Legislative Assembly

Wednesday, 12 June 2002

THE SPEAKER (Mr Riebeling) took the Chair at 12 noon, and read prayers. DUNCRAIG HOUSE, SALE Petition Dr Woollard presented the following petition bearing the signatures of 40 persons - To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned request the Parliament to ask the Government to 1. not sell Duncraig House and its surrounding land. Duncraig House is an integral part of the Heathcote Heritage and Parkland Area. It is an important historical site with Point Heathcote being a landing for Captain Stirling in 1827. Duncraig House is a valuable community asset south of the river and should be kept for community use; 2. adhere to the Heathcote Coordinating Agreement between the Minister for Lands and the City of Melville dated 9/01/01. This Agreement, amongst other things, preserves the Heathcote lower land permanently for Parks and Recreation with full public use and access, thus protecting the Swan River foreshore. The Heathcote lowlands are an important Aboriginal Heritage site. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly to note our view in order that the Government reject the sale of Duncraig House and maintain the lower lands as Parks and Recreation with full public use and access. [See petition No 208.]

FLORA AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH WEST, CONSERVATION Statement by Minister for the Environment and Heritage DR EDWARDS (Maylands - Minister for the Environment and Heritage) [12.04 pm]: I inform the House about the implementation of a significant new program that will involve a state government department fostering partnerships with local landowners and organisations to conserve threatened flora and ecological communities in the south west. This program will be underpinned by the appointment of full-time flora conservation officers at eight Department of Conservation and Land Management work centres from Geraldton to Esperance. Until now, flora conservation officers have usually been appointed on a contract basis and funded from a variety of sources, including the department’s annual budget, the Commonwealth’s Natural Heritage Trust and income from bio- prospecting licence agreements. Although this has been successful, the State Government believes it is necessary for the State to assume full responsibility and fund the appointments directly through the Department of Conservation and Land Management. This will help ensure continuity in flora conservation activities, particularly through working with local community groups and landowners. It also will provide greater employment security and stability for the officers concerned. The flora conservation officers will be stationed at Geraldton, Jurien, Merredin, Narrogin, Katanning, Albany and Esperance, and in the department’s Swan coastal district, which takes in the Swan coastal plain between Moore River and Singleton, north of Mandurah. The flora conservation officers do, and will, perform a wide range of duties in helping to conserve Western Australia’s biological diversity. Their tasks include fencing off threatened species of plants, controlling weeds affecting threatened species and ecological communities, establishing new populations of threatened species in suitable sites and surveying for new populations of threatened flora. All of these tasks, along with many other actions, are essential in preventing flora extinctions in this State. Through their own efforts and their links with the community, flora conservation officers have been responsible for finding several presumed extinct flora species, including a beard heath - the thick-margined leucopogon. It is significant that members of the community also are assisting in this regard. For example, the dedication of two Kalbarri plant enthusiasts recently led to the rediscovery of a plant species that had not been recorded for almost 130 years. This was a Stachystemon, and the rediscovery will provide a good opportunity for further study of the plant. The dedication and vigilance of members of the community, as well as staff of government agencies, brings to 23 the number of presumed extinct flora rediscovered in Western Australia since 1991. Over this period, a total of 42 species of flora has been removed from the presumed extinct list. In addition to the 23 rediscoveries, there have been eight recent collections of species thought to be extinct found in the WA Herbarium during curatorial works, and a further 11 species found to be incorrectly named during taxonomic investigations, and

11312 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] which are in fact now considered to be more common species. The number of flora presumed to be extinct in this State now totals 15 species. Many of the State’s threatened species and ecological communities exist only on private and other lands that are not within the conservation reserve system. It is pleasing to note that landowners are showing an increasing keenness to conserve native vegetation, and the Government believes that by appointing specialist flora conservation officers, farmers and others will have better access to the knowledge. INDIGENOUS WESTERN AUSTRALIANS, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS Statement by Minister for Indigenous Affairs MR CARPENTER (Willagee - Minister for Indigenous Affairs) [12.07 pm]: Last Friday I was involved in the signing of a new agreement for a cooperative approach to improve the economic and social conditions of indigenous people in Western Australia. To achieve this goal, the agreement was forged between the Western Australian and federal Governments and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. My federal counterpart, Hon Philip Ruddock, has undertaken to approach his ministerial colleagues and seek their agreement for commonwealth agencies to join Western Australia’s Indigenous Affairs Advisory Committee, which is otherwise known as the IAAC. Currently, the committee comprises heads of key state government agencies and the ATSIC State Council, representing the wider indigenous community of WA, and is chaired by me. The IAAC has issued a communiqué, which notes that changes are needed in the way Governments work together and in partnership with indigenous communities. The parties agreed to develop strategies around seven key areas for action: child development and growth; early school engagement; building on the strength of indigenous community and culture; breaking the cycle of alcohol and substance abuse; functional and resilient families and communities; functional community infrastructure; and family violence and personal safety. The only way to achieve real change in the conditions experienced by the majority of indigenous people is through a whole-of-government approach. Historically, there has been a lack of dialogue between the various state and federal agencies that deal with indigenous people. The communiqué should pave the way for a genuine improvement in the level of cooperation and, more importantly, an improvement in the delivery of services to indigenous people. The signatories to the communiqué were Mr Ruddock, ATSIC State Council Chairperson Ian Trust and I. We all acknowledge that indigenous people will require capacity building to enable them to participate on an equal basis with government in improving their economic and social conditions. All parties agreed to work towards more effective government coordination and partnerships between indigenous people, government and the business community. It was also agreed that there should be a local and regional approach to making improvements, and that benchmarks on and indicators of indigenous disadvantage should be developed. This agreement follows the recently signed statement of commitment between the State Government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The Government is committed to a new and just relationship with indigenous people and the empowerment of indigenous communities in controlling and managing their own affairs as a major step towards building healthy, sustainable communities. However, it is important that we have the support of the Commonwealth Government, and that is why this latest agreement is so important. CLUB DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Statement by Minister for Sport and Recreation MR CARPENTER (Willagee - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [12.10 pm]: Last week I was very pleased to have the opportunity to launch an initiative that is of critical importance to sport in Western Australia. The club development scheme, initiated by the State Government through the Department of Sport and Recreation, will help sporting clubs to operate viably for the benefit of their members. As all members would know, it is becoming increasingly difficult to run community sport and recreation clubs. This State Government understands the pressure faced by club administrators, who are largely volunteers. Many take on roles in clubs and organisations without any training, and they are often looking for guidance. Most volunteers who run clubs have plenty of enthusiasm but do not necessarily have the expertise and training required. That is why the Government has committed $1 million over four years to implement the club development scheme. The scheme will provide support to clubs and their volunteers by providing resources, a comprehensive statewide education and training program and online support through the Department of Sport and Recreation’s web site. The scheme will help clubs deliver better quality services to their members and participants, and is especially aimed at clubs in regional WA. It will also help clubs to remain viable and sustainable in the ever-changing sport and recreation environment. The club development scheme’s education and training program has been developed in partnership with local government and state sporting associations. Included in the education package is advice from many of the State’s foremost sports administrators. The club development scheme provides a “how to” for clubs to follow to ensure they are providing the relevant service and are efficiently and economically run. The scheme provides checks and balances

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11313 that are of benefit to all clubs, regardless of how well they are performing. The scheme has been developed on the basis that prevention is better than cure. The Department of Sport and Recreation will play a major role through its network of offices throughout the State. Since the start of the scheme, 52 club development seminars have been held statewide, attended by 800 people. Already, 22 state sporting associations have received grants totalling $22 600 for club development pilot projects, and 17 local government authorities have received a total of $18 000 to deliver club development seminars. If we ensure that community clubs are well managed and provide enjoyable experiences for their members, people will continue to participate in sport and recreation. I thank the member for Rockingham for his role in developing the club development scheme. I recommend it to all members of Parliament. VOLUNTEER PROTECTION BILL 2002 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr Grylls, and read a first time. PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 2001 Third Reading MR RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [12.14 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. MR BARNETT (Cottesloe - Leader of the Opposition) [12.14 pm]: The passage of this package of legislation gives me the opportunity to make six or seven speeches at the third reading stage. However, I assure the House that I will forgo that generous opportunity afforded me. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill and the other Bills that are orders of the day Nos 4 to 8 on the Notice Paper are part of the administrative reform package. That is a long-term project of the tax office, and is one that has received support from the previous Government and this Government, and from within the Parliament generally. Apart from a lot of technical, administrative and definitional changes, there were some issues on which there was debate, particularly the issue of professional privilege. Some improvements were made in that area. There were also issues about the rights of taxpayers and time limits for appeal processes. I am pleased that the Government accepted a couple of amendments that were moved along the way, and some of the discussion that was carried on was productive. This was not legislation on which this House divided on political or party lines. Members who participated in the debate wanted to see an improvement in the administration of taxation law. Having debated those Bills, raised all those points and being reasonably satisfied with the way the package proceeded, I do not intend to comment further. Indeed, I will not comment on the other third readings. As far as I am concerned, they can go through as a matter of course. MR RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [12.15 pm]: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. There were some differences of opinion as we moved through the debate. However, by and large, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this package had its origins in the previous Government’s term in office and has been continued under this Government. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council. BILLS Third Reading 1. Pay-roll Tax Bill 2001. 2. Land Tax Assessment Bill 2001. 3. Land Tax Bill 2001. 4. Debits Tax Assessment Bill 2001. 5. Debits Tax Bill 2001. Bills read a third time, on motions by Mr Ripper (Treasurer), and transmitted to the Council. NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (STATE PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 2002 Second Reading Resumed from 28 March. MR BIRNEY (Kalgoorlie) [12.18 pm]: Unfortunately, I did not have a lot of notice that this Bill was to come on today. In fact, I spoke to the Minister for Police yesterday about the passage of this Bill, and she indicated to me that we would be dealing with it tomorrow. Nonetheless, I am happy to make a number of comments about the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Amendment Bill in this second reading debate.

11314 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

The National Crime Authority was established at a federal level in 1984 following a number of inquiries that were held throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Mirror legislation was introduced into Western Australia in 1985 by way of a state provisions Act. The idea was to allow the National Crime Authority to engage in policing activities across borders. At that time, the National Crime Authority was given certain powers of arrest and investigation, and special coercive powers to compel an individual to produce documents or attend a hearing of the National Crime Authority. The aim was to establish a policing body that had the ability to be a proactive policing force in the pursuit of organised criminals. We know that organised crime comes in many shapes and forms. Our state Police Force is not necessarily capable of dealing with organised crime on a proactive level. Ms MacTiernan: Have you dressed especially for this speech today? Mr BIRNEY: Why is that? Ms MacTiernan: I am referring to your sartorial elegance - the organised crime look. Mr BIRNEY: Is the minister saying that I look like an organised criminal? She should have simply come out and said that I look like an organised criminal, and then I could have taken offence. Ms MacTiernan: You must have Mr Kizon as your style guru. Mr BIRNEY: The minister is obviously referring to my dark shirt. She may not have been listening to my earlier comments, but I mentioned that I had understood that this Bill would come on for debate tomorrow. I have in my closet a nicely dry-cleaned and pressed white shirt that I intend to wear tomorrow. I assure the minister that my wearing a dark shirt today is purely coincidental, as I was sure we would deal with the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Amendment Bill tomorrow. I would like to address a number of more important issues than that raised by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure; that is, the National Crime Authority and the reason it was born in 1984. The National Crime Authority was established to track down organised crime wherever it may exist. To that end, it operates under a number of standing references, the first of which relates to money laundering. The National Crime Authority is equipped to deal with individuals who engage in the crime of money laundering. The second standing reference relates to South East Asian organised crime. It is interesting that a standard reference of the National Crime Authority deals specifically with people from certain countries of origin who are involved in organised crime in Australia. The other reference is somewhat more intriguing and involves the National Crime Authority tracking and perhaps even putting under surveillance those individuals in our country who might be considered to be organised criminals, such as some of the more colourful identities who have some difficulty in explaining where their wealth comes from. The National Crime Authority operates with police officers on secondment from various state police forces and the Federal Police. It also uses a range of administrative unsworn personnel with specific skills in different areas, including those in the legal fraternity. The National Crime Authority has a team of legal experts. It also employs individuals who are involved in the surveillance industry. Generally speaking, it is a very well-equipped authority that is capable of engaging in proactive policing. As the shadow Minister for Police, I have a long-held concern that our Police Force is incapable of being a proactive police service. Our state Police Force is increasingly slipping into what may be considered a reactive method of operation. It has difficulty finding the resources and manpower to get people on the street to follow up leads, look into various issues that have been raised and ultimately bring those issues to some sort of conclusion by way of arrest. Our Police Force is more frequently acting in a reactive manner and simply responding to certain calls to different stations. The National Crime Authority is a very proactive organisation, albeit at a different level, that is capable of springing on various people involved in organised crime the surprise of their lives. Those people often have absolutely no idea that their activities are being monitored or that one of the authorities has them under surveillance. That is the role of the National Crime Authority. One of the primary purposes of the National Crime Authority is to hold hearings. The organisation has an investigative arm and sworn police officers on the beat who involve themselves in what might be considered to be general policing, albeit at an organised crime level; and it also has the ability to engage in hearings. Before the NCA can take a case to the Federal Court, it must establish a prima-facie case. The hearing mechanism is a very good method by which the NCA can establish a prima-facie case against a certain individual that can be taken to the Federal Court. The target of an NCA investigation is generally not brought before a hearing of the NCA. As I understand it, the people required to attend an NCA hearing are generally only witnesses to the subject of the investigation. If the NCA can through a hearing gather some form of evidence that might enable it to establish a prima-facie case against its primary target, it can then move into the Federal Court. The National Crime Authority has certain powers that are not paralleled in other police services in Australia. One of those powers is the ability to require an officer of a particular government agency to attend an NCA hearing. That is a very important power. It can also require a government agency officer to produce certain documents or other things, depending on what the NCA is interested in. That evidence can be used to build a case against the primary target. It also has the ability to request search warrants. The Bill before us makes a number of changes to the provision enabling the NCA to request search warrants. I also understand that the National Crime Authority is able to withhold a passport

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11315 from an individual who is at risk of taking flight. Mr Lewandowski, who is currently the subject of some media discussion, has taken flight. I do not know why his passport was not withheld in this instance, although I know that he was not the subject of an NCA hearing. This Bill is basically mirror legislation. It is a state provisions Bill, which is required to ensure that the Commonwealth’s NCA Act is capable of operating across state borders. It is required to ensure that a warrant issued in one State can be enacted in another State if the person of interest crosses the border. The commonwealth legislation was amended on 12 and 13 October 2001. When that legislation is amended, it becomes necessary for our state provisions legislation to also be amended to ensure that the commonwealth legislation works in our State. I am pleased that this Bill deals with a number of problems with the current operations of the NCA. I submit to the House that this Bill and the commonwealth legislation will ensure the smooth running of the NCA in not only Western Australia but also across the country. It will address some issues that have been a problem in the past. When witnesses are brought before an NCA hearing, they often refuse to answer questions put to them. I am aware that some witnesses will refuse to not only answer questions, but also take the oath. Therefore, because they refuse to take the oath, they cannot be asked questions that require an answer in the public interest. According to the current legislation, witnesses can claim what is known as a reasonable excuse, which can delay proceedings for some time in order for another court to decide whether that reasonable excuse is warranted. I am pleased that, following the passage of this Bill, the defence of reasonable excuse will be excised from the current legislation. That delaying mechanism, which has often been used by high-profile individuals in the past, will no longer be available. However, the excision of the reasonable excuse provision raises further questions. What if an individual does have a reasonable excuse for not being able to attend an NCA hearing; for example, the witness’s car broke down, his aunty died or any other myriad of excuses that could be used to invoke that provision? With the passage of this legislation none of those excuses would be acceptable at an NCA hearing. Some members might quite rightly ask whether excising that provision would deprive a person of his rights if he had a reasonable excuse. The answer is that the courts will still be able to deal with the issue of reasonable excuse under common law, but witnesses will not be able to offer that excuse at an NCA hearing. Witnesses must answer questions, appear before the hearing and produce any documents, objects or things that are relevant to the NCA inquiry. Previously, witnesses who have given evidence before an NCA hearing have been able to claim some form of immunity so that their evidence could not be used against them in another court of law. Immunity is an important function of any serious investigatory body that tries to get to the bottom of fairly serious crime situations. Of course, the individual claiming that immunity must first ask for it before it can be granted. With the passage of this Bill, a witness will be granted only direct immunity. What is known as “derived use immunity” will still be available to subsequent investigators. Evidence derived from an NCA hearing can still be used in a subsequent investigation, although the direct evidence given at an NCA hearing cannot be used against the witness at a subsequent hearing. With the passage of this Bill, subsequent investigations will be able to derive evidence from evidence given at an NCA hearing, but that direct evidence given by a witness will not be permitted to be used against that witness in another court of law. I am comfortable with that provision given that, in general, the people brought before an NCA hearing are not necessarily the targets of an investigation but, rather, they are people of interest at the periphery of an investigation who might have some knowledge of an individual or organised crime syndicate that is relevant to the investigation. If, in the process, they tend to incriminate themselves for what might be considered a lesser crime, that would be accepted by society given that the real targets of an NCA investigation are those people who might be considered to be high-level criminals involved in organised crime. One of the other provisions of this Bill increases penalties for people who refuse to answer questions at an NCA hearing. In the past, the maximum fine available for those offenders was only $1 000. We are talking about the upper echelon of criminals. I suggest that some of those people would spend $1 000 at a bar on a Friday night. They would not hesitate to pay a $1 000 fine for a witness who appears at an NCA hearing, charged with giving evidence against them. That fine has been increased to $20 000. Although it could be argued that given that we are dealing with organised crime, even $20 000 is not a lot of money and those criminals would happily hand it over, nonetheless, it is a significant and marked increase on the previous $1 000 fine. The other option available to a court when dealing with an individual who has refused to answer a question at an NCA hearing is to impose a term of imprisonment. Previously, the maximum term of imprisonment was six months. Some people might consider that to be an attractive way out rather than dobbing in somebody who could easily make life very difficult for them. I am pleased that that penalty has been increased to five years imprisonment. My information is that the $1 000 fine was the maximum and, generally speaking, the fine that was handed out on a regular basis was around $500. All members present would understand and appreciate that $500 is a fairly insignificant fine. The maximum fine is now $20 000 or five years imprisonment. When someone is faced with a murder charge and is looking down the barrel at 15, 16 or 17 years in jail, if convicted, then the option of doing five years in jail for refusing to answer a question is probably not a bad one. However, I do not know how we would ever propose to deal with that anomaly. A number of major changes are proposed for the National Crime Authority. The federal Government has a particular view as to what should happen with that authority in the future.

11316 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Ms Quirk interjected. Mr BIRNEY: Is the member dealing with this Bill, or is the Minister for Police dealing with it? Ms Quirk interjected. Mr Kobelke: I am taking responsibility for this Bill until the minister arrives. Mr BIRNEY: Where is the minister, by the way? Mr Kobelke: We introduced this matter early because the Leader of the Opposition was not ready for the Bill that had priority. The Minister for Police was paired for a short time and we introduced this Bill to suit the convenience of the Opposition. Mr BIRNEY: I do not know that it suits our convenience; I was told it was not coming on until tomorrow. Mr Kobelke: Not your convenience; the Opposition’s as a whole. Mr BIRNEY: I will now comment on the future of the National Crime Authority. As I said, the federal Government has a particular view about the future direction of the National Crime Authority. As I understand it, there is some concern that the National Crime Authority is very policing orientated and it is basically a ninth police force in this country, which was never the intention of the legislators at the time of its inception. The intention was that the NCA would provide a more intelligence-based role for crime fighting in Australia. The NCA has a number of operatives engaging in high-level policing. As I understand it, the federal Government is looking at changing the name of the National Crime Authority to the Australian Crime Commission. Of course, the initials for the Australian Crime Commission are ACC, a fairly common set of initials for us in Western Australia, because they also relate to the Anti- Corruption Commission, another crime-fighting organisation. That problem is synonymous with Western Australia only and is somewhat of an anomaly for us in this State, because when we refer to the ACC in the context of crime fighting, will we be talking about the Anti-Corruption Commission or the future Australian Crime Commission? As I understand it, a meeting of all government heads, including those from Western Australia, decided to change the name of the NCA to the - I nearly called it the Anti-Corruption Commission - Australian Crime Commission. The role of the National Crime Authority will also change, and it will have a larger intelligence-based focus, as was always the intention of the legislators in 1985. It is important that the future Australian Crime Commission retain an operational arm. An organisation of this nature cannot simply be intelligence-based - although, I accept the need for a largely intelligence-based organisation of this nature - because if we do not have operatives out in the street and if we do not have police officers seconded from other police forces, I have a real fear that the future Australian Crime Commission will have some difficulty performing its duties. However, I see the need for the NCA to become a more intelligence-based organisation, as was always the intention back in the mid-1980s, but it should retain some sort of operational arm, albeit a small one, and that operational arm would then complement the other activities of the Australian Crime Commission. One of the bureaucratic hurdles facing the National Crime Authority is obtaining a point of reference for a particular operation. I earlier mentioned that the NCA had three set references: looking into money laundering, South East Asian crime and investigating individuals who might be considered to be engaged in organised crime. It is necessary from time to time for the NCA to engage in an operation, and in order to do so it is required to get a term of reference from an intergovernmental committee. As members would understand, an intergovernmental committee is a fairly cumbersome body and it is difficult to get representatives from the States and the federal Government together to provide that term of reference. That is a very real bureaucratic problem for the NCA. As I understand it, that issue will be addressed following the implementation of the Australian Crime Commission. It is my earnest hope that a future Australian Crime Commission will not be required to obtain its term of reference from an intergovernmental committee, because, as I have said, this is a very cumbersome body and it is difficult to get all the individuals together to address these problems. The federal Government is keen to get its legislation through. Time is running out. The move to turn the National Crime Authority into the Australian Crime Commission is progressing. This legislation will be only temporary and will operate while we look to the future and to the Australian Crime Commission being our principal fighter of organised crime. Of course, any information gathered by that commission would be passed down to the various policing bodies. I am sure that the future Australian Crime Commission will work closely with the Australian Federal Police, and the federal police will then be able to carry out some of the activities currently performed by the National Crime Authority, albeit perhaps with the guidance of or in consultation with the future Australian Crime Commission. The Opposition supports the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Amendment Bill; and, at the end of the day, why would we not? It was basically drafted by the federal Liberal Government, and I, of course, am a bit of a supporter of that Government. In the main I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the federal Government to draft legislation. The Opposition is happy to support the passage of this Bill. MR TRENORDEN (Avon - Leader of the National Party) [12.49 pm]: The National Party also supports this Bill, and I am appreciative of its timing. Given the activities in the eastern States and the federal Parliament with the debates on

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11317 terrorism, which is a different but related issue, and President Bush announcing a major shake up of the activities of agencies involved in this area in the United States, that sort of activity cannot occur without consequences being felt throughout the western world. We know there are linkages between these agencies and that they work together to some degree. We hope that is the case, because many of the criminals that need to be nailed do not live in one place, but operate across the globe. Frequently that makes it harder to catch them, because they do not concentrate their activities in one place. Therefore, many jurisdictions have a little knowledge about someone’s activities, but not the whole picture. Given the extensive concern about this issue at the moment, I am pleased that it will not affect this Bill. This Bill went through a long process before coming into this House. The mechanisms that form this Bill were put in place some time ago, and it has not been affected by the extreme situation that has put countries in the western world under pressure. It is always important to concentrate on the fundamentals. The National Crime Authority is a relatively new organisation; 1984 was not that long ago. In recent times it has had some outstanding successes, which most Australians would recognise. Recently, more than during the earlier part of its history, the NCA has been involved in Western Australia, and that is obviously a good thing. As indicated in the second reading speech, bikie activity in Western Australia has increased recently, but that is not the only area in which the National Crime Authority is involved in this State. Even though we all like to be protective of our own patches, it is critical that all agencies dealing with crime have an easy and free flowing relationship with each other to ensure that information is used to the best advantage so that criminals are penalised. This is an important review. To support my argument, I indicate that the National Party appreciates that the review has focused on the fundamental issue of fighting organised crime. Despite the new and enhanced fear of terrorism, those involved in organised crime still march along and do what they do. We need to ensure that the fundamentals are adhered to, and this Bill does that. The Opposition has outlined the effects of the Bill in some detail and I do not intend to repeat the matters raised by the member for Kalgoorlie because I agree with most of his points. I agree that a $20 000 fine does not seem to be a large amount of money. However, it has come from an extremely low base of $1 000, so it is a substantial increase even though the majority of people we are dealing with would easily find that amount of money. Mr Birney: The increase in the jail term from six months to five years is more important. Mr TRENORDEN: The increased jail term for these people is much more of a penalty than paying a fine, which is not likely to be paid out of their own funds anyway. Nevertheless, it is an important process. I will not go through the details of derived evidence, argument and hearing the witnesses, because the member for Kalgoorlie has already done that. The important point is that the Bill will strengthen the legislation and, when it is proclaimed, it will give a clear indication that it has the support of the Western Australian public. Mr Birney: I do not know about the Greens (WA). Mr TRENORDEN: Luckily the Greens are pretty irrelevant in this argument so we do not have to worry about them. It is important to keep these matters on the rails, bearing in mind the Mickelberg debate yesterday and that an ex-police officer was recently blown up in the streets of Perth, which was a serious matter. That has taken crime in this community to another level where we have not been before. That is why I appreciate that these complementary Bills have been put together and that they concentrate on the fundamentals of these activities. That will ensure that we focus on the people who decide to get involved in organised crime. We must continue to focus on that area, even though a proportion of our time and resources must be devoted to the issue of terrorism. Terrorism is a related issue, but it is not the same as organised crime. The National Party supports this Bill. MS QUIRK (Girrawheen) [12.57 pm]: I am pleased to speak on this legislation. It has certainly been a long time coming and I am pleased that I am still alive to see it. However, I had my doubts for some time. I commend the members for Kalgoorlie and Avon for their thoughtful contributions to the debate on this Bill and I reiterate that I am pleased that the Bill has finally arrived. As the member for Kalgoorlie said, this legislation mirrors the commonwealth legislation, which was also a long time coming and was passed late last year. I understand the States of Victoria and Tasmania have also passed similar legislation in recent months. Before I address some of the pluses of this legislation in facilitating the current work of the National Crime Authority in this State, I will talk about the future plans for the NCA in Western Australia and nationally. As the member for Kalgoorlie indicated, the Commonwealth Government has plans to abolish the NCA. We are not quite sure how that will be done; however, we look forward with some anticipation to what is involved. I have been accused of many things but not of being prescient. I made some comments in this place last year that now indicate that I am prescient. Last year, following comments made by the chairman of the National Crime Authority, Gary Crooke QC, about the fight against drugs, I indicated that those comments had drawn the displeasure of the Prime Minister and that I would not be surprised if attempts were made at some later stage to abolish the NCA. Lo and behold, that is what has occurred. The manner in which that has occurred is a worry for anyone concerned about good public policy in this country. Around 21 December last year, the federal Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, with the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, AM, QC, indicated that there would be an inquiry into the

