cement Limited, instigated a number of plant upgrades, emissions testing and studies to determine the source of off-site dust impacts. These studies and investigations have been undertaken as part of a continual review of Cockburn Cement Limited's operations and incorporated as conditions of its licence. This independent audit was followed up in 2005, when DoE arranged an independent review of the progress of the recommendations from the 2002 audit. The outcome of this independent review was that the majority of the recommendations were achieved. DEC conducts ongoing assessment of Cockburn Cement Limited's operations against the licence conditions and expects that part of this assessment will lead to tighter conditions of its licence in due course. (11) (a)-(e) Answered by (10). (12) (a)-(b) Cockburn Cement Limited's emissions are publicly available on the National Pollutant Inventory website at www.npi.gov.au. (c)-(d) Key pollutants are generally individual substances, which are identified in the National Environmental Protection Measures and international literature. The possibility of synergistic interaction of compounds in the ambient atmosphere is complex and there is ongoing research on the impact on the environment.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5025

DEC is currently participating in a number of research projects to examine the relationship between particle emissions (which are the major pollutants from Cockburn Cement Limited) and volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. DEC is one of the participants of the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation, which also includes ChemCentreWA, and the University's of QLD and Newcastle. The results of this work are expected to be available in early 2010. (13) (a) Yes. (b) The modeled maximum ground-level concentrations of emissions from the stacks are well below the relevant environmental ambient standards and the environmental impact is considered to be low. (c) This question should be referred to the Minister for Health. (14) The Environmental Improvement Plan Group includes a representative from each of the following groups: • local schools; • Spearwood residents; • Munster residents; • Cockburn Cement Limited employees; • Beeliar Residents Advancement Group; • Yangebup Progress Association; • City of Cockburn; • PRM Property Group; and • Cockburn Sound Management Council. The Member for Cockburn, Hon Fran Logan MLA, is a representative on the Group. As noted, DEC and Cockburn Cement Limited are also represented.

REGIONAL WA — FUNDING FROM 2008-09 BUDGET 744. Hon Sally Talbot to the minister representing the Treasurer Can the Treasurer provide details of how much was budgeted in recurrent and capital expenditure for the following regions for 2008 — 09 (i.e. Budget Estimates), — (a) Goldfields-Esperance; (b) South West; (c) Great Southern; (d) Peel; (e) Mid West; (f) Gascoyne; (g) Wheatbelt; (h) Pilbara; and (i) Kimberley? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: A break-up of budgeted recurrent expenditure by region is not available. Existing budgeting systems do not have the capacity to classify recurrent expenditure by individual region, or between regional Western Australia and metropolitan Western Australia. The capital expenditure budgeted for 2008-09 is provided below: (a) Goldfields-Esperance $116.8 million; (b) South West $515.2 million; (c) Great Southern $112.5 million; (d) Peel $382.2 million; (e) Mid West $74.7 million; (f) Gascoyne $21.6 million; (g) Wheatbelt $121.6 million; (h) Pilbara $342.1 million; and (i) Kimberley $188.7 million. The figures quoted above are consistent with those published at the time of the 2008?09 Budget in May 2008. Subsequent changes to the methodology of reporting asset investment were introduced in the 2009-10 Budget to bring Western Australia into line with reporting practices in other jurisdictions. As such, direct

5026 [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] comparisons cannot be made between asset investment in the current budget year (2009-10) and capital works spending reported in previous financial years. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEMALE EMPLOYEES 762. Hon Anthony Fels to the Leader of the House representing the Premier Please detail for the following Departments, — (a) Department of Treasury and Finance; (b) Office of the Auditor General; (c) Department of the Attorney General; (d) Department of Health; and (e) Western Australian Electoral Commission, — (i) the number of female staff at class one and above (for each class please specify); and (ii) the percentage of female staff at class one and above (for each class please specify)? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: Public Sector Commissioner advises: (a)-(e) To be able to provide an answer further clarification is required in regard to the above question. Does the question relate to positions classified at Class 1 within the public service only, or does it extend to positions covered by other awards that attract a classification/salary comparable to that of a public service position classified at Class 1?

ATTACKS ON MENTAL HEALTH NURSES — SECURITY MEASURES 767. Hon Anthony Fels to the Minister for Transport representing the Minister for Health I refer to the attack on a mental health nurse on 17 September 2007, while walking from her car to her East Perth office, and ask — (1) Please provide a description of specific strategies, policies and/or security measures that have been put in place at the East Perth Mental Health Facility and other mental health facilities, following the incident since 2007? (2) Where strategies, policies and/or security measures are still being put in place, could you please provide details as to what these measures are and when these measures are expected to be in place? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: (1) The following measures were put in place at the East Perth Mental Health Facility: (a) A full time security officer whose prime function is to escort staff between the clinic and the car park has been appointed. There is an operational directive to all members of staff that the security officer must accompany staff to and from their personal and government vehicles. The security officer has a mobile phone, which is used to contact him. Staff wait at the car park or in the clinic until the security officer is available to escort them to and from the clinic. This officer is based in the clinic and also monitors and responds to aggressive clients. (b) An Occupational Health & Safety review of the building by Work Safe, North Metropolitan Area Health Service's (NMAHS) Security and Occupational Health and Safety Departments. Recommendations made have been implemented. (c) Ongoing Secure Incident Response Team (SIRT) training and refresher courses. (2) All mental health facilities in NMAHS have been the subject of a review and an audit in line with the Australian Standard AS4485. A security review of the East Perth (Wellington Street) Clinic took place on 20 February 2008 and recommended: (a) Portable duress alarms for staff (GPS) — this is a system currently being trialled at PMH but is currently an unfunded initiative. After trial results are known, further consideration will occur regarding implementation. (b) Secure parking for staff to be made available. This is unavailable in the current premises and therefore alternative premises are being sought.

[COUNCIL - Tuesday, 16 June 2009] 5027

Efforts to relocate the service to a new facility, which will include a secure car park for staff, are ongoing. The Vic Smith Association (VSA) had put in offers on two different sites but neither offer was accepted by the owners. A number of potentially suitable alternative premises have been identified and an option analysis is being undertaken. It is anticipated that the service will relocate in the 2009/10 financial year, after a suitable site is found and contract negotiations concluded. PERTH MINT — SUPPLY FROM INTERSTATE JEWELLERS 772. Hon Anthony Fels to the Leader of the House representing the Premier (1) Will the Treasurer advise the names of the interstate jewellers and the jewellery manufacturers that currently supply jewellery to the Perth Mint? (2) Can the Treasurer advise the reasons the Perth Mint is supplied by interstate jewellers? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: Gold Corporation advises: (1)-(2) The Perth Mint uses jewellers/jewellery suppliers from both Perth and interstate. We try to support the industry in Perth as much as possible but some products are not available in WA. Some of our major suppliers from Perth are: Kailis Australian Pearls Argyle Pink Diamonds Lost River Diamonds Albens Jewellers JCJ Jewellers Mark Synott Jewellery Designs Brandon Enterprises Icon Jewellery Some of our major suppliers from interstate are: Think Watches Iberia Jewellers Lester Brand Peter Benkhert Designs Millenium Chain The reason we use interstate jewellers is that we cannot source certain products in WA. For example, Think Watches (supplier of coin watches) are only manufactured interstate and they have obtained copyright over the product.

______