Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

Legislative Assembly

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers. PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. BIGGER PICTURE FUNDING — ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN Notice of Motion Mr M. McGowan (Leader of the Opposition) gave notice that at the next sitting of the house he would move — That this house supports the use of funds designated for the Bigger Picture advertising campaign to be transferred to the creation and implementation of an anti-methamphetamine advertising and public education campaign. ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY STANDING COMMITTEE Extension of Reporting Time — Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): Members, I have received a letter dated 21 April 2015 from the Chairman of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, advising that the committee has resolved to extend the reporting date of its inquiry into safety-related matters concerning floating liquefied natural gas projects to 7 May 2015. GOVERNOR SIR JAMES STIRLING — TRIBUTE Statement by Premier MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [12.04 pm]: I rise today to inform the house of the 150th anniversary of the death of Governor Sir James Stirling, founder of the Swan River Colony and first Governor of Western Australia. James Stirling was born in 1791 and was a British naval officer, explorer and land administrator. The eighth of 15 children, he entered the British Royal Navy as a volunteer at the age of 12, and over the course of the next 15 years saw action off the coast of Spain, Argentina, Mississippi, Hudson Bay, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies. Aged 33, Stirling married 16-year-old Ellen Mangles, the third daughter of a wealthy family from Woodbridge, Surrey, and together they raised five sons and six daughters. Renewed naval activity and the possibility of colonisation by the French in the Pacific in 1826 saw Stirling given the command of Success and deployed to Sydney. Once in Sydney, Stirling persuaded Governor Darling to allow him to explore the west coast of Australia, and so the following year Stirling sailed to the Swan River. He was so impressed with the land he saw that he argued strongly to Governor Darling and the colonial administrators in London for the establishment of a new settlement in the Swan River area. Despite concerns from London about the costs involved, a change in the British government in 1828 saw a friend of the Stirling family, Sir George Murray, appointed as the head of the Colonial Office. Soon after, a decision was made to establish a new colony in New Holland, as Australia was then known. Stirling set sail from England with his family aboard the store ship Parmelia, and on 18 June 1829 he proclaimed the foundation of Swan River Colony. He was promoted to Governor in 1831, representing the first person to hold this position in Western Australia. Following a knighthood in England, he returned as Sir James Stirling and continued to administer the colony until January 1839, when he resigned and returned to England with his family. At his time of leaving the colony, Stirling had established had a farming economy with about 20 000 sheep, sending a few hundred bales of wool a year to England. Using whale oil obtained by barter from passing American whalers, the colonists imported clothing, tobacco and spirits. The rest, as they say, is history. In remembering our first Governor and founder, the Western Australian government has committed $40 000 to support the replacement or renovation of Governor Stirling’s headstone in the United Kingdom. The offer has not yet been taken up by St John’s Stoke church, Guildford, with the church preferring to complete existing renovations before making any decisions on the restoration or otherwise of the headstone. The Agent General for Western Australia in London is aware of the government’s commitment and has remained in close liaison with St John’s Stoke church, Guildford. The government remains supportive of an appropriate recognition of Governor Stirling that respects the wishes of both his direct descendants and the church. On behalf of the Western Australian Parliament, I would like to acknowledge the 150th anniversary of the death of Governor Sir James Stirling, who passed away in comfortable retirement in Guildford, Surrey, on 22 April 1865.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2637

WESTERN POWER — STREETLIGHT POLE INCIDENT — MANDURAH Statement by Minister for Energy DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Energy) [12.07 pm]: I wish to update the house on an electrical incident that occurred in Greenfields last month. While walking to school in March, teenagers Tariq Rowles and Chevaunne Bussola received electric shocks from a damaged streetlight. This unfortunate and distressing event has been canvassed in media reports and is the subject of an EnergySafety investigation. I understand that Tariq and Chevaunne are both on their way to full recovery from the physical injuries sustained, and I praise Tariq’s schoolfriends and a doctor who was passing by who attended to the teenagers on the site. Their actions appear to have saved a life. Western Power is working with EnergySafety on the investigation into the incident. Western Power has finalised its own internal investigation and will prepare a report for EnergySafety. It is not usual practice to release the details of an electrical incident before EnergySafety has concluded its investigation; however, as Minister for Energy I hold the safety of the public to be of the utmost importance and feel that public confidence is best served in this situation by providing the house with an update. Tariq, Chevaunne and their families and friends deserve to know what happened on that morning in Greenfields. Western Power has briefed me on the key findings of its own internal investigation. Having heard Western Power’s view and without pre-empting EnergySafety’s findings, I drew the conclusion that Western Power is partly responsible for the injuries sustained by Tariq and Chevaunne. I concluded this because, as has been reported, a motor vehicle is understood to have damaged a privately owned streetlight. Following notification of the damage, Western Power confirmed the streetlight was de-energised. After some weeks, a representative of Western Power, while attempting to restore electricity supplies in the area, appears to have inadvertently re-energised that damaged streetlight. Western Power’s chief executive officer has expressed to me his deep regret and disappointment in Western Power’s contribution to the incident. He has assured me that Western Power is speaking with the families in relation to the findings of Western Power’s investigation. Western Power has advised me that this incident is not a widespread or systemic issue. Western Power received nearly 90 000 priority customer calls in the past five years relating to streetlights and poles. Of those, approximately 900 of the calls related to emergency incidents and hazards, with 391 being similar to the initial accident in this matter where a streetlight was hit and damaged by a vehicle on 17 October last year. Western Power has since inspected each of the 391 sites and confirmed that all the assets in question are electrically safe. It is clear from this incident that the overlap between private networks or assets and those operated by Western Power needs careful management. In addition to the more than 240 000 streetlights managed by Western Power, there are many privately owned streetlights connected to the Western Power network. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN VICTORIA CROSS AND GEORGE CROSS RECIPIENTS Statement by Minister for Veterans MR J.M. FRANCIS (Jandakot — Minister for Veterans) [12.10 pm]: Mr Speaker, I will start by acknowledging the presence in your gallery of Royal Navy cadets and Royal Marine cadets from the United Kingdom who are visiting Western Australia and who will take part in the centenary of the Anzac commemorations in Perth on Saturday. Welcome to Western Australia. [Applause.] Mr J.M. FRANCIS: Mr Speaker, as part of the Western Australian government’s centenary of Anzac initiatives, my office has produced a booklet entitled “This Gallant Company of Brave Men”, which is about Western Australia’s 17 Victoria Cross and two George Cross recipients. Of our 17 Victoria Cross recipients who were either born in Western Australia or who enlisted in Western Australia, one fought in the Second Boer War, 10 fought in the Great War, five fought in the Second World War and one fought in the war in Afghanistan. Both of our GC recipients fought in the Second World War. Our Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients are extraordinary men who came from varied backgrounds with different life experiences. I refer to Private O’Meara, VC, who laboured for four days with both casualties and vital stores while displaying awe-inspiring gallantry and cheerfulness in the hellish and nightmarish fields of Pozieres. I refer also to George Gosse, GC, who displayed cool daring whilst defusing volatile German mines in Bremen and to Benjamin Roberts-Smith, VC, MG, who displayed a determined and professional application of his trade in Afghanistan. To date, no member of the Royal Australian Navy has been awarded the Victoria Cross, but it is too easily forgotten that of the nine Australian servicemen who were awarded the George Cross, four were serving with the RAN, with two of those being Western Australian. This booklet will hopefully remind readers that George Cross recipients stand in the front ranks of Australian heroes. Through publications like this one, it is desired that Western Australians will gain a greater understanding and stronger appreciation of those who served and the stories behind them.

2638 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Members may be interested to know that I will be sending a copy of the booklet to every member of this house and the Legislative Council, as well as to every school and council in the state. I record thanks to my office staff for the work they did in compiling this booklet. In particular, I thank my chief of staff, Stephen Barton, Donald Gibbs and Peta Arbuckle, MVO, from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. LAND LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TAXING) BILL 2014 Returned Bill returned from the Council without amendment. ANZAC CENTENARY COMMEMORATIONS Motion MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [12.13 pm]: I move — That as we approach the 100th anniversary of the landing of Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli, this house continues to commemorate the Anzac centenary marking 100 years since our nation’s involvement in the First World War. In doing so, we should be mindful that this commemoration is not about the glorification of war, but the recognition of the bravery and sacrifice of our servicemen and women. The Anzac centenary records the events of the First World War from 1914 to 1918. At the time, the Australian population was fewer than five million people, yet 417 000 Australian men enlisted for service, including 32 000 Western Australians. Of those armed service representatives, 60 000 were killed and 156 000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. It was an incredible sacrifice by individuals and an incredible toll on Australia and Western Australia. Western Australia and Western Australians should feel proud that our state has already played a major role in the commemoration of the Anzac centenary with events commencing last November in Albany. Of course, Albany is the site from which the two Anzac convoys departed and it is also known for holding the first Anzac dawn service in Australia. The events in Albany involved a re-enactment of the departure of the convoy of Australian naval ships and ships from other countries. Forty thousand people attended the events in Albany. I place on the record my appreciation of the dignity displayed by the people of Albany and the City of Albany for the way in which that event was conducted and hosted. The re-enactment was a moving event as were the other events over that weekend. I particularly remember the performance by the naval band from Melbourne. It also marketed the formal commencement of the Anzac centenary for the next four years. As part of that, the National Anzac Centre opened in Albany. It was jointly funded by the commonwealth and Western Australian governments. I was delighted that both the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers attended the opening of that centre. This state went further when in February this year The Giants came to Western Australia, marking their first time in the southern hemisphere. As members are aware, 1.4 million Western Australians and visitors from interstate and overseas came into the Perth city during the three-day event. What I think was important is that The Giants told the story of Breaksea Island and reflected on the book The Lighthouse Girl, which had been written about those events. The Giants—the diver and the little girl—effectively told a 100-year-old Anzac story to the children of today. It was an extraordinary achievement by the Perth International Arts Festival with support from the state government, state government agencies and the private sector to bring a 100-year-old story to the children of Perth. The response of the Western Australian public was simply magnificent. To return to the centenary of the Anzac, as members know 25 April marks the landing of British, Australian and New Zealand troops on the Gallipoli peninsula, particularly Anzac Cove. The toll was immense; 8 709 Australians died in the Gallipoli campaign with casualties of both New Zealand and British troops. Indeed, our warring partners, the Turks, lost 56 000 men during the campaign. Sadly, wars have continued to be fought since Gallipoli and the battles of the First World War on the Western Front. I note that the next great war, the Second World War, was fought from 1939 to 1945. Again, Australians were at war, Australian families were affected and Australian troops died during the conflicts at Tobruk and El Alamein and during the Battle of Britain and D- Day invasion. Closer to home there was the fall of Singapore with the capture of some 16 000 Australian troops. There was the bombing of Darwin and the bombing of Broome in our own state. There was the Battle of the Coral Sea, Kokoda, the Battle of Milne Bay, the Thai–Burma Railway and so on. Sadly, wars continued beyond that. There was the Korean War from 1950–53, the Malayan Emergency from 1950–1960, the Vietnam War from 1962-1975, particularly the Battle of Long Tan in 1966. There has also been the First and Second Gulf Wars in Iraq, East Timor, Afghanistan and various other peacemaking missions. This Saturday, 25 April, people will think of the Gallipoli landings and the formation of the Anzac tradition that lives on. However, while focusing on Gallipoli, this Anzac Day is about all conflicts and all Australians who have died, been wounded or taken prisoner during battle. Anzac Day is for many Australians the most important day of the year. It is the day on which they remember all wars and the more than 102 000 Australians who have died in conflicts over the past 100 years. It will be a moment for all Australians, including the most recently

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2639 arrived to this country, to participate and acknowledge our history, tradition and the Anzac legend. I also note that this house is honoured to have members of the Parliament who have served at home and abroad in our armed forces and I particularly pass on our respect for their work. No doubt every Australian family in the First World War would have had some direct connection to that war whether it was Gallipoli, the Western Front or whatever. I am sure members in the house have either directly or through their friends and relatives have a connection to one of those conflicts and would have their own stories to pass on. I will not go into detail, but I would just like to mention that my father was a Rat of Tobruk and he was wounded at El Alamein. There is nothing remarkable in that; thousands of Australians were there as well. My uncle Vic, to whom I was very close, was captured during the fall of Singapore and survived three years as a prisoner of war including the Burma railway. He, rather than my father, talked about the war. If I can tell one little story, when he was finally repatriated to Australia and was admitted to Hollywood hospital, he was very underweight and quite fragile, but he was a character. He climbed out of the window of the hospital to catch up with his fiancée who was in Floreat, a kilometre or so away. When he returned he was docked five shillings by the Australian government for being absent without leave. They were different times. I would also like to acknowledge the RSL and the wonderful role it is playing in the various events surrounding not only Anzac Day, but in the lead-up events with Albany and The Giants, and no doubt over the next four years. On Saturday millions of Australians will remember the original Anzacs who landed in Gallipoli. They will also remember the other conflicts, the loss of life, the hardship at home and the hardship overseas. One thing they will all observe on Saturday is the tens of thousands of young Australians of today in the towns and cities of this country who will come out to acknowledge and pass on their respect to a similar-aged generation of 100 years ago. Lest we forget. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [12.22 pm]: I join with all members of the house in supporting this motion to acknowledge a very important event in our nation’s history. Saturday will mark 100 years since the Anzacs landed at Gallipoli, which they did in conjunction with many service people from other nations—Britain, France, India and the like—who formed part of that extraordinary set of events. The Gallipoli landings were amazing; in many ways they were magnificent. It was an amphibious operation conducted 100 years ago with a combination of ships, warships, submarines and the landing of soldiers from a number of different nations in an attempt to end the First World War more quickly than might otherwise had happened. We were fighting the Ottoman Empire, as it then was, and the expectation was that we would be successful and that we would be successful fairly quickly. Prior to the Gallipoli landings, Australians had participated in a number of wars. We had gone to the Boer War in South Africa. We had sent forces as colonies across to the Boxer Rebellion in China. We participated in the so-called Maori wars in New Zealand and in an expeditionary force in Sudan, Africa. Yet it was Gallipoli that captured the public imagination and it is Gallipoli that has endured as a lasting symbol of Australia’s military and warlike activities over the course of the last century. In the battles in South Africa, some of which were very bloody, Australians performed with the utmost courage and bravery yet they are largely, almost completely, forgotten by the people of today. I thought to myself, what was the difference? Why was it that Gallipoli captured the public’s imagination and that it continues to capture the public’s imagination? First of all, it was the scale of what was undertaken. Thousands of service people from across the world undertaking an amphibious attack on the Ottoman Empire was just extraordinary. It was the audacity of it that we attempted this enterprise; and, secondly, it was the fact that it was recorded by a remarkable historian in the case of C.E.W. Bean. Thirdly, Gallipoli promoted many of the names that have permeated movies and books since that period of time. As people have noted, over 8 000 Australians died and the names of The Nek, Lone Pine, the landings, the evacuation and the Battle of Hill 60 still resonate throughout history. The Battle of the Nek, the futile attack by Australian soldiers which resulted in hundreds of young Australian men dying, is still talked about today even though no-one is present anymore—no-one alive remembers it or was part of it. Earlier today I put forward a proposition that one of the famous Western Australian Light Horsemen, Hugo Throssell, should be appropriately acknowledged for not only his role in the Battle of the Nek, which he survived, but also his receipt of the Victoria Cross at a subsequent assault a few days later at Hill 60 and his amazing Western Australian life, which ultimately ended tragically. We should acknowledge his life by naming the next federal electorate in Western Australia after him and call it Throssell as an acknowledgement of an amazing Western Australian life in this 100th anniversary of Gallipoli. Those events—the evacuation, Lone Pine, the Nek and the landings—are the things that have captured the imagination. My own great uncle, my grandfather’s brother, still lies unfound at Lone Pine. His body was never found; his name is on the wall at Lone Pine, just one of many Australians who were acknowledged in that way. Gallipoli started the national trauma of the First World War, which was one of the top three most traumatic events in the history of our country. It permeated towns, communities, suburbs and streets across this country. It was a trauma that was enormous in its scale. If we were to extrapolate the 61 000 Australians who died in the

2640 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

First World War to today’s population, it would be the equivalent of the entire population of Canberra dying in the course of the next four years. The women of Australia suffered even more whilst the men largely endured the pain, the suffering and the wounds and post-traumatic stress disorder. As we now know, it was the women of Australia who lost their sons, husbands and brothers. Many of them were unable to find a husband after the war, and many of them cared for men who were physically and emotionally damaged from the events. The trauma started at Gallipoli continued with the Western Front, in particular. I have been to the Western Front on four separate occasions and had a look at some of the battlefields that Australians served and fought in. It is an amazing place. The scale of the Western Front, frankly, dwarfs Gallipoli. More than 45 000 Australians died there as part of that enormous conflict that took place in the Western Front, yet it has not captured the imagination, I do not think, in the same way that Gallipoli did. The truth behind Gallipoli is that it was heroic. Australians performed outstanding deeds of sacrifice and bravery. Bonds of mateship were formed and it has formed a large part of our national character and our national discussion ever since, but the truth about Gallipoli is that it was a mistake. The idea that defeating Turkey would somehow result in Germany, Austria and Hungary surrendering was so flawed as to be ridiculous. It was a mistake and perhaps our service people would have been better served going to the Western Front and fighting the real enemy who we were trying to defeat at the time, which was the empire of Germany. The young men who died there died in a lost cause, which was the attempt to defeat the Ottoman Empire. Having said that, had they been sent to Germany, or had they been sent to France and Belgium and served there, very many more may have died. Maybe different ones amongst them, but it very well may have been that more may have died than the 8 000 or so who died at Gallipoli. Of course, once we did go to the Western Front, an enormous number of Australians died in places such as Pozieres, Messines and the other battlefields of France and Belgium. This was enormous numbers. On occasion, in the course of a month, or a few weeks, more Australians died on the Western Front than died during the entire eight months of the Gallipoli campaign. I worked through Australia’s role in the First World War in my head, and I think Australia’s role on the Western Front was justified. But it was a tough ask. If I were the father of a young man killed in the First World War, would I have thought that that was a worthwhile investment of his life? One has to think that they were not fighting for King and Empire, but for the ideals of freedom, to stop unnecessary expansionism and to support good and firm allies—nations that remain allies today. In hindsight, I think our involvement was justified, but some of the ways that our soldiers were used were unnecessary and wasteful, and history bears that out. I conclude by acknowledging all our service people prior to and since Gallipoli, and those who serve our country today in difficult circumstances overseas and on the high seas. MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Leader of the National Party) [12.32 pm]: It is certainly a great honour to speak to this motion recognising the bravery and sacrifice of the service men and women who served during the First World War. There are many things to reflect upon at a moment like this. I could speak about the sheer wastefulness of countries across the world sending a generation of their best and brightest to be slaughtered in their millions, and how we must never allow such a tragedy to happen again. I also could speak about the appalling treatment of our Aboriginal servicemen who, having struggled and suffered as equals on the battlefield, found themselves cast back into a pit of discrimination and prejudice when they arrived home. However, in the limited time I have available, I would like to reflect on something a little more personal. My grandad Frank Smith was a boy at the start of the First World War. He recalled as a young kid standing at the back fence of his school in Bakers Hill and seeing trainload after trainload of horses going past. They came from all over Western Australia—all destined for the Middle East. He talked about it many times when he got old, and it would have been significant to him because they relied on horses for transport and to do work on the farms. On 1 November 1914, 36 transport and three escort cruisers left Albany for the Middle East with 7 843 horses on board. The Australian Light Horse mounts were called Walers. They were desert horses of hardy nature that remained alert despite up to 72 hours without sustenance. There are many stories of the great triumphs of the Light Horsemen and their great feats of bravery during the Middle East campaign. Many of those stories describe the deep affection between man and horse. For instance, there is the story of the young Light Horseman, shipped out to Palestine at 15 years of age, who was demoted for punching an officer. When he was asked why he had punched the officer, the young trooper replied, “Because he belted my horse, and no-one hits my horse. My horse saved my life and we are mates.” Imagine the Light Horsemen’s feelings when, at the end of the war, they learnt that they were unable to take their horses home. My grandad was so moved by the stories of those horses that did not return that he wrote a poem about the horses returning in spirit at least. With the indulgence of the house, Mr Speaker, I would like to read that poem — Horses Coming Home I had a dream the other night Was as plain as plain could be