11318 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] utility of the NCA that would be chaired by Tony Blunn, a former senior public servant, and Michael Palmer, the former commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. That inquiry was announced on 21 December through a press release and it was given a month to report to Cabinet. That report has never been made public. I understand from media reports that the report was approximately 20 pages long, which is hardly a comprehensive examination. I contacted those people with a view to making a submission because I worked for the NCA for 10 years and felt that I had a contribution to make about how it should function. I was advised that that would not be necessary. Subsequently, the Council of Australian Governments held a meeting in April at which the heads of government from all States and the Commonwealth discussed the creation of a new agency to be known as the Australian Crime Commission. Officials had discussions prior to that meeting, but at no time were they given access to the Palmer-Blunn report or its recommendations. Those officials were acting in a public policy vacuum. We are not sure what is wrong with the current system, although the member for Kalgoorlie said that it is somewhat bureaucratic. I will address that issue later. The Commonwealth Government’s behaviour represents change by stealth. The legislation was not put to the Australian people prior to the last federal election as part of a grand plan. The Commonwealth’s plans for the operations of the new agency are inchoate. When it announced the abolition of the NCA and the creation of the ACC, it had not consulted widely. The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence is to be abolished and its functions will be merged into the new agency. I understand that it was not consulted prior to the announcement about the abolition of the NCA, nor were one or two state police commissioners. No new commonwealth legislation has been drafted and many key stakeholders have not been consulted. No proper budget has been allocated to the new agency and no-one knows what powers it will have. A chief executive officer is being recruited, although there is no legislative power to do so. What are the motives for doing these things? Is this activity designed to achieve better law enforcement in this country, or is it the product of a lingering grudge against the NCA on the part of the Prime Minister and his colleagues? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that it is the product of a lingering grudge and a desire to abolish an agency that has been prepared to say that it does not have all the answers in the war on drugs and that the issue requires broad community debate. They are appropriate and honest comments. The Commonwealth’s plans for the new agency are unclear. It also wants to remove existing powers from the States. That is and should be a matter of great concern. The Commonwealth is very keen that the power to investigate and prosecute offences committed by those involved in money laundering be removed from the States. That has real implications for this State because Western Australia has enacted some of the best laws to deal with the proceeds of crime and confiscation of assets. If that power is referred to the Commonwealth, we will have watered-down, mealy- mouthed legislation that will be not nearly as effective. I acknowledge that the state legislation was introduced by the former Government with bipartisan support. It is the envy of law enforcement agencies throughout the country. It is a concern that the Commonwealth expects this State to surrender its existing powers - which were hard won - for a watered-down version. Apparently the new legislation also provides for the federal Attorney-General’s Department to have a much greater role in the running of the new agency. That is also a concern. That department let Aussie Bob Trimboli go to Ireland, and it did not have extradition treaties with a number of key countries that have serious organised crime connections and are money-laundering havens. It took four or five years for the department to draft the federal equivalent of this legislation. It fills me with no confidence; in fact, it fills me with dread that a non-law enforcement agency, such as the Attorney- General’s Department, might have anything to do with this new agency. The agency should employ people who understand the criminal milieu, the intelligence environment, what law enforcement agencies can do and how they should do it. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services mentioned in question time a couple of weeks ago that over the next three years the Commonwealth Government will, by sleight of hand, relieve itself of the responsibility to pay about $30 million for law enforcement in this country. The forward estimates allocation for the new agency is less than is currently allocated to the NCA, which is virtually cost neutral given the proceeds of crimes and unpaid taxes that it recovers. The Commonwealth Government has presented a very fuzzy plan. It will commit less money to the overall fight against organised crime and it expects this State to surrender the fantastic powers it has enacted to combat serious crime. What presence will the new agency have in Western Australia? Preliminary discussions indicated that an agency would be established only in Sydney or Canberra. Flying squads would be deployed on an as-needed basis in Western Australia. That is not workable; in fact, it is laughable. Those who have had anything to do with the investigation of organised crime in this country know that there are significant links between Western Australia and the organised crime hubs in Queensland and New South Wales. There are significant links between the criminal element in this State and the criminal element in those States. Why should we get less service from this new agency than we currently enjoy? Why is organised crime in Sydney more important than organised crime in Western Australia? The use of electronic commerce and other communication technologies and ease of travel have broken down state borders and enhanced mobile criminal activity. It is ludicrous to establish the new agency in only one State.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11319

The member for Kalgoorlie correctly stated that originally the new agency was to have no investigative capacity; it would be involved only in intelligence gathering. That proposal has a number of flaws, not the least of which is that the best intelligence is found on the ground during investigations. An intelligence clearing house would not get the full picture. Although knowledge is power, trust between agencies is also an issue and it is part of the law enforcement culture. In my humble view, if the new agency is used solely as a clearing house for intelligence from other agencies, it will not get a complete picture. Investigators and other agencies will have a strong incentive to hang on to key intelligence. Highly sensitive information is unlikely to be shared throughout the country in those circumstances. That is a real issue. The Commonwealth Government has resiled to some extent from its original position that the proposed agency would perform no investigative functions. However, it has said that the States must pay for those investigative functions. Again, Senator Ellison, Mr Williams and Mr Howard are backing away from a very important issue. They have refused to provide the States with sufficient funds to cover investigative work that should be carried out by the new agency. The federal Government has attempted to link this legislation to the fight against terrorism and the occurrence on 11 September. Some of the methodologies are certainly the same; for example, money laundering is money laundering whether it is by someone involved in organised crime or by a terrorist. Certainly the methodologies adopted by law enforcement agencies are useful in the broader scope of dealing with terrorism. However, it is somewhat facile to put all our eggs in one basket. We must admit that there is a much greater threat from organised crime in this country than there is from terrorists flying a plane into the BankWest tower. We must reasonably assess the risk and allocate resources accordingly. As the member for Kalgoorlie has quite rightly pointed out, the National Crime Authority’s existing hearing powers have been hampered by the capacity of a witness to claim a reasonable excuse for not answering a question. As the legislation currently stands, that could ultimately be adjudicated by the Federal Court as not being a reasonable excuse, and the matter referred back to the NCA with the request that the witness answer the question. However, much time would have elapsed and the investigative imperative and momentum would have been lost. That has been a real issue for the NCA. There is also the question of the quantum of penalty. In my time at the NCA, I was involved in around 300 such hearings. It was very hard to insist that a hardened criminal answer a question when he was facing only a minor fine or small term of imprisonment if he did not give evidence or be sworn. The general tariff for such matters was a fine of $750, although in one case someone associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs was given a suspended sentence of two months for his second offence. The penalties meant that a lot of people could go to an NCA hearing and hold the process in contempt. It was a real difficulty from an investigative perspective, because people who had material evidence could be asked by the police to cooperate and could refuse to do so. They could continue to flout the law and refuse to give an answer. One of the most notable examples was that of people who were brought in to give material evidence on the murder of Marc Chabriere but were unwilling to assist. The current penalties are a real impediment to law enforcement. I hope that the new legislation will assist the NCA as long as it exists in its present form. The member for Kalgoorlie also mentioned the issue of derivative use. I will explain it briefly. If a witness is called before the NCA and gives evidence that is of use to investigators, under this new legislation that evidence cannot be used against the witness. If a witness tells a hearing that material evidence is held at a particular place, investigators can obtain a search warrant to look for the material. The fact that the investigators have executed a search warrant and found material can be used subsequently in proceedings, but the fact that the witness knew the material was there cannot be used. That is what is meant by derivative use. I support the legislation, although I have concerns about the intentions of the Commonwealth Government. I do not think that the Commonwealth Government’s motives have been good when engaging in consultation with the States about these matters. If the Commonwealth Government were really concerned about organised crime and if it really wanted an integrated system that had the maximum capacity for intelligence gathering, full sharing of information and much more effective law enforcement, it would have engaged in a different public policy formation process and it would not be trying to extract from the States existing powers that are working incredibly well. As all members are probably aware, a photograph on the front page of The West Australian of a few weeks ago showed the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions sitting on a Harley Davidson motorbike, which had been seized under Western Australian legislation. Under the current plans of the Commonwealth, the State Government would be very restricted when attempting to do such things, which is a great pity. I note with great interest what is planned for the new body and I wish the NCA well in its current inquiries in the meantime. MRS ROBERTS (Midland - Minister for Police and Emergency Services) [1.15 pm]: I thank the members for Kalgoorlie, Avon and Girrawheen for their comments on the legislation. The Government has brought on the second reading debate today at relatively short notice. As members are aware, the legislation is very important and deals with very serious matters. It is based on the national model of legislation, which has already passed through the federal

11320 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Parliament. I understand that the legislation is under way in other States. I thank the parties in the House, particularly the members who have contributed to the debate, for their thoughtful comments on the Bill. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time.

TREASURER’S ADVANCE AUTHORISATION BILL 2002 Second Reading Resumed from 22 May 2002. MR BARNETT (Cottesloe - Leader of the Opposition) [1.17 pm]: The Bill is a traditional piece of legislation that accompanies the budget process. It essentially allows a borrowing limit, which is remaining at $300 million, and it allows the Government of the day to undertake various expenditures that are specified in the Bill. They are normal, and simply allow the Government to undertake activities in the first part of 2002-03 prior to the ultimate passage of the budget legislation through both Houses of Parliament. It is therefore a normal provision and, in that sense, obviously the Opposition supports the Bill. It does, however, remind us of broader issues of state finance of which we need to be conscious. I note that the Government has produced a surplus on its operating statement and has budgeted for a strong surplus for the current year. I also note that it inherited a strong surplus. There is no doubt that over the past 18 months, and currently, the economy has been buoyant. High levels of stamp duty collection, relatively high levels of revenue from payroll tax, mining royalties, particularly those from oil and gas, the low value of the Australian dollar and the reasonably high price of oil have all added revenue to the State. However, invariably, commercial activity is cyclical, particularly in the residential property market and commercial sector. Some effects are also being felt in the resources industry. It is very difficult to predict commodity prices. Oil prices will probably ease even further than they have in recent times. In addition, after being undervalued for a long period the Australian dollar has now started to appreciate somewhat. Although it is difficult to be certain, the Australian dollar will probably edge up towards the 60c mark against the United States dollar. Although, in the short term, that will create difficulties for people involved in export commodities, it is not a bad thing for Australia’s long-term interests. The Australian dollar has been undervalued. Although that was beneficial for exporters, it has had the opposite effect on offshore borrowings. The net effect on many resource and export oriented industries is not always obvious. The effect of a higher-valued Australian dollar is to reduce royalties. Although times have been buoyant and Treasury has been flush with funds, I would be surprised if we were to face the same benign, external financial environment in 12 months. Apart from speculating on the state of the economy I am very conscious of the level of state debt. I have referred to that a number of times in this House and I will continue to discuss it. As I said during the budget debate, during the years of the coalition Government state debt was retired by $4.2 billion over eight years. Although I acknowledge that it was largely achieved through privatisation, it was done in the context of a period of good economic management. It is of some concern that state debt has risen to $891 million - almost $1 billion - in Labor’s first year and is expected to continue to rise. The Labor Government has attributed great credence to the ratio of debt to revenue as a key measure of its handling of debt-related issues. When the coalition came into power in 1993-94 the debt-to-revenue ratio was 73 per cent. The State was in a parlous economic circumstance and consequently its AAA credit rating was lost. Through the repayment of state debt the coalition reduced that ratio to 34 per cent in 2001. After 15 months of a Labor Government, it has risen from 34 per cent to 39 per cent. On Treasury’s estimates it will continue to rise and in the financial year 2003-04 it is expected to be 43.6 per cent. It is getting very close to the so-called critical level of 45 per cent. It will take a fairly small turnaround in either commodity prices, commercial activity or the value of the Australian dollar to very quickly cause the ratio to exceed 45 per cent. Although the Treasurer is enjoying good financial conditions having increased revenue by approximately $250 million through tax increases, the ratio of debt to revenue is deteriorating markedly and getting very close to the critical level of 45 per cent. Standard and Poor’s has estimated that the safety margin is in the order of $200 million. That is a small amount in a budget of $11 billion. Western Australia’s revenue from resources and commercial and residential activity is cyclical and volatile. I will be surprised if this time next year we are in a similar financial situation. The State is more likely to be in a difficult financial situation, particularly in light of the proposed south east metropolitan railway. Although that does not directly relate to this Bill, I am not filled with confidence over the way the proposal to build that railway has been handled. After 12 months, accurate costings have not been done. Various unusual claims have been made about the funding and timing of the project. I am led to wonder exactly what ultimately will happen. The project is now delayed at least two years. Only last July - less than 12 months ago - the Premier stated categorically that the project would be completed within budget at $1.2 billion and would be delayed only a year. However, it has been delayed for two years and the budget has been estimated at $1.4 billion. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure called that escalation. Australia would need an extraordinarily high rate of inflation to justify an increase from $1.1 billion in a coalition budget, to $1.2 billion in the first Labor budget and $1.4 billion in a new Labor budget. Australia’s rate of inflation has been about three per cent; nothing like the changes to indexes over that time that would explain that cost blow out. I doubt that $1.4 billion will be the final figure.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11321

Obviously no detailed engineering work has been undertaken on the proposed city centre link. The cost of tunnelling 1 600 metres under Perth through old river bed, soft soil conditions and below the water table poses all sorts of complex engineering issues. As Minister for Resources Development for eight years I know that it is extremely difficult to be certain of the results and the final cost of major construction in unknown territory. Other issues involve adding to the Narrows and Mt Henry Bridges and who knows what else. The project raises many legal, insurance and potential compensation issues. If the project proceeds according to the Government’s aims, those issues will not arise; nonetheless, owners in the Perth central business district will want to be assured that, if something happens to their properties during construction of the tunnel, they will be properly covered. That might sound simple, but issues of title, impact etc must be addressed. It will not be simple to handle all the insurance and risk factors given the value of existing residential and commercial buildings in the CBD. The contractor will not want to wear them, but somebody must ensure that all risks are covered. Given the complex task of constructing the railway underground through the CBD, the financial and legal matters for this railway will further delay the project and create uncertainties about its final cost and no doubt will increase the cost further. I acknowledge that the Kenwick route had its critics, but it was doable and construction had already started. It would have been built at a cost that was fairly damn close to budget. The community now has no confidence in the projected timing of the south east metropolitan railway, whether it can be done and what will be ultimately the final cost of reinforcing the bridges, tunnelling and the insurance risk. I raise that not to repeat the debate, but to indicate that it has the potential to have a major impact on Western Australia’s debt position and ultimately its creditworthiness. It is a risk project for the financiers of the State. The State might do other things. When I first became minister, one of my major decisions was to construct the Collie power station. It cost a great deal of money and costs were very difficult to nail down. The difference was that the Collie power station was always able to generate sufficient income through electricity sales to pay for itself. The south east metropolitan railway will cost much more. However, at no stage in the foreseeable future will it generate perhaps more than a quarter of the operating revenue let alone refund the capital cost of the project. In that sense it is a direct financial burden on the accounts of the State and, therefore, it presents problems. They were some of the issues the coalition was conscious of in government. The technical and practical issues and the service to the commuter public were the reasons the Kenwick option was favoured. This Government rushed in and changed the route of that railway. I said at the time that a new Government was entitled to step back and reassess the route if it did not like the Kenwick route; it could delay the project if it wished and do it properly. That did not happen. A rushed decision was made by a minister who was intent on getting her name and photograph in the newspaper and putting out media releases to announce how she would change the route. She has been continually changing it. It is altering almost on a monthly basis. Despite the cost of and risks inherent in the project, the way in which it has been handled by this minister, with uncertainty and rapid changes, is already starting to make financial watchers nervous. They know it poses a huge risk to the state budget and, under any scenario, it is a project that will be an ongoing drain on finances, as are most areas of public transport. Having said that, this is essentially a mechanical Bill; it is not increasing at all the amount of capital authorised. I recognise that Governments have always had to have an ability to spend money on various projects, both operating and capital projects, to cover that period at the beginning of the financial year until the full budget has passed through both this House and the other House. The Opposition supports the legislation. The Treasurer has done not a bad job to this point, and I have told him that to his face. Again, I restate the warning that he will face some acute risks over probably the next financial year. MR RIPPER (Belmont - Treasurer) [1.30 pm]: The Leader of the Opposition has taken the opportunity to make a few observations on the risks confronting the State’s finances. It is undeniable that a State like Western Australia faces risks to its finances. One of the reasons the Government wishes to run a strong surplus is to assist it to manage those risks. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right to draw attention to the value of the Australian dollar as one of the factors influencing the revenues available to the State Government. The Australian dollar now appears to be climbing in value against the US dollar after four years of falling from around 75c US to around 50c US. That climb in value of the Australian dollar, unless it is accompanied by increases in commodity prices, reduces the revenue to the State Government. That is just one of the risks that we have to take into account. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the Perth urban rail development project. That is a large project, and any large project carries with it the sorts of risks that the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about. Mr Barnett: Particularly when it is not an income-earning project. That is its real risk. Mr RIPPER: That is right. Not only is it not an income earning project but also, when it is operational, the combination of debt servicing costs and operational losses will cost in excess of $100 million per annum. Mr Barnett: The obvious point is that if you build a power station, water supply or treatment plant and something goes wrong, you can always flog it off - to put it bluntly. You cannot sell off the south east metropolitan railway to recoup costs.

11322 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Mr RIPPER: Rather than selling such an asset, the consumers of the services supplied by that asset can bear the risk through increased tariff rates. Of course, public transport is not so susceptible to that sort of approach. I can confirm that as Treasurer I participate in the cabinet expenditure review committee and cabinet discussions on the Perth urban rail development project with some very close attention. It is a large project, and it does have the capacity to affect the overall direction of the State’s finances. It is a project that needs to be managed carefully and with rigour. I can say that the Government is aware of the requirement for proper management of the Perth urban rail development project. The Government is also aware of the requirement to manage the risks that might become apparent to the State’s finances. The Government in fact published a chapter in budget paper No 3, Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which deals with the need for operating surpluses. One of the arguments advanced in that chapter is precisely the need to manage risk. If we have a very small surplus and the Australian dollar rises without a rise in commodity prices and revenues fall away, that small surplus will quickly become a deficit. If we have a small surplus and a construction project blows out, there might be some risk to the management of state debt. These are matters that we have considered, and they form some of the underlying support for the size of the surplus that we have sought to achieve in the budget. I commend to members an examination of that chapter in budget paper No 3 that deals with the need for operating surpluses. All members of Parliament need to understand how the size of the surplus affects the rest of the budget and the risk management and funding of the capital works program. It would be useful too if people in the community had a better understanding of why we apparently need to raise more revenue than we spend. Mr Barnett: I want to make an observation and not make a political point. You carry on about the operating deficits of the previous Government, but the definitions were changed. Under accrual accounting there is something of an arbitrary nature about the definition that is chosen. Information was released that showed surpluses under a different set of criteria. I am sure that I could come up with another definition that would show the Government’s operating position as a deficit. I will not argue the point, because I will never win, but there is an arbitrary nature to how the operating performance of government is measured. Those definitions have changed several times over the past decade. The Treasurer may find that the accounting standard will change again, and his wonderful surplus might become a deficit. It happened to us to some extent, so if I were the Treasurer I would not be too cocky about a surplus. The accountants and standards groups have a dreadful ability to change what you thought would be one result and turn it into another under the name of accrual accounting. Mr RIPPER: Despite my efforts to become more familiar with the mysteries of accrual accounting, I fear that I have not plumbed the entire depth of those mysteries. Mr Kobelke: The Leader of the Opposition was talking about cruel accounting not accrual accounting. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the House could well be right. Mr Barnett: It does change; they change the rules all the time. Mr RIPPER: I am reluctant to say this, but the argument of the Leader of the Opposition is not without foundation. Another example is the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government does not use the accrual operating balance measure that is used by the States. If the Commonwealth did use the accrual operating balance measure that is used by the States, most of Peter Costello’s surpluses - probably all of them - would have been turned into deficits. That is because the Commonwealth deals with the issue from a macroeconomic point of view and uses a different measure. Nevertheless, the measure that we use is the measure used by the States. It is important that there be some commonality in the measures used by the States to allow comparison. Mr Barnett: I agree, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics standard is effectively used. We would support continuing to use that, but there is that arbitrary history. Some people will argue to look at the cash basis, which will give an entirely separate result. I agree that we should report on an accrual operating balance. However, I will always focus on debt levels, because at the end of day that is where the State lies; that is real money owed that must be repaid or serviced. The Treasurer has to deal with some real numbers at the end of day. It is difficult sometimes to see where the State sits under accrual accounting. Mr RIPPER: This discussion points to the need for an examination of a variety of financial indicators, not simply the operating balance. Debt management is a very important part of this Government’s focus. It is certainly a very important part of the focus of the ratings agencies when they determine whether the State should continue with its AAA credit rating. Essentially, they are rating the ability of the State to repay its debt and the security that investors can expect should they choose to lend to the State. Mr Barnett: There is a difference between us, because the Treasurer talks about managing debt, whereas I talk about reducing debt. It is a different philosophy. Mr RIPPER: I do not know that there really is a difference. There might be a difference in what we talk about, but if members look at the pre-election financial projections forecast for debt increases, our management of debt compares favourably with what was forecast.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11323

Mr Barnett: Those pre-election forecasts, which are Treasury’s forecasts, did not include what probably would have been the privatisation of a power station. Mr RIPPER: That is an interesting point, and the member has made it before. Perhaps the coalition had an unacknowledged and undiscussed - at least publicly - plan to sell off further state assets. Mr Barnett: It was public. I made that point publicly a number of times. Mr RIPPER: However, it was not included in the coalition’s financial management plan put to the people. The coalition did not tell the people that it would sell a power station and how it would manage the debt, and then ask what the Labor Party would do. It might have been an interesting tactic for the coalition to use. Mr Kobelke: I will raise a point of order in a moment because you are not talking to the Bill! Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the House is very concerned that I am not talking to the Bill and he wants me to move on. Indeed, I am not talking to the Bill; I am having a general discussion about financial issues. Mr Barnett: I welcome this new open style. Mr RIPPER: To return to the Bill - Mr Omodei: Are you going to sell Central Park? Mr RIPPER: I am not able to comment on that issue. It certainly has not come before me. Mr Barnett: Are you going to sell Kings Park? Mr RIPPER: Absolutely not! I return to the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to give the State the ability to fund unforeseen matters that might occur that were not contemplated when the budget was brought down. The Bill also gives the State the ability to fund areas of government in which there has been an increase in expenditure or a projected increase in expenditure beyond the budget appropriation. The Bill also gives the State the ability to fund apparent increases in spending in certain areas as a result of a reorganisation between different government agencies. We cannot reduce only one appropriation and apply the funding to another object of government without using the authority of the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a standard piece of legislation that comes forward every year. It is worthwhile for it to be handled this way and for the Parliament to apply some scrutiny to it, because this is the mechanism by which spending decisions outside the budget are authorised. Later the Parliament has the opportunity through further sets of appropriation Bills to retrospectively approve the spending decisions that have been made under the Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill. We have had an interesting discussion on various financial issues. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time, proceeded through remaining stages without debate, and transmitted to the Council. CONSERVATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2002 Second Reading Resumed from 8 May. MR OMODEI (Warren-Blackwood) [1.43 pm]: Before I begin, I seek an extension of time. [Leave granted for the member’s time to be extended.] Mr OMODEI: The last time this Bill was discussed, I spoke about some specifics of the forest industry, and particularly about my concerns that the ministers responsible for forest products and for water resources would be removed from the consultation process in the formulation of a forest management plan. As I mentioned in my previous remarks, forest management plans occur only about every decade. At the end of 2003, it is expected that a new forest management plan will carry the State through to 2013. The deliberations that will occur during that forest management plan process are vitally important. Prior to the election, the Government managed to propagate - pardon the pun - the perception that the Minister for Forest Products had primacy over the forest management plan. Any scrutiny of the former legislation that split the two roles of conservation and land management into the Forest Products Commission and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia will show that there is no definite situation in which the Minister for Forest Products had primacy. The formulation of a management plan that manages forests, those lands and everything on those lands, including the flora, fauna, wetlands and so on, should include the minister responsible for wood production. After all, this State has a very viable timber industry, albeit a very reduced one, which can be maintained. The expertise in the timber industry resides with the Forest Products Commission and those scientists who are recognised worldwide for their expertise. It is similar to the management of our water resources in this State. I note that when national parks and reserves are set aside, those vestings always include national parks and water. When water conservation and consumption in Western

