Legislative Assembly

Thursday, 20 October 2011

THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams) took the chair at 9.00 am, and read prayers. CLARKSON POLICE STATION — POLICE NUMBERS Petition MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [9.01 am]: I have a petition signed by 1 447 constituents of the electorate of Mindarie, which has been certified by the Clerk as conforming with the standing orders of the Assembly. It reads — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say that over the last month the number of gang assaults in Clarkson provides clear evidence that the government has failed to provide sufficient police numbers to the Clarkson Police Station to get on top of gang violence in our electorate. Now we ask the Legislative Assembly: That the Clarkson Police station be urgently assigned a significant increase in police numbers so as to provide for 7 days a week 24 hour policing and for the police station to remain open at least until 1 hour after closing time of the Whale and Ale Tavern in Clarkson and the Cornerstone Tavern in Butler. It is evidently clear that alcohol is playing a significant part in the attacks and the Clarkson Police Station must remain open until 1 hour after the closing time of the Whale and Ale Tavern in Clarkson and the Cornerstone Tavern in Butler. If the Minister for Police fails to ensure both an increase in police numbers in Clarkson and to ensure that the police station remains open until 1 hour after closing time of these two taverns, then the Minister for Police and the Government is failing to protect our local community from violence. As I said, Mr Speaker, it has been signed by 1 447 people. [See petition 486.] PETITION TERMINOLOGY — STANDING ORDER 64 Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams): I address this comment to all members, because members are often involved in petitions and I think it is fairly important that the wording of petitions be acceptable. I deem this just tabled petition to be acceptable, but in rising to make these comments I draw members’ attention to the standing orders on petitions and to the temperate language that should be used in them. Now, I have accepted that particular petition. I do not know that all of you would have been paying attention to it, but there were certainly some words within that petition that others might interpret as not being temperate. I draw your attention particularly to petitions that members might personally be involved with. I think the member for Mindarie has been involved with this petition and that it is not just a petition that he has been presented with on behalf of petitioners in his electorate. I want members to look at the standing orders when they bring petitions into this place. CONTAINER DEPOSIT SCHEME Petition MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie–Preston) [9.04 am]: I will see whether I can get my petition right, Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER: I think you will be able to do that, member. Mr M.P. MURRAY: I have a petition signed by 113 people, which conforms with the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly and states — To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, say it is time to address the number of beverage containers recycled in Western Australia and assist in improving the ongoing litter problem we have in our state. Discussion about the introduction of such a scheme for Western Australia has been ongoing for too long and it is now time the Government took action.

8478 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Now we ask that the Legislative Assembly call upon the Barnett Government to immediately introduce a Western Australian Container Deposit Scheme, similar to the system that operates in South Australia. I table the petition. The SPEAKER: That was a very excellent petition, member for Collie–Preston. [See petition 487.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA — ANNUAL REPORT 2010–11 Correction — Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr G.A. Woodhams): I have received a letter from the Minister for Heritage dated 18 October 2011 requesting that corrections be made to the 2010–11 annual report of the Heritage Council of Western Australia, which was tabled on 21 September 2011. Amendments are requested at pages 17 and 80 of the report to adjust figures that were transposed. Under the provisions of standing order 156, I advise the Assembly that I have authorised that the necessary corrections be attached to the tabled paper. [See paper 3891.] BUSHFIRE ACTION WEEK Statement by Minister for Emergency Services MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Minister for Emergency Services) [9.06 am]: I take this opportunity to inform the house of the upcoming bushfire season and to update members about the state’s preparations, especially in light of the weekend’s events. On Sunday, while many people were enjoying the first signs of summer, firefighters were busy battling a number of fires around the outer metropolitan area, including a major fire that threatened homes in Red Gully. More than 80 career and volunteer firefighters worked tirelessly throughout the day and overnight to contain a fire that burnt out more than 1 000 hectares of land. Through their efforts and commitment, eight homes and 10 sheds were saved. This fire is a stark reminder of what is predicted for this bushfire season and occurred the day after I launched FESA’s Bushfire Action Week with the support of the Minister for Environment. Bushfire Action Week is the time for people who live near bushland to start their preparations. The fire over the weekend highlights that there is no time to waste. Homes should be cleared of any surrounding dry material and overhanging branches, families should work together to develop bushfire survival plans, and everyone should take the time to understand all about fire danger ratings and total fire bans. With 80 per cent of the state at an increased risk of bushfire, I urge homeowners who live near bushland to prepare for another tough and challenging season. Recent rainfalls have generated abundant grassland fuels in many areas of the state. The Kimberley is already experiencing some of the worst conditions and highest fuel loads on record, and the south of the state is likely to follow suit, particularly in the Mid West and Goldfields. Now is not the time for complacency but, rather, is an opportunity for action. Roleystone resident Christine Cairns is a good example of what people should be doing. A Roleystone resident for more than 30 years, Christine, who is also part of the local Bushfire Ready group, believes the key to surviving a bushfire is being prepared. At the launch of Bushfire Action Week she took me on a tour of her property, demonstrating all the steps she had taken to protect her property. Christine is a wonderful example of a resident who cares enough about her home and her neighbours to take the time to prepare for the bushfire season. The state government is working in partnership with FESA, the Department of Environment and Conservation, local government and stakeholders to implement recommendations and key findings from recent bushfire reviews in readiness for the bushfire season. Every step that can be taken to improve and enhance the state’s readiness is being taken, but local residents also have a key role to play. I encourage everyone to come together as a community, prepare their homes, join local Bushfire Ready groups and seek more information from the FESA website if required. Community safety is everyone’s business—together we can all reduce the risk of bushfire this season. EDUCATION — NATIONAL TEACHER AWARDS Statement by Minister for Education DR E. CONSTABLE (Churchlands — Minister for Education) [9.09 am]: Western Australian educators finished top of the class at last week’s Australian Awards for Outstanding Teaching and School Leadership. Teachers and principals from this state were represented as finalists in each of the five national prize categories, and I am proud to say that two of our best took out national awards.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8479

Australian Primary Principal of the Year is Lee Musumeci, of the Challis Early Childhood Education Centre in Armadale. Ms Musumeci is an exceptional leader in her field, putting in place innovative ideas and programs at the Armadale school that help support families so that some of our youngest students are provided with the foundations they need to be successful at school. She has developed valuable partnerships with a range of community organisations to deliver services to families at the school, better supporting vulnerable youngsters. Challis Early Childhood Education Centre continues to lead the way in early childhood education. Australian Secondary Teacher of the Year is the second award that a Western Australian took home. Science specialist David Henderson from Rossmoyne Senior High School was recognised for his focus on providing engaging and unique learning experiences. Dr Henderson not only teaches science in a way that motivates and engages his students, but also focuses on helping them prepare for careers, as the careers and enterprise teacher at the school. He has established alliances with Rotary and Curtin University along with other science-related organisations to benefit his secondary school students. Also, last week, Westminster Primary School teacher Brooke Topelberg won the Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools. Ms Topelberg has bypassed language barriers to teach science to migrant children and is credited with Westminster’s status as WA’s Science School of the Year in 2008. Her innovative approach, using puppets and the school garden, combined with her enthusiasm, made her a worthy choice. Our teachers and principals deliver a first class education to young Western Australians and it is fitting that the achievements of these three teachers are celebrated. These highly prestigious national awards recognise their outstanding achievements. Our state’s finest educators are also Australia’s leaders in education, and our students, and their colleagues, benefit from their expertise. EDUCATION AND HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE — NINTH REPORT — “CHANGING PATTERNS IN ILLICIT DRUG USE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA” Government Response — Statement by Minister for Health DR K.D. HAMES (Dawesville — Minister for Health) [9.11 am]: The Education and Health Standing Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the adequacy and appropriateness of prevention and treatment services for alcohol and illicit drug problems in Western Australia, and on 26 May 2011 tabled its ninth report, titled “Changing Patterns in Illicit Drug Use in Western Australia”. Today, on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health, I formally table the response of the government to the recommendations contained in the report. The report made 24 recommendations and sought responses to those recommendations from the ministers with the portfolios of Mental Health, Health, Police and Corrective Services, and the Attorney General. Illicit drug use is an issue of great concern to the Western Australian community, and this government remains committed to addressing the demand and supply of illicit drugs. Many of the issues raised in the report are already being addressed by various government strategies; for example, the timely introduction of the Cannabis Law Reform Act 2010 established a new scheme to deal with adult and juvenile minor cannabis offences and provides treatment and support options for those who need it. Only one recommendation is not supported. This recommendation relates to the mandatory recording of disease and physical injury associated with alcohol and other drugs in hospital discharge summaries. The current classification system used by the Department of Health is already consistent with national and international coding standards. I table the government’s response. [See paper 4139.] PUBLIC TRANSPORT — NORTH EAST CORRIDOR Grievance MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [9.13 am]: My grievance to the Minister for Transport is about the “Public Transport Plan for Perth 2031” that he released some months ago. I make a grievance today because on two previous occasions I have sought from the minister information about the transport plan for the north east corridor. I wrote to the minister in June before the transport plan was released asking for a briefing on the Liberal government plans for the north east corridor. I also wrote to the Director General of the Department of Transport in July asking for a briefing on the details contained in the 2031 plan. In reply to my letter to the minister in June, I received a response indicating that no briefing would be provided; and I have still not received a response from the Director General of Transport about a requested briefing on the assumptions and figures used to determine the modes of transport in and the plans for the north east corridor. I want this morning to talk quickly about Ellenbrook and primarily about the assumptions of the Transport 2031 plan. This is a serious issue because the assumptions and forecasts in these documents are those driving the government decision-making process.

8480 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

As we know, the government has broken its election commitment to the Ellenbrook train line; however, in the Transport 2031 document reference is made to a transit way. Catchment numbers are a key issue. On 9 August, Hon Ken Travers, in the other place, asked a question about the actual catchment numbers used to drive the Ellenbrook decision. The answer provided by Hon Simon O’Brien indicated that approximately 60 000 residents would be living in the entire catchment area for the Ellenbrook train line in 2031—assuming full development, and including the suburbs of Ellenbrook, Henley Brook, Caversham, Whiteman, Lockridge and Eden Hill. I believe that figure is entirely incorrect. Information provided on the City of Swan’s “forecast id” website shows that those numbers cannot be right. I want the minister to address this issue, because to say that only 60 000 people will live in the entire catchment area, when that is not the case, is a key issue. I will now go over the particular areas. By 2031, the City of Swan “forecast id” figures show that 47 000 people will live in the Ellenbrook region alone—which includes Aveley and The Vines. In that region alone there will be 47 000 residents! The Altone area, including the suburbs of Lockridge and Eden Hill, will support 21 000 residents—a figure very similar to the number of people who live there today. However, the urban growth corridor figures appear to have been left out of the 2031 plan. Currently, 754 people live in the urban growth corridor and that number is predicted to reach 30 000 by 2031. This growth is happening now; these are not forecasts of what may happen. The houses are being built now. The Minister for Planning stated in his Swan urban growth corridor strategy that 33 000 will live in the corridor by 2035. The Swan Valley has approximately 5 500 residents today and it is predicted that 5 600 people will live there by 2031. Looking at those areas alone, and being very narrow in our interpretation of the Ellenbrook catchment area, it appears that 100 000 people will live there by 2035. As I said before, these are not numbers that someone has “created”, but are the City of Swan forecast numbers, which the Minister for Transport referred to when he spoke in this place a few months ago about development in Ellenbrook. The minister has spoken about a population of 47 000 in Ellenbrook in just a few decades. Altone, Ellenbrook, Swan Valley and the urban growth corridor, which is a very narrow definition of the catchment area, will therefore contain 103 000 people by 2031; whereas the minister claimed the number would be only 60 000. In addition to these, Bullsbrook is another significant growth area. Both the City of Swan and the state government have plans to increase the population at Bullsbrook to a forecast 21 000 residents. Bullsbrook is in the Ellenbrook rail line catchment. In addition, Ballajura residents will, depending on the route, use a train service provided in the north east corridor. Today, many people in Ballajura drive west to catch trains on the northern suburbs rail line. If there were to be a rail line in proximity to Ballajura, I believe the people of Ballajura would make use of it. All up, the figure for the catchment area is 141 000. The government figure of 60 000 is wrong. To say that there will be only 60 000 in the catchment area in 2031 when, as of today, the catchment area of Altone, Ellenbrook, Swan Valley urban growth corridor, Bullsbrook and Ballajura has a population of 81 000 is a crucial matter, because these numbers underpin government planning. There is also the area of Malaga. I have not gone into any detail about Malaga, but it is the tenth highest employment centre in the metropolitan area. Again, that has not been included in these statistics and, of course, a rail line would help service that area. Therefore, as I said, I would like information about those statistics, and where the minister got them from, that underpin the 2031 strategy. In answer to a question, the Department of Planning said that it was updating its forecasts and they would not be available until October, so where did the Department of Transport get its figures from? The last issue I will raise is the transit way that the government is, I think, committing to. Okay, the minister has indicated that the government is committing to it. The government has described the transit way as a transformational project for the north east corridor. Given the broken election commitment for an Ellenbrook rail line, I think the minister owes the people of Ellenbrook some details of the time frame, the cost, the route and where those key stops will be. Although the government is out there trumpeting its transformational project, I think people need some sort of certainty about the government’s plan for the Ellenbrook transit way. As I said, we need information on the route, the stops, the costing, particularly where the major stops will be and the time frame. MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Minister for Transport) [9.20 am]: Firstly, can I apologise on behalf of the Director General of the Department of Transport for not responding to the member’s letter. I shall take that matter up with him. He is a busy man, but, notwithstanding that, I imagined a response would refer the member to my office. Anyway, that is a matter for another day. There are two issues around population in any area where there is potential growth. The first is what that potential growth is and the second is the extent to which that capacity is expected to be activated at certain periods in time. The advice I have is that although there is massive potential in the north east corridor, in the short to medium-term future the activation of that potential will not be high enough to justify the investment in heavy rail. But in due course — Ms R. Saffioti: But can you just —

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8481

Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Can I just say, member, that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that in due course there will be heavy rail servicing Ellenbrook and the areas to the north of Ellenbrook. Ms R. Saffioti: Minister, I went through a bit of detail. I actually want you to explain those catchment numbers because I honestly think you’ve got it wrong. Those houses are being built now, minister. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The advice I have is that the activation of capacity on what was deemed the western route would be 57 per cent by 2031. The activation of capacity on what was going to be the eastern route would be 66 per cent. I am referring to the Parsons Brinckerhoff report that we commissioned when we came to government. The member is right; we made some election commitments in and around servicing Ellenbrook. However, funnily enough, when we came to office and asked for the reports that the former government had used to justify that investment, none existed. We commissioned reports, which were conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff and others. The reports clearly recommended to government that there was not the demand to justify an investment in heavy rail at this time and, in fact, specifically recommended the introduction of a bus rapid transit system. That is what we are doing. The member raised a couple of other points — Ms R. Saffioti: The population numbers are the key and they’re wrong! They’re just wrong. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Do not worry; it is the member’s seven minutes. I can just sit and listen. Ms R. Saffioti: But don’t you even want to go and investigate whether those numbers are wrong? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I have to say that I have confidence in the department providing good advice to us upon which we make decisions. Now, we have — Ms R. Saffioti: But it’s a key issue that underpins your whole transport policy—you don’t really care if they’re wrong? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Let me ask the member a question. I noticed in the local paper this week that the member said, “We’re definitely committing — Mr P. Papalia: So you’re not going to answer! The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I will get to it. The Labor — Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It seriously does not worry me; I can stand here all day. Ms R. Saffioti: Of course it doesn’t, because you don’t care about the people in the suburbs. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I most certainly do care about the people of Ellenbrook. Ms R. Saffioti: No, you don’t! You can’t stand there and just not investigate those numbers if — Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I have visited a number of times with the member for Swan Hills. Let me read this into Hansard. The article in the local paper stated — When the Opposition released its transport plan earlier this year, part of the 50 to 100–year vision included a new rail line to Ellenbrook. “I will ensure that what we promise, we will deliver,” … Is the member for West Swan promising to deliver a railway line in Ellenbrook as part of the opposition’s 50 to 100–year vision? What does the opposition plan to do for the people of Ellenbrook between today and 50 years’ time? I am interested to know! Ms R. Saffioti: You’ve lied to the people of Ellenbrook. You’re lying again about the catchment numbers, so don’t try and take the moral high ground! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I reckon out in Ellenbrook — Withdrawal of Remark J.M. FRANCIS: Mr Speaker, the member for West Swan just accused the Minister for Transport of lying. I suggest that is unparliamentary and I ask you to instruct her to withdraw. Mr P. Papalia: When she did that, you broke your promise! The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I formally call you to order for the first time today. It is the member for West Swan’s grievance; it is not your grievance. You are formally called to order for the first time. Member for West Swan, if you did in fact accuse the minister in this place of being a liar, I ask that you withdraw that comment.

8482 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I withdraw. Debate Resumed The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport. Ms R. Saffioti: You broke a promise, minister, in relation to Ellenbrook, so don’t come in here taking the moral high ground. You tell people what those numbers are and you tell them when you plan to build your transit way. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: All I am going to say is this: the next time I go out there, I will take that comment and show people that the member has committed to build a railway line in between 50 and 100 years’ time. What on earth is the member’s plan between now and then? Ms R. Saffioti: When are you building your transit way? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I will get to that in a second. Ms R. Saffioti: You’ve had three years. How many millions of dollars — Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I will get to that in a second. I reckon that when I go to Ellenbrook, they will be celebrating in the streets that the member for West Swan has given an undertaking that at some time between 50 and 100 years, there will be a railway line to Ellenbrook. Blind Freddy knows that some time in the next 100 years there will be a railway line to Ellenbrook. The best thing is that the member will ensure that we deliver! I can see the member for West Swan’s bones rattling from beyond the grave in 75 years’ time and she will be saying, “Get out there and build that railway line because back on 19 October 2011 I said I’d deliver within 100 years.” That is a fantastic commitment! I think the ultimate test of the member for West Swan’s commitment to the people of Ellenbrook for this railway line will be — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Rockingham! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: — what is in the Labor Party’s election commitments. I bet the member my left leg that when I open up the Labor Party election commitments at the 2013 election, it will say, “Railway line to Ellenbrook, dollars available—zero.” I bet that is what it will say. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Every time that the member for West Swan raises this issue, she just digs a bigger and bigger hole that she is going to have to dig herself out of! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: A grievance is an opportunity for one member in this place, one member and one member alone, and that is the member for West Swan. The minister seemed to indicate to me by what he has said that he is prepared to take interjections from the member for West Swan. I am not prepared to take interjections in this grievance from anybody else in this place. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Moving on to the bus rapid transit way that will service Ellenbrook in the short to medium term — Ms R. Saffioti: When are you going to build it? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Preliminary planning is underway. I imagine that we will be in a position early next year to answer the questions the member has asked for the people of her constituency. Ms R. Saffioti: So you’ve had three and a half years, a broken election promise, a transport plan built on dodgy numbers and you still can’t come in and tell us what you’re doing for Ellenbrook! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The transport plan was released in July, member for West Swan. Does the member know what? The other thing that we are doing for the people of her electorate is fixing some of those very important intersections in and around that area—Gnangara Road–Drumpellier Drive, Reid Highway–Lord Street—and a few other pieces of road that they have been crying out for attention for years. I think the member will find in the not-too-distant future that we will turn our attention to Gnangara Road and West Swan Road. I think that people will also be pleased to know that we have committed $10 million to start planning work for the Perth–Darwin highway from Gnangara Road through to Muchea. Next week I will meet with Anthony Albanese—we will be at the train station—and raise the issue with him because I think it is something that we need to start advancing. Ms R. Saffioti: Gee; have you done the plan for it? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The $10 million, member, pays for the plan. I was out at Ellenbrook and the member had better get over there and start meeting a few people. When I was out there talking to people, they did not seem to

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8483 mind the issue around the train; what they want in Ellenbrook is the Perth–Darwin highway, because a lot of the residential development that the member talked about will not happen unless the Perth–Darwin highway goes in. The first leg will go from Lord Street to Muchea. If the member understood that area, she would know that is a great enabler to open up land to the north of Ellenbrook, particularly industrial land to drive employment generators. Therefore, to help dig the member for West Swan out of this big hole, I look forward to the Labor Party’s commitment when its election commitments are released next year. RAVENSTHORPE — MORGAN STREET HILL Grievance DR G.G. JACOBS (Eyre) [9.28 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Transport. I will give him maybe not as large and contentious a problem, but it is a significant problem to me. There is a town in my electorate called Ravensthorpe, which is 520 kilometres south east of Perth. It is the commercial centre for farming and is now a significant mining centre as well. Morgan Street runs up a hill in the centre of Ravensthorpe. Trucks get stuck on that hill in the middle of the town. In the RAC’s “Risky Roads Survey 2011: Top 10 regional intersections”, Morgan Street and South Coast Highway is fourth on the list, due to “traffic delays caused by the steep gradient of the road”. I suppose it cannot be said any better than in this letter from the Ravensthorpe Progress Association — These road trains and stock trucks, approaching from the East, become immobilised just below the crest of the hill at Ravensthorpe’s town centre. Sometimes the vehicles jack-knife thereby obstructing both lanes of traffic on the highway. These incidents invariably involve Police, Emergency Services and Main Roads staff and then heavy machinery and operators to move the disabled truck. Of considerable concern is the fact that the Ravensthorpe District High School is situated immediately at the foot of this hill and a fuel station, both well within the path of an out of control truck ... The second issue was a health issue. The Ravensthorpe Progress Association writes — Stock road trains, transporting live cattle and sheep, begin to offload their collected effluent as they move up the steep incline. With food stores, restaurants, a hotel and tourist outlets on this main route, this river of liquid manure is an extremely unpleasant experience. To date this year 36 trucks have been stuck on the hill — To make matters worse, the Main Roads Department have recently removed their contractors from Ravensthorpe which means that the ‘local’ response to clear stuck trucks from the highway is now from Katanning. That is not the major point of my grievance. The major point is the need to solve the issue which has been around for some time and which is becoming a bigger problem because of the increasing truck movements. This road has a 10 per cent maximum gradient—one in 10, for 150 metres—which on today’s standards is over the road-building specifications. If a road was built today, the maximum gradient would be one in five. Most roads work towards a one-in-three gradient. A draft report was released on 26 September 2003 titled “South Coast Highway: Ravensthorpe Heavy Haulage Route: Background Planning Report”. The 2003 report did some important work on the road statistics and traffic volumes. This relates to some other roads and the issue I brought up with the minister last week; these things have been identified for many years—probably for around 10 years—but the situation has worsened. The report stated — In 1991 the Department of Land Administration undertook a detailed examination of the … town site. … The “notorious” town hill is located in the centre of town … The road was also a significant issue then. As I said, when this report was done in September 2003, the total traffic movements at the Ravensthorpe town site were more than 1 100, of which 149 were heavy vehicles and 46 were large heavy vehicles. It was predicted that traffic would grow at a rate of three per cent, the estimated traffic would be more than 1 800 vehicles and the number of heavy vehicles and large heavy vehicles would significantly increase; that is what we see today. There is a solution to this problem. The community has had much discussion about the potential for a heavy haulage deviation. I specifically say a deviation, not a bypass. This would deviate the heavy traffic that is increasingly getting stuck on the hill and causing safety and health issues and impacting tourism. A proposed alignment is documented in the 2003 draft report. It was very interesting that in the end, after all, this report essentially said —

8484 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

There are currently no funds provided in Main Roads’ four-year program for this project. Again, I have to suggest to the minister that, similar to the other issue with Hopetoun Ravensthorpe Road, they have not just stepped away from this; they have bolted. The report detailed the estimated costs of the project. There needs to be a study to look at alternative routes either south or north. This report mentioned the northern route, but that is now potentially impacted by the Galaxy Resources mines development north of Ravensthorpe. We seriously need to look at a deviation for this town, which is suffering. Some of the studies done previously show that it would have been about a $2 million project. That obviously needs to be reviewed. I would ask the minister to do that seriously and immediately. MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Minister for Transport) [9.35 am]: I have driven my bus up that hill in Ravensthorpe and it is steep. I have often thought, “If I have to change gears one more time, I may lose my clutch.” It is a steep hill. I would have lost a bit of money if I had lost my clutch, I can tell members right now. With a gradient of one in 10, it is the type of hill that would test the great Australian athlete Cadel Evans. We may suggest that he visits Ravensthorpe as part of his training regime to defend his Tour de France crown next year. The issue the member raised is important. I will not say “bypass” either, but we need look at options to provide alternatives to get around town and to deviate traffic. I should point out that just because it is called a “heavy vehicle deviation” does not mean heavy vehicles will be the only users of it. That has been discovered with the heavy vehicle deviation in Mt Barker. There are issues in a range of other towns in regional Western Australia, such as in Northampton, but in relation to Ravensthorpe I can advise the following. The member is right that a study was done in 2003. Parts of that study have been effectively ruled redundant because of changes including, as the member pointed out, to mining tenements. Main Roads has reviewed the previous planning work and made the assessments that sit around that. My understanding is that on 27 September the information from that review was presented to the Shire of Ravensthorpe at its meeting. Main Roads has also committed $300 000, effective immediately, to go into the very planning work that the member requested. That planning work will be undertaken and will involve community consultation, preliminary environmental and heritage investigations and the development of a planning design concept for the preferred heavy vehicle route. I would like to think that in a short time we have aggregated the work that has been done and we are not reinventing the wheel. That has been presented to the shire. An amount of $300 000 is now in the Main Roads budget to do the planning work. Dr G.G. Jacobs: When can that start, minister? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: It is starting now. That money was formally made available through internal processes this month. They may have suspected that the member would raise the issue today. Dr G.G. Jacobs: I flagged this grievance some weeks ago. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: That is a positive outcome. Of course, as the member pointed out, the next challenge will be funding. I am not an expert on road funding, but I suspect that if the estimated cost was $2 million in 2003, it would be considerably more than that now. I want to talk about the capital funding for a moment. I think when we discussed the Hopetoun road I mentioned that we need to pull together a mechanism to provide a funding uplift or a step-up in funding for regional roads. We are doing work on that now internally. In my view, the roads for which that step-up pool of funding will be available will be in the following three categories. Firstly, it will be available for a series of roads that the Western Australian Local Government Association has identified through consultation with its members. That is a big job it has completed. Secondly, it will go to state roads. Thirdly, funding will go to the significant and important regional bypass or deviations around regional WA. Clearly, Ravensthorpe will be on that plan as will Northampton. Five or six towns spring to mind. I will leave Geraldton out of that plan; we will have to deal with it separately. I thought I would just throw that in, Mr Speaker, in case you were getting overly excited! I am glad you were not captured on video performing those machinations, Mr Speaker! That work is happening; I cannot give the member a definitive answer on capital funding today. What I can indicate to him is that we understand the need for a step-up in funding for regional roads, we are working on a mechanism to deliver that funding and we are working on a process to identify the roads. We will not end up in a mad rush to fix every road, because we will just not be able to do that. We want to fix the roads that are important to local communities and have state significance, and these deviations, because they have been left behind all too often. That work is happening; I am hopeful that as part of next year’s budget process we can make some announcements about that. What is important ahead of that, though, is that this sort of planning work is done so that the projects are pretty much up already when we identify those funds. We will keep working on that. I again say that I think it is good news that Main Roads has proactively and effectively engaged with the shire—notwithstanding that the member for Eyre may have telegraphed his punch a little early! Dr G.G. Jacobs: I don’t mind; we need the results. That’s the important thing. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: As I understand it, the outcomes of that initial review were presented to the council on 27 September, the $300 000 is in there, and that planning will now happen. The preliminary advice I have is that

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8485 it will probably have to look to the north of the town now because of the issues to the south, as pointed out by the member for Eyre. Indeed, the managing director has also met with the chief executive officer and the shire president of Ravensthorpe; I suspect that was when he broke the news to them about the change in funding arrangements for the Hopetoun road, but at least there was some proactive engagement out of that in relation to the deviation. Hopefully that 10 per cent road will stay, but it will not be for heavy vehicles. I actually think that, in terms of driving through, it is a feature of the town, in many ways, for a visitor. We would still want people travelling through the town to be able to enjoy Ravensthorpe and stop for a break or even to stay. I thank the member for Eyre for raising this issue, and I look forward to watching the planning work unfold. WHITFORDS VOLUNTEER SEA RESCUE GROUP — TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INCOME Grievance MR A.P. O’GORMAN (Joondalup) [9.42 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Lands and is about the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group. The sea rescue group provides members of the boating public with a comprehensive 24/7 marine rescue and assistance service. The group has been in operation for more than 40 years and has always provided an appropriate response when called upon by the public. The group maintains two dedicated rescue boats and currently operates with 103 volunteers and no paid staff. In the 12 months to 30 Sept 2011—which is the operational year—the sea rescue group performed 231 rescues and brought 518 people to land. Volunteers have put in hundreds of man hours during this time. Over the past 10 years, the sea rescue group has been receiving compensation for having telecommunication towers positioned on top of its building. This arrangement has been in place for more than 10 years and the City of Joondalup and the state have known about it since the beginning. The City of Joondalup has now told the volunteer sea rescue group that it is no longer able to collect money from the telcos for locating their towers on top of the sea rescue building; the city has now realised just how much money the sea rescue group is receiving and wants to take it off it. The money raised comprises more than half of the operating budget for the sea rescue group and should not be touched by the council. The Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group had a lease on the premises that it now occupies that expired in 2004–05. As part of the radio room structure, a high pole on top of the building was required for the marine radio antennas. When mobile towers were needed in the area for phone coverage, the telecommunication companies contacted the sea rescue group and asked whether it could attach its technology along with the marine radio antennas. Mr A.P. Jacob interjected. Point of Order Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: This is an issue that I have been asked to take up; the member for Ocean Reef took it up and could not solve it. I am raising this with the Minister for Lands and I should be heard in silence, as per the standing orders. I request that that happen. The SPEAKER: It will happen, member for Joondalup. Debate Resumed Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: Thank you. Under the federal Telecommunications Act, the telco company has to offer to pay a compensation amount, also known as an administration fee, for the use of the infrastructure. The sea rescue group sought legal advice and had a document prepared—a deed of compensation. It was agreed that compensation of $15 000 a year for next 15 to 20 years would be paid. The next telco company came along and said that although it was unable to sublease room on the pole due to the current lease agreements the sea rescue group has with the landowners—the City of Joondalup—it was deemed appropriate to compensate the landowner or the land user. The telco chose to compensate the land user—the sea rescue group—as it was a charitable organisation. Telco companies continued to approach the group and the arrangement of compensation continued. There are now three companies in operation, each paying $15 000 a year to the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group. A fourth company, Vivid Wireless, has had its technology installed and has been in operation for the past year, but the City of Joondalup has not granted permission for Vivid Wireless to pay compensation. Vivid Wireless is operating free of charge, and the sea rescue group is losing $15 000 a year. The funds received from the telcos equates to more than half the entire Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group’s budget. In 2005, the compensation moneys helped fund the main rescue boat, and it is the main source of funding. Mr A.P. Jacob interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Ocean Reef, I gave the member for Joondalup a guarantee that he would be heard in silence; I formally call you to order for the first time today and suggest to you that if you wish to respond to this grievance, you organise with the government to be able to do so.