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2641

I saw a thousand horsemen Riding home across the sea Those riders—when the war was won Shed tears and said goodbye To leave a faithful horse behind Made many a strong man cry But we’ll be back to take you home Though hell should bar the way And as ghost riders we will live To ride and fight another day So never fear four legged friends When our earthly days are through A thousand suntanned horsemen Will be coming back for you Wave on wave of phantom riders Coming in across the sea To meet their cobbers on Mt Clarence What a marvellous sight to see And now the last post sounded Men and horses home to stay And lots of green, green pastures For ever and a day And that’s the scene I saw last night As plain as plain could be A thousand Tenth Light Horsemen Bringing horses home across the sea. MR J.M. FRANCIS (Jandakot — Minister for Veterans) [12.35 pm]: On a personal note, I would like to acknowledge my mother, Robyn Francis, who is in the Speaker’s gallery. Her story is typical of many women in this country in that her father, uncle, husband and me, as her son, all served in the Australian Defence Force. Welcome to Western Australia, Mum. One hundred years ago, the Great War was just over eight months old. In those hectic months, the small pre-war British army had been bled white, the Russians had been defeated at Tannenberg and over half a million French soldiers had been killed, wounded or were missing. Meanwhile, the German army was firmly entrenched on French and Belgian soil, and a maze of trenches stretched from the Swiss Alps to the North Sea. The first Christmas had come and gone, but the war was not over. It was a war like no other. It was progressing not as was hoped, but as was scarcely imagined. Against this backdrop, Australian and New Zealand troops were committed to a daring but flawed attack on Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire. The first Anzacs went on to fight on the Western Front and in the Middle East; their achievements astonishing and their losses unspeakable. They were there at the end in the vanguard of the final victories. Rightly or wrongly, no other battle or campaign is as central to the national story as Gallipoli. It is difficult to know why this is the case; it was a defeat or at very best a draw. Australians remember Gallipoli, not Megiddo or Damascus. They remember the Nek, not Mont St Quentin or Amiens. That might be because it was the first time the Australian Imperial Force went into a large-scale fight—or it might be because it was so audacious and so doomed. Perhaps for Australians of the day, fired up by the accounts of Ellis Ashmead–Bartlett, it was the notion that Australia could contribute on the world stage. At the time, there was a sense that Australia had passed a great test of character. A nation of workers, farmers and shopkeepers that had peaceably inherited the benefits of common law and parliamentary democracy was also capable of something heroic. For all that, perhaps there is a part of the Australian character that prefers to reflect on a defeat. Whatever the reason, Gallipoli is central to our understanding of what it means to be an Australian. The notion of mateship and a rough sense of irreverent independence were consecrated there. Over 1 000 Western Australians died during the Gallipoli campaign and another 6 000 would die before the war’s end. Almost one in 25 Western Australian men were killed or died of wounds or disease in the Great War. No family, suburb or school was immune from loss. It was a terrible harvest of the young, the fit, the strong and the public spirited. Gallipoli was the start, and a benchmark was established for the remainder of the war and indeed for the country for the next 100 years. The foundation stones of a national story had been laid, but it was just the beginning. Victory over the Turks and the Germans was years away, and the worst was yet to come for the AIF and tens of thousands of Australian families.

2642 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

There are 102 804 names etched into the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial. In the life of our commonwealth, successive generations of Australian service personal have fought not for territorial gain or conquest, but for the better values of our society. Australian service personnel will commemorate this Anzac Day on active service in the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire. There is a crimson thread that runs from those first Anzacs through to each following generation of returned service men and women; it binds them together across a century of service and sacrifice. This Saturday we shall honour them all. Although it is not a state government department, I acknowledge the Office of Australian War Graves. I have been to a lot of war graves, including Hellfire Pass, Kanchanaburi, Borneo and Singapore. Last week, I was at Karrakatta when my father’s war grave plaque was placed on the war grave in Perth. War graves staff across the planet do a wonderful, wonderful job in honouring our dead and we should acknowledge them. MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [12.39 pm]: It gives me great pleasure to talk about the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli on behalf of my Albany electorate. Albany has great historical significance because it is from where the Anzacs left for Gallipoli. I would like to congratulate the state and federal governments for all the work that they have done in Albany to help us with not only the 100th anniversary of when the soldiers left, but also the National Anzac Centre. I was walking along Middleton Beach the other day looking out and thinking of all the ships, all those young people, young boys and men getting so excited. If members go to the Anzac centre, they can see the photos of them walking around town, marching up and down for their big adventure, “We’re off to fight the Germans.” They left from Albany and the last thing that they would have thought looking back over Albany from the back of the ship is that it would be the last place that they would see ever again of Australia. A lot of them would not be coming home and Albany was the last thing they saw. That is not a great thing to have, but our City of Albany reveres that thought because we want to make sure that the young people who came to Albany from New Zealand and from all the country towns are remembered. Looking at the country towns, all the young people—young doctors, horsemen, people who were part of the community—just went, just like that. These communities then had to survive. The women had to survive. My mother was a Wren during the war. She used to make uniforms for the soldiers. There is a great photo of all the soldiers on the sphinx. I have the photo at the back of my desk in my office. Looking at the ages of some of the people, I am sure that some of the boys on the right-hand side would not be more than 15 or 16 years of age, but they were going to this great adventure. They were going on this great adventure, and the next thing they knew, they were in the trenches in Gallipoli. I have had the opportunity to go to Gallipoli on Anzac Day. Sitting at the service there in the morning, there was not anyone who was not crying. The Turkish man next to me said we could feel their ghosts. Looking back, we could see that the cliffs that they were climbing up were just insurmountable. The Australians, New Zealanders, French and British just kept going and going and going. All these people were heroes just for taking off from that beach. We cannot forget the Turks. We were invading their land, but they lost 55 000 people. Atatürk had that great saying, “Your sons are our sons.” We have a sculpture of Atatürk on the boardwalk in Albany and we have renamed it Atatürk Passage. A lot of Turkish people come down there just to see it. If Australians go to Turkey and meet a Turkish person in Istanbul, they will come up and hug and kiss them—these are the guys too, not just the women. There is a respect that we have got to have for the people we fought against. When they were leaving, the Australian boys thought they were going to fight the Germans. They did not really want to fight the Turks but they were put in a position in which they had to. The Premier has talked about personal experiences and other members about family. When I was younger, I used to like to read war comics. I asked my dad to tell me about the war, and he would not say. he said, “No, I am not going to tell you.” One day he said, “Okay, I will tell you. It’s when your best mate takes off in the plane. At the end of the runway a Stuka comes in and blows him out of the sky. You’ve got to go out there and pick up his pieces and send them back to his wife. That is what war is about.” We must never forget these people. It is not only the ones who lost their lives, but the ones who came home with those memories that would be there forever. We did not recognise post-traumatic stress disorder so these people had it for the rest of their lives. We must never forget them. Lest we forget. MR S.K. L’ESTRANGE (Churchlands) [12.44 pm]: Mr Speaker, 416 809 enlisted, 60 284 died, 155 133 woundings, 4 044 prisoners of war, and there are 431 448 recorded sicknesses or non-battle injuries that affected one or more men multiple times. That is a heavy toll. We often reflect and ask ourselves what this sacrifice was for. Dudley McCarthy wrote a book titled Gallipoli to the Somme: the story of C.E.W. Bean, that great war correspondent. In this book, McCarthy refers to a small book written by Charles Bean, which was published before the end of 1918 under the title In Your Hands, Australians. McCarthy reflects on Bean’s book — There is no particular literary quality in this book—nor would its author have claimed any. In its structure it is reminiscent of The Dreadnought of the Darling. Just as the latter was simply a series of

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2643

newspaper articles loosely strung together on the thread represented by that river, so In Your Hands, Australians might have been a similar series inspired by battlefield memories. Against the background of those he tries to fashion a sort of blueprint for effort through which Australia might become a great country and an ideal place for Australians to live in. He sees it as a legacy left in the hands of the people remaining by those who have died. Bean wrote — They gave it into your hands, Australians, when the bullet took them.…They stood where others crouched; they were up and over the top when others hesitated; they went straight for the machine-gun when others planned or thought or questioned.…And why did they do it? Why did they enter that service? And what were they aiming to obtain? What were they fighting for? Not themselves, certainly….They entered [the war] and they fought to keep the world (and Australia above all the world) a free place, where men have the right to live according to their lights, provided those lights involve no harm to others, without being dictated to by others who happen to be stronger than they….It is the loss of those men, beyond all question, that is Australia’s loss in this war. The money—the material—is nothing, simply nothing. With a trifling effort we can replace all that—if we did not we should scarcely miss it. But we can never bring back those 60,000 men….They have handed into your keeping a wonderful, precious possession—Australia. Is she not worth living and dying for? Is she not worth a life’s work to make her more beautiful, better, greater, happier; even if we can only do something for one little corner of her, in one little way—is it not worth doing? Lest we forget. MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [12.47 pm]: The presence earlier of the Royal Navy Cadets—I think they were Royal Marines Cadets as well, by the look of them—in the Speaker’s gallery reminded me of this day, three days before Anzac Day, in 2003. At that time, I was with a clearance diving team at a place called Khawr az-Zubayr, a stone’s throw from the Al Faw peninsula. As executive officer, it fell to me to prepare for the coming Anzac Day. We were embedded with the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade—thousands of Royal Marines— and my commanding officer suggested that we invite some of the Royal Marines along, if they would be interested, to attend an Anzac Day service. We passed on the word and received notification that they had had to restrict attendees to people with direct descendants who had died at Gallipoli because there were so many British military people serving in the 3 Brigade at that time who had an interest or a desire to attend; they had to restrict it to those people with that direct link. On the morning of Anzac Day when the sun rose across what used to be marshlands, there were hundreds of them. They did not want to overwhelm us with the presence of all the people who would have liked to have attended, and all the British would have liked to have attended. That was a stark reminder to us. It was not lost on any of us that we were standing in what had previously been the Ottoman Empire, and that so many British troops and so many other troops of the British Empire died at Gallipoli, as well as Australians. The numbers that have been reflected upon are extraordinary and they are worthy of commemoration. They are worthy of acknowledgement: 60 000 dead from a nation of fewer than 5 million people is an extraordinary number, and 156 000 wounded, and who knows how many incapacitated in a way that was not acknowledged at the time. Those numbers are enormous and it was an absolute tragedy. However, I am inclined to share some of the weariness articulated by a number of observers, particularly younger veterans in recent times, with respect to the manner in which we allow the Gallipoli legend in particular and the Anzac tradition to be almost overwhelmingly representative of what we think about when we commemorate military service. We are spending an awful lot of money, and I think that is a good thing. The contribution of governments around the country and the federal government to the commemoration is appropriate because the impact on the nation was extraordinary, but I guess I share some of the reticence of people such as James Brown, an academic and the author of the book entitled “Anzac’s Long Shadow: The Cost of our National Obsession” in which he makes observations that are not entirely critical but suggest that maybe we spend more time caring for and thinking about dead people and the people who have gone than our current warriors—our current soldiers, sailors, airmen and women—who are confronting the same type of physical and mental challenges and injuries as that of their ancestors, and that perhaps we should be caring more for them and focussing a lot more on them. I cannot avoid making the observation that only this week the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex Servicemen and Women called for their pensions to be indexed better. It is interesting that those people who are alive right now, who were injured through their service, appear not to be treated with as much respect as we could be treating them and perhaps with not as much respect as we treat the memories of people who are long gone. I share the view of people such as John Bale from Soldier On and a lot of other ex-service organisations that have sprung up in recent times that we need to do more, and we need to focus on people. Only this morning I and some of my colleagues, whom I thank for being there, attended the Naval Clearance Diver Trust breakfast, which is a fundraiser to support current and former personnel who have suffered in the line of duty. There are now a lot of trusts similar to that trust, such as the Australian Defence Force Assistance Trust, the

2644 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Commando Welfare Trust and the first Special Air Service Resources Trust formed after the Blackhawk crash in Queensland. All of those trusts have sprung up because there is a need. The Returned and Services League of Australia does a great job, and I commend Graham Edwards for reinvigorating the Western Australian branch of the RSL and for making it relevant to current generations of veterans. However, if there is this much need, there is a problem, and I think we should take the opportunity here to use the commemoration and the memory of the wonderful Anzacs—what they did, their courage and sacrifice—to reinvigorate ourselves and encourage all of us to focus on supporting the people who are here now and their families, to assist them in the challenges that they confront now. MR F.A. ALBAN (Swan Hills) [12.54 pm]: Today this Parliament recognises 100 years of the Anzac legend. It has been 100 years since our country showed its bravery and tenacity for the whole world to see and since that fateful landing in Gallipoli. The story is familiar to us all—the landing, the strategic battles, the evacuation and the cost in young lives. The scale of that sacrifice and loss was beyond anything imaginable at the time. Among the troops were the 11th Infantry Battalion and the 10th Australian Light Horse Regiment, both from Western Australia. We are familiar with locations such as the Nek, Lone Pine, Battleship Hill, Baby 700, Chunuk Bair and Quinn’s Post and traits such as mateship, determination and bravery. We have heard many tales of bravery, including that of Private Simpson and his donkey or the nurses who worked to save and heal our troops in circumstances that can be only described as difficult and dangerous. We have seen photos and heard the details of the ingenuity of arranging rifles to fire, as drips from a canteen fell into a pan to cause the trigger to squeeze to keep up the pretence of an occupied trench during the final evacuation. We all relate to the history of Anzac differently. Last year on an Anzac study tour I visited Greece, which is located less than 100 kilometres from the fateful peninsula of Gallipoli, Turkey. Many of the sites I visited in Greece were the host of significant events during the campaign in 1915. I also visited sites of the 1941 Greek campaign, which hold many similarities to Gallipoli and one which often remains unrecognised in our nation’s consciousness. Next year we will recognise the seventy-fifth anniversary of that battle. The island of Lemnos is home to much Anzac history. The tiny island’s port was used before and after the Gallipoli campaign, and apparently the shelling at that conflict was audible on the island. A third Australian general hospital was based there, as was the Sarpi rest camp. Portianos Military Cemetery, the final resting place of some 300 casualties of Gallipoli, is located on the island also. Those men did not die on the beach at Gallipoli, but like those poor souls, they would never make it home. There is also a street named Anzac on Lemnos. Lemnos would again play host to many of the Australian and New Zealand army corps in 1941 during the Second World War, and our Greek allies would again risk their lives to assist our troops. There has been much discussion about the Anzac spirit—what it means and how it is represented. The Anzac spirit was born in tragedy, in the face of extreme opposition, and with a display of incredible bravery. Its ideals have been carried by our committed service men and women to this day and will continue to be carried on into the future. If Gallipoli is considered to be the coming of age of our young country, then the Anzac spirit will remain evident throughout Australia’s history. Last year I saw firsthand how the Anzac spirit has left an indelible mark on the tiny island of Lemnos, which is a world away from Blackboy Hill and training camps around our great country. That is evidence enough that the spirit of Anzac is everlasting, and a true tribute to those young Australians who never made it back to our shores. In a century of service by our armed forces, we say, today we remember the many empty places at the family table and the emptiness in hearts that nothing can fill. We offer up a silent prayer for those who have lost a loved one in recent conflicts, that they may have the strength to endure their loss. Lest we forget. MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [12.59 pm]: Today’s visitors to Anzac Cove can read the inscribed words of Kemal Atatürk, who defended Gallipoli and subsequently became President of Turkey, which state — “Those heroes that shed their blood, and lost their lives ... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies And the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side Here in this country of ours ... You, the mothers, Who sent their sons from far away countries Wipe away your tears; Your sons are now lying in our bosom And are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have Become our sons as well.”

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2645

On the other side of the world, in Albany, from where those young men set out on their voyage to Gallipoli, there stands a statue of Atatürk. It is a paradox that our two nations have bonded in war, not as allies but as enemies. We learned something from one another: we learned to admire the courage and ingenuity of others; we learned to see ourselves in them, as they saw ourselves in us. Atatürk’s speech makes no distinction between Johnnies and Mehmets or between Anzacs and Turks—they were all young men who died in the same place for the same reason, just on different sides. We never think of war as bringing people together, yet it does. Just as it brought us together with our foes, it also brought us together with our friends. There is no “ANZAC” without New Zealand, and we sometimes forget, as Australia forges its way in the world, that our oldest and closet friends are just across the Tasman. We do not merely share geography with New Zealand; we share history, and we share values. These are the things that we must turn to and commemorate in this centenary year—the camaraderie engendered by shared experience, and especially by shared suffering. We remember the wives, children and mothers waiting at home. We remember the thousands of Red Cross volunteers, who supported soldiers by producing knitted and sewn goods as “comforts” for the troops, caring for the wounded, helping their families, and assisting to locate soldiers reported missing in action. As soldiers returned, the work of the Red Cross turned to their care and rehabilitation. Because for some people, their war never ended. Returned service personnel brought with them the scars on their bodies and the wounds to their souls. For such people, the burden of war, and its cruel legacy, persisted long after the treaties were signed. Many of the returned suffered recurrent respiratory conditions from gassing, or had lost limbs or carried a range of other debilitating physical injuries, limiting their movements and constraining their still young lives. And then there were those who psyches were devastated by the condition that was then called “shell shock”. Many witnessed their mates with whom they had grown up cut to pieces by flying steel, and apprehended daily that the same fate awaited them. It is not surprising that many men sustained psychological collapse. What is more horrifying is that they were accused of malingering, and some were even shot for cowardice. Imagine how hard and perplexing it must have been for the veterans’ loved ones, especially at a time when these symptoms were not readily understood or associated with exposure to the trauma of war. Generals and politicians have biographies and memorials of their own. Anzac commemorations are not about them. They are about the soldiers, the aviators, the sailors and the nurses. It is about those who taught us to endure hardship, to show courage, to be bold as well as resilient, to believe in ourselves, and to stick together. It is a legend not so much of sweeping military victories but of triumphs against the odds, of courage, and of ingenuity in adversity. Our duty at this commemoration of the centenary of Anzac is clear—to honour those who served, and to remember those who died, and to ensure that the lessons learnt live with us forever. And that is exactly what we will do. We shall not forget them. We shall honour their memory, not merely in the words spoken on 25 April each year but in the everyday re-enactment of the values that they have bequeathed to us. Their legacy is a free and fair democracy; an open and just community; shared values; and the simple camaraderie of being Aussies together. Lest we forget. MS M.J. DAVIES (Central Wheatbelt — Minister for Water) [1.04 pm]: On the eve of the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day, our nation will stop to reflect on the courage of people and the value of friendship, to honour the dead and to acknowledge those who suffer from the effects of war. We will gather, not to glorify war, but to celebrate the spirit of the Anzac. The Anzac legend, which has been reflected in the comments of many of the speakers today, has grown to personify those characteristics that we as a nation hold in the highest esteem—courage, mateship, determination and sacrifice. We honour and pay tribute to the Anzac spirit, and those who carried it into the theatre of war, by pausing to reflect each year. During a speech that was made during a service in one of the Anzac ceremonies that I have attended since I have been a member of Parliament, the speaker said something that caused me to pause and reflect. He said, “How little is asked of us that we only have to remember the sacrifice of others.” For some, that sacrifice was a life cut short—a journey that was never completed. For others, it was a life changed, their path altered forever and overshadowed by an experience that can be understood only by those who have experienced or served in conflict. I have no knowledge of what war is like. I have no real notion of the pain, the suffering, the fatigue or the sorrow that this experience creates. For that privilege, I thank every man and woman who has served on our behalf and who carries that burden for me. For that privilege, I pledge never, ever to be complacent about our history and the people who have helped to shape it.