11324 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Australia is of vital importance, it is an absolute travesty that the minister responsible for water resources will be taken out of the equation. I mentioned previously that there are a huge number of water surface suppliers and a large amount of unconstrained water in the south west. There are something like 67 sites, including 38 storage sites. I went on to discuss the prospect of the selective thinning of the water catchments and the mosaic burning of those catchments. Since then, I have had the opportunity to talk to people from the Water Corporation about the potential for this to occur. I found that such a program - it is not new; it has been around for a number of years and a number of studies have been conducted - would deliver 22 gigalitres, or 22 million tonnes, of water into the system for little or no cost. I want members to understand that the proposal we are now considering to augment the current water supply by sinking three bores into the Yarragadee formation will cost $37 million to extract 15 gigalitres of water. The conservation movement and a number of other people are concerned that drawing this water from the Yarragadee or the deep underground formation could pollute surface aquifers, including surface water in some of the lakes, particularly in the northern part of the metropolitan area. It is a genuine concern. Until the quantities and the recharge capacity of the Yarragadee formation can be assessed, that is a risk. The natural water falling in our dam catchments could provide an extra 22 gigalitres at little or no cost to the State; in other words, it would save $37 million just by the sensible management of those catchments. There are something like 150 000-plus hectares in the water catchment areas of the 16 surface dams. Timber resources are at a premium because of the Government’s policy to reduce the timber industry. Water is at a premium because of the shortage of rainfall, and surface dams are at an all-time low of 15 per cent of capacity. When I was the Minister for Water Resources six years ago, the surface water dams were at about 37 per cent of capacity. Members can see the seriousness of the situation. Perth has a serious water shortage, mainly because drinking water is being put into swimming pools and onto gardens, so something needs to be done about that. There must be a long-term plan. To remove the minister from the equation does not make sense. It is interesting that, in the Bill, the amendments to section 60 of the Act refer to leaving the minister responsible for mines in the equation. If I am wrong about whether the minister responsible for mines will stay in the equation, I want the Minister for the Environment to correct me during the debate, if she would, because if ever an industry rapes the environment, it is the mining industry. Mr Masters: I object to that, member for Warren-Blackwood. Mr OMODEI: In the first instance, that is the case. I refer, for example, to the Boddington gold mine or Alcoa World Alumina Australia. Those companies take away 20 feet, or six or eight metres, of the surface soil. Yes, they reinstate it, and their record is very good. It begs the question. This debate is more about politics than commonsense. The Labor Party is placating the concerns of the Greens (WA) so that the Government can get its legislative program through this Parliament. One could say that that is politics, but does it make sense? Is it good for the State and the community? I put it to the House that it is not. My conspiratorial mind gives me the impression that the Government is not game to take on the mining industry - the Boddington gold mine or Alcoa - but it will decimate the powers of the Forest Products Commission, which, by the way, presides over one of the most sustainable and environmentally friendly industries that exists in this country, if not in the world. We know that when forests are harvested they regrow. Incidentally, it is interesting to note what is used by the Government in its documentation to promote tourism and the environment. Guess what it uses? It uses regenerated forest, and it is usually at Boranup or somewhere around the Manjimup or Pemberton area where forests have been harvested - Mr Masters: The 100-year-old forest. Mr OMODEI: The 100-year-old forest, which is now 140-odd years old. It also uses the forest at Big Brook Dam. I used the Big Brook Dam forest in my election material because the forest surrounding Big Brook Dam is absolutely magnificent. It is one of our major tourist attractions, smack bang in the middle of a piece of karri forest that was decimated in 1930. It was burnt by a wildfire, totally clear-felled, and has now regrown into a magnificent forest. Guess what is happening? We are now leaving untouched forests 100 kilometres plus from the towns of Pemberton and Manjimup, to which nobody will ever go. When all the dust surrounding this political issue settles, nobody will ever go to those forests. Guess where the people go? They go to Big Brook Dam. The local people and the visiting tourist public go there every week; yet we are logging in Big Brook forest. We are logging in those areas that have been regenerated because the timber is good quality. I intend to raise those issues under the various clauses of and amendments to this legislation. I will reiterate my concerns. This is purely a political exercise to placate the concerns of the Greens. There is a terrible perception about the minister responsible for forest products. I can understand that because of the Greens’ phobia about forest industries, logging and creating magnificent buildings, similar to the one that we are in today, which would be 90 per cent timber. However, to take the minister responsible for water resources out of the equation completely defies logic. The very arguments that I put about capturing water in dam catchments and about the ability of the Water Corporation to have an intricate knowledge of the forests as part of the management of our surface and ground water are absolutely fundamental.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11325

What is the Conservation Commission afraid of? These people are supposed to be professional public servants who have sworn to carry out their duties for the benefit of the State. We are witnessing the growth of the Conservation Commission. Divisions are already occurring between the Conservation Commission and the Forest Products Commission. The Forest Products Commission is being decimated to the extent that it is almost no longer relevant. With a stroke of the pen, the activities of the Forest Products Commission could be given to a private sector consultant or some small arm of the Department of Conservation and Land Management, and it would no longer exist. That would be a great shame, because a great number of professional people are in that organisation. They came from the old forest department and have great pride in what they do. Their main aim in life is to protect the environment. They want to allow for a viable timber industry and protect the environment in the catchments. One need only look at a logging plan nowadays to see the change in the size of the coupes, the protected areas and the gaps that have been created for habitats for nesting birds, shelters for flora and fauna, and so on. If I am repeating myself, I do not apologise for it. This is a political exercise to placate the concerns of the Greens, who really do not care about the outcome of this. The professionalism of the forest managers is being compromised by this decision. It is a sad day for the Parliament, because legislation is being used to deliver a political end for a minor party in this State. MR SWEETMAN (Ningaloo) [1.56 pm]: I rise mainly to support my colleague, the opposition spokesperson for the environment. He wishes to get a response from the Minister for the Environment during her second reading summing- up to allow him to put into context comments that he wishes to make during the consideration in detail stage of the Bill. I refer to the April 2002 publication of The Greener Times - a publication of the Conservation Council of Western Australia. For the benefit of Parliament, I will read a small article into Hansard. It is headed “Marine ‘Right of Veto’ Must Go As Well” and states - At the time of writing, amendments to the Conservation and Land Management Act had just been tabled in Parliament. These would remove the ‘power of veto’ of the Forest Products Minister and the Water Resources Minister over forest management plans. The Minister for the Environment will now have final say on the implementation and development of forest management plans. This amendment keeps the Government’s election commitment and is an important step in ensuring management of forests moves to a sustainable basis. While it is pleasing to see that the Government has moved to remove the right of veto by resource ministers over forest management, there remains another similar right of veto over marine parks. The Minister for Fisheries and the Minister for Mines both have to give concurrence to the establishment of a marine park. This right of veto means we are likely to get poor compromise parks that do not reflect the best conservation outcome for the marine environment. The draft management plan for the proposed Jurien Marine Park was a good example. Readers may remember that marine conservation groups are opposing this park as we do not believe it delivers good conservation outcomes. In our opinion decisions were made in the planning phase to pre-empt issues of concurrence from the Minister for Fisheries. It is essential for marine conservation in WA that the right of veto of resource ministers over marine parks is also removed. The principle that the Minister for the Environment has the final say on forest management must apply to planning for the marine environment as well. I and my colleagues look forward to a response from the minister during her second reading reply. Debate adjourned until a later stage, on motion by Mr Johnson. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MICKELBERG APPEAL CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1070. Mr BARNETT to the Premier: I refer the Premier to the judgment of Chief Justice Malcolm, Justice Ipp and Justice Wheeler in the 1998 Court of Criminal Appeal case of Peter Mickelberg v the Queen and Others, which in part states - The most powerful individual factors rebutting the case made out by the appellants are the testimony of Mrs Holz and Kucera . . . The West Australian this morning reported a statement by the Minister for Health that - I was a peripheral player in this. I was a waiter. I brought some food in for people who said they wanted food. How does the Premier reconcile the court’s judgment with the Minister for Health’s statement? Dr GALLOP replied: There is absolutely no contradiction. The Leader of the Opposition is pursuing his twisted logic in this matter to make what can only be described a base political point.

11326 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

The Minister for Health was not involved in the original trial of the Mickelbergs, but he appeared before the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1998, which was a significant number of years after the first trial. During that case, he spoke of his recollections of the events in the Belmont Police Station in 1982. Obviously, the recollections he gave were very impressive to the judges sitting on that case. None of the literature about the Mickelberg stitch, as it has become known in Western Australian political history, mentions the name of the current Minister for Health. All of a sudden, he is on the front page of The West Australian, and the Leader of the Opposition is raising issues in the Parliament. It is often said that there are two theories of history: the cock-up theory of history and the conspiracy theory of history. I think there is another theory of history - the coincidence theory. Mr Kucera was at the Belmont Police Station at that time. He gave the court his recollections of those matters. Obviously, his delivery of those recollections impressed the judges at work at that time. No accusations have been made against the Minister for Health about this matter. No such accusations were made in the affidavit of Mr Lewandowski, in any of the literature about this matter that has been released in Western Australia in recent years, or in the various court cases about this matter. There is no justification whatsoever for the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: what is his accusation against the Minister for Health? What is he saying about the Minister for Health that would lead me to the conclusion that I should stand him aside? What is his accusation? He is silent. He does not have an accusation. The Leader of the Opposition’s press release on this matter states that he does not level any particular accusations against the Minister for Health. He is playing base politics on this matter. He is doing his party and the Western Australian political system a disservice, and he is reflecting on the character of someone who served the people of Western Australia for 30 years in one of the most difficult jobs in this State. Some of my proudest moments since becoming Premier of this State have been sitting in a Cabinet with someone of the stature of the Minister for Health. I am proud to sit in a Cabinet with someone of that stature, but I am embarrassed on behalf of the people and the Parliament of Western Australia by the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. The West Australian newspaper this morning reported the Leader of the Opposition as saying that the Minister for Health “was involved in this every step of the way”. They are the standards that the Leader of the Opposition is setting on this matter. It was interesting to hear him say on the radio this morning that Hon Doug Shave should have stood aside as a minister in the former Court Government. Does the Parliament want me to read the words of the then Minister for Energy - now Leader of the Opposition - during the parliamentary debate of that time when he rejected calls for Hon Doug Shave to stand aside from the ministry? We have someone on the opposition side of the House with double standards. We have someone on that side of the House who will not make a direct accusation against the Minister for Health, but who is using base politics to try to damage my Government. We know what parliamentary standards are all about. People will judge the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. He should make no mistake: he will get zero out of 10.

CORAL BAY, ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT 1071. Mr MARLBOROUGH to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: Will the minister outline the State Government’s latest initiative to assist in the sound environmental management of Coral Bay? Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for this question and the interest he has shown in Coral Bay. I have outlined in this place that for some time we on this side of the House have been concerned that Coral Bay should be managed in an environmentally sustainable manner. During our time in government, we have increased the number of rangers in the area, formed a strategy to deal with the area, and put in place an environmental consultant. We are also looking very seriously at the other issues in Coral Bay, including the moorings, to try to make it a better place and to prevent any environmental damage at that site. As part of this, the Premier last week visited the area and announced the establishment of a $7.5 million waste water system for Coral Bay. People who have been to the area know that waste is currently dealt with through septic tanks, leach drains and evaporation ponds. I know that the Premier’s announcement of this new waste water system went down exceedingly well. The Press even published a photo of the Premier surrounded by scantily clad women. It was one of the more unusual announcements the Premier has made! This has been on the drawing board for a number of years. People have known since the mid 1990s that a waste water system is needed, and we are developing one. This Government has moved on that matter. We take Coral Bay and its environmental considerations seriously. We get our facts straight, and we make sure that we take action. We are protecting that environment. MICKELBERG APPEAL CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1072. Ms SUE WALKER to the Attorney General: I refer to the Minister for Health’s comment yesterday regarding the July 1982 interview of Peter Mickelberg at the Belmont CIB office, which was published in The West Australian and states - I was a peripheral player in this. I was a waiter.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11327

I also refer to the Minister for Health’s clear evidence in the 1998 appeal that he entered the interview room three times and on the first occasion observed Mr Hancock talking to Peter, and Mr Lewandowski writing what appeared to be notes of that conversation; and that on the second and third occasions observed Lewandowski reading to Peter from some handwritten notes. (1) As Lewandowski now swears that no such notes were taken in that interview and that he and Hancock lied about that in successive appeals, does the Attorney General concede that the minister’s evidence played a pivotal role in supporting what Lewandowski now claims was a lie? (2) Will the Attorney General concede that the Minister for Health’s evidence in this issue is now in question? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to both questions posed by the member for Nedlands is no. I give a little background to this matter. The evidence given in the 1983 trial of Peter Mickelberg was clear that the role played by then Detective Sergeant Kucera was absolutely minimal. He played no role whatsoever in the investigation or the interrogation that took place. His entry into the room where the interview - or the events I should say - took place, was for a couple of minutes on two or three occasions to collect papers and bring in hamburgers and coffee. That was the extent of his involvement while that transaction was taking place. After that, he sat with Mr Mickelberg for some time, exactly how long - maybe a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes - we are not too sure. Two or three minutes out of three or four hours is the extent to which the now Minister for Health was involved in the events on 26 July 1982. The evidence that was adduced at the 1983 trial is interesting. Last night I took the opportunity to read the evidence given by Mr Peter Mickelberg on that occasion. At page 1551 of the transcript, when Mr Mickelberg was cross-examined by - I presume it was Ron Davies for the Crown - Mr Davies opened his cross- examination by asking Mr Mickelberg how he could be believed when he was saying that all the police were fabricating the story. I will briefly refer to that transcript because Mr Davies opens his cross-examination by putting this question to Peter Mickelberg - Mr DAVIES: Then you have been totally framed by a large group of police officers - right?---If that’s how you want to put it, yes. I am asking you if that is how you would want to put it?---I have been charged with the offences and certain things have been written and said about me which are incorrect. By a large group of police officers?---I believe they are a large group, yes. Which includes Det-Sgt Hancock?---Correct. Det-Sgt Lewandowski?---Correct. Det-Sgt Hooft?---Correct. Det-Sgt Henley?---Correct. Det. Tovey?---Correct. Det-Sgt Round?---Correct. Det. Gillespie?---Correct. Det. August?---Correct. Det. Porter?---Correct. Det-Sgt Silich?---Correct. Sgt Billing, the handwriting man?---Correct. Sgt Henning, the fingerprint man?---Yes; I believe they were all in the team. That is the end of the list of those then serving police officers who were identified by Peter Mickelberg at that time as having been associated with or involved in the framing of him and of fabricating the evidence that was given. There is a very notable omission from what Peter Mickelberg told the court in 1983 as to the extent of the number of police and the involvement of different police officers in what he saw as the conspiracy to frame him. The omission is obvious. One would have thought that if then Detective Sergeant Kucera was playing any sort of a role, he might have been mentioned in the trial in 1983 as having played a role. The truth of the matter - as we all know - is that then Detective Sergeant Kucera played - to say it was a peripheral role would be an overstatement; he played no role whatsoever. That is the truth of the matter and that is borne out by the evidence that was given in the trial in 1983. It is patently obvious that Detective Sergeant Kucera was telling the truth when he said that his role was peripheral. He played no role whatsoever in the investigation and Peter Mickelberg did not identify him as a

11328 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

person about whom he had a complaint about any fabrication of evidence or misconduct. In the numerous pages of transcript of the evidence given by Peter Mickelberg, there are two paragraphs in which he refers to Mr Kucera, who was associated with the Belmont Police Station or the Criminal Investigation Bureau on that day. In none of those comments that preceded the identification of those 12 police officers was there any great conflict or criticism of Detective Sergeant Kucera. We all know that Peter Mickelberg and Mr Kucera have different recollections of what occurred and was said on that day in July 1982 at the Belmont Police Station. That is not uncommon. It is interesting that Peter Mickelberg did not identify Mr Kucera as one of the 12 people about whom he was aggrieved. That is the best evidence we can get on the state of mind of Peter Mickelberg and of those who Mr Mickelberg wants to criticise in this matter. BURRUP PENINSULA DEVELOPMENTS 1073. Mrs MARTIN to the Minister for State Development: I refer to the minister’s comments yesterday in which he outlined the unanimous support for the projects currently planned for the Burrup Peninsula, as expressed by political representatives in Sunday’s public forum at the Burrup. As there was some disagreement about the exact location for the development, will the minister outline the process that has seen a small part of Burrup reserved for industrial development and outline why Burrup is the only choice for the current project proponents? Mr BROWN replied: I am very pleased to be able to respond to the question from the member for Kimberley who, along with you, Mr Speaker, has taken an active interest in these matters. I will quickly outline the history of the matter, and there is some history to it, because I believe it is appropriate for the House to be acquainted with it. The history of these matters goes back prior to 1992. In 1992, a multiple use plan for the Burrup was published in the Pilbara 21 final strategy report that was endorsed by the then Government. The strategy included the Burrup Peninsula zoning plan, which proposed an industrial area on the Burrup. Subsequently, in 1994 a draft version of the Burrup land use plan with a technical appendix was published for comment. The plan was prepared for the Burrup Peninsula Management Advisory Board, which is a broad stakeholder group that reported to the then Minister for Resources Development. Over 40 submissions were received for the plan, which was amended and published in its final form following endorsement by the then Government in September 1996. The former minister released the plan with a media release on 16 October 1996. In his media release, the former minister noted the likelihood of future liquid natural gas, ammonia, petrochemical, ethanol and iron ore processing plants. It also unequivocally stated that the Burrup was the only option for these developments. That is what the former minister said in 1996. Since that time and the allocation of that plan, the former minister issued other media releases. On 23 March 1999, a media release was issued in the following terms - Resources development in the State’s Pilbara region was given a boost today with the announcement by Plenty River Corporation Limited that it would complete a bankable feasibility study into an $800 million (US$500) ammonia and urea plant near Karratha. Welcoming the announcement, Western Australian Resources Development Minister Colin Barnett said abundant supplies of natural gas meant the Karratha region would see a new crop of value-added chemical industries in the future. . . . The plant, proposed for the industrial area on the Burrup Peninsula, would use natural gas from the North West Shelf. The project would create 1,000 jobs during construction and 120 permanent positions once the plant is operational. The former Minister for Resources Development issued a further media statement on 12 November 1999 that indicated that the then Western Australian Government had allocated $30 million to multi-user infrastructure on the Burrup Peninsula. It also refers to the projects that were then under consideration for the Burrup Peninsula including Plenty River Pty Ltd’s $800 million ammonia and urea plant and the Syntroleum Sweetwater Operations Ltd’s $500 million gas-to-liquid plant. It also postured that Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd and Shell Chemicals Ltd could establish a $2 billion world-scale petrochemical plant in the Pilbara. On 18 February 2000, another lengthy media statement issued by the then Minister for Resources Development welcomed the decision by the United States-based Syntroleum corporation to choose the Burrup Peninsula for its $600 million gas-to-liquid plant. As we can see, not only was there extensive consultation over approximately a decade about that area of the State, but also overseas and international investors were encouraged - and correctly encouraged - by the former State Government to make investments in that area. The Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s Karratha area development strategy also brought together various planning activities at that time in and around Karratha. KADS, as it is known, was released for public comment and was published in its final form in 1998, following endorsement by the Western Australian Planning Commission and Cabinet. KADS, although a non-statutory planning document, provided guidance for aspects of the Shire of Roebourne’s town planning scheme No 8, which was gazetted in August 2000. As you yourself said on Sunday, Mr Speaker, this area has been under discussion for a long time and then set aside, and major

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11329 industries were attracted to it. I was concerned to hear comments by Hon Robin Chapple on ABC radio on 10 June 2002. I refer to a transcript of the comments made by the member during a radio interview, when questioned by a radio commentator called Johnson - JOHNSON But what about the claims that the investors will go overseas to find these natural gas deposits if they’re delayed in their development by having to go to Maitland instead of using the Burrup? CHAPPLE I mean I think we have to understand why one, the investors are coming to Western Australia - and that is that we do have a stable Government, we do have some continuity and we do have the ability and subsidy for that matter to get these plants going. It is interesting that the member says we have stability and low sovereign risk and that attracts project proponents to this State. If, after attracting proponents to this State we are now urged to somehow tell them that they are no longer welcome in that particular area and they should go elsewhere. If we were to take that course of action, what would happen to the so-called low sovereign risk that the State has established, which is attractive to international investors? This is an important matter; it does mean significant jobs and investment for Western Australia. We believe there has been considerable appropriate consultation about the utilisation of the Burrup Peninsula, and to say at five minutes to midnight that these projects should be located elsewhere would be a breach of faith to the investors and would damage Western Australia’s position internationally. MICKELBERG APPEAL CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1074. Ms SUE WALKER to the Attorney General: I refer the Attorney General to the 1999 joint judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Mickelberg v the Crown, when the court referred to the evidence of Peter Mickelberg at the trial. It states - Peter told Kucera that he had been hit and Kucera said, “It’s got nothing to do with me” and “I can’t help you at all.” (1) Does the Attorney General concede that the now Minister for Health gave evidence at the appeal that no complaint was made to him by Peter Mickelberg about having been stripped or any other assault? (2) Given that Lewandowski now says that Peter Mickelberg was telling the truth about being assaulted, and that he and Hancock were lying, will the Attorney General concede that his minister’s evidence is now, again, called into question? Mr McGINTY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any

11330 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.

COLLIE RIVER BRIDGE, KLEENHEAT GAS SOUTH WEST OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP 1075. Mr DEAN to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: Will the minister advise the House how the works on the Collie River Bridge are progressing and whether they had any significant impact on the Kleenheat Gas South West Open Championship? Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. He obviously takes a bit of pride in the role he has played in this matter. The Collie River Bridge is a key route for traffic between Bunbury and Australind for both commuters and freight. Around 15 000 vehicles a day use this route, including a considerable number of trucks and daily scheduled bus services from Bunbury to Perth, the Bunbury City Transit services and the school bus to the Australind High School. We were very concerned earlier this year when we discovered that marine worms had penetrated the bridge and were undermining its structural integrity. We therefore needed to impose a 10-tonne vehicle load limit on the bridge and we had to move quickly to have it repaired. To do that, we needed to get Aboriginal heritage clearances so that the work could proceed in a lawful fashion. That meant we had to delay the start of these works until 27 May this year. That then caused some difficulty for the Bunbury Golf Club, which had its Kleenheat Gas South West Open Championship planned for the following long weekend. The member for Bunbury drew this problem to my attention. I was then able to talk to Main Roads Western Australia and it negotiated with the contractor to defer those works over the long weekend, which would allow the bridge to remain open. I am pleased to report that, apparently, the Kleenheat Gas South West Open Championship was a great success. Indeed, we on this side of the House are very supportive of golf. We have supported golf in Kalgoorlie and we are pleased to support the sport in Bunbury. The outcome has been a successful one for an important venture of the Bunbury Golf Club, which has brought a lot of tourism into that area. It was important that we were able to ensure that roadworks did not undermine that significant event on the south west sporting calendar. I commend Main Roads for the work it did and the member for Bunbury for his vigilance and advocacy on behalf of his constituents.

STATE HEALTH MANAGEMENT TEAM, SOUTH WEST REPRESENTATION 1076. Mr TRENORDEN to the Minister for Health: I refer to the recommendation made by the Bunbury Health Task Force, chaired by the member for Bunbury, that the Director General of the Department of Health expand the membership of the state health management team to include the chief executive officer of South West Health. (1) Will this recommendation be implemented? (2) If so, will the CEOs of all the other country health services be included on the state health management team? Mr KUCERA replied: (1)-(2) That is a matter for the Director General of the Department of Health. Whether he addresses the recommendation in the same format recommended by the task force is entirely up to him. It is a management issue and I will go along with whatever the director general decides in that regard.

STATE HEALTH MANAGEMENT TEAM, SOUTH WEST REPRESENTATION 1077. Mr TRENORDEN to the Minister for Health: I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister concede that the south west would have a preferential position if the recommendation were taken up? Mr KUCERA replied: As I said, it is an issue for the Director General of the Department of Health. We have only just received the report and on Saturday I met with the key members of the report task force in Bunbury. There are many recommendations that

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11331 must be considered and this is only one of them. If that recommendation is accepted, as the member quite rightly said, it would put another complexion on the overall structure of the management team. At this stage it is not intended for that to occur. At the moment the single unified structure for country health services is headed by an acting executive director of country health and that system is currently working. If there is a need to review it, particularly in the light of the task force recommendations, that may very well be the case. That particular recommendation may or may not be accepted. There are many recommendations in the report that make good sense and there are many that will take some time to implement. We will work through them methodically, as we have done so far with all the renewal processes going on in the area of health. MICKELBERG CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1078. Ms SUE WALKER to the Attorney General: I refer the Attorney General to the sworn affidavit of Anthony Lewandowski regarding the July 1982 interview of Peter Mickelberg at the Belmont CIB office and the Attorney General’s announcement on Monday that the affidavit would be referred to the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. Will the Attorney General also refer the following to the police royal commission - (1) Peter Mickelberg’s claim that he complained to then Detective Sergeant Kucera that he had been beaten but was ignored? (2) The apparent discrepancy between Assistant Commissioner Kucera’s evidence in 1998 that he saw notes being taken in the interview, and Lewandowski’s sworn affidavit that these notes were fabricated two months later. Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I was made aware of the affidavit on Thursday of last week and saw it for the first time that night when I returned from a visit to the Manjimup-Bridgetown region. My immediate response was that it needed to be put into the hands of the police royal commission, which was done on Friday. The matter was referred to the royal commission at the earliest available opportunity. I also sought advice from the Solicitor General about the terms of reference of the royal commission. His advice to me, which I put into the letter that I sent with the affidavit to the royal commission on Friday, was that given that a former police officer had perjured himself during the period covered by the terms of reference of the royal commission - post 1985 - that would enable the royal commission to investigate all matters that were related to but preceded that act of perjury, which is an act of corruption by a police officer in this State. The advice that I received from the Solicitor General and relayed to the royal commission is that the royal commission can consider matters related to the Mickelberg stitch or the Perth Mint swindle. That would include - unless the royal commission comes to a different conclusion - all matters related to those events in 1982. If the royal commissioner, Geoffrey Kennedy, has a different view or reservations about the terms of reference, I would recommend to Cabinet that the terms of reference be extended to ensure that no impediment is placed in the way of a proper investigation of these matters by the royal commission. To put all of this in context, the one person in Western Australia who is arguably closer to the Mickelbergs than anyone else is Mr Avon Lovell. I will quote from today’s transcript of the John McNamara program on ABC radio at 9.39 am when Mr Lovell said the following - I find it very unfair to Bob Kucera. Bob’s involvement, if any, was so peripheral as to be, you know, uninteresting. He was at Belmont when Hancock and Lewandowski turned up there. He said a few words about some other case, a bit about the men, then he went off. He came back about two-and-a- half hours later. He basically saw Peter there, he basically said can I go get you a hamburger and then he went out. Now that is the extent. Already we have someone very close to the Mickelbergs saying that Bob Kucera’s account, where it is at odds with Peter Mickelberg’s about whether Bob Kucera ever went into the room in the first place, is to be preferred over that of Peter Mickelberg in respect of one of the two inconsistencies that I spoke about before. This is Avon Lovell, the author of The Mickelberg Stitch and a close ally the Mickelbergs. It continues - . Now to try and blow this into some political thing that Bob Kucera’s future and career is . . .(inaudible). . . I mean, it really . . . I’m quite appalled by that. My knowledge of Bob Kucera, he’s one of the best police officers out of a lot where I didn’t have respect for a lot of others. I recall that he was, I think, one of the first trained negotiators for hostage situations, and I think he was pivotal in quietening down the Fremantle Prison riot. And I just . . . I’m not an anti-police person going out for every coppa that’s there, Kucera is one of the good ones. I mean, leave him alone. I mean, go after who leaked this document because they’re putting people’s lives at risk. Go out for other cases around town, you know, the . . . (inaudible) . . . but Kucera, I mean, that’s just political bullshit. Mr Lovell then went on and concluded on this following note -

11332 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Every piece of conduct that he’s been involved in, to my knowledge, has been honourable. Every piece of conduct of Hancock was corrupt and dishonourable. I think that says it all.