8486 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mr A.P. O’GORMAN: The telcos have had their technology on the roof since 2001. At this time, the state government rezoned the land from “recreational and other purposes” to cater for the arrangement of compensation paid by the telcos to the sea rescue group. The state government and the City of Joondalup were aware of these arrangements 10 years ago. The mayor, the CEO and councillors have been to the sea rescue site on many occasions and have discussed the issue openly with volunteers; it has never been a secret. The fact is that the City of Joondalup has now realised just how much money the sea rescue group is receiving from the telcos and would like to pocket it for itself. Two years ago, in 2009, the City of Joondalup had lawyers meet with the sea rescue group. The group was advised that it was no longer able to keep the compensation from the telcos, but contractual agreements were in place and the sea rescue group did not believe that the city was able to take the compensation from it. Discussions to and fro continued for more than a year. The City of Joondalup CEO sent letters to the group highlighting that it was in breach of its lease, which had expired in 2004–05. The group now believes it is being threatened by the council to stop complaining and just pay up the money. The group is now seeking legal advice and it will cost about $10 000 in barristers’ fees to determine whether the actions of the city are legal. The sea rescue group will stand to lose $1.6 million dollars, which is the balance of contracts still to go, plus face legal fees should it not win the case. Since 2004–05, the Whitfords Sea Rescue Group has not had a proper lease agreement. It would like to receive security of tenure by way of lease; a lease of even one year would be a start. It would like security and the community requires a sense of security in the service that is provided as well. If the City of Joondalup continues with its push to receive funds from the telcos, the money to fund the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group will still need to be found. The Minister for Emergency Services says that he does not have a blank cheque to write to give to the sea rescue group and the Minister for Lands said that the city should get the money for the benefit of all the ratepayers. In my opinion, the City of Joondalup should leave the main source of funding for the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group alone. Ultimately it will be the ratepayer who is left paying the bill— another fee and charge that will be forced upon the recreational boating community, and another fee and charge on top of the already crippling rises in the costs of living forced upon the community by the Barnett–Grylls government. Enough is enough. The Minister for Lands knows about this; he wrote in response to the sea rescue group in May 2011, and I ask that he reverse that decision and recognise the arrangements that have been in place since 2001, which the city is well aware of. I have gone back and checked with the previous mayor, and he was well aware of it, so the current mayor is also well aware of it, as is the current council. Once again, it is just ripping off a not-for-profit organisation to pocket the money for the council’s coffers. It has done it with the Motor Industry Training Association of WA and it is now doing it with the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group. As I said, this group has been in operation for more than 40 years and has carried out hundreds of rescues over that time. It is an important group in our community and if we remove this major source of funding from it, it may not be able to continue into the future. This is $60 000 a year; a major source of funding. The group has to keep it; the city has no right to it. The member for Ocean Reef has been asked to deal with this; he tried, he failed. I am now having a go. MR B.J. GRYLLS (Central Wheatbelt — Minister for Lands) [9.49 am]: I thank the member for Joondalup for the opportunity to detail the government’s involvement with the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, and how the Liberal–National government works hard to support volunteer groups such as this that do so much good work. It needs to be put on the record that the first thing the Liberal–National government did when it came to office was double the funding available to the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group from $200 000 to $400 000 at the insistence of the member for Ocean Reef. I think he got that funding indexed as well. It was a nice start for a new member of Parliament to double the funding for the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group. That is a good start. However, the member for Joondalup is right: there has been some concern over the leasing of the group’s communications towers to other telecommunications companies to put their equipment on it. I will go through some of the details. Reserve 47831 is set aside for the purposes of recreation and telecommunications and purposes incidental thereto and is managed by the City of Joondalup with the power to lease for terms not exceeding 21 years. The Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group has a lease with the city on the reserve, which is for sea rescue, at a peppercorn rental. The lease commenced in 1983 for a term of 21 years and is currently a held-over lease, which is tenancy at will. Some years ago the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group entered into arrangements with a number of telecommunications carriers for co-location on the group’s existing marine telecommunications towers. These arrangements included an annual payment to the group. The lease between the city and the group is not a commercial lease and the group does not provide for commercial subleasing arrangements. Essentially, it was done on the basis of goodwill rather than on any basis in law. Any telecommunications lease should be between the telecommunications carrier and the City of Joondalup, as the management body or the body with tenure over the land. It is up to the city to deal with the issue of the rental with the telecommunications carriers and to make decisions on how this rental is applied.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8487

I thank the member for Joondalup and the member for Ocean Reef for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, an organisation that clearly enjoys a lot of support in the northern suburbs. As a result of correspondence and discussion with the member for Ocean Reef more than a year ago, I wrote to the City of Joondalup confirming that the volunteer sea rescue group was not allowed to enter into a subleasing commercial arrangement and advising that the city and the group needed to work together to come to a negotiated arrangement. Let me go back. The Liberal–National government doubled the funding to the volunteer sea rescue group and indexed the doubling of that funding to give it $400 000 rather than $200 000 a year. Now this issue with the telecommunications towers has arisen. I am aware that in July, the CEO of the City of Joondalup confirmed that, firstly, it had received advice from the commander of the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Geoff Sparrow, that the organisation would no longer seek to continue arrangements with the telcos; and, secondly, the City of Joondalup had budgeted to contribute, via a sponsorship arrangement, the sum of $40 000 for the 2011– 12 financial year. Essentially, the city is receiving the money from the telecommunications carriers, as is required under the law, and the city is granting $40 000 back to the volunteer sea rescue group. In the member for Joondalup’s presentation, he said that if the group did not get the money, it would take away its major source of funding. Its major source of funding is $400 000 from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia. On top of that, the group is now receiving $40 000 a year from the City of Joondalup on the back of the fact that the city is receiving revenue for the towers. The city went on to say that it was undertaking a major review of all leases but had agreed to give the volunteer sea rescue group a letter of comfort that it had no intention to withdraw from the continued use of the existing site. So the city is giving comfort to the volunteer sea rescue group that it can stay where it is, even though the lease has technically expired. It is important that the group have some security over the site. Given the strong advocacy from the member for Ocean Reef and now the member for Joondalup, that would seem assured. The Ocean Reef marina site is the subject of a redevelopment project, and the state government and the City of Joondalup are currently compiling a structure plan. The volunteer sea rescue group has been an integral part of the community reference group on this project and is well acquainted with the current marina concept plan. The subject plan provides for a site to be set aside for the long-term use of the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group. Well done, member for Ocean Reef, and I thank the member for Joondalup for his advocacy. As a member of this government, it is good to stand and detail how we are sorting out the issues of a volunteer marine rescue group such as this one in Whitfords. I know that originally the volunteer sea rescue group was disappointed when it became aware that it might not be able to receive directly the money from the telecommunications companies for the towers. Given we are planning to give the group a stable home in the marina development in the future, I think we have managed to negotiate an outcome with the City of Joondalup so that the revenue that comes to the city from the phone towers will go to the volunteer sea rescue group. The group’s funding has been doubled and indexed as a result of the very good lobbying of the member for Ocean Reef and the work of the Minister for Emergency Services. This is a good story. Clearly, in an environment in Western Australia in which people love the waterfront, the beach and the ocean, and in which there are many, many boat owners in the northern corridor, the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group provides those people with comfort every time they head out onto the ocean that someone will be there should they get into trouble. I thank the volunteers for that. I am glad that our government is doing all it can by giving this group more money than it has ever had before to perform its task. The group needs to relax now that two members of Parliament are very passionate about what needs to happen and will support it in the future. Again, I thank the member for Joondalup for allowing me to explain to the Parliament what has happened with this group. I take this opportunity to thank the member for Ocean Reef for his very strong advocacy over probably 12 to 18 months that has led to a pretty good outcome for the Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group. BACK ON TRACK — WA STATE TRAIL BIKE STRATEGY Grievance MR F.A. ALBAN (Swan Hills) [9.56 am]: My grievance is to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I thank the minister for taking my grievance. I commence this grievance in the knowledge that this is one of the most difficult issues that I have had to deal with in the electorate of Swan Hills. I acknowledge that this is also the case in other electorates. It is also disheartening to report that despite all my efforts, I have had little personal success in dealing with this matter. I must say that even though this is a legitimate sport, and there are a great number of participants possibly doing the right thing, there appears to be an element of hooning within this sport. Some riders have no respect for their fellow neighbours and the communities in which they live. I have run out of sympathy for their behaviour and conduct, and I hope that part of the solution will include some comprehensive penalties. I have watched patiently and followed with interest the progress of “Back on Track: WA State Trail Bike Strategy”, through the committee chaired by the member for Darling Range, Tony

8488 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Simpson, MLA. The reason for that is that this issue is not isolated to any one portion of my electorate; it is right across the hills communities of my electorate from Mundaring to Gidgegannup and Bullsbrook. It also impacts on the residential portion of my electorate, including The Vines, Aveley and Ellenbrook, as the riders take a short cut across the back of the residential area when accessing the Gnangara pine forest. I also acknowledge the complexity of this issue in dealing with several different entities that will need to be involved in and responsible for the success of this project, including the Department of Transport, the appropriate local governments, Western Australia Police, the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Water Corporation, Motorcycling Western Australia and the Department of Sport and Recreation. To give the minister an idea of the concerns in my electorate, the following is an extract from an email from one of my community leaders. It is fairly typical of what I get on a regular basis. This particular email was from Sally Block, the president of the Gidgegannup Progress Association. According to my notes, it reads — The trail bikes were active again today, Sunday … in the Main Roads property on Lilydale Road … this was no deterrent, nor was the rain and the trail bikes carried on until 3pm and then it quietened down. It seems neither the police or shire have clear authority to make the trail bikers stop. As the minister is well aware, the issues that must be dealt with include the different requirements and concerns of the community, landowners, environmental groups, regulators, other trail users and trail bike riders. The solutions must be suitably governed and appropriately resourced and funded to provide improved trail and venue facilities. Trail bike riding must be better managed with increased regulation, registration, licensing and enforcement. The issues that must be addressed concerning the land to be managed include the provision of facilities, insurance, liability and risk management. Designated trails and venues must be planned, developed and maintained to not only attract trail bike riders, but also ensure minimal environmental and community impact. Education and improved information will be needed also to foster socially and environmentally accepted riding behaviours. This has been a longstanding issue in my electorate and there is a dividing line between two vested interest groups and lifestyles that each have an equal right to choose to live that lifestyle. Can the minister outline what plans and actions are envisaged for the future, based on the recommendations of the State Trail Bike Strategy, that can be implemented not only in my electorate, but also throughout the state? MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin — Minister for Sport and Recreation) [10.00 am]: I thank the member for Swan Hills for raising this grievance. He and other members have advocated to me on behalf of their electorates on this matter for some time. The member outlined how this issue affects not only his electorate, but also many other areas of the state, including my own electorate. It was an excellent grievance that addressed some of the important issues that the government is working hard to get right. In that regard, I have some very good news to announce today. Before I detail that action, it is worth revisiting the background. Western Australia has seen an estimated 66 per cent increase in the sale of trail and quad bikes in recent years, with an estimated 50 000 currently being ridden in Western Australia. There is no doubt that the lack of regulated places to ride trail bikes has created a number of issues in the community, particularly the lack of legal places in which to ride, which I will talk about in a moment. Other issues include enforcement; a lack of education, which is very important; an increase in antisocial behaviour and conflict with other trail users; the risk of injury to participants, including children and the public; accidents resulting in injury and, unfortunately, deaths; environmental impacts; the liability of land managers; and general noise and nuisance. As the member for Swan Hills said, these issues have been around for many years. Due to a lack of a coordinated approach between state government agencies, local governments and the general community, we have not been able to address these issues previously. I hope that what I announce today is a real start in addressing those issues. This is not an easy matter but it is one that the government is determined to get right. As the Minister for Sport and Recreation, I have taken a lead on this and am determined to get it right. The good debate we had on this matter in Parliament a while ago helped me to work out the best way to go now and in the future. Addressing the problems associated with off-road vehicles is the responsibility of the government collectively; it is not just up to one or two agencies or the responsibility of one or two portfolios to manage. I am really concerned for the safety of the trail bike community, which is why I visited sites in Gnangara and Pinjar in person to see for myself what was happening on the ground. On that site visit I was accompanied by representatives from the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Recreational Trail Bike Riders’ Association of Western Australia and local members of Parliament, the members for Darling Range and Wanneroo, whom I thank for coming and for their interest. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge Steve Pretzel from the Recreational Trail Bike Riders’ Association WA, who acted as my guide on that tour. I wanted to make sure that we delivered something they really wanted and that would deal with the immediate problems now. Steve is a terrific advocate for the off-road industry. He understands it and I respect his advice. It was great to have him there. As a result of that visit, and in response to the immediate need for action, I have approved funding of $20 000 to construct an interim riding trail within the Gnangara off-

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8489 road area. It is important for the riders there to have a trail on which they can ride in relative safety. That funding is partnered with in-kind support from DEC. I thank the department and the Minister for Environment for their great support for this measure, which I am confident will go a long way towards reducing the incidence of illegal riding in that area. Furthermore—this is very important, given the nature of some recent incidents—I have approved funding of $60 000 for Motorcycling Western Australia to coordinate the implementation of three important projects, the first of which is an education and community program. This program will increase rider understanding of riding location options and codes of conduct for off-road riding and rider safety; that is, what people can ride and where they can ride. Many of the problems we are seeing are caused by people’s lack of knowledge, so this is really important and I am pleased that it is happening. The second project is to develop a volunteer management system that will support the creation of local “friends of” groups in areas in which off-road vehicles are ridden. There is a “friends of” group in Pinjar and we want to base more of these groups on that model so that local people are involved in imparting their knowledge to the riders to improve the safety of riders. We can make the trails safer, but we need the riders to understand that. I always believe that the local people who want to help should be involved, and we must ensure that they are armed with the knowledge and the means to do that. The third project is a community awareness campaign, which is also really important. The purpose of that campaign is to consult with local government and retailers and manufacturers of trail bikes to involve them in the issues and to find potential solutions to the problems that affect their areas. What happens in my electorate in the bush around Wandering and Crossman might be very different from what is happening at Pinjar or Gnangara. This campaign will assist local governments to understand and work through the local issues. As I have said, $60 000 has been allocated to these programs, along with $20 000 for the trail in the Gnangara–Moore River state forest. These measures are intended to begin the transition process of recreational trail bike riders to a more planned, managed, sustainable and safer environment in which to conduct that activity. This is a start. We want to do more, but there seemed to be an immediate need to address some of the issues. I am addressing the immediate need to the best of my ability and then we will continue to implement further reforms. I acknowledge the members for Darling Range, Swan Hills and Wanneroo for their support. Many other members of Parliament have been involved in this also. I acknowledge the member for Maylands, who has been fantastic and whose input I appreciate, and the members for Pilbara, Southern River, Murray–Wellington and Kalamunda. This funding is in addition to funding previously provided by DEC for the minimal impact riding program pilot. I visited Pinjar to see what was happening there and was really impressed with that great model. Different trails have been provided for different levels of riding ability. We need to do more of that type of thing, and hopefully the Gnangara project will be the start of that. In the brief time I have left, I assure members that we all share a will to deal with this issue and that I want to make sure we deal with this matter properly. I am meeting with my ministerial advisers again to progress our plans for the broader implementation of the State Trail Bike Strategy and I am committed to ensuring the success of that strategy. This is a great start and I am pleased to make this announcement about those measures, which will have a real and immediate effect. ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY STANDING COMMITTEE Tenth Report — “Response to House — Matter of Park Home Residents” — Tabling DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton) [10.10 am]: I present for tabling the tenth report of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee titled “Response to House — Matter of Park Home Residents”. [See paper 4140.] Dr M.D. NAHAN: In April this year, the Legislative Assembly requested that the Economics and Industry Standing Committee consider the appropriateness of undertaking an investigation into all park homes that have been closed or have collectively evicted long-stay tenants since 2006, to ensure compliance with all aspects of the appropriate legislation. To some extent, this was a follow-up of the committee’s investigation into caravan parks that was completed in 2009. The committee went about its work in two ways. Firstly, it requested six departments to provide an update on the performance against the recommendations of the earlier report and, secondly, it sought to address and ascertain the questions that the Legislative Assembly asked the committee to find out, particularly those relating to the closure of the parks. The one thing that we did not get was a definitive answer, although I believe we got close to it. The data is improving but we did not get a definitive response, in large part, due to the lack of comprehensive data collection and proactive monitoring. The Department of Commerce, which is responsible for administering the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act 2006, reported that since 2006 five parks have closed, affecting 323 long-stay sites. That is a bit under what I thought was going to be the case but there are a couple of caveats to it. First, the Department of Commerce only responds to complaints. Therefore, some parks might have closed or shut down long-stay sites whose residents

8490 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] or otherwise did not complain. Second, the department only started the compliance assessment in August 2007 when the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act came into effect. We asked the Department of Local Government to undertake a review of all caravan parks. The Department of Local Government identified six additional parks in addition to the list that the Department of Commerce provided that had closed since 2006. There is no clear reason for the discrepancy. Some of those parks identified by the Department of Local Government may not have long-stay sites or may not have a serious issue but some of the evidence showed that they did. There are discrepancies between the two sources of data. That problem spreads across the industry. We also wanted to ascertain what parks, particularly those with long-stay sites, were under threat of closure. The Department of Commerce identified six sites—six parks, comprising 584 long-stay sites—that it considered were under threat of closure. The Department of Commerce undertakes proactive monitoring and audits of parks now. It ascertains if a park is under risk by reading the media, listening to scuttlebutt and forming links of communication with people in the parks. This is not a foolproof method. The Department of Local Government identified five additional sites—that is, sites in addition to the ones identified by the Department of Commerce— that were under threat of closure. The names of the local government sites were provided but the names of the parks identified by the Department of Local Government were not provided. It is not clear whether they included long-stay sites. Nonetheless, there appears to be up to 11 caravan parks under threat of closure, a large number of which relate to long-stay sites. The issue that gave rise to this committee report is serious, ongoing and, given the evidence in this report, will probably be with us for a while. One of the first and most important recommendations is that the Department of Commerce and the Department of Local Government need to get together and liaise as a matter of urgency to ascertain the full list of caravan parks in the first instance and those that are under threat of closure. If government or local government are to help parks, particularly those with long-stay sites that will be closed, we have to know in advance so we can put the processes in place. There are many positive aspects to the report compared with, say, negative ones. One of them is that the Department of Commerce has stepped up to the plate. It has taken this issue on seriously. During the 2009 report it clearly considered it a serious issue. As debate in this house on the related issue of retirement villages shows, this is a very serious issue. It affects people, particularly those in the lower income span with not too many assets behind them, who lose access to their home for whatever reason in a crowded market—that is, one in which there are not too many alternatives. The Department of Commerce has undertaken a series of proactive compliance visits. In 2010 and 2011 it has visited 90 different caravan parks and ascertained that it is complying through a checklist according to the act. It is quite comprehensive. If it finds an anomaly or lack of compliance on a specific issue, it institutes monthly audits and revisits. It has committed to expanding the number of parks that it will audit in the future and also having random audits over time. It has set up a good process. Over this two-year period the department found 51 separate issues of noncompliance by parks. Most of those related to the failure of the parks to pass on information or the failure of long-stay recipients to receive that information. If there is no pressure, people living in long-stay parks appear to be lackadaisical in certain instances to ascertain their rights and obligations of both parties. In 11 instances, formal contracts with the long-stay sites were not signed or completed. Again, in about half the instances it was because the people living in the long-stay sites were not interested in doing so. Overall, DEC found pretty effective compliance with the act and is satisfied that there is not widespread breaching of the act or that where there is noncompliance, compliance is improving, not in a major manner. When noncompliance was brought to the party’s attention, it was quickly and effectively remedied. During the debate that led to this committee report, there was a lot of widespread concern by members in this house that the act in question was not being effective. We did not investigate that. We asked whether, on the evidence provided, we should undertake a review of the act. The Department of Commerce, off its own bat, has decided to move forward the review of the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act. It was scheduled to be undertaken after five years; that is, in 2012. It is being undertaken now. The Department of Commerce is undertaking a review of the act. When that is completed, perhaps the house can consider what other actions it or this committee should undertake. In short, the committee decided not to pursue a further review of the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act at this time or until the house requests it, and we suggest that at the earliest that would be after the Department of Commerce completes its review. We used this request from the house to review more widely our 2009 report. We called in six government departments that had relevance to the act and that had recommendations for action in an earlier report, and gave them a check-up. This committee has not done that before but given the nature of the importance of this issue and the recurring concerns expressed in this house about some aspects of it, we thought it was a worthwhile exercise. On a positive note, some of the departments have taken it on with vigour, more than we expected. Some have taken it on with more vigour than they initially did when they responded. Some departments are

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8491 dragging the chain. Indeed, when the 2009 report was first released, most of the responses were noted. The responses from most of the departments were lukewarm to tepid. In fact, the majority of the departments have taken it on with some vigour. The Department of Commerce has performed admirably. One of the key issues with the caravan parks, long-stay sites and the retirement villages is that the problem really springs from when residents invest into or move into the parks. The committee held the view more widely that many people bought into a caravan park without recognition of what they owned, what they were buying and what the tenure of the arrangements were, even though they could find it if they searched. There were a range of reasons for this. Some of them were sold by real estate agents. Some people were not aware of these things. Some people made assumptions that were incorrect. What we needed was a good document that was vigorously presented and clear, and that stated in no uncertain terms—particularly for long-stay sites—the responsibilities and rights of both parties. The Department of Commerce has done that. It has prepared and distributed that document, and it is enforcing its distribution to new and old tenants so that they are clear about these issues, particularly that when a person goes onto a long-stay site, they do not own the land and there are limits to the tenure, unless otherwise specified. This document is quite good. In the debate yesterday there was reference to the Department of Commerce’s Seniors’ Housing Centre, which I went along to the opening of. It is a very effective tool, and we urge all members of Parliament to obtain a briefing on that. The only thing I might add is that access through the website is a bit, let us say, difficult, particularly, I think, for seniors, because the Department of Commerce’s website has so much material on it that one might get lost trying to get to the Seniors’ Housing Centre area. It could be made more efficient. I think the Department of Commerce is doing a fine job. The major focus of the committee’s earlier report was tourism. There are issues with long-stay sites, but caravan parks are still fundamentally about tourism. They provide an essential piece of infrastructure, particularly for low-income people and grey nomad tourists. It is a very important issue. We urge the Western Australian Tourism Commission to take leadership on that. The evidence it gave during the inquiry, and its response to the report, was, again, tepid; it did not take the bait. Well, it has changed. Without question, the Western Australian Tourism Commission is making caravanning a priority and undertaking a systematic policy of finding out what exists and developing a policy, and it is linking with other departments and agencies on it—that is a big tick for it. It is undertaking an audit of all caravan parks, which should be finished by the end of this year, and it is active on a whole range of fronts, including planning and other areas, to make sure that if caravan parks are closed, replacements are found. One of the problems with the Western Australian Tourism Commission is, again, the information issue. There are four different departments using different focuses to collect information on existing parks and what they do. The Department of Local Government has completed a review; it is not comprehensive—certain local governments failed to respond—it has not been updated, and it is not linked with the reviews undertaken by Tourism, the Department of Commerce, or, for that matter, the Department of Housing. The Department of Local Government appears to be reluctant to take on the leadership role in this information collection and dissemination task; we would argue strongly that it is its role because it has the legislative power to ask local governments to provide the information that, under law, it must have. We urge the Department of Local Government to take a leadership role—not a dominant one—and to go to local governments and collect the data and disseminate it. In that sense, the Department of Local Government is dragging the chain on this issue. The Department of Planning is another agency that the committee made reference to in its report. It has a very important role, because when it goes out there and does structure plans on a regional basis, its task is to identify the priorities of land use and try to identify land for various purposes. Let us face it, if it does not do it, there will not be new caravan parks to replace old ones. It also has a responsibility for developing local tourism plans, which we thought was a very effective mechanism for local governments to identify which parks to protect, which parks to allow to have long-stay sites, and which parks to be relaxed about. The Department of Planning showed, if anything, a diminished priority in finding and procuring land for the long term for caravanning. To be honest, caravan parks are not a priority for local planning departments. Also, there has been no progress on the Department of Planning’s tourism plan. I would urge the minister to tell his department to get its act into gear on this issue; it is, again, dragging the chain. One of the departments I thought was going to do, in my assessment, very little after the tabling of the first report was the Department of Environment and Conservation—well, I was wrong. The Department of Environment and Conservation has a large amount of land that is perfectly suitable for caravan parks. It has expressed some reluctance and difficulties in getting additional land for multiple uses, which it does have, but it has taken this on, on various fronts, to try to provide greater access for a variety of caravan and camping facilities on its sites, and it is working with third parties to facilitate that. It is doing an excellent job. The Department of Housing is not the main player in this; its role is mainly in the area of trying to provide low- cost housing and adversity resources. The current minister, who was the Treasurer when we released the earlier report, is showing a great deal of open-mindedness on this issue. The Department of Housing is considering,

8492 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] rightly, caravan parks and long-term sites, and what are called lifestyle villages, as an alternative mechanism, and the department is looking at options. It is also examining the possibility of the state purchasing caravan park sites, particularly long-stay sites, but the problem is that it entails huge amounts of money, because possible alternative uses for caravan parks are highly lucrative. In the two minutes I have remaining, I would like to make a comment about so-called lifestyle villages. Western Australia has a very rigid planning system that is focused on building comprehensive cities or conurbations, and it actually discourages diversity. One thing that has sprung up is lifestyle villages, which are basically for over- 45s or over-55s. They keep things low cost, they are manufactured homes, and they are focused on developing a community of people with a common interest. One of the central aspects of the business plan for these villages is to keep it low cost, and they have found that the way to do that is to buy caravan parks. That is one of the reasons caravan parks are being taken over. But these lifestyle village–type organisations provide, in my view, an essential element of the housing mix, particularly for low-income people and retirees. I think there is a disdain in the agencies for these villages, but we must, I think, embrace them as an element to providing low-cost housing, particularly for retirees, and we can do that without diminishing the services provided to the residents. One of the key elements is to allow, through the Department of Planning, the rezoning of rural land for lifestyle villages. Our earlier report recommended that one way to do that was to have the regulation of lifestyle villages under the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act 2006. MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [10.27 am]: I rise to make a few remarks about the tenth report of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, which looked at matters related to park home residents and other issues to do with caravanning in this state. I never really thought I would know terribly much about caravanning; my brother and sister are keen on these things, but I have never really had the desire to do it. I have now lived with caravans for a long time because of this committee, and I have great empathy for people who live in the park homes and those who use the vans for holidays. I thank the staff of the committee—namely, Mr Tim Hughes, and Ms Kristy Bryden—for their work. I would like to thank the other member of the committee—namely, the chairman, the member for Riverton; the member for Collie–Preston; the member for Geraldton; the member for Kingsley; and our co-opted member, the member for Mandurah. The member for Mandurah will most likely make some remarks in a little while, but clearly the issues of caravan parks and people who live in park homes is very important to him, and I look forward to listening to his comments. I also thank the departmental witnesses who came to the committee and gave evidence. I want to endorse the member for Riverton’s comments that we found the responses from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Environment and Conservation and Tourism Western Australia to be very good. On the other hand, as the chairman said, the responses from the Department of Local Government and the Department of Planning were a bit underwhelming, and I will make some comments about them in a minute. Committee inquiries give members an opportunity to look into an issue away from the cut and thrust of party politics. Unfortunately, of course, not everybody involved in having this issue referred to us raised themselves above the parapet to understand what the committee process was about. I am of course referring to the Minister for Transport and member for Vasse. On 19 April 2011 a headline in The West Australian stated “Labor snares own MP in caravan park probe”. The article, written by Ben Harvey and Natasha Boddy, went on — One of WA Labor’s rising stars, Willagee MLA Peter Tinley, could have to appear before a parliamentary committee to explain why he forced 20 residents out of a caravan park he owns. The article goes on to refer to something that happened in November 2009 when the Minister for Transport was in fact the Minister for Commerce, who has carriage of the laws in this state governing park home residents. The minister is quoted in the article as saying outside Parliament — “There is also the case that has previously been reported in relation to the nature in which the member for Willagee, Peter Tinley, evicted tenants from his caravan park in Port Hedland. “My preference would be for a (parliamentary) committee to investigate those and other matters so they can be brought to light to ensure that people have acted lawfully and secondly to help provide advice as to the effectiveness of the Act in protecting tenants in those situations.” That was the nature of the commentary of the Minister for Transport when he amended this resolution. Members can go back and look at the Hansard of the day and see what happened. The minister was trying to spin the story that somehow the committee’s inquiry was an investigation into the member for Willagee, who is a former senior officer of the Special Air Service and a recipient of the Order of Australia. It is very interesting to see the Minister for Transport, who was the relevant minister at the time in November 2009, referred to in this article. If there was something wrong with the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act, as our report shows there was, it should have been dealt with by the Department of Commerce, which is responsible for administering the act, and by the Minister for Transport, who was the minister in charge of these issues. One of the committee’s findings is finding 2, which states —

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8493

The level of compliance surrounding park closures and general operations appears sufficient to negate the need for a broader investigation by the Committee at this time. If the issue of compliance becomes more problematic, any such investigation should first be directed to the Commissioner for Consumer Protection, given the functions of that office under Section 85(a)–(b) of the Residential Parks (Long-stay Tenants) Act 2006. In other words, our finding states that the government already has sufficient power to deal with any issue. Therefore, rather than spin some story to a journalist, the member for Vasse should have taken up his own responsibilities and done his work. He was the relevant minister at the time the issues he referred to in that newspaper article occurred. If there had been a demonstrated failing—our report shows there was no failing—it would have been a failing of his own. Rather than come into this Parliament and drag decent and hardworking members of Parliament into the gutter in which he lives, he should instead do his own job. Fortunately, the member for Vasse is no longer the Minister for Commerce. The state of Western Australia, I believe, is very lucky that he has been relieved of that responsibility and is no longer the Minister for Commerce. However, I know that he likes to spin a story. I know that, instead of debating issues, he likes to attack people. He likes to attack people on a personal level, not about the performance of their job, but by saying, “This person’s fat. That person’s bald.” They are the sorts of things he talks about, not, “Are you competent at your job?” Therefore, the next time he gets up and spins a story to a journalist, all I ask — Mr J.M. Francis: You would never have done that when you were secretary of the Labor Party—the “Truth about Troy” website! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is right; no, I never did. Mr J.M. Francis: You would never have authorised any of that material! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: No. I make a point — Mr J.M. Francis interjected. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M.P. WHITELY: I distinctly heard the member for Jandakot — Mr J.M. FRANCIS: I withdraw the statement. I can still think it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Jandakot! Debate Resumed Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The point I make about this is that even that website did not discuss the personal attributes of the member for Vasse. The website did not say that he is a fat, lazy person. That website had quotes from other members of the Liberal Party about his behaviour. It also had a link to a video on a website that talked about — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It had a link to a website of a radio station that had previously been shown on the front page of The West Australian’s website. Let us not go there, member for Jandakot! This is another example of a person who will not stand up and do their job. This minister should not have been peddling a dishonest story around the gallery. That is what occurred here. He knew, because he was the minister responsible, that there was nothing in this story. He knew what he was doing when he went up to the press gallery and spun that story. All I am saying is that the next time a journalist has the Minister for Transport spin a story to them, they should stop and think, “Is this just another one of these things that the minister likes doing?” I want to go on and make a very short comment about the Department of Planning’s evidence to the committee. As the member for Riverton pointed out, we were quite disappointed in the Department of Planning’s approach. The committee asked — … I just want to clarify: are you saying that the WAPC and the Department of Planning are confident that that process is going to deliver a caravan park either in government land or private land in that area? That question related to an issue we were talking about. The answer from the departmental officer was — I could not say that. The point is that the Department of Planning can tell us that there will be a node for health services, there will be a node for transport arrangements, there will be a residential area and there will be a business area; but it cannot say in its planning zones that there will be the opportunity for a caravan park. Until the planning is done to