2646 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

There is no greater gift or legacy than freedom for future generations. In my life this gift has a very personal face. It has a human face. It is my grandfather, it is my great uncles and it is my neighbour. It was my grandfather Donald South, who enlisted a matter of days after his eighteenth birthday. He trained in Northam and served in New Guinea. He returned to Australia, and he never really spoke of his experiences in war again. It is almost as though he served two lives in his 91 years on Sunday—one life that we have shared and one he would rather we never know. It is my great uncle, who was one of over 2 000 allied prisoners of war held in the Sandakan prisoner of war camp in north Borneo, having been transferred there from Singapore. They were transported from Changi to Sandakan in July 1942, and he died as a prisoner on 4 January 1945, aged 37 years. It was my great, great uncle, who served as a private in the 50th battalion and was killed in action in France and now lies with his mates in the cemetery in Harbonnieres. It is my neighbour from Wyalkatchem, Paul dePierres, who was conscripted to fight in Vietnam, the only son of a family. Our family had six boys, and not one of them was called up to serve. Our tribute to these men and their mates, their families and their friends must be to honour the freedoms that they fought for. Our role is to live the best life that we can, and to give 100 per cent each and every day to make our family, our community, our state and our nation the best version of itself. Only then are we honouring the sacrifice of those who paid the ultimate price. Throughout the electorate of Central Wheatbelt, communities have chosen to celebrate and reflect on Anzac Day in many different ways. Wongan Hills has had an entire week of events. The Shires of Mt Marshall and Beverley have utilised funding provided by the state and commonwealth governments under the Remembering Them program to commemorate families who were impacted by the war and what life was like in World War I during those times. The Shire of Merredin has planted at the entrance to the town hundreds and hundreds of poppies that have been made by people within the community. In my home town of Wyalkatchem, my neighbour Paul dePierres, who was conscripted and served in Vietnam, scripted and pulled together a community show that was played in the Dowerin and Wyalkatchem town halls over the weekend, to pause and reflect, through a play and music, on the impact of war on a generation of people and families. In Northam this weekend, we will honour Hugo Throssell, who was the recipient of a Victoria Cross, having served with the 10th Light Horse Regiment in Gallipoli. He was born in Northam, and it is fitting that we acknowledge him 100 years on. I am sure everyone in this chamber is aware that he had a troubled history when he returned from the war, and it took some time for the community to acknowledge him appropriately. I think it is very fitting that in this 100th year, we as a community in Northam unveil a statue of Hugo Throssell and reflect on that family and the people who came after him, and on his sacrifice during that war. I will be joining communities right across the central wheatbelt, as I am sure every member will be doing in their electorates, to pause and reflect on all those characteristics that we associate with the Anzacs. MR P.C. TINLEY (Willagee) [1.09 pm]: On this day 25 years ago, I had the very great privilege of standing on the deck of HMAS Tobruk as a member of the Royal Military College Duntroon as a cadet as part of the Australian Defence Force contingent to escort every living and able-bodied veteran of the Gallipoli campaign back to Gallipoli for the seventy-fifth anniversary of that landing and that horrible and atrocious campaign. On that ship’s deck with me was the veteran that I and my mate were assigned to look after. As dawn arrived, HMAS Tobruk rounded Lemnos and headed to the bay now known as Anzac Cove. Of nearly all those veterans, none had clapped eyes on that beach for 75 years. As members can imagine, the emotion was palpable; not a word was spoken, just a quiet tear here and there from them and us as we honoured them in the best way we could by trying to give them in the final days of their lives—many of them 90-plus—closure on something that had stained their memory and their psyche for all their adult lives. Later that day we took them ashore and escorted them around the various places that they wanted to go to. My mate and I stood at the cove and our veteran, Pat Johnson, asked, “Where are we?” It was a bit hard to see. He asked where the sphinx was and we orientated his position to the sphinx, the Nek and all the other things that could be seen only from the shoreline. Pat paused and looked back at the beach and said, “Yes; we came ashore there.” We said, “Pat, it’s been 75 years; the beach has changed; are you sure?” He said, “Yes; I know it’s changed, but we came ashore there. We ran up there. I lost five mates there. We got that far and we all ran straight back to the beach to survive. That’s what we did for eight months—was simply survive.” I am also reminded on this day of the last line of the fourth stanza of English poet Laurence Binyon’s 1914 poem For the Fallen that we now know every 25 April as the RSL ode. That last line reads — At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them It is how we choose to remember them that is absolutely essential as the living embodiment of Anzac values. In 1980, when I marched as an Army reservist down St Georges Terrace on Anzac Day, someone could have let off a cannon on the footpath and it would not have hit anyone. Now the crowds are 10 deep and that is a good

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2647 thing. However, it is important that it is not a dead memory but a living memory. It is important we embody the characteristics of what it is to be Anzac and never allow it to degenerate into a static civic religion, if you like. We have to keep it alive and well. How many of our schools have we gone to where we have talked about Anzac characteristics and been asked what is the Anzac spirit or we have asked the kids what they think it is? A nuanced and more sophisticated understanding evolves beyond Simpson and his donkey to understanding that this is a lived value, reflecting values that we hold ourselves and bring into this chamber every single day of our conscious life. As we have heard from the various speeches, our speeches have come from a personal perspective. Our personal interpretation is probably more important than the collective one. What Anzac means to us is an essential component. We have heard people talk about their families, their relatives and, indeed, even their personal experiences. As I say, Anzac commemoration is a living, breathing thing. One of the most laudable characteristics I know about the Australian soldier, airman and sailor is a laconic irreverence. Their sense of humour, be it black or white, pervades all parts of what they do and the way they conduct themselves and their laconic irreverence of authority in particular. The Anzac spirit of challenging authority and sometimes dissenting from authority is a key, living value for me that this very chamber should embody and pursue in everything it does. Challenging authority is a great Anzac tradition no less exemplified by a German Jew civil engineer and Melbourne Army reservist, General Sir John Monash, perhaps our most famous general, who, himself, was opposed by this very establishment for his command of the 4th Brigade at Gallipoli. He challenged the tactics of the day of sending one man after another into the mouth of a machine gun in the expectation of a successful result. He challenged that status quo. Being the engineer he was he realised that coordination was the most important component of tactics. He invented what we now know as the combined arms assault whereby he would finish the artillery at the second-perfect time of when the men arrived at the trenches. On 8 August 1918 at the battle of Amiens he won the day with that tactic. As a result, he is widely credited with shortening the First World War with those very tactics. It is the Anzac characteristic of dissent, of challenging and of questioning that is very important to the vibrant democracy we enjoy today. That for me is what the soldiers fought for, not geography or material gain of any kind, but for the privilege to have and be part of the democracy that we enjoy now. A grand legacy was presented to us after that whereby challenging the status quo lives on right through to today in the modern Australian Defence Force where, regardless of our gender or sexual orientation, there is a place for us in the Australian Defence Force. That anomaly was challenged and defeated many years ago. It is also the status quo that acknowledged every first Australian—Aboriginal people of Australia—who fought in every war for 87 years before they got the vote in this country, and that delivered that sort of inclusion. These are the sorts of things that I live and work for and that I like to think every thinking, conscious Western Australian will embody as they contemplate the Anzac tradition in their own personal journey. But more directly and individually, when the bugle falls silent on Saturday and we are all asked to contemplate for a minute in silence at dawn, I myself will bow my head and thank David Nary, my very good mate, who I lost in Iraq; Sergeant Andy Russell in Afghanistan; and my 15 mates whom I lost on the high-range training area in Townsville in the Black Hawk helicopter accident. I also extend a thought to the living, those veterans who arrive in my office looking for help and, more importantly, their wives, families and parents who come to my office looking for help for them. They signify the importance of how mental health is delivered to them and how it is extremely important that we challenge that delivery. More personally, I also share a thought for my son Oliver Tinley, who now serves in the 3rd Battalion, and thank him. MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin) [1.17 pm]: It is a privilege to follow the member for Willagee and other members of this chamber who have served our country so well and I am sure everyone shares that view. I would like to be brief and say that Anzac Day is one of Australia’s most important days, especially this year being the 100th anniversary. It has been an important day since our troops landed at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. I feel that over the past decade or so, this day has become more important to Australians, particularly our young Australians. There is no doubt that our troops at Gallipoli all those years ago started a great and proud tradition. That real Australian spirit has endured and, I think, is as strong as ever today. Anzac Day is a special day on which we remember and honour those brave Australians who served us then and all the brave men and women who have served us since the war in Gallipoli. I think we should also give special thoughts to our service personnel who are currently serving overseas, and their families. There is no doubt that these brave Australians have carried that fine Anzac spirit with them, which has once again served us so well. I want to make it clear that we should never glorify war. I have been extremely lucky not to experience war, but I remember talking over the years to my late father and to others who experienced war. They emphasised to me that war is a terrible and shocking thing. I want to share a story with members. In 2000 I travelled to Germany to visit my uncle’s grave. Uncle Terry was a tail gunner in a Wellington bomber, and at just 20 years of age he was shot down and killed over Germany in 1942. I am very proud and privileged to be named after him. His grave is in the Rheinberg War Cemetery in

2648 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Germany and no member of his family had ever been there since he was shot down. I went with my wife and two youngest daughters. I got the maps of the cemetery from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and what a fantastic job it does. After a $100 taxi fare from the railway station at Oberhausen to get out there, I was able to walk directly to my uncle’s grave. I have copies of Terry’s letters from those days when he was flying out of England in which he talks about longing for the sands of Mosman Bay and the gum leaves of WA. We took some sand from Mosman Bay and some gum leaves and we put them in his grave, which was a very emotional moment. At this cemetery in Rheinberg there are also the graves of lots of other Allies, but also German war graves. It was quite an irony because the taxidriver was an old German fellow who told us how he had lost his mum and his sister to the Allied bombing over Dusseldorf. We shook hands at that cemetery and talked about the irony that he and I were there together, and who knows, my uncle could have been dropping bombs that killed his mum and sister. It was indeed a really poignant moment. When I left my uncle Terry’s grave I got very emotional. I just wanted to reach down and grab him and bring him home to those Mosman Bay sands and the gum leaves, but of course I could not do that. It was a really sobering but moving experience, because it made me realise how I felt that day and the numbers, as we have heard today, of people who were killed and the people who were affected. It just brought home to my wife, my daughters and I the immense tragedy of war. I think it is good that today there is a really strong trend we have seen of the past years of young people in Australia embracing Anzac Day, which I am sure would make all our past and present service men and women feel extremely proud. They embrace the Anzac tradition and the Anzac spirit and each year we now see thousands of young Australians making pilgrimage to Anzac Cove or attending services right across Australia. I am also proud that around Western Australia and Australia every city, every town and even the smallest communities have their war memorials and their Anzac services. In closing, I encourage everyone to celebrate and enjoy Anzac Day as I am sure that is what our service men and women of the past and the present would want. The SPEAKER: I request members to pass the motion by observing a minute’s silence. Question passed; members standing. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Standing Orders Suspension — Motion MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [1.24 pm]: I move — That so much of standing orders be suspended so far as is necessary to enable private members’ business to have priority later today between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm. The reason for this motion is essentially to allow the house to sit later tonight past 7.00 pm and my expectation, as explained yesterday, is that there will be a break between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm. Sitting tonight effectively replaces the time that we would have been sitting tomorrow. As I also explained yesterday, the intention is to commence sitting at 12 noon tomorrow to allow members who have requested to do so to attend Anzac Day commemorations at schools in their electorates. It will allow for more time for debate, in particular on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, for which I understand there are still a number of opposition speakers who wish to participate in the debate. The government has sought, and the opposition has given a commitment, that that will be passed by 4.00 pm tomorrow and I appreciate the agreement and commitment of the opposition in that respect. One effect of this motion is that it will reduce the amount available for private members’ time today from three hours down to two hours. That might not be welcomed by the opposition, but I believe it is a reasonable change in all the circumstances and, as I said, I appreciate the commitment given by the opposition to pass the bill I referred to by 4.00 pm tomorrow. MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah) [1.26 pm]: First of all, I want to raise the issue of tomorrow morning. I think it is important to note that the attendance of a number of members from regional areas at school events occurring at their electorates in the regions is not able to be accommodated, so they are not able to be back in time for midday. That is something that I think needs to be considered and perhaps should have been considered in the lead-up to the scheduling of this week’s Parliament. I am not sheeting home any blame to the Leader of the House on that, but we need to be mindful that regional members are not like metropolitan members who have the capacity to be back in Parliament by 12 noon for Parliament to resume. Referring to the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, yes, there is an intention to debate that bill, but of course the opposition can give no guarantee that the debate will be concluded by tomorrow. Certainly, the addition of the Wednesday evening scheduling will accommodate speakers, but as is very clear in this place, all members of Parliament have an opportunity speak on the bill, so we are not in a position to guarantee passage of that by 4.00 pm. We recognise the government’s wish for that to occur, but no-one in this place can control the capacity of people to be able to speak, as is their right, in this place. Importantly, the motion we debated today has taken us to 1.30 pm and with a reduction in time for private members’ business I need to remind the

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2649 government that we cannot guarantee that the 4.00 pm deadline the Leader of the House alluded to earlier is necessarily achievable, because I understand that shortly another bill related to the finances of the state will be introduced in this house, which, as the government is well aware, the opposition wishes to pursue. With that, we do not oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the House, but I need to caution him with regard to any guarantee of times. Question put and passed. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — DINNER SUSPENSION Statement by Acting Speaker The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): I advise that because of that motion the dinner break will be from 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm this evening and the house will rise for that period of time. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (INTERFERENCE WITH WAR MEMORIALS) BILL 2015 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr P.B. Watson (member for Albany), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the member. MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr W.R. Marmion (Minister for Mines and Petroleum), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Mines and Petroleum) [1.31 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the Mining Act 1978, the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Mining Rehabilitation Fund Act 2012. These amendments aim to achieve better outcomes for industry, government and the environment. They will reduce the administrative burden on industry; provide better service delivery and enhance the effectiveness of government, while at the same time minimising risk to the environment. Amendments to the Mining Rehabilitation Fund Act are of a minor administrative nature to ensure one nominated party is responsible to pay the levy on the prescribed date each year. The amendments to the Environmental Protection Act are consequential to the Mining Act amendments and I will address them later in this speech. The Mining Act amendments are essentially in two parts. The first contains a range of relatively minor administrative amendments such as the ability to make regulations about inspector powers and restrictions on submitting successive tenement applications over the same area of land. The second provides for a major overhaul of environmental provisions of the Mining Act, and I will primarily address these amendments here. Over the past five years, the Western Australian government has implemented substantial changes to the environmental approvals process for the mineral exploration and mining industry. In 2012, a ministerial advisory panel, chaired by Hon Cheryl Edwardes, made 14 recommendations to the government. The Mining Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, which was passed last year, provided the means to implement the first tranche of changes recommended by the panel. This bill covers the remaining recommendations and will modernise Western Australia’s mining legislation so that best practice environmental standards will become the accepted practice for mineral exploration and mining operations into the future. The Mining Act presently contains provisions to do with the environment that are scattered throughout the act. These provisions do not reflect contemporary approaches towards environmental management. The existence of different provisions and differing approaches reflects changes over time in industry, community and government expectations of the Department of Mines and Petroleum to achieve environmental objectives. This bill will bring all the environmental provisions into one part. This will have the effect of separating the granting of tenements and the subsequent environmental approvals process for prospecting, exploration or mining activities. The substantive matters to be dealt with in the new part are environmental approvals, the treatment of low-impact activities, environmental and land rehabilitation conditions, and approvals for native vegetation clearing. The primary intention of the new part is to provide a legislative structure for a risk-based and outcomes-focused approach to environmental regulation of the mining industry. At present, when seeking approval to undertake mining activities, proponents submit their mining proposal, which is assessed and, if it meets requirements, is approved. Most sites are covered by a number of different approved mining proposals, all with conditions that need to be met and reported against. Sometimes conditions related to different approved documents may contradict each other. In addition, given that it is the document that has been approved, tenement holders are

2650 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] obliged to continue to operate in the way that has been approved, rather than adopting improved practices. This bill changes the focus of approvals onto the specific activities that are proposed to be undertaken and how they will be managed so that there are no unacceptable impacts on the environment, rather than the approval of a document. This will significantly reduce regulatory burden on tenement holders as they will no longer have to report against myriad conditions set over time. They will report on conditions set specifically on each activity and, as each activity is completed and the area rehabilitated, those conditions will be dropped. As each approval will be based on the environmental impact of specific activities, proponents will not be obliged to spell out exactly how they will undertake each activity and then strictly follow that course of action. Instead, environmental outcomes will be agreed between the proponent and regulator and the way in which each operator undertakes its activities can change over time to meet best practice standards. This will provide much better outcomes for the environment. However, restrictions will continue to be placed on mining operations to ensure the protection of environmental values. Although specific locations of mine features may not be prescribed under this new approach, operators will be restricted to undertaking their activities within approved envelopes of land. Risks to sensitive environmental features within a project’s area of influence will continue to be assessed through a comprehensive approval process. Proponents will be required to adequately demonstrate how they plan to avoid or minimise these risks. This represents a more flexible and risk-based approach to environmental regulation and will result in appropriate attention being paid to the key risks associated with a project, whilst reducing the need to assess compliance with inconsequential requirements and conditions. Operators will have the flexibility to determine the most efficient and effective way of meeting environmental objectives and the regulator will be able to focus on an operator’s success in meeting agreed environmental outcomes. The move to a modern, risk-based, outcomes-focused approval regime is common to a number of areas of government. DMP’s resources safety division, through the reform and development at resources safety— RADARS—program, has progressively moved to a risk management framework that puts the onus on operators to develop and maintain safe working environments and a proactive safety culture. Petroleum legislation administered by DMP also encompasses a risk-based approach. In 2009, the Environmental Protection Authority completed a review into the environmental impact assessment process, which resulted in the adoption of a risk- based approach to EIA and the setting of outcome-focused conditions. This bill also introduces a new low- impact notification process for minor activities, such as small-scale prospecting and exploration, so that approval will not be required. One significant change that will greatly facilitate the approvals process is an amendment to schedule 6 of the Environmental Protection Act to exempt mining operations approved under the Mining Act from the requirement to also have a clearing permit under the Environmental Protection Act. Instead, vegetation clearing will be approved as part of a program of work or a mining proposal under the Mining Act. The Department of Mines and Petroleum has approved native vegetation clearing permits under delegation for many years and, following this change, the regulation of native vegetation clearing will remain stringent and consistent with decisions made by the Environmental Protection Authority. Applicants for approval of a program of work or a mining proposal will be required to address, in the application, any native vegetation clearing proposed to be undertaken and to demonstrate that the proposed clearing complies with the native vegetation clearing principles set out in schedule 5 of the Environmental Protection Act. Provisions dealing with mining on public reserves are being strengthened to expand the provisions for setting conditions and to ensure ministerial power to issue penalties for condition breaches. Finally, in assessing activities proposed to be undertaken, other attributes of the land may be taken into consideration, such as social, economic and cultural values, as well as man-made structures. In conclusion, this bill brings about a major overhaul of the environmental provisions of the Mining Act that will significantly reduce the regulatory burden on tenement holders while at the same time strengthen and improve environmental management in the mineral exploration and mining industry. These are consistent with the government’s approvals reform strategy and principles of best practice environmental regulation—accountable, transparent, predictable, proportional and targeted. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Ms S.F. McGurk. LOAN BILL 2015 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Dr M.D. Nahan (Treasurer), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the Treasurer. Second Reading DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Treasurer) [1.39 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks a new loan act authorisation of $8 billion to meet planned general government purposes borrowing requirements until 30 June 2017. Borrowing for general public purposes, as distinct from borrowing by statutory authorities with borrowing powers in enabling acts, must be authorised by loan acts. The last