MICKELBERG APPEAL CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1079. Ms SUE WALKER to the Attorney General: Will the Attorney General refer the Minister for Health’s involvement in the Mickelberg affair specifically for consideration by the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers? Mr McGINTY replied: What involvement? Avon Lovell said it was uninteresting and uncontroversial. The Minister for Health used the word “peripheral”. Having read the transcript of evidence, that is certainly the word I would use. I have answered that question by responding that the Mickelberg Perth Mint swindle, and all that attaches to it - particularly those matters that led to the alleged perjury by Hancock and Lewandowski - is within the royal commission’s terms of reference. That is the advice which I have received and which I have relayed to the royal commission. If Geoffrey Kennedy has a different view, I will accept a recommendation to expand the terms of reference to ensure that every element of the Mickelberg matter can be properly dealt with by the royal commission.

STATE AWARDS, GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES 1080. Ms GUISE to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection: What is the Government doing to increase the relevance of state awards? Mr KOBELKE replied: State awards are crucial to our industrial relations system. The Government has taken a number of steps to ensure that awards are up to date and relevant. The national wage case decision gave award workers an increase of $18 a week. The Government supported a full flow-on by general order in the state wage case before the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The commission handed down an $18 a week increase this week by general order applicable from 1 August. The commission went further and said that it would involve itself, to the extent possible, in the streamlining of awards. That very much fits in with what the Government has proposed in the Labor Relations Reform Bill 2002, which I hope will be passed soon by the other place. The wage case raised the issue of what should be the minimum wage in the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act. The Government could not foretell when the legislation was drafted what the state wage case determination would be. Therefore, the minimum wage in the Bill is not $431.40, which will be the state award minimum from 1 August. We will have the opportunity before that legislation is passed to update the figure so that the minimum as determined by the commission will be included in the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act.

MICKELBERG CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1081. Mr BARNETT to the Premier: I refer the Premier to revelations regarding the July 1982 interview of Peter Mickelberg. Given that the now Minister for Health - (a) was in charge of the Belmont Police Station at the time of the interview; (b) was, aside from Hancock and Lewandowski, the only other officer present at any time during the interview and was required to give evidence; (c) has been accused of ignoring Peter Mickelberg’s complaint that he had been stripped and bashed; (d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal will the Premier stand him aside until these matters are satisfactorily resolved? Dr GALLOP replied: The Opposition’s standards are being displayed for all to see. The Minister for Health has my support. Absolutely no evidence has been produced against him. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is pinning his arguments on what can be described only as twisted logic. He is pursuing a base political objective, rather than a general political objective. It is obvious that the Opposition has focused on the Minister for Health because of his position as a member of the Labor Government.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11333

It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money. IRON ORE PROCESSING (MINERALOGY PTY. LTD.) AGREEMENT BILL 2002 Consideration in Detail Resumed from 11 June. Schedule 1: Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty. Ltd.) Agreement - Debate was adjourned after the schedule had been partly considered. The SPEAKER: I remind members that we will go through the schedule clause by clause, but no vote on each clause will be taken. Only one question will be put at the conclusion of the debate. Mr GRAHAM: Clause 3 imposes an obligation on the Government to secure the passage of the Act prior to 30 June 2002. Does the minister believe that is likely? If he does not believe it is likely, has he spoken to the project proponents about this? Mr BROWN: I would like to think it is likely, but knowing how long legislation has taken to get through the other place, I think it is unlikely. I have spoken to the project proponents. The agreement contains the capacity to extend the date. The intention of the State would be to extend it. Mr GRAHAM: Clause 7(3) provides the project proponents with the right to consult with him and basically for him to vary any or all of the proposals that have been put before him and are contained in the agreement Act. I remind the minister of last night’s proceedings, deliberations and discussions and the fact that this matter is an emerging issue in the north west and one that for some time I have brought to the minister’s attention. Even if all matters covered by an agreement Act are conducted as all the parties would consider appropriate, and everyone is involved and all the stakeholders are able to have input, this is the escape clause that transfers the authority to make decisions about any matters concerning the project to the proponents and the minister. It gives ultimate authority to the minister and excludes everybody else. What plans does the minister have while he is minister to ensure that these projects do not fundamentally change and their impact on the local community does not fundamentally change without that community having an ability to have an input into the projects? Mr BROWN: The agreement sets out the projects. The definitions clause sets out the definitions of projects Nos 1, 2 and 3. My understanding of this clause is that it enables me to make modifications to the projects as a result of any detailed proposals put to me by the proponents, but it does not enable me to substitute other projects for the ones that are set out in the agreement. Mr GRAHAM: I understand that. It may be that I did not put my question as well as I might have. Nothing in the agreement Act will allow a change from the basic iron ore-steel production and processing operations. For example, the

11334 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] minister could not change the project to a soap factory and still be in accordance with the agreement Act. However, the history of agreement Acts is that the conditions imposed by an agreement Act are all subject to change with the approval of the minister. That is particularly so in the case of this agreement Act. All I ask is that, before the minister makes those decisions, he allow the people in the north west to be involved, particularly people from local authorities. It may be that the minister will find himself in a similar position to the previous minister who dealt with the Mt Goldsworthy agreement Act, which contained significant secondary processing obligations. That agreement Act was brought in on 23 December 1964. We are now in the year 2002, yet not one of the secondary processing obligations has ever been honoured. They have all been extended by the minister of the day to the exclusion of comment by the people and the authorities in the north west. The simple answer I am seeking - I will not go past this - is yea or nay. Mr BROWN: I understand the point the member is making. My understanding of what should be the practice is that if any proposals come forward that are not envisaged in this agreement, all people who are affected by the proposals will be consulted, and that will include the local authorities. Mr GRAHAM: I do not understand the meaning of clause 10(3). If the minister can give me an explanation of that clause, I will be a happy man. Mr BROWN: The Mining Act provides that persons who hold a lease are required to undertake certain expenditures in relation to that lease otherwise they forfeit the lease. This state agreement will grant those leases for 60 years. However, that grant is subject to the other provisions of the state agreement. The state agreement sets down other conditions and can be terminated by the minister. Because there is provision to determine the state agreement, that part of the Mining Act that relates to the determination of those tenements will not apply. Mr GRAHAM: The rates contained in clause 11.(1) will be levied on those minerals that go into the company’s system. Are the rates contained in this part of the Bill comparable with agreement Acts for the other major producers; and, if they are not, in what way are they different and why are they different? Mr BROWN: The rates set out in the state agreement are the rates that were contained in the Mining Act in 1996 and are paid by other producers. They are not the rates contained in other state agreements. My advice is that they are higher rates. Discount rates are included in the state agreement where further processing takes place. Mr GRAHAM: Does “local labour” in clause 12 mean local? Mr Brown: Yes. Mr GRAHAM: What does “local” mean to the Government? Does that mean Karratha, Perth or Darwin? Mr BROWN: In summary, the agreement provides for a preference for the use of Western Australian labour and if that is not available for Australian labour. Local means Western Australian labour, and then Australian labour. If reasonably and economically practical, WA services are to be preferred, and if not available Australian services are to be engaged. Fair and reasonable opportunity is to be given for WA and Australian providers of equipment and suppliers to tender. WA suppliers are to be given proper consideration and, where possible, preference where they are competitive. Where providers outside of WA and Australia are selected, proper consideration is to be given for Australian participation through subcontracting. Any third party contracting activities for agreement projects are to abide by the same principles agreed with the agreement parties. Quarterly reports on local content are to be submitted during the project evaluation, and monthly reports once development proposals are submitted. Reports are to cover overseas suppliers and equipment and reasons for the selection of overseas suppliers. Consultation with the minister on such reports will be on an as-required basis . The intention is that it be Western Australian labour, and if that is not available, Australian labour. It does not press that it be Port Hedland labour; but it is Western Australian labour. It seems that in these days proper consideration will be given of recruiting from within the State and, hopefully, from within the area. Mr GRAHAM: So, for the purpose of the Act, local does not mean local! I do not accept that, but I understand it. Clause 12.(1)(a) says - except in those cases where the Project Proponents can demonstrate it is impracticable so to do, use labour available within Western Australia . . . What does “it is impracticable so to do” mean? For example, does it mean that it is simply inconvenient to the project proponent to employ people in Western Australia; that if the project proponent has already tied away corporate contracts for professional services in the eastern States that those contracts will apply to this project; and that an eastern States company moving from Queensland to Perth and opening a post office box and a registered address in Perth, Western Australia constitutes a local company for the purposes of the agreement Act? They are the sorts of things that happen with regional employment. If this major project proceeds in its present form, I suspect it will be like a range of other resource projects that get off the ground, because they are exactly the exercises that the project proponents get up to. I have no in-principle opposition to that, other than they have entered into an agreement with the State Government

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11335 not to do that unless it is, in this case, impracticable for them to use Western Australian labour. How will the Government seek to hold the company to its side of the agreement? Mr BROWN: In part, I can answer the member’s question by naming the companies that are associated with the Austeel Pty Ltd project: Clough Engineering Ltd is based in Western Australia; Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd, although an international and national company is based in Western Australia; and Halpern Glick Maunsell Pty Ltd, Aquaterra, Soil and Rock Engineering Pty Ltd and Promet are Western Australian companies. Those companies are either Western Australian companies or they have a strong Western Australian base, which indicates a clear intent to use sources from Western Australia. Under the state agreements, the proponents are required to report - I have seen the reports - on the areas in which they use local or international contractors. Under the Australian industry participation framework, which has been signed by all the industry ministers in Australia, the expectation is that the work will be sourced from within the State or Australia. Obviously, due to other constraints, if a product cannot be manufactured in the State, or if it cannot be done at reasonably competitive prices, standards and so on, it must be sourced somewhere else. Mr Graham: I accept that principle, but that is not what the agreement says. It states that except where it is impracticable to do so, the project proponents will use the labour available within Western Australia. With all due respect to those companies, they may well decide that they will employ their labour through a labour contracting company, and that company may have a pool of labour in New Zealand that it brings across to Western Australia to do the job. That is not unusual. Mr BROWN: It may not be. Paragraph (a) states - except in those cases where the Project Proponents can demonstrate it is impracticable so to do . . . That is the test. The word “impracticable” does not mean that they simply do not want to do it. It means what it says; that is, that the proponents can demonstrate to the minister that it is impracticable to do so. Therefore, those proponents must come forward and say that they cannot source the labour in this State because, for whatever reason, it is impracticable to do so - not that they do not elect to do so and therefore it is impracticable, but that, because of some substantial reason, it is impracticable to do so. Mr GRAHAM: I accept that. Can we stay on clause 12.(1)(a)? The clause is constructed so that it is broken into labour, professional services, tendering and supply. Can we stick with the labour part of it for the moment? I have not said that for a long time! I am seeking to find out how the company will demonstrate the impracticability of it. Is it simply a case of the company’s saying to the Government, “We need 2 000 riggers to put this plant together. We can’t find them in Western Australia. We have 10 plane loads of Kiwis on the way over” - or 10 plane loads of whomever - and the minister signing off on it? I do not mean to delay the proceedings, and I will not. However, I feel strongly about this matter because it has been a bone of contention for years. I happen to agree with the Leader of the Opposition - I am saying a lot today that I do not normally say - that the companies sometimes address these agreement Acts as one-sided agreements; and they are not. These companies are given concessions and access to considerable mineral resources in return for doing certain things. From my perspective, one of the key things that these project proponents have agreed to do - not forced into but agreed to do - is to use local labour within Western Australia, except where it is impracticable for them to do so. What is the mechanism and what are the processes by which the minister will accept that they can demonstrate the impracticability of using Western Australian labour? Mr BROWN: I have not thought all of this through. Probably two issues are involved. Certainly, it would be impracticable to source labour locally when the variety of skills required for a particular project were not available. That would have an impact on the project. That would be one way in which a company could demonstrate impracticability. A company might be able to demonstrate impracticability if the band of skills is narrow and people are using a market power position to extract what is unreasonable. That might be another area in which it would be impracticable, given that the skills are available but market power is being used to seek a premium. I cannot give the member all the circumstances that might result in impracticability. However, it is not simply a matter of a company saying that because it does not want to do it, it is impracticable to do so and the minister must accept that. Criteria will be applied, and the proponent must demonstrate, as the words of the clause indicate, that for particular reasons it is impracticable to do so - whether it be because skills are not available or because particular equipment on which people need to work to produce certain end products is not available or whatever. Those things must be substantive and not simply passive. Mr Graham: Are my assumption and reading of that correct; that is, that the default condition will be Western Australian labour, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise? Therefore, if a company has a construction work force of, say, 3 000, and someone turns up on the work site and finds that, of the 3 000, 2 500 are Kiwis, the project proponents will be in default of the agreement, unless they have approval to be in that situation. Mr BROWN: In any contract awarded under this agreement, the intention is that, overall, people should recruit Western Australian labour. One would not try to ascertain whether, for every employee required, there is potentially a local person who could do the job. However, in a general sense, if a contractor came in with a manager, and everybody

11336 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] else in his work force was a foreign national and no Western Australians were employed, that would be a breach of the agreement. I indicate to the member that the proponent has been introduced to the industrial supplies office. An outline of the project has been discussed, and the industrial supplies office has made presentations to the company on the services that it can provide. Also, the terms of the proposed state agreement are consistent with the Australian industry participation framework that was signed off by the industry ministers last year. Mr GRAHAM: I will move on to paragraph (b), which refers to the use of professional services. It is not a class argument. Why must the company demonstrate that it is reasonable and economically practicable to use professional services, as I loosely describe them? The proponent is required to “as far as it is reasonable and economically practicable so to do” use the services of professionals in Western Australia, whereas it must simply demonstrate that “it is impracticable” to use local labour. Why are the two different? Mr BROWN: I suggest that the test for the use of local labour is much stricter than the test for the use of professional services. In the case of labour, the proponents must demonstrate that it is impracticable to use local labour; it is not automatically an economic bar, as it is for professional services. There is a greater protection for local labour than there is for local professional services. Mr Graham: Why the difference? Mr BROWN: The advice I have is that in using professional services, a competitive factor needs to be considered so that there can be access to the best competitive price in Western Australia. We cannot have a situation in which the proponent must use some of the certain narrow professional services in Western Australia for which exorbitant prices are charged when those services are much cheaper elsewhere. There must be reasonable competition. The test for labour is much higher. Mr GRAHAM: Paragraph (a) refers to labour available within Western Australia and paragraph (b) refers to professional services being “resident and available within Western Australia”. Why is there no residency requirement for labour? Mr BROWN: Labour that would be engaged on the project directly would be working at the site, whereas other professional services might not be on the site or even in the State. Mr GRAHAM: I move to clause 12(2). To save time, I ask the minister the same questions about the third-party obligations, which I assume relate to subcontractors. Mr BROWN: I am advised that the simple answer is that any obligations that rest on the proponent apply to a contractor that uses subcontractors. Mr Graham: Do the obligations continue down? Mr BROWN: I am advised that, yes, they telescope down. Mr Graham: Does this subclause negate the argument that the developer is in the business of producing the project and is not competent to dictate to its contractors how they conduct their business? Mr BROWN: No. All the contractors engaged by the proponent must be competent to do the work. This clause relates to how the proponent sources labour or professional services in carrying out its contractual obligations. I am advised that the intention of this clause is to telescope down those same obligations; that is, the contractors at every level are required to perform their duties professionally and, by virtue of this state agreement, to source their work in that way. Mr GRAHAM: I refer to a subcontractor to the major proponents. We have been using the example of a New Zealand scaffolding company, and I will continue with that. I do not have anything against scaffolders or Kiwis. Let us consider a subcontracted scaffolding company which may be two or three layers down the contractual chain and which employs 100 scaffolders in the constructing work, and the vast bulk of them are foreign nationals. However, the adjoining town has a scaffolding company and a couple of hundred unemployed scaffolders. Regardless of that subcontracting company’s position in the scheme of things, would that constitute a circumstance in which the minister would intervene and call the proponent to account on its local labour provisions? Mr BROWN: Certain obligations on the proponent will telescope down. Those obligations are the proponent’s obligations. If the proponent failed to abide by those obligations, the matter would have to be drawn to the proponent’s attention. Mr Graham: Is there a penalty? Mr BROWN: No. Mr Graham: Would the minister, as the representative of the State, say to the proponent that the State had entered into an agreement and expected the proponent to honour its side of the agreement? Mr BROWN: As the proponent has every expectation that the State will honour its side of the agreement, the State has every expectation that the proponent will honour its side of the agreement.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11337

Mr Graham: I ask this because this clause has no time line. It refers not to the construction of the project but to the project from inception to shutdown; the life of the agreement. Is that correct? Mr BROWN: Yes, I am advised that is correct. Mr Graham: If we find in 20 years that the corporate services - the accounting, engineering and project management areas - are being run from Queensland, would we have a serious case to take up with the project developers? Mr BROWN: Yes, I am advised that that is correct. Since I have been in this position, I have seen the local content reports that have been lodged in other areas. I cannot disclose what they are. However, those reports come in on a quarterly or half-yearly basis, and they list every contract and whether that contract is sourced in Western Australia, Australia or overseas. Mr Graham: I will not get hung up on it. Sometime when the minister is in the north west, I will take him for a drive to some empty sheds that are registered companies. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Edwards): We are giving the debate on this schedule a free rein. Mr GRAHAM: I refer to clause 13(3), which relates to the upgrading of public roads. I understand these clauses; they are not unusual. In the event that this project gets off the ground, the vast bulk of the equipment needed to build the plant will be transported to the north west of the State in the traditional way; that is, by truck via the Great Northern Highway. Does this clause refer to roads in the area or the region in particular, or does it refer to roads generally? Mr BROWN: The intention of the clause is that the proponent will have to pay compensation for any damage to roads if it is caused by the proponent’s operations; that is, roads used in the immediate operations of either the construction or the project. For example, if equipment moves from Port Hedland back to the project and the roads are damaged, the roads would have to be repaired and the proponent would have to pay compensation for that damage. If a proponent brought a piece of equipment from Melbourne and somewhere along the way the road was allegedly damaged by the transport of that equipment, the proponent would not have to pay for the damage to the road. Mr GRAHAM: I understand that. I suggest to the minister that he get together with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and they strongly argue for the maximum amount of budget allocation they can possibly get for the Great Northern Highway between Perth and where the highway forks off. Projects are being developed inland in the Pilbara and the Murchison-Gascoyne nickel belt, and trucks travel along that part of the road and the Great Northern Highway. If they travel to the coastal developments, they use the North West Coastal Highway. I know that work has been done there recently. One has only to drive up and down that highway a couple of times to recognise, without a shadow of doubt, that that road carries the heaviest amount of haulage traffic in Western Australia. Having said that, and having made a bid for road funding in somebody else’s electorate, which I have not done before, I will refer to clause 19. Subclause (2) gives the project proponents the ability to propose the establishment of a new town or accommodation outside the existing town sites to accommodate the company’s work force. Have the company’s proponents approached the minister with a proposal? If so, where would they like a new town to be built? If the proponents have not approached the minister, is it likely that the company will propose the development of a new town? If such a town is developed, will it be an open town whereby, notwithstanding this agreement Act, the State will incur some considerable expense? If it is not to be an open town and it is to be strictly a company town, how will that occur in this century? Mr BROWN: The subclause to which the member referred enables the company and the project proponent to agree that a new town can be established outside existing town sites. No proposal about any new town site has been put to the department or me. Mr Graham: Are you aware of any intention to do that? Mr BROWN: No. Mr GRAHAM: Is it safe to assume that it is not likely to happen, and that it is just a holding provision? Mr BROWN: An option is written into the agreement; however, there is no indication from the company that it intends or would seek to exercise that option. Mr GRAHAM: I asked that question because previous agreement Acts have contained these types of provisions. The old department of resources development would then get a mind-set that a town must be developed in the Pilbara. There are great examples of this in the library in the old DRD. Some people made a career out of planning for towns in the Pilbara that never eventuated. Frankly, we need another town in the Pilbara like we need a hole in the head. I question the sustainability of the current towns. When I leave Parliament, I will be one of the very few members who will leave with three fewer towns in my electorate than when I arrived. Since I was elected, three towns in the Pilbara have ceased to exist. I do not complain about that. However, it concerns me that once these holding provisions are legislated for, they can take on a life of their own and taxpayers’ funds and bureaucrats’ efforts and energies are directed at accommodating a wish list. Mr BROWN: I will allay the member’s concerns. Clause 17 states -

11338 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Prior to submitting proposals under paragraphs (c) or (d) of subclause (2) of Clause 6 relating to accommodation for the Company’s workforce the Project Proponents shall confer with the Minister and the relevant local authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate planning is being made for housing and accommodation to service the Project having regard to - The intent of clauses 6, 17 and 19 is that those types of proposals will need to be put to the minister of the day and the local authority, which will have to discuss it. That process would have to be done openly with all the parties. Mr Graham: At the end of all that, the Government would say no. Schedule put and passed. Title put and passed. Third Reading MR BROWN (Bassendean - Minister for State Development) [3.40 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a third time. MR GRAHAM (Pilbara) [3.41 pm]: Firstly, I congratulate the Government and the minister for the way they have handled this Bill. At times I was a bit peed off about the way speeches were fragmented and about the times the Bill was called on. At one stage I had a significant head of steam and could have happily torn people asunder for what happened, but we have actually achieved something in this process - I am not sure how much and what, but I will determine that by looking at the final, corrected version of Hansard and the undertakings that the minister has proposed. Without being a bush lawyer, I take those undertakings in the manner in which they were offered. In the north west there are serious concerns about the operation of agreement Acts. This is not a political stunt, a political line or a game that is being played; it is a fundamental and serious issue. The north west has not just woken up to this issue; it was one of the issues that introduced me to politics and got me involved in public life. Various Governments have been aware of this issue and they have found sharp, clever-dick, political solutions. Over the past 30 years I have watched with interest as a whole range of Premiers have taken the advice of Treasury officials about how not to move on this issue. From time to time they have handed out trinkets in the north west, thereby negating the political drive and impetus for a year or two. It is no surprise that in 40-odd years the issue has not gone away. It is no surprise that in 40 years the north west has lost none of its vehemence about the effects agreement Acts can have on an entire region in this State. This is not to say that agreement Acts have not delivered some benefits to the region - they certainly have; that is not the argument. That is recognised and taken as a given. However, agreement Acts have put in place a double jeopardy for people in a very important region: they take from us any financial control over our future; they actually pump money out of the north west of the State and put it into Perth. People can argue that that is all right in a State that owns the minerals - that is not the argument I want to have. However, if the consequence is that the region from where that wealth is generated is left bereft of finances, that outcome cannot be sustained. Generally speaking, we in the Pilbara have little or no discretionary funds. A system of government cannot be run at any level if it has no discretionary funds or has extraordinarily limited discretionary funds. I know the arguments I put fall on fertile ground here, because the State Government puts the same argument to the federal Government. It is one of the great paradoxes of politics in Western Australia that the Government simultaneously argues two mutually exclusive positions. The same person does it to each Government and the same person does it with the same alacrity in Canberra, but when they come to the north west of the State they put the reverse argument with the same vigour. This is an absurd position for us to be in, although the Government has opened some doors. The Government has not answered the questions, but it has opened some doors, and I congratulate it for that. As I said at the outset, when one has a head of steam up about an issue it is much easier to fight someone with whom one does not have personal relationships, understandings and history. The fact that this minister was sitting in the Chair made my job much more difficult. I have great respect for him, both personally and professionally, and I appreciate the way he has handled this agreement Act. I also put on record my profound apologies to the project proponents, whom I have never met and probably never will, because unfortunately their agreement Act got caught up in this wider debate. If I were they, I would never forgive me, so I am not seeking their forgiveness. I am not absolving myself from what I have done; however, this agreement Act delivered a rate cut to the shire council. We in the north west have done some things and the minister has agreed to do some things to minimise the effect of the agreement Act, but common courtesy should have dictated that either the project proponents or the State Government let the local authority know what they were going to do. This did not come out of left field. The State Government actually sat down at a table and negotiated away that council’s right to rate the project. It was put on the table, given a value, and traded off by the State Government. In no other field of endeavour would we tolerate two people trading off the rights of a third party. In fact, under the Trade Practices Act it is illegal to do that. In private business, if two people got together to damage a third, that would be a breach of the Trade Practices Act and someone would be prosecuted, but in this case no-one even had the courtesy to pick up the phone and call the local authority and say, “Look, fellows, we are about to do a deal that trades off your significant rights to income.” That is unacceptable. I congratulate the minister and all those members who have supported the argument that this

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11339 should not happen in future. That would be an impossible act, as I understand it, because this minister and all parties have agreed that this will not happen in future. If it is likely to happen, the local government will at least get a seat at the table and be able to plead its case. It might decide not to, but it will have the right. I hope the project proponents understand that the delay was not of my making. I had my amendments drafted the day after the legislation was introduced and we could have had the debate then. In fact, at one stage I thought I had the numbers in the upper House to knock this off, but all that crumbled as time went on. I apologise to the project proponents and mean them no disrespect. However, a greater good came out of the process. I thank the minister and the Government for listening to the case, and hopefully they will act on it in the coming years. MR TRENORDEN (Avon - Leader of the National Party) [3.50 pm]: I have not been involved in today’s debate, but I take the opportunity on behalf of the National Party to congratulate the member for Pilbara on his perseverance on this issue. We share the member for Pilbara’s feelings on this matter and, in principle, we totally agree with him, even though we had some minor disagreements about his amendments. I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that it was a good debate, and I am more than happy to take on face value that it was all carried out in good faith. It is one of the few occasions in this Chamber on which we have all taken a considerable step, and local government will appreciate that. It is important for local government that, when good news comes into its area, it can deal with it. This debate has moved forward the position of local government considerably. MR BROWN (Bassendean - Minister for State Development) [3.53 pm]: I thank the member for Pilbara, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party for their contributions to the debate. It has been a good debate and, as the member for Pilbara correctly said, it was not simply a debate about one agreement that was before the Parliament, but, rather, a debate that involved wider issues with a great deal of history and about which much feeling has been expressed in the Pilbara. I am very aware of that feeling, as I said during the second reading debate and consideration in detail stage of the Bill, and the member for Pilbara has told me about it on more than one occasion. We now live in a world in which the views of stakeholders cannot be dismissed. In today’s world, corporate entities are very much alive to the sensitivities and sensibilities of stakeholders, whether they be local communities, local authorities, traditional owners, suppliers, employees or whatever. One must be alive to the concerns and aspirations of stakeholders, because in the world in which we now live, all of those stakeholders are keen to ensure that their voices are heard. I indicated in the debate that I was more than happy to ensure that, should future state agreements that involve any sort of limitation on a local council’s ability to rate come before the Government for consideration, we would have some discussions with that local authority. Given commercial sensitivities, I am not sure how that can be done. In the event that we are in the fortunate position of other large projects coming forward that require state agreements, questions will need to be further examined. The only other area in which a state agreement is currently undergoing a great deal of work is when a like provision does not cover the local authority in the area to which the state agreement applies. It raises some interesting questions not only about this agreement and the debate that has taken place, but also about some of the recent events on the Burrup Peninsula and the involvement of local communities. That is what we are dealing with. We are trying to find ways to rectify the grievances of local communities. Projects of this nature are very complex and long term. They are conceptually difficult if they do not come from substantial corporations. When a project of this nature is put forward by entrepreneurs, for example, a range of variables must be properly lined up, including finding an appropriate market and finance. All the variables must be lined up to get the project under way. I hope this state agreement will be passed by the other place and that significant investment will be undertaken in Western Australia. The professional officers in the department believe that all the prerequisites are in place for this state agreement to be supported. I wish Mr Clive Palmer every success. I had the opportunity of meeting him a week or so ago and he was very enthusiastic about this proposal. It links in with proposals in the other part of the project based in New South Wales, which is actively supported by the State Government there. We need visionaries, entrepreneurs and people who see larger opportunities and are prepared to have a go. In bringing this project together, Mr Palmer is having a go; he is out there seeking to kick a goal for his company. If he is successful - we certainly hope he is - he will be kicking a big goal for Western Australia and for business and employment opportunities in this State. That is to the benefit of us all. Employment in Western Australia is a key issue as our industries are becoming more efficient. We do not step away from public policy issues. The objective of any Government is to create a situation in which the economy grows and there are jobs for all those who wish to work. One of the ways in which that can be done is by securing the type of investment that is envisaged by these projects. If these projects come to fruition, they will provide long-term employment. It will be rewarding employment of a skilled nature and it will provide a great contribution to the economy not only of the north but also of the State. In conclusion, I thank the three members who have contributed to the debate. I particularly thank the member for Pilbara for his questions. They were good, probing questions that required us to give further thought to areas for which we do not have all the answers. I undertake that we will give further thought to those matters, and I conclude by thanking all members once again. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council.

11340 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

VOLUNTEER PROTECTION BILL 2002 Second Reading MR GRYLLS (Merredin) [4.00 pm]: I move - That the Bill be now read a second time. The public liability insurance issue is causing much concern in the country electorates that the National Party represents. Although metropolitan areas are affected to some degree, this is a classic country problem. The reason is that many of our groups and organisations are very small, with no assets and no reason to have public liability insurance. When a community group is formed to run a cake stall to raise money for a group or charity, it should not be placed in the situation of exposing itself to liability. Because of the growth in litigation in our society, we must act to exempt these volunteers who offer hundreds of hours of unpaid work to their communities with only a thanks in return. The Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted surveys in 1995 and 2000. The surveys indicate that Western Australia has the highest volunteer rate in Australia for non-metropolitan regions, with 44.6 per cent. Country Western Australians are the most involved volunteers in Australia. An estimated one in three Western Australians volunteered in 2000 and contributed 70.8 million hours of unpaid work. A 1995 ABS report put a monetary value on voluntary work in one year in Western Australia at $460 million. Our litigious society is destroying the social fabric of our small country towns, and the National Party is the first party to take steps to rectify this situation. This is only the first step in a series of legislative amendments to ensure that the insurance crisis does not cripple our country towns. If the Labor Government cannot find the time to bring this before the House, the National Party will continue to take the lead on the issue. The National Party released a comprehensive plan to address the public liability insurance problem for the March meeting of government ministers convened by Senator Coonan. The plan has been driven by Peter Ryan, the Leader of the Victorian National Party. I recognise the work that he has done. The main thrust of the plan was adopted by the Premier and announced on 28 May 2002. All Western Australians call on the Premier to fast-track this plan and to provide us with some relief from this public liability crisis. The crisis has engulfed the whole community. Every member would have heard some horror story in his or her electorate about how the public liability nightmare is impacting. In my electorate of Merredin there have been many examples, and I will relate just two today. There are many more I could speak of, and I am sure other members could give their own examples. The Quairading Speedway Club has been operating for many years and is well known throughout the region for the excellent events it runs. It always draws a good crowd. Speedways have always been a great outlet for the revheads from the country, but this year they are faced with a premium increase from $2 000 to $12 000. That is a staggering 600 per cent increase and has called the viability of the club into question. I attended a meeting at which the committee sat around in a circle and broached the subject of winding up the club. That has been foisted upon a club that has never made a claim on its public liability policy. The Kununoppin and Districts Hospital Auxiliary holds an annual fete to raise money for much needed hospital equipment. I attended last year’s event and it was a great day. It was a demonstration of the community spirit for which small country communities are famous. In 2000, the auxiliary paid $178 for public liability insurance. In 2001, that increased to $415. In 2002, the quote for public liability cover is $1 000. I received a letter from the Secretary of the Hospital Auxiliary, Mrs Betty Ryan. This Parliament must take on board and act upon Mrs Ryan’s statement that these insurance figures start to take the enjoyment out of voluntary work if the money must be raised and spent before any profit is made. This Parliament must address that disillusionment with the system as a matter of urgency. The Volunteer Protection Bill 2002 is specifically designed to address the liability of the volunteer. This is a complex problem and myriad solutions are required to address the overall crisis in public liability. This Bill is the first step in that package. This legislation will provide qualified immunity from personal liability claims, subject to the provision that the volunteer has not shown a conscious or flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of a person suffering injury, loss or damage. This legislation will allow volunteers to go about their community work with no fear of a claim being made against them. Community work has been defined in the widest possible manner, covering a range of activities, including sports, charity work, health care, and religious and environmental issues. A volunteer is deemed to be a person who is unpaid, not including reimbursement of expenses. Immunity is given from action for damages for injury, loss or damage that may arise while undertaking the community work. The exceptions to this immunity are criminal conduct, when aircraft are involved or when there is conscious or flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the injured person. The Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 and the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 remain the primary pieces of legislation governing those areas. The National Party believes that this legislation is necessary because the reality for most country-based voluntary organisations is that the volunteers are the organisation. These organisations have no assets; they have only nominal amounts of money in their bank accounts. Should a litigation situation arise, the assets and income of the volunteers are most likely to be targeted. The increased awareness of the public about this issue has prompted uncertainty about their

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11341 involvement, and many volunteers have simply opted out of getting involved in this work. The National Party wants to encourage volunteers and local organisations to continue to provide these vital services to their communities. This Bill is designed to encourage community service. We need to encourage this service rather than to sit back and watch this public liability crisis destroy it. The social fabric of country communities is under threat from this issue and it is incumbent upon this Parliament to do something about it. I return to the Kununoppin and Districts Hospital Auxiliary and how this Bill will affect it. The group is currently planning its annual fete and has on the table a public liability insurance premium of $1 000. This group is a small, not- for-profit organisation, run by volunteers who receive no payment for their work while raising money for their local hospital. I am sure that the group has only a nominal amount of money in its bank account. If this legislation were to become law - I hope that members on both sides of the House will support it - these volunteers will be protected from liability for the preparation and running of the Kununoppin and Districts Hospital fete. Clause 5 provides - No action shall be brought for damages for injury, loss or damage against a volunteer for any negligent act or omission, trespass, nuisance or breach of duty arising under the statute which occurs after the commencement of this Act and arises out of or in the course of community work being performed by that volunteer. If the volunteers are exempt from liability and there are no assets or bank account belonging to the organisation to protect, the Kununoppin and Districts Hospital Auxiliary will have no need to seek the protection of a public liability policy. That would be a $1 000 saving to the hospital auxiliary, which could be spent on hospital equipment rather than on insurance policies. That will be a just result for both Kununoppin and other groups in similar situations. A public liability insurance policy will still be necessary for groups that have assets to protect. It will be part of the National Party’s package of solutions to introduce legislation to exempt these larger organisations as well. In no way is the National Party advocating that volunteer organisations should cancel their public liability insurance policies. It will be up to the individual organisations to decide whether their circumstances warrant the protection of such an insurance policy. As I said, small groups might have only nominal assets. Such groups will need to decide whether taking out a public liability policy costing $1 000 is sensible. Pony clubs are well known as being affected by public liability insurance. Pony clubs were very nearly forced to close throughout Western Australia, indeed throughout Australia, due to an inability to obtain public liability insurance. In the past fortnight, pony clubs have managed to obtain insurance cover, albeit at an increased premium, which every club member has had to bear. Thousands of children who participate in pony clubs would otherwise not have been able to enjoy the social interaction provided by these clubs. Furthermore, the training ground for our future state and national horse riders would have been removed. Moreover, without a supervised and structured environment within which to participate in recreational riding, those children would potentially have been exposed to dangerous riding situations. The same difficulties are being experienced by local cricket clubs, football clubs and other children’s sporting clubs. Without solutions to keep these clubs functional, we will force our children to stop playing sport. We will remove opportunities for social interaction, skills building and personal development for our children. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see that this Bill will have a significant impact on the small volunteer organisations that form the backbone of our country communities. These volunteer organisations have heard a lot of rhetoric over the past six months about how Governments would act to address the public liability crisis. Today the National Party uses actions rather than rhetoric to address this issue and to provide workable solutions to this crisis. I call for bipartisan support for this Bill and commend it to the House. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Bradshaw. DECRIMINALISATION OF CANNABIS Motion MR BIRNEY (Kalgoorlie) [4.13 pm]: I move - That this House condemns the Premier and the Minister for Health for their recent announcement of their intention to decriminalise the possession of up to 25 grams and the cultivation of two cannabis plants. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has been unavoidably detained, which is why I have moved the motion. It is a foregone conclusion that this Labor Government, unlike Labor Governments of the past, is encouraging Western Australians to grow their own dope. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will forgive me for putting it in such blunt terms, but I do not know of any other sufficient way of describing the latest announcement of the Labor Party; that is, that individuals in a decriminalised system will be able to grow two plants of marijuana in their backyard without attracting a criminal conviction. This drug has contributed significantly to the ill health of Western Australians, particularly in the sad cases of youth suicide, youth depression and depression in the wider community. It has been proven that marijuana has an effect in all those cases, yet today the Western Australian Labor Party is telling the people of Western Australia that they can grow their own dope and not attract a criminal conviction.

11342 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

This lot opposite are in moral decay. They are a blight on Western Australian society and a blight on Australian society generally. Let us look at all the rubbish they have trotted out since they came to power. They are allowing people to grow their own dope; allowing two homosexual men - or, dare I say it, three homosexual men - to adopt a child through an adoption agency; and allowing unions to run all over work sites in Western Australia. The mob opposite are in moral decay. They are unlike any other Labor Party or any other Labor Government of the past. Former Labor leaders and former Labor members of this House of perhaps 15 or 20 years ago would be disgusted at what they would see here today - a Labor Party that is caught up in all these morally decaying issues that would not have been contemplated by Labor Governments of the past. As I understand it, in 1999 the Labor state conference recommended that a decriminalised regime apply to the carrying or possessing of 100 grams of marijuana and the growing of five plants. I am drawn to the conclusion that it was a little bit of a set-up. I think that somebody went to that state conference and said that if the party moved such a radical motion and put to the public that the Labor Party would allow people to carry 100 grams of marijuana and grow five plants, when the time came they could say that the idea was far too radical and that the conservative Labor Party would allow people to grow only three plants and possess only 30 grams of marijuana. It seems that at its state conference of 1999, the Labor Party took a very deliberate course of action to soften the blow. The blow has not been softened; the message has not been lost; the people of Western Australia are well and truly aware of the poor stewardship that we are witnessing in the Government’s handling of these moral and social issues. Sadly, the Western Australian Government is promoting those very issues that would lead to a deterioration in the social fabric of our society. If people are to be allowed to grow two plants in their backyard, it will inevitably lead - Mr Dean: Who is allowing it? Mr BIRNEY: The Labor Party, of which the member is a member. Several members interjected. Mr BIRNEY: Let me address the point. The member asked who was allowing it and then said that the Labor Party was not allowing it because people would still cop a fine. What the members of the Labor Party do not tell the people of Western Australia is that it will no longer be a criminal offence for people to grow their own dope in their backyard. As I was driving to Parliament one morning listening to the radio, I heard the Minister for Health trotting around the issue, saying that people should not worry and that it would still be illegal and that people could not grow their own dope. What he did not say was that the requirement for a criminal conviction for those people caught with two plants of marijuana in their backyard would be removed. He simply trotted around, under and over the issue. He certainly did not come clean with the people of Western Australia. The member for Bunbury, by way of interjection, has certainly not come clean with the people of Western Australia by trying somehow to imply that the Labor Party will not allow people to grow two plants in their backyard. It follows that when a Government decriminalises the growing of marijuana, more people will smoke it. That seems to make a lot of sense to me. If it is no longer to be a criminal offence, those people who were previously relatively law- abiding citizens, who might have been somewhat curious about and interested in having the odd smoke of marijuana, might be inclined to grow a couple of plants. Why would they not do so when this morally decayed Government is sending a message that says it is okay to do it? More people will be smoking marijuana. What will happen to the rate of youth suicide, youth depression and the whole raft of social issues that attach themselves to the smoking of marijuana? I will tell members what will happen. We will be back here 12 months after the passage of the legislation, armed with facts and figures to show that the incidence of marijuana use has increased and all those social negatives that attach themselves to the smoking of marijuana have also increased. Sadly, it will be our duty as an Opposition to advise members of this House that youth suicide, youth depression and all the other associated social ills have increased as a result of the policies that the duly elected Government of the day imposed on the people of Western Australia. I am embarrassed to be a member of this Parliament, albeit a new member, and to share this Parliament with a Government that is hell-bent on these ridiculous issues that will bring on the moral decay of our society. We have only to consider the Government’s legislative program to understand where this lot is coming from. In the old days people thought that a vote for the Labor Party would be a vote for the interests of the blue-collar worker. That was ingrained in people’s thinking when they cast their vote at the ballot box. Those people can be rightly forgiven for feeling tricked if they voted for this Labor Party under its veiled guise of supporting the working man. Mr McRae interjected. Mr BIRNEY: I am glad that the member for Riverton is listening. Sadly, members of the Labor Government could not care less about the progress of this State. All they are interested in is listening to noisy minority groups who have the ear of the Labor Party. It is terribly unfortunate. The Labor Government talks about trying to break the nexus between organised crime and the marijuana industry. I do not think members opposite have done a lot of homework. In South Australia the clear evidence is that after a regime to

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11343 decriminalise marijuana was introduced, the involvement of organised crime in that industry increased. On the one hand, the WA Labor Government talks about rooting out organised crime with the different pieces of legislation it has introduced. On the other hand, it wants to introduce legislation that will ultimately lead to an increase in organised crime in connection with the marijuana industry. Mr Dean: Tell us the basis for your reality. Where is the empirical evidence? Mr BIRNEY: I am pleased that the member for Bunbury asked me that. Detective Superintendent Fred Gear said that marijuana plants would be selected to be more powerful and would be grown for a quick harvest. He said that South Australian police had noticed an increased involvement by organised crime figures in marijuana dealing since growing plants at home for personal use had been decriminalised. Does the member for Bunbury want me to read that again? Mrs Edwardes: He might need you to draw pictures. Mr BIRNEY: Members opposite probably do need pictures. From my information, some of them have difficulty reading and they need things spelt out. Why would the involvement of organised crime figures in the marijuana industry increase once growing marijuana in people’s backyards is decriminalised? Even some of the more simple members of the Labor Party could grasp this point. In South Australia, organised crime syndicates - bikie groups and the like - would go up and down certain streets asking people to grow the two plants allowed. They would then go to those people’s neighbours and the people across the road asking them to grow two plants. All of a sudden, this mass of normally law-abiding citizens would be growing two marijuana plants each. The organised crime syndicate would then harvest the plants once every three or four months and say, “Thanks very much! Here’s a little bit of money for you. If you get caught, we’ll pay the fine for you and call it a business expense.” The fine is $100 or $150, which is the equivalent of a parking fine. I would be surprised if the organised crime industry in South Australian had not applied for some kind of tax exemption for paying those fines on behalf of the normally law-abiding citizens of South Australia . I make that point in all seriousness. It makes a lot of sense, when we consider the South Australian experience, that organised crime will slowly and insidiously creep its way into the Western Australian drug trade as a result of the Labor Government decriminalising the growing of two marijuana plants. In the South Australian experience the increase in the crime figures did not stop at the cultivation of marijuana. As soon as the Labor Party in South Australian decriminalised the growing of marijuana, there was a 10 per cent increase in home invasions. Those home invasions were drug related. As soon as a regime allowed people to start growing a couple of marijuana plants in their backyards, there was temptation for criminals - be they organised criminals or petty thieves - to undertake home invasions with a view to stealing the drugs. It happened in South Australia, and it will happen in Western Australia. The Labor Party will have to wear that. Mr Omodei: No wonder they want to stop barking dogs. Mr BIRNEY: Perhaps that is a smokescreen. I cannot wait to see what the issue of the day will be when the Labor Government presents the marijuana legislation to Parliament and it wants to take the heat off the fact that the statistics on organised crime and the incidence of youth depression and drug-related home invasions will increase. What big issue will the Government pull out of the cupboard to try to screen the fact that this legislation will have dramatic consequences? Mr Omodei: What will happen with workers compensation and all those companies that do random drug tests on their employees when it is legal for people to have so many marijuana plants and joints? Mr BIRNEY: The member for Warren-Blackwood has made a good point. For those members who did not hear him because he has such a mild voice, I repeat that he asked what would happen on work sites that have mandatory drug testing of employees when they show up at work in the morning and have been involved in drug-related activities the night before. Let us consider the effects of growing marijuana under a decriminalised regime. Mr Whitely: Are they allowed to operate with alcohol in their system? What is the difference? Mr BIRNEY: Is the member for Roleystone trying to put drugs on the same level as alcohol? That is what the Labor Party is saying because it has just decriminalised the growing of marijuana. People can grow a couple of marijuana plants without copping a criminal conviction. The member for Warren-Blackwood was trying to say, quite rightly, that we will see a rise in the number of employees on work sites across Western Australia who should not be working or who are ineligible for work. Several members interjected. Mr BIRNEY: Statistically, the introduction of legislation that leads to an increase in marijuana use will lead to an increase in the number of people who are found with drugs in their system when they are tested at the work-site gate. Several members interjected. Mr BIRNEY: If more people are smoking marijuana -

11344 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kalgoorlie, you need to have some consideration, if not for the person in the Chair and your fellow colleagues, at least for the Hansard staff. You are making it very difficult for Hansard. I remind the member that discussion and interjections across the Chamber are considered unparliamentary. Please address your comments through the Chair. If you seek an interjection, do so in the appropriate manner and you might get a response. Mr BIRNEY: It just became evident that you were chastising me. I thought you were chastising my friend, the member for Roleystone. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A little bit of both. Mr BIRNEY: I dare not look at him. The point I was trying to make was that decriminalising the growing of marijuana ultimately will lead to an increase in marijuana use. If that is applied statistically to those people who are caught at the work-site gate for drug-related activities the night before, the number of people who are ineligible to work will increase. One does not need to be very bright to comprehend that basic point that was made by my good friend the member for Warren-Blackwood. I refer again to the South Australian experience. Prior to the introduction of the decriminalised regime, there were three hydroponic stores in South Australia. I am sure members would agree that that is not a large number of stores. About a year after the introduction of the decriminalised regime, there were 96 hydroponic stores. I see in my peripheral vision that the member for Roleystone is about to leave the Chamber. The point I was trying to make to him was that marijuana use will increase, and what better evidence is there than that in South Australia? Prior to the decriminalised regime there were three hydroponic stores, and post the decriminalised regime there were 96. Mr Masters: They were growing tomatoes, member for Kalgoorlie. Mr BIRNEY: That is what this lot probably believes. Anything could be sold to this lot. That is a stark point, and it shines like a beacon in the context of this debate. What happened to that industry? What was the major injection into the hydroponic store industry? What made that industry balloon? It was the South Australian Labor Party’s rubbishy, morally decayed piece of legislation. I predict something similar for the morally decayed Labor Party in Western Australia. In the context of this debate I was drawn to a question asked by Hon Simon O’Brien. He, of course, is the opposition spokesman for drugs, and I have not come across a more learned gentleman in the context of this debate. He asked a question without notice of the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I will share the question and the answer with members present. He asked - How many Western Australians - including drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians - suffer death, maiming or injury in traffic accidents caused in whole or in part by the effects of cannabis? The answer from the Minister for Police was - It is impossible to determine how many Western Australians have been killed or injured on the State’s roads as a result of the effects of cannabis. Road deaths and injuries are caused by many factors. The level of cannabis in a person’s system that may influence his driving differs for all persons. This is the key bit - The detection of cannabis in a person’s system after an accident does not imply that it was a causal factor. I will explore this because it is very important. The Western Australian Minister for Police said that the detection of drugs in a person’s system after a road accident does not indicate that that was a causal factor in that road accident. Therefore, the Minister for Police was saying that if a person drives when he is stoned, that will not have an effect on his driving ability. That is effectively what she said in that answer. She said that it does not make any difference whether a person had drugs in his system; that is not the reason he crashed his car. The minister obviously had not read the article in The West Australian on 13 March 2002, which stated that in 6.5 per cent of all road fatalities, drugs were a factor. On the one hand, the Western Australian Minister for Police has said that if a person drives when he is stoned, that is not a factor in a road accident, but, on the other hand, the figures show otherwise. In fact, they show that 6.5 per cent of all road fatalities are drug related. That figure does not include injuries; that is only fatalities. Therefore, I would hate to think how many people were not included in that figure of 6.5 per cent. When more people use the drug marijuana, what will happen to that figure of 6.5 per cent? As the opposition spokesman for police, I will look at that figure 12 months after the introduction of the legislation. If it has not increased in Western Australia, I will be very surprised indeed. Every study that has ever been done about marijuana indicates that the smoking of marijuana affects a person’s motor skills, driving, reflexes and general demeanour. When a substance has that kind of effect on all those required motor skills, it follows that a person will not be as capable of driving a motor vehicle as he would be if he were not affected by drugs; yet the Australian Labor Party is saying that it is all right to grow a couple of plants in the backyard, which

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11345 ultimately will lead to an increase in marijuana use and in that 6.5 per cent figure of all road fatalities that are drug related. In 12 months, the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia will stand accountable for that figure. What of the other recommendations made at the Drug Summit? I recall that many multiples of recommendations were made. Certainly, my information to date is that a number of them have not been and are not being progressed, and that the Labor Party was only ever concerned about the introduction of a decriminalised regime for marijuana. My further information is that the Drug Summit was only a smokescreen. It was one of those warm and fuzzy summits that had a preconceived outcome, which was that the Labor Party in Western Australia would decriminalise the growing of marijuana. It got all those people - about 100 of them - into this very Chamber, and they made all those motherhood statements. The majority of the recommendations were to the effect that the Drug Summit supported wholeheartedly a decrease in drug-related fatalities - all that sort of stuff - but buried at the bottom was the fact that the Labor Party had a preconceived notion about what it wanted to come out of the Drug Summit; that is, the decriminalisation of the growing of two marijuana plants. It even peppered the stakes with this heroin injection trial business. Of course, that was likely to stampede the cattle. On the one hand, the people of Western Australia had read that the Australian Labor Party’s state conference in 1999 had decided that people could grow five plants and have 100 grams of marijuana, and, on the other hand, the Drug Summit stated that heroin prescription trials should be looked at. Therefore, the Labor Party scared everybody, but then it said, “No, it is okay. We will not do any of that radical stuff. All we will do is decriminalise the growing of two marijuana plants.” It was a fairly slick operation. Mr Omodei: It was a con job. Mr BIRNEY: That is exactly what it was, because all it ever wanted to achieve from the Drug Summit was the decriminalisation of marijuana. Therefore, it scared the hell out of everybody with all those radical proposals, and then it came back to a position that could be considered not so radical in the context of those other proposals. The reality is that this is a fairly radical proposal on its own. Growing up in Kalgoorlie, one gets a fairly robust view of life. One has an opportunity to mix with people from all walks of life. During my younger years in Kalgoorlie, I knew a number of people who were prolific drug smokers. I am happy to say that I was not one of them. Nonetheless, some of them were fairly well known to me at the time. Over a period, I saw a marked decrease in the vibrancy of those people and a marked deterioration in the energy and enthusiasm they had for life, particularly those who were smoking marijuana on a regular basis as though they were smoking cigarettes. Every single day, those people woke up and reached for their pile of drugs. As a result, the quality of their existence significantly diminished. That existence is being promoted by the Australian Labor Party. I say in all sincerity that to promote that lifestyle is a blight on Western Australian society. I witnessed it growing up in Kalgoorlie. I knew several people who were involved in this kind of activity. It was pretty damn sad to see those people lose their enthusiasm and zest for life. They had no ambition or drive. That was the result of their reaching for the bong the minute they woke up every morning. That will be the net result of the Government’s legislation. The Labor Party talks frequently about the Liberal Party wanting to penalise people who are in possession of a small amount of marijuana. I am pleased to remind the Labor Party that the Liberal Party introduced the cannabis cautioning system, which meant that if a person made one mistake and was caught with 25 grams or less of marijuana, he would not attract a criminal conviction but would simply receive a caution and consider himself lucky. He would not do it again because if he did, the full weight of the law would be thrown at him. The Liberal Party understands that people, particularly young people, are prone to making mistakes. The Liberal Party understands that those people need to be given a chance in life without blotting their copybook. However, we do not and cannot accept that a person can continue to blot his copybook on a regular basis and simply cop the equivalent of a parking fine. There is a helluva big difference. I refer to the issue of being able to grow two plants in our backyards. I am sure that when we talk about marijuana plants, many people conjure up an image of a six-inch tall plant, similar to a bonsai tree. Two of those would not be a big deal. It might come as a surprise to some members of the House that a marijuana plant can grow to six or seven-feet tall. That is taller than me, and I am a pretty big bloke. Members can imagine me standing here with all these branches and leaves coming off me. A person would have to be a prolific smoker to smoke one of me, let alone two plants the size of me, in the space of two or three months. He could not do it. A person could not smoke two seven-foot tall plants in that time. It would take a person the best part of one or two years to smoke that quantity of drugs. What would such a person do with the valuable asset he has grown in his backyard? He would market it - flog a bit of it off. A person could not smoke that much. The average smoker who uses the drug daily would consume about 10 grams of marijuana a week. I know my friend from Roleystone cannot add up, but that amounts to 500 grams of marijuana a year for a person who smokes every single day. What a sad existence that is. I am told that one plant can produce one kilogram each harvest, and can be harvested about four times a year. If a person has two of these big plants, he could produce two kilograms four times a year. That is about 15 times more drugs than a person could smoke if he smoked every single day of his life. The Labor Party wants to decriminalise that offence. It certainly has not done its homework. There is a big difference between saying that if someone gets caught once with a small amount of drugs, he should receive a caution, and saying that someone should be able to grow two plants that will ultimately produce 15 times more drugs than a person could smoke in an entire year, even if he whacked every day of his life.

11346 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

With those few words, I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. This will be a significant issue at the next state election. I know that the Opposition will take every opportunity to tell the people of Western Australia exactly what the Labor Party is about. It promotes drug use, especially the smoking of marijuana, which ultimately leads to myriad side effects. MR TRENORDEN (Avon - Leader of the National Party) [4.45 pm]: It is important to say that what I am putting is my view. The National Party has not yet formulated a view on this issue as no proposition is before the House. As is our practice, we will not formulate a position until we see the legislation. Obviously, it is a common debate and we all have some view on the issue. I will place my view here today. Only a few days ago I convened a meeting in the town of Northam. I had received a lot of anecdotal evidence that drug use in the town of Northam was on the rise, so I called together the people involved in health, justice and so forth who deal with individuals who use drugs. They were not the people of my community who have a particular view about drugs, but the people who deal in a professional or semi- professional way with people using drugs. I was concerned about the activity. The clear view of the people at that meeting was that drug use in my community is, unfortunately, increasing. Anecdotally, it seems there has long been a strong culture of drug use in the community of Northam. Sadly, the prevalence of drug use in the Aboriginal community is quickly catching up with that in the white community. That is a sad fact. However, that still did not change the argument of the approximately 30 people at the meeting that alcohol accounts for 60 per cent of the problem. We need to keep that in perspective. I agree that alcohol accounts for 60 per cent of the problem. However, in the view of the people at the meeting, the use of marijuana and bottom-end drugs accounts for 20 to 30 per cent of the problem, which is not insignificant. We must take a strong stand in this area. The mental health issues relating to the use of marijuana are significant. Although there is considerable debate about the effects of marijuana on the mental health of individuals, I do not think there is any doubt that marijuana use has an effect in that area. People of a particular make-up or who choose to smoke heavily often experience a severe mental health reaction. That is a big worry. There is no question that over the past three decades mental health-related issues have accounted for a very fast-growing proportion of the health problems experienced by the community. We do not need people to add themselves to that list through the use of alcohol, marijuana or heavier drugs. The issue of people driving while under the influence of cannabis is substantial. There must be a sign on the top of the roof of my car, because the police regularly pull me over for a random breath test when I drive to Northam. I have been breath tested in excess of 50 times. Mr Hyde: It is probably the tinnies you keep throwing out the window! Mr TRENORDEN: That is right. For some reason I keep getting pulled over. It just dawned on me that at least I have never been prosecuted for drink driving; therefore, I must have pretty good habits. Nevertheless, we have a mechanism about which we all know. If people drink and drive, they will get caught, but the same does not apply with marijuana. There is no doubt that tetrahydrocannabinol stays in the blood stream for some time and affects people’s reactions. An even greater risk concerns work safety. I do not think there is a valid argument for not blood testing employees for drug use. If the community wishes to go down this route and to have a situation whereby the use of marijuana is kept underground but is acceptable to people, the users have a moral responsibility not to put their colleagues at risk. I agree with the argument that blood testing is required. As intrusive as it might be, it will have to be part of the process. Domestic violence is related to drug issues, particularly alcohol and marijuana. There is no doubt that some people who mix marijuana and alcohol tend to become violent. Therefore, we must take that issue extremely seriously. There are ongoing arguments on both sides - it was argued here 100 years ago - that the use of marijuana could lead people to use other drugs. Based on my experience, I believe there is a valid argument that people who use marijuana progress to harder drugs. Although the percentage is small, some people who use marijuana will graduate to harder drugs. The European drug scene is curious, particularly the nightclub scene. A number of major nightclubs sell water, as they do in Perth. People in Europe go to nightclubs, take drugs and drink water for their own safety. The nightclubs make sure that plenty of water is available for purchase. I have been told by some young Australians who are part of the drug scene and have returned from Europe that it is cheaper to take designer drugs and drink water all night, and that is more appealing to some of them than drinking alcohol. They prefer to take the designer drugs, stay high all night and drink water. Interestingly, the death rate from designer drugs is very low in Europe. However, that is not the issue. We will not know for another five, 10 or 15 years what the consequences of these young people’s actions will be on their health. The history of medicine suggests that in the future we will find an increasing number of mental health problems related to drug use. That is a serious matter. That can be said with a great deal of certainty because it is true of alcohol. Of the people who are heavily involved in alcohol, there are a corresponding number of people who have mental health problems. There is an argument for introducing on-the-spot fines for cannabis users. Curiously, people who are fined for cannabis use often do not pay the fine. In jurisdictions in Australia that have introduced on-the-spot fines, a significant number of people fined do not bother the pay the fine and end up in the courts anyway. That issue must also be considered. I notice that the Minister for Health has taken some interest in this issue. At the moment, he is in a bit of strife when he

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11347 wears his police hat. I wonder why people who are issued with on-the-spot notices do not pay them. Surely they would be better off being served with an infringement notice that will not cause them to have a criminal record. When they do not pay the fine, the offenders end up in court and get a criminal record. From what I have been told, from what I read and from anecdotes I hear on radio - I consume a lot of radio programs during the 80 hours a month I drive; unfortunately I listen to a lot of stuff, even Tony Delroy, which is a worry - and I listen to a lot of these types of debates, particularly on the ABC - Dr Gallop: Try NewsRadio; it is pretty good. Mr TRENORDEN: That is a very good station. I like it a lot. Unfortunately I am not always able to receive it. Often Tony Delroy is the only option. Mr Hyde: The member should raise that matter with the Deputy Prime Minister. Doesn’t the federal Government fund the ABC adequately in rural Western Australia? Mr TRENORDEN: That is a good point, and I will do that. However, the Western Australia Government does not provide enough funds either. Mr Ripper: You could always listen to Phillip Adams. Mr TRENORDEN: I could not think of anything worse. He is probably in my top 10 list of the most disliked Australians. I know nothing of the man. To me he is the epitome of Sydney. He has Sydney stamped all over him. I occasionally read his column in the Weekend Australian when I am bored and it is raining, but I always wonder why I bother because it is so Sydney-centric Mr McGowan: You could always listen to Triple J. Mr TRENORDEN: I cannot always listen to it where I drive. I have no objection to Triple J. I am a heretic who thinks that music is as good now as it has ever been. I wonder how I got away from the subject of drugs onto this subject. Nevertheless, where people go wrong with music is that they tend to forget all of the bad music of the 60s, which has now vanished, and we are left with all the music that we like. Mr McRae Interjected. Mr TRENORDEN: I will get back to the subject of drugs and rock and roll. At the drug meeting in Northam I attended the other day - not to pick on the one officer - the officer said that, in his view, one out of two people in my region smoke cannabis. I think he is wrong, although I would not be surprised if it were one in three or four. When such a large number of people choose to break these laws, it raises issues such as the use of the Police Force and whether we should constantly penalise citizens. I do not approve of smoking marijuana. Unlike President Clinton, who did not inhale, I have never smoked a joint. I do not say that with any pride; it has just never occurred to me to do so. However, I have consumed a lot of alcohol. I am not trying to be pure; it has just never occurred to me to smoke a joint. I cannot even say that I smoked but did not inhale. Nevertheless, I do consume alcohol and at times I consume too much. We are trying to impose our will upon a large group of people. The question is, are those people committing a criminal act or not? Anecdotally, members of the Police Force are less inclined to charge people when they are caught with small amounts of marijuana on their person. I do not believe members of the Police Force are any less inclined to charge people who are involved with plantations or who have amounts greater than 25 grams on their person. A lot of police officers turn a blind eye when people have small amounts on their person. I have been at public functions at which the marijuana can be smelt. Police officers were there, but nothing happens. It is becoming part of our infrastructure. I will not speak forever on this issue because I know a lot of other members want to become involved. I say to the Minister for Health that there is no logical argument for people being able to possess two plants; there is no logical argument for possession of any plants. I have not seen the Bill; I am speaking about my own circumstances. Ten years ago at my house there would have been every reason in the world for growing eight plants in my back yard - two for me and two for each of my children. We lived in a riotous neighbourhood. My next door neighbour had four kids, so I could have had another 16 plants for him. My other neighbour across the road had two kids, so I could have had another eight plants for that family. I could have had a plot capable of growing 60 or 70 plants in my back yard and allocated them within 50 metres of my house. Surely that is not the intent of this legislation. There is no logical argument about this matter. I have looked at it long and hard, I have debated it within our own political party, and some members on the Government’s side of the House know my position on drugs. Nevertheless, there is no scope for people to grow their own plants. It is an illogical argument, particularly for parents who want to keep their teenage and older children out of the scene. It is pretty difficult when they have an 18-year-old son living at home. Members should not turn up their noses, because a lot of 20-year-olds are living at home. In fact, I know of a 31-year-old living at home. How does the parent say to that person that he cannot have two plants in the back yard? The conflict within the family would be significant. If the parents do not want their family getting involved in smoking marijuana or cannabis, and the kids are saying, “But the law allows me to do it, mum and dad”, where do they stand? Whatever flows from this legislation, the Premier will never have the support of the member for Avon on that issue. This is a

11348 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] vexed question. The Government will not come out of this too well; it is a no-win situation. A lot of people will not appreciate this extra lack of control within the family. That issue has not been raised as part of the argument, but I believe it is a clear part of this process. Parents are losing control within their own households and they are losing control over their children. If this legislation gives those children an extra argument within their own home, that will be a very bad scene. DR GALLOP (Victoria Park - Premier) [5.04 pm]: A lot of members wish to speak on this legislation, but I want to say a couple of things about the Government’s position. I begin my speech by referring to a comment made by the Leader of the National Party when he said that this is a very contentious issue and a difficult one on which to get a consensus within the community. For that reason we set up the Community Drug Summit. I know members opposite say that we set up that summit to get one answer to the question. The truth is that we set up the summit to get a valid community-based view on this question, free of the normal politics. That is why the summit was so successful. It recommended that we needed to move on in respect of the way cannabis was dealt with in Western Australia. It maintained that cannabis should remain illegal, but users should be penalised according to a system of civil penalties. We sent that recommendation off to a committee chaired by the Law Society of WA representative, John Prior, including representatives from the Western Australia Police Service, a justice official, a medical practitioner, a drug researcher, and experts from the new Drug and Alcohol Office. We have tried to base our position, firstly, on the general aspirations of the Community Drug Summit - and we all agree that was a very good forum - and, secondly, the details of its implementation based upon an expert committee. That expert committee visited other jurisdictions and took on board all of the evidence that was available. I emphasise the point: we believe this policy is based upon a consensus view in our community, when people sit down free of the normal political to-ing and fro-ing and try to come up with a solution. On occasions that simply has to be done for some issues because the divisions in the community are so strong that we could not otherwise achieve a proper solution to a social problem. I now move to the essence of the argument. Two aspects of our policy need to be considered: firstly, the aspect dealing with the civil penalties; and, secondly, that dealing with the precise details of the policy. When members look at the precise details they will see that we have taken on board some of the matters raised, for instance, by the Opposition when it reflected upon the South Australian experience, and also by others in the community. Let us look at the philosophy. Drugs are a problem in our community. The Government does not start out with the assumption that this is not a problem; it starts out with the assumption that this is a problem. We have a problem with drugs, alcohol and tobacco smoking in our community, and these are issues we must address. The Minister for Health is dealing with each of those issues in a different way. So we start off recognising this is a problem. We also note - and this is advice that is given to us by many of those who have studied this question, including the Community Drug Summit - that people who have convictions for minor cannabis offences, and there are many of them, can have employment problems, difficulty in obtaining accommodation, travel problems and, importantly, they have increased risk of future contact with the criminal justice system. They can get caught up in the drug culture through that contact with the criminal justice system. The question that must be asked is this: are the costs involved with that aspect of the current system worth it, given the benefits we get from having a strong legislative restriction on the use of drugs? The conclusion reached by the Community Drug Summit was that we can pursue a better way forward, and the better way forward is to preserve the illegality of cannabis, but to have a system of civil penalties for minor users. Members should notice what we have done: we have introduced a system of penalties and we are linking them to an education program. This is very important. The previous Government had a system whereby if someone young was caught with small amounts of cannabis, he or she would receive a caution and that would be it. We are trying to build an education system into program. Civil penalties will be linked with education. This is not about legalising drugs, this is not about legalising cannabis; this is a better method of dealing with what is an existing social problem. We avoid the difficulties associated with the costs for those caught up in the system, and at the same time we include education in the system. Mr Birney: How does the Premier reconcile the fact that two fully grown plants will provide 15 times more marijuana than someone can smoke in a year if he or she smoked every day of the week? Dr GALLOP: The member for Kalgoorlie raised a good point. That was an issue that was addressed by the Cabinet and by the Prior committee. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: The level of chatter in the Chamber is making it difficult to hear the speakers. If members wish to have conversations, will they do so outside the House. Dr GALLOP: We took on board advice on that subject and noted the potential problem of people having the capacity to market drugs. The marketing of drugs is out; it is illegal and remains so under the system. We are giving to police the discretion to determine whether these plants are for personal use or for marketing. Mr Birney: How will that be decided? Dr GALLOP: We are leaving that to the discretion of the system. Mr Birney: How will that be determined?

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11349

Dr GALLOP: It will be determined by court cases and by the many ways the system works. We have taken on board the member’s point on that issue. Mr Birney: It’s ridiculous. Dr GALLOP: It is not ridiculous. Mr Birney interjected. Dr GALLOP: That is a matter for consideration and we have an experienced former police officer on board who is in a good position to answer that question. This Government has come up with a better solution to a longstanding problem. We are linking it to education, preserving its illegality, removing the costs associated with the current system of criminal penalty for small-time users, and we are allowing for the discretion of the police. This is a creative way to deal with a longstanding social problem. The other issue addressed was that of hydroponics. This question arose because of the South Australian experience. We knew that hydroponics would pose a problem. The way that the hydroponics industry can be used in this instance to produce a large amount of drugs is an issue. If someone is caught with marijuana that has been grown hydroponically, the criminal penalties will remain. We are introducing regulations to cover the hydroponics industry. That is an excellent move forward in the way that we are dealing with this issue. I will summarise the Government’s position: first, it is based upon the findings of the Community Drug Summit and the expert advice of the committee chaired by John Prior. Secondly, it is based upon what has happened in South Australia and it builds on that State’s mistakes. This Government is putting in place a better regime that will deal with the problem of hydroponics when people use the law that exists as an umbrella or a protection for marketing. We will not allow that to happen in Western Australia and we will allow for police discretion on that matter. Thirdly, we will have a better balance of results in the community. I am sure the member for Kingsley would agree with me - having worked in this area - that in every justice system proportionality is crucial. There must be proportionality between the punishment and the crime. We will preserve the illegality of marijuana use, but we will have a better proportion between the actual offence and the punishment. This is a remarkable way forward and it will allow us to get the educational programs working. The Opposition’s view is based upon the myth that the current system is producing results. Research shows that applying civil rather than criminal penalties for the personal use of cannabis does not lead to an increased proportion of the population using the drug. However, it avoids the problems associated with criminal penalties and it provides a lever to get the educational aspect working. Mr Johnson: How can you say that? Dr GALLOP: University academics and others have produced evidence that shows there has been no increase in drug usage. Mr Birney: How did South Australia go from having three hydroponic shops to 96? Dr GALLOP: We have answered that question. This Government will deal with the hydroponics industry. Mr Birney: How did that happen if they were not smoking more marijuana? Dr GALLOP: The evidence is clear that overall drug use does not go up, and that is based upon real evidence. Mr Johnson: Where is that evidence? Dr GALLOP: It was produced by the Prior committee. I conclude with this point: we are interested in making sure that people who commit crime in Western Australia are apprehended and punished. The estimate that we have been given is that the proposed scheme could save up to $1.1 million per year in court and law enforcement costs - Mr Birney: It’s about money, is it? Dr GALLOP: I am not saying that it is about money. One of the consequences of the policy is that resources will be created for us to target serious drug offenders and traffickers. That is an added benefit to the proposal we are putting forward. The Opposition has made it clear that it will make this a political issue; that is its choice. However, we are trying to come up with some solutions to longstanding social problems. At last there is a Government that is willing to do that. How have we done it? We set up the Drug Summit and we got advice. We are a serious Government trying to solve problems. I was encouraged by the comments of the Leader of the National Party. I do not know if he will support us at the end of the day, but he was showing an understanding of the problem, as the National Party has over the years. I hope that the National Party will join with us in supporting this matter when the crunch comes, because we are serious about improving this problem in Western Australia. Let us get rid of this old battleground - Mr Johnson: Why don’t you accept that you are making cannabis far more available? Dr GALLOP: We are not making it more available. Members opposite are preserving their myths and living in their little cubbyholes and not dealing with reality. We want to change our society by reducing the amount of drug and alcohol use and the associated disease and social problems in the community. That is our objective.

11350 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

However, we must have a means to an end; this is a means to an end. I urge the Opposition to free itself from these ideological prejudices. In his speech the member for Kalgoorlie showed every sign that he had some understanding of the reality of this situation. If we come up with a better approach then, at the end of the day, Western Australians will congratulate our Government for being creative on this issue, taking the advice of the community and coming up with a solution. MRS EDWARDES (Kingsley) [5.17 pm]: I support the motion. As members of Parliament we are community leaders. We receive many letters about drug use by young people. We also receive many visits and telephone calls from parents of young people who have been involved in or have become addicted to a form of drug, whatever that may be. They feel a great deal of despair and concern over the issue of drugs and they also feel that the Government is not doing enough. The debate on drugs has been raging for over 20 years. It affects not only the parents of these children but also the grandparents, the siblings and everybody associated with them. There are more people out there than just the immediate families involved who feel that more needs to be done about this matter. They believe that kids should say no to drugs; a message that we have always given to kids. With the Government’s new policy it is giving a mixed message to parents and children. The Government’s message now is that it is okay to go soft on drugs. Growing two cannabis plants will be a civil offence and it will no longer be a criminal offence. What sort of message is that sending out to the public? The Premier referred to proportionality between the punishment and the crime. What about some level of proportionality between the message being sent out by the Government and that being given by the community to children? As community leaders we should be protecting young people. Many laws are put in place to protect young people and every time we change policies, we take away some power from parents. If we take away power from parents, we will continue to create an environment in which young people will go off and create conflict. Whatever the Premier says, there is no proportionality between the message that the Government is giving and the message that parents are giving to young people. It defies logic that the Labor Government wants to make it easier for people to gain access to drugs. In this instance we are talking about cannabis. I will refer later to research demonstrating that it leads to experimentation with harder drugs. As community leaders, we cannot ignore that. Our core approach should be to reduce drug abuse. The Premier said that that is the Labor Government’s preferred approach. However, every signal from the Government suggests a soft approach to drugs. A classic example of that is its failure to tackle the real issues. What about the deterrent effect? This will not create that necessary deterrent effect. What have we heard about education? Deterrents and education are essential weapons in the war against drugs. The Labor Government’s approach has been criticised by the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. It has said that there is no substantial evidence that going soft on drugs works. The board has said that there is no evidence from western European countries that have adopted a more relaxed legal stance towards cannabis use that such an approach reduces the demand for illicit drugs. It has cast doubt on the effectiveness of any Government’s softer stance on cannabis possession in reducing hard drug use. The Premier’s approach to stopping drug abuse and coming down on hard drug use does not work. Proportionality does not operate that way. The board’s report calls on the Governments of those European countries which have decriminalised possession and which openly tolerate the abuse of drugs, particularly cannabis and ecstasy, to consider whether that is the proper strategy to use to achieve that goal. That is my challenge to the Government: will its strategy reduce drug abuse? It will find in due course that it will not. Everyone knows that there is no simple solution. We are here to consider the heartbreak of families and young people. The drug issue cannot be considered in isolation. Drugs go hand in hand with crimes such as breaking and entering, stealing, robbery, assault and so on. We have mentioned alcohol as a major problem with young people. In fact, its abuse is a greater problem than illicit drug use. That is certainly true in my electorate. The counsellors who advise families and young people tell me that alcohol is a bigger issue. However, the combination of alcohol and cannabis creates an even greater problem. What about drug use and its effect on driving? Cannabis stays in the body for a long time; in fact, it stays in the body longer than any of these other drugs. What will the Government do about that issue? We are dealing with the effects of cannabis and alcohol and cannabis and driving. The South Australian experience has clearly demonstrated that cannabis use leads to harder drug use. The member for Kalgoorlie referred to New South Wales psychologist John Anderson, who runs the Brain and Behaviour Centre in Westmead, Sydney. He came to Western Australia to speak at the Coalition Against Drugs seminar held at Sorrento. He told the seminar that if people could grow marijuana plants for personal use, dealers would lose business and would turn to dealing in other drugs. He said that South Australian laws similar to those proposed by the Western Australian Government had been scaled back after a cannabis cottage industry began to boom. Apparently dealers in South Australia were trading home-grown cannabis for cocaine and amphetamines from other States. I do not think that we should support any policy that could lead to an increase in criminal activity. It simply cannot be justified. The South Australian experience has demonstrated that that is exactly what happens when authorities go soft on drugs. No-one can say that the Labor Party’s approach is not a softening of the drugs policy. Allowing even limited amounts of cannabis to be grown has resulted in crime syndicates exploiting the law. To ignore that is to ignore reality. Members can put an infinite number of facts on the table, but that fact cannot be ignored. We must take a precautionary approach. That exploitation is not surprising when one considers the easy money that can be

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11351 made because of the limit. We have been presented with examples of how that limit can be exploited far beyond what the average smoker uses in a year. Has anyone considered the health effects of this drug abuse? Our community has a number of high-risk groups. The National Drugs Strategy monograph series No 25 deals with the health and psychological consequences of cannabis use. It states - i Adolescents with a history of poor school performance may have their educational achievement further limited . . . i Adolescents who initiate cannabis use in the early teens are at higher risk of progressing to heavy cannabis use and other illicit drug use . . . i Pregnant women . . . i Women of childbearing age . . . It goes on to state that - Persons with a number of pre-existing diseases who smoke cannabis are probably at an increased risk of precipitating or exacerbating symptoms of their diseases. These include: i individuals with cardiovascular diseases, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertension; i individuals with respiratory diseases, such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema; i individuals with schizophrenia, who are at risk of precipitating or of exacerbating schizophrenic symptoms; i individuals who are dependent on alcohol and other drugs, who are probably at an increased risk of developing dependence on cannabis. The Victorian Government has released a cannabis and psychosis fact sheet. Cannabis is a depressant drug and it can cause mild hallucinogenic effects. Most people who use cannabis do not experience any obvious harmful effects. However, regular and longer-term use can cause major problems. The fact sheet states - . . . regular use may produce a number of short term effects including paranoia, confusion, increased anxiety, and even hallucinations, which can last up to several hours. Longer term risks may include asthma and bronchitis, cancers of the mouth, throat, and lungs, poor concentration and memory, learning difficulties, and occasionally, psychosis. Reference is made to psychosis and the development of much more serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. It states - A psychosis is a condition where a person experiences some loss of contact with reality. A person with a psychosis can experience any one or more of the following symptoms: auditory hallucinations (hearing voices that aren’t there), visual hallucinations (seeing things which aren’t there), delusions (believing things that aren’t true), jumbled thoughts and strange behaviour. It is believed that cannabis use may cause a condition known as a drug-induced psychosis which can last for up to a few days and is often characterised by hallucinations, delusions, memory loss and confusion. However, in some cases, cannabis use may contribute to the development of a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. Cannabis use can prolong the duration of symptoms of mental illness and can lower a person’s chances of recovering from a psychotic episode. What are we doing to our young people? Apart from giving them mixed messages - and not supporting parents and families - we are leading them to greater opportunities for mental illness. As if we have not got enough problems with mental illness among young people today. Until now it had not been established that marijuana use caused depression. The Sydney Morning Herald of 6 February 2002 reported a study by researchers from the Centre for Adolescent Health of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. To obtain the data, they followed 2 000 youths for seven years from the ages of 14 to 21 years. They found the strongest evidence yet that heavy marijuana smoking causes depression, especially in young women. The centre’s director, George Patton, said - “The effects are profound, particularly in young women where the rates of mental health problems have increased many, many times in daily cannabis users. “This is the best evidence yet that . . . cannabis is bad for your mental health and does cause higher rates of depression and anxiety problems . . . The policy the Government is promoting gives rise to major issues. It is not protecting young people but leading them to greater levels of mental health problems, such as depression. Those people who the Government says are its major

11352 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] target will be involved in a greater level of criminal activity. The message must be that there is no safe level of drug use, not that we are soft on the use of cannabis and that it is okay and will not be a crime but merely a civil offence. Instead of giving mixed messages to young people, we must continue to promote the message that parents have been promoting for many years: young people must say no to drugs. MR KUCERA (Yokine - Minister for Health) [5.33 pm]: I could dismiss the motion on its wording, which refers to the decriminalisation of the possession of up to 25 grams of cannabis and the cultivation of two cannabis plants. None of the opposition speakers is here. I specifically wanted to ask the member for Kalgoorlie, the member for Kingsley and other members of the Opposition whether they had read the Prior report. How many members opposite have read the Prior report? The number of members opposite who conveniently forget to read things is amazing. On other occasions we have talked about whether the members for Murray-Wellington and Dawesville have read reports. I am not being smart, but I say to the member for Dawesville that John Prior and his team went to a great deal of effort and listened very carefully to the issues that were put together by all those people who came together in the people’s House and talked about drugs last year at the Community Drug Summit. John Prior and his team also went to South Australia to listen to what people there had to say about all the issues that the member for Kalgoorlie raised today. I will refer to that later. The motion and all the issues referred to by members opposite are dealt with in the Prior report, clearly, succinctly and with supporting evidence. Mr Masters: That does not make it correct. Mr KUCERA: If the member for Vasse speaks in this debate, I hope that he has read the report. If he has not, I would be more than happy to supply him with a copy. I know that he more than anybody relies on statistics and does his research. Mr Masters: I will quote statistics. Mr KUCERA: Nobody has any arguments with any of the issues concerning the medical effects of cannabis that were raised by members opposite. Nothing in the Prior report or the Community Drug Summit report supports the use of cannabis or says anybody should go soft on drugs. I will refer to that in a moment. I will refer to decriminalisation. Under the previous Government a regime of cautioning was introduced; in other words, people received a slap on the wrist and went off with no criminal penalties whatsoever. The police had no discretion other than to do that. While this Government is in power, the police of this State will always retain the discretion to charge people with a criminal offence for the possession of drugs. However, the Government has introduced another regime. I will refer to the deeming provisions that existed under the previous Government. The member for Kalgoorlie should listen to this. The police have been given the discretion to issue an infringement notice or charge a person found to be in possession of less than 30 grams of cannabis or no more than two plants. They also retain the discretion at all times under this proposal to charge people with a criminal offence. In my book if people can be charged with a criminal offence, there is no such thing as decriminalisation. Mr Birney: Will you take an interjection? Mr KUCERA: I will not take interjections at this stage. I need to address some key issues. Under the previous Government people were allowed to possess 100 grams of cannabis or grow 25 plants. If members opposite wish to use the word “allow”, under the existing regime when people grow 25 plants they are deemed not to be in possession with intent to sell or supply. It is said that people in possession of up to 25 plants have them for their own use. We are now saying that threshold will come down to 10 plants. That is over a 50 per cent reduction in the threshold in the deeming provisions. In other words, if people have 10 plants in their backyard, they are dealers, full stop. The police also have the discretion to charge. People who have two plants growing in their backyard will find that that is illegal and an offence. Police have discretion. People do not pass go; they go straight to jail and are locked up because possession is a criminal offence. I will refer to what Barry King said last month when he was here for the international drug strategy conference that was organised by the Commissioner of Police. Incidentally, Barry King is the chief of police of Brockville in Ontario, Canada. For those members who are interested, I am more than happy to provide a transcript of the excellent interview conducted by Liam Bartlett on 8 May 2002. During the Community Drug Summit, Liam Bartlett was one of those people in the media in this State who took a very balanced view to make sure that we got out into the public arena once and for all the kinds of issues that needed to be debated. I will refer to what Barry King had to say about the term “decriminalisation” because we need to put this into perspective. He said - Right, well we’re not sure what’s finally going to shake out in Canada, but our recommendations, strong recommendation from police, from health, addiction agencies, everyone, are saying the same thing. Decriminalisation seems to be a term that’s misused or people are . . they’re already got their definition. So if I said I’m in favour of decriminalisation, it’s because you’re going to take it as what you think it is.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11353

That is what is happening on the other side of the House. Everything is twisted around and people ignore the fact that there is a criminal sanction in place. Barry King said -. . . . let’s get away from that because what we’ve done is hurt ourselves and we’ve fought a battle that we shouldn’t have been fighting. What we should be looking for is accountability and we don’t want them to lose accountability. So if someone does have possession, we want a range of options for the officers, just like they do if they stop you for speeding. Now in some cases they may just let you go. Other cases they may give you a warning. Other cases they may give you a . . I’m not sure here whether it’s a notice that you attend in court, and other times just a ticket and you’re going to go to court. There is a raft of options. All the Government is doing is putting a system in place that allows it to deal with people in a sensible, normal way. Let us talk about sanctions. The member for Kingsley talked about the deterrent effect. Let us go to the statistics for 2000 that were quoted in the Prior report. The Leader of the Opposition has just entered the Chamber. I ask the Leader of the Opposition one simple question: has he read the Prior report? Mr Barnett: Make your speech; I have made mine. Mr KUCERA: I thank the Leader of the Opposition . If members opposite want to debate an issue in this House, it would be fairly sensible to at least read the report that is recommending changes to the legislation and the opinions that came out of the Community Drug Summit. While I am talking about that summit, I want to note the dismissive and patronising way the member for Kalgoorlie dealt with the 100 delegates to the summit and the couple of thousand people who came here to try to do something about the drug problem. I wrote down the member’s words. He said that the Community Drug Summit was a warm and fussy smokescreen, a con job perpetrated by people in here. The member’s exact words will be recorded in Hansard. I have to tell the member for Kalgoorlie that I will be very pleased to send his comments to each and every member of the Community Drug Summit who spent their time in this House trying to come up with solutions for one of the greatest problems in this State. For the member for Kalgoorlie to turn around and say that those 100 delegates were simply a warm and fuzzy bunch of people who came up with motherhood statements is an insult to the people who came here and gave of their time, and who are still giving of their time - mothers, fathers, addicts and everyone else. It is reprehensible that they should be treated in such a patronising, low way. I will now talk about the deterrent issues to which the member for Kingsley referred earlier. Except for the cautioning system that was introduced by the previous Government - the slap on the wrist - Western Australia imposes one of the strongest criminal sanctions for drug use of all the States. I will run through a couple of the statistics in the Prior report. At page A39, the Prior report refers to recidivism and reads - A recent study by the CRC - The Crime Research Council - based on re-arrest statistics for the period 1989 to 1999, found that 46% of the first offenders charged with cannabis possession/use as their most serious offence had not been re-arrested up to 11 years later. The report contains other statistics to confirm this. The reality is that the vast majority of young people who use cannabis will do so on only one, two or three occasions. We must have a way of dealing with them. As Barry King said in his interview with Liam Bartlett, in North America a person convicted of one single offence of cannabis use is virtually stopped from any involvement with government. That means that many of the things those people wanted to do in their future lives were not open to them. The whole issue of using this kind of system is to ensure that those people who have one, two or three offences are not stigmatised throughout their lifetime because of a little stupidity in their younger days. It is as simple as that. People do not change in this regard. We can stick our heads in the sand and go on as we are, or we can listen to those 100 people and this group of eminent experts who produced the Prior report and came up with these recommendations. I will cite a couple of other statistics. Members opposite have made much of the situation in South Australia. Let us consider the 1998 figures of the recency - that is, the percentage use - of cannabis use among persons aged 14 years and over by jurisdiction. I understand a new set of figures came out recently that pretty much follow the same path. The figures show that the highest usage of cannabis in this country is in the Northern Territory, with 36.5 per cent. The second highest usage is in Western Australia; the third highest usage is in the Australian Capital Territory; the fourth highest is in Victoria and the sixth highest is in South Australia. They are the statistics. I keep saying to members on the other side of the House that before they formulate their arguments they should read the statistics that were compiled and presented in the Prior report. Despite all this talk by the Opposition about South Australia’s free and easy cannabis laws, it still has only the sixth highest cannabis usage of all the States. All this doom and gloom talked by members opposite, particularly by the member for Kalgoorlie, is simply not correct. The figures are set out in the Prior report if members opposite want to read them.

11354 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

There is another interesting statistic. Apart from probably Singapore, where drug users are executed, which country has the most punitive approach in its drug laws? It is the United States of America. Where is the highest recorded and surveyed use of cannabis anywhere in the world? Surprise, surprise! It is Australia! The US is second, followed by England and Wales. Currently, Australia has the highest cannabis use of anywhere in the world. The graph gradually goes down - there has been talk about Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands - to virtually nothing in Sweden. The statistics are all in the Prior report. Before people start putting out misinformation, they should read these excellent papers. I will quickly summarise the issues that came out of this report and the directions we wish to take regarding future legislation. This Government is not decriminalising the possession of cannabis. It will remain illegal, full stop. However, the police will have discretion to make sure that those young people who take on board a bit of silliness and put themselves at risk will not acquire a criminal record for the rest of their life. However, if they continue to flout the system as young people - these are the words of John Prior, the head of the Law Society of WA - they will be charged. That is the second point. Police will retain that discretion. The Government is committed to reducing harm from cannabis. It will engage in a major statewide education campaign. I compliment the member for Kingsley on some of the educational issues she mentioned. She is absolutely right. The greatest weapon we have against drug use is education - not the kind of misinformation that is peddled around this town about the sorts of things we are doing now with young people. The Government will introduce prohibition with civil penalties. I have already mentioned that. There will be a $150 on-the-spot fine, and a $200 fine if a person has more than the prescribed amount. If a person has 10 plants, or there is the kind of nonsense we read about in the newspaper a couple of months ago with the bags of lawn clippings, that person will go straight in the bin - and it will not be the rubbish bin. It is as simple as that. The intention is to remove the potential of a criminal record. However, cannabis will remain illegal. Those detected using any amount will be penalised. The evidence and expertise are available. All these things are in the report. MR MASTERS (Vasse) [5.52 pm]: I fully support the motion that has been moved by the member for Kalgoorlie on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. Through the Chair, I ask the minister when were copies of the Prior report sent to members of Parliament? Mr Kucera: My understanding is that the report is on the Internet. Copies were not sent out, but the report is freely available on the Internet. Mr MASTERS: I am happy to advise the minister that I have not seen, and therefore have not read, the Prior report. It could be because it is a well-kept secret. I say that in the sense that all members of Parliament are inundated with paperwork, and the fact that a report is on the Internet, but not on the desk of MPs, makes it difficult for us to delve into that report to check certain aspects that we think are relevant to a particular debate that we wish to enter into. For the minister to berate us because we have not read a report cover to cover is belittling the sorts of jobs that we, as members of Parliament, must do. It is disappointing that he should make a personal attack when we are debating an issue that we believe is very important for the whole community. Mr McRae: You speak without knowledge. Mr MASTERS: I speak with a lot of knowledge, but not with the knowledge that the member wants me to speak with. That is the problem for the member for Riverton. Mr Johnson: He is the fountain of all knowledge. Mr MASTERS: The fountain or the mountain? Mr Johnson: The member for Riverton is the fountain of all knowledge. He knows everything. Mr MASTERS: It is important to ask why the Government is moving to decriminalise, soften or legalise the possession and use of marijuana. I know that the Government does not like using those terms. Therefore, having listened to the Minister for Health, maybe we should call it discriminatory decriminalisation. Interestingly, that has the same initials as drink driving - DD. I will let members think about that for a short time. The question is, why is the Government trying to decriminalise the use and possession of marijuana when Morgan Gallup polls conducted in January of this year showed that a large number of Australians do not want marijuana to be legalised? In spite of the concerns of the community, as represented by polls and by complaints that members on this side of the House receive, the Government is still pursuing the decriminalisation or softening of marijuana laws - whatever one wants to call it. Yet the reality is that, in the same breath, the Government, with the Opposition’s support, is trying to put out messages along the lines that people should reduce their alcohol consumption, reduce or stop smoking and drive with greater respect for the damage that can be done as a result of dangerous driving. The Opposition agrees with the Government that a range of messages should be given to the wider community. However, on the issue of marijuana, there appears to be a change of attitude or direction by the Government; namely, that it does not accept that there are any problems with marijuana; or, if there are, they are nowhere near as severe as people would have the Government believe. As a result, the Government believes that the increased use of marijuana through decriminalisation, softening of the laws or legalisation is an acceptable message to send to the community.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11355

I refer to a letter to the editor that was published in The West Australian of 21 July 2000. It was from Matthew Waldron, who was a counsellor with a group called Drug ARM. To be honest, I do not know of that group. He made a very good point when he said - . . . as someone who works with people having problems with their drug use, I am also concerned about the message being sent to drug addicts. The rationale for these services is that an addicted person can’t stop their drug use. While this is the experience of the addict, it needs to be challenged, not reinforced. By providing services to assist people to feed their addiction, we become an accomplice with the drug addict avoiding responsibility for his or her behaviour. Not so long ago, this was called co-dependency. This may not be the motivation for suggesting such services, but that is the message being sent to drug users. People say don’t judge the person, judge the behaviour. I agree. So don’t support the behaviour, support the person. The Government is proposing co-dependency by allowing people who have small amounts of marijuana and no more than two plants to be cautioned or fined and not have a criminal offence recorded against their name. The Government is saying to the people that it is not prepared to address the problem of drug use; instead, it will attack a peripheral issue, which is the consequence of drug use, from a criminal and law-enforcement point of view. I believe that the Government is sidestepping its true responsibilities. There is no doubt that what happened in South Australia, which started some years ago, was and is still seen to be a failure. The West Australian of 23 January this year had an article entitled “Marijuana laws wound back”. I will quote from three places in that newspaper article. It states - In 1987, the Labor government of John Bannon introduced a daring policy that decriminalised personal marijuana use. Instead of being jailed, personal users were fined for growing up to 10 plants. Adelaide flourished as the marijuana capital until 18 months ago when the Liberal Government cut the plant limit from 10 to three. In November it was cut to one. . . . “The 1987 model failed and we were seeing drug networks set up,” Police Minister Robert Brokenshire said. . . . Home invasions - many violent - have been a particularly nasty consequence of home crops. But the nature of cannabis also has changed. Cultivation methods improved so much that more potent varieties have emerged. “The new varieties of cannabis with very potent THC component cause serious health issues,” Mr Brokenshire said. There is no doubt that the experiment undertaken in South Australia was a failure. That experiment was modified to allow just three plants to be grown in the backyard, and was then wound back even further to the extent that it is now legal to grow only one plant. That is because allowing the cultivation of 10 plants, or even three plants, did not send the right message. We must target the younger, impressionable generation, which is more likely to experiment with marijuana. The South Australian model failed to send the right message and to achieve the law enforcement goals of the Government of the day. To back that up, I refer to a newspaper article that was published in the New Zealand Sunday Star Times on 23 April 2000. The article was written a few months after the Labour Party’s success at the national election. One of the members of the new Parliament, Green Party member Nandor Tanczos, strongly supported the decriminalisation and legalisation of marijuana. The newspaper article tried to put some perspective on what life would be like in the event of significant decriminalisation of marijuana laws in New Zealand by the new Government. The newspaper article referred to the South Australia situation, and stated - . . . a Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services report shows only 45% of those dealt with under the scheme - That is, the scheme of imposing fines rather than criminal convictions - paid up without further legal action. In other words, roughly half the people who were apprehended by police in South Australia for cannabis offences and who were subjected to a fine rather than court action failed to pay those fines. At best, the experiment can be considered to have been of only marginal or minor success. It is not the sort of success that this Government would have us believe. The newspaper article continues - Cannabis use has also increased in the Netherlands, where small amounts of cannabis have effectively been legalised since 1976. An estimated 20% of Dutch 18-year-olds had used drugs in 1970, rising to about 30% in 1998.

11356 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

The Minister for Health a few minutes ago said that many countries around the world had more enlightened attitudes than the United States, England and Australia, and that there had been no increase in drug use, including marijuana use, in those countries. I challenge the minister to respond to the statements in this newspaper article that the Netherlands experienced a 50 per cent rise in the use of drugs after the relaxation of marijuana laws in 1976. Finally, I refer to the comments in the newspaper article of former New Zealand Labour Prime Minister Mr David Lange - Lange still stands by his claim that butter has killed more people than marijuana . . . but he is no advocate for decriminalisation. “I got put off the idea about 1996 when I saw the Legalise Cannabis Party television advertisements. It seemed to me that smoking cannabis gave people quite serious brain damage. They sort of shuffled along, spoke like zombies and went off into the night.” Some members on the other side of the House might fit that description; however, I will leave it to others to make that judgment. When one of the most reformist - and I must say best - of Labor prime ministers in the history of New Zealand comes out with a clear statement that he does not advocate the decriminalisation of marijuana because of the impact it has on the people who smoke it, I have to say that this Government should listen. I refer to an article published in the New Scientist magazine on 3 November 2001 titled “Going to pot? Reclassifying cannabis isn’t enough to break the link to hard drugs”. The United Kingdom is currently going through a major review of its drug laws. It is likely that the classification of cannabis will be reduced from a class B drug - meaning a fairly serious drug - to a class C drug, which is a drug of far less concern to the community. The use of class C drugs brings with it milder penalties for possession. However, the article goes on to say that placing a drug such as marijuana in a class C category falls short of legalisation or decriminalisation. The article goes on to say - A study published last year revealed that 99 per cent of young New Zealanders who took hard drugs had started on cannabis. The link is undeniable . . . If members wish to know more about that article, I refer them to the New Scientist magazine. However, I say to the Government, and other supporters of decriminalisation or softening of drug laws who say there is no clear link between marijuana use and the use of hard drugs, I am sorry, but an academic of the Christchurch School of Medicine, who conducted the survey, showed a link in 99 per cent of young New Zealanders between the use of cannabis and hard drugs. The minister and his Government do not understand what they will be letting the Western Australian community into should their drug law reforms pass through the Parliament. I suggest to the minister that if he were serious about creating better laws in this country, he would significantly review two aspects of the new proposals, namely the proposal to give police a discretion to fine or to let off with a caution people found in possession of up to 25 grams of marijuana. I have with me an article from the Guardian Weekly of 3-9 January 2002 titled “Pilot scheme on cannabis to be extended”. The Guardian Weekly is no friend of right-wing politics in the UK; it tends to be a somewhat left-wing newspaper. An interesting paragraph in the middle of the article states - The latest figures show that police issued 381 warnings to people caught with cannabis between July 2 and November 30. I presume that refers to 2001. The minister is not listening to much of what I am saying, but I ask him to listen to this little bit. The article states - The average amount - Of cannabis - seized was 5g, with an approximate street value of £15. If the average amount of cannabis seized from those 381 people who were given warnings was five grams and the Government is about to decriminalise the possession of up to 25 grams, it will be decriminalising 500 per cent more than the volume of marijuana that appears to be reasonable for a person to carry and not be convicted of an offence. I am no cannabis user. I have never smoked cannabis and I have never inhaled marijuana, except possibly secondary smoke at some parties. However, I cannot remember those parties, so I cannot say that I did take any marijuana in those days. Mr McGowan: Is that an admission? Mr MASTERS: No, it is not an admission. If in the United Kingdom the average amount of marijuana an ordinary user carries around is only five grams, where is the logic in this Government allowing 25 grams - enough marijuana for five people - to be carried legally before action is taken? I am running out of time, so I will read one final quote and try to put a somewhat different perspective on this issue and one to which I hope this Government will listen. A large article appeared in the New Zealand newspaper Sunday Star

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11357

Times of 23 April 2000 headed “MPs in cannabis backlash”, and subtitled “Samuels says decriminalisation would be cultural genocide for Maori”. It states - Decriminalising marijuana will result in “cultural genocide” for Maori, says Maori Affairs Minister Dover Sammuels, as he and other ministers lead a backlash against government plans to reform marijuana laws. Police Minister George Hawkins has also weighed in with a damning critique on liberalising cannabis law - championed by Prime Minister Helen Clark - saying the move lacks logic given the greater restrictions being placed on tobacco. The article continues - Samuels said Maori organisations were telling him they were “totally opposed” to decriminalisation. “This is just another nail in the coffin and in my opinion it will be cultural genocide for Maori on top of what is already a major problem of liquor abuse. Ask our women’s refuges who are burdened with the implications and effects of liquor and drugs now.” I do not have time to develop that theme. No doubt sections of our community, including Aboriginal people, are suffering because of excessive use of various sorts of drugs: alcohol and tobacco, which are legal; and petrol sniffing, which I believe is quasi-legal but obviously is to be discouraged. I know from first hand experience that some Aboriginal people, like any other group in society, are dependent upon heroin and other hard drugs. In New Zealand the Maori Affairs Minister issued a warning that a decriminalisation or softening of the marijuana laws would lead to severe problems in that ethnic group. I wonder if the Government has done the basic research and community consultation to find out whether the laws proposed to be amended for the personal use and growing of marijuana are laws that will sit comfortably with Aboriginal people. I have my doubts and I ask the Government to look into that matter. MR McGOWAN (Rockingham - Parliamentary Secretary) [6.12 pm]: Drugs use in our community, as in all western communities, is a complex problem, and complex problems require complex solutions. Simple solutions for this matter do not work; they have been shown overseas not to work. The member for Kingsley referred to the United States of America, which has a very simple solution for drug use. Its solutions revolve around the criminal justice system, end of story, full stop; that is the way that the United States deals with drug use. The consequence of that simplistic solution to this very complex problem is that millions of Americans are caught up in the criminal justice system, a system that brings them into contact with other people who get them more involved in the criminal justice system than they otherwise would have been. As we all know, that has generated a self-promoting, self-perpetuating cycle in the United States. The United States now has literally millions of its citizens incarcerated, and when they come out of prison there is an enormous recidivism rate, because when people go into these institutions they come into contact with others worse than they. It is wrong and dangerous to say that there are simple solutions to this problem. I suspect that no-one in this Parliament likes drugs. We do not like the issue of drugs and we do not want people to take illicit drugs. We do not want people to sniff glue or solvents, to drink to excess, smoke cannabis or to use heroin or other hard drugs. We must provide a solution to this problem. I intensely dislike what illicit drugs do to people, as does everyone in this House. We all think they are bad. During the first four years I was a member of this Parliament and I can recall what has happened in that time. My colleague and friend, the member for Willagee, was the Opposition’s spokesperson for a drug strategy. In 1998-99, 80 or 90 people died from heroin overdoses each year. The then minister responsible for the Government’s drug strategy was Hon Rhonda Parker, who sat in the seat in which I sit, which I hope is not an omen for me - I have been placed in an unfortunate position. The member for Willagee constantly asked her what the Government was doing about this issue. The Government was doing nothing because it refused to see that this was a complex problem. When we came to office we solved the problem of naltrexone. We realised that naltrexone meets the needs of some people, but not all, who are addicted to heroin. We realised that Dr George O’Neil ran a decent program that needed a decent solution. If asked, Dr O’Neil would tell members opposite that this Government fixed the funding needs for his naltrexone program when it came to office. We put in place a Drug Summit to bring together all of the experts, including the people for and against decriminalisation. They debated the issues in this Chamber and came up with some structured and reasonable solutions to this complex problem. The Minister for Health is an expert on the issue of drugs. He knows more about drugs than anyone else and probably all of us put together in this Chamber. As a result of the summit, we came up with a complex solution that meets a complex problem. It is a minimalist solution, not a radical solution. However hard members opposite might argue that this solution represents a radical breakdown in society, they are wrong, it does not; it is a minimalist approach. Our proposals toughen up a range of areas in which people are involved in the production or dealing of drugs. We have increased the penalties for people who grow 10 plants. We will toughen the laws for dealers. However, we have also realised that we must do something about those low-level, small-time occasional users, particularly the very young users. The member for Kalgoorlie accused all members on this side of the House of being in moral decay. That says

11358 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] more about the member for Kalgoorlie than it does about us. I refer particularly to members who throw these allegations around, but many members of this House have children who are teenagers or older. I guarantee that some of those children will have used cannabis. One day, when the member for Kalgoorlie is fortunate enough to become a father and his children are grown up, I guarantee that his children will meet and mix with people who use cannabis and may even use cannabis themselves. He is saying that people in that situation are morally decayed. I will tell the House how many people are allegedly morally decayed. A few weeks ago the Minister for Health produced figures on how many people in our community have used cannabis. Those figures showed that more than 350 000 people have used cannabis, which is equivalent to the entire adult population of the southern suburbs of Perth; that is, the area that would be encompassed if a line were drawn along the river, out to Rockingham and Armadale and then up to the city. According to the member for Kalgoorlie, that many people in this State are morally decayed. That includes members whose children may have used cannabis. Some members know that their children have used cannabis, and some members will have used cannabis themselves. I do not think those members are morally decayed. I do not think any worse of them. We need to keep these young and impressionable people out of the criminal justice system. We need to ensure - Mr Masters: Did you enjoy using cannabis in your younger days? Mr McGOWAN: I have been asked that question before. The answer is no. As I said the last time this matter was debated, I joined the military at a young age and never used cannabis. I have had a drink before now. I drink coffee. They are probably the only two drugs that I regularly use. I have not used cannabis, but many of my friends from my younger days at school and university did. People who use cannabis on an irregular basis or who have used it once or twice should definitely be kept out of the criminal justice system. It is a dangerous system to get involved with. Their involvement in that system wastes police resources. It is also something that can stay with those people for the rest of their lives, in terms of future job opportunities and the ability to travel around the world. Mr Masters: I agree with you to a certain extent, but I would support you more strongly if you lowered the 25 grams to five or 10 grams, and instead of two plants made it zero or one. Mr McGOWAN: No matter what this Government does, the member for Vasse will oppose it. The Opposition opposes everything that the Government does, because it wants to create a political issue. Why do members opposite think the Government is doing this? Do they think we are putting this in place because we want to lose votes? We are doing it because it is right. If we did not want to lose any votes, we would not do it. Why are we doing this, when all it does is create an opportunity for members to mislead the public and cause trouble? Opposition members run press releases full of non-factual information and accuse government members of being morally decayed. They run around the place with bags of grass clippings pretending that somehow every household will have grass clippings all over their dining room tables. What the Government is doing enables the Opposition to do that. However, all the Opposition is doing is showing its hypocrisy, lack of policies and that it does not have much to offer apart from gimmicks and stunts. The Government is trying to come up with an answer to a very difficult problem. I will outline a couple of the benefits of this proposal. Firstly, the presumption of dealing will now involve fewer plants; it will be reduced from 25 plants to 10. Secondly, it will free up police. I remind members opposite that this State has an independent police commissioner. Everyone knows that he is an independent individual. When this proposal was announced by the Minister for Health and the Premier, the Commissioner of Police came out and backed it 100 per cent. He went on television, with his senior officers, and backed the Government’s action. If members opposite think that he is morally decayed, or that he would go out there under any pressure from the Government, they are wrong. He is a very independently minded and strong individual, and he would not have done that. The Government has the support of the Police Service. It frees police resources to concentrate on more important things. Mr Bradshaw: Have you spoken to your local police? Mr McGOWAN: I have, and they are quite happy with this proposal, because it enables them to get on with the job they are trained to do. It means they do not have to sit at the back of the local court once a week - all day sometimes without their case coming on - when they should be out doing real police work. They should be dealing with the real dealers, and the important issues in the community. This measure will remove 18-year-olds - sons and daughters of members - from the criminal justice system. Members opposite should be very pleased about that. It makes sure that people using hydroponics to cultivate drugs have no capacity to receive a civil penalty; criminal penalties will still apply to them. It makes sure that an education program about the faults and flaws of drug use will be in place. This is a minimalist change, but it is a change for the better, and the Government is doing it for the right reasons. For the Opposition to come in here and attack the Government over this does it no credit whatsoever. MR JOHNSON (Hillarys) [6.27 pm]: I support the motion moved on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. It condemns this Labor State Government for going soft on drugs. There is no question that this Government is going soft on drugs. It was part of its policy from the word go, to decriminalise cannabis. The Government was also considering legalised injecting rooms. That is what delayed the minister reporting from the drug summit what the Government intended to do. The Government got advice from other parts of Australia and the world which said that if the Government went down that line, it would certainly lose the next election. Therefore, it has introduced what it calls a

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11359 minimalist option. I can never see this as a minimalist option. The member for Vasse said that a minimalist option would have been to extend the cautioning system. Nobody on either side of this House wants to see young people, particularly very young people, who have tried or may be in possession of a marijuana cigarette, have a criminal conviction recorded against them. The Opposition does not want to see that either. That is why, when it was in Government, it brought in the trial of the cautioning system. Mr Kucera: So you decriminalised it. Mr JOHNSON: The member for Yokine should not talk such nonsense. I would keep quiet at the moment if I were him. He hates taking interjections himself, but he is very good at giving them. I have never seen him accept an interjection. He is too afraid to. If he is not prepared to take it, he should not try to dish it out. The simple facts are that the cautioning system, as I understand it, was working. It was trialled in two or three areas. If this Government were serious, and had the welfare of young people at heart, it would have expanded that cautioning system for very small amounts of cannabis. It could also change the law so that people found with a very small amount for their own use could have that conviction expunged after three years. It could even reduce that three-year period so that we do not have the situation that is found in parts of America in which people who are found in possession of cannabis have a criminal conviction for life. In some ways - I emphasise “in some ways” - cannabis is probably the lesser of the evils of illicit drugs. Heroin obviously is a dreadful drug that people kill for and that people can die from. People can die from cannabis as well, but perhaps not quite as easily. None of us in any seat in this Chamber wants people to die because they have been stupid enough to take illegal drugs. The member for Rockingham said that the previous Government did absolutely nothing; and he criticised the person who had occupied his seat in the Chamber before him, Hon Rhonda Parker, when she was the minister responsible for the drug strategy of this State under the Court Government. Our Government put things in place. Everyone seems to think education is the answer. Even the minister and the Premier have said education is the answer. We saw that education is the answer. Ms Quirk: The federal Government launched a very expensive campaign to say just that. Mr JOHNSON: We all agree, then, that education is the way to go. Is that right, member for Girrawheen? Is that what the member is saying? Ms Quirk: I am saying it is one of a number of strategies. We cannot take the myopic view that we just have one strategy. It is a complex issue that requires complex responses. Mr JOHNSON: That is a very good rhetoric-type answer. Ms Quirk: It is from someone who has been in law enforcement for 22 years. Mr JOHNSON: I took the member’s interjection, but the member is not prepared to accept the fact that education is a very important factor in combating the use of drugs, particularly marijuana. Our Government did quite a lot. We set up drug education programs in schools. We also set up local drug action groups. I played a role in helping to set up a drug action group in my area. That group is known as the Whitfords local drug action group. We advertised that a local drug action group could be formed, and we invited interested people to come to a meeting, at which Terry Murphy from the Drug Strategy Office spoke. All I did was act as the chairman and convener of that meeting. As soon as the meeting was over, I stepped back. I said I would offer the group any help it wanted, but I did not want to get involved directly with that local drug action group because the last thing I wanted was for that worthwhile group to be used for political purposes. About 70 or 80 people came to that meeting, and from that meeting a committee was formed, and the group has been going ever since. That group has held a lot of worthwhile educational programs and done some tremendous work, particularly with young people. For members opposite to say the previous Government did nothing is wrong.. It is interesting that quite a lot of the people who came to that meeting had experienced problems within their family unit and had a keen interest in finding out what could be done to help them and what they could do to help other people. Those people were very selfless, because they were not interested just in their own problems and families but wanted to share their experiences with other people as a warning so that other families could do something positive to help their children. It was mainly young people - aged 13, 14 and upwards. I have never smoked a cannabis cigarette or joint in my life. About 20 years ago I wondered whether I was missing out on something because I had never smoked marijuana. One or two of my friends had smoked a marijuana cigarette, or half of one. Some said that it helped them in certain areas. I thought at one time that perhaps I should have a go. I did not. I do not have a clue where to buy them from, and nobody has ever offered me one. I am glad that I never started smoking them, because they are dreadful things - I have seen what they can do. As a member I have had people come to see me over the years to try to get help to overcome the problems caused by their child’s addiction to cannabis. Cannabis has always been the lead drug that has got people onto harder drugs, such as ecstasy and heroin. I remember one couple in particular. They had a 21-year-old son who had been taking cannabis since he was 15. They had tried everything they possibly could to get him off the drug. People who say that cannabis is merely a recreational drug are fruit loops, quite frankly, because they do not know what they are talking about. Cannabis is a hard drug to which people become addicted. The more people become addicted to it, the more they smoke it and the more harm it does to them. It kills their brain. It contains so many toxins that people must be

11360 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] absolutely crazy to smoke it. The couple who came to see me said that their son had virtually stolen most of their expensive items, and all their electrical items, to feed his habit. He was incapable of working. He could not hold down a job because he was addicted to marijuana - not heroin, ecstasy, amphetamines or any other drug. He could not get enough marijuana. Of course, he had to buy it. The Government, in saying that it will do people a favour and make things much better, is taking a very narrow view. I can explain it in very simple terms. The Government will encourage people who try smoking marijuana to smoke more of it. I do not know how much a marijuana joint costs, but I am sure the Minister for Health can tell me. I suppose that if people smoke a reasonable number of them, the cost must mount up, otherwise people would not need to keep stealing to buy them. If people know they can grow their own marijuana and not have to pay for it, commonsense says that they will smoke more. It is like putting a great big jar of lollies in front of children, instead of giving them one at a time. The fact that the lollies are so accessible means that the children will stuff themselves silly with them. I said that members opposite would be like that if they came to run this State; that they would be like a bunch of schoolkids in a lolly shop who could not keep their hands out of the lolly jars and not have the money to replenish the stock. That is the way they are going. Apart from the couple who came to see me about their very sad experiences, other parents have come to see me over the years with very similar experiences. They have said that, whatever I do, I should not help to decriminalise cannabis. When I was last in the United Kingdom in July 2001, I was looking through the Daily Telegraph and came across a page that I had to read. It is all about cannabis and is highlighted with a graphic picture illustrating what cannabis can do to people. It is headed “Cannabis devastates lives - We would be mad to legalise it.” It is written by Penny Coleman, who watched so-called soft drugs turn her son into a liar and a thief. She warns that making cannabis more widely available will have dreadful consequences. I will quote from parts of this article, with your indulgence, Mr Acting Speaker (Mr Andrew). The ACTING SPEAKER: A moderate amount. Mr JOHNSON: Of course, Mr Acting Speaker. It is a poignant article that makes a significant point. Mr Dean: It was not legalised at that time, but it did that to her son. Mr JOHNSON: Smoking cannabis did that to her son whether it was legal or illegal. She says if it were legalised it would encourage people to smoke more of it. An average person such as the member for Bunbury could not smoke the crop from two cannabis plants in a year. What will he do with the balance? He should not trivialise a very serious issue. Mr Birney: He will flog off the balance. Mr JOHNSON: Exactly. It reads - Our house is full of the memorabilia of cannabis. When I go to the airing cupboard I sometimes inadvertently pull out the England duvet cover and matching pillowcase with its sprinkling of small, brown-edged burn holes. These date from the time, not very distant, when our son’s bedroom was a spliff-making factory and we lived in fear that the whole place would go up in flames. This is a mother talking about her son. Hidden under the rug by his bed there are contemporaneous scorch marks. Among the video collection still lurks the box without a name where he used to stash Rizla papers, bits of torn-off card, lumps of hash, vacuum- sealed pouches of weed and a small penknife. On summer nights, - Unfortunately, he has the same name as me. This is not my mother! To continue - Rob uses the electric fan that was once an essential part of his cannabis armoury: he acquired it in a futile attempt to disperse the fumes. In the hall is the jacket in which he was arrested. In the garden, a green wheelbarrow that he found useful to transport our CD player and speakers to the pawn shop a mile away. Even the empty spaces tell their story - spaces where two electric guitars and an amplifier stood before they were similarly carted off to raise money for mounting cannabis debts. People in WA may not have mounting cannabis debts as a result of this Government’s proposed legislation, because they will be able to grow their own plant. The Government is encouraging them to grow their own. A government member interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I would not have a go at me, my friend. By allowing people to grow their own cannabis, the Government will be encouraging them to smoke much more of the stuff. The article states further on - We first noticed that something was wrong when Rob, aged 15, developed puzzling signs of a social conscience and an interest in other people. “How was your day?” he would ask. He started to worry that he was boring his friends. Why couldn’t he, the life and soul, think of anything entertaining to say? He imagined

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11361

that he had every disease in the news - BSE, ME, a brain tumour - and would examine the pupils of his eyes obsessively. That is exactly what happened as a result of using cannabis. I urge people to read this article because it confirmed to me that we would be crazy to legalise cannabis. This is a plea from a mother about the devastating effects cannabis has had on her son. It is highlighted so graphically that I will give the Minister for Health a copy of it. Mr Kucera: I will ensure you get a copy of the Prior report. Mr JOHNSON: The minister should have done that a long time ago. It is no good the minister being a smart alec and asking who had read the Prior report and then telling us it was available on the Internet. The Internet has millions of pieces of information. If the minister had been serious about this, he would have made sure that every member of Parliament received a copy of the Prior report. Was it a secret report hidden in the Internet somewhere? The Minister for Health is responsible for drug issues in this State, yet he did not make sure that that report was tabled in Parliament and every member received a copy. The minister should not come in here and try to be smart, because he is not up to it. Mr Hyde: You start by turning on the computer. Mr JOHNSON: I use the Internet quite often. I have so many things I want to look at that unless someone said that the report was on the Internet I would not find it. If the minister had told me it was available on the Internet I would have found it, because I am interested in the effect that illegal drugs have on people. I have four children and six grandchildren. I have a personal interest in what happens to our young people, so the minister should not start with me! Talk about hypocrisy! I have some quotes here - Mr Kucera: Can I have a copy? Mr JOHNSON: I will give the minister a copy, and he should read it. He has children and if he does not already have them, one day he will have grandchildren. Mr Kucera: I will be happy to read it. Mr JOHNSON: Good. I could ask for a 10-minute extension of time, but I will not do that because I know many other members want to have an input on this very important motion. I fully support the motion. I condemn the Government, the Premier and the Minister for Health for being the forerunners in bringing to this State the sort of legislation that will devastate our young people in particular for many years to come. MR HYDE (Perth) [6.48 pm]: I oppose this motion. I am prepared to cut my speaking time short, as we want to vote on this. The issue that has come up in debate and the many stories that are being told about the tragedies of drug use highlight that the current system is not working. We have all heard these horrendous stories about people flogging off the family’s CDs and TVs, the dislocation of family units and the problems in society. This all happens under the current regime; the regime that was introduced by the former coalition Government. Clearly the system does not work. The Labor Government has followed the correct procedure. It has held the Community Drug Summit, consulted with the community and been open to all manner of suggestions. At the Drug Summit a number of suggestions came forward, the Minister for Health and the Cabinet fashioned a response and we have a policy. This policy is enjoying wide community support. We cannot colour it and call it something that it is not; it is prohibition with civil penalties at the very least. I go back to a point made earlier. Under the legislation of the previous coalition Government, a dealer was able to have up to 25 plants and not be deemed to be a dealer. Our legislation will slash that dramatically. This policy is hard on drug use. The previous policy and the system that has evolved in WA has seen massive hydroponics gardens and whole areas of old-growth and new-growth forest taken over by drug cultivators working hand in hand with organised crime. The current policies are soft on organised crime. Labor’s new legislation is hard on organised crime. Labor’s new policy gives drug users the chance to get off drugs. Labor’s new policy gives the parents, the friends and the neighbours of drug users the chance to decrease drug use. All the information is available. The United States and Australia, with its current legal system, have the highest drug use in the world. The system is not working. In every place that has made a more proactive attack on drug use - this goes hand in hand with peer education - there has been a reduction in drug use. That system is enjoying wide community use. The polling and everything else tell us that the community is awake to the fact that the current system does not work. The previous Government started tentatively with a cautioning system. The current Government is refining that and making it a proper system - not so that people can get away with just a caution - under which the police will have discretion. Under our legislation, a person can be nabbed as a dealer if he is a dealer. Forget about two plants. If a person has one leaf and the police believe he is a dealer, he will be charged. Under the previous Government’s cautioning system, that person got away scot-free. The previous Government was soft on organised crime and on big drug dealers. Our legislation will get to the heart of the problem.

11362 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

Under the system introduced by the previous Government, people in Western Australia were able to have 25 plants. People were dealers, and they were getting away with not being deemed dealers. The previous Government’s legislation was soft on organised crime, on the big dealers and on the big problem of drugs. The Gallop Government is coming down hard on that big problem and is trying to reduce drug use in the community and its ramifications. It is important that we look at the legislation and the Prior report in detail. If members had come into this Chamber during the Drug Summit, as I did on a number of days, they would have seen the community people in this Chamber and heard tale after tale about how our current laws and current systems failed not only drug users but also their families, their neighbours and others who were caught up in the terrible ramifications of drug use in our society. All the evidence and all the stories were put before the Drug Summit. It was important that this Government react and not put the issue under the cover or in the duvet with the burn marks that the member for Hillarys mentioned. It was important that the Government did something. That is why we are introducing prohibition with civil penalties. Under this scheme, even minor cannabis possession is illegal. Under the previous mob, people in the Mirrabooka district could have had one of those seven-foot - instead of 181 centimetres or six-foot - plants about which the member for Kalgoorlie spoke and they would have been cautioned. Under Labor’s legislation, people will not get away with that. If a person is a hard-core drug user or is conveying drugs throughout the State and living off those people in society who have a drug health problem, he will be pinged under Labor’s legislation. Under the previous Government’s legislation, people got away with it, as did big time criminals and organised crime. Our forests were being cut down at one end, and at the other end they were havens for the big criminals that the previous Government’s legislation encouraged. All over the world, incredible scenarios of organised crime are flourishing in places that have legislation based on “just say no”. Organised crime in big business wants to hear the Opposition’s rhetoric. It loves it because it encourages them. It enables the black market to flourish. It enables big organised crime groups to get away with illegal activities, and it allows harm to be done in our community. The Government’s proposals incorporate the comprehensive education of the public. This is an important aspect. Next door to my electorate office in Northbridge is the needle exchange centre, where 20 000 needles a month are exchanged. A good program of the previous Government, but which is funded properly by this Government, is for peer education and needle exchange. That centre does not have 17 divvy vans parked out the front ready to ping everyone who goes into the centre to exchange a dirty needle. People exchange their needles, get clean ones and receive peer education. What is the result of that program? Not only does it improve the health issues of society, and not only has there been a decrease in the use of Cash Converters and other such places as venues to which druggies go to get some quick money, but also people receive peer education and the harmful effects of drug use decrease. If this program for marijuana use mirrors the slow success of the heroin program, there will be a big improvement in the health of people in society. Apart from minor cannabis possession remaining illegal, penalties have been increased in a number of other ways. Juvenile cannabis users caught by the police will be required to attend treatment and support services. It is not possible to institute that initiative under the existing juvenile cautioning provisions. We are making it tougher, but we are also ensuring that the education that is provided will have a long-lasting effect. It is no good targeting children early without ensuring that they are provided with proper education so that a youthful indiscretion is not repeated. As we all know, placing children in institutions often teaches them about crime. I would like to raise a number of matters, but I am conscious of the time, and members wish to vote on this motion. Mr Johnson: No. There will not be a vote on this motion tonight; too many members want to speak about this issue. Mr Kobelke: They have no conviction; they do not want to vote on it. Mr HYDE: Members on this side of the House want to vote on the issue. The Opposition has moved a motion, and we want the Western Australian public to see where this Parliament stands on drugs. Is the Opposition soft on organised crime and hard drug use, or will it target drug use in this State along with the Labor Government? It is important that the Parliament put that on the record tonight. Let us not delay it. Let the Opposition put on the record tonight where it stands on this issue. Dr Woollard: Then you should wait for everyone to have their say. Mr HYDE: It does not work that way. There have been three hours of good debate. I am happy to speak all night, but I am a team player. Mr Johnson: Sit down my friend. Mr HYDE: I will. We want to vote on the motion. We want to give Western Australian parliamentarians such as the member for Dawesville and others the chance to put on the record where they stand on the issue of drug use. The Government is putting forward legislation to decrease drug use and to fix the health problems caused by drug use. Most importantly, it will get organised crime groups out of the drug business. MR MARSHALL (Dawesville) [6.58 pm]: Some time ago, the Opposition quite jovially asked government members whether they had ever taken cannabis. Except for one or two, they all exclaimed, “No!” I am quite surprised that the Government suddenly wants to decriminalise the cultivation of cannabis, which is a more serious offence than

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11363 possession. There is no reason for this change; yet the Government has again given in to a minority group. In the Labor Party’s first year in government, we watched it give in to the Greens (WA) on the one vote, one value legislation. Then we watched it give in to another minority group on the gay and lesbian law reform legislation. Now it is doing the same with the cannabis legislation by listening to a minority group. Members of the Western Australian community do not want that to happen. They want a referendum on the issue. Once again, legislation will be bulldozed through the Parliament. I will refer to some words of wisdom by Abraham Lincoln. I am sure that members are aware of the 10 statements for which he was famous. Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. House adjourned at 7.00 pm ______

11364 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, REDUNDANCIES, NUMBER 1492. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Premier; Minister for Public Sector Management; Federal Affairs; Science; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests For each department, agency and statutory authority under the Premier’s portfolio; (a) since 19 February 2001 how many officers have received a management initiated redundancy; (b) what were the titles of the positions to which a redundancy was received; and (c) which of those positions have been filled again? Dr GALLOP replied: I am advised that : Department of the Premier and Cabinet (a) Management Initiated Retirements approved by the Premier were accepted by four (4) officers. (b) Deputy Director General; Assistant Director General, Public Sector Management and two (2) General Functions positions. (c) None of these positions has been substantively filled. Anti-Corruption Commission (a) None. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. Governor's Establishment (a) None. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (a) None. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, VEHICLES, MOBILE PHONES, PAGERS AND CREDIT CARDS 1616. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection; Training With respect to the Minister’s office, as at 11 March 2002, will the Minister indicate for each staff member in their office the following details - (a) name, level and type of employment contract; (b) the number of vehicles attached to the office, the names of the staff to which they are allocated and under what scheme are they allocated to the staff member; (c) how many mobile phones are available at the Minister’s office and to which staff are they allocated; (d) are the mobile phone bills audited for the number of non-government related calls; (e) how many pagers are available and to which staff are they allocated; (f) how many Government credit cards have been authorised for use by the Minister’s office and to which officers have they been allocated and what is the limit of each card allocated; and (g) how often are audits conducted on credit card purchases? Mr KOBELKE replied: (a) Name Level Type of Employment Contract Susan Barrera L9.1 Seconded from DOCEP Robert Horstman L8.1 Seconded from DOCEP Matt Keogh L7.3 Short Term Ministerial Contract

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11365

Peter Rose L7.1 Seconded from Dept of Training Simon Ward L7.1 Term of Government Steve Manchee L6.4 (with allowance to 7.2) TOG Judy Kurowski AL5.3 Permanent Public Servant Sue Lothian AL4.1 Seconded from DOCEP Lisa Davenport AL3.2 Permanent Public Servant Trena Dimovski AL2.2 Fixed Term Contract Jane O’Neil AL2.2 Fixed Term Contract Camilla Shack AL2.1 Fixed Term Contract (b) Three cars are allocated to the office. Names: Scheme Susan Barrera Chief of Staff GVS Robert Horstman Policy Adviser Nil (home garaging) Steve Manchee Media Secretary GVS (c) Seven mobile phones. Chief of Staff Susan Barrera Policy Adviser for Labour Relations Robert Horstman Policy Adviser Industrial Relations Matt Keogh Policy Adviser Consumer Affairs Simon Ward Policy Adviser Training Peter Rose Media Secretary Steve Manchee Executive Officer J Kurowski (d) All mobile telephone usage within Ministerial Offices is subject to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s Computing and Communications Acceptable Use Policy, which provides that: ‘Limited personal use of facilities by staff is permitted provided: (i) It is endorsed by local management; (ii) It does not interfere with work, or the work of anyone else; and (iii) It does not involve unethical behaviour.’ In addition, Premier’s Circular 24/01 stipulates that mobile phones are provided for work related purposes, however there will be circumstances where private use is acceptable. However, mobile phones are not to be used for conducting private commercial activities, party political or campaigning purposes, or accessing fee incurring information services for unofficial or unnecessary purposes. The Premier’s Circular requires agencies to adopt monitoring processes to address mobile phone usage, however there is no requirement for the number of non-government related calls on mobile phone accounts to be specifically audited. Detailed information on the usage of telephone facilities is retained by the Department and can be scrutinised at the direction of the Director General if necessary. (e) One pager – unallocated. (f) Three Credit Cards: Name Card Limit Chief of Staff Susan Barrera ANZ Visa Card $10,000 Executive Officer Judy Kurowski ANZ Visa Card $10,000 American Express Card $10,000 (g) Credit card expenditure is subject to regular periodic testing under the Department of the Premier and Cabinet’s internal audit program in accordance with Part XII of the Treasurer’s Instructions accompanying the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985. External review of departmental transactions, including credit card expenditure, is also undertaken by the Office of the Auditor General in respect of each financial year. MINISTERS OF THE CROWN, STAFF, VEHICLES, MOBILE PHONES, PAGERS AND CREDIT CARDS 1618. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services; Minister assisting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure With respect to the Minister’s office, as at 11 March 2002, will the Minister indicate for each staff member in their office the following details -

11366 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

(a) name, level and type of employment contract; (b) the number of vehicles attached to the office, the names of the staff to which they are allocated and under what scheme are they allocated to the staff member; (c) how many mobile phones are available at the Minister’s office and to which staff are they allocated; (d) are the mobile phone bills audited for the number of non-government related calls; (e) how many pagers are available and to which staff are they allocated; (f) how many Government credit cards have been authorised for use by the Minister’s office and to which officers have they been allocated and what is the limit of each card allocated; and (g) how often are audits conducted on credit card purchases? Mrs ROBERTS replied: (a) Ministerial Staff Emiliano Barzotto Level 9 Term of Government Marie Counsel Level 3 Term of Government Michelle Dreezens Level 2 Term of Government(on maternity leave) Nathan Hondros Level 5 Term of Government Alison Karmelich Level 2 Term of Government Michael Robson Level 7 Term of Government Rachel Sackville-Minchin Level 7 Term of Government Emilio Spagnolo Level 2 Term of Government Mark Stansall Level 7 Term of Government Mark Thompson Level 6.4 Term of Government Seconded/Temporary Staff Hayley Priestley Level 4 Amanda Prestipino Level 2 (in place of Michelle Dreezens) Hazel Harrison Level 5 All Term of Government staff are employed under the Department of Premier and Cabinet Public Service General Agreement. Hayley Priestley is a permanent public servant on secondment from the Western Australia Police Service and Hazel Harrison is seconded from the Department of Transport and Amanda Prestipino is on a Temporary Contract with Premier and Cabinet until Michelle Dreezens returns from Maternity Leave. (b) 3 vehicles Emiliano Barzotto Government vehicle scheme Mark Thompson Government vehicle scheme Office pool vehicle (c) 7 phones Emiliano Barzotto Nathan Hondros Michael Robson Rachel Sackville-Minchin Mark Stansall Mark Thompson Office pool phone – not allocated (d) All mobile telephone usage within Ministerial Offices is subject to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's Computing and Communications Acceptable Use Policy, which provides that: 'Limited personal use of facilities by staff is permitted provided: (i) It is endorsed by local management; (ii) It does not interfere with work, or the work of anyone else; and (iii) It does not involve unethical behaviour.' In addition, Premier's Circular 24/01 stipulates that mobile phones are provided for work related purposes, however there will be circumstances where private use is acceptable. However, mobile phones are not to be used for conducting private commercial activities, party political or campaigning purposes, or accessing fee incurring information services for unofficial or unnecessary purposes.

[ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002] 11367

The Premier's Circular requires agencies to adopt monitoring processes to address mobile phone usage, however there is no requirement for the number of non-government related calls on mobile phone accounts to be specifically audited. Detailed information on the usage of telephone facilities is retained by the Department and can be scrutinised at the direction of the Director General if necessary. (e) 1 pager – Mark Thompson (f) 5 credit cards Chief of Staff American Express 20,000 Visa 10,000 Executive Officer American Express 20,000 Visa 10,000 Appointments Secretary American Express 20,000 (g) Credit card expenditure is subject to regular periodic testing under the Department of the Premier and Cabinet's internal audit program in accordance with Part XII of the Treasurer's Instructions accompanying the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985. External review of departmental transactions, including credit card expenditure, is also undertaken by the Office of the Auditor General in respect of each financial year. CRIME, OFFENCES COMMITTED USING SHARP INSTRUMENTS 1642. Mr Birney to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services Will the Minister provide a numerical breakdown of the number of offences committed by individuals using sharp instruments eg knives, blunt instruments, and / or firearms - (a) from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996 (inclusive); (b) from 1 August 1998 to 31 July 1999 (inclusive); and (c) from 1 January to 31 December 2001? Mrs ROBERTS replied: THE NUMBER OF REPORTED OFFENCES INVOLVING A WEAPON 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996 (inclusive); sharp instruments – 709, blunt instruments - 359, firearms - 375. 1 August 1998 to 31 July 1999 (inclusive); sharp instruments – 1214, blunt instruments - 393, firearms - 394. 1 January to 31 December 2001; sharp instruments – 1097, blunt instruments – 584, firearms – 249. 1995-1996 Data Source: WA Police Offence Information System as at 28 October 1997. 1998-2001 Data Source: WA Police Monthly Crime Report – Executive Summary August 1999 & December 2001. Statistical Notes: 1. In 2001 offence classifications used in the Offence Information System were changed to reflect the Australian Standard Offence Classification (ASOC). Accordingly, data from earlier periods may not be strictly comparable. 2. The number of reported offences for a period comprises all offences reported on the Offence Information System during that period and may include offences committed during earlier periods. The reporting of historical offences will inflate the number of reported offences for a period. GUTHRIE REPORT, ACTUARIAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1728. Hon. C.L. Edwardes to the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection I refer to the actuarial report on the implementation of the Guthrie Report recommendations in relation to Workers’ Compensation and ask - (a) will the Minister table a copy of the actuarial report; and (b) if not, why not? Mr KOBELKE replied: (a)-(b) The Government has yet to get an actuarial report on the implementation of the Guthrie Report. It is anticipated that a report will be available in the near future and it will be made public in due course.

11368 [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 12 June 2002]

MINING, CROWN LAND, PERMITS TO PROSPECT 1754. Mr Birney to the Minister for State Development I refer to ‘Section 20 - A Permit System, Access to prospect on Crown Land within an Exploration Licence’ and ask - (a) will the Minister advise how many permits have been issued in each of the respective mineral field districts throughout Western Australia; and (b) if not, why not? Mr BROWN replied: I am advised: The section 20A Permit system commenced operating on 5 February 2001 and, by 24 May 2002, a total of 243 Permits had been issued throughout Western Australia. A list outlining in detail the breakdown of the permits issued in each of the mineral fields and mining districts within the State is tabled herewith. [See paper No 1559.] MINING, REVIEW OF WORKING HOURS 1757. Mr Bowler to the Minister for State Development I refer to an article in the Kalgoorlie Miner on Saturday, 30 March 2002 under the heading ‘Birney Calls for 10-Hour Shifts’ and ask - (a) is the Minister aware that the member for Kalgoorlie has publicly called on mining communities to replace 12-hour shifts with 10-hour shifts where it is economically viable to do so; (b) does the Government intend to conduct a review of working hours; and (c) when will the review be conducted? Mr BROWN replied: I am advised: (a) Yes. (b) Yes, the matter of a formal review of working hours in all industries has been under active consideration for some time by the Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. (c) It is currently envisaged that the review would get under way later in the year following the completion of consultation with interested parties on its terms of reference. ______