8494 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] ensure that the land is available for the operation of a caravan park, it will not happen. I really feel for the Department of Environment and Conservation; the evidence from the officers of the department in their contribution to the inquiry was very good. They are desperate to make sure that there are appropriate recreation facilities in the Peel and the South West, but if the Department of Planning does not give them the zoning arrangements in that area—the boundary for the regional park—there will be no caravan park. It is therefore incumbent on the Department of Planning, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the relevant minister to ensure that in the Peel and in the South West additional land is made available for caravan parks; otherwise this form of recreation will not be able to take place in the South West in the future. MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah) [10.37 am]: Under standing orders I understand that as a co-opted member I have an opportunity to make comment on the report that the Economics and Industry Standing Committee has brought down today. I add my congratulations to the committee and to the staff for their work on this report, and I thank the chairman and the committee for allowing me once again to be co-opted. While I was unable to be as fully involved in the committee as I would have liked, I did attend some of the hearings and I concur with the findings and recommendations that appear in the report. I want to make a couple of comments on some of the recommendations and responses and certainly on the lack of response from some departments. The member for Riverton and I do not always agree on many things but I think we are in common agreement on the analysis of the progress of government departments contained in an earlier report that the committee brought down in late 2009. A couple of departments are responding to the phenomenon of the pressure on caravan parks in particular as an option for housing. I agree that caravan parks traditionally were focused mainly on tourism, but I think we saw a period, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s when, for those people who chose caravan park living and also for owners of caravan parks, they became a viable, low-cost housing option. Then towards the end of the 90s, particularly in places such as Mandurah, some of the areas in the south west and now, of course, in the north west, we saw increased pressures on those caravan parks for either redevelopment or, in the case of the north west, as accommodation for workers. As the member for Cannington said, this is an issue of great interest to me personally, not only because, to quote the chairman in a previous report, “Mandurah is the canary in the coal mine” for the loss of caravan parks. This is an ongoing issue for me, the member for Dawesville and the member for Murray–Wellington. It is in the Peel region that we have seen a significant loss of caravan parks, in particular. In relation to this report and the response from departments, the Department of Environment and Conservation gets a big tick for its proactive approach and its understanding that Western Australians and other people visiting our state get an opportunity to experience our beautiful landscapes and natural assets. I think DEC is doing some very proactive and effective things with new camping grounds and providing quality facilities for people who travel throughout the state, whether they be from within the state, interstate or internationally. I give DEC a big tick. I agree with the remarks of the Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, who said that Tourism WA, prior to this report, really did not take any notice of the issue of caravan parks and camping grounds and their potentially positive impact on tourism in Western Australia. That has changed and I credit the new Minister for Tourism, my colleague the member for Dawesville, for that. The new minister understands this issue very well in the context of the Peel region. He had given me an assurance that as tourism minister he would make it a priority for Tourism WA, and he has delivered on that. We need to make sure that Tourism WA comes out of this process with some absolute commitments to act on the minister’s commitment. The disappointing government departments were the Department of Planning and the Department of Local Government. Planning is critical, and I absolutely support recommendation 10 in this report, which asks the Minister for Planning to provide for lifestyle-type villages to be developed on rural zoned land, particularly in the areas of Peel, Bunbury and the broader south west region. Among the issues that are thrown back at us is the big issue of effluent disposal, and those sorts of things. We know now that with modern technology effluent disposal has the capacity to be self-contained, with effective and environmentally sensitive treatment of effluent. The technology is there; so the excuse that keeps being thrown back by the Department of Planning in particular that we cannot do that because we do not have adequate and appropriate disposal of effluent is a furphy. I agree with recommendation 10 that calls upon the Minister for Planning to seriously look at this whole issue of lifestyle villages being developed on rural zoned land, because that will be one of the few options we have if we want to see caravan parks continue and new parks open in areas such as mine, the Peel. The other criticism was of the Department of Local Government. Its response was disappointing. The report noted in chapter 3, page 41, that despite giving plenty of notice we unfortunately were not able to have the director general appear before the committee. I am very critical of local governments when they constantly harp on and kick up about not being consulted and about both state and federal governments making arbitrary decisions that affect them. I also get angry when local governments espouse concern about housing affordability and ensuring that their region, city or town is included in tourism plans. We should look at the number of local governments that actually have a tourism strategy. The report indicates that only five local governments have an up-to-date tourism strategy. One that does not such a strategy is Broome. I am astounded that a very, very

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8495 important tourism town such as Broome does not have one. That is an abrogation of responsibility on those local governments. It is an abrogation of responsibility by the Department of Local Government to not even give credence to this report. I do not want to hear another local government say to me that it is concerned about tourism and making sure that they attract people to their region or to their local government authority if when we turn around and ask about their tourism strategy, they say they have not got one. That is a criticism of them, and quite frankly they need to pull their finger out and make sure that if they are dinkum about attracting to their region people who can make an economic contribution, they do the things they need to do. They should stop coming to government, saying it is not their responsibility or that it is cost shifting; it is not. That is rubbish, quite frankly. If local governments care about their regions, they should show some leadership and do what is required to assist their local economies and local communities to benefit from the tourism opportunities that come from having good-quality caravan and camping assets in their region. I commend this report. Congratulations to all involved. These recommendations are very, very good. They are very pertinent to the line of inquiry. The findings are relevant. I look forward to seeing Tourism WA continuing its leadership, but more particularly I want to see the Department of Planning take seriously, and the Minister for Local Government put pressure on his department to take seriously, what has been included in this report. MR I.C. BLAYNEY (Geraldton) [10.48 am]: I would like to speak briefly on this report. Firstly, I thank my fellow committee members, and also our staff, in particular, Mr Tim Hughes and Mrs Kristy Bryden, who have done a very good job. I agree with the member for Mandurah that the tenth report of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee is a very good report. I own a caravan and I spend at least a week a year in a caravan park these days, which is not as much as I used to spend. A number of long-stay parks have closed since 2006. However, our investigations indicate that the evictions were conducted in a manner that was compliant with the act and also with the recommendations of the previous inquiry, “Provision, Use and Regulation of Caravan Parks (and Camping Grounds) in Western Australia”. There is no doubt that the closure of caravan parks has a serious impact on the tourism industry and, of course, on long-term tenants. We found that Tourism WA and the Departments of Environment and Conservation, Housing and Commerce had addressed the issues in the previous report. However, I would have to say, as others have said, that the Departments of Planning and Local Government have not really come to the party. It is important that we start to develop a strategic framework for caravan parks in Western Australia. It is important that the Department of Local Government plays a leading role in having an idea of where caravan parks should be located. We need to get this data and share it across all departments. Currently, individual departments seem to be collecting their own data. It is important that this data is brought together centrally and used strategically, because it is vital information, particularly for the future of tourism. I would like particularly to commend the Department of Commerce for increasing the information it provides on park living and also for its Seniors’ Housing Centre. They are both very good initiatives. It is good that the department is taking a proactive role in this. There is no doubt that priority needs to be given to planning for this land use for tourism and residential villages. I commend the five councils that are up to date with the tourism strategy, being Albany, Bunbury, Busselton, Mandurah and Dandaragan. I checked with my own local council, the City of Greater Geraldton, which sent me its most recent document, but it is obviously not up to date. I am sure it will be addressing that. The Department of Planning really does need to prioritise an increase in the amount of land available for caravan parks. DEC has taken measures to improve access for tourism. It is very important that DEC has a proactive strategy. Both DEC and Tourism WA seem to understand the importance of sites being available in some of the more out of the way places. DEC in particular has a quite innovative system under which people are in charge of 30 sites in certain national parks. I was at Coalseam Conservation Park near Mingenew a few months ago and one of those people was there. They just keep an eye on things. They do not get paid. They are basically a caretaker. They do a short course so that they understand what they are meant to do. It is a very efficient and low-cost program, and has minimal impact. It works very well. For the tourism side of things, that is a model that is really working well. I was also impressed with the Department of Housing. It is quite proactive and interested in models that it can pursue to increase the supply of low-cost housing options. Once again, I agree with everything that other people have said; it is critical that the Department of Planning provides rural land that can be zoned for lifestyle-type villages. We can pull a strategic direction out of all of this for two things. One is for caravan parks. We need to address the supply of caravan parks across the state and we need to identify land that can be developed for caravan parks. In particular, land needs to be under a title that means that it cannot be onsold for other purposes, as this is one reason we are losing our caravan parks. They are an incredibly valuable tourism asset. We need to encourage the development of more lifestyle-type villages. They are very cost effective. They provide inhabitants with a very safe, almost village–like environment. There is only one such park in my electorate, which is Belair Gardens Caravan Park out on Point Moore in Geraldton. Models such as this are the way to go for a particular sector of the community.

8496 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Local governments should have no say in the lease amount charged for this land. We have seen a couple of incidences of metropolitan local councils not wanting land that has been identified as suitable for lifestyle villages being used as such. I would like the state government to have the power to overrule local governments so that parks can be put in those areas. The grounds on which local governments said they did not want them allocated that way were, frankly, weak and flimsy. That model can be used by Housing to develop cost-effective models and can be used as a means of getting retirees out of bigger houses, which can then be released for younger families. I will once again be writing my annual letter to the Premier on behalf of Western Australian retirees calling on the Western Australian government to bring in a one-off stamp duty exemption for retirees. I am glad to see the Treasurer here. That model is used in the Northern Territory. Once again, it is a mechanism to get elderly people out of big houses and into smaller houses. It is very efficient and sensible. One reason people do not want to make that change is purely because they do not want to pay stamp duty. If the government would provide them with an exemption, it would help make that happen. I commend the report. MANSLAUGHTER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr C.C. Porter (Attorney General), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the Attorney General. Second Reading MR C.C. PORTER (Bateman — Attorney General) [10.56 am]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The Manslaughter Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 does two things. First, it amends the Criminal Code to provide that the maximum penalty for manslaughter is increased from 20 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. This is the penalty that applied until 1981 and will allow the courts to access a higher range of penalties. Second, in certain cases where dangerous driving results in a death, those matters will no longer be able to be dealt with summarily in the Magistrates Court but must be dealt with on indictment in the District Court, leading again to a higher penalty range. The Criminal Code as originally enacted in sections 280 and 287 provided that the maximum penalty for manslaughter was imprisonment with hard labour for life. Because section 42(2) of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 provides that the District Court has no jurisdiction to try an accused person when the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, all manslaughter cases were heard in the Supreme Court. The Acts Amendment (Jurisdiction of Courts) Act 1981 deleted “imprisonment with hard labour for life” and substituted “imprisonment with hard labour for 20 years”. The reference to hard labour was subsequently deleted, and following the enactment of the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Act 2008 the maximum penalty for manslaughter in section 280 of the code is now 20 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, manslaughter cases can now be dealt with in the District Court, though in practice the majority are still considered in the Supreme Court as an alternative to murder. As a result of the reduction in the maximum penalty for manslaughter from life imprisonment to 20 years’ imprisonment, the court has a more limited range of potential penalty and, accordingly, is awarding guilty persons less jail time than might otherwise be the case. This has resulted in strong public responses in a number of high-profile cases. In 2008, Jack Benjamin Hall was tried for the murder of Lawrence Dix following an argument over a $100 drug debt. Both were 19 years old at the time. When the trial ended with the jury unable to reach a decision, the prosecutor advised the Supreme Court that the state would accept the guilty plea to the lesser charge of manslaughter. In April 2008, Hall was sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of two years and three months. Mr Hall was released to parole on 5 July 2009. That parole period expired on 1 July 2011. Mr J.R. Quigley: What was the maximum? Mr C.C. PORTER: Twenty years. Mr J.R. Quigley: What was the head sentence? You said the maximum period was 20 years. Mr C.C. PORTER: I have that information. That parole period represents two-thirds of the maximum term. In December 2008, Matthew Roy McDonald pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to the manslaughter of Mr William Rowe. Mr Rowe died after being hit over the head with a cricket bat on a beach in Geraldton on Christmas Day 2007. McDonald was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, backdated to 28 December 2007. Mr McDonald was eligible to be released to parole in September 2011. Any parole term would finish on 29 September 2013.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8497

In December 2010, Mr Ian Samuel James McConkey was sentenced in the Supreme Court to five and a half years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of Buddhist monk Buu Lieu on 10 January 2010. Mr McConkey could spend just three years and four months in jail for the unprovoked attack on the defenceless monk. He is eligible to be released on 27 May 2013 and any parole order will finish on 27 May 2015. I also note that the penalty for manslaughter varies from place to place. In the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. In the Australian states and territories of Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory, there is a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In New South Wales the maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment, whilst in Tasmania it is 21 years’ imprisonment. The remaining states and territories—Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and, at present, Western Australia—have a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. The Manslaughter Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will increase the penalty for manslaughter to life imprisonment, thereby providing the courts with a greater range of potential penalties. Community sentiment is that sentencing practices with respect to manslaughter do not adequately, at present, reflect the seriousness of such offending. In increasing the statutory penalty for manslaughter offences, this bill seeks to affect sentencing courts’ determination of the seriousness of such offences and therefore commensurately increase the sentences imposed for all manslaughter offences in the future. As was the case prior to 1981, the other effect of this change will be that manslaughter will once again be in the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Again, this change gives effect to community sentiment as to the seriousness of any case in which a life is lost. With respect to dangerous driving causing death, the Manslaughter Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 also amends the Road Traffic Act 1974. Section 59 of the Road Traffic Act provides a penalty equivalent to manslaughter in certain cases of dangerous driving causing death. If a person is driving a vehicle whilst under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol or at an excessive speed and a death occurs, then they may be guilty of dangerous driving causing death. In the event that death occurs in “circumstances of aggravation”, then the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death is 20 years’ imprisonment. Section 59B(3) provides that circumstances of aggravation are when the vehicle is being driven without the consent of the owner—that is, it is stolen—the speed limit is being exceeded by more than 45 kilometres an hour or the person is driving the vehicle to escape pursuit by WA Police. In cases in which there are no circumstances of aggravation leading to the death, the maximum penalty applicable is 10 years’ imprisonment. One relevant recent case was that of Mr Lee David Toplass. On 5 November 2009, Mr Toplass was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death in relation to a fatal accident on Kwinana Freeway on 29 July 2008. He was also sentenced to four months’ imprisonment cumulative for a further charge of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He was released to parole on 6 May 2011 and that parole term will finish on 4 November 2012. Once again, the penalty imposed led to a strong community reaction. Section 67(3a) of the Road Traffic Act is also amended by the bill. Section 67(3a) provides that when a person involved in an incident causing the death of, or grievous bodily harm or bodily harm to, another person is required to give a breath, blood or urine sample and refuses to do so after the consequences are explained to them, they may be liable for imprisonment for 14 years. The section provides that the failure to comply by giving a sample may also be dealt with summarily. Therefore, when a death is involved, a person who gives a breath, blood or urine sample may find that they are charged under section 59 and liable to trial by indictment. However, if they refused to give a sample, they could be tried summarily. It is possible that it would quickly become the norm to refuse to give a sample, especially when a death was involved. This has been dealt with by also amending section 67(3a) to provide that if there is a death, there cannot be a summary penalty for refusing to give a sample. Therefore, the Road Traffic Act 1974 is intended to be amended so that cases of dangerous driving causing death become liable only for trial on indictment and are therefore vested exclusively in the District Court; that is, the “either way” penalties are to be deleted. The increased case load for the District Court will likely fill the gap left by the transfer of manslaughter to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, the bill again reflects community sentiment regarding the seriousness of any offence resulting in a loss of life. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (COVERT POWERS) BILL 2011 Second Reading Resumed from 19 October. MR R.F. JOHNSON (Hillarys — Minister for Police) [11.05 am] — in reply: Yesterday I was given leave to continue my remarks on the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill today so that I could get some more information to address some of the comments made, particularly by the member for Girrawheen and, certainly,

8498 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] by the member for Mindarie. I want to address those comments and I have some information that I would like to share with members. One of the first comments by the member for Girrawheen was that she felt the threshold for access to controlled operations powers is too low. Clause 12(1) of the bill states — An authority to conduct a controlled operation must not be granted unless the chief officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds — (a) that a relevant offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed … Clause 5 defines “relevant offence” to mean — (a) an offence against the law of this jurisdiction punishable by imprisonment for 3 years or more; or (b) an offence against the law of this jurisdiction that is prescribed for the purposes of this definition; I am happy to give the member a copy of this, once I have read it in. The threshold of three years’ imprisonment was a compromise reached, after extensive consultation with all the jurisdictions, by the joint working group responsible for developing the model laws. During this consultation, the range of thresholds were canvassed, including Queensland at one end of the spectrum limiting use of controlled operations to a seven-year imprisonment offence and other simple and indictable offences mentioned in the schedules and New South Wales and Victoria at the other end of the spectrum preferring an all-offences approach. The joint working group considered all submissions and concluded that the model bill should strike a balance and retain a three-year imprisonment offence threshold. The joint working group also agreed that jurisdictions should be able to prescribe certain offences that fall below the three-year threshold for cross-border operations. As a guide, the joint working group intended that prescribed offences be limited to the following categories—child pornography, gaming, fisheries, firearms, prostitution and corruption. These are areas which fall under the three-year threshold in some jurisdictions but which the joint working group believes are sufficiently serious to include in the model bill. The joint working group did not impose these restrictions for a jurisdiction such as Western Australia that proposes to adopt the model laws for internal use as well. The joint working group notes that the meeting of the offence threshold alone will not be sufficient to gain an authority to conduct a controlled operation. In addition to the threshold, the chief officer must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the nature and extent of the suspected criminal activity are such as to justify the conduct of a controlled operation in this jurisdiction. The joint working group also noted that resource constraints will further reduce the risk that unwarranted controlled operations will be authorised for investigations into relatively minor offences. Although the national model laws are for minimum standards, if Western Australia was to adopt a seven-year threshold, the Commissioner of Police would be in a position whereby he would be permitting another participating jurisdiction with a three-year relevant offence threshold to come to Western Australia and undertake a controlled operation of the type he himself would not be able to authorise for his own investigations. This would result in the anomaly whereby an offence with a penalty above three years but below seven years’ imprisonment in Western Australia could not be investigated by WA Police but could be investigated by another policing jurisdiction. This anomaly of powers would complicate and hinder any joint operations undertaken with another policing agency, except from Queensland, coming into this state. In addition, a three-year — Ms M.M. Quirk: Minister, that was contemplated within the considerations of the report by the Department of the Attorney General, and they didn’t see that as a problem. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: If the member lets me finish, she might see the relevance of the concern that WA Police have. In addition, a three-year relevant offence threshold will be consistent with the threshold to gain approval for a cross-border surveillance devices warrant under the model law amendments proposed to the Surveillance Devices Act 1998. These proposed amendments, presently being drafted, will work hand-in-glove with controlled operations powers. It is interesting to note that, although Queensland has defined “relevant offence” in its Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to mean a seven-year imprisonment offence, the definition has a second limb, which is an indictable offence included in schedule 2. Schedule 2 lists a further 30 offences, all of less than seven years’ imprisonment. Ms M.M. Quirk: Why didn’t we do that, minister? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will answer the member. In fact, 15 of these offences in schedule 2 are punishable by imprisonment of three years or less. This practice suggests that the threshold in Queensland is too high. In addition, for controlled operations undertaken wholly

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8499 within Queensland, there is an option under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to use an alternative scheme that allows controlled activities to be undertaken for up to one week in duration for simple and minor indictable offences that carry a maximum penalty of a fine or imprisonment ranging from three months to five years. These operations may be authorised by a police officer of or above the rank of inspector. I think that probably answers the member’s queries. Ms M.M. Quirk: I gather you’re indicating you will not agree to our amendments. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No; I am advised that that would not be good for Western Australia. The member is proposing that we adopt the Queensland model, which is not necessarily addressed in her amendment, rather than taking on the Victorian and New South Wales laws, and we are more of the view that we should take those laws in this instance, rather than those of Queensland. Ms M.M. Quirk: So offences like graffiti could come within this legislation, using those extensive powers. Is that what you’re saying? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No, I am not. Ms M.M. Quirk: Why not? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will explain that later on. Let me just answer some of the member’s queries. The member was concerned about fisheries officers’ blanket permission to access these special powers. The powers proposed for fisheries officers is not a blanket permission in that access will be restricted to prescribed officers of the serious offences unit of the Department of Fisheries. The serious offences unit is a specialist unit that investigates sophisticated black market operators who cannot be apprehended by traditional fisheries enforcement techniques. These specialist officers possess the background, expertise and knowledge required to pose as undercover officers in the areas of fisheries crime, culture, fishing industry and fish marketing operations. Police officers could not fulfil this role. That is clear. Ms M.M. Quirk: They currently do, minister. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will check on that. Clause 12 of the bill subjects these prescribed fisheries officers to the same rigorous accountability standards as the police and officers of the CCC. In particular, fisheries officers can only exercise powers on certain prescribed offences within the administrative responsibility of the Department of Fisheries. The member also asked why, from time to time when there is an operation involving fisheries and organised crime, a conferral of powers cannot be prescribed for the particular activity under investigation. Ms M.M. Quirk: I don’t understand that. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will try to clarify it more in consideration in detail. My notes say that that is the issue that the member put forward. Ms M.M. Quirk: The question I asked was: why can’t fisheries offences be one of those areas where there is a special offence prescribed when it is identified on particular operations where these powers need to be used, rather than have a blanket conferral of powers? In other words, fisheries offences carry a maximum penalty of four years, so in cases of organised crime such as fish trafficking, why would you not prescribe it in relation to those kinds of activities? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I take the member’s comments on board, and I will ask my advisers. I am not an expert in this field, obviously, but I will take it on board and I am sure my advisers will write me a note to answer the member’s comment. I will continue my response to the member’s comment in that area. It is not appropriate that specialist fisheries officers have powers conferred on them by another agency head, who may not understand their core functions and business. In addition, operational impediments may be incurred by waiting for a determination from an outside body. Fisheries is already entrusted by Parliament with access to what may be considered intrusive powers under the Surveillance Devices Act 1998. The Victorian Parliament did not confer powers; rather, it included controlled operations powers for fisheries officers within section 131A of its Fisheries Act 1995. The involvement of organised crime may not be clear at the outset of a fisheries controlled operation; this may be established at a much later point. For operational efficiency it is necessary that the Department of Fisheries has its own controlled operations powers to complement the powers it has under the Surveillance Devices Act 1998. The member for Girrawheen also asked why the Department of Fisheries cannot deploy police officers to do covert operations with them, especially if there are strong links to organised crime. She said that she knew that had happened in the past. The response is that fisheries matters are not the core business of WA Police. Ms M.M. Quirk: Not if it involves organised crime, minister.

8500 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member is not letting me finish. I have said two or three words; she is not letting me finish the explanation I would like to give her. If she just listens for a moment and lets me finish what I have to say, I am sure she will have a different view. Ms M.M. Quirk: I thought organised crime was a core business of WA Police; I am just surprised. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Fisheries matters are not; that is a specialised — Ms M.M. Quirk: You said fisheries matters involving organised crime are not matters for WA Police. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No, I said fisheries matters are not the core business of WA Police; that is what I said. The member is putting words in my mouth. They are the very words I just said. That is why I say, if the member lets me finish, she can scrutinise all my comments, and I am sure she will take me to task if there is something she does not agree with. Joint operations have and will be undertaken where it is established that other criminal offences outside the administrative responsibility of the Department of Fisheries have been committed in connection with fisheries offences—for example, drug offences. Further, police may not have the resources to meet fisheries demands, particularly at short notice. The opportunity to conduct operations with WA Police may be compromised. That is, the police undercover officer will be able to commit authorised offences and the fisheries officer will not. It will be necessary to use the expertise and knowledge of the fisheries officers during the controlled operation. Any refusal by the fisheries officer to join in with the police officer in committing an offence may result in risk to the safety of the fisheries officer, compromise the operation and jeopardise the resources spent on the operation. The member for Mindarie has left the chamber, but I will now address his comments. He is back now! I am about to address the comments the member made in the second reading debate. He commented that this legislation would provide the Corruption and Crime Commission with the ability to retrospectively authorise the commission of certain offences when they were not reasonably foreseeable. By way of clarification, clause 25 of the bill places an obligation only on the chief officer of a law enforcement agency to decide whether or not to grant a retrospective authority. “Chief officer” is defined in clause 3 of the bill to mean the Commissioner of Police, the CEO of the Corruption and Crime Commission and the CEO of the Department of Fisheries. Furthermore, clause 25(8) provides that the chief officer must make this decision personally and cannot delegate the responsibility to any other person. Further, clause 26 requires the Ombudsman to be given within seven days written details justifying the granting of the authority. The Ombudsman may require the chief officer to provide any such further information as is necessary for the Ombudsman’s proper consideration of the matter. The Corruption and Crime Commission has no role to play in any of that process. The member for Mindarie made comments to the effect that the Ombudsman’s oversight role is merely superficial. I disagree with the member. The Ombudsman performs two functions under part 2 of the bill that certainly are not superficial. Firstly, clause 38, “Annual report by Parliamentary Commissioner”, requires the Ombudsman to prepare an annual report on the work and activities of the law enforcement agencies for the preceding 12 months. This report must include comments on the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the reports provided to the Ombudsman by the chief officer and is to be tabled in Parliament by the minister. Even a quick glance at the New South Wales Ombudsman’s most recent annual report into the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 demonstrates the level of rigour and independent scrutiny as to the proper documentation, processes and reporting carried out by an agency. In addition, in a letter dated 22 May 2007, the current Executive Director of the Corruption and Crime Commission, Mike Silverstone, took the view that the role of the inspection and oversight of controlled operations would be better suited to the Ombudsman rather than the CCC. Ms M.M. Quirk: We do not disagree with that. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am just addressing the comments the member for Mindarie made, but that is good. Secondly, clause 41 of the bill, “Inspection of records by Parliamentary Commissioner”, obliges the Ombudsman to independently inspect the records of a law enforcement agency at least once every 12 months to determine the extent of compliance by the agency and officers of the agency. I think that addresses the main concerns raised by the opposition. Ms M.M. Quirk: There was one about assumed identities. I asked whether that included cases in which an undercover officer took on the name of an existing person and pretended to be that person, or does it just cover those cases where the undercover officer just assumes a false name and creates a new identity altogether? From the response I got, I am told that “assumed identity” has its normal meaning, but I do not know whether it covers both of those scenarios or only one. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am happy to go into that in more detail during the consideration in detail stage, but I understand that an assumed identity that is being used for the purposes of this bill is not the identity of a

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8501 particular person but is a made-up identity. That is why birth certificates, drivers’ licences and any other relevant thing would be established to confirm the undercover officer’s new identity. I do not think for one moment they would use someone else’s identity. Ms M.M. Quirk: I can contemplate circumstances when an undercover officer might be standing in for someone who exists. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member has had experience in these matters when she worked with the National Crime Authority and I accept that her knowledge and experience in this area is greater than mine. If the member can provide an example during consideration in detail, I can certainly get my advisers to answer that, I hope, to the member’s satisfaction. We have gotten to the stage at which we will need to go into consideration in detail and I am very happy to do the very best I can to flesh out any further information the member wants. Obviously, the comments I have made in response to the member’s amendments confirm that I am not of the view that I should accept them. I do not believe that WA Police and the Department of Fisheries would accept that the amendments are beneficial to carrying out their controlled operations. I thank the member for her comments on and interest in this very important legislation. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2 put and passed. Clause 3: Terms used — Ms M.M. QUIRK: Under this bill, the conferral of powers extends to the Department of Fisheries and the definition of “chief executive officer” extends to the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Fisheries. Can the minister indicate what official oversight there is of the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Fisheries? What mechanisms are there to review any of the CEO’s decisions, and to whom does the CEO report? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: There would be the same oversight for Fisheries as there is for WA Police. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am asking about the chief executive officer. What is his reporting line? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is to the Minister for Fisheries, in the same way that WA Police would report to me. That is the reporting regime. The general oversight will be the same as WA Police. Ms M.M. Quirk: Which is what? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is the Ombudsman. They will work under the same regime and lines as — Ms M.M. Quirk: Which are? Can you outline that for the purposes of Hansard? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Certainly. It comes under clauses 38 and 41. Clause 38(1) states — The Parliamentary Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare a report of the work and activities of the law enforcement agencies under this Part for the preceding 12 months and give a copy of the report to the Minister and to the chief officer of each law enforcement agency to which the report relates. I am happy to read out the whole clause if the member wants me to. The other clause it relates to is clause 41, “Inspection of records by Parliamentary Commissioner”, which states — (1) The Parliamentary Commissioner must, from time to time and at least once every 12 months, inspect the records of a law enforcement agency to determine the extent of compliance with this Part by the agency and law enforcement officers of the agency. Ms M.M. Quirk: What sanctions are available to the CEO of the Department of Fisheries if something is not done correctly? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am not quite sure what the member means. Does she mean if that particular person did something illegally? Ms M.M. Quirk: I refer to if he abuses his power or unlawfully exercises his powers under this legislation. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The Ombudsman would report back to Parliament. I would hope that the Ombudsman would also report it to the minister. If that person who had those powers conferred on them was involved in a criminal activity, that would be a criminal matter. If it was an administrative error or a deliberate error, I would suspect that would come under the Public Sector Commissioner. Clause 41(2) provides that the parliamentary commissioner has the powers, with any necessary changes, to an inspection under this section as though the

8502 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] inspection were an investigation under that act. I think the member will find that safeguards are probably contained within the legislation. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I move — Page 2, lines 21 and 22 — To delete the lines. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I know why the member for Girrawheen has moved that amendment. That amendment carries through to quite a few parts of the bill. It relates to Fisheries being part of this legislation. I was hoping that the comments that I made and the response I gave might have persuaded the member that it is in the interest of anti-crime in Western Australia, whether it be organised crime in the normal sense or organised crime in a way that gets involved with Fisheries, for Fisheries to be included. I am told that certain elements of organised crime take place within Fisheries. It is something that we as a government and we as a Parliament should not allow to happen. It is happening in other states. We are trying to do as much as we can, not as little as we can, to combat organised crime in whatever areas it may be involved in, whether it is in prostitution, drugs or illegal fishing. Ms M.M. Quirk: The bill is not limited to organised crime. This is the issue. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member is quite right; it is not. It will be used to try to infiltrate and to try to have undercover officers working in a very dangerous field. There is organised crime involved in quite a bit of it. The member knows more than I do about this area after spending a number of years at the Australian Crime Commission. I am told that she did a very good job there. I would have thought she would be supportive of this legislation because she was seen as a bit of a crime fighter in those days. Certainly the people I have spoken to have said that. I am hoping that the member will not fight too fiercely. My advice—I have to take the best advice I can—is that the government has to resist that amendment. I do not want to put words in the member’s mouth or thoughts in her mind but hopefully she may have had second thoughts and feel that perhaps she could live without the amendment that she has moved. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister raised a couple of issues that I need to clarify. He said in his response that South Australia and Victoria have included the fisheries departments in their legislation. I presume that that means that Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland have not. This bill has been around in one form or another for a number of years. The addition of Fisheries was put in only latterly. There is the issue of what states do not have it. It has been the case—certainly in the past; I do not know whether it is presently the case—that from time to time WA Police have worked with the fisheries department on serious operations. Why can that arrangement not continue? I understand what the minister is saying in that certainly on a full-time basis police are not available to conduct routine fisheries investigations. I would hope that these additional powers would not be needed in routine fisheries investigations. I thought they would be needed only on the serious matters that involved trafficking and those linked to organised crime. In any event, if there is any organised crime component, one could argue that police should ordinarily be involved anyway. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member has raised some good points. I am advised that Tasmania has no separate fisheries department. Criminal matters relating to fisheries are undertaken by police. That is Tasmania for you. Northern Territory is the same as Tasmania, and the police carry out that work. I believe that the other states all — Ms M.M. Quirk: That is not what you said. I think you said South Australia and Victoria. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not remember saying South Australia and Victoria. I think I referred to New South Wales and Victoria in relation to the three-year threshold. Ms M.M. Quirk: Perhaps you could clarify which states include fisheries officers and which do not. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The South Australian and Victorian acts contain controlled operations. Ms M.M. Quirk: But in terms of this model bill. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: They are not included in a separate bill but under the fisheries act they are prescribed to undertake those controlled operations. Ms M.M. Quirk: Of the equivalent legislation in other states, which states include covert powers within their umbrella legislation? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: South Australia has it covered in their criminal investigation powers and Victoria has moved it to the fisheries act. Ms M.M. Quirk: Only one other state has fisheries officers in its legislation. Is that correct? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Legislation that is identical or very similar to this can be found in Victoria. Ms M.M. Quirk: You have said that if we don’t include it, we are effectively going against the tide, no pun intended, but we would be the exception rather than the rule. That is the case, is it not?

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8503

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The general principle that has been adopted by the Attorney General and the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management is there but, as I have just been advised, our coastline is greater than any other state and therefore there is more opportunity for illegal activity to take place. That is why the government felt that we should include fisheries with similar powers but also ones that they have to be responsible for. The Ombudsman will oversight them while we are handling this legislation. The member is quite right; this legislation started its life a long time ago—I think under the member’s government—but it did not include Fisheries at that stage. Fisheries has been included since then because the government believes that there is obviously quite a lot of crime undertaken in relation to fisheries. We believe that it is probably appropriate that, rather than have a separate act that confers the same powers on it, we should incorporate it all into the one act. To me, that makes sense. The member may argue against that because she is a lawyer and a legislator—she obviously has a different view, possibly; I do not know—or maybe because the member just does not want to give me an easy time. Ms M.M. Quirk: Flogging a dead fish, you reckon? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: We never know! But that is the reason for it. I genuinely accept that, and I think it makes sense to do that. I am hoping that, with the answers that have been given to the member, she might agree with that. Obviously, she can still move her amendment, but if she feels that she has been convinced enough, she might want to withdraw her amendment. That is a decision for the member to make, obviously. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (23)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr F.M. Logan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr A.J. Waddell Mr R.H. Cook Mr M. McGowan Mr E.S. Ripper Mr P.B. Watson Ms J.M. Freeman Mrs C.A. Martin Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr M.P. Whitely Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M.P. Murray Mr T.G. Stephens Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Noes (27)

Mr P. Abetz Mr V.A. Catania Mr A.P. Jacob Dr M.D. Nahan Mr F.A. Alban Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr C.C. Porter Mr C.J. Barnett Mr M.J. Cowper Mr R.F. Johnson Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A. Krsticevic Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr J.M. Francis Mr J.E. McGrath Mr T.K. Waldron Mr I.M. Britza Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.T. Miles Mr A.J. Simpson (Teller) Mr T.R. Buswell Dr K.D. Hames Ms A.R. Mitchell

Pairs Dr A.D. Buti Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms R. Saffioti Mr W.R. Marmion Mr P. Papalia Mr G.M. Castrilli Amendment thus negatived. Ms M.M. QUIRK: My next amendment is — Page 2, lines 28 to 30 — To delete the lines. This deals, again, with the inclusion of the Department of Fisheries in the scheme of this legislation. I will not repeat the obvious, but, again, I think the minister has clarified that the inclusion of the fisheries department is not part of the overall national scheme; it is very much an add-on. It will mean that in dealing with offences at the lower end of the scale, officers will be able to avail themselves of these quite far-reaching, powers. It is really a matter of ideological difference between the opposition and the government as to how broadly these powers should be used. I will not delay the issue further, and I will just move that amendment. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Sorry; is the member moving an amendment that is very similar to what we have already done? Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Is the member going to move it again? Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. I have already moved it. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Yes, I understand that, member, but the minister wanted to speak before it was moved last time, so I was just applying the same rule. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I want to reiterate that other states have police doing one and fisheries doing one — Ms M.M. Quirk: No; other states have it under other legislation, minister.

8504 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes, I know. I understand that, member for Girrawheen. Ms M.M. Quirk: So we are saying it is not appropriate under this legislation. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is the member’s view, but the government takes the view that it makes sense to incorporate both of those into one act, simply because we are talking about illegal activities. We are talking about undercover police officers with assumed identities, and we would have to use undercover Fisheries officers with assumed identities. From her previous work, the member for Girrawheen would be aware more than anybody that there is a lot involved in that process. We believe it makes it neater to have the one oversight of the Ombudsman in both of those areas, and to have it covered under one bill and one act. I do not necessarily think it is a philosophical difference; it is just a question of whether we have it in two separate acts or one. We believe it is better under one act—as I say, it is much neater and tidier—and to have the Ombudsman overseeing both of those areas, which is very, very important. For that reason, member for Girrawheen, obviously, like the previous amendment, we would have to resist this amendment and not support it. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Before I do formally move the amendment, can I just get an indication from the minister as to the number of successful prosecutions by the Department of Fisheries last year? How many of those involved the use of covert operatives? Also, I seek some indication of whether it would have been possible to mount successful prosecutions without the use of covert officers? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is a good question and I am awaiting a good answer from my fisheries adviser. Obviously I do not have as much to do with fisheries as I do with police, so I rely heavily on the advice that I am given here. The member is asking a specific question about the number of offences. Two major undercover operations took place in the last 12 months, and about 15 entities, real and corporate bodies, were involved. Ms M.M. Quirk: Is that R-E-A-L or R-E-E-L? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is R-E-A-L, and they were all successful prosecutions. Was that the only question the member asked? Ms M.M. Quirk: How many were done without the use of covert powers? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member knows the answer to that. Ms M.M. Quirk: No, I don’t. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The fisheries officers cannot do that without the legislative authority to do so. A ministerial exemption provision allows those fisheries officers to break some fisheries laws and do that type of work, but it is fairly limited. Ms M.M. Quirk: I want to know how many there were out of the total number of prosecutions. There were two major operations. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes. Ms M.M. Quirk: How many other successful prosecutions were there when no such power was used? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: In fisheries we could be talking about all sorts — Ms M.M. Quirk: That’s what I want to know. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I cannot give the member that information at this stage. Many people break fisheries laws. It could be fishing without a licence or it could be — Ms M.M. Quirk: That’s not what I asked. I asked how many fisheries prosecutions there were last year. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Statewide? Hundreds is the answer. Ms M.M. Quirk: Hundreds, okay. The annual report has just come out but that is all right, I wouldn’t expect the minister to know. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Not about the fisheries one. Ms M.M. Quirk: So, in only a couple of the hundreds of cases ministerial exemption was sought. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Correct, for this type of operation, which is obviously immediate. Ms M.M. Quirk: In how many cases were surveillance devices, for example, used in fisheries investigations last year? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: My adviser says that he cannot give an exact number and he would be guessing, but it would probably be fewer than 20 a year. Ms M.M. Quirk: Would it be true to say that the prosecutions of fisheries, by and large, can be successfully executed without the use of these powers, and that they are used in only a small number of cases?

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8505

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: These powers are not really used to the extent that we are — Ms M.M. Quirk: I am sorry, can I put it another way, minister? Why are these powers necessary for fisheries? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am advised—I am not the Minister for Fisheries, I am the Minister for Police, obviously—that large-scale corrupt activities and crimes are being committed within the fishing industry and the Department of Fisheries believes that it is unable to fully investigate these activities without the authority and the support of this legislation. The Department of Fisheries needs to do what the police need to do in their area, and I am advised that some organised criminal activities do take place. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am not familiar with this area either, and I am really reluctant to pass laws when it is not clear why they are needed. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Let me tell the member that the specialist unit is a special unit that investigates sophisticated black-market operators who cannot be apprehended by traditional enforcement techniques. The specialist officers possess the background, expertise and knowledge required to pose as undercover officers in the areas of fisheries crime culture in the fishing industry and fish-marketing operations, and police could not fulfil this role. That was part of the explanation I gave earlier. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am interested in hearing the minister’s answer, if he would like to continue. I just need a scenario, as I do not understand whether the legislation is targeted at large-scale fishing of undersized fish, at flogging crayfish on the black market or at taking abalone out of season. What exactly is the serious organised crime activity in fisheries that the legislation is addressing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is not for taking abalone out of season, which is very often an individual activity; it is for the commercial illegal activity that takes place within fisheries and the black market. Ms M.M. Quirk: I am sorry; what do you mean by “illegal activity”? I am having trouble understanding the conduct that we are trying to investigate. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: What I am trying to say is that if an individual takes abalone out of season—for example, for his own feed or to feed his family or whatever—that is not included. That is not the sort of thing we are looking at. We are looking at activities in the black market involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of crayfish, abalone and other high-value fish. Ms M.M. Quirk: In other words, crayfish that have been caught inconsistent with the terms of a licence and then sold offshore through organised crime channels; is it that sort of thing? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Yes, that could well be the case. Ms M.M. Quirk: How prevalent is that? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am told that at the moment we are able only to scratch the surface, and that is why Fisheries needs this legislation in place. It is so that it can get deeper and investigate the full extent of that criminal activity. Ms M.M. Quirk: I have another problem about what the minister has asserted. The fisheries industry is highly controlled and has many regulations, many of which come through this place for debate. There are controls such as export licences, and fisheries inspectors are active out there in the industry. I am trying to work out why this activity, which we have now worked out is the issue, cannot be fully investigated without the use of covert operatives. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is similar to the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The only way we can really get to grips with who the Mr Bigs and the big dealers and pushers are is if we get undercover officers in there to work within that illegal industry. Just as there are illegal operators in the drugs industry, so there are in the fisheries industry. That is the advice I am given. Ms M.M. Quirk: I understand all of that. We are talking about a handful of cases in which there is a high level of activity. Why can’t those kinds of activities be prescribed from time to time under the legislation rather than the power conferred generally? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Once again, these are ongoing activities. Illegal activity, whether it be in drugs or in the black-market reselling of fish, crayfish or whatever else, is ongoing, and that is why we do it. Ms M.M. Quirk: Another thing is why we can’t just limit it to the offence of, say, trafficking. Our concern is that this legislation could be for the offence of using a net with the wrong size holes. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: No; absolutely not! Ms M.M. Quirk: Why not? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: This is about specifically what we are looking for in this legislation. Fisheries knows that organised crime is involved in certain criminal activities within the fishing industry.

8506 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Just as police look into drug laboratories, drug dealing, drug traffickers and so on and so forth, this legislation will give Fisheries the ability to do a similar thing but with fish—and organised crime is involved. Ms M.M. Quirk: I do not have any problem with that. I do have a problem with covering virtually every offence under the Fisheries Act with this legislation, particularly an offence that carries a penalty of three or more years’ imprisonment. I am saying that we do not have a problem with the legislation if it is limited to the trafficking of fish that has an organised crime connection. We do have a problem with the legislation if it covers every offence for which a penalty of three years’ imprisonment is applicable. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am going to run out of time, but if the member wants to stand and give me an opportunity to respond, I will. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Can the minister explain the involvement of Fisheries officers in investigations and why it is not possible to limit it to a couple of serious offences that may have organised crime involved? Why is it that a range of offences will be covered by the use of these powers? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I have been given a research and public policy document titled “A national study of crime in the Australian fishing industry”, by Judy Putt and Katherine Anderson. Ms M.M. Quirk: I truly am convinced that organised crime is involved in some fishery activities. I am asking the minister why we are not specifying a couple of offences that would cover this conduct and why we are just giving the fisheries department carte blanche for every single offence, effectively, for which there is a penalty of three years or more, which may or may not have any serious organised crime component? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will quote some of the highlighted parts in this document, which read — There appears to be some organised illegal activity. This is often family based and involves cash or barter transactions … Some organised criminal activity is already evident in high value, low volume fisheries such as abalone, and with illegally obtained shark fins. … The current regulatory environment is not adequate to deal with and prevent organised criminal activity. Effective fisheries management arrangements to address organised and cross–border crime depend on the legislation and regime of penalties, having appropriate policing methods and powers, and cooperative arrangements between agencies. That is an Australian study. Ms M.M. Quirk: I have no problem with that, minister; I agree with you entirely. I am asking why is it that, effectively, the scope of this legislation is broader than is required to address those particular issues? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: People do not just wake up one day in a gang or an organised crime group. They may start as an individual criminal doing these things. As I understand it, these people can escalate into organised crime gangs. Ms M.M. Quirk: Are you saying there are minor offences that are gateway offences to broader organised criminalised activity? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That can certainly be monitored. If we can send in undercover operatives, they can detect and see what is happening on, if you like, the lower hung fruit to be able to get to the fruit at the top of the tree. That is the reason for this. It is not just to catch them; it is also to disrupt them, which serves its purpose. As I said, the government believes this is the best way to do it—to encompass all of that in one act, to be overseen and audited by the Ombudsman, with a report to Parliament once every year. I think that is an important aspect of it. I do not share the same reservations as the member for Girrawheen. I think it is good legislation, and probably a lot of it was responsibly put together under the former government. It has been a long time coming. However, now that we have it, I ask the member to support the bill so that we can not only disrupt the organised crime gangs that are involved in this activity—we are talking about fisheries now rather than policing—but also deter them and find anybody who is on their way up the food chain of organised criminal activity. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have a final point I wish to reiterate before moving my amendment. The minister said that the government supported the inclusion of the Department of Fisheries. Can the minister confirm that Fisheries was originally not included in his original cabinet submission on this legislation? Mr R.F. Johnson: It is possibly not appropriate for me to tell the member what was in a cabinet submission, other than that the cabinet submission that included Fisheries is what we see today. Ms M.M. QUIRK: This is certainly not what was put up by the minister; it may have been the result of some comments from other ministers. Mr R.F. Johnson: No, in all honesty —

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8507

Ms M.M. QUIRK: Let me put it this way: was it something that the police initially put to the minister? Mr R.F. Johnson: Certainly, the police put this legislation together. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Yes. Was Fisheries included in the initial version from the police? Mr R.F. Johnson: This goes back to the days of Hon Jim McGinty, when your own party was in power. Ms M.M. QUIRK: The minister would have had to take it to cabinet separately; the minister does not just rubber-stamp everything that Hon Jim McGinty recommended, I am sure. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am delighted to answer the member’s question. I refer to 14 March 2007 when Hon Jim McGinty was dealing with this as the general and cross-border control undercover operations legislation. I will quote part of this document from Hon Jim McGinty, one of the member’s esteemed colleagues, Ms M.M. Quirk: What document are you reading from? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: This document sets out the laying of the legislative framework for what we have before us today. If the member will let me quote — Ms M.M. Quirk: It is not a cabinet submission because it never went to cabinet, as I understand it. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not want to quote all of what is in it because I do not think that would be appropriate. Ms M.M. Quirk: You should table the document if you are quoting it. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I can paraphrase it. Ms M.M. Quirk: No; you can table it if you are quoting it. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not want to table it because I do not think that would be appropriate. Ms M.M. Quirk: Why? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am happy to answer the member’s question, if she will allow me. Ms M.M. Quirk: If you are reading from it, it seems you should table it. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It was a document that both Hon Jim McGinty and Hon John Kobelke as ministers — Ms M.M. Quirk: I have your word for it. It never went to cabinet. I do not know the source of that document. I think it is dangerous to put anything in Hansard that we do not have the opportunity to look at. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: Let me put it this way: a previous Attorney General, Hon Jim McGinty, and the former Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Hon John Kobelke, were both of the view that the fisheries component of what we see before us today in legislation was favoured by them. They agreed on what it should contain and that it was better to encompass it. Ms M.M. Quirk: What are these documents? How can you tell us that? Why not just let us know what the documents are? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am telling the member: it was correspondence between them and they were both of the view that it should be included. Ms M.M. Quirk: That is all right, but it never went to cabinet in that form. I can tell you that! The first time it went to cabinet was under your government. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not know what went to cabinet under your government. Ms M.M. Quirk: I can tell you it never went to cabinet. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: If the member tells me that, that is fine, but I am telling her — Ms M.M. Quirk: I am asking you, when you took it to cabinet and the police said, “Please take it to cabinet”, was Fisheries included? Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I cannot remember how many times it went to cabinet under me as minister. Ms M.M. Quirk: It was at least two! Mr R.F. JOHNSON: One to draft and then to print. Ms M.M. Quirk: Maybe the first time it was not included, and there was a discussion et cetera. I do not want to canvass what happened in cabinet, but I want to make the point that it was not originally included when it went to cabinet. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The decision of cabinet was that it should be included. I can tell the member that. Ms M.M. Quirk: That’s not what I’m asking.

8508 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mr R.F. JOHNSON: But that is as much as I am going to give the member. I am not going to go into the details of cabinet under our government. Ms M.M. Quirk: You don’t need to, minister. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The member is asking me to. Ms M.M. Quirk: You’re the Minister for Police and I am asking you whether it was put to you by police, in the submission that went from police to you asking you to take the matter to cabinet that Fisheries be included. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think the first approach from police to me was, in all honesty, in relation to police. Ms M.M. Quirk: Good. That is all I want to know. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: But I am not saying that that is what went to cabinet, because it would not be appropriate for me to do so. Certainly, whilst discussions were taking place, the Minister for Fisheries obviously spoke to me, the same as ministers in the member’s former government spoke to each other, and obviously pointed out that it should be included in this bill. I considered the matter. Basically, it was based on the general oversight and agreements between two ministers. Ms M.M. Quirk: With all due respect, it is not up to two ministers; it is up to cabinet. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I agree. Ms M.M. Quirk: I do not know the status of those documents; I do not even know whether they are signed. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I think I have already said that the first draft submission that was put to me and that I was asked to take to cabinet was from the police and to do with the police. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I move — Page 2, lines 28 to 30 – To delete the lines. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (23)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr F.M. Logan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr P.C. Tinley Mr R.H. Cook Mr M. McGowan Mr E.S. Ripper Mr A.J. Waddell Ms J.M. Freeman Mrs C.A. Martin Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr M.P. Whitely Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr T.G. Stephens Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr J.R. Quigley Mr C.J. Tallentire Noes (26)

Mr P. Abetz Mr V.A. Catania Mr A.P. Jacob Dr M.D. Nahan Mr F.A. Alban Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr C.C. Porter Mr C.J. Barnett Mr M.J. Cowper Mr R.F. Johnson Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A. Krsticevic Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr J.M. Francis Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson (Teller) Mr I.M. Britza Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.R. Buswell Dr K.D. Hames Ms A.R. Mitchell

Pairs Dr A.D. Buti Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr P. Papalia Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr P.B. Watson Mr W.R. Marmion Amendment thus negatived. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I move — Page 3, lines 1 and 2 — To delete the lines. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: The amendments basically have the same theme throughout. The government has not accepted the first amendment and the same amendment is in essence replicated down to the proposed amendment to page 4, lines 10 to 12. Quite frankly, we are not going to agree to them. If we did not agree to the first, we are not going to agree to the latter ones. I do not think there is much more I can say about this. If the member wants to divide on every one, that is her prerogative. Obviously, we are not going to agree to them. The sooner we deal with them the better, rather than having me standing and talking for too long. Amendment put and negatived. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I move — Page 3, line 14 — To delete the line. Amendment put and negatived.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8509

Ms M.M. QUIRK: I move — Page 3, lines 22 and 23 — To delete the lines. Amendment put and negatived. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I move — Page 4, lines 10 to 12 — To delete the lines. Amendment put and negatived. Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have a further amendment. I move — Page 4, lines 19 to 25 — To delete all words after “jurisdiction” and substitute — means Western Australia. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I will say a couple of words on this amendment because it is slightly different from the previous amendments, although not in a great sense. It is to do with the fisheries department again, which the member has expressed concern about and would prefer not to be in this bill. The government has a different view and I think we have explained that; therefore, the government obviously will not agree to the amendment. Amendment put and negatived. Clause put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (27)

Mr P. Abetz Mr V.A. Catania Mr A.P. Jacob Dr M.D. Nahan Mr F.A. Alban Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr C.C. Porter Mr C.J. Barnett Mr M.J. Cowper Mr R.F. Johnson Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A. Krsticevic Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr J.M. Francis Mr J.E. McGrath Mr T.K. Waldron Mr I.M. Britza Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.T. Miles Mr A.J. Simpson (Teller) Mr T.R. Buswell Dr K.D. Hames Ms A.R. Mitchell Noes (23)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Mr R.H. Cook Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr A.J. Waddell Ms J.M. Freeman Mrs C.A. Martin Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr M.P. Whitely Mr J.N. Hyde Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr T.G. Stephens Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr J.C. Kobelke Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire

Pairs Mrs L.M. Harvey Dr A.D. Buti Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr E.S. Ripper Mr W.R. Marmion Mr P.B. Watson Clause thus passed. Clause 4 put and passed. Clause 5: Terms used — Ms M.M. QUIRK: In my contribution to the second reading debate, I iterated, and reiterate now, the opposition’s concerns about the threshold at which this legislation will come into operation. Clause 5 defines “relevant offence” as — (a) an offence against the law of this jurisdiction punishable by imprisonment for 3 years or more … I move — Page 6, line 25 — To delete “3” and substitute — 7 As I said in my second reading contribution, this is the level at which the threshold in Queensland is set. Going through the Criminal Code, I think that this amendment provides for an appropriate level at which to catch serious offences. Frankly, some of the offences that will be caught by the threshold in clause 5 as it stands are what could almost be described as nuisance offences. I think that the amendment speaks for itself. One of the justifications that the minister used this afternoon was that this change would create confusion in that police officers from other jurisdictions could come here and effectively exercise their powers for lesser offences than applies in Western Australia. That is the case, and that has also been contemplated by the examination review of this legislation that stated that it was certainly workable. Although the minister put up arguments today that it

8510 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] created this confusion and this difficult regime—Queensland has been operating for some time at this threshold level—it has been contemplated in the review and we believe that this amendment sets the bar at the right level. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I accept that the member feels strongly about this particular area. However, as I pointed out, she wants to take the Queensland model, but the Queensland model has some lower offences under a different schedule that can be incorporated. Ms M.M. Quirk: Yes, but they’re specifically indicated. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: That is a “maybe”. The member does not seem to want to accept the fact that we are basing our threshold for three years, rather than seven years, predominantly on the legislation of New South Wales and Victoria, which are the two most populous states in Australia. I have given the member the argument and I will get it into Hansard again. It is interesting to note that Queensland has defined “relevant offence” in its Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to mean — (a) a seven year imprisonment offence … But the definition has a second limb, and I do not know whether the member has seen that. It states — (b) an indictable offence included in schedule 2. Schedule 2 lists a further 30 offences, all with less than seven years’ imprisonment; in fact, 15 of the offences in schedule 2 are punishable by imprisonment of three years or less. This practice suggests that the threshold in Queensland is too high. Ms M.M. Quirk: That’s one interpretation, minister. The other interpretation should be that they’re in a schedule so that they’re subject to some level of scrutiny. What you’re proposing here is that, really, there is no effective scrutiny as to what offences will be investigated. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I do not agree with that. In fact, the member is basing her amendment on Queensland and she likes that model, but I point out again that Queensland has different schedules. In addition, for controlled operations undertaken wholly within Queensland, there is an option in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to use an alternative scheme that allows controlled activities to be undertaken for up to one week in duration for simple and minor indictable offences that carry a maximum penalty of a fine or imprisonment ranging from three months to five years. Those operations can be authorised by a police officer of or above the rank of inspector. I do not think WA Police is of the view that sufficient scrutiny, safeguards, or whatever you want to call it, will apply if we simply emulate what happens in Queensland. We prefer the New South Wales and Victorian methods and acts, and that is the path down which we are going. We will obviously have a difference of opinion on this. For those reasons, we will not accept the amendment. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (22)

Ms L.L. Baker Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr A.J. Waddell Mr R.H. Cook Mrs C.A. Martin Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr M.P. Whitely Ms J.M. Freeman Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr J.N. Hyde Mr A.P. O’Gorman Mr T.G. Stephens Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr W.J. Johnston Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Noes (27)

Mr P. Abetz Mr V.A. Catania Mr A.P. Jacob Dr M.D. Nahan Mr F.A. Alban Dr E. Constable Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr C.C. Porter Mr C.J. Barnett Mr M.J. Cowper Mr R.F. Johnson Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.C. Blayney Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A. Krsticevic Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr J.J.M. Bowler Mr J.M. Francis Mr J.E. McGrath Mr T.K. Waldron Mr I.M. Britza Mr B.J. Grylls Mr P.T. Miles Mr A.J. Simpson (Teller) Mr T.R. Buswell Dr K.D. Hames Ms A.R. Mitchell

Pairs Dr A.D. Buti Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr E.S. Ripper Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr P.B. Watson Mr W.R. Marmion Amendment thus negatived. Clause put and passed. Clauses 6 to 42 put and passed. Clause 43: Delegation — Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have an amendment on the notice paper in my name that I do not intend to pursue. Clause put and passed.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8511

Clauses 44 to 47 put and passed. Clause 48: Determination of application — Ms M.M. QUIRK: I have an amendment standing in my name on the notice paper that I do not intend to move. Clause put and passed. Clauses 49 to 53 put and passed. Clause 54: Making records of births, deaths or marriages — Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move — Page 49, line 29 — To delete “law;” and substitute — law; or Page 49, after line 29 — To insert — (iii) the chief officer of an intelligence agency (within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of chief officer in the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) section 15K); This amendment was at the request of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which obviously plays a very important role in combating organised crime and criminal activities by various individuals and business entities, if I can call them that. I am sorry that members did not get the amendment until late; apparently it came to my office on Monday but I had trouble with the computer system in my office. Ms M.M. Quirk: Today is Thursday. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I know. It was eventually sent to me last night and I managed to print it at home. That was the first time that I had physically seen it. I apologise for the short notice that has been given; I really do. Obviously this is an important amendment because we need to include all our law enforcement agencies within this legislation. That is the reason for the amendment before the house. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 55 to 78 put and passed. Clause 79: Delegation — Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move — Page 62, after line 25 — To insert — intelligence agency has the meaning given in the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) section 15K; Amendment put and passed. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms A.R. Mitchell): Member for Girrawheen and minister, do you wish to move your amendments? Ms M.M. QUIRK: I will not move my amendment. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move — Page 63, line 6 — To delete “department.” and substitute — department; That will make sense of the amendment I am about to move to that clause. Amendment put and passed. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move — Page 63, after line 6 — To insert — (d) in relation to an intelligence agency — a senior officer as defined in paragraphs (f) and (g) of the definition of senior officer in the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) section 15LH(3). Amendment put and passed. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I move — Page 63, after line 15 — To insert — (4) A chief officer of an intelligence agency (within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of chief officer in the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) section 15K) may

8512 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

delegate to a senior officer of the agency any of the chief officer’s functions under this Part relating to the making of applications under section 54 or 56. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Perhaps the minister could explain the reason for that amendment. Mr R.F. JOHNSON: I am happy to do that. All the amendments that I have moved to this clause today are interrelated. I am very happy to explain them for the benefit of members. In 2003, the joint working group of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the then Australasian Police Ministers Council developed model laws for assumed identities that were endorsed for implementation by SCAG in 2004. The purpose of the model laws is to enable authorisations for assumed identities issued under a regime in one jurisdiction to be recognised in other participating jurisdictions. Part IAC of the commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 is based upon model laws, as is part 3 of the Criminal Investigation (Covert Powers) Bill 2011. In addition to law enforcement at the federal level, the commonwealth government also has a unique role in protecting Australia’s national security and, as such, is the only jurisdiction that has intelligence agencies that are not also classified as law enforcement agencies. The commonwealth government has made specific provision in part IAC of the commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 for two of these agencies—the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service—to be able to issue and use assumed identities in carrying out their functions as they play a vital role in protecting Australia’s national security. To facilitate the creation of a credible assumed identity, section 15KG of the commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 authorises the chief officer of the law enforcement or intelligence agency to apply under a corresponding assumed identity law to another state or territory Supreme Court for an order that an entry be made in the relevant births, deaths and marriages register. There is no BDM register at the commonwealth level. However, the corresponding provision in the covert powers bill, clause 54(3), allows only the chief officer of a law enforcement agency to apply for such an entry to be made in the register. As ASIO is not a law enforcement agency for the purposes of the covert powers bill, nor is it a law enforcement agency under a corresponding law, as it is defined as an intelligence agency in the commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, it could be prevented from making such an application. The potential inability to seek entries into the births, deaths and marriages register in Western Australia may impact on the operation and effectiveness of these two commonwealth intelligence agencies in carrying out their functions in protecting Australia’s national security, including the ability to operate effectively in Western Australia. The amendment that I have just moved allows the chief officer of ASIO and ASIS to make application under clause 54(3) of the covert powers bill for an order from the Western Australian Supreme Court that the registrar make an entry in the births, deaths and marriages register of Western Australia to facilitate the creation of a credible assumed identity. The amendment to clause 79 is also made to allow a delegation of the chief officer’s powers to a limited number of senior officers within ASIO and ASIS for reasons of operational necessity. I hope that clarifies things. Obviously, it is now part of Hansard. Amendment put and passed. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clauses 80 to 83 put and passed. Clause 84: Form of witness identity protection certificate — Ms M.M. QUIRK: Madam Acting Speaker (Ms A.R. Mitchell), I am not persisting with my amendment to clause 84. Clause put and passed. Ms M.M. QUIRK: Madam Acting Speaker, I am not pursuing my amendment to clause 100. Clauses 85 to 126 put and passed. Title put and passed. SENIORS HELPING SENIORS MORNING TEA Statement by Member for Gosnells MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [12.51 pm]: I rise to pay tribute to the generosity of the seniors who live in the Gosnells community. Last Friday, I hosted a Seniors Helping Seniors morning tea, the purpose of which was to gather non-perishable food donations for the growing number of seniors in our community who are finding that the cost of living is too much, and who, after paying utility bills, cannot afford nourishing food. The food gathered was given to John and Bev Lowe, the founders of Manna Industries—a volunteer-operated charity that helps to feed, clothe and support Western Australians in need—for distribution through Manna’s networks. John and Bev have received reports from several local general practitioners about an increase in the number of seniors presenting in their surgeries suffering from malnutrition. Bev has also seen an increase in the amount of seniors coming to her for help; this is not an easy thing for a proud senior to do.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8513

Each senior who attended brought at least one tin of food. Amongst the wonderful contributors were Alan and Valma Bunn; Sarah Chambers; Jenny Fitzclarence; Keith and Patricia Hibbitt; Terrance and Petranella Miller; Peter and Katherine Muckett; Mervyn and Delphine Potger; and Brian and Kitty Pratten. Such was their kindness that we were able to gather several wheelbarrow loads of food worth several hundreds of dollars. I also want to acknowledge Beth Clark, secretary of the Gosnells Bowling Club, who assisted my office with the arrangements, and the wonderful team who helped with catering on the day, led by Lesley Smirk, along with Tricia Klisc, Dorothy Kerr and Gloria Hanahoe. I also want to acknowledge the musical entertainment provided by the Gooseberry Hill Primary School senior choir. I thank the house. FRIENDS OF TRIGG BUSHLAND Statement by Member for Carine MR A. KRSTICEVIC (Carine) [12.53 pm]: I wish to give members an understanding of some of the achievements of the Friends of Trigg Bushland. Trigg bushland exhibits a progression of soil and vegetation types found in no other metropolitan reserve, with 175 species of native plants, 30 species of birds, and 25 reptile species. The objectives of Friends of Trigg Bushland are to protect the bushland; to participate in research that increases our understanding of bushland; to disseminate information; and to rehabilitate the bushland when necessary. The organisation achieves this through the implementation of work programs encompassing protection, research, education and rehabilitation of the environment. This group exists to protect the ecosystem of Trigg bushland, and to attempt to provide the community with a sustainable environment. The organisation’s greatest achievement to date is its dedication to tuart mapping. The Friends of Trigg Bushland is conducting a detailed survey to find out the exact number, age and condition of our tuart trees. The group hopes that this information can be used as baseline information, so that studies can be undertaken in the changes between this and future studies, and it will likely be completed in the next 12 to 18 months. The committee members for 2011 who are directing this organisation include the president, Peter Alcock; the vice-president, Paul Clarke; Ian Johnson; Nina McLaren; Barbara Alcock; and Phylis Robertson. Through the dedication and support of the committee members and all the volunteers in the organisation, Friends of Trigg Bushland has successfully been able to preserve Trigg bushland, thus ensuring its sustainability. I wish to thank Friends of Trigg Bushland for its dedication to and support of the environment, and also in showcasing the need to ensure that there is a sustainable future for Western Australian native flora and fauna. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — UNIT 25 SOMMERVILLE GARDENS, TUART HILL Statement by Member for Balcatta MR J.C. KOBELKE (Balcatta) [12.55 pm]: I request the Minister for Housing to sell unit 25 Sommerville Gardens, Tuart Hill, which was purchased by the Department of Housing over a year ago. The department purchased this one property in a group of 20 privately owned units and let it to a male tenant who would be classified as “hard to house” and who was totally unsuited to live in this situation. This gave the private owners and residents the nightmare of living alongside the neighbour from hell. The police were called on numerous occasions because of the behaviour emanating from unit 25. Residents were threatened, had their homes damaged and broken into and had belongings stolen by a resident of unit 25. The problem was so bad for some residents that they left their home and went to live elsewhere to seek safety and to avoid the conflict and strife. After a particularly serious event at unit 25, the tenant was arrested and is in jail awaiting trial. The unit is now vacant and the private residents are fearful that another public housing tenant will again threaten their safety and destroy the quiet enjoyment of their homes. The best solution is for the Department of Housing to sell this property and purchase in another location. This will give assurance to the owner–residents of Sommerville Gardens of their right to enjoy the peace and security of their homes, which could be threatened if another “hard to house” public housing tenant is placed there. I support the policy of purchasing properties for public housing in existing residential areas, but only if the Department of Housing can select tenants who are likely to keep to the law and to behave in a way that meets the minimum standards required of any tenant. Minister, unit 25 must be sold to give the residents of Sommerville Gardens some certainty about the future value and security of their homes. DAVID HENDERSON — AUSTRALIAN SECONDARY TEACHER OF THE YEAR Statement by Member for Riverton DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton) [12.56 pm]: I take great pleasure in bringing to the attention of the house that Dr David Henderson, a science teacher at Rossmoyne Senior High School, won the 2011 Australian Secondary Teacher of the Year award. This is a major achievement and I congratulate David for this award, and for his contribution to the school and to the wider community. I have met David many times, including last night, while I have been on visits to the school and I am fully aware of the profoundly positive influence he has on the

8514 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] learning opportunities for individual students, on the school’s culture and on the great success that Rossmoyne Senior High School has in attracting students to the study of science. The study of science, of course, must be one of our top priorities in our school system. Our local students can be inspired only by extraordinary teachers such as David. He has consistently used his ability to interact with a diverse range of students to motivate and challenge them to achieve excellence and fulfil their potential and to learn to love the study of science. As a highly regarded teacher at Rossmoyne, David is also seen as an innovator and an inspiration to his colleagues, and a mentor and leader within the teaching profession. His sustained contribution through research and curriculum development partnerships with universities, businesses, the school, students and the broader community has been exceptional. David has contributed significantly to Rossmoyne Senior High School’s academic success and his efforts have helped the school become the jewel in the crown of the state’s public school system. David has received many awards through his long career and I congratulate him. CLARKSON POLICE STATION Statement by Member for Mindarie MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Mindarie) [12.57 pm]: I rise on behalf of the people in the electorate of Mindarie to once again demand that Clarkson Police Station be given more police and extended opening hours. This comes as a result of a number of serious assaults around the two taverns in my electorate, which have been caused by roaming gangs of youths. The last one of these assaults received enormous publicity. That was the assault of Jay Suamba, a 23-year-old university student who works part-time at the Whale and Ale tavern bottle shop. When he was in the bottle shop, he saw a young male and female being hassled in the car park and, as a good Samaritan, he went out to assist them. When he went out to assist them, he was set upon by a gang of youths. This was at 11 o’clock at night and not more than 200 metres from Clarkson Police Station. He was seriously injured by being beaten with a large limestone rock, yet it took the police over 50 minutes to respond to the complaint because they had to come from Joondalup. I know about this theory on hub policing with police cars out on the road and not at stations, but until Clarkson Police Station is open and until it is known by youths in the area to be open, there will be no deterrent effect because everyone in Clarkson and those northern suburbs knows that the police are over 10 kilometres away at Joondalup. I am demanding on behalf of the people of my electorate that urgent action be taken to keep Clarkson Police Station open at least until midnight; that is, an afternoon shift. GREAT NORTHERN FOOTBALL LEAGUE Statement by Member for Geraldton MR I.C. BLAYNEY (Geraldton) [12.59 pm]: The Great Northern Football League concluded its season on 25 September. Congratulations go to Railways for domination of the league by beating Mullewa in the colts, Northampton in the reserves and Rovers in the league. This is the first time that this has been achieved in GNFL. Congratulations to Railways coach Barry Kimberley, the 1984 Simpson medallist, for a record fifth GNFL premiership and admittance to the GNFL Hall of Fame. He was supported by assistant coaches Jason Graham, Matt Powell, Graeme Marsden and Anthony Bunter; team manager Grant Voss; and club president Dennis Gilleland. Nathan Tubby won the Guardian Medal for best on ground. The rest of the winning Railways team were captain Matt Moir, Jeff Smith, Luke Murphy, Kris Clarkson, Anthony Sercombe, Blair Walkington, Ben Doncan, John Reynolds, Corey Foot, Brendon Moir, Taylor Courtland, Matthew Librizzi, Anthony Jones, Brad Collard, Jessie Moore, Ben Saunders, Dylan Bentley, Dion Anthony, Andrew Stokes, Tyler Williams, and Kyle Watts. At the GNFL’s JJ Clune Medal count, Railway’s Jeff Smith won with 40 votes, followed by Rovers’ Justin Crudeli on 37 and Towns’ Shaun Tunbridge third on 33. Towns’ retiring member Dale Baynes won the SnapAction Photography Leading Goal Kickers award, the Geraldton Newspapers’ Football Writers Award and the Spalding Park Golf Club Coaches Award. The East Fremantle Football Club rookie was Towns’ William Thorne; the Wal Clarkson Medal went to Brigades’ Brad Cooper; the Maurie Drennan Rising Star was Railways’ Andrew Stokes; the Jim Scott Medal went to Railways’ Lyndsay Holly; and the President’s Medal went to Chapman Valley’s Sam Royce. The umpires of the year were Steve Pratt for field, Tyson McEwan for boundary and Danny Bentley for goal. Sitting suspended from 1.01 to 2.00 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE EDUCATION — SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 702. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Minister for Education: I refer to the minister’s comment yesterday that transient families account for 1 300 children going missing from our state school system, and her claim that school attendance has increased since she became minister. (1) On exactly what information did the minister base her claim of transient families being the reason why there are 1 300 children whose whereabouts are unknown to her department?

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8515

(2) Why is this a social issue and not an issue that is the minister’s direct responsibility, given that it is published in her annual report? (3) Did the minister mislead the house on school attendance, when her own annual report states that secondary school attendance has declined for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in secondary schools since 2008? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: (1)–(3) I gave, as one example of children whose whereabouts are unknown, transient families—people who move from place to place without telling the school that they are leaving. Mr B.S. Wyatt: So the number of transient families has increased by 80 per cent, has it? The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Dr E. CONSTABLE: We are talking about families that leave their place of residence and go interstate — Mr B.S. Wyatt: And you’ve known about them for a long time! Why has it taken so long? The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, you have asked the question. Enable the minister to answer it, without continually interjecting. If you want a supplementary question, member, I am going to give it to you. You know that. Dr E. CONSTABLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What happens is that a school will find that a child is not attending school. It will try to phone and contact the parents in the usual way, as quickly as it is able to. After a short period of non-attendance, someone normally would visit the home, and discover that the family has moved without telling the school that they are moving. This happens quite often. At the moment, there are about 1 300 families that we know about—or 1 300 children of families that we know about, so I would guess it is probably 700 or maybe 800 families that have moved. They move interstate; they move overseas; they move for all sorts of personal reasons. Families break up, people move and go somewhere else and they change the children’s names. We know that this happens. These are the families we are talking about. Some of those families are transient families. And those numbers fluctuate enormously. At the end of 2009, the number was just over 1 000. At the end of the school year in 2010, the number had reached about 1 200-and-something children—I do not have the exact numbers with me—and, at the moment, it is just over 1 300 children whose whereabouts are unknown. It is a social issue. Mr B.S. Wyatt: What are you doing to bring these numbers down? Dr E. CONSTABLE: I do not make the decisions that families make to move. Mr B.S. Wyatt: No, you don’t, but you’re the Minister for Education. Dr E. CONSTABLE: What we have to do is make sure that we find those children, if they are still in Western Australia. Mr B.S. Wyatt: So what are you doing? Dr E. CONSTABLE: What we are doing, particularly through the new Curriculum Authority legislation, is that we will have a student number for all children. With that new legislation, we will gradually over the next year or two or three make sure that every child has a student number. It is a major database issue to put 200 000 or 300 000 children’s names and numbers on a database so that we will be able to track those children in that way. That will give us a tighter system of tracking children. We cannot track children who move interstate. We cannot track children who move overseas with their parents without telling us. Mr B.S. Wyatt: No, but you can track that it has gone from 400 to 1 300 in four years. Dr E. CONSTABLE: If the member for Victoria Park was moving his child to another school, he would probably pay the school the courtesy of telling it that he was moving so that his child’s name would come off the books. Some people just leave and do not do that. Mr B.S. Wyatt: While you’ve been sitting over there, it has increased to 1 300—by 80 per cent—last year. Dr E. CONSTABLE: What I am telling the member for Victoria Park, if he would listen, is that the numbers have always fluctuated dramatically. Mr B.S. Wyatt: They have never fluctuated like this, minister. Dr E. CONSTABLE: The member does not know that. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Show me an annual report where it has. Dr E. CONSTABLE: Those figures are at a point in time. If the member looked, as I said to him, at the last day of school in 2009 and 2010, the numbers are quite different. They do fluctuate—with people moving, with

8516 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] transient people, with people who are itinerant, that is what happens. It is a social phenomenon and one that schools have to deal with, and deal with as well as they can. EDUCATION — SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 703. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Minister for Education: I ask a supplementary question. Why did the minister say yesterday that under her term as minister, attendance at secondary schools has gone up, when in fact her annual report shows that for both Aboriginal students and non- Aboriginal students, attendance at school has declined? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: What I said yesterday was that over all school years — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Dr E. CONSTABLE: I did not say secondary. The answer is that overall, in the last three years, attendance has increased slightly. COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING 2011 704. Mr J.E. McGRATH to the Premier: Before I ask my question, I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of students from Carine Senior High School, which is obviously in the member for Carine’s electorate. Premier, driving through my electorate of South Perth, I noticed that they have already hoisted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting flags very high. This is the third time that CHOGM will be held in Australia. Could the Premier advise the house of the Liberal–National government’s plans with respect to CHOGM and its associated events? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for South Perth for the question, because his electorate will play a prominent part in the events of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2011, and, indeed, the royal visit, and I know he is enthusiastic—excited. Indeed, members certainly on this side, and I think most members of the house, are very pleased that Perth is the host of CHOGM 2011. Mr E.S. Ripper: Do you thank federal Labor for delivering that event to Perth? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I do. I think the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, did an outstanding job in securing CHOGM for Perth and for Western Australia. Although the formal opening of CHOGM is not until Friday of next week, when the Queen will open CHOGM itself, I think most people in Western Australia are now becoming increasingly aware that the events surrounding CHOGM, and some components of CHOGM, actually precede that. In addition to the formal meeting of Prime Ministers and Presidents, there will be, of course, meetings of foreign ministers. There will also be the Commonwealth Business Forum, which Western Australia has taken responsibility for, with over 1 000 delegates, nearly half of those from countries other than Australia; the People’s Forum, which Sue Ash has had a prime role in, with 300 to 400 delegates; and the Youth Forum, which will also be taking place during that period. In addition, the Western Australian government has taken the lead on building CHOGM into a wider community event. In fact, the first of the formal CHOGM events starts today with the International Super Series Hockey Tournament getting underway tonight. Over the weekend, there will be the netball event, including the test match between Australia and New Zealand, the two top teams in the world. The Commonwealth Arts Festival, which the Minister for Culture and the Arts has spoken about, will also get underway, with a concert in Supreme Court gardens on Sunday night and some 40 events taking place throughout next week. CHOGM is a very large event and a very complex event. There will be, in addition, some 500 volunteers, and a further 80 volunteers helping in the media centre. At this stage, the estimation is that over 6 000 delegates and various representatives will come to Perth from commonwealth nations and from elsewhere in Australia. There will be a media contingent of over 1 100, including nearly 500 overseas journalists and media support staff. This will very much draw a large amount of world attention onto Perth during the whole week, and particularly during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting itself. There will be legacies of this for the people of Western Australia. Most of the state government expenditure has gone on physical investment such as the currently called state reception centre in Kings Park, the police command centre and indeed improvements to Government House. We have also spent significant amounts of public money on the sports and arts festivals, security, and a range of other matters. I invite the people of

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8517

Western Australia to participate in CHOGM. If members are interested—most are—they should take the time to take part in activities around the royal visit. We anticipate that the “Great Aussie Barbecue”, to be held on Saturday week, may attract well over 100 000 people. It will be the Queen’s last event on this Australian tour; basically it will be the farewell to the Queen and Prince Philip. Mr T.G. Stephens: We join you in congratulating the federal Gillard Labor government! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think I made that abundantly clear. I do not know why members opposite are so bitter about this. It is a great event for Western Australia. I have made it clear, and I make it clear at every public venue, that the host is the Australian government and the role of the Western Australian government is to support it. This state government has done an outstanding job, even, can I say, to the extent of backbench members of the government individually going out to greet visiting heads of state at the airport. I thank them in advance for doing that. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I tell members what, it is very important that we do that. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Willagee, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I find that — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I formally call you to order for the first time today. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker — Mr P.C. Tinley: Share the CHOGM love. Come on; be nice! The SPEAKER: Member for Willagee, I formally call you to order for the second time today. If you want an early mark—I will not finish the sentence. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I know the majority of members of Parliament opposite support these activities. I know the Leader of the Opposition does. I welcome and encourage members to come along to all the events. Every single member of Parliament has been invited to the state reception. I am not sure that has ever happened before. That is appropriate. There will be representatives of local government, leaders in sport, charity, volunteering, military, judiciary, education and health. This is a great community event. The public of Western Australia is totally engaged in this. Sponsorship from the corporate sector has been extraordinary; probably never, ever has a CHOGM, anywhere in the world, attracted the degree of corporate participation and sponsorship as is happening in Perth. I know members opposite support this, despite some of the comments across the chamber. I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all the various government departments, volunteers, police, and community-based organisations who have put an enormous effort into this. There have been two years of planning for this event. I am confident it will be a great success. I am sure the people of Western Australia will totally engage themselves and enjoy all the activities and, if one likes, all the pomp and ceremony that will go with both the royal visit and the hosting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Western Australia. HIGH SCHOOLS — ATTENDANCE RATES 705. Mr J.C. KOBELKE to the Minister for Education: On behalf of the member for Mandurah I acknowledge the students from Mandurah Baptist College who are in the public gallery. I refer to the trend in falling attendance rates in many Perth high schools since 2008. (1) What action is the minister taking to address schools at which attendance rates fall below 80 per cent? (2) Why has there been a trend in falling attendance rates in at least nine north metropolitan high schools since 2008? (3) How many other schools have had falling attendance rates since 2008? (4) As the minister’s current strategies are clearly not working, what different action will she take to arrest this decline in school attendance? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: (1)–(4) Members will be aware that an attendance strategy has been put in place. We are working extremely hard to make sure that children not only attend school but also participate in years 11 and 12. I am sure members will be pleased to know that participation rates in years 11 and 12 have remained very steady

8518 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

in the past couple of years, at around the 92 per cent mark. We are very pleased that with the increase in the school entry age the participation rate has been maintained at that level. There are a number of pressure points that we are working on. One of them is the transition from year 7 to year 8. We know that some children at that stage, and their families, find it very difficult to make that transition. We are working on that transition to make sure that children, when they change schools, actually enrol at another school. There are some young people who take the opportunity not to enrol and we then have to chase them up at that point. There was a fall in secondary school attendance between 2000 and 2008, as I mentioned yesterday — Mr B.S. Wyatt: That is not what you mentioned yesterday. Dr E. CONSTABLE: I did mention that yesterday. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Dr E. CONSTABLE: I then quoted a figure that the overall statewide attendance in government schools had slightly increased. The overall attendance I referred to was in — Mr B.S. Wyatt: You said secondary schools were declining. Dr E. CONSTABLE: I did not say secondary schools. If the member checks Hansard, he will see that I did not use the words “secondary school”. Mr B.S. Wyatt: I have it here! The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I formally call you to order for the first time today. It is not an opportunity to interject. Mr B.S. Wyatt: She asked me to check Hansard. The SPEAKER: I formally call you to order for the second time today. Dr E. CONSTABLE: A major thrust of the attendance strategy is to have — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. Dr E. CONSTABLE: We have identified 71 focus schools in the public school system — Several members interjected. Dr E. CONSTABLE: We have identified those 71 public schools. Also, 10 schools have been given a special program and positive reinforcements to children who attend school. Members will also remember that the Auditor General provided a report a couple of years ago on attendance. One of the things he suggested we do is look at positive ways to engage young people. The current strategy is based on research done with young people about what they need to encourage them to go to school, based on the Auditor General’s report. The research indicated that students need not punishment but positive reasons to go to school, and to work out for themselves why school is important. Ten key schools have been chosen to be part of that positive program. Mr E.S. Ripper: When do you expect attendance rates to improve? Dr E. CONSTABLE: I see attendance rates in some of those schools already improving, especially in the chosen 10. I am assured there has been a positive effect on attendance of children at those schools. A number of organisations such as the Eagles have come on board. The heroes of these young people are involved in attendance programs for those schools that have very low attendance. The question of attendance is an issue for this government and it was an issue for the former government. Sometimes they are complex questions. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Unfortunately it is getting worse under you! Dr E. CONSTABLE: It is not getting worse under us. In fact overall attendance has risen under this government. HIGH SCHOOLS — ATTENDANCE RATES 706. Mr J.C. KOBELKE to the Minister for Education: I have a supplementary question. Given the number of children missing from the minister’s schools, has the minister met with the Minister for Police to discuss the contribution her failed policies are making to the juvenile crime rate? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: The business of attendance at schools is a matter for the Department of Education engaging across government with other agencies. I noticed today that the Commissioner of Police made some comments about schools. I understand that the commissioner is a well-respected police officer. I think he has a law qualification, but I do

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8519 not know that he has an education qualification. I suggest that he engage with the director general on the issues that he wishes to raise and I am sure she would want to talk to him about them. COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING 2011 — iPHONE APP 707. Mr P.T. MILES to the Minister for Tourism: Yesterday I downloaded the new iPhone app that the minister launched ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which will assist visitors to find things to see and do in WA. Can the minister please provide the house with more detail on the features of the new app? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I am very pleased that the member downloaded the app yesterday, in fact our technology hot spot at the back downloaded it in the two minutes we were standing waiting to do question time today. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Dr K.D. HAMES: Therefore, downloading it is very easy. We are not allowed to use our phones in this place of course, but if members type “Experience WA” — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: Go ahead then. Type “Experience WA”, and the free app just takes a couple of minutes to download. I did the launch yesterday, but I have been looking forward to the app for a long time and I keep talking to people about it, because it really is an exciting thing that we have been able to do. The other bit of good news is that all the delegates coming to Western Australia to CHOGM—there will be about 3 000 of them—will see a couple of things happen. First they will get this little passport given to them and on the passport there is the app — Mr M.P. Murray interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: The member will get arrested for interjecting. In the middle of the passport there are details about the app that can be downloaded, there are details about things that can be found in Perth, there is a map, and there is a little transport smartcard that gives access — Several members interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: The opposition will probably try to nick these for itself. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Mr C.J. Barnett: They will try to sell them off. Dr K.D. HAMES: They will try to sell them. This smartcard really is a great little thing; it will give free public transport. Sadly I cannot take credit for all of this, although the package does have “Extraordinary WA” written on the front of it. I had to hide this from the Premier while he was doing the first question because I thought he might want to take the announcement off me, as he does on occasion! Mr C.J. Barnett: There would be some justification in that, given your role! Dr K.D. HAMES: If members have been able to download that already — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Dr K.D. HAMES: If members download that app, they will see that it has some fantastic things. It has about 7 000 listings and can be used on any smart phone or, in fact, on an iPad. It will show a person’s location. A person can put in things that they like on it, but it also has a range of other information such as accommodation, restaurants, events, things to do and places to go to. Users can get information about them, and they can get phone numbers so that they can ring and book things. Even then, users can click on directions and the app will download the map showing how to get to the place they want to go. Mr T.G. Stephens interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: Even the member for Pilbara will be able to find places of culture; I know that culture is not one of his favourite outlets. It will show people how to get to cultural events in the city. Have a look, people will be really excited about what is there. People can also look at different parts of Western Australia. They can access information about Monkey Mia, for example, and read some details about Monkey Mia and see some great footage of it.

8520 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mrs C.A. Martin interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: There is a lot of stuff, member, about the Kimberley and stuff from all over Western Australia. There is a bit more stuff that we want to get in the future, but we will work on that. There are different things such as more information about places people can go to and get to see in the Kimberley, more about events. People have to be — Mr T.G. Stephens interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: I am trying to drown the member out, I am sorry; I do not need this! Several members interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: I am sure we are providing great amusement to the opposition, so instead of being amused with my comments, opposition members should download the app and amuse themselves finding things that they have never seen before in WA. RED CAT BUS SERVICE — OVERCROWDING 708. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Transport: I refer to overcrowding in our public transport system. (1) Is the minister aware that there is still significant overcrowding on the red CAT buses during peak times, despite additional buses being added earlier this year? (2) Is the minister aware that the red CAT buses are licensed to carry 59 passengers and that they are regularly carrying more than 70 passengers during peak times? (3) Who is responsible for ensuring that buses do not carry more than the number of passengers that they are licensed for? (4) What action will the minister take to ensure that buses do not carry more passengers than they are licensed for? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the member from Midland. As a bus driver whose licence is still valid, let me say this: the person responsible for the number of passengers on the bus is the driver, full stop. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that that vehicle is operated within the laws of the state. In relation to the member’s assertions about the number of people on the red CAT buses, I assume that that is a measure that the member has counted and therefore I will not comment on it, because the member’s grasp of figures is occasionally rubbery, more often than not rather wide off the mark — Mr E.S. Ripper: Answer the question; don’t abuse the question. Mrs M.H. Roberts: Why don’t you deal with it? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. The member for Midland can get up in this place and trump up a number that she pulled out of somewhere; I would rather go out with the Public Transport Authority and make sure that numbers are true. Mr E.S. Ripper: Every user knows that they are overcrowded, and you’re in this place denying it. Mrs M.H. Roberts: When was the last time you got on a red CAT bus? Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The Leader of the Opposition’s and the member for Midland’s experience with numbers does not fill anyone the government side of the house with confidence when they make assertions about numbers. Are the CAT buses busy? Yes. Are they busier at the peak period than at other periods of the day? Yes. That is why it is called a peak period. It is an international phenomenon. What it means is that in the mornings and the afternoons when people are trying to get to work and get home, there are more people on the buses. There has been a significant increase in our annual spend on CAT bus services; I think it has increased by about 40 per cent over the last couple of years. That is 40 per cent more effort going into CAT bus services. There are now seven additional buses on the CAT bus service. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The red CAT that the member for Midland asked about has an extra bus on the service. The red CAT now operates for additional hours. All those things are factors that drive patronage up. Members on the Labor side of politics seem to think that increased patronage on public transport is a bad thing. I actually have a view that more people on public transport is a good thing and what this government is doing to ensure that good services are provided is investing record amounts of money in public transport. There are record increases in the bus fleet —

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8521

Mr E.S. Ripper: You are just full of it, really! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Even buses to Belmont, Leader of the Opposition, that long forgotten part of Perth! Has the Leader of the Opposition been out there lately? Has he seen the upgrades to Great Eastern Highway? Has he seen the extra buses services into Belmont? Did that ever happen under the Labor government? Never. There have been record investments in buses and there are new trains being delivered. The issue with patronage levels in 2016, which is what the member for Midland referred to yesterday, will be dealt with before 2016, because the one thing that the member has forgotten is that it takes two years to deliver a train. Therefore, by my calculation, it means that as long as we have ordered the trains by 2014, we will have them by 2016. We will deal with issues of growing patronage on the Perth train network at the appropriate time, through the appropriate orders as we have done thus far. Member from Midland, let me say this: people are using the CAT bus service because they have a better service. Is there extra demand during the peak period? Absolutely. Who is responsible for the safe operation of the bus? The bus driver. RED CAT BUS SERVICE — OVERCROWDING 709. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Transport: Why will the minister not use any of the millions of dollars accumulating in the Perth parking fund to build a light rail across the Perth CBD and actually fix the problem? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: We are using some of the millions of dollars in the Perth parking levy to pay for the extra CAT bus services that the member just accused us of not having. I want to make a couple of points in relation to light rail, because — Mr E.S. Ripper: You raised the levy; you’re hoarding the funds to massage state debt. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Most definitely not, Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition’s fixation with state debt does not need to be confused with public transport. Let us be absolutely clear in the first instance. Mr E.S. Ripper: When it triples in three years, of course I’m worried about it. The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: A lot of the money that is raised through that parking levy is paying for the extra CAT bus services. In relation to light rail, I happened to notice the opposition’s plan for light rail. It will be the cheapest light rail ever built in history. It will go from Gloucester Park to Princess Margaret Hospital. How will people use that? Who will use it? Is the plan for them to park at Gloucester Park? Will there be a parking station at the either end? Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I do not know. Members opposite want a light rail that connects a place where nobody lives to a place where nobody else lives. Yesterday, in the upper house, Hon Ken Travers said that if we are to have light rail, we cannot have car parks near it, and we cannot have bus interchanges. Is that the Leader of the Opposition’s view? Mr E.S. Ripper: He has got under your skin! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Is it the view of members opposite that if people want light rail, they have to be able to walk to the train? Is that your view, Leader of the Opposition? Mr E.S. Ripper: I would not trust your account of Hon Ken Travers’ remarks whatsoever. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: You cannot knock a house down to build it, and you have to walk to the train! I want to close with something I happened to dig out; I might even lay it on the table. This document is a study into light rail in Strasbourg, France. I had the good fortune to go there recently. Strasbourg is France’s sixth or seventh biggest city and it has the largest light rail network; it is one of the world’s leading light rail networks. Do members opposite know what happens in Strasbourg? This study reads — On some points along the tram routes, the design of the street and the platform lets buses pull up … It lets people get on and off the trams on the light rail, which is exactly what Ken Travers does not want to have happen. The document continues by stating that they “deem park and ride facilities absolutely necessary”. Members opposite want to build a light rail system that, firstly, is the cheapest light rail system since the dawn of time, and, secondly, they want people to have to walk because there will be no parking and no chance to get off buses. Members opposite are internationally unique!

8522 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING 2011 — COMMONWEALTH FESTIVAL 710. Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND to the Minister for Culture and the Arts: With the launch of the Commonwealth Festival this Sunday, will the minister please inform the house of the class events that the people of Western Australia will be able to enjoy? Mr J.H.D. DAY replied: I am very happy to provide a bit of information about the extensive cultural festival organised in association with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting being held here next week. Certainly, a diverse range of performances and visual arts experiences has been put together very competently and very effectively by all those involved, and it is a great credit to them. The focus of activity will be in the “People’s Space”, as it is being known, in the Perth Cultural Centre, which is an area that members might recall, or would be well aware had they visited in recent times, has been substantially upgraded over the past two years—most recently with the addition of a LED screen and children’s play area in front of the Museum, and improvements in safety, lighting and many other aspects. A whole range of activities will be held from Sunday of this weekend through to the following Sunday—that is, 30 October—including exhibitions, music, art, films and fireworks displays. The festival has been organised in part for visitors to Western Australia, but more particularly for people from Perth and Western Australia, so that they can experience — Mr J.N. Hyde: Why don’t you keep the free wi-fi going after the one week? Why not give the people of Perth a CHOGM benefit? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I will come back to the member’s comment. As usual, the member for Perth has made a contribution of great substance in relation to arts activities in this state. I will come back to that in a moment. But the point I was making was that this festival has been organised primarily for people from Perth and WA so that they can experience a range of international standard events performed in part by local performers from Western Australia and Australia, and also by range of international performers such as Zakir Hussein, who will bring his international drumming performance to the Supreme Court Gardens next Sunday evening; the group Capercaillie from Scotland; Ringo Madlingozi from South Africa; together with Dan Sultan and Bombay Royale, both from Australia, who will perform at the finale concert on the South Perth foreshore on 30 October. Other significant events will include — Mr F.M. Logan: Who is cooking the barbecue? Will it be you or the Premier? Mr J.H.D. DAY: I am focusing on arts activity. There will be a broad range of experiences. I am sure that other ministers will inform the member about that. The member for Perth has, as usual, engaged in his predictable knocking activity in relation to anything positive that the government is arranging within his electorate. Never before in the history of this state has so much concentrated activity being focused in the electorate of Perth, and the member for Perth seems to have a major problem with that! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Mr J.H.D. DAY: Worse than that, the member for Perth on radio this morning managed to, in my view, grossly insult all those who have been involved in organising this cultural festival—people such as its artistic director, Shelagh Magadza, and David Malakari and all the other people who have been working behind the scenes. Mr J.N. Hyde: You’re not funding any artistic comment. Mr C.C. Porter: You’re not going! You’re not even turning up! You are a one-man protest! Mr T.R. Buswell: You’re not going and everyone is happy you’re not going. Mr J.N. Hyde: You go out and talk to the arts community. You talk to the people who have had their funding cut for your ribbon dancing and your fireworks for one week. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Perth! Do you want to repeat the exercise of yesterday? Is that what you are trying to do? I am happy to oblige you. I am happy to close question time right now. Mr J.H.D. DAY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Most people in the political arena experience relevance deprivation syndrome after they leave Parliament; unfortunately, some seem to experience it while they are still elected! With comments like “CHOGM events of ribbon dancing, fireworks and mindless entertainment” and also

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8523 complaining about, I quote, “the lack of intellectual rigour”, I would like to know whether the member extends those comments to exhibitions such as Yiwarra Kuju: The Canning Stock Route. Does the member include that in the category of mindless entertainment and lacking in intellectual rigour? That is effectively what he is doing. Is that so with the Extraordinary Stories from the British Museum exhibition? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Mr J.H.D. DAY: A wide range of events and activities that very much involve intellectual rigour are being organised. They are of a high standard and I am sure that many thousands of Western Australians, and residents of Perth in particular, will enjoy participating in these events. I very much encourage members and members of the public to attend as many of this diverse range of events as they can. ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS CAP — WESTERN AUSTRALIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST REPORT 711. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I refer to the Western Australian Regional Development Trust chaired by Andrew Murray and its report that recommended removing the $1 billion cap contained in the Royalties for Regions Act, and that suggested there needs to be far better planning in place to ensure royalties money is spent wisely. (1) Will this government amend the act to remove the cap? (2) Why is $670 million sitting idle on the Premier’s watch whilst investment pressures build up in the country? (3) What assurance can the Premier give that money is being spent wisely and not potentially wasted through lack of proper planning as this report has indicated? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I thank the member for Rockingham for the question. When this government was formed—it is not a traditional coalition; it is an alliance between the Liberal Party and the National Party—the National Party, as they campaigned, brought to government the royalties for regions policy. That has been adopted and endorsed across government. It is a very, very effective campaign—project—campaign and project! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was a Freudian slip! The National Party ran a good campaign and it was endorsed by votes in country areas. It was adopted as part of government policy and it has been central to this government’s programs in regional Western Australia. I was in the member for Pilbara’s electorate a week or so ago. I recommend that people go to Port Hedland and look at what is happening there. The whole of Port Hedland, both old Port Hedland and South Hedland, is essentially being rebuilt. A town that was developed in the 1960s is being redeveloped and rebuilt 40 to 50 years on. The same is happening in other Pilbara towns. It is a great program. Look at the Ord River scheme. Mr M. McGowan: Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will answer the question. Look at the work that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Regional Development have done on the southern inland health initiative by employing doctors, upgrading regional hospitals and providing health care right across the southern Wheatbelt area. We have outstanding health and regional programs. The program, which is now part of government, is at the centre of regional development in Western Australia. I and other members have made lots of speeches about regional development over the years, but not since the 1960s has Western Australia seen such a commitment and such effectiveness in development outside Perth. It is down to that program and the efforts of the minister and other ministers who have been involved in programs. As to the cap, the legislation is drafted with a cap in place. That has been the structure. It was mutually agreed and seen as appropriate. We have seen a rapid rise in royalties because of the success of this government in promoting expanding projects and the rise in commodity prices. Mr E.S. Ripper: And the rise in royalty rates. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I just said that; that was the point I made. Rising exports, rising prices and more projects means more royalties income. At some stage we will sit down as a government and look at that program and its legislative structure. Mr M. McGowan: What is the answer? Mr C.J. BARNETT: We will do that as a government and when we have done that, we will tell members what we are doing.

8524 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

ROYALTIES FOR REGIONS CAP — WESTERN AUSTRALIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST REPORT 712. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. Will the Premier clarify exactly when he will decide whether to lift the $1 billion cap; and is the Leader of the National Party correct in saying that it must be lifted? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: The Leader of the National Party, who administers the program as Minister for Regional Development, obviously has primacy with that legislation; he brought it through the Parliament. Mr M. McGowan: Is he right? Mr C.J. BARNETT: If the member listens to my answer, he will find out that at some stage we will sit down and look at the cap issue and we will decide as a government. We will decide within cabinet and time will tell whether we do that this side or the other side of the election, if we are fortunate enough to be returned to government. At the moment it is not something that is occupying the government’s time. Mr M. McGowan: That is not what he says. Mr C.J. BARNETT: We are not looking at it. COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING 2011 — TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS 713. Mr I.M. BRITZA to the Minister for Transport: Could the minister please advise the house on what arrangements this Liberal–National government has put in place to assist those members of our communities who wish to travel into the city to participate and enjoy the wide variety of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting events? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: That is a very, very good question from the member for Morley. Notwithstanding the efforts of the opposition to talk down our public transport system and to hang around the rail stations trying to scare patrons off our public transport system — Several members interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I have seen the photos of Hon Ken Travers out at Stirling with the member for Balcatta. It was spooky! We have a good public transport system with 1 154 buses. Do members know that that fleet happens to be growing at 15 per cent over the next few years? On top of that, we have a $430 million fleet replacement program. We have 234 railcars; that will grow by 20 per cent over the next few years. This capacity, along with the efforts of the employees of the Public Transport Authority and others, such as the security contractors, will be brought to bear to ensure that Western Australians have every opportunity to enjoy the benefits afforded to them when they come into the city over the principal CHOGM days of Friday and Saturday next week. It is a great series of initiatives. Normal train services will continue as usual. The three main stations in the city of Esplanade, Perth Underground and Perth will all remain open. Buses will continue to run right across the CHOGM period, although there will be some impact on bus services because of closures to Wellington Street and the City Busport. The Public Transport Authority’s website and the production of some 5 000 or 6 000 brochures will ensure that users are fully aware of those potential changes. Those changes are only minor in the broader scheme of things. Importantly, on Friday and Saturday of next week there will be free public transport in Western Australia. That will apply to trains, buses and—if the member for South Perth was here, he would be pleased to hear—ferries. There will be no charges for our Park ‘n’ Ride facilities on our rail network on the public holidays, bearing in mind, that there are now some 4 000 additional Park ‘n’ Ride places so that people can park and enjoy rail transport into the city. I think the PTA has done a fantastic job in making sure that it will have every available service online to assist people, especially those coming into the city on the Saturday to the barbecue. As the Premier said, over 100 000 are expected and it will involve a major transportation effort. Mr F.M. Logan: I hope that they get there before you do or they will not get any sausages at all! Mr T.R. BUSWELL: I am sure the member for Cockburn will bolt them down! Yesterday, I visited the Main Roads—I did not realise that came out like that!—traffic operation centre over in Northbridge. It is fantastic. I got to see the work that Main Roads, WA Police and some of our contractors are doing to manage the road network during the CHOGM period. They have a number of challenges. They have to move every head of state in a motorcade-style procession from the airport into the city. Yesterday, I saw them bring a motorcade into the

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8525 middle of the city in 14 minutes in normal Perth traffic by manipulating the traffic lights. Normal road users would not have noticed. I got to meet Inspector Royal, I think his name is. I have heard him on the radio talking to Ethel Chop on 94.5 FM. He was in charge on the day. The one thing that I think is fantastic is the dedication and commitment of the staff who were working there yesterday. They were very proud to participate, as public servants of Western Australia, in the CHOGM effort. Their efforts and dedication should be applauded, because it is the efforts and dedication of thousands of people like that, including public servants and volunteers, that will make CHOGM very successful for not only the residents of the Western Australia, but also all who live here and who will have an opportunity to enjoy our period in the international spotlight. FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL — SERCO 714. Mr R.H. COOK to the Minister for Health: I refer to recent media reports regarding Serco Australia and, in particular, the revelations that staff were forced into riot situations without training or regard for staff or detainees’ safety and of efforts by Serco to stop current and former members of staff revealing these dangerous management practices in public. (1) Will the minister accept that these same management practices could potentially be imposed on our health system as a result of the minister’s decision to privatise services at Fiona Stanley Hospital? (2) Is it true that Serco will use the same staffing contract and practices at Fiona Stanley Hospital as those being used at Christmas Island? (3) Will the minister investigate these claims about Serco’s management competence at Christmas Island and report on its implications — Several members interjected. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I formally call you to order for the second and third times today. Mr R.H. COOK: — for the hospital services contract at Fiona Stanley Hospital? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)–(3) It is no wonder that no-one takes members opposite seriously when they come up with questions such as that one. The contract that Serco Australia has is with the commonwealth government. Just because someone makes assertions in the newspaper about some behaviour and how those things were carried out — Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES: I will bet that the union member who jumps up and down and pulls the member’s strings is the same union member who is jumping up and down and putting out stories about how the contract operates. The reality is that it has a contract for managing those services. Withdrawal of Remark Mr M. McGOWAN: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to what the minister just alleged about the member for Kwinana—that an outside body pulls his strings. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: People to my right are not helping the process at all at this moment. Mr M. McGOWAN: Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that that is an adverse reflection upon a member under standing order 92 and that the minister should be asked to withdraw such an assertion. The SPEAKER: I am not going to instruct the Minister for Health to do so. I do not think the intention was to adversely reflect on the member for Kwinana. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Thank you, members! Mr R.H. Cook interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Kwinana, I expect that you want an answer to this question. I would like to hear an answer to the question. With the way that people on both sides of this place are acting at the moment, I am inclined to close question time. If there are further interruptions, that is what I will be doing. Dr K.D. HAMES: I am afraid that it was an adverse comment about the member for Kwinana and I do withdraw. A government member: But it’s accurate.

8526 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Dr K.D. HAMES: Accuracy has nothing to do with it. This is not a question of accuracy; this is a question of the allegation that I made. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, that concludes question time. PAPER TABLED A paper was tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Council; and, on motion by Mr T.R. Buswell (Minister for Transport), read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR T.R. BUSWELL (Vasse — Minister for Transport) [2.52 pm] — by leave: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The Industrial Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will amend various statutes, but the principal amendments will be to the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act 1985. The Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act established a statutory portable long service leave scheme for employees in the Western Australian construction industry. The itinerant nature of the industry means that employees rarely have long service with one particular employer. The act bases the entitlement to long service leave on employees’ service in the construction industry rather than with one particular employer. The portable long service leave scheme under the act is administered by the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board. The board is responsible for administering the scheme’s funds, which as at 30 June 2011 totalled $208 million. In the 2010–11 financial year, the contribution levy collected by the board from employers totalled $62.7 million, with the average number of employees contributed for being 62 047. The Western Australian construction industry has experienced strong employment growth over the past decade, with an annual average increase of 4 100 employees. In this environment, it is timely that the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act be updated to clarify the act’s application to certain employers and to improve the administration of the scheme. The bill will make a number of definitional amendments to the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act. In particular, the bill will replace outdated references to commonwealth industrial laws and industrial instruments. These references are critical to determining who employees are for the purposes of the act. The act currently refers to federal awards made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which are being progressively phased out. If these references are not updated, over time the act will apply to only a small number of employees in the Western Australian construction industry. The portable long service leave scheme would effectively become redundant. The bill will clarify that labour hire agencies are included in the definition of “employer” under the act. It is desirable that this be made explicit with the increasing incidence of labour hire, and to ensure that the act achieves its primary objective of providing all employees in the Western Australian construction industry with paid long service leave. The bill will rectify identified anomalies under the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act. For example, the bill will ensure that what counts as service in the construction industry is consistent for both registered and unregistered employees under the act. The bill will also amend the act to prescribe a time frame for employers to submit contributions to the board. Although the act requires employers to submit both a written statement and contributions, a time frame is currently prescribed only for submitting the statement. Other amendments are designed to improve operational efficiencies and to reduce administrative red tape. Employees will no longer have to apply to the board to register under the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act. They can be automatically registered by virtue of their employer submitting a statement with their details to the board. The bill will change the process for selecting members of the board. The Minister for Commerce will now have discretion to appoint two ordinary members to the board, with one member to represent the interests of employers in the construction industry and the other to represent the interests of employees. This will enable broader industry representation on the board. The bill will replace most of the offence provisions in the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act with civil penalty provisions. Civil penalties are generally considered to be more appropriate for

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8527 contraventions of industrial legislation than offence provisions. Proceedings for a civil penalty will be brought by an officer of the board in the Industrial Magistrates Court. The bill will also enable certain decisions of the board to be reviewed by a single commissioner of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Aside from the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act, the bill will amend the Industrial Relations Act 1979, the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993, the Employment Dispute Resolution Act 2008, the Litter Act 1979 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984. In terms of the Industrial Relations Act, the bill will ensure the validity of certain statutory appointments made under the act, including those of industrial inspectors, the Registrar and deputy registrars of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Clerk of the Western Australian Industrial Appeal Court. Case law has questioned the process for appointing these officers, and it is therefore necessary for the act to be amended to remove any uncertainty. The bill will enable the Chief Commissioner of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission to waive certain publication requirements for awards and industrial agreements when appropriate. Currently, the Chief Commissioner can waive the publication requirements only in limited circumstances, which creates unnecessary administration. The bill will also replace outdated references in the Industrial Relations Act, the Employment Dispute Resolution Act, the Litter Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Finally, the bill will amend the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act to recognise special public holidays that may be declared from time to time under the Public and Bank Holidays Act 1972. The Minimum Conditions of Employment Act ensures that permanent employees who are not required to work on a public holiday are still entitled to payment. In summary, the bill will ensure the ongoing viability of Western Australia’s portable long service leave scheme in the construction industry, remove uncertainty concerning the validity of certain appointments under the Industrial Relations Act and replace outdated references in other legislation. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman. AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (DISPUTES) REPEAL BILL 2011 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Council; and, on motion by Mr D.T. Redman (Minister for Agriculture and Food), read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR D.T. REDMAN (Blackwood–Stirling — Minister for Agriculture and Food) [3.00 pm] — by leave: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. This bill will repeal the Agricultural Practices (Disputes) Act 1995, which has been earmarked for repeal since this was recommended by a review of the act in 2002. Quite simply, the act is to be repealed because its continuance cannot be justified when it was only ever used very rarely and is now essentially unused. The act provides for the appointment of an Agricultural Practices (Disputes) Board to determine disputes between neighbouring landholders in relation to odour, noise, dust, smoke, fumes, fugitive light or spray drift. It was thought when the act was introduced that there would be a significant number of disputes about agricultural practices as a result of the encroachment of urban land use into rural areas. In fact there was only ever a very small and decreasing use of the act. The provision for mediation was used only rarely, with three being the maximum in any one year and none at all being conducted in some years, including the last three financial years. The board was not ever called upon to determine a dispute. No members have been appointed to the board for some years and in 2008, acting under section 55(2) of the Financial Management Act 2006, the Treasurer appointed the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food as the accountable authority for the board until the act is repealed. The act will be repealed by clause 2 of the bill. Because no board is currently appointed, no staff and no funds in the account provided for in the act, there is no need for any transitional provisions. The bill will make consequential amendments to three acts to remove reference to the board from schedules to the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 and the Financial Management Act 2006, and to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1986, which refers to the Agricultural Practices (Disputes) Act in section 74B(2). The years since the Agricultural Practices (Disputes) Act was introduced have shown that there is no need for this act. Potential conflicts resulting from competing land uses are best addressed through effective land use

8528 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] planning. Redundant and obsolete acts should not be left on the statute books; the act should therefore be repealed. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr D.A. Templeman. ELECTORAL AND CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL 2011 Second Reading Resumed from 19 October. MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [3.02 pm]: When debate was adjourned on the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2011, I had just commenced making some observations on comments the member for Mandurah made during his contribution to this particular bill. In particular I referred to his comments about Golden Bay and Singleton and how that relates to the population data used for electoral districts when boundary changes have been contemplated. Although not central to his contribution, the member for Mandurah made the observation that people living in Golden Bay and Singleton quite rightly view themselves in some respects as being isolated communities and having more in common with communities to their south in the northern suburbs of Mandurah than communities in the southern suburbs of Rockingham to their north. That would have been a fair observation had it been made a year ago, because in the interim the government has pushed ahead with its substantial development in Golden Bay. The consequence of that is that Golden Bay as a community—perhaps a little insular, perhaps separated geographically from its neighbouring suburb to the north, Secret Harbour—is no longer separated. Already the earthworks for roads and future facilities at the new Golden Bay development are in place. Very shortly that development, which will cater for around 4 500 additional people, will be going ahead. From Secret Harbour and Golden Bay all the way down to Singleton will be one long suburb. I occasionally hear the argument from residents in those two suburbs that they are stand-alone communities—historically they were little coastal villages—but that is no longer really valid. Physically it does not look that way any more. It is worthy of note that one community of interest in that coastal strip perhaps shares more in common with the coastal suburbs to its north in Port Kennedy and Warnbro, for instance, than with the ones further south. Between Mandurah and Rockingham there is a gap of about a kilometre in length. There is no longer a gap of that nature to the north. I make that observation because it demonstrates how quickly the population is growing in this outer metropolitan area in the southern and eastern suburbs of Rockingham. The electorate of Warnbro, as a result of this recent change to the boundaries, has been left with the highest deviation above the average district enrolment for 2011, which is 23 178. Warnbro has 8.59 per cent deviation. The upper limit set by the legislation, as I understand it, was 10 per cent. I assume that that upper limit of 10 per cent was to try to ensure that representation was as close as possible to being equal. On the understanding that there is a deviation of plus or minus 10 per cent, some districts will have far fewer people than the electorate of Warnbro has. The point I wanted to make is that, because the population figure used as the determining number is the one the district has two years after the election, in the case of Warnbro, that is significantly out of date. The statistics suggest that the population in the Warnbro electorate deviates above the average by 8.59 per cent. Based on the number of enrolments that I understand come into the electorate every month, it would be in excess of 10 per cent right now. I know that would not necessarily be true of any of the districts in the metropolitan region, but it is very true of this one. When people come to Western Australia for the boom, they come to that outer metropolitan perimeter. One of the areas people really are attracted to, because of affordability of land, proximity to the beach, lifestyle choices, public transport and those sorts of things, is the south and eastern rim around Rockingham. As a consequence, right now I am absolutely certain that the electorate of Warnbro would have well in excess of 10 per cent above the average district involvement. By the time of the next election in 2013, it will probably be in excess of what it was when this process commenced a year ago, so it will be above 15 per cent of the average district enrolment. I do know how we tackle that. Trying to make projections is always going to be fraught with danger. Five years ago, growth was much slower. Certainly in the last four years, in the time I have been in this place, growth in the electorates that I have represented, initially Peel and now Warnbro, has been consistent. That reflects the growth of the state in general. The pull factors that are driving the growth mean that people will disproportionately come to settle in this area. Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to the upper end of that scale in the outer metropolitan area—or in other electorates, if it is happening somewhere else, although I do not think it is— which enables a reappraisal and a more accurate assessment of the population that we are dealing with. Effectively, we had a 10 per cent deviation either way, so some thought must have gone into that. It was before my time. I assume it was to ensure that, as much as possible, everyone got equal representation—services were provided by the same number of staff. The same amount of resources is available to each member of Parliament and to a reasonably equal number of electors in the state. This will not be the case in Warnbro. I do not know how we deal with it other than through a reappraisal closer to the finalisation of boundary redistributions, which

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8529 could take into account those outlying areas. In my view, if any sort of recent assessment had been done, we would have found that the population was well above a 10 per cent deviation over the average district enrolment. There needs to be some sort of method of dealing with it. Yes, it may be the case in only one electorate at the moment, but I can see easily that similar electorates to the north east will be potentially impacted in the future. People go there when the boom is on. We can only assume — Mr C.J. Barnett: What is unusual in the area you are talking about is that there are two growth areas growing toward each other. That is not replicated in the north. It is an interesting scenario. Mr P. PAPALIA: That is true. I was looking through the north east hoping there might be some sort of replication, but there is not. I do not recall the deviation in Mandurah but I think it is smaller. It is not that pronounced in Mandurah. Mr D.A. Templeman: It stays the same. Mr P. PAPALIA: It is the same. Mr D.A. Templeman: I think it is negative three per cent. Mr P. PAPALIA: Warnbro is really an individual electorate that seems to be impacted dramatically. The next nearest electorate in the south metropolitan area is Rockingham, which is just over eight per cent. One other alternative, Premier, might be to increase the resources available to a seat that represents a larger number of people. I understand Alfred Cove got an additional computer and staff member. The electorate of Warnbro will comprise significantly more people than the electorate of Alfred Cove. The electorate of Alfred Cove has 1.9 per cent above the average district enrolment. My view, and I think it is quite a fair one, is that probably, conservatively, Warnbro would be well in excess of 10 per cent above. Perhaps we could have a proportional increase in assets and resources for the Warnbro electorate based on Alfred Cove’s extra allocation of a staff member and a computer. The Premier is a reasonable man! Mr C.J. Barnett: Perhaps you can work 10 per cent harder! Mr P. PAPALIA: You know I already do, Premier; you know I already do! Mr C.J. Barnett: There is spare capacity there. Mr W.J. Johnston: There used to be an eight-year gap between redistribution. The seat of Wanneroo got to be very, very large, so they had a specific additional allowance for the member for Wanneroo. Mr P. PAPALIA: Thank you very much, member for Cannington. In all seriousness, Premier, I am assuming the argument—the Electoral Commissioner will probably be able to correct me later when I can chat to him— was that that 10 per cent either way of the average was so that members did not get any excess workload or diminished representation for the larger population or, conversely, excessive allocations for a smaller number of people in smaller electorates. For what it is worth, I think it was worth making that observation at this time because I cannot see it getting any better. The next redistribution will not be until after the next election and it will be two years after that if we keep growing. One thing I agree with the Premier about is that the state is growing dramatically and these areas will continue to draw people in disproportionate numbers. All resources and services provided to those people should be increased proportionately, including democratic representation. Did I not say, “Member for Rockingham, get ready”? The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr J.M. Francis): No; and you do not have the call now, sorry. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [3.13 pm]: He caught me unawares, Mr Acting Speaker. It is his military training; he likes to catch people unawares. I rise to speak on the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill. I want to talk about various electoral issues because I think this is the right context in which to do so. The issue of fixed terms, of course, has been around for a long time. To the best of my recollection, legislation was perhaps introduced into the upper house in 2002– 03—I do not think it was passed, or even debated—by former Attorney General Jim McGinty, the then member for Fremantle, to put in place fixed terms in Western Australia. That legislation was opposed by the Liberal and National Parties, and from recollection, it was opposed by the various Independents, whether they were Democrats, Greens or the One Nation members who were in the upper house. There was no point in proceeding with the legislation because it was going no further. For a long time it has been part of Labor policy that we should have fixed-term elections. It has now been introduced and, I suppose, to comply with longstanding ALP policy, it is a good thing. Historically, the great advocate for fixed-term elections was Gough Whitlam. Indeed, some people who knew him well said he could not shut up about the issue. Fixed-term elections and one vote, one value were an obsession with him. In the early 1970s the commonwealth Parliament passed legislation to equalise the size of

8530 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] electorates and, essentially, introduced a form of one vote, one value. Prior to that in the commonwealth, there were grave and large discrepancies in the size of electorates. The commonwealth Parliament, with perhaps the anomaly of Tasmania, which is guaranteed by the constitution, now has a one vote, one value system. The commonwealth never got to the position of fixed-term Parliaments. We find in Parliaments around the world that electoral terms run for different lengths of time. Some have fixed terms. From memory, in Australia the two places now with three-year terms are Queensland and the commonwealth. Western Australia did away with a three-year term and went to a four-year term. The legislation was passed in 1988 or 1989 and the first four-year term was from 1989 to 1993. In other jurisdictions, such as Britain, the period between general elections is five years, and in the United States it is four years. The period between presidential elections in France is five years. I have some recollection that at one point it may have been seven years. Mr W.J. Johnston: France is five years for parliamentary elections and seven years for presidential elections. Mr M. McGOWAN: Not anymore. Mr W.J. Johnston: In the US the period is four years for Presidents and two years for their state parliaments and the House of Representatives. Mr M. McGOWAN: The member for Cannington knows a lot about these issues, but I can guarantee that the last presidential election in France was 2007 between Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy, and the next election will be in May next year. They have gone to five-year terms, but at one time their elections were held every seven years. Ms J.M. Freeman: Ask the Premier about the NZ elections! Mr M. McGOWAN: I will let him answer that in due course. In any event, different rules apply around the world for terms of office. In the New South Wales upper house, members are elected for an eight-year period. I cannot remember whether there are two arrangements. Historically, an eight-year term in the upper house was a reward for long-serving party apparatchiks on all sides. Members who were voted into the upper house had, essentially, eight years without having to face the electorate, which of course is way, way too long. In other countries presidents are elected for life. Mr C.J. Barnett: That has a certain appeal! Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier is no doubt enamoured with that. For Muammar Gaddafi, electoral life is a lot longer, although it might be shortly truncated. Perhaps other people might like to be elected for life at a certain point in their life cycle. In any event, other countries have different rules. In this state, a four-year term was put in place in 1989 and it will not be changed. Do I think it is the best of all systems? I used to. I am now in two minds about whether it should be four or three years. Queensland Parliament has a three-year term. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think three years is too short. I think they should make it four. Mr M. McGOWAN: Yes; they could do. The problem with the federal Parliament is that it often goes to the polls much earlier than three years. If it was a fixed three-year term, the arrangement might not be too bad. Historically, federal parliamentary terms went for only about two years, two months. There are a range of examples during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when parliamentary terms were two years or less. The most recent example of a significantly truncated term was the 1983–84 federal Parliament, when Bob Hawke went after 18 months; but historically, before that, Robert Menzies never missed an opportunity to call an election if the circumstances advantaged him. That is the way the federal Parliament has historically worked. If it was a fixed three-year term, it might not be too bad. Personally, I am in two minds about three-year or four- year terms. Certainly I think the French model of five-year terms is too long between elections. We have four- year terms in our Parliament, and that is not going to change. Having fixed terms is probably a wise thing to do. However, it brings into focus a range of broader issues, some of which have been achieved or dealt with, and some of which have not. The big issue, of course, historically for this Parliament was one vote, one value. I went to university in Brisbane. I was there during the Bjelke-Petersen years, and I remember some of the protests and rallies towards the end of his term. The gerrymander—the malapportionment—in Queensland was of course the most crass and gross of all the Parliaments of Australia. That was remedied post-1989 in legislation brought in in 1990. In the case of Western Australia, of course, our malapportionment went under the radar because it was nowhere near as gross as the malapportionment in Queensland, and so it persisted until the Gallop government passed legislation in 2006 to deal with that anomaly. I think it is unfortunate that we have ended up with the situation that we now have in our upper house. I would criticise the Greens for allowing the situation to be put in place whereby there is now a massive malapportionment in the upper house of Western Australia. I do not object at all to different regions having representatives guaranteed to them. But I do object when the votes of some people for the upper house are now worth three or four times the value of other people’s votes for the upper house. But, of course, as we all know, the lower house is the house that forms government. It is far more important that we have a properly democratic

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8531 system in this house. That was a great achievement, and I give full credit to Geoff Gallop and Jim McGinty for passing that legislation. As I have said, I think the Greens deserve some considerable criticism for the way in which they behaved on the issue of one vote, one value. But in any event, in our house, despite all the warnings—I have some clippings here—that if one vote, one value were to come in, the bush would be ignored, and the voice of people in the bush would turn into a whisper, to quote Richard Court, I cannot see that that has happened. Nevertheless, it brings other issues into focus. I want to deal with two issues in particular. The first is the issue of money in elections, with the American model and what has gone on there, and methods that we could perhaps use to repair that situation. The second issue is the role of an upper house. That is an old chestnut. Upper houses have been around as part of the Westminster system for a long time. In the United Kingdom, the upper house has nowhere near as much power as the upper houses in Australia. But of course the members of the United Kingdom upper house are not elected. There are moves in the United Kingdom by some people to have the members of the upper house elected. I think the United Kingdom should stick with the historic model and not move to the Australian model; and, being the traditional place that it is, it will probably stick with that model. In Australia, our upper house members are elected. There is one Parliament in Australia that has voted the upper house out of existence. From memory, that was the Queensland Parliament in 1923. The then Labor government, maybe under Premier William Forgan Smith, ensured that the upper house voted itself out of existence. The upper house chamber in the Queensland Parliament is now used as a meeting place, a convention centre, a place where people can hold functions and so forth. It is very well used, I might add. Schools use it. Very good use is made of the upper house chamber. They voted themselves out of existence in 1923. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you suggesting it is better used now than it was prior to 1923? Mr M. McGOWAN: Unlike the Premier, I was not around then! But I defer to the Premier’s superior historic knowledge, based upon personal experience of that time! There have been other people who have advocated the abolition of the upper house. Gough Whitlam was one. He was an advocate of the removal of the Senate. But there were also other people who did that—prominent politicians. The Acting Speaker (Mr J.M. Francis) might know one of them, and that is the Premier of Western Australia—current, not former. Mr P. Papalia: No! He did not! Mr M. McGOWAN: The current Premier of Western Australia was a great advocate for the abolition of the upper house of the Parliament of Western Australia! That is what he did. The Premier now has the numbers in both houses to pass the legislation. Mr P. Papalia: Both houses! Mr M. McGowan: Yes, both houses. There might be some referendum procedure that would be necessary, but he has the numbers to pass not only the abolition legislation, but also the referendum bill that would allow the referendum to be held. Therefore, the Premier’s long-held ambition to abolish the upper house is now open to him. I have raised this issue in this place before, and I have accused the Premier of this, and he has said, “No, I didn’t say that. That wasn’t what I said. I just said it needs to be more accountable”, or words to that effect. Is that correct? Is that what the Premier has said? Mr C.J. Barnett: You are probably referring to an article that appeared in The Australian. It was their first Western Australian supplement, and the headline was very bold. But if you actually read the text of what I said, it was a little different from the headline. I do not resile from that. You’ve got it! Good on you! Mr M. McGOWAN: Funnily enough, Premier, I do have it! But I think the Premier’s recollection might be slightly out, one, as to the course of events, and, two, as to what he actually said. I will go through the course of events. This was the first Western Australian supplement in The Australian. It was good. They should have kept on with it. It made people go to that page and read about Western Australia. These days we do not get enough coverage. This article is dated Monday, 13 August 2001, and the headline is “Coalition backs one chamber”. The article was written by Roger Martin, a very fine journalist by the way. But, if we go back a bit in history to 29 June 1999, in The Australian, prior to the Western Australian supplement coming into effect, we see an article headed “Premier hopeful to dump upper house”. This article makes very interesting reading, members. Members will enjoy this—those who are not aware of it; I assume most members are not. The article was written by Matt Price, a very fine journalist, and it states — Deputy Liberal leader Colin Barnett wants to abolish the Western Australian upper house if he succeeds Richard Court as premier after next year’s State election. I suppose the Premier has an out, because he did not succeed Richard Court as Premier in the 2001 election. Several members interjected.

8532 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mr M. McGOWAN: No, I am not going to rub his nose in that one too much! Matt Price is not with us any more, sadly, but this is what he said with regard to what the now Premier, the member for Cottesloe, had to say in the context of the abolition of the upper house — He said growing financial pressures and increasing battles with the Federal Government demanded a streamlined State parliament next century. “It will require smaller Cabinets and less portfolios,” Mr Barnett said. Mr M.P. Whitely: He must have known that he was going to have Rob Johnson! Mr M. McGOWAN: Good point! I will continue the quotation — “We have two small houses of parliament and that is probably a luxury State parliament can’t afford.” The article goes on to quote him as saying — … “essentially, State government is regional government and there is a need to simplify it and redefine it.” I will read some more from that article, because it is quite interesting. This is what the now Premier had to say in 1999 about the state election in 2001 — “My view is we will probably win and it will be a lot closer … “The forest issue is one we’ve got to handle better, that’s a danger signal.” He then talks about his failure to run for the federal Parliament in 1998 — “The people who urged me not to go federal thought it important that I followed Richard,” … That is, that he succeed Richard as Premier. I would have to this was probably the now Premier’s “annus horribilis”, to quote the Queen. I will say something about the Queen in a little while. This was probably his annus horribilis, because, as I recall, the Premier said all these things, and then he was beaten to a pulp in the party room, by all accounts, and he had a pretty hard time around the place and he was wandering around the courtyard looking for friends. I now want to quote what the article goes on to say, bearing in mind what is happening next week, members, because this was just before the republican referendum — Mr Barnett planned to campaign vigorously for the republican case before the November referendum … That is a historical article, but then we go to the 2001 piece, when the Premier was Leader of the Liberal Party in his first iteration — Mr C.J. Barnett: What date is that? Mr M. McGOWAN: Monday, 13 August 2001. The Premier had been Leader of the Liberal Party for six months or so. This is what the Premier had to say — “The problem in Western Australia is that we have 91 members of parliament split between two houses,” …. “The result of that is that we have two small houses of parliament. That leads to a lack of depth on either side. It limits debate.” Mr Barnett proposed one house with between 80 and 85 members. “That also would guarantee all parts of Western Australia were properly represented,” … The great issue of bicameralism was one that the Premier took up. The then Leader of the National Party, Hon Max Trenorden, had this to say — “There is no question at all that we should modernise the West Australian parliament in my view and go to a single house,” … Mr W.J. Johnston: He would be in trouble! Mr M. McGOWAN: He is now in the upper house! The quote went on — “You would do it under the proviso that you have a very strong select committee and committee process in the house.” He may have changed his view on that one. In any event that is what the Premier had to say then. For the sake of completeness, for the benefit of government backbenchers — Mr C.J. Barnett: Do you agree with the points of view expressed there? Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier raised some very good points, but what I will say about that is this: in the real world I do not think it is going to happen. It is a matter of whether or not —

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8533

Mr C.J. Barnett: Some of those comments were in the context of the one vote, one value debate that was going on. One of the major concerns, I think, amongst many members was that if we had strict one vote, one value, we would have very large rural electorates and therefore there would be a loss of identity in some remote parts of Western Australia. I think that is a valid issue. Mr M. McGOWAN: I think the Premier raised some good points. That is what Queensland obviously did. If we were to go to that system, we would need to have some guarantees about electoral system resources and so forth. A greater number of members—the Premier suggested 85 or 90—of course guarantees more country representation because there would be more members representing the country. In any event, I do not think it is going to happen. The government has the numbers now to do it; I do not think the Premier will do it even though, as he indicated, he wanted to do it. Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not want to wander through history, but the other point that I was probably talking about is that the size of the Parliament is important. As there are more and more complex issues, Parliament suffers when there is a small chamber. We have two small chambers. There would be a greater breadth of experience, knowledge and capacity with more members on either side. That was one of the comments I was making. Mr M. McGOWAN: I think the Northern Territory would certainly suffer from that, more than us. The House of Commons has 650 members and no-one ever gets a chance to say anything. I suspect at our level, and the number of sitting weeks we have, some of us speak more than probably anyone in any Parliament in the world, with the amount of talking that goes on. I cannot say it is as high in quality as in some other places, but I know we get a fair go. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier has been outed as a unicameralist, but I failed to read out this last bit. In 2001 the Premier supported members, including backbenchers, having the right to speak freely on a range of issues. The Premier might like to think about that when he is in the party room and comes in here with alternative ideas. I want to talk about the other principal issue—that is, the role of money in politics. We all know how much money talks in politics. We have watched it grow over the decades in the United States. In the United States, the hunt for donations is fundamental and integral to a politician’s role as an elected representative. If a politician wants to stay in Parliament in the United States, virtually all their time is spent fundraising because they need to raise money to run their next campaign. That is at all parliamentary levels. I am not sure whether it is at those lower levels in which dog catchers, police officers and so forth are elected, but I know that at a parliamentary level a politician spends all his time fundraising. That has to be kept in mind in everything that is done. It is a travesty of democracy when politicians have to run their lives in that way. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on presidential campaigns in the United States; in fact, I think spending might have tipped $1 billion in the last presidential campaign. One cannot say that that does not influence the democracy of that country. It is a credit to them that it survived what happened in 2001 with the Gore–Bush election. One candidate had a million votes more than the other candidate and, through anomalies—some could call it a corruption—of the electoral system in one state, one candidate who had the lesser number of votes was successful over the other. The fact that the United States went on and functioned as it did in light of what was clearly a travesty of the democratic system is a credit to it. I reckon it sent a terrible message to other countries around the world that seek democracy. It is a credit to the people of the country that that is what took place. It is in no way a credit to the system. It was certainly in no way a credit, in my view, to the Governor of Florida at that time. The point I want to make relates to money issues. It was raised the other day that the donation disclosure threshold has gone up to $11 000 or thereabouts. The system that was in place of a $1 500 disclosure threshold was a good system. We had issues surrounding how we should control and limit expenditure. At various points in history one party will raise more money than the other. As I recall, in the 1980s my federal colleagues were far better at raising money than the federal Liberal Party. In the 1990s it turned around. Perhaps in the 2007 election it turned around again and the federal Labor Party was better at raising money than the federal Liberal Party. The results generally reflected who was better at raising money. At a state level, I would say it was probably the same in Western Australia. It turns into a hunt for money. Unless donors are rusted-on, true believers in the cause, they donate on the basis—although they would never say it; they very rarely get it—that they then have knowledge of members of Parliament, whom they can call to say hello and so forth. Donations will always be a part of our system. I do not think it can be done away with. There needs to be some moderation of it. The other day I heard the member for Cannington talk about expenditure limits rather than caps on donations. I suspect that expenditure limits are the best way to deal with it. I want to raise the last federal campaign in Western Australia. In the case of the federal Liberal Party, according to the Australian Electoral Commission return — Mr C.J. Barnett: It is very hard to manage and enforce expenditure limits. There are a lot of issues there.

8534 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Mr M. McGOWAN: Because third parties might spend money. Mr C.J. Barnett: The in-kind and third party stuff; it is difficult. Mr M. McGOWAN: It is very hard. At the last federal election in Western Australia, the Liberal and National Parties received, according to these disclosure returns I have, $5.4 million for the Liberal Party and a bit over $1 million for the National Party. The federal ALP received $1.5 million. That is a ratio of six to one in that campaign. One company, Straits Resources, donated $400 000 to the Liberal Party. I have looked at Straits Resources. I recall that it was the company that wanted to mine salt at Exmouth. “Mine salt” is probably the wrong term, but it had a salt project. It donated $400 000 to the Liberal Party. It was unsuccessful in getting that approval. I will not go over all the issues surrounding Mineralogy and its close relationship with the National Party, but I saw Clive Palmer recently boasting that he donated more than $1 million to the Liberal and National Parties. Those sorts of donations, which essentially result in a six to one ratio of donations from one side to the other, impact on democracy. We cannot go to an American system whereby we allow money to decide who wins elections. It is supposed to be a contest of ideas. That extraordinary level of donating needs to be dealt with, but that needs some sort of legislative effort. I think expenditure limits have to be looked at. I would urge a parliamentary committee, if it has not already done so, to go away and look at that issue and come up with a report on exactly how Western Australia might deal with that issue so that we do not go to that American system in which it is a contest of money. Because, although the Liberal and National Parties might be in front at the moment, as I have noticed, and as we have just heard from the quotes of 10 years ago, things turn around, and one day it will be the Liberal and National Parties wondering why the other side is getting all the money and they are not getting any. Things turn around and it is far better that we have a system that removes the incentive for money to talk and for companies to seek, for instance, approvals to make levels of donations of $400 000 to — Mr C.J. Barnett: Public funding was meant to stop that, but it has not happened. Mr M. McGOWAN: I do not know whether public funding was ever meant to stop it; I hoped it would have some influence, but I think it put a base under parties so they could least operate without threat, hopefully. I want to talk about one other issue and that is the disclosure returns of members of Parliament. This is another area—it was last legislated, as I understand it, in 1992—that needs some examination. I have my disclosure return here. I have a disclosure return that details everything I own, which is essentially a house. That is what is listed on my disclosure return. That is that one. I got out a couple of others just to have a look around the place. I got out some disclosure returns of other members; they might exist for members on all sides. I think that some members own different property in the nature of shares, which is hidden by a trust. Therefore, a trust is listed as the property; the trust is the owner of the shares and we do not know which shares they are. If a member is a minister and his responsibility is to deal with companies and make decisions on companies and the public cannot find out about a minister’s shares because the trust owns the minister’s shares, how is that transparent and fair? I will not even name the ministers; I do not want to make this a political attack, but I have a couple of disclosure returns from ministers of the government and both listed trusts that hide the shares they might have in corporations that the minister or the government may well be making decisions on. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’ve also got ministerial disclosures, as you’re aware. Mr M. McGOWAN: But they are not public, are they? Mr C.J. Barnett: No, but they go further than the general parliamentary ones, and I think they are adequate. Mr M. McGOWAN: We might find that if the Parliament had a chance to examine these issues, Parliament would find things. I mean, I know what it is like to be a minister; they sit in cabinet, it is all very busy and so forth. We might find that Parliament finds conflicts of interest that the minister does not. I think in the interests of transparency that should be done away with. I want to close with one last thing, I cannot resist it. I had a look at the disclosure return of the Attorney General, and he is like me; he is pretty low on the asset base. He attached a letter to the annual return that stated — Dear Sir Pecuniary Interest Disclosure: Annual Return FY 2010–2011 … The information included in this letter is provided by way of discretionary disclosure in respect of those matters which may conceivably fall within Part 11 of the Annual Return. I note here that I disclose these matters out of prudence rather than because they appear to me to present any actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to my public duties as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia or as a Minister occupying the portfolios of Attorney-General and Minister for Corrective Services in the period up to 14 December 2010 or, since that time, of Treasurer and Attorney-General.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8535

It is comic genius as we go through this! Members should have a read just to see that not only does the Attorney General speak that way, he writes that way as well! Premier, I raise those issues about donations and the annual return genuinely, without meaning to be political about it, and I hope that as part of the Premier’s summing up of this legislation he considers those issues as well. DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [3.43 pm]: I was enthralled by the member for Rockingham’s contribution on the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill and — Mr C.J. Barnett: You need to get out more! Dr A.D. BUTI: — he mentioned Richard Court. This morning I had the opportunity to attend the thirty-first anniversary assembly of Cecil Andrews Senior High School in Armadale, which was opened by Sir Charles Court in 1980. Since then, the Court family has continued a linkage to the school and every year it presents a scholarship at the assembly. Ken Court was there to do the honours this morning, and he donated a couple of copies of the recently published biography of Sir Charles Court. I was wondering, with the member for Rockingham’s quoting of the current Premier’s past media statements, whether the member for Rockingham is maybe penning the Premier’s biography, because he seems to have a great knowledge of the Premier’s public statements of the past 10 years. Mr M. McGowan: It certainly wouldn’t be a hagiography; I can tell you that! Dr A.D. BUTI: I am sure it would not be! Mr C.J. Barnett: It would be very short one! Mr M. McGowan: No; it could be quite long and involved; I would table it in here to get privilege! Dr A.D. BUTI: I am very keen to speak on this matter today because, really, is it not fantastic that we can stand up here in Parliament and talk about elections—we can talk about whether we should have fixed-term elections, how long they should be, issues of public disclosure, issues of donations, et cetera—because of course, as we very well know, in many countries there is no such thing as a free election. When we have elections here there may be a change of government, but when we have a change of government what happens? A new set of people come in. There is no bloodshed. There may be many tears; I am sure there were many tears on the Labor side when we lost in 2008. There may be tears shed, but not blood, which I think is something that we must always be very proud of and hope that it will continue. In respect of the whole issue of free and frank elections, and elections that reflect society’s views, we of course have to guard against issues that may actually poison that process. The member for Rockingham mentioned a couple of issues that I will address shortly, which may be a threat to democracy due to certain things like donations. In respect of the legislation before us, much of it really deals with fixed terms of government. I have always been in favour of fixed-term elections, and I will mention some of the reasons for that shortly, but unlike the member for Rockingham and others—probably most of the people on my side—I am actually in favour of five-year terms. Four-year terms are acceptable, but three-year terms are ridiculous, especially, as the member for Rockingham mentioned, in the federal sphere, where terms are not fixed and most Parliaments run for less than three years. I think whichever side is in government needs to have some years to plan through its agenda and I think a five-year term is better for proper governing and in the end — Dr M.D. Nahan: Are you in favour of fixed five-year terms? Dr A.D. BUTI: Personally, that is my view. Dr M.D. Nahan: What about the problem where it would be a problem of a failure in government in three years then? Dr A.D. BUTI: The issue is that if government cannot obtain the confidence of the house, of course elections should be called. Dr M.D. Nahan interjected. Dr A.D. BUTI: I know it is not the same thing, I understand, but I still believe that in the end, when weighing up and balancing between a bad government in three years or trying to get better governments by having a longer term, I would go for the longer term. That is just my personal view—it is obviously not a party view—but I think it would accord better government. The whole issue of fixed terms is interesting because there are international legal obligations that really support the whole issue of periodic fixed-term elections, and I will talk about that shortly. The member for Rockingham also mentioned other countries or other jurisdictions in Australia where there are fixed-term elections. There are actually many places around the world where there are fixed-term elections, as was mentioned by the member for Rockingham, and there also have been moves in the last few years for some countries to move to fixed-term elections. In New Zealand last year, there was a discussion about moving to fixed-term elections. In the United Kingdom there are five-year Parliaments, which maybe goes to the

8536 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] point raised by the member for Riverton. They are not actually fixed terms; they are five-year terms in the UK, but the government is allowed to go early. I quote from a BBC News report from 15 December 2010 — The government’s plan to introduce five-year fixed-term parliaments will make politicians less accountable to voters, peers have warned. It was mentioned that a five-year fixed term does not allow for proper accountability to the public. According to that report, the Lords Constitution Committee also stated that fixing the length of Parliament to five years would mean “less frequent elections and make the legislature less accountable not more”. The news report went on to say that — … the term should be set at four years, as is the case for the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. … The coalition, for whom Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is leading a program of constitutional reform, says fixed-term parliaments will bring greater stability to UK politics. In October, Mr Clegg told the committee: “It’s a combination of providing a length of time with which people are familiar and which allows governments at least maybe four of those five years… to get on with governing properly for the benefit of the country, combined with taking away from the executive this ability to capriciously time the election for nothing more than political self-interest.” I must say that I totally agree with the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I believe the term of government should be fixed and I do not agree that a five-year term will reduce accountability. And a fixed term will remove the executive’s ability to use the system to its own advantage. I have mentioned New Zealand and the United Kingdom, but even Barbados—I am sure the cricket-loving people of this house know a lot about Barbados—is seeking to move to fixed-term elections. Canada is very interesting because of the many similarities between our two countries. We know that Canada is part of the commonwealth and presumably its head of state is arriving next week for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting; I am not sure, but I presume so. Interestingly, the federal vote in Canada is not fixed term, and the minority government went to the polls earlier this year or late last year because it lost the confidence of the house, only to end up with an increased majority. However, most Canadian provinces have fixed-term elections. British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt fixed-term elections, in 2001. Elections are held on the second Tuesday in May every four years. Manitoba passed an act in 2008 to hold elections on the first Tuesday in October every four years. Saskatchewan has also turned to fixed-term elections every four years, with the first being in November 2011. Ontario is moving the same way. New Brunswick will hold fixed-term elections every four years, as will Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories. All these Canadian provinces have moved to fixed term elections every four years. As I have stated, I prefer a five-year term, but the consensus seems to be that it should be four-year terms. British Columbia introduced fixed terms in 2005 and Ontario, Newfoundland and Northwest Territories in 2007. I have already mentioned that the Canadian federal elections are not fixed terms, but will move to fixed terms. The next Canadian federal election will be on the third Monday in October 2012 and elections will be held every four years thereafter. New Brunswick moved to four-year fixed terms in 2010 and Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Manitoba recently moved to four-year terms. Of course the move to four-year fixed terms in Western Australia is in accordance with what is happening in many overseas jurisdictions. I have mentioned that there are a number of international legal obligations in respect of elections and arguments can be made that they support fixed-term periodic elections. The international law covenant most turned to is Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states — Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: … (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; … From that we understand elections have to be periodic. Although it does not, in itself, demand fixed-term periodic elections, one could argue that genuinely periodic elections and the requirement for universal suffrage et cetera are required to create a level playing field. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, remarked on the need to remove the power of the executive to call elections to suit itself; a remark which I believe supports not only the move to fixed-term elections, but also the legal obligations encountered in Article 25 of the ICCPR, to which Australia is a signatory. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights also supports such a move.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8537

Interestingly, it may counter my argument in favour of five-year terms because the United Nations’ human rights committee requires that the time between periodic elections not be unduly long. However, the issue could be one of what is determined to be “unduly long”. I do not see five years as unduly long. In France, the president is elected for, I think, a five-year term. In Mexico the term is six years, but the incumbent can serve only one term. Mr A.P. O’Gorman: In Ireland it is seven years. Dr A.D. BUTI: In Ireland the term is seven years. That may be a bit too long. Is it for one term only? Can you be re-elected? Mr A.P. O’Gorman: The President can. Dr A.D. BUTI: The member for Rockingham raised some of the issues that I intended to raise, including money and donations. The member is right when he says that money is a very significant factor in our democratic process—in particular the election process. There is no doubt that the more the money spent in an election campaign, the greater the chance of maximising the vote. It may not necessarily produce a win, but it will maximise the vote. Of course, the federal Labor government in 1991–92, just after Keating took over from Hawke, tried to bring in some restrictions on political advertising. Of course, that was challenged in the High Court. As we know, the High Court struck down the legislation. Legislation was put in place to restrict the degree of advertising in the media albeit I am not 100 per cent sure whether it applied to both electronic and print media. It definitely applied to political advertising. The networks went to the High Court because political advertising during an election period is a great money earner for the networks. The High Court struck down the legislation, arguing that it was unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the legislature does not have the power to ban political advertising. However, the High Court said there is an implied freedom of political speech and the argument mounted was that to curb political advertising, was to curb free political speech—free in the sense of liberty; not free in the sense of money. However, one must understand that during that period the High Court was one that seemed to be very ready to imply rights in the Constitution. I wonder, if that case would come before the High Court today, whether the High Court would strike it down. In recent times, the High Court has been seen to be less enamoured to imply rights in the Constitution. Legislation has been tried at the federal level. I say it should be tried again. It may even be possible for a state Parliament to bring in legislation to restrict political advertising at state elections. Unless the federal legislation has clauses about state elections—although I cannot see how that would be constitutional—it would not be in contravention of any federal legislation and therefore the legislation would not be struck down under section 109 of the Federal Constitution. I would be in favour of a curb on political advertising and political donations. When the member for Rockingham mentioned that, the Premier by way of interjection said that there is a problem with third party endorsement and advertising. Of course, that is the main problem. There is no doubt about that. If we put a cap or restriction on parties engaging in political advertising and revenue raising, what do we do about third party endorsements? I agree that it is a very difficult problem. I believe that the member for Rockingham’s view that a parliamentary committee should be established to investigate these matters has a lot of merit and should be considered. I think our political process is being tarnished and eroded by the influence of money. I am a champion of fixed public funding of campaigns. I could not find it, but there is a very, very good article, as the member for Rockingham would agree, in the University of Western Australia Law Review, which I am sure the Attorney General reads. [Member’s time extended.] Dr A.D. BUTI: In around 1993 or 1994 an article was published in the University of Western Australia Law Review by a visiting United Kingdom academic with the surname of Ewing, who advocated that we should remove political donations and have purely public funding of campaigns. If that could be properly arranged and we could prevent third party endorsements, I do not think that we could say that it would favour the conservative side of politics or the Labor side of politics. Of course, when this argument comes up, we say that the Liberal Party receives money from big business, so that will help curb that donation, and the Liberal Party says to us that we receive funding from unions. Dr M.D. Nahan interjected.

Dr A.D. BUTI: I will get on to that shortly. To remove the ability of corporations or unions to fund campaigns and instead have public funding of campaigns would be a better system. The member for Riverton mentioned that it may favour incumbents and he may be correct, but not necessarily. The funding would not be done necessarily on the basis of the funding of current members; it would be funding for each seat, for instance. Say there are 30 seats, each party would receive $50 000 or $100 000 for each seat. Therefore, it would not necessarily favour incumbents. No doubt we could argue that the current system favours incumbents. Incumbents can often attract more funding and their profiles

8538 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] are increased through their normal electorate work. It is even worse at the federal level though, because, I believe, under John Howard, it allows incumbents or federal members to openly campaign from their offices. That is a problem, of course. That is definitely a problem with which we need to deal. I believe that fixed-term elections are good for our democracy for a number of reasons. I have already alluded to some of those reasons. One is that it removes the ability of the executive to play with the political process to its advantage, whichever side is in power. It also, arguably, improves the management of the election process, because the Electoral Commission would know when the elections would be held. I remember that before the last federal election there were a couple of false alarms and schools were contacted and told that they needed to ensure that they would be available for X, Y, Z days because a federal election may be called. By having a fixed- term election, we would remove that uncertainty; we would know when the election would be held. The Electoral Commission could ensure that it had the proper papers and the polling booths in order and that process would be improved. Also, I believe that a fixed-term election would help to create a more level playing field. Everyone would know when the election would be held, so it could not be used to the advantage of any particular party. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think the bigger problem—I should not be saying this from the government benches—is really the misuse of being in power. I will pick on the last election and the Building the Education Revolution signs around schools; I think that was a disgraceful act. I am not saying that either side of politics is pure, but that was a disgraceful abuse of incumbency. Mr M. McGowan: What was? Mr C.J. Barnett: I am picking on you guys, but the BER signs being put around schools when schools are used as polling booths. I am not saying that either side is guilty or perfect. There is another example in the state’s history. I think that is probably a bigger issue. The use of advertising campaigns, I would describe often as more political than of genuine information and content for the community. Some checks on that are in place now. I think that has been a feature. It was a feature on both sides of federal politics in recent years—strongly. Mr W.J. Johnston: In respect of the BER schools, those schools that were being used as polling booths, the signs were required to be covered up. Mr C.J. Barnett: After protest, yes. Mr W.J. Johnston: That is what happened; they were covered up. There are checks and balances. I make another point. At the moment there are Water Corp ads that refer to the actions of the Water Corp with the state government. When Labor was in power, we never ever used Water Corp money to mention the state government. These things happen all the time, as you say, and it is happening right now on our televisions. Mr C.J. Barnett: I am not trying to make a political point. Mr W.J. Johnston: I am not either; I am just making the point. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think there is an issue there about incumbency — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr A.P. O’Gorman): Members! I know that this is fairly congenial across the floor, but the member for Armadale has the call and it is the member for Armadale who I really need to hear. Dr A.D. BUTI: The Premier made some interesting points. It will be a work in progress, but we have to do whatever we can to ensure that neither side uses their position as the executive to political advantage, besides the normal political advantage that we would hope comes from good decisions. I refer to the whole issue of the poisoning of our democratic process by money and donations and advertising. The member for Rockingham said that he is amazed by the democracy that still exists in the United States of America. I am not so sure that there is a proper system of democracy in the US anymore. I think that its system is bankrupt not only financially but also from a political point of view. I was in the USA in 2001 during the Gore–Bush election and it was farcical to listen to the commentary occurring at the time. The problem with the decision to award Florida to Bush was that it was a political decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States. Unlike the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of the United States is a political institution; it is not only a legal institution as our High Court is. I think we would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of judges who have served on the bench of the High Court of Australia and who have made it their ambition or modus operandi to achieve a political outcome in their decisions. Dr M.D. Nahan interjected. Dr A.D. BUTI: There would be less than a handful. In the US, nearly all of them have a political bent. That decision in Bush v Gore was disgraceful. Justice Scalia’s decision was an absolute disgrace. It was nothing more than a political decision. We do not need to worry about that in good old WA; we are looking at fixed-term elections.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8539

I congratulate the government for bringing this bill before the house. We have supported this for a number of years. My personal view is that a fixed-term election should be held every five years—but it will not be five years—and that we should have public funding of campaigns and somehow try to guarantee that we do not have third party funding to circumvent the public funding. MR J.J.M. BOWLER (Kalgoorlie) [4.09 pm]: Standing as an Independent at the last election, I had to develop policies on a range of issues that I had never really given a huge amount of thought to before because suddenly people were asking for my opinion. When the events happened in the days after the election, I was pleased that both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party stuck to their election promise to reform the electoral legislation and introduce fixed terms. It is something that both parties have talked long and hard about, but, as the Premier said, when one party is in power and holding the reins, suddenly it can find reasons not to fix terms because it has the flexibility to use that as a political ploy to suit itself. It really is—the member for Armadale alluded to it—almost undemocratic in the way it has been abused federally and in the state in decades past. I think the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2011 will strengthen our democracy. It is legislation that I strongly support. Just after the election, I went to see the minister responsible, Hon Norman Moore, and asked him when this legislation would be introduced. I basically said that if the Liberal government was not going to introduce this legislation, I would introduce it as a private member’s bill. But he assured me that this government would introduce this legislation, and, true to his word, he has come good. I remember being involved in a previous government when, at one stage, it had legislation drawn up. One of the problems that it faced with a fixed period was providing some flexibility in case the election date fell at Easter or there was a federal election, so it was going to have leeway of one month. What this legislation will do, I think, is even better. Under this legislation, a date will be fixed and, unless certain triggers occur, that is the date on which the election will be held. But the bill does provide flexibility for Easter and a federal election so that people will know within a certain range when the election will be held and they will know it well in advance. Better still, if there is a disaster, or for some other unforeseen reason, this legislation provides the flexibility that the Leader of the Opposition can join with the Premier of the day to agree to an early election. I believe this legislation will cover all eventualities. I believe this is something that the people of Western Australia will overwhelmingly support. On the issue of the length of a term of government, I think we have got it right. I think four years provides a compromise between three-year terms, which would probably be more democratic in that the government would go to the people and, if they do not like what the government is doing, they could vote it out or vote it back in, and five-year terms, which would give the government time for longer term planning, particularly for long-term finance matters. Sometimes the government has to make some unpalatable and unpopular decisions in its first one or two years in office for the long-term benefit of the economy of the state or of Australia. I can see the wisdom of three years; I can see the wisdom of five years. That is why I think we have probably got a good middle ground. Another point I raised with Hon Norman Moore that he rejected—it is not in this legislation and I am a bit disappointed about that—was to go a step further and ban election day bunting and advertising within a certain distance of a polling booth, and possibly even to not have any election workers outside a booth. Members might say that that is part of our democracy. I remember raising this in a discussion with the late former member for South Perth, Phil Pendal. He said, “John, that’s very much a part of our democracy. It involves people on election day.” And I concede that. Dr M.D. Nahan: What about how-to-vote cards? Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: I will come to that. As I have said, there are various stages at which this could be done. If members look at election day photographs from 50 or 60 years ago, they will see that the only bunting or advertising was a rosette on a lapel. It has gone from a rosette on a lapel to blocks and blocks of plastic bunting—a damn eyesore! One party might have bunting that goes for a block and a half, and so at the next election the other party will have bunting that goes for two blocks, and then at the following election the other party will have bunting for three blocks. Mr W.J. Johnston: In New South Wales, each party has a limit on how much election day material they are allowed to put up at the state election. I forget what it is, but it is 70 square metres or something like that, and that is the maximum election day material allowed. They are still allowed to have how-to-vote cards, but in terms of the bunting and the posters, it might be 70 or 100 square metres; I don’t know. It’s a square-metre limit per polling booth. Candidates can’t have more than that, so it limits the warfare. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: All I know is that I do not think either side really likes the way it has developed in recent decades. Mr J.M. Francis interjected. Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: In Kalgoorlie, if we put it up before midnight, it is pulled down and there are fights. That is what happens. Then paid security guards are brought in to sit at the booths at midnight. The party that has the

8540 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] upper hand at a booth brings in a security guard, but security guards are not brought in if the party does not have the upper hand. It has just got out of control. It came to a head when Allan, the brother of the former member for South Perth, Phil Pendal, and I were working at a booth two federal elections ago. This elderly gentleman was heading towards the polling booth where we were working and he had his head down. Worse still, his wife was almost crying; she was whimpering. She was walking behind her husband with her hands around his waist and her head against his back so she would not be confronted by all these people trying to push how-to-vote cards in her face. How can that be democracy, when people do not want to confront what they see at a booth? I can see the member for Rockingham shaking his head that that is not normal. It is not normal. Every election, more and more people are voting early to avoid the ridiculous situation on election day. That has been happening for two decades. I am willing to guarantee that at the next state and federal elections, even more people will avoid the election day rush and crush and all the visual pollution by voting early or not voting at all. I am just saying that I do not think that the miles of bunting and the massive competition to get the best position serve any purpose in our democracy. In some states in America, the only signs allowed on election day are those with the words “polling booth”. They do not complain that they need a Labor or a Liberal poster. Most advertising on election day is negative. The opposition will attack the government about something or it will pick the worst of the 10 000 photographs of the Premier taken in the previous four years and put a negative banner underneath it, and the government of the day will do something similar to the opposition. Mr M. McGowan: As opposed to the photoshopped version that the Liberal Party uses! Mr J.M. Francis: As opposed to the cartoon of the Minister for Regional Development! Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: Both members are supporting my argument. Does this help people make up their mind about how they are going to vote? Mr A.J. Waddell: A pox on both your houses! Mr J.J.M. BOWLER: Yes; a pox on both houses. In my heart I really believe this. I mentioned this to the member for Mount Lawley one day in the courtyard and he supported me. He even put out a press release. He went to see Hon Norman Moore, but the minister rejected it. In the end, the minister said that he did not want to cloud this legislation, but that it may be taken up in the future. I have raised the issue in this place today. It will not happen in this term of government, but I may sow a seed of thought among people on both sides that we go down the path as suggested by the member for Cannington of reducing the signage so that there is not massive competition and wastage on election day. The member for Riverton made the point about handing out how-to- vote cards. Particularly in my electorate, which has a reasonable Indigenous population, there is a need for people to hand out how-to-vote cards. That could still be done by just one booth worker wearing a simple T-shirt identifying what party or what candidate they are representing. Even better, maybe having scrutineers inside an election booth so that when a person walks in and is clearly confused, they can walk up to the election staff and say, “I want assistance. I want to vote go and vote Greens”—heaven forbid them. Each party could have a scrutineer inside the booth to make sure that the staff direct people to the how-to-vote card for that candidate or that party. As I say, Phil Pendal felt that it was good to involve people on election day. I also note that it is becoming increasingly difficult for both parties to get people out on election day. Of course, the party that generally has the most number of volunteers and booth workers and the momentum will not like my legislation, but as we know, every decade it turns around and the boot is on the other foot. With a limitation on the signage and maybe a limitation on the number of people on booths, people will fear less going to their local election booth. They will stop voting early. I hear all the ridiculous excuses people make up to not vote on election day. They say they are going on holidays; but they are not going on holidays. They just want to go and vote in their own time without being pushed around when they go and vote early. Any check of the legislation will show that that trend is continuing. I have no doubt that until we do something about it, that will continue. That should not be a part of our democracy. Finally, the changes to the electorate of Kalgoorlie are generally wise ones, including losing Wiluna and Sandstone to North West Central. They can go that way, and they are probably just as close to that hinterland. The good thing is that all the communities in the Ngaanyatjarraku shire, which is based at Warburton, come back into the electorate. They are the communities of Kanpa, Tjirrkarli and Patjarr. I am disappointed, though, that they stuck to the white man’s lines on a map and kept Kiwirrkurra out of my electorate. Kiwirrkurra is just north of that line on the boundary because it is a part of the Shire of East Pilbara. It has no relevance to East Pilbara. If people in that community ever go anywhere, they go to Alice Springs or down to Warburton area. Kiwirrkurra should be part of this electorate. Other than that, I think the changes are commonsense, and I generally welcome them. I commend this bill to the house. I particularly congratulate the government. After many previous promises by the political parties on both sides, this government has stuck to its word.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8541

MR M.P. WHITELY (Bassendean) [4.23 pm]: I also rise to speak in support of the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill. I think it is excellent legislation. I echo the words of the Premier—the Premier has responsibility for this bill obviously; otherwise he would not be here—in his second reading speech about the benefits of fixed-term elections, which include providing certainty for electors and facilitating better electoral enrolment so that we do not have that crazy rush at the end when we are trying to get people on the roll. There will be plenty of warning. People will know what is going on. It will provide the business community with certainty, and it will provide policymakers with a greater degree of certainty as well. It will make for more efficient and cheaper elections. It will allow for more effective planning of the parliamentary process. It will remove the partisan political advantage of the government manipulating election dates. They were the benefits outlined by the Premier in his very brief second reading speech. I think they are all valid points, and I agree with each and every one of them. I will add another one as well. I am not someone who has argued publicly for increases in politicians’ pay or benefits, but this bill gives us the capacity to plan our careers are little better. Some of my friends who lost their seats at the last election—people like Paul Andrews, Dianne Guise, Tony McRae and Shane Hill—six months earlier than what they might have expected was a possible termination date, were suddenly put out of a job. It is not easy, especially for someone such as Dianne Guise, who previously worked in the field of social services. I do not know whether it is absolutely true, but there is a perception in the community that if a member is a Labor person and there is a change to a Liberal government, that person is unemployable in that sector again, and vice versa. I do not know that it is necessarily true. I do not think we are necessarily that vindictive by nature as a class—or perhaps that organised—but it is a perception that prevents people becoming re-employed in the not- for-profit sector. The capacity for people to plan their exit, or at least have a plan B, if they happen to lose a seat, is a real consideration. I think that is an additional benefit. That is only the minor benefit; the benefits outlined by the Premier in his second reading speech are far more considerable, and they certainly justify this legislation. I was a supporter of the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2003. There were a few minor differences. A few other minor things were sought to be achieved through that bill, but, fundamentally, it was about introducing four-year terms. The now Premier was then Leader of the Opposition. The only reason that that bill was unsuccessful was that the then opposition, led by the current Premier, did not support it. My question for the Premier is: what has changed in his mind to make four-year fixed terms a good idea now as opposed to in 2003? Mr C.J. Barnett: My own view is that I am nominally in favour of fixed terms. It is not an area of debate within the Liberal Party that I have been particularly active on over the years. I think probably the opposition in days gone by has primarily come from the Legislative Council rather than the Assembly. There are some complications there and some valid points. But to be blunt, what was a defining element in the Liberal Party now supporting fixed terms? It was calling the last election early. That was the moment. That was the factor that changed everything. Mr M.P. WHITELY: In what way? None of that was unforeseeable. Mr C.J. Barnett: I do want to excite debate, but that was seen as fairly blatant political opportunism. It failed, but it was blatant political opportunism. At that stage the vast majority of Liberal supporters thought that, yes, the only way to fix that is through fixed four-year terms. Mr M.P. WHITELY: That was part of our rationale for arguing for that in 2003. It is an interesting accident of history. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, it is, but that is what precipitated it. Mr M.P. WHITELY: So the Premier was convinced by the fact that what we predicted would happen actually happened. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Fair enough. Mr M. McGowan interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, not much earlier, though. But it was earlier, yes; it was December rather than February. That is because the dams were overflowing. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I thought it was perhaps because your polls were overflowing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, the dams were overflowing. It was a good time to call an election. Mr M.P. WHITELY: It is interesting how these things turn out. If that legislation had been supported in 2003, we probably would not have one vote, one value, because I would imagine that we would have gone to a fixed- term election that would not have left that window to do so. What led to one vote, one value was that Hon Alan Cadby lost preselection and then became a disaffected Liberal member. He supported one vote, one value, which gave us the numbers in the upper house to introduce legislation, so that is interesting.

8542 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

I am a great fan of one vote, one value, so I suppose, unless the Premier has incredible foresight, and he has always supported one vote, one value, and knew that was going to happen — Mr C.J. Barnett: You could write an article here about electoral reform by accident in WA, couldn’t you? Mr M.P. WHITELY: Yes. We would not have had that opportunity for one vote, one value reform. One effect this legislation will have is a tightening of the window. There will not be that period for governments to either exploit the system or be barred from legislating because of the change in the makeup of the Legislative Council. I think one of the concerns I had that came out of the one vote, one value changes as a result of Alan Cadby’s disaffection and support was the obstructionism by the Greens and the malapportionment in the upper house. That has been spoken about by a number of other members. The one remaining blight on our system is the fact that the votes in the upper house can be worth, I think, a factor of three to four times more for certain Western Australian citizens than for others. Hon Nick Griffiths had some uncomplimentary things to say about the role of former Attorney General Jim McGinty in that deal. I guess it was the fact that McGinty had nowhere to go but to the Greens that left us with that situation. I have some sympathy with the Greens’ values, but something that turns me off is their tendency for self- rightiousness. I think that upper house situation was motivated by self-interest as much as anything. I think one of the attractions for the Greens in entrenching the malapportionment was that the number of members in the regional areas would increase from five to six members, and people like Dee Margetts—I think she was Agriculture from memory—thought she had a much better chance of maintaining her position with a six-member electorate than a five-member electorate. I think self-interest had a lot to do with the Greens’ position and they stand condemned for that because they have entrenched malapportionment in the upper house. Given the way things are, I think it will be a very long time before that issue can be addressed again. From memory, Labor had one vote, one value on the books for 100 years. If not for the shenanigans among the northern suburbs’ Liberal members and the disaffection of Alan Cadby as a result of his deselection, we would probably still be arguing for it. Self-interest plays a big part in these issues, and I suggest it was self-interest by the Greens, who often accuse everyone else of that behaviour but are reluctant to recognise it in themselves, that led to that situation. The one vote, one value legislation has made our electoral system a lot better for members who have recently arrived in the chamber. When I first became a member, the member for Eyre represented fewer than 9 000 people and the then member for Wanneroo, Di Guise, represented 45 000 people. Mr C.J. Barnett: Pushing 50 000, yes. Mr M.P. WHITELY: The value of one vote was equal to the same as it was for five other Western Australian votes. There were all sorts of anomalies, and all sorts of spurious arguments were used to vilify one vote, one value; one being that country electorates were typically enormous and city electorates were typically small. I happened to represent Roleystone at that time, which was, by a considerable margin, the biggest metropolitan electorate. In geographical terms, the seven smallest country electorates, Geraldton, Albany, Bunbury, Dawesville—I cannot remember all of them—occupied a land area that was about 30 per cent of my metropolitan electorate. My electorate covered about 1 700 square kilometres, and those seven electorates together covered about 500 square kilometres. Mr C.J. Barnett: You make a good point. That was one of the great myths of that argument at the time. My electorate of Cottesloe was bigger than many of the country electorates, geographically. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I remember dragging in a big map of Roleystone, and the seven electorates were tucked away in one corner. Mr M. McGowan: That map was fantastic. Mr M.P. WHITELY: The member for Cottesloe did not seem to be as impressed at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: Roleystone had a semi-rural area. The point I was making was that even an inner city electorate like Cottesloe was bigger than many of those electorates. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I acknowledge that the challenges are different. I have served in two metropolitan electorates, one of which is now Bassendean, which covers 22 square kilometres, as opposed to Roleystone, which covered isolated communities spread across 1 700 kilometres. The workload, frankly, is different. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Do not start! Albany is a pocket handkerchief electorate, which occupies next to nothing. It was one of those seven electorates, so leave me alone, member for Albany! I think that having four-year fixed terms will strengthen our system. I think we have just about got it right. I think four years is an appropriate term for state governments. I do not want to oversimplify it, but we are largely service deliverers and administrators. Four years is a reasonable time to judge the government’s performance. I

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8543 think the great weakness with our political system is the three-year electoral cycle at a federal level. Federal governments do big-picture, big-policy things that take years to kick into effect, yet they are locked into a constant campaigning cycle. I do not think the quality of the debate in federal politics has ever been worse than it is currently, and I think the current federal Leader of the Opposition has a lot to do with that. They are locked into a cycle in which they cannot escape populism or get away from being poll driven to get clear air so that they can legislate. Historically, from memory, only one government has been kicked out after one term, and that was in the 1930s. Mr J.M. Francis interjected. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Yes. Admittedly, it was within a three-year time frame, but two elections were involved. I think the most significant thing missing from our system is longer federal terms. I would support five-year federal terms because, as I said, it is bigger picture stuff and they need to be judged over a longer time frame. Having said that, realistically, we are not going to get five-year terms at a federal level, but we may get four-year terms. The ideal situation would be some clean air between state and federal elections. Perhaps all state elections could be coordinated to be held on one day, and two years later federal elections could be held. But, of course, unexpected events will throw out that cycle; for example, the death of a member in the federal Parliament right now could completely throw the election cycle. Mr C.J. Barnett: The US has had a degree of coordination. One argument against what you are saying is the situation if there was a swing in political sentiment to the left or right and you got an overwhelming result across Australia in every state. I think that would take out some checks and balances, for example, in the COAG process. There is something healthy about having a bit of the previous swing left over and a bit of the new swing coming in. Mr M.P. WHITELY: I think unforeseen events would affect that, but, ideally, it would be nice if we could achieve it. Some of the arguments against fixed-term elections were those I heard in response to the New South Wales Kennealy government, which had been a very long-term Labor government that had obviously run out of steam. Its use-by date had passed, and it had probably had one election victory too many. There was an argument put that, if we had fixed terms, how would we get rid of a New South Wales-style government. Frankly, that is an irrelevant and stupid argument because, as someone explained to me—I do not make reference to my colleagues in New South Wales—the government controls the numbers on the floor of the house of Parliament, hence it is the government. It is not going to vote to put itself into an early election if it expects to lose that. As someone once said, turkeys do not generally vote for an early Christmas. I think this bill will strengthen our system. I just want to touch briefly on bicameralism. Unlike the Premier, I am a big fan of bicameralism, perhaps because I have never been part of the executive; I have always sat up the back watching how the sausages are made. As a result, I am absolutely certain that we need a house of review. Some of the things that pass through party rooms without comment or scrutiny, particularly given the growing importance of the executive of government and particularly in a government, if I can say so without getting too political, that does not bat too deeply in terms of talent, get passed to the upper house — Mr M. McGowan interjected. Mr M.P. WHITELY: No; I think it is about three or four but after that the bowlers are coming in. Perhaps the “specialist fielders” might be a better analogy, or the ones who can tie their shoelaces and put on their pads! So I think that the bicameral system is an incredibly important check and balance. If we look at the history of Queensland and what can happen when one side of politics controls the one house of Parliament, and the corruption that occurred particularly under the Bjelke-Petersen government, it is a very strong argument for a bicameral system, particularly with the growing importance of the executive. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M.P. WHITELY: I want to quickly discuss a couple of other issues. The first is the use of how-to-vote cards and bunting on election day. I actually am sympathetic to the argument that was put forward by the member for Kalgoorlie. It is annoying. It does make some people feel uncomfortable as they go to the polling booths. The argument has been put that we should allow how-to-vote cards to be put into the booths. That argument actually has some attraction, but on balance I am not in favour of it, and I will give members the reason. One of the great strengths of our system is that it takes effort to run a political campaign. To run an effective political campaign requires effort and resources. If every candidate was entitled to put up a how-to-vote card—that is, not just the major parties, and perhaps some of the minor parties and perhaps those Independents that had a chance, but we opened it up to everybody—it would encourage loads and loads of Independents. Some of those might be false Independents who were running under the banner of a particular local issue that might in fact be a front for one of the political parties that was trying to direct preferences their way. I think there is a real danger that if everyone was given the right to put their how-to-vote card in the booth, instead of having elections that are fought by five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 candidates, we will get a proliferation of candidates, and a

8544 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] proliferation of false candidates—trojan horse candidates—who were directing preferences in a particular way. Having said that, I think there are some limitations that we could place on the use of bunting et cetera, as were outlined by the member for Cannington, who spoke about some of the things that have been put in place in New South Wales. I also want to say that for those of us who love politics—political junkies—election day is a great celebration of our democracy. Ninety-five per cent of the time, we roll up to the booths, and there is a sense of camaraderie, even across political lines, between people who work on the booths all day — Mr M. McGowan: Not always. Mr M.P. WHITELY: Not always, but 95 per cent of the time there is. In the elections that I have been involved in as a candidate, there has certainly been the sort of good-spirited banter that occurs on election day. I used to enjoy election days. I do not enjoy them any more, actually. I am always physically sick on election days—at the last two because I was so terrified of being the person who might lose Bassendean for Labor — Dr A.D. Buti: That’s because you’re in a marginal seat! Mr M.P. WHITELY: That is the thing that made me even more terrified! I would have been expected to commit hari-kari if I had lost Bassendean, and that prospect made me ill—even more ill than when I was a candidate for Roleystone! But I think election day is a great celebration of our democracy. We do have a very solid and sound system of democracy. I travelled to the United States earlier this year, and I will pick up on a few issues that were mentioned by the member for Armadale. I think the American system is a system that is failing. One of the reasons it is failing is that it does not deliver anyone a mandate. They have this conflict between a democratically elected President, and Congress, and no-one has a clear mandate. Dr M.D. Nahan: It was built that way. Mr M.P. WHITELY: The member for Riverton is dead right. It was built that way, because they are deeply suspicious of the role of government. But that is now causing their government to fail, and creating the problem that nobody can deliver a clear mandate and a clear agenda. I think our system balances democracy pretty well, with the bicameral system that we have, and the balance between state and federal. I used to be a centralist. And it is not just because I am a member of the state Parliament that I am actually a firm believer in the federal system. I believe the balance between the states and the commonwealth is an important part of our system. The other important point to make is that we have elections that are conducted fairly. We know that if we go to an election, the election will be conducted fairly, no-one will get away with substantial cheating, the election rolls will not be rorted, and the votes will be counted accurately, fairly and dispassionately. It is a good system. I think this Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2011 will make it a better system. This bill is very similar to the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2003, which also would have made it a better system, although ironically, as I pointed out before, that might have meant that we do not have one vote, one value right now, because of the loss of that opportunity that Alan Cadby, sitting as an Independent, presented, because there might not have been time to get that legislation through both houses of Parliament with a 9 March election and a 21 May changeover in the Council. I support the bill. It is good legislation. However, it does show us something about this Premier that I want to talk about. The Premier gave us the reasons for this bill, and I was interested to hear his reasons. But I do think the Premier is more inclined to support ideas that he has carriage of. I think the Premier is much better behaved as a Premier than he was as Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: I didn’t enjoy being Leader of the Opposition! Mr M.P. WHITELY: The arguments were entirely foreseeable then, and the bill should have been supported back in 2003. It certainly deserves the opposition’s support in 2011. MS J.M. FREEMAN (Nollamara) [4.46 pm]: I also rise to support the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2011 and fixed-term elections. In doing so, I want to raise an issue of concern that has been raised with me by the diverse community that I represent. In particular, the Sudanese community has raised with me on a number of occasions the difficulty they experience in understanding ballot papers. Their idea is that photos of the candidates should be put on the ballot papers. I have raised that matter because that is how they look at it. The background and context to that is that in Western Australia, we have increased our informal vote from 5.24 per cent in 2005 to 5.32 per cent in 2008. In 1993 the informal vote was around four per cent. The informal vote in Western Australian state elections is actually greater than it is in federal elections, because in the 2010 federal election in Western Australia the informal vote was about 4.82 per cent. The informal vote sits around the five per cent mark. The most worrying aspect is not necessarily that people leave their ballot paper blank, because clearly they are making an intentional decision to do that. It is the increase in the number of people who are not filling out their ballot paper correctly. It is always most worrying when the informal vote has occurred

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8545 because people have tried to cast their vote, but because they do not understand the process, they have failed to mark their ballot paper correctly. Mr C.J. Barnett: Or they do not mark all the boxes, which I think is an unreasonable constraint. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes, and that is a discussion for later; I will get to that. I suppose this is a bit of self-interest, but there is a correlation between the number of informal votes and the proportion of voters in my area who have a non–English speaking background. I note that in the last federal election, the lowest informal vote was in the electorate of Curtin, which includes the seat of Cottesloe. That can be compared with the highest informal vote in the whole of Australia, of around 9.6 per cent, which was in the electorate of Blaxland, a community that is not dissimilar to the community that I represent. Ian McAllister, who is a professor at the Australian National University, has said that Australia has one of the highest levels of spoiled or informal ballots among established democracies. He said in an article in The Australian in March 2009 that a large proportion of people from a non–English speaking background have difficulties with the complex voting system that we have in this country. An Australian Electoral Commission study by Rod Medew found that being a voter from a non–English speaking background is a major predictor of informal voting. I do not think that putting pictures on how-to-vote cards is necessarily the answer, but certainly that is what the community that I represent has told me is the answer, and I wanted to raise that in this place, because it is an important point to raise. I do note that Rod Medew suggested in that Australian Electoral Commission report that there may be need for the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct education programs and run advertisements on voting during non-election periods. The problem is that if we do it in an election period, when there is a lot of white noise, people will not get the message. He suggests that doing it during a non-election period is a better way to reach voters. This is an opportune time, if we have fixed elections, to set a reasonable time; obviously not too far out. We should have a consistent education campaign in communities that want to exercise the vote. People have come to Australia because they want to exercise their vote. They are very keen to be part of the democratic system. They are very proud when they become Australian citizens. Many come in to see me when they have become Australian citizens. Many do that because they want to partake in the political system. It is important that they are able to exercise their vote consistently and properly. The other thing I want to talk about is voluntary voting for 16 to 18–year-olds. I note that it is being considered in Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. There was also recently a bill in the United Kingdom. I believe that the right to vote reflects other social and economic rights and responsibilities of 16 to 18–year-olds, particularly 17-year-olds. I understand that 17-year-olds can put in an early voter enrolment for the federal election. I am not entirely sure whether that is available in the Western Australian Electoral Commission. I probably could have found out by doing a bit more research. It is certainly my belief, from the young people we see in this place who do Youth Parliament and the young people who volunteer in my office—people who take an active interest— that that is a really important cohort of people we need to encourage. I understand one of the difficulties we have is gaining people in that 18 to 21–year-old cohort to even enrol. We need to encourage that, too. If we engage them at that active period when they see themselves as having active roles in civil society, in that 16 to 18–year- old cohort, at least the capacity to enrol—if not, to get a voluntary vote—would be a really active way to encourage participation. There are other countries in the world that include 16-year-olds on the electoral roll. I note that Austria brought it in in 2007. Indonesia, which is one of the largest countries off our shores, allows 17- year-olds to vote. I am not at this point saying that we should bring in a bill for voluntary voting, but given that other people have investigated and debated through committees, it would be great if we — Mr C.J. Barnett: I have just been given some information by the Electoral Commissioner. He advises me that 17-year-olds can enrol to vote for when they turn 18. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Okay. It is the same as what happens federally. I think that is good. I certainly encourage any young people I come across who are 17 to enrol to vote. Frankly, we have access to 17-year-olds. We do not have as much access to 18-year-olds. We get to talk to 17-year-olds at school about democracy and civil society. It would make more sense if they had the capacity to vote, reflecting their social and economic rights and responsibilities. Seventeen-year-olds can join the army, they pay taxes and they drive; they have many aspects. Some criminal laws have an impact on them in an adult manner. I endorse some of the things that members have said. I endorse the Premier’s sentiments about an upper house. I believe that presently we are a bit over-governed. We really need to look at that. In saying that we are a bit over- governed, I think we are seeing a growing local government sector — Mr C.J. Barnett: I am not being precious about what I said about the upper house, but the first point I made was about the electoral reform one vote, one value debate. The other point I make is that if we do have two houses, in my view they have to be fundamentally different in the way they are elected and in the way they operate. I do not know whether that is the case.

8546 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Ms J.M. FREEMAN: It is interesting, because New Zealand only has one house. Queensland has recently looked at how the New Zealand Parliament operates in terms of scrutiny of legislation. Queensland has allowed for the New Zealand model of a greater number of committees. It seems to me that the place where the greatest work can be done to lead to some of the greatest outcomes occurs in committees of this place. If we are trying to achieve the objectives that people think we are achieving, which lead to good progressive laws and implementing government policies that reach the objectives they want, I do not necessarily think that would be achieved by the bicameral system. It probably would be better achieved by one house with a better committee system. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think the upper house would argue that it probably has a reasonable record of modifying extreme points of view or extreme legislation, whether they be to the left or right. That is a house of review function; they tend to be a moderating influence. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I could argue they only had that chance when some pretty extreme workplace laws were before them, which I was involved in; there was a change. I beg to differ on that particular issue. The low voter turnout in local government elections, being around 23 per cent, is appalling. There is no better word for it. These people make huge decisions about where resources go on the ground in our communities. The Premier’s office would be similar to my office—many of the issues we receive are local government-based. Increasingly, the federal government directly funds local government. I cannot even get the Nollamara Football Club rooms funding for some upgrades from the Department of Sport and Recreation because the department will only fund through local government. The local government does not want to do that because it has a master plan; yet only 23 per cent of people turned out to vote for effectively big resources and a lot of change. It has implications on roads in suburbs and implications on how our recreational parks are dealt with. If we are going to take this seriously, and if local governments take on the increasing role we are placing on them—even with cats and those sorts of things—we need to consider, firstly, the expected roles and responsibilities of local government and, secondly, how to increase that vote. I am not standing here saying I think it should be a compulsory vote at this point, but I think it is really telling, to the point of a necessity and an urgency, that we undertake a serious bipartisan inquiry into how local governments operate; in particular how it represents people in a democratic way because people are just not voting for them. MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [4.57 pm]: I rise to make a short contribution to what is a very significant piece of legislation that the opposition is of course supporting, the Electoral and Constitution Amendment Bill 2011, to establish fixed terms in Western Australia for the Legislative Assembly starting from 2013. As the member for Rockingham has already pointed out, this has been a longstanding Labor Party policy. It has a somewhat constricted history in debate, particularly going back to 2003 through to now. It is timely that we have the debate and pass the legislation. The member for Nollamara certainly raised a very good issue about local government. There has been significant debate over the past few years about local government, including the form it takes and its size. That debate is continuing at the moment mainly in respect of metropolitan local government, but I think if there was an opportunity to look at local government and the role it plays—not just its size and rate base, but the role that local government plays—that would have been the time to consider, as the member for Nollamara said, the role of a second chamber and the role of committees. We cannot have a debate about one layer of government to the exclusion of others, particularly state and local. That is a debate that, when the Premier’s group of experts report, may again rear its head in terms of what role the Parliament plays. My view is that power should be devolved to the closest level at which it impacts on people. I think maybe it is time to look at what we can push further down on the food chain to local government, but that necessarily requires a discussion about the electoral system— whether the voting system is compulsory or non-compulsory. I think now, with the size of Western Australia and with the vast majority of the population in a very small part of the overall state, the role of the government or regional government—I previously spoke on this a number of times—will only increase simply because people demand access to the people who make decisions over issues that affect them. The member for Armadale made the point about electoral terms. I think a fixed four-year term at the state level is ideal. Federally, I think it is an awful situation with a three-year cycle that does not often go the full three years. For a national government to have this sort of uncertainty, by which we really have 18 months of government and then we enter into the pre-election phase in the electoral cycle, is crazy. I am not so sure about five-year terms. I think federally a fixed four-year term is ideal, bearing in mind that governments in the United Kingdom very rarely fulfil a full five years of their term. I am interested in the comments made by the member for Rockingham about money in politics. I think there is a role for a parliamentary committee to have a look at this issue. The issue flows into the concerns of the member for Kalgoorlie about the behaviour of candidates and candidates’ supporters on election day—bunting and the behaviour around booths. Although I think there will always be a requirement for handing out how-to-vote cards, I think the bunting and all the paraphernalia that goes with it has perhaps served its purpose. I do not think it has

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8547 any impact on how people vote. We just have the madness of how early people can get there, particularly in marginal seats, to cover whatever building they have been assigned with the various paraphernalia that they have been given. In terms of money, obviously that is one way that the necessary expenditure of candidates could be reduced when it comes to election day expense. I am not so sure about the member for Nollamara’s suggestion of photographs next to candidates’ names on the ballot sheet, bearing in mind that if one has a quick scan of The Western Australian Parliamentary Handbook, the photos that sit next to the elected members are considerably different from how they really look. Certainly if I have a look at, say, the member for Cottesloe, the photo in this book does not reflect the man I see as the member for Cottesloe now; it is quite extraordinary! Similarly, if someone was to look at the photograph of the member for Mandurah, they would be likely to vote for Hon Col Holt, if photographs on the ballot sheet were to be the case. In the photo of the member for Churchlands there is certainly someone there who is allegedly the Minister for Education. The person in the photo of the member for Rockingham is clearly a younger brother of the member for Rockingham—a much younger brother. The former member for Armadale, quite interestingly enough, is not Hon Alannah MacTiernan; it is the person in the photograph and I do not know who that is. The member for Albany has an interesting “moustaka” that certainly does not fit on the face of the current member for Albany and his hair is certainly a different colour than it is now. Therefore, photographs, I think, would have to be carefully screened, so that, for example, Mr Speaker, your head looks exactly as it does now in all its glory, on the ballot paper. The SPEAKER: But surely, member for Victoria Park, no-one would vote for us! Mr B.S. WYATT: I think overall, Mr Speaker, members on the opposition side of the house are more attractive than those on the other side of the house; therefore, it would perhaps benefit us if photographs were used on the ballot paper! I strongly support the comments made by the Premier about advertising, particularly when incumbent government’s use taxpayers’ money to advertise in environments or locations that are perhaps not conducive to information giving—that is, telling Western Australians about government policy or the rights and entitlements of citizens. Certainly, I think the Premier would agree that having government advertising on things such as key rings, tattoos, lip balm, umbrellas and pens, for example, resplendent in the green and gold, would be an outrageous way to spend taxpayers’ money! I know you would agree, Mr Speaker, that that would be an awful way to promote a particular government policy by using the colours associated with a political party on lip balm and tattoos. That would be an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money. I know that the Premier would agree wholeheartedly with those comments, therefore I look forward to some action from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to keep a close eye on the way — Mr M. McGowan: A crackdown! Mr B.S. WYATT: A crackdown on the way taxpayer’s money is used to promote a particular political party throughout Western Australia. Much has been said about the level of dysfunction in the United States between the presidency and the Congress—people had different comments about that—and whether the checks and balances that are designed in the US Constitution have now created, courtesy of the political parties and partisanship, a dysfunctional system of governance. One thing that struck me when I visited the United States last year, courtesy of the State Department, was a culturally different view from Australians that Americans have towards governments. Even strong Democrats who I met still had a much more suspicious view, if we like, of the role of government. There is much stronger desire for government to stay out of people’s affairs. When we look at the role and the interaction between the federal government and the state governments in the US, the federal government has a much smaller role to play. It provides on average about 10 per cent of the revenue of a state government in the United States, which is significantly different from Australia of course. The member for Bassendean made some comments about our federal system. I think our federal system in Australia works well and regardless of whether they are Liberal or Labor governments, there is always healthy competition between state and federal governments that I think creates that healthy tension and healthy government. With that short contribution, I emphasise that the Premier is bringing a significant piece of legislation to the Parliament that is of course strongly supported by the opposition. It has been a long time coming, and we can now plan with some certainty. The Premier’s second reading speech made the point that there is a lot more certainty with a fixed term. Most of us will be candidates at the next election, and we can plan with a lot of certainty around the election date, and that will obviously have flow-on impacts on expenditure. I think a parliamentary committee, at some point, flowing off the comments of the member for Rockingham, should be established to look at these things, because behaviour on election day is getting to the point at which perhaps the majority of Western Australians would think things were getting out of control. I think the member for

8548 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

Kalgoorlie was very accurate in highlighting the rapid increase in pre-poll votes. People effectively vote by mail or go into the Electoral Commission prior to election day to vote. A very significant percentage of people now do that; certainly the figure for the electorate of Victoria Park was much higher than it ever has been. I think the way people work has influenced that, but also the wall of supporters of candidates handing out the various paraphernalia is another impact, because it can be quite an intimidating environment through which voters have to pass. I daresay that the impact of that paraphernalia on how people vote is minimal, if not insignificant. Premier, the bill is good legislation. We will support it and I am delighted by the fact that once it is through, we will actually know when the next election will be held. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [5.09 pm] — in reply: I thank members for their contribution to the debate and for their support for a fixed four-year term. I must say that I found the debate interesting and wide ranging. A lot of issues were covered, including the conduct of governments leading into elections, the conduct of elections, and practices and procedures around polling booths, and I think a lot of good suggestions were made. However, in view of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. [Leave granted for the member’s speech to be continued at a later stage.] Debate thus adjourned. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE Special On motion without notice by Mr C.J. Barnett (Premier), resolved — That the house at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 1 November 2011, at 2.00 pm. House adjourned at 5.10 pm ______

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8549

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

REGIONAL AIRLINES — GOVERNMENT DISCOUNT 6068. Mr P.B. Watson to the Treasurer (1) Does the government have any arrangement with a regional airline for a discount on fares; and (a) if so, what are the terms of this discount for each airline, and what routes do they apply to? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1) Yes, Skywest Airlines (a) The discounts vary according to route and class of travel as follows:

Y K N Destination Class Class Class Albany, Esperance, Busselton, Ravensthorpe 15% 10% 5% Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Exmouth, Karratha, Port Hedland, Broome, Kununurra 30% 25% 20% SCHOOLS — STANDARD OPERATING ENVIRONMENT FOUR (SOE4) 6129. Mr A.J. Waddell to the Minister for Education (1) In how many schools has Standard Operating Environment Four (SOE4) been implemented? (2) What is the length of disruption of service experienced by each school which has had SOE4 implemented? (3) Who determines the list of approved software that may be installed under SOE4? (4) What is the average length of support call for IT issues experienced by SOE4 schools, and who bears the cost of support for SOE4 schools where an issue involves a site visit? (5) How many support calls has the Information Communication Technology (ICT) branch received from SOE4 schools this year where the solution involved installing a driver or software patch that school did not have security permissions to install? (6) What is the average length of time required to resolve an issue once a call is logged with the ICT support for a SOE4 school? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: I am advised by the Department of Education as follows: (1) The Standard Operating Environment Four (SOE4) has been implemented in 115 schools. (2) Dependent on school size, a three to four week implementation period is required. However, core school business services are restored within four working days. (3) The Department of Education determines software for security, anti-virus protection and core administration purposes. Schools determine which software to use for particular purposes in individual schools. (4) The Department is unable to determine the length of support calls specific to SOE4. The costs for visits to schools to rectify ICT supported issues are met by Central Office. (5) The Department cannot measure the number of support calls based specifically on drivers or software patches. The ICT Directorate manages all driver and software patches for all centrally-managed services. School-based staff are supplied with software tools and have the appropriate security permissions to install drivers and software patches for school-specific, locally-installed infrastructure and software. (6) For the period from July 2010 to September 2011 the average length of time to resolve issues for SOE4 were: • 54 per cent of issues were resolved at the first point of contact; • a further 15 per cent of issues were resolved within one working day; • a further 17 per cent of issues were resolved within five working days; and • a further 14 per cent of issues took more than five working days.

8550 [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011]

MINISTERS — CONTACT WITH DANIELLE BLAIN 6136. Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister for Education (1) Could the Minister advise if he has had any contact with Ms Danielle Blain, or a representative of Ms Blain, since 1 September 2009; and (a) if yes, what were the dates of the contact(s) or meeting(s); (b) if yes, what was the nature or subject of discussion during the contact(s) meeting(s); and (c) if yes, were other people present during the contact(s) or meeting(s); and (i) if yes, what were the names of the people present? Dr E. CONSTABLE replied: I have not had any meetings with Ms Danielle Blain or a representative of Ms Blain during the period 1 September 2009 to 1 September 2011. MINISTERS — CONTACT WITH DANIELLE BLAIN 6143. Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Child Protection; Community Services; Seniors and Volunteering; Women's Interests; Youth (1) Could the Minister advise if he has had any contact with Ms Danielle Blain, or a representative of Ms Blain, since 1 September 2009; and (a) if yes, what were the dates of the contact(s) or meeting(s); (b) if yes, what was the nature or subject of discussion during the contact(s) meeting(s); and (c) if yes, were other people present during the contact(s) or meeting(s); and (i) if yes, what were the names of the people present? Mr J.H.D. DAY replied: Aside from social functions from time to time (1) (a)–(c) Not applicable PILBARA TAFE CAMPUSES — MOULD OUTBREAK 6153. Mr T.G. Stephens to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development In reference to reports of health risks associated with a mould outbreak in buildings at South Hedland and Pundulmurra TAFE campuses, I ask: (a) when was the mould first discovered at these Pilbara TAFE campuses; (b) when did the mould remediation efforts first commence; (c) how was the remediation process carried out, and by whom; (d) was WorkSafe notified; and (i) if yes, on what date and for what reason and by what means was the notification made; (ii) if the notification to WorkSafe was in writing, will the Minister table it; (iii) if not, why not; (e) how and when were staff at these campuses informed of the mould outbreak issues; (f) will the Minister detail any health related issues that have been raised with WorkSafe or TAFE management that relate to this mould outbreak; (g) will the Minister ensure that there is no cover-up in relation to the handling of this mould issue; (h) will the Minister give a direction to ensure that Pilbara TAFE management do not in any way attempt to identify TAFE staff whistleblowers who have made public the handling of this issue; and (i) what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Government is acting to respond positively to the concerns and issues raised in the North West Telegraph, which has detailed disturbing information about conditions at the campuses which formed the basis of the story published in the newspaper on 14 September 2011? Mr M.J. COWPER replied: (a) The mould was first discovered at the South Hedland Campus in March 2011 and at the Pundulmurra Campus in June 2011.

[ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 20 October 2011] 8551

(b) Mould remediation efforts commenced in April 2011 at the South Hedland Campus and in June 2011 at the Pundulmurra Campus. (c) At the South Hedland campus, the contractor Mycologia carried out initial mould remediation in April 2011. Further testing was carried out and mitigation commenced on the basis of this testing. This involved sealing off the area and cleaning via HVAC and Ozone systems. The work was completed in July 2011 with clear test results provided. Since this testing, the College has initiated further testing and further remediation efforts at South Hedland campus. At the Pundulmurra Campus, ceiling panels were replaced by contractors Vath Junkerss. This work commenced on 7 June 2011 and was completed on 10 June 2011. Since this incident, the College has initiated further testing and further remediation efforts at Pundulmurra Campus. (d) A formal notification to WorkSafe was not made by Pilbara Institute, although discussions have occurred between the Institute and WorkSafe. (i)–(iii) Not applicable. (e) Relevant staff at the South Hedland campus were notified verbally in April 2011. All staff members were notified in July 2011 when further testing was completed. At the Pundulmurra Campus all staff received email notification in July 2011. (f) I understand that some employees have raised concerns regarding potential respiratory problems with Pilbara Institute management and there have been two claims for workers compensation. I cannot comment on what information has been provided to WorkSafe as there has been no formal written notification at this point. The discussions with WorkSafe were verbal. (g) Yes. Pilbara Institute management has informed staff of the situation and made no attempts to cover up any information. (h) The management of Pilbara Institute will follow the principles outlined in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 in dealing with staff that have made public the handling of this issue. (i) The Department of Training and Workforce Development is facilitating discussions with Pilbara Institute to identify responsibilities and will source resources to effectively address the mould situation at both campuses. The Department and Pilbara Institute are also working with Building Management and Works to address the mould issues as quickly as possible. ROAD TRAUMA TRUST FUND — PROJECT SPONSORSHIP 6161. Ms M.M. Quirk to the Minister for Road Safety I refer to the projects listed below approved for funding in the 2010–11 financial year through the road trauma trust fund, referred to in Legislative Council Question on Notice 3995: Motor cycle graduated rider training and licensing project; Power to weight Vehicles for Novice Drivers Research; Data linkage and road safety analysis project; Annual Crash Stats Book; Business case for a safer roads program; and the ORS Capacity Review to deliver Towards Zero; and I ask in relation to each: (i) what is the description, purpose and expected outcome of the project; (ii) by whom is the project being conducted or managed; (iii) at what stage is the project, and when it is expected to be concluded; (iv) if the project has not commenced what is the reason for this; and (v) if concluded what are the results? Mr R.F. JOHNSON replied: (i)–(v) [See paper 4141.] ______