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2651 authorisation for consolidated account general purpose borrowing was provided in the Loan Act 2012. Based on current estimates, after 2014–15 around $1.6 billion of loan act authorisations remain available to be utilised in 2015–16. Current indications for the 2015–16 budget estimates of borrowings to meet consolidated account requirements will be in the region of $4.5 billion, and $3.6 billion in 2016–17. Consequently, further loan act authorisation is required. The $8 billion sought in this bill aims to cover the two-year period until 30 June 2017, taking into account the remainder of the existing borrowing authorisation. It also includes the projected borrowing requirements of the consolidated account and a margin for any further unforecast changes to the cash outlook, particularly continued revenue volatility. Consequently, further loan act authorisation is required. The $8 billion sought in this bill aims to cover the two-year period until 30 June 2017. In accordance with clause 4 of the bill, the proceeds of all loans raised under this authority will be paid into the consolidated account. The moneys will then be advanced to agencies by appropriations in the budget. Details of the asset investment program are laid out in the budget papers to be tabled in this house. In accordance with clause 5 of the bill, in addition to seeking the authority for loan raisings, the bill also permanently appropriates moneys from the consolidated account to meet principal repayments, interest and other expenses of borrowings under this authority. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Ms R. Saffioti. RAILWAY (FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK) BILL 2015 Introduction and First Reading Bill introduced, on motion by Mr D.C. Nalder (Minister for Transport), and read a first time. Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading MR D.C. NALDER (Alfred Cove — Minister for Transport) [1.42 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. Before I commence the second reading of the Railway (Forrestfield–Airport Link) Bill 2015, I am required by section 18A of the Transport Co-ordination Act 1966 to table a report by the director general of Transport on the planned construction of the new railway line to Forrestfield. I table this report. [See paper 2846.] Mr D.C. NALDER: I am also required by section 96(2) of the Public Works Act 1902 to table a map showing the course to be taken by, and the middle line of, the railway. I table this map. [See paper 2847.] Mr D.C. NALDER: The purpose of this bill is to implement the legislative authority for the construction of the railway to Forrestfield. The Public Transport Authority began planning for the Forrestfield–Airport Link project in 2008 and was guided by the need to cater for Perth’s future consolidated domestic and international airport terminals; future demand created by planned redevelopment of the land vacated by the current domestic terminal and surrounding area; the need for a train station at Forrestfield, given the considerable future population to the east of the airport; and, in the longer term, the potential for future connection of the Forrestfield end of the new rail line to the broader rail network to the south. The government provided $12 million for the project in the 2014–15 budget and another $57 million has been allocated for further planning, design and procurement for activities in 2015–16. The case to extend the suburban rail network with construction of the Forrestfield rail line is detailed in the project definition plan, prepared by the Public Transport Authority and endorsed by cabinet in August 2014. The PDP found that in providing a rail link to the foothills for the first time, the Forrestfield line will also improve the public transport options to and from the airport and will help relieve pressure on existing roads. The improved transport options also provide a reliable alternative for airport workers and passengers. The chosen Forrestfield–Airport Link route provides the best solution to service the future consolidated airport precinct and the development potential of the surrounding areas. The new line will branch east off the Midland Line, just past Bayswater station, and feed down the Tonkin Highway reserve, mostly underground. There will be three stations, named Airport West, Consolidated Airport and Forrestfield, with a total of 3 000 parking bays. Twin bored tunnels will provide an underground journey, significantly reducing impact to above-ground structures and communities. Importantly, this will allow the railway to connect to the eastern suburbs by tunnelling beneath the Perth Airport estate, which has long been a physical divide to efficient public transport options. The new rail line allows for extra rail capacity on the Midland line between Bayswater and Perth stations, where demand is expected to exceed current supply in the near future. The Forrestfield–Airport Link is also an opportunity to integrate Transwa services to the airport, providing tourists and residents access to over 200 regional WA towns. Construction of the Forrestfield line will

2652 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] commence in 2016 and trains will run on the line in 2020. Project funding includes additional railcars as part of the C-series procurement by the Public Transport Authority. The project will provide improved bus feeder networks in the Belmont–Redcliffe area to the Airport West station, and for the surrounding eastern suburbs to Forrestfield station. To that end, project funding also allows for the purchase of an additional 26 buses for the Transperth bus fleet. This project is much more than a train to the airport and much more than just an extension of the rail network. The new rail line will provide a viable alternative to traditional car travel between the eastern suburbs and Perth. It will alleviate road traffic, ease congestion and reduce travel times for many people living and working in Perth’s eastern suburbs. By 2021, the Forrestfield rail line is expected to generate 20 000 boardings on the suburban rail network every day, increasing to 29 000 daily by 2031. The infrastructure will accommodate significant growth beyond 2031, ensuring that the new rail line provides the state with long-term infrastructure that will continue to meet the needs of commuters across the suburban rail network into the future. The new rail line will also contribute to boosting employment as well as residential and economic growth by promoting new and existing centres at Airport West and Forrestfield stations. The project is currently in its formal procurement phase. Evaluation of expressions of interest received are nearing completion and a request for proposal will be issued to the short- listed respondents in June this year. A contract will likely be awarded by mid-2016, with construction commencing in late 2016. The total estimated capital cost of the project is $2 billion. The new rail line will ensure Perth has a more balanced and sustainable suburban public transport system. In the same way the Mandurah and Joondalup rail lines have underpinned urban development in Perth’s southern and northern corridors, the Forrestfield line will help drive growth by opening up multiple opportunities in the eastern corridor and beyond. It will enhance the communities it will serve and contribute to the sustainability of the wider metropolitan area well into the future. This bill will implement the legislative authority to construct the Forrestfield rail line. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Ms R. Saffioti. ELECTRICITY CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2015 First Reading Bill read a first time, on motion by Dr M.D. Nahan (Minister for Energy). Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister. Second Reading DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Energy) [1.49 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to introduce greater flexibility in the regime under which the state-owned electricity corporations, Synergy, Western Power and Horizon Power, pay dividends by adopting an approach more in line with that contained in the commonwealth Corporations Act 2001. The increased flexibility will operate in two matters; namely, the criteria that must be satisfied when calculating the amount of a dividend, and the time when a dividend is to be paid. Under the current provisions of the Electricity Corporations Act 2005, the amount of a dividend recommended by the board to the minister must be calculated by reference to the profits of that corporation. As a matter of practice, the actual setting of the dividend occurs through the dividend policy that applies under the corporation’s statement of corporate intent and is typically set as a percentage of the corporation’s net profit after tax for the relevant financial year. This approach has its foundation in an earlier, and since superseded, dividends framework established by the corporations law. The effect of the current provisions is that the corporations are prohibited from paying a dividend amount that exceeds 100 per cent of net profit after tax. These arrangements produce an anomalous outcome when a corporation finds itself holding a cash surplus that does not constitute a profit for the purposes of the relevant accounting standards. In these sorts of circumstances, the corporation is currently prohibited from returning the surplus to the state by way of a dividend. An example of this is when a corporation generates cash or revenues that are surplus to any requirement to reinvest in the business. Under the current arrangements, this cannot be returned to the state by way of a dividend. This example illustrates that the current legislative provisions have the potential to result in a corporation being required to retain a cash amount for which it has no efficient use. It is imperative that such amounts be able to be returned to the state so that they can be put to the most efficient use. In order to address this issue, the bill replaces the current “profits test” for the payment of dividends with a test based on the net asset and solvency position of the corporation, modelled on the dividend regime currently in force under the commonwealth Corporations Act 2001. Under the new test, the board of a corporation is required to be satisfied of several matters in recommending the amount of a dividend: first, that the dividend will not result in the corporation’s net assets becoming negative— that is, a “balance sheet” test; and, secondly, that the corporation will be solvent immediately following the

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2653 payment of the dividend. Provided these criteria are satisfied, the recommendation of the board is not constrained by reference to profits. The board will, of course, continue to frame its recommendations consistent with its statement of corporate intent in place at that time, which includes a dividend policy used by the boards when making their recommendation. As is the case with the current regime, the minister will retain the ability to direct a corporation to pay a dividend amount other than that recommended by the board. Prior to issuing such a direction, the minister must be satisfied of the same criteria as the board in making the original recommendation. The bill provides that it is sufficient for the minister to rely on the advice of the board in order to be satisfied of these matters. This reflects the reality that it is the corporations that most readily possess the information necessary to assess the three criteria. Replacing the profits-based approach to dividends with a net asset and solvency test will bring Synergy, Western Power and Horizon Power into closer alignment with the dividend regime for corporations registered under the commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 and state-owned energy businesses in other Australian jurisdictions such as New South Wales and Queensland. The existing dividend regime and the profits test on which it is based originated in historical companies legislation that has been superseded in these jurisdictions. I now turn to the second matter to which this bill relates: the introduction of increased flexibility in the time when the corporations may pay dividends. Under the current arrangements, the corporations cannot pay dividends on an interim basis; they pay only annually. The importance of providing government trading enterprises with the flexibility to pay dividends on an interim basis is well recognised. For example, recent amendments to legislation for other Western Australian GTEs, such as the Insurance Commission of Western Australia Amendment Bill 2013 and the Ports Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, have provided the relevant GTE with the ability to pay interim dividends. Such arrangements are considered necessary to enable GTEs to manage their financial position in an efficient and flexible manner and are consistent with the rules applying to corporations registered under the commonwealth Corporations Act 2001. Accordingly, the bill enables the minister to notify the board of a corporation that an interim dividend is to be paid and for the board, upon such notification, to recommend the amount of a dividend to the minister. As is the case with annual dividends, the minister retains discretion to direct the corporation to pay an amount other than that recommended by the board provided, of course, that the criteria I referred to earlier are satisfied. It is important to note that these measures do no more than increase the flexibility of the existing regime. The corporations, and/or the minister, as the case may be, will continue to have the ability to apply a profits-based approach to dividends as a matter of policy, if that is considered appropriate. If, as a matter of policy, the broader, solvency-based approach to dividend calculation contained in this bill is adopted by government, that approach will be consistent with current corporations law frameworks. This bill will enable Synergy, Western Power and Horizon Power to pay an increased amount of dividend in a timelier manner than is permitted under the current legislative arrangements. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Ms R. Saffioti. TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Second Reading Resumed from 21 April. MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [1.55 pm]: I get up to now speak on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 for the lofty time of approximately six minutes, but that will probably be chopped back to about four, maybe four and a half, allowing for interruptions from the Acting Speaker to say, “Members, could you please be quiet as you’re coming into the chamber for question time? Member for Mandurah, I can hear you from over here. Member for Mandurah, can you please be quiet?” The Acting Speaker might also draw attention to the fact that there is a member on his feet and that he is making an important contribution to this debate, yet we will see members filing in slowly but surely, chatting to each other and comparing notes — Mr W.R. Marmion: And they’ll be coming to hear your speech! Mr R.H. COOK: — about what they are going to be doing on the weekend; maybe reflecting on past glories and different debates. But the last thing they will be doing, Minister for Mines and Petroleum, is listening to me. Mr W.R. Marmion: You undersell yourself! Mr R.H. COOK: Ha, ha! Nevertheless, I will attempt to make a contribution today in this important debate because it is a debate that could impact very significantly on my electorate of Kwinana. It is my view that I have pearls of wisdom that I wish to cast before —

2654 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr I.C. Blayney: Swine! Mr R.H. COOK: Ha, ha! Before the swine! That may be unparliamentary, Madam Acting Speaker! Dr K.D. Hames: Ask him to withdraw it! Mr R.H. COOK: No; he is the one who made the contribution! I might be casting pearls of wisdom before the chamber and, of course, it would be better if I could do it without the interruption of question time, which will no doubt come — Mr D.J. Kelly: Soon enough! Mr R.H. COOK: — very shortly; it will come shortly. From that point of view, I have some good points to make. Members might be interested in hanging around after question time to hear this important debate and the contribution that I will be making, and I will make it — Ms A.R. Mitchell: There are more people in the chamber now. Mr R.H. COOK: There are more people in the chamber! There may be more people in the chamber now than there will be after question time. Dr K.D. Hames: Do you want something on health to debate to help you? Mr R.H. COOK: I tried to relate it to health, minister. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Member, I would like to draw your attention to standing order 97, “Repetitious or irrelevant debate”. I might read it out for the member for the purposes of this debate — A member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of the member’s own arguments or of the arguments used by other members, may be directed by the Speaker to discontinue the speech. A member directed to discontinue may require that the question “That the member be further heard”, be put which will be decided without debate. I am trying to suggest to the member that he may want to ensure that his speech is relevant to the issue before us. I hope that has assisted the member in understanding where the debate should be going. Mr R.H. COOK: Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. I am very grateful to you for pointing out to me standing order 97. For those members who were not listening just then, standing order 97 states — A member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of the member’s own arguments or of the arguments used by other members, may be directed by the Speaker to discontinue the speech. Also for members’ interest, just in case they did not hear the Acting Speaker, it goes on — A member directed to discontinue may require — Indeed, “may require” — that the question “That the member be further heard”, be put which will be decided without debate. It would, of course, also be appropriate for the Acting Speaker to draw to my attention standing order 94, which refers to relevance, which, for those members interested, reads — A member’s speech — Mr D.J. Kelly: Would you take an interjection? Mr R.H. COOK: You would be surprised to hear, member for Bassendean, that I would! Mr D.J. Kelly: I’m not sure what standing order you’re referring to and I’m just wondering if you could repeat it for me. Mr R.H. COOK: Would that be standing order 97? Mr D.J. Kelly: No, that’s not my favourite standing order. Mr R.H. COOK: Is it standing order 97, referring to repetitious or irrelevant debate? Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 2665.]

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2655

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE STATE FINANCES — LOAN BILL 2015 272. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer: I refer to the introduction of the Barnett government’s third loan bill, this time to authorise a further $8 billion in borrowings. I note that the loan bill passed in 2012 was to meet all the general government purposes borrowing requirements until 30 June 2016. At what level and in what year will net debt peak? Dr M.D. NAHAN replied: We just introduced into the house a loan bill that seeks to acquire an additional $8 billion for the consolidated fund. An opposition member: Say that again. Dr M.D. NAHAN: It is for $8 billion. We will bring down a budget on 14 May that will highlight our fiscal plan into the future. STATE FINANCES — LOAN BILL 2015 273. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer: I ask a supplementary question. At what level, approximately even, and in what year will net debt in Western Australia peak? Dr M.D. NAHAN replied: Again, next month we will bring down a budget. It will be there for the member to see and hopefully understand and his questions will be answered. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT HIGH PERFORMANCE SERVICE CENTRE 274. Mr T.K. WALDRON to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: This morning the new Western Australian Institute of Sport High Performance Service Centre was opened by the Premier and the minister. Can the minister please update the house on how this government is supporting Western Australia’s elite athletes? Ms M.J. DAVIES replied: I thank the member for the question and for his unwavering support of and contribution to sport in Western Australia. It was fabulous that the member was present this morning when the Premier and I opened this fantastic new facility. This government has a strong track record in supporting sport across all levels. Today we celebrated the opening of a $33.4 million facility for the WA Institute of Sport. The sophisticated and technical facility will give athletes every opportunity to reach their full potential, and that includes universal access for our Paralympians. Members who visited the former WAIS facility would know that the gymnasium was on the ground floor with the only access point being down a flight of stairs—there was no elevator. The new facility is on one level — Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Ms M.J. DAVIES: I am talking about access for our Paralympians. We have created a facility that is universally accessible for not only our abled-bodied athletes, but also our Paralympians. I am talking about fantastic athletes who deserve equal accessibility to elite training facilities. With the Rio Olympics and the Paralympics just a little more than 12 months away, the completion of the centre has been timely. Western Australian contenders now have the opportunity to shift into the facility to embed themselves with their trainers and all the other support staff who operate from WAIS, and ultimately work towards representing Australia in Rio. The Premier, the former Minister for Sport and Recreation and the local member, Bill Marmion, also attended the opening of the State Netball Centre, which is a $26-million facility located at Matthews Netball Centre and is the spiritual home of netball in Western Australia. It is now a permanent training facility for West Coast Fever, which previously had to travel to a number of different facilities around the state to train. Everybody involved in netball is overwhelmed and so excited to finally have a home that they can call their own. It represents the next chapter for netball in this state. It is a focal point for not only elite sportswomen, but also grassroots sportspeople and the community. Both the WAIS and netball facilities have very strong connections to grassroots community support in and around the precinct, which is really important. This state government has a strong commitment to increasing participation in sport and recreation, and I comfortably say that no other government has made such a significant investment in sporting infrastructure and facilities to engage more people to become active from the grassroots to the elite. Today was a fantastic day for everyone involved with WAIS, and I encourage any member who has not seen it to visit this state-of-the-art facility.

2656 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

STATE FINANCES — CREDIT RATING 275. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer: I refer to the fact that Western Australia has been placed on negative watch by ratings agency Standards and Poor’s Rating Services, which is the first step towards a potential second credit rating downgrade for the Barnett government. (1) What impact does the imposed negative watch have on the cost of Western Australia’s debt servicing at current debt levels? (2) What would be the additional cost to service WA’s current debt levels if Western Australia is again downgraded? Dr M.D. NAHAN replied: (1)–(2) I have been by the told by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation that it is still trying to determine what the impact will be. When downgrading has happened in the past, the impact on new borrowings was 0.2 per cent at most; in fact, there had been a large number of movements in the ratings, some of which were not driven by credit ratings. The biggest change, of course, was the significant increase in the cost of borrowings to the Queensland government after the loss of the Newman government. Queensland’s cost of debt shot up significantly. All sorts of impacts flow from that. I have asked the WATC to monitor this and tell me whether there has been any impact. As to what will happen, if it happens, I will not speculate. STATE FINANCES — CREDIT RATING 276. Mr B.S. WYATT to the Treasurer: I have a supplementary question. In 2009 the Barnett government sought $8.3 billion in a loan bill and this year it is seeking $8 billion. What will be the difference in the interest rate on those borrowings compared with when we had a AAA rating and where we are now? Dr M.D. NAHAN replied: As I said, right now the difference is 0.2 per cent. We went from AAA to AA+ last time. But as I said, so far the WATC has not told me there is any impact yet. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Have you asked? Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes, I have asked for a report as to whether or not it has had an impact. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you for order for the first time. Dr M.D. NAHAN: These are market-driven factors. We are waiting for the market to react, if it reacts. I might add that from 2009 to date, the borrowing rate has gone down significantly. FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT LINK 277. MR N.W. MORTON to the Minister for Transport: There has been a lot of public commentary in recent days about the Liberal–National government’s Forrestfield– Airport Link. Can the minister please update the house on the status of the project, which will transform the eastern suburbs, including my electorate of Forrestfield? Mr D.C. NALDER replied: I thank the member for his question and for his ongoing interest in activities in the Forrestfield electorate. The Liberal–National government is committed to delivering the Forrestfield–Airport Link, because it will mean that it will take commuters from the communities in the eastern suburbs of Forrestfield, High Wycombe and that area 20 minutes to travel to the CBD. At the moment it is taking commuters in those areas nearly an hour to drive to Perth. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members for Armadale and Butler! Mr D.C. NALDER: All that those on the other side are doing is confirming what we fear and the reason that we are acting so quickly. They have complained about this project from day one, and they are basically indicating that should they win the next election, they will scrap this project. They do not support this project that will open up the eastern suburbs—the long-forgotten suburbs in the east of Perth. It has taken this Liberal–National government to start putting development into the eastern suburbs of Western Australia, to provide some surety and some public transport and amenities that suburbs in other electorates enjoy. We are proud of the fact that we are opening up the eastern suburbs and providing a much more convenient proposition for the electorate in the eastern suburbs.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2657

Mr B.S. Wyatt: The electorate? Mr D.C. NALDER: The electorates. This project will provide not only world-class public transport to the airport, but also the people — Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the second time. Mr D.C. NALDER: This project will provide not only a world-class transport solution to the airport and a fantastic public transport solution to people in the eastern suburbs, but also is expected to create up to 2 000 jobs. In these tough economic times, it is the responsibility of government to ensure that it puts in place the infrastructure that will provide for the future and also create jobs for people who are otherwise struggling. This is a fantastic opportunity. I will not remind Labor at this time about its failed marginal seats rail program, or whatever it was going to call it, that was going to blow out by over $734 million. It was never delivering a rail line to the airport. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the first time. Mr D.C. NALDER: They clearly do not like being reminded that they were building a railway nearly to the airport but not to the airport. In fact, they talk about how far away the Airport West station is from the airport, but I can tell them that it is twice as close — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members for Victoria Park and Cannington! You have made your point, member for Victoria Park. Mr D.C. NALDER: It is twice as close as the station they proposed, which was going to be in the middle of Tonkin Highway, twice as far away from the Airport West station and with the inconvenience of sticking it in the middle Tonkin Highway. We are providing a much more suitable outcome for the people in the eastern suburbs, for the electorates of Belmont and Forrestfield and beyond into Kalamunda and to the people of Midland. We are thinking of all the people out there. By introducing the bill today, we are confirming our intention to get on and build this project. We are going to construct this railway, because we do not want to see a situation — Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the second time. Mr D.C. NALDER: We would not want to ever see a situation such as the one created by the opposition’s careless comrades in the east who have scrapped a project that the government had committed to at the time. What a careless and irresponsible act by the Labor Party. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! STATE FINANCES — BUDGET DEFICIT 278. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I refer to the Premier’s claim yesterday regarding his impeding large deficits when he said, “There is nothing this government could have done to avoid this situation.” (1) Could the government not have lost $400 million on the solar rebate scheme? (2) Could his government have chosen not to lose more than $300 million on the Muja AB deal? Dr M.D. Nahan interjected. The SPEAKER: Treasurer, I call to you order for the first time. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the third time. Mr M. McGOWAN: I will continue. (3) Could his government not have embarked on the $40 million failed forced amalgamations of local governments?

2658 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

(4) Could his government have not wasted $134 million on operating a hospital with no patients? (5) Could his government have run larger surpluses and therefore had a buffer against what is happening today? Mr C.J. Barnett: Could you read out the first part of your question for me? I missed the first line. Mr M. McGOWAN: Your quote or the first example? Mr C.J. Barnett: I just missed it. I couldn’t hear the first lines. Mr M. McGOWAN: I refer to the Premier’s claim yesterday regarding his impeding large deficits when he said, “There is nothing this government could have done to avoid this situation.” I asked, whether the Premier’s government could not have lost $400 million on the solar rebate scheme, the Muja AB deal, local government forced amalgamations, Serco running a hospital with no patients, and driving down surpluses so that the government cannot cope with what is happening today. Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(5) I asked the Leader of the Opposition to repeat the first couple of sentences because I thought I may have misheard him, but I actually heard him correctly. He has demonstrated total confusion between an annual deficit and the level of debt—absolute confusion of the two basic concepts. My comments yesterday, which the Leader of the Opposition read out accurately, were in respect of the deficit. The deficit is the annual operating balance—surplus or deficit. Having lost GST down to 30 cents in the dollar for the coming year, 38 cents now, and having seen iron ore prices fall by 60 per cent, it would not have mattered what any decisions had been — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: It would not have mattered. Any decisions that could have been taken would have made no difference to the fact — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am attempting to answer, but the ignorance on the other side — The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the first time. Member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT: A confusion between deficit and accumulated debt is what the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand. The point I made yesterday, which I stand by today, is that no matter what decisions had been taken in previous years, the state government would be on an operating deficit for this year. There is no doubt at all. We cannot reduce the GST to a level in dollar terms of that which was less than we received 15 years ago. We cannot survive a collapse in iron ore royalties and run a surplus in this year. What the Leader of the Opposition confuses — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you to order for the first time. We are now starting to bog down. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Leader of the Opposition confuses the concept of the annual surplus or deficit. We have run surpluses every year up to this year; this year we will have a deficit. That is the operating balance over the 12-month period. The point I also made yesterday—the different concept, which concerns me—is the level of accumulated debt. Previous decisions will affect that, but they will not affect this year’s operating surplus or deficit. The Leader of the Opposition misunderstands the most basic element of the structure of the accounts of the state. STATE FINANCES — BUDGET DEFICIT 279. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. Is the Premier seriously suggesting that there is no spending decision that he could have made over the course of the last few years or in the last financial year that would have impacted the level of deficit that we are going to experience this financial year? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Not for this financial year, no. That is the misunderstanding. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Not for this year. Mr M. McGowan interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: There is no conceivable way —

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2659

Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Given the impact on iron ore prices and GST, short of closing down half the health system or the education system in this current year, there is no way a deficit could be avoided by any government in any circumstance. What I also said yesterday, if people want to make a criticism of this government, yes, they could focus on the accumulated level of debt. I conceded that to the media yesterday. That is the issue; not the deficit for this year. Under no circumstance could a deficit for this current financial year be avoided. COCKBURN COAST REDEVELOPMENT 280. Mr M.H. TAYLOR to the Minister for Lands: I understand that this morning the Minister for Lands launched the first precinct in the state government’s Cockburn Coast redevelopment area. Will the minister explain how this project fits in with the Liberal–National government’s plan to accommodate Perth’s growing population without adding to the urban sprawl? Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: I thank the member for Bateman for the question and for his ongoing interest in how the government is tackling growth challenges in Perth. Western Australia is one of the states that is really driving the Australian economy. There will be three precincts in the Cockburn Coast redevelopment area. The one launched this morning is the Shoreline precinct, which is about 106 hectares. The next one to come onstream will be the Hilltop precinct, which is largely privately owned, and then the next will be the Power Station precinct. Collectively, the whole area is 106 hectares. The project will take 15 to 20 years to be fully developed, so it is a long-term plan. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the first time. Mr D.T. REDMAN: It is a comprehensive plan to offer a new precinct for medium to high-density development within the metropolitan area, to support the government’s Directions 2031 plan to cater for the growth of Western Australia. What we launched today starts the ball rolling. It puts out to market for the private sector to come in and start building and contributing to the Shoreline precinct. To give members an idea of the whole project over 15 to 20 years, an investment base of about $4.9 billion of private sector funds and government funds will go into the project via LandCorp; there will be some 6 000 homes in the development, medium to high density; and 12 000 people will be accommodated in that precinct. During the time the project is progressing, it is expected to create around 12 000 jobs, of which 9 000 will occur in the actual construction phase over that 15 to 20 years. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, that is enough. Mr D.T. REDMAN: The project will also create 3 000 jobs that will be permanent in nature. It was good to see the schematics that were put up on the screen today and a bit of an animated flyover that was done to show the nature of the build. It is contemporary, it is up to date and it fits with modern suburban living. When we look at the scale of the whole project, it could be about two-thirds of a Subiaco. It is on the coast, four kilometres south of Fremantle and 18 kilometres from Perth. It fits right in the zone of modern, contemporary suburban living. I am really pleased that what we have launched today is a long-term plan to address the growth of Perth. It is interesting to know also that the global multiplier effect on the economy will be some $14.7 billion over the scale of the project. That is outstanding. Interestingly also, the project will contribute some 15 per cent of the lots to the affordable housing market. This government is very, very proud of its achievements in the last term, as well as in the start of this term, in our contribution to the affordable housing market. It was a great day today to launch that project, with a number of people. There was a big turnout and a big interest in what is happening to the old South Fremantle power station. There will be 150 apartments in the old power station when the project is finished, with open spaces for exhibition — Ms S.F. McGurk interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Fremantle! Mr D.T. REDMAN: There will also be retail, commercial and hospitality spaces. We are really looking forward to what will be a fantastic project that will contribute to the growth of Perth.

2660 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

BIGGER PICTURE FUNDING — ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN 281. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I refer to the Premier’s Bigger Picture advertising campaign, which has now reached more than $8.5 million in current or future expenditure — Mr C.J. Barnett: It is $8.6 million. Mr M. McGOWAN: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Do you want me to start again? The SPEAKER: No. Sorry. I do not want an answer until the Leader of the Opposition has finished the question. Mr M. McGOWAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start again. I refer to the Premier’s Bigger Picture advertising campaign, which has reached more than $8.5 million in current or future expenditure across television, print and digital media from a number of government departments. In light of the methamphetamine scourge blighting our suburbs and towns, will the Premier now transfer the money designated for the Bigger Picture campaign to an anti-methamphetamine advertising and public education campaign? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: Isn’t it a bit rich! Suddenly the Labor Party has discovered the scourge of what they used to call social and party drugs! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, it did. I was here. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen! The Premier is answering the question. You can have another question afterwards. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I well remember—social and party drugs. That is what they talked about. Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I ask you to withdraw that. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Sorry, Mr Speaker—which comment? The SPEAKER: You said that the Premier was telling a lie. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: Thank you. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the policy under the Gallop government. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Members opposite talked about social and party drugs. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, they did. I can remember that being said in this chamber—social and party drugs. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you — Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you to order for the second time. Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington! Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston, I call you to order for the first time. Mr M.P. Murray interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Collie–Preston, I call you to order for the second time. Mr W.J. Johnston interjected.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2661

Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the first time, and I will ask you to withdraw that comment. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Sorry, Mr Speaker—which comment? The SPEAKER: You said that the Premier told a lie. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I am dealing with the member for Cannington. The member for Cannington said that the Premier told a lie. Please withdraw the comment. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT: To return to the Bigger Picture campaign, over the past five years, total expenditure on the campaign has been $8.6 million. Can I say that is not new money. It is money basically consolidated from the existing advertising budgets of government agencies. There is no new allocation. Money that was probably being spent fairly inefficiently has been redirected into the Bigger Picture campaign. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The agencies that have been part of the campaign — Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the second time. Let us try to move on; we are starting to bomb. Premier, through the Chair. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The agencies that have contributed to the campaign include police, education, health, regional development, planning, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, and strategic projects. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT: With respect to expenditure on the campaign, can I remind members of the history of advertising expenditure. In 2007–08, the last year of the Labor government, expenditure on advertising was $36.6 million. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Leader of the National Party, I call you to order for the first time, and member for Forrestfield, for the first time. Member for Girrawheen, I suggest that you settle down. Mr C.J. BARNETT: In 2007–08, the last year of the Labor government, expenditure on advertising was $36.6 million. That was a record high for them—not just a little peak, but a record for all time, both prior and since that time—of $36.6 million. In the last full year of this government — Mr D.J. Kelly interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For 2013–14, expenditure on advertising by the Liberal–National government was $18.9 million. That is 50 per cent less than what Labor spent. Mr M. McGowan: A highly political campaign! Mr C.J. BARNETT: Hang on! The Leader of the Opposition was talking about money a moment ago. So, the difference is that our expenditure in 2013–14, without any adjustment for inflation, was half of what Labor spent in 2007–08. We are happy to talk about advertising for as long as members opposite want to. The priorities of advertising across government are tourism, road safety, health and so on. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Labor Party continues to raise this issue. So, the Auditor General had a look at it, and the Auditor General concluded that — Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the second time.

2662 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr C.J. BARNETT: In the Auditor General’s report of June 2014, and I will just quote, the Auditor General found that all campaigns—that is, referring to the Bigger Picture—complied with strict advertising guidelines to educate and inform. No campaign was political—no campaign. Indeed, if we look at it, what have we done? We have used — Mr D.J. Kelly interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, beautifully prepared advertisements. Why? Because there is not much point advertising if people do not listen or watch or read those advertisements. So, we made them good ads, and they are good ads. They are spectacular ads. Each ad—each campaign we want to look at—talks about what has been done. One of the recent ones in police talks about — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: The opposition cannot change their question halfway through. It does not work that way. The policing ads tell people about the new approach to policing—where to go, how to get to their local police — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Cannington, I call you to order for the second time. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Members should look at the education one and learn about independent public schools and the different programs in different schools. They should look at the transport one and learn about the projects underway and look up traffic information and how to access it on their mobile phones—all of that. Each campaign does what? It is quality advertising that draws the public’s attention to where their money is being spent and guides them on to further detailed information. The Auditor General looked at it and gave it a clean bill of health. I remind members that in the 2005 election, the Gallop government placed advertisements outside every school in the lead-up to a campaign saying, “We the government are providing funds for man maintenance.” As the then Leader of the Opposition, I objected and the Electoral Commission required the Gallop government to either cover up or remove all those signs. That is dodgy advertising. The Leader of the Opposition was the parliamentary secretary at the time. BIGGER PICTURE FUNDING — ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN 282. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier: I have a supplementary question. Mr J. Norberger interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Joondalup, I call to you order for the first time. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr M. McGOWAN: Premier, families across Western Australia, including members of this house, are suffering dramatically because of the scourge of ice. It is running out of control in our state and we have the highest levels of usage in Australia. Mr C.J. Barnett: What’s your question? The SPEAKER: Thank you! Mr M. McGOWAN: Therefore, would it not be wiser to use the Bigger Picture money to fight that scourge that is killing our citizens? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: The cumulative savings on advertising by this government compared to those of the previous government is $100 million. Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Mr C.J. BARNETT: With respect to the ice issue, yes, the Leader of the Opposition is right, it is a scourge and more people are using those drugs with devastating effects and demands on the mental health system and the like. Did the Leader of the Opposition not notice that at the Council of Australian Governments’ meeting last week, the Prime Minister, every state Premier and every Chief Minister agreed to a coordinated national campaign on exactly that, and, like every other state and territory, Western Australia will be contributing to that campaign. Did he not even read the newspapers?

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2663

NEWBORNS — VACCINATION PROGRAM 283. Ms A.R. MITCHELL to the Minister for Health: In light of the recent tragic death of a baby in this state from whooping cough can the minister please advise of the measures to protect newborns from illnesses such as whooping cough and the flu? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: I thank the member for her question. I had the pleasure of going to the family birthing centre at King Edward Memorial Hospital earlier today to launch two components of our vaccination program—one being the influenza vaccine and the other the whooping cough vaccine. We are encouraging people to have their vaccine. Currently, only about 40 per cent of people are having their flu vaccine, and we want to increase that to 75 per cent. Women can have that flu vaccine anytime through their pregnancy. As we know, very sadly, a child died from whooping cough, and I met with his parents last week to talk through that and their endeavours to increase the rate of vaccinations for whooping cough. This government has made a decision, as have some other states, to start a free vaccination program, provided by the government, for the last trimester of pregnancy to encourage women to have that vaccination. We have tried in years past to do it with family groups, grandparents and fathers, but there was not a strong uptake of that vaccination program. There are key problems with whooping cough. Firstly, over the last few years, there has been a big increase in the incidence of whooping cough. Secondly, children start their vaccination program from two months old, so as part of the triple antigen injection at two months, that gives them the whooping cough vaccine, but for the first two months of their lives, they are not protected. With mothers being vaccinated in their third trimester of pregnancy, the baby is given immunity until the time of delivery. We are encouraging parents, particularly pregnant mothers, to get vaccinated for both whooping cough and flu. The flu vaccine was a little delayed because there has been an outbreak in Europe and America of a different strain of flu. The previous flu vaccine did not contain those antigens but the new vaccine does. It provides immunity for women who have that vaccination. I do not think people realise what a devastating illness flu can be. Like other infections, it causes death, particularly among those who are more vulnerable. The free government flu vaccination campaign, funded in the flu vaccine by the federal government, encourages pregnant women, those over the age of 65, younger children and those with medical problems, who are at special risk, to have their vaccine, and I encourage everybody to do so. BIGGER PICTURE FUNDING — ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN 284. Mr M.P. MURRAY to the Minister for Regional Development: I refer to the Bigger Picture regional development advertising campaign, which prominently features recipes from the regions on both a website and other media. (1) Does the minister think this is a suitable use of taxpayers’ money? (2) Does the minister agree that this money would be better spent combating the meth epidemic that is hitting our regions extremely hard? Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: (1)–(2) That question sounds awfully similar to one asked a little while ago. I thought the Premier nailed the response—hence I will not go into it—in referring to the history of the Labor government’s advertising campaigns compared with this government’s advertising. I make the point that the three advertisements that were run on television in the Bigger Picture campaign relate to the royalties for regions spend. One was the hostel development commissioned in Esperance. The member will be aware that the child of someone living to the east of Esperance will be able to attend school. The other spend is the $36 million Augusta boat harbour project that this government put in place to encourage the economy in that part of the state. The other one is the Clontarf program in Karratha that focuses on young Indigenous kids up there and getting those kids to go to school. The survey about people in regional Western Australia and their understanding of this government’s spending has shown that they want more information. They want to better understand where this government spends its money in regional Western Australia. The TV campaign and the campaign that runs through the other media outlets is a platform for people to access the websites to gain a better understanding of where this government spends its dollars in regional Western Australia and to have a better understanding of how they can engage with the government to improve services and investment in regional Western Australia. As the Premier just said, is it not great to have a good advert that has a platform that attracts people to the sites to see what is happening? I pay tribute to the people who put those adverts together. They are excellent ads that use an emotional connection such as food to get people to access websites. It helps people who live in the more isolated parts of the state to engage, and that is something the member for Collie–Preston should appreciate: they can engage in what this government is doing to support regional Western Australia.

2664 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

BIGGER PICTURE FUNDING — ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN 285. Mr M.P. MURRAY to the Minister for Regional Development: I have a supplementary question. I again ask: does the minister agree that this money would be better spent in combating the meth epidemic hitting our regions hard or is he going to ignore that epidemic? Mr D.T. REDMAN replied: There is no doubt that the epidemic around drugs in Western Australia is a challenge, but I make the point that the advertising this government has done has been appropriate. It has been moderate. Mr P.B. Watson interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call to you to order for the third time. Member for Collie–Preston, I call you to order for the third time. Minister, can you wind this up, please. Mr D.T. REDMAN: Yes, I can, Mr Speaker. Our advertising has been moderate. I think it is appropriate for people in regional Western Australia to have a platform to see where this government is spending money, including on things that support drug and alcohol reform. Members should remember that these investments are not just those mentioned on the telly ads, but support all those things members opposite have been talking about to drive change in drug use in regional Western Australia. COMMUNITY LANGUAGES PROGRAM 286. Mr I.M. BRITZA to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, the previous question is finished. Member for Morley. Mr I.M. BRITZA: I understand that the review of the community languages program has been done and that changes — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Girrawheen, I call you to order for the second time. Member for Morley, start again, please. Mr I.M. BRITZA: I understand that a review of the community languages program has been done and that changes are being made to allow the program to meet the growing language needs of our community. Could the minister please update the house on what is happening? Dr M.D. NAHAN replied: I thank the member for his question, for his commitment to multiculturalism in general and specifically for his assistance in promoting the support for two budding language schools teaching the Hindi Samaj language spoken by the Hindi community and the Swahili language spoken by members of the African community. When I became responsible minister, and indeed even before, I knew there was something wrong with the community language program. The community language program has been around for about 30 years and it is designed expressly to assist community groups to teach languages after school outside the formal education system. At that time the program was under the purview of the Minister for Education, and I asked him about the program because of questions from the member for Morley and others why people could not get access to this program. We inquired about it. There was $1 million sitting there, but new programs could not get access to it. Old programs that had not been operating for a while were capped. Since the issues that need to be addressed sit primarily under my areas of responsibility, the minister transferred the program to me and the first thing I found out was that there had not been a review of this program for 30 years. So, I had a one undertaken. Ms R. Saffioti: You’re wrong. Dr M.D. NAHAN: I am right. The review was undertaken. As members might know, the member for West Swan is participating in a campaign to stop the changes I am making and perpetuate inequalities in allocations. I encourage everybody to look at this report. Mr W.J. Johnston: Table it. Dr M.D. NAHAN: I already have, but I will again. I table it—good! The review showed that $1 million was allocated to the program. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro!

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2665

Dr M.D. NAHAN: Eighty per cent of the funding goes to one group and one language. The member for West Swan wants to perpetuate that. All other languages have to make do with 20 per cent and all new languages trying to come in are excluded. Is that fair? She wants to perpetuate that. Not only that, in Western Australia we fund our public and private schools, particularly the Catholic schools, very well. We give them billions of dollars in the case of public schools and hundreds of millions dollars in the case of Catholic schools. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Member for Warnbro. Dr M.D. NAHAN: That money is given to those schools to teach various subjects including — Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the third time. You have two minutes to finish this, minister. Dr M.D. NAHAN: That money is given to those schools to teach various subjects, including languages other than English—six or seven languages are taught. Seventy per cent of the funds for the community language program, which is meant for after-school community education, is put as supplements to the money already provided to the Catholic and public school systems. She wants to perpetuate that. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the third time. Dr M.D. NAHAN: The member for West Swan wants to perpetuate an inequality for one group that she is campaigning with to get 80 per cent of the money. Point of Order Dr A.D. BUTI: I believe the minister has been here long enough to refer to someone as the member by the seat, not as a “she” or a “he”. The SPEAKER: All right—minister. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr M.D. NAHAN: The member for West Swan wants to perpetuate an inequality, with one group getting 80 per cent of the money for a program designed for all. She wants to cut out access for new community groups and others. We have changed that. We have done a number of things. First, we have increased the funding to the program by 25 per cent or $250 000—that is the first increase in a long time—and we will provide equal access to all. Multiculturalism is an essential part of our community and part of it is that people have to step outside their own tribe. I ask the member for West Swan to do that. I table the review of the community languages program. [See paper 2848.] EDUCATION AND HEALTH STANDING COMMITTEE Inquiry into Fiona Stanley Hospital — Terms of Reference — Statement by Speaker THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): I have received a letter — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro and member for West Swan, do you want to have a rest? I have received letter dated 22 April 2015 from the Chairman of the Education and Health Standing Committee advising that the committee has resolved to conduct an inquiry with the following terms of reference — That the committee inquire into and report on the risks to patients and staff, and the financial implications to the state arising from the — (a) transition and operation of clinical services to Fiona Stanley Hospital by the Department of Health; and (b) management by Serco of the services it is contracted to deliver at Fiona Stanley Hospital. The committee intends to table its report on 24 September 2015. TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.47 pm]: When I was speaking on this Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill earlier, we were distracted momentarily by a lengthy conversation about the standing orders, in particular standing orders 94 and 97. While that was going on, people in the house were

2666 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] starting to sit and take their places for question time and there was a certain amount of disturbance not dissimilar to — The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms J.M. Freeman): Members, can I draw your attention to standing order 95, which states — Members will not converse noisily or otherwise disturb the proceedings. A number of members are doing that at this point in time and they might like to take themselves out of the house where they can continue their conversations. Mr R.H. COOK: Today we are debating a very important issue and I want to talk about the attacks on young people and the community of Kwinana. The Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill is an attack on young people in Kwinana. It is an attack on their futures and on their jobs, and it is an attack on the general community. Once the opportunities, jobs and the futures of young people in the community are undermined, the community itself is being attacked. I want to talk about the very important issue of youth unemployment. While there are Liberal governments at both the state and federal level that continue to take actions that cut and undermine activities that provide young people with skills, jobs and a future, we will all bear witness to the attacks on our community in general. This bill will raise a tax on employment. The bill introduces a gradually diminishing tax threshold from 1 July 2001. Under the legislation, the proposed benefits of the tax-free threshold will gradually phase out for employers or groups with annual taxable wages in Australia between $800 000 and $7.5 million. The measure will raise $397 million over the next three years. This is $397 million that will be taken from employers around Western Australia and, in the context of Kwinana, taken from the wages of young people there who would otherwise be able to gain jobs and opportunities. Mr W.R. Marmion: Member, I think you said 2001, but you meant 2015. Mr R.H. COOK: I thank the minister. In Kwinana there is an estimated youth unemployment rate of between 20 and 25 per cent. I say it is estimated and that is the best possible guesstimate I have been given by employment services in the community. Unemployment was about 4.8 per cent in 2013–14 and was estimated in the midyear review at about 5.25 per cent, so we have seen a gradual increase in unemployment rates. Therefore, we can estimate that youth unemployment, which has traditionally floated around the 22 per cent mark in recent times, would be somewhere between 22 and 25 per cent. The impact of youth unemployment is that it destroys futures and lives. It costs the community and the economy. If we fail to take the opportunity to address a significant reason for being here as members of Parliament, which is to motivate young people, provide them with an opportunity in the future and ensure the development of this crucial part of our economic capacity—the human resource they represent—we fail to develop that resource and we fail to reap the rewards of the growth in our economic capacity. The measures in this bill and in other decisions by the federal and state Liberal governments will have a negative impact on youth employment. I will come back to the specifics of the bill shortly, but I want to reflect for a moment on the other issues for Kwinana’s unemployed people. I have been appalled to hear recently that important youth employment programs, such as the youth employment scheme run by Bridging the Gap, have been axed in the Kwinana area. This is a very important program. It essentially took young people who had left school and had not held a job for two years and made sure that they had training opportunities and job opportunities. That program has been run with a success rate of 84 per cent. Many people in my community, particularly those running these employment programs, suggest that mental illness and crime in the area will rise as a direct result of axing these programs. If young people, many of whom are multigenerational unemployed, fail to get the opportunities in life at this crucial point in their journey, the obvious consequence is that they will continue to struggle with the pressures of life, and our economy will continue to miss out on the important contribution they might make by having jobs, and our community will continue to struggle with the impact of antisocial behaviour, which is often associated with high unemployment levels. It is an absolute disgrace that the federal Liberal government has decided to axe these programs. In addition, the Barnett Liberal government has significantly increased fees for attending TAFE colleges. TAFE is an incredibly important part of a community like Kwinana, because TAFE equals skills, which equals jobs. If we place more obstacles in the way of young people getting those skills at TAFE, they will fail to get the jobs, and we will continue to see this cycle of youth unemployment taking hold in areas like Kwinana. Under the Barnett Liberal government, TAFE fees have increased by up to 515 per cent since 2013. This is an extraordinary increase in fees, and it is constructing significant obstacles to young people improving their skills, getting jobs and improving their lives. TAFE is the lifeblood of our skills base and service sector. We need the fees and the obstacles to young people attending TAFE to be removed as much is possible, or to be kept down so that they can get the skills and the jobs they need so that they can pay the taxes that we need, and they can continue to make a contribution. However, if all that the decisions of the federal and state Liberal governments are doing is placing more obstacles in front of young people, cutting away the very programs that can provide

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2667 them with opportunities in life, we will continue to see the ongoing antisocial and degenerative behaviour that we often see in these communities. The Barnett government must reverse these massive fee increases, because TAFE is a significant part of the lives of people in Kwinana. One of the reasons for that is that there are a lot of trade employment opportunities on the Kwinana industrial strip that young people have often taken advantage of. I want to remind members of the important contribution the Kwinana industries make to the community. Kwinana industries generate an annual output valued at almost $15.8 billion. They have direct sales of $8.51 billion. They directly employ—this is the important part of it—4 800 people, of whom 64 per cent live locally, either in the electorate of the member for Rockingham or in my electorate of Kwinana. If we fail to produce the opportunities for these young people to work on the Kwinana strip because they are not getting the skills and the job readiness that they need to take up those opportunities, we will continue to see youth unemployment at intolerable levels. In addition to the 4 800 people directly employed in the Kwinana industries, 26 000 people are indirectly employed as a result of the economic activity on the Kwinana strip. On the one hand, the federal government is cutting youth employment programs and, on the other hand, the Liberal state government is raising fees for young people to go to TAFE. The Kwinana industrial strip is a crucial area for employing these young people. As we know, significant challenges confront businesses in the industrial area. It is said that it is an area in transition, moving away from light and medium engineering, and metal fabrication-based industries to service- based businesses that need to operate in this area. If we say that an industry is in transition, we must know what it will transition to. We have to provide leadership for the businesses in the area through the growth of infrastructure and industry policy to make sure that this transition takes place. Businesses, particularly metal fabrication firms, are saying to us that whereas before they would employ significant numbers of young people, particularly young people enrolled in apprenticeships, nowadays they are having to cut back on those workers as their forward orders become lumpy and they have less certainty about the future for their businesses. The first people that they will put off are the apprentices. Of course, the apprentices are the young people who have grown up in the area and rely upon these apprenticeships and training opportunities for their futures. [Member’s time extended.] Mr R.H. COOK: What is the Kwinana industrial area transitioning to? Where is the leadership from this government about where we are taking that transition to? Where is the development of infrastructure? Where are the industry policies to make that transition smooth and forthcoming? Young people in the Kwinana area rely upon these businesses. These businesses are the very ones that employ most people in our community. Small and medium-sized businesses are responsible for employing the large proportion of people in my community. It has been written into Liberal Party folklore that a payroll tax is a tax on employment. If payroll tax is increased, jobs are essentially taxed. For the life of me I cannot work out why we are now sitting here debating a bill, introduced by a Liberal government, to increase payroll tax. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia has made some commentary about this. According to a CCI media statement — The State Government’s decision to increase the payroll tax burden has further added to costs and caused businesses to scale back hiring workers, according to a survey of Western Australian businesses. The CCI goes on to state — Because of the clawback policy: — That is the bill implicit in this — • 84 per cent of businesses expected to be less profitable • 82 per cent were less likely to increase staff wages • 81 per cent of businesses expected to hire fewer new employees. These new employees are the young people of Kwinana who are today trying to plan their futures. This Liberal government is now legislating to deny young people job opportunities, not because of good economic management—because we know from the debt levels that economic management by this government has been shambolic—and not because we know that it believes payroll tax is a good thing, but because it simply has no other choice because it has blown the books. We know the government does not want to do this. It did not want to introduce this bill into this place. In February 2013, just prior to the last state election, the Treasurer gave a commitment that a re-elected Liberal– National government would do the exact opposite—that is, rather than increase payroll tax by a further $397 million, it would in fact reduce it by $212 million through further legislation. The government not only is repudiating its own principles on legislative and taxation discipline, but also, quite frankly, lied to the people of Western Australia prior to the last election. This bill is a disgrace in terms of not only economic management but also electoral honesty. The government is once again breaking a promise to the people of Western Australia.

2668 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

For the life of me I cannot work out how the government lives with itself introducing this legislation to Parliament. This runs contrary to everything that the Liberal Party believes in. This is the single act that the Liberal Party is so quick to criticise in any other government. Increasing payroll tax is a tax on jobs. It is the rhetoric that the Liberal Party has relied upon for decades. It is the rhetoric that it has relied upon in taxation debate after taxation debate. This will result in the death of the government. When a government does things that it knows are wrong, that it knows in principle are the wrong things to do as it is the very thing that it opposes, but it goes ahead and makes these decisions at any rate—because it knows it has no other choice because myriad bad decisions have led to the disastrous state of our finances—we will see the death of that government. The government does not believe a word it says in this legislation. Not only does it not believe it, it also does not want to do it but it knows that it has no choice. This legislation will pass through Parliament. It will be another broken promise to the people of Western Australia, which is the reason it should be opposed. It will continue to be a tax on jobs, particularly on young people’s jobs in my electorate. That is what I find most disgraceful—those small and medium-sized businesses in the Kwinana area are the ones that do the heavy lifting when it comes to employing young people in Kwinana. This legislation will put another block on those companies putting on an extra apprentice or an extra trainee, or hiring an extra early years’ skilled worker. Because the legislation will do this, I find it most repugnant of all. Places such as Kwinana that have their social challenges will continue to have those challenges. They will continue to have those challenges because of the decision this government made to increase TAFE fees, because of a decision its colleagues in Canberra made to cut youth employment programs, and because of the decision the Western Australian government has now made to tax employers who would otherwise employ young people in the Kwinana electorate and who now, according to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, are inclined not to do so. Let this legislation be on this government’s head. The government will pass this legislation. It will hate itself while it is doing it. It knows it is the wrong thing to do, but it will pass this legislation as it has no choice because of all the bad decisions it has made around the state’s finances. As a result, it will lead to this government’s inevitable death. MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie–Preston) [3.09 pm]: I wish to follow on from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Taxation is an unfortunate scourge on our community. It is something we have to have to function properly. Taxation provides hospitals, roads and education—all those sorts of things. When Western Australians are misled by this government about how and where they will be taxed, that is a blight on this house. It is a complete blight on the Barnett government. It has promised the world on anything and everything so it could be elected at any cost. The cost is now coming home to roost. In some ways the cost will destroy our future; the future that many children, students—the lot—hold dear about their education, about jobs into the future and about what they thought might be possible, including buying a house. Now there will be an increase in payroll tax instead of the decrease that was promised. Now those jobs will not be available. Many people in the business community say, “Get rid of payroll tax and we will increase jobs remarkably.” I do not say that we have the capacity to drop payroll tax immediately, but a program was put in place by this government to reduce it over time. That program has now been dismissed and removed from the agenda. It is shameful to think that going into the last election the small business policy statement made by the Liberal Party was — If re-elected, a Liberal Government will focus on practical measures that will make life easier from small business. These measures will include: • Further tax payroll relief to business worth $121million. Now we find that it is just not the case—in fact, quite the opposite. Now, an additional $397 million will be collected from small businesses over the next three years. That is shameful! It does not even hold today’s existing rate but goes over and above anywhere near the average of the day, including the $121 million of payroll relief. It is, if I can find it again, three hundred — Mr W.R. Marmion: And ninety-seven! Mr M.P. MURRAY: I thank the minister. An amount of $397 million in payroll tax will be collected that was not budgeted for by any small business. I understand that it does not affect one group but it does change things to the point that an employer with a payroll tax of $1 million will pay an extra $1 313. This is a disincentive to employ people in any industry whatsoever. An employer with a payroll of $7.5 million will pay an extraordinary extra amount of $44 000 over that period. Is it any surprise that there is another broken promise? No, it is not at all. In the couple of years before the last election, we saw pamphlets held up in this house about fully costed promises. If they were fully costed, the government must have known the amount of taxation it would collect on the way through the forward estimates. Obviously, the government had not done its homework. That was borne out when a former Treasurer, Mr Porter, left the scene. He said, “I don’t want to be here anymore. I’m leaving.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2669

I’m going to better pastures”—probably brighter pastures at that time, although I do not think he would say that now—“and going into federal politics.” I ran into him one time in the foyer here and said, “How’re you going, Christian?” He said, “Not bad.” I said, “Gee, things are a bit rough on your side of politics.” He said, “I told them so. No-one would listen.” It is therefore obvious why he jumped from state politics. He was touted as a future leader coming from, I would say, very good stock of the Liberal Party—a blueblood is probably a better word for him—but he jumped ship. Why did he jump ship? It is because he could read the figures. He did not want to be caught with the debt over his name that is now evident. He did not want to be regarded as one of the worst Treasurers there has ever been in this house. He was smarter than that. He packed his bags and he left. He left because he did not want a stain on his very—I am trying to be very nice here, Mr Acting Speaker—good standing within the community as an accounting-type person and at that stage as a future Premier. He could not see his way clear because he believed within himself that things were heading the wrong way, so he left. However, along the way we have seen this government break many, many promises. A couple of those promises were made in my electorate, and one that is quite dear to the community is the upgrade to Collie Senior High School. A $7 million promise is not forthcoming in the forward estimates. However, now, according to the Premier, the forward estimates are not worth the paper they are written on. I hope that changes because I do not see any government being able to work forward if it does not know what the forward estimates are or may be into the future. There is no real possibility that anyone does not know their household budget from one year to the next for maintenance costs et cetera. When we look at the issue from that angle, we should be asking why the government makes these promises if the forward estimates are not a true record of the government’s commitment into the future. To me that is why politicians of the day, and probably politicians into the future, are not held in the highest regard. We are seen as schemers—I am talking about both sides of politics—and as people who do not fulfil our promises, yet having the sign “fully funded, fully costed” bandied around at every election centre and being let down by a government saying that things have changed is again another slight for the hardworking politicians of this house who have been undermined by some at the top. Another indirect tax in fees and charges that were not referred to at the last election—not even spoken about—is one that has been brought to my attention just recently, and that is the TAFE fees that are hurting many people. I want to read a small excerpt from an email from Dylan Philip Roberts, a year 12 student at Collie Senior High School. Referring to the TAFE fees, he says — … it will certainly make it harder to enter courses after I finish high school. Do me, and the rest of the student body a favour, and let Barnett and his … liberal cabinet know that they are destroying the future of education for Western Australia, and that along with the cuts to the Education Department, they are only making it worse for themselves and the Western Australian community. That is from a year 12 student. Year 12 students are future voters and people who will be talking about this issue in student councils and student groups. Those 17 and 18-year-olds, who will be voting at the next election, are already feeling the cuts and unfunded promises of this government that will affect their future, yet we are in only the third year of this term of government. That concerns me greatly. I move on to the many representations made to me from people in the education system about the removal of education assistants from classrooms or the reduction in their working hours. I have certainly had families come to see me. One is a young mother who has a most gorgeous young child who is not overgrown for his age but who has very strong learning difficulties. When an education assistant looked after him on a daily basis, he made slight improvements all the time. Since having an EA for only two hours a day, he has completely gone backwards. Who has to pick up that? Of course, his family now has to provide the assistance he needs with his learning disabilities. Certainly, I believe that families must play a role, but teaching is a specialised profession and that kid is being disadvantaged, along with four other students at the same school, such is the reduction in the number of hours with an EA. One of the problems with the tests that are given to determine where they fit and how many hours a week they need is the huge gaps between departments. For example, two students might be at level 1, but the disability of one of the students might be 20 per cent greater, which means that that student needs extra help. The families were not told about cuts to EAs before the election. They are suffering immensely. One of the children I am talking about is what is known as a “runner”—that is, if you turn your back, he is gone—and the school has to spend time looking for him. If we think that they are paying a price, the community will pay a price in years to come because if those kids do not learn to speak and write their name, we will still be looking after them as adults. The government should have a hard look at how to evaluate the number of hours children are allocated, the money for which comes from our taxes. Perhaps another process could be used, but we should look at the future, not short-term gains that allow the government to scramble money back into its coffers. I understand that Western Australia’s economic picture has changed, but surely education is at the top of our priorities. Indeed, education, health and policing should be first off the rank in any parliamentary process—that is so important— and those areas need good fiscal management, which is not happening. We are watching the whole state

2670 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] struggle—and I mean struggle. There are no major projects in the south west because the government did not forecast the decline in the iron ore price, having relied on it to sustain us into the future. I put some of the blame on our economic forecasters who were still saying that we needed another 20 000 migrant workers in the state this year. We are now experiencing job losses at an extraordinary rate and people who thought they had another three or four years in a job with the same income are now struggling. I am sure that all members in the house have had people come to their electorate offices to ask about jobs and how they can get help to pay their mortgage. A regular complaint is that they cannot afford school fees. Public school fees are meant to be free if people cannot afford them, which is not the case. There are problems because of this government’s overspending and lack of fiscal responsibility. It has not done the hard work. Sometimes hard decisions should be made, but not if election promises have been made, because that breaks the trust of those concerned, which relates to the bill before the house. In the house tomorrow the government will apply for $8 billion worth of borrowings. It would be great if individuals were able to borrow a bit more every time they overspend and charge it to someone else, which is what the government will be doing. It has created monuments to itself for which others will have to pay for many years. That is not the way to run government. Yes, we have to spend money and at times we have to borrow money, but the government has gone over and above its ability to manage the budget. Certainly many people wish they could borrow money and not worry about how to pay it back or hit someone up for it and it does not matter who. I refer to some other issues in the south west. The south west is one of the largest growth areas in Western Australia, yet it has no major contracts for works or projects. Alternatively, big buildings and a football stadium in the city will sustain some jobs into the future, but we do not have that luxury in the south west. The government will create a drive in, drive out workforce. Indeed, as much as there is a fly in, fly out workforce, country people will drive up the freeway to work at the stadium or Elizabeth Quay, which some people are already doing. They will stay in the city during the week and spend money in the city during the week while the economies of their small towns diminish. Jobs will be lost because money is not being spent in those communities. I am talking about the lower end of jobs right down to McDonald’s workers, because no expenditure is coming through the door. Businesses will shrink back and people will be dropped from the payroll and then businesses will have to pay extra payroll tax, which means no jobs—it does not matter which way I put it. It is a full cycle and the government must look at the bigger picture, not just Perth. I think I am right in saying that 78 per cent of the Western Australian population live in Perth. We do not have to do a great deal to stimulate the economies in town outside of Perth. We do not have to work hard, because the needs of those populations are far fewer than those in many other areas. I cannot stand here and support the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. It is another broken promise and the government will have to answer to it at the next election. MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [3.28 pm]: I rise to make a contribution to the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Like my parliamentary colleagues, I oppose a tax increase that is contrary to the election mandate and promises the government so recently made. I note that this increase to payroll tax will raise $400 million over the next three years. I understand, and it is quite obvious, that the government has the numbers in the chamber to push this tax increase through. It will do so and it will do so this afternoon in breach of the promise it made to the people of Western Australia before the election. In the full knowledge that the government will crunch the numbers this afternoon to push this $400 million tax hike through, I will say something about the expenditure of that money. There has been debate at both the state and federal level about more services and more infrastructure, which will mean a higher level of taxation generally. The federal Treasurer, Mr Hockey, has already said as much—that there will be an increase in taxes to pay for an increase in services to pay for more infrastructure. I stand here as the member for Butler to complain, as I have done on several previous occasions—numerous times—about the lack of expenditure in the electorate of Butler. The electorate of Butler is the fastest growing electorate in Western Australia. The electorate of Butler has 40 per cent more voters than the number in other electorates. All our electorates were evened out before the last election. However, the electorate of Butler has had a boom in population. If this money is going to be raised as it is going to be raised, I stand here to demand a fair cut for the people of Butler. I want to speak about three things—Yanchep High School, the freeway extension, and the rail to Yanchep. Yanchep High School is a district high school. It services people beyond what was the hamlet or village of Yanchep. People from other districts are drawn into that high school. It was built as a primary school 40 years ago. It has transitioned over the years into a district high school by the addition of temporary classrooms—demountables, they are called — The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Member, I need to remind you that you need to stick very strictly to the tax bill that is before the house. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am speaking to the tax bill, Mr Acting Speaker.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2671

THE ACTING SPEAKER: You are going to electorate matters. I have been listening carefully, and I am being guided, but you need to stay very close to the bill. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will stay close to the bill. I am speaking about expenditure from this $400 million. It is all very well for the government to bring in these bills to increase revenue, but the people I represent do not get to see any of that money. Before the last election, the government promised, firstly, that it would not increase payroll tax, and, secondly, that it would upgrade Yanchep High School. The government now has legislation before the chamber to increase the tax base that is collected by this government. We want to see expenditure of $70 million for a new high school for Yanchep. We are hopeless without it. We have children in Yanchep who are getting a second-grade education because of the terrible state of the asset. The government will be raising in this bill $400 million over three years. That is an ample amount of money to fund a new high school at Yanchep. Look at what has happened in my electorate from the tax base that has been collected. The government started a new high school at Butler. Butler High School now goes to year 12, although it is open only to year 10 at the moment. Butler High School has to accept children from Gingin and Lancelin. That means that Butler High School is being overrun. That is because this government is not spending its tax revenue—which this bill is all about—on building a new high school at Yanchep. I will now move off this, Mr Acting Speaker, and I will speak more directly in grievances tomorrow about what has happened to education in Yanchep, because this tax base or tax collection has not been fairly distributed. Mr W.R. Marmion: Member, will you take a question by way of interjection? Are you suggesting that you might support this bill if money was spent on Yanchep High School, and the freeway was extended—and what was the third one? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: It is the rail line to Yanchep. In 2012, the then Treasurer, Hon Troy Buswell, stood in this clamber and promised that the rail line to Yanchep would be delivered by 2020. He said that the government was already spending money on that rail line out of the 2011–12 taxes. Yet now the government is seeking to raise more taxes, and all the government has done is cancel the rail line to Yanchep. If the minister is prepared to stand up and commit the government to $70 million to build Yanchep High School; secondly, to come good on Mr Buswell’s promise—which was not part of an election promise but was made in this chamber—that there would be a rail line through to Yanchep by 2020, and, thirdly, now that the minister has got the tender in place for the freeway, which is over $100 million under budget, to extend at least a road-grade highway further north, because it has cancelled the rail line, then, yes, I will do my best to convince my party to change this around and support this bill. However, that would require the minister in the course of the next 20 minutes while I am on my feet to indicate that the government will come good from this $400 million that it is about to collect over the next three years and complete these projects. The people of Yanchep have been dudded three times over. Firstly, we were told that there would not be an increase in the tax base. Secondly, we were told that millions and millions of dollars—$10.5 million—would be spent on upgrading Yanchep High School. I agreed that that was a lost cause. The government actually needs to build a new high school. The government has spent Western Australian taxpayers’ money on acquiring the site, which is now sitting idle in Yanchep. Thirdly, the government has failed to come good on its broken promise about rail to Yanchep—in fact it was not a broken promise, because it was not an election promise. I want to come back to how the government is spending our taxes. The Premier ordered an independent review, which was chaired by the director general of the Department of Transport, into rail priorities. That report said that the number one priority in terms of a business case is the last seven kilometres of rail into Yanchep. That is because Tokyu Corporation—that giant development corporation from Tokyo—was ready to unlock its purse and create in Yanchep a university and a health campus, and a huge employment hub that would be bigger than Joondalup. The minister would gather from that more payroll taxes. However, Mr Nomoto, the esteemed chairman of Tokyu Corporation, told me in the boardroom, in the presence of Mr Gin Wah Ang, the managing director here in Perth—I know that the minister knows him—and in the presence of the Speaker of this chamber and the members for Kingsley and Mandurah and the other members who were on that parliamentary tour — [Quorum formed.] Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: As I was saying, in terms of the payroll tax to be collected, Tokyu Corporation explained that once that rail went through, it would unlock its purse and create this infrastructure and create a university, a medical hub, and other employment hubs. That will give the minister a bigger taxation base and result in more payroll tax for the government, because there will be huge employment growth in Yanchep—greater than that in Joondalup. It worries me that the government is raising this tax and it will disappear into the black hole. We get it; we out there in Butler listen. The government is $30 billion in debt and it is rising and there is a taxation loan bill on the notice paper that will drive up that debt further. What about Butler, the fastest growing electorate in Western Australia—where is its dividend from this huge tax rise? During this debate the minister asked me whether I would change my mind and vote with the government if the rail line was pushed through the last seven kilometres, the high school was erected for $70 million and the freeway was extended to Romeo Road. I am not driven by ideology; it is the people of Butler who put me here—of course, I will change my vote. The clock is

2672 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] ticking. I can only do it while I am on my feet and I will take by interjection that the minister will give those undertakings on behalf of the government. The people of Butler will then be pleased to see the headline “Quigley crosses the floor to vote for a bill because the government has guaranteed that the rail line will go to Yanchep by 2020; the high school will be built in the next two years; and the freeway will be extended to Romeo Road.” What the preselectors and the Labor Party do to me after I have crossed the floor will not be my worry because I will have had a win for the people of Butler. I am here for the people of Butler. I am concerned that the people of Butler will not see a nickel out of this extra $400 million this Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill will raise. They know their children are being prejudiced by an unfair tax distribution. They get it. They see the rising debt in this state but they look around their area and see that in Butler College’s third year of operation there are already 10 demountables on the site. It has two more years to open because it only goes to year 10. I was speaking to the headmaster today and he said there would be 400 extra students next year, which will require another 10 demountables and another 400 students the year after that. With 1 267 students at the moment, that will take the number of students at this new college to more than 2 000 students by 2017. The children there have had to give up their playing grounds to convert them into something that looks like a construction site containing 30 demountables. The only way this new college can be saved is by building the next high school because Gingin District High School goes to only year 10. Butler will have to take all its students as well. Gingin is in the regions. The ACTING SPEAKER: Bring it back, member; you are losing me. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am referring to the distribution of tax because that is the concern. The people of Butler are workers. There are some small business people there but, by and large, there are masses of employed people there who have come from other states and countries to help build the mining industry and to work in the construction and service industries. They will not be paying payroll tax themselves; their employers will be paying it. When they look around for the equitable distribution of the bounty of this payroll tax, they can see that they and their families will be denied. As I said before—the clock is ticking—I promise to cross the floor if, during the course of this debate, the government will give an undertaking that by 2020 the rail will be at Yanchep, the high school at Yanchep will be built and the freeway will go through to Romeo Road. The headlines will be “Quigley will cross the floor”. I will do it for the people of Butler because I am here for the people of Butler first and foremost. I have 16 minutes to go, but I do not hold out a lot of hope. We are being asked to vote today on another broken promise of the Barnett government. It broke the promise on the Yanchep high school and on rail, and delayed the freeway, although at the very last stretch of its two four- year terms, into its sixth year, the government says, “We’ve let the contract for the freeway; we got it cheap.” Leighton Holdings, or CIMIC Group, as it is now called, which stands for Construction, Infrastructure, Mining and Concessions, put in a rock-bottom bid for the freeway to keep the company workforce going. It has the fat to extend it right through to Romeo Road—no question. Given this Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill that we will crunch through this afternoon, I am demanding on behalf of the people of Butler that the government come good on its promises to the people of Butler, Yanchep, Quinns Rocks—all those people in the north—who the government does not care about. I heard the Minister for Transport say today, “We’ll go ahead with the $2.2 billion rail line from Forrestfield to the airport because we realise those people are taking an hour to drive to Perth.” Some of the funds this bill will generate, Mr Acting Speaker—I know you have your eye on me—will be poured into that $2.2 billion. But the analysis in the government’s own report states that on a business case, that rail line to Forrestfield is not required until 2032. Is this bill not about the taxes businesses pay? On a business case, the mere $300 million extension of rail into Yanchep would precipitate massive investment in Western Australia and Perth to create a city bigger than Joondalup. More and more employers in Yanchep will return the government money by way of payroll tax, which is what it is seeking to do by pushing this bill through Parliament this afternoon. Mr D.A. Templeman: Do you want an extension? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I want three extensions. I want one to my speaking time, one to the rail line and one to the freeway! The ACTING SPEAKER: I will give you an extension of time, member for Butler. [Member’s time extended.] Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I realise it is not within your power to give the last two extensions, Mr Acting Speaker; that might be within the cabinet minister’s power and I invite him to give it. It is all very well to stand here and talk about the technicalities and the black and white of this bill but the people who vote for us are concerned about what they get from these taxes. As I said, we are not only getting from these taxes another broken promise, but also seeing this $400 million being watered up against the wall on a $2.2 billion rail line from Forrestfield to the airport for which no business case has been presented to this Parliament or the government. We know the business case for the rail extension to Yanchep would show the government a huge dividend for both

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2673 employment and taxes raised from those employers. We know there is a massive loss of productivity by people sitting on a single-lane carriageway from Yanchep all the way down Marmion Avenue to Quinns. It is chock-a- block from six o’clock in the morning. People in this chamber probably do not know where Amberton is, but the minister will know. Amberton is the second-last stop on Marmion Avenue before Yanchep. When I was first elected to Butler, we sent out letters, as everyone does, to new residents advising them where the office is and welcoming them to the electorate. I used to say the mantra “We’re building a street a day.” It is more like three streets a day. I think it is hitting four streets a day of completed houses out there and in the morning residents have to come onto Marmion Avenue, with a speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour, as the minister knows, with one lane either way. They have to try to turn right into this mayhem to experience the joy of the trip of over an hour to Perth. By reason of the good financial terms that are able to be secured on the freeway extension from Burns Beach Road to Hester Avenue, which is about $120 million under budget, and with the $400 million being raised by this legislation, let the government announce today that the freeway will be extended to Romeo Road because the government has this extra income! I have my eye on this extra $400 million in income, as do the people of Butler. We will be on top of the $600 million that the Premier and the Treasurer say they have squeezed out of Canberra for compensation to Western Australia. Where is the money being spent? It is being spent in the CBD on football stadiums and Elizabeth Quay. My electors out there just want the basics—a road to get to work that is not a parking lot at six o’clock in the morning. They want to see employment created out there and that can only be created once the rail head hits Yanchep. We have to hand it to Tokyu Corporation, we have to hand it to Mr Gin Wah Ang, his dad and the chair, Mr Nomoto, because Tokyu bought land off Bond decades ago. It is in it for the long haul. Mr W.R. Marmion: It was Yanchep Sun City, wasn’t it? Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Yanchep Sun City. We have the Sun City News and there is the Sun City Yacht Club, but we have a black cloud over it—the black cloud of broken promises. It was all sunny until the public got conned by the Premier, who said the government would spend $10.5 million upgrading the Yanchep District High School to give the kids half a chance. I will indulge a bit, Mr Acting Speaker. A temporary headmaster has gone to Yanchep high school from one of the inner-city high schools to fill in while the headmaster is on long service leave. He walked onto the campus and he was shocked that such a school existed in the metropolitan area. He has already been to see the Department of Education and he has told all this to the school council, which has reported the same to me. He said he did not think people in high school would be taking lessons on what amounts to a verandah in the design and technology department. He is breathtaken by it all, but it is so far north that the government does not care about it. Here is $400 million coming and we want a $70 million commitment today, this week, for a new high school there for all those families. A lot of the children coming to that school are coming from the regions. There is royalties for regions, but they are coming to the metropolitan area to get their education because there is not a high school that goes to year 12 at Gingin to serve all those constituents in the electorate of Moore. If the member for Moore were in the chamber this afternoon, I am sure that he would be joining me. He is probably busy in his office writing his speech on this very same subject, which is that his constituents and their families who live in Moore, Gingin or Lancelin all deserve a high school. Their kids deserve just as much of a chance as the children of the families in Mt Lawley and other places in the metropolitan area, and in the country. What disturbs me about this bill, and why I will vote against it this afternoon, is that it will raise $400 million but not a dime of it will go to these three major projects in Butler. I take my hat off to Mayor Tracey Roberts; she knows what the game is. She is a very experienced mayor who is non-political. She is not part of the political machine of either side of Parliament, as far as I know. She is truly independent. As soon as the government cancelled the rail to Yanchep and broke a promise to the city and to the people, she said the government now had to extend the freeway out to Romeo Road because people could not just be left stranded out there. Should madam mayor be listening, which is unlikely, or if she reads the transcript of my humble remarks this afternoon, I hope her worship appreciates that this government is raising a further $400 million by this bill and that funds are available to satisfy her demands on behalf of the City of Wanneroo that the freeway be extended and an announcement be made that the current build will not stop at Hester Avenue, but will go to Romeo Road. That would service all those communities such as Shorehaven, Eden Beach, Amberton, Jindalee or Allara, which is another huge development that Satterley is bringing on. There has to be some way for people living there to get to the CBD to work and to other places of employment, because there is no employment out there. Why is there no employment there? It is because Tokyu cannot commence the huge development of Yanchep until the rail gets through. There is the money to put the rail through because of the increased taxes. Here is what the Minister for Transport can do. The federal government said its knitting is not rail—it does not know how to spell “rail” it only got to “road”. The federal government did the alphabet backwards “R-O-A-D” not “R-A-I-L”, so it will only knit a road. The government should get on and knit the road to Romeo Road and that will allow it to commit the $400 million, or part thereof, to extend that rail through to Yanchep, which will suddenly precipitate industry and employment there. I note that the member for Swan Hills is here as well and he was at the meeting with the Tokyu Corporation. He is nodding in assent. The member for Swan Hills knows that

2674 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] we are not being party political. He was there and was fully appreciative of what Tokyu’s plans were for developing employment in Perth, especially with the mining industry going down. The member for Wanneroo was there as well and he has also called for the extension of the freeway to Romeo Road. The member for Wanneroo, who will vote for this bill, should use his influence as a parliamentary secretary to make sure that this freeway is extended immediately to Romeo Road, because the funds are now here. The funds will be delivered through this bill. The taxpayers of the electorate of Butler want to see what is coming out of this bill for them. I repeat, the three things that need to come out of this bill are, firstly, $70 million for a new high school at Yanchep; secondly, for the government to make good on its broken promise to the people of Yanchep about the rail line being there by 2020, which could be done with $320 million; and, thirdly, to get the feds to pay for the extension of the freeway through to Romeo Road and service the fastest growing and biggest electorate geographically and by population in Western Australia. There are nearly 35 000 constituents in my electorate. They deserve a dividend from what the government is doing here this afternoon, and in the absence of the minister rising to give this house the undertakings that the three things he wanted to know about will be delivered, I will have to vote against this bill, because it will raise taxes without any benefit to my constituents. MR D.J. KELLY (Bassendean) [4.00 pm]: In the few moments I have before we change topics at four o’clock, I might just say the words “broken promise” as often as I can because that is exactly what the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 represents. If members want a succinct summary of what this bill is about, it is this government yet again breaking promises that it gave to the people of Western Australia prior to the last election. Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (INTERFERENCE WITH WAR MEMORIALS) BILL 2015 Second Reading MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [4.01 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. We are currently living in a period in which many countries around the world are honouring, remembering and commemorating their fallen soldiers and nurses from wars throughout history. Anzac Day is a major day in Australia to remember the sacrifices and contributions made by those who went to war or were touched by it at home. Anzac Day is also a day when people from different countries and all cultural backgrounds can come together and honour those who have been touched by war in many countries across the world. War is truly international and many of the people who have made Australia their home have come from countries impacted by war. Our war memorials throughout the country are symbols that allow all people to remember the sacrifices that have been made. People who desecrate our war memorials not only do physical damage to the memorial itself, but also cause distress to the current and ex-servicemen and women and their families. The Criminal Code Amendment (Interference with War Memorials) Bill 2015 covers all public memorials to persons who have served or died in any war or warlike operation in which Australians have been on active service. Under the existing Criminal Code’s provisions relating to criminal damage are the following prescribed maximum penalties: firstly, if the property is damaged by fire, there is a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; secondly, if the property is damaged but not by fire, there is a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and, thirdly, if there are circumstances of racial aggravation, there is a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. In this bill the maximum penalty has been raised from 10 years to 14 years to make it equivalent to that of an act in which racial aggravation is a circumstance of the offence. As a community we are proud that everyone has the freedom to voice their views on the merits of war and Australia’s involvement in the wars throughout history. Acts of aggravation against those memories and the service of the many impacted by war is totally unacceptable. In Western Australia we have some beautiful memorials, ranging from our man-made memorials to trees planted by families such as those in Kings Park and Albany, and in many other areas in our great state. We must continue to protect them for our future generations by making the penalty reflect that desecrating these memorials is an act of hatred by those who seek to damage them. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr R.F. Johnson. ITALIAN COMMUNITY PROGRAMS Motion MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [4.05 pm]: I move — That this house condemns the Barnett Government for its cuts to the Italian community language program and the lack of respect shown to the Italian community in Western Australia.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2675

It is with sincere regret that I have to move such a motion in the Parliament of Western Australia because we should not have to move this motion today. This government has turned its back on a key part of the Western Australian community and on a partnership that has benefited the community and the government for decades, and a program that has for decades allowed hundreds of thousands of children to learn a second language. From the outset, I acknowledge everyone in the public gallery this evening—the supporters of the Italian language program and many members of the Italian community. In particular, I acknowledge all the hardworking teachers who have been a key part of the success of this program and who now suffer massive job uncertainties because of this government’s decisions. In my contribution tonight, I will outline why the government should not be cutting the funding to this program. Members on this side intend to keep the debate very tight. This is a serious issue, and I hope and sincerely trust that the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests will stand and provide a response to members on this side of the house. I will say from the outset that I do not want to pit culture versus culture or language versus language. I am a true supporter of multiculturalism. My parents came to Australia in 1952 and 1962 as proud Italian migrants who set a path and created great lives for themselves and for their family. I am a true supporter of multiculturalism and I do not believe culture versus culture or language versus language should ever be pitted against each other. That is not what multiculturalism is about but that is what this government has set about doing. To me, that is the most abhorrent thing that has happened in this debate. The government has tried to turn other cultures and other languages against the Italian culture and language. I want to say from the outset that that is not what a Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests should be doing in today’s Australia. I want to go through some key issues this evening. First, I want to outline the success and the history of this program in Western Australia. I want to go through some issues with the review process, particularly some of the minister’s purported outcomes. In question time in this chamber today, the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests told me to go outside my “tribe” on this issue. It was absolutely disgraceful for the minister for multiculturalism to say to someone with an Italian background to go outside their tribe. Members in this Parliament know that I give a lot but I rarely get offended. Members on this side know I rarely get offended, but I was deeply offended by that comment. For the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests to say to someone with an Italian background to go outside her tribe is absolutely deeply offensive. As I said, I wish to outline some key issues this evening, which are the success and history of the program, the problems of the review process and the false claims. First, I turn to the history and success of the Italian language program that is run by the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre, which I will now refer to as Italo. Italo is a not-for-profit organisation that was founded in 1956. It runs insertion and after-hours classes and has a centre in North Perth. Italo first offered Italian as a community language course to government, Catholic and independent schools in 1978. Depending on the schools’ decisions, classes were conducted either as insertion or as after-hours classes. Before 1981, the Italo schools program was financed entirely by the Italian community. In 1981 the commonwealth government started funding the ethnic schools program. From 1985, the state government began to fund the program on a per capita basis. Over the years, Italo has been recognised as a strong and professional language class provider. Today the program is serving the Western Australian community well. Italo has had consistently about 22 000 students in the program, with more than 95 per cent of non-Italian origin. This is a key point. This program serves children from both Italian and non-Italian backgrounds. The program is run throughout the state, including in regional Western Australia. More than 60 schools are supported by Italo in the metropolitan area, along with more than 10 regional schools. The program is in its thirty-seventh year, with 86 teachers employed by Italo, and 49 per cent of its courses are for preprimary or year 2. It has been recognised as an excellent provider of language education. There have always been issues about the level of expertise and the degree of professionalism in language schools. It is often very hard to keep to a level of expertise—we know that—but this school has managed to do that, and the teachers are hardworking and committed to offering a second language to our children. Currently, that should be the priority. I want to go through some of the claims made in the reviews and the reports, and I want to talk about the so- called independent review that this government commissioned last year. Despite claims to the contrary, this program has been reviewed on a number of occasions. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests said today in Parliament that the program has never been reviewed. Within a matter of days, we tracked down a 1999 review of Italian programs in Western Australian government schools. I have in my hand a review that the minister said did not exist. The Auditor General assessed this program. The minister and some parts of the media referred to claims of siphoning money, but the Auditor General conducted a review of the grants in 2009. Italo was one of 15 organisations examined by the government at the time, and the Auditor General found that Italo has a range of governance systems in place to properly account for funds. The Auditor General assessed the program and gave it the all clear. I will talk about the financials. Italo spends approximately $1.8 million a year to run its Italian community language program. Until 2015, Italo received about $790 000 from the state government, and the remainder was contributed by the Italian government, the Catholic Education Office and the centre itself. As noted in the review

2676 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] report, the Italian program already receives less than the per capita entitlement of other programs in Western Australia. Twenty thousand students are funded at $35, and in 2015—this is a key point that we should make—the Italian government is providing around $260 000 to Italo for this program. It is estimated that the Italian government has committed more than $10 million over recent years for the teaching of the Italian language in our schools. Given the financial difficulties that the Italian government has faced over recent years, the fact that it has kept that commitment to ensure that language teaching is offered in other countries shows that it is deeply committed to this program. Cuts to the insertion program will see that money ripped away from the Italian government; it will see no commitment from the state government, so why should it commit funds? It is clear that the program has been a win–win for government and students in Western Australia. It is a professional and high-quality program that avoids issues that have often plagued other languages. The government has partnered with a non-profit community-based organisation. If we tear this down, the infrastructure, whether it be the teachers, the goodwill or the history, will be destroyed and will not be replaced. Once something with so much history is destroyed, it is very difficult to ever replace it. I want to outline why I believe this was a predetermined decision by this minister, and that this was not the subject of any real review, but rather that this minister set upon this course a number of years ago. Firstly, a decision was made in 2013 to transfer community language education away from the Minister for Education to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests. That decision was made without any consultation. The agreement was reached in late 2013. In a draft report that we accessed through freedom of information—I acknowledge the member for Girrawheen, who made the FOI request in relation to this issue—we were able to track what was in the draft report, some of the comments sent by the Office of Multicultural Interests about what was in that draft report, and what was actually in the final report. In one of the draft reports it was claimed that, with the Department of Education facing further budget pressures, and with a reshuffling of ministerial responsibilities, the logical alternative was to transfer responsibility for that program to the Office of Multicultural Interests. That comment was excluded from the final report but, as I said, and as the minister alluded to during question time today, the transfer of this program away from the Department of Education Services to the Office of Multicultural Interests was the first step in a path that the minister has undertaken. I want to talk about the Erebus review. In 2014, OMI informed the Italo centre and other community language schools that there would be a review. Erebus International was chosen to conduct this review. As I said, through freedom of information we have now seen the original report that was sent to OMI, some subsequent commentary from OMI, and then the final report. Some of the claims being made by the minister such as, “The independent report recommended this”, can be dispelled by the information I will be giving today. I firstly want to outline that it is clear from my reading of a letter from the Department of Education in July last year that the department was very concerned about the cuts to the community language program. I will quote comments made by the Department of Education — The supply of quality specialist language teachers is an ongoing challenge for schools both at secondary and primary levels. For the teaching of Italian in primary school, this is partially addressed through the contracting of the community-based group, Italo. Therefore, when specialist tuition is not available from within the school, Italo is contracted to supply a specialist Italian Insertion Language Program. In 2013 more than 60 schools were provided with Italian teachers through Italo. … The Community Languages Program Funding is currently under review by the State Government. If this review results in a reduction or removal of funding for Italo then Catholic primary schools will not be able to staff the language programs. This will have an immediate and dire impact on the teaching of Italian in Catholic primary schools that will quickly flow through to secondary schools. It was very clear from this letter from the Department of Education that it saw dire consequences should funding be cut. We then saw the draft report. As I said, a draft report was sent to the Office of Multicultural Interests. The draft report made a number of key points, some of which I will outline today. It recognised the significant contribution made by the Italian government, and acknowledged that the Italian program provides a range of examples of good practice in language provision, teacher preparation and professional development. This is the government’s own report acknowledging the professionalism of the Italian language program. It also said that it should be noted that, in providing a de facto mainstream Italian language program, the insertion program classes enrol a significant number of students who do not come from an Italian-speaking background. Indeed, students from this background are now in the minority, even in Catholic schools. This proves the point that this language is being adopted by children other than those from Italian backgrounds. The report also discusses the deteriorating status of languages in our education system. It notes that the outcome of what is being provided by the Italo centre is important when considering the overall status of language education in Western Australia. Recent media reports highlighted the deteriorating status of language education. Basically, despite the claims made by the minister today, schools are not well funded, and are not sufficiently

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2677 funded to offer language education without some other support. The draft report sent to the government outlined three possible options. It outlined that it was to increase the budget for the community language program; to maintain current funding arrangements, but with a defined allocation for new schools; or to redefine the program as after-hours only. The draft report said there were three options: increase the budget for the whole program; maintain the current funding arrangements; or redefine the program as after-hours only. That report went on to outline all the disadvantages of abolishing the insertion program. For example, if option 3 were pursued, the report states — The outcome will be that a currently viable and successful program would effectively be terminated … Basically, this report said that the program offered value for money, and should a successful program be terminated, that would be a loss to our education system. There was no finding or key recommendation about the path forward in relation to those three options. An email from the head of the Office of Multicultural Interests is quite instructive. The head of OMI wrote back to the department to say — My own initial view is to consider the third model—reduce the program to an after hours program and withdraw support for immersion programs … This was an email from the department to the so-called independent review saying that the third option should be the recommended option—that is, cut out the immersion program. In relation to that, Erebus International produced a revised report. The email attaching the revised report states — Please find attached the final report … taking on board your comments and corrections. A new report is submitted, now with a finding to go with option 3—that is, an after-hours class only. I will go to another email, again from the Office of Multicultural Interests. This is the commentary from the office about the independent reviewer’s report —

• The report is still primarily concerned with program quality. We want to talk about the issue of equity. It is trying to diminish the issue of program quality because it cannot argue with the equality. The email goes on to say — Please refrain from using … emotive language within the funding options section. (eg: winners, losers, punished … The funding models need to be strengthened by removing passive language and references to disadvantaging the sector. The office has basically tried to change the report to come up with the option — Ms M.M. Quirk: A predetermined conclusion. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: A predetermined conclusion. Let us face it; that is what happened. The government then released the final report. In relation to the final report, the minister committed to giving a ministerial statement in this house but it never eventuated. We now know that a ministerial statement announcing the abolition was prepared for the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests on 20 November. This was before he met with people from the Italo centre to discuss its future. Without sitting around the table and talking with the people whose program he was about to destroy, the minister had already made that decision. The minister tried to create a meeting to discuss the future when he had already made that decision. The minister’s consultation was absolutely appalling. Everyone in the community finds that very disrespectful. I want to look at the final report. Some contradictions still exist in Erebus’s final report. The report recognises the importance of maintaining both insertion classes and after-hours classes for the future of community languages. One of the key principles in the report is that we should continue the in-school, or the immersion, courses. What is the situation now? Last year, the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests cut the Italian language funding to government schools. I understand that about nine government schools were funded. Of those nine, eight schools now no longer offer Italian language classes. The one school that does offer Italian language was able to raise money from its parents and citizens association to continue the program. The minister announced that the in-school program will be cut by the end of the year. It has created major uncertainty. It is important to note that even though the review report recommended a move away to after-hours only, a long transition was also recommended. The report acknowledged that to rip that money away in one year would be unfair and would lead to significant consequences.

2678 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

I think we have demonstrated that that review was not an honest review. The minister made a predetermined decision. The minister is trying to pit the Italian language against other languages. That is not right. Any supporter of multiculturalism in this state will not support one culture versus others. What the minister said to the media is absolutely disgraceful. I want people to understand what happened here. The Sunday Times was about to write a story about funding cuts to Italian language programs. What does the minister do? He writes an article that is published in The West Australian. In that article he uses the words “siphoning off”. That implies that this money was not used correctly. I asked the minister to provide proof today that this money was siphoned off. Not only were there reviews, there was also a service delivery agreement between Education and Italo. This whole idea that somehow this funding was used for purposes it was not meant to be used for is absolutely ludicrous. The WA state government signed off these agreements. It was in partnership with Italo. It was a win–win. The minister wanted to get funding for some other languages. Despite spending millions on Bigger Picture advertising, the minister could not find $300 000 or $400 000 to fund other programs. As the Leader of the Opposition outlined, despite over $6 million being spent on blatant political advertising, the minister could not reprioritise expenditure to fund other programs, so he sought to cut the Italian language program for whatever reason. I do not know what deep-seated reason the minister had for cutting the Italian language program, but it was obviously something that has been eating at him for a number of years. Of course, then we had the editorial. It replicated the words “siphoning off” and made the comment that the Italians “got away with it”. That implies that the Italians had somehow been doing something improper. Several members interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Exactly. Of course The West Australian has had to make a correction. I ask the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests to stand and also apologise to the Italian community today. [Interruption from the gallery.] The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Members of the public gallery, you are more than welcome to sit here and observe proceedings, but you must do so quietly. Thank you. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: WA Labor strongly supports multiculturalism. I am the daughter of Italian migrants. I resent the claims and accusations made by this minister. They are deeply offensive. To say in this chamber today that I have to go outside my tribe was one of the most offensive things I have heard in this place. It was absolutely offensive. The Labor Party does not support pitting language against language. It does not support pitting culture against culture. This is a program that governments, both Labor and Liberal, have supported for years. It is a win–win. The government is supporting a second language in our education system. We all understand the benefits of children learning a second language, and we all support it. We need to acknowledge the work done by the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre and the Italian community. For the minister to dismiss it in the way that he has through his lack of consultation and lack of respect, he must have thought that he could do it because the Italian community is now widespread. The Italian community is not a new community, although there is a second wave of migration, with a lot of young Italians. The minister thought he could just do it and no- one would care. Minister, this has been a disgrace! The minister should apologise and must rethink this decision. He cannot undertake this decision. He is putting the livelihood of teachers in jeopardy. As I said, he is saying to the Italian community, “We’ve had enough of you. You can go off.” The minister does not acknowledge the contribution of the Italian community in WA. His dismissive and basically offensive comments today show me that he is a minister who is not fit to be a minister for multiculturalism in this state. The fact that he stands by and allows words such as “siphoning off” to be used is an absolute disgrace to this chamber but, moreover, to his government. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [4.31 pm]: I rise to support and make a few remarks on the motion moved by the member for West Swan. I first of all begin by acknowledging the people in the gallery who are concerned about this important issue, as well as the broader Western Australian community, particularly the people who work in the Italian language program in our schools and who support the program. I begin by acknowledging that the member for West Swan is a woman of Italian descent who feels very strongly about this program. About 10 out of 89 members of this Parliament were either born in Italy or are of Italian descent. I think that is broadly reflective of the Western Australian community, which has a very strong community of people who were either born in Italy or are of Italian descent, with Italian parents, grandparents and the like. The program has been built by this community over a long period to reflect the strong connection of people from Italy with their community. Over the past three and a bit years that I have had the role of opposition leader, I have fulfilled the important role of engaging very heavily with the multicultural community of Western Australia. I was born in a country town, which was not very diverse, I might say. I grew up and went to university in a college which was not very diverse either. I joined the Royal Australian Navy, which at that time was not very diverse either; and I lived in

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2679

Rockingham, which is not one of the most diverse places around Western Australia either. The past three years, therefore, have been a very instructive and informative period for me in meeting and engaging with many multicultural communities around Western Australia. We often say in our speeches that Western Australia is one of the most harmonious places on earth. The way we have worked as a community with people from 180 different parts of the world living here in Western Australia is the envy of the rest of the country and the envy of the rest of the world; and we have done it extremely well. One of the things I have noticed in the numerous events, speeches and things in which I have engaged with the very broad multicultural community in Western Australia is that people in the multicultural community are very concerned to avoid division, one against another, because they know what it does in other countries and other communities. They are very concerned to avoid that mistake that occurs in other parts of the world. Pitting community against community is anathema to Western Australians and it is anathema to people of diverse backgrounds in this state because we all know where it leads. It leads to a very bad outcome—sectarianism, division, hatreds, racism and the like. Pitting one community against the other is what we must always avoid in this country. That is one of the reasons that I believe the way this issue has been handled is very sad and very counterproductive. The member for West Swan outlined the basis of this program for learning the Italian language, the number of people engaging in it and how well it has worked for a long time. It is very important that I refer to the big contribution from both the Italian community and the Italian government towards this program. I understand that last financial year the state contributed around $800 000 towards this program. That contribution has been leveraged by a contribution from others into the employment of all these people and all this activity with around 22 000 students learning Italian as a consequence of what is, in overall terms, a very, very small amount of money in the context of a state budget of around $30 billion. The state’s contribution has therefore been leveraged by all those other contributions. Of course, when state support is taken away, the other contributions can dissipate as well. The structure has therefore built up over the past 30 years and before, with the state contribution commencing in 1985. When we take away that state contribution, the other contributions can dissipate because there are always competing demands for resources. That is why it is very important to maintain the infrastructure that has been built with 80 or so schools, 22 000 students and all these teachers, some of whom are in the gallery. As we all know—as the Australian Democrats learnt the other day—if we take away the structures, everything can collapse. That is why this is a very important issue. I want to quote what the Prime Minister said before he became Prime Minister. He said that making sure that every Australian child was learning another language was one of his goals as Prime Minister, and within 10 years he expected the take-up of languages other than English would be enormously greater. That is what he said. He wanted to achieve that. I think that a lot of Australians—me included—are not particularly good at other languages. However, I believe it is important to learn another language for two reasons. One is that if a person’s mind becomes adept at learning another language, it assists them in all other areas of learning as well. The capacity to take in other languages—I do not know the exact terms—in the sounds, the nuances and the consonants and everything else that goes with a language, assists them in learning other things as well. I wish that my children at primary school had some capacity in other languages because it would be so very good for their other learning. The second reason is that Australians down here in the southern part of the world are our future. There is so much tied up in knowing and learning other languages around the world. The Italian language is very important around the world. It is spoken in various countries throughout Africa. I might also add that it is spoken very heavily in other parts of Australia. It is a beautiful language. It is the closest language in the twenty-first century to the original Latin. It is known as a Romance language. I think Spanish might have some of those origins as well. The romantic languages go back a couple of thousand years and, as I said, are spoken throughout all parts of Europe. It is therefore important that people learn Italian. I want to make a couple of other points. It is very hard to recreate this infrastructure. I know what the argument will be from the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests. He will say, “Well, we have to share with every other language, and all languages are important.” All I would say about that is this—and I return to what I said at the beginning of my speech: my impression of Western Australia’s wonderful multicultural communities is that they do not like to see one group torn down to benefit another. They do not like that sort of activity, because that has been the experience elsewhere and they do not want it repeated here. The second point I make is that if there are around 180 different nationalities in Western Australia, and if this program is taking 50 per cent or 60 per cent—I think the minister said 80 per cent—of the funding for this issue, sharing $800 000 a year between 180 other languages will not go very far. The minister referred to Swahili and a few other languages today, but the more divided that small amount of money becomes, the less productive it will be—and that is a problem. I understand as much as anyone else that a pot of money is only so big and so deep, but this program is suffering as a consequence of this issue that we are now debating—the extraordinarily poor financial management by this government over the last six and a half years. The fact that we are in deficit is a disgrace. The fact that our debt levels have blown out by 700 per cent at a time of record revenues is a disgrace, and this program is one of the casualties. This is a sad development for this program, and it is very sad that the government has created a situation whereby there is no capacity, apparently, to assist other languages without

2680 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] tearing down this program. It is very sad that that appears to be the case. It is also very sad for people like Enzo Sirna, a respected member of the Italian community. He has been spurred into action and written letters to the editor about the way that this program has been treated and pitted against other languages in Western Australia. The way that all these things have happened is very sad because it did not need to be managed in this way. It is also sad that all these people are potentially unemployed in an important area on which our state should be concentrating. I support this motion and the work undertaken by the member for West Swan. I hope that a better resolution is reached than the one currently before us, and I hope that the language of people involved becomes more sensible, civilised and respectful towards people in the Italian community who carry out this great work. MR F.A. ALBAN (Swan Hills) [4.42 pm]: Obviously, I am not the lead speaker for the government on this motion—we have the minister here—so I will speak very broadly on the issue. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests has far more information at his disposal so I will cover only certain issues. For the benefit of those members in the chamber who do not already know, I am of Italian descent. I was born in Italy and arrived in Western Australia when I was six years old. As a basis and in response to the motion before us, I would like to preface my speech with the findings of a recent independent review by Erebus International. The review found a significant imbalance in the distribution of funds and a considerable amount of unmet need for the provision of community language programs across a wide range of languages, and that the current program structure does not reflect best practice in the delivery of these programs. At the time of the review, 77 per cent or $784 950 of CLP funds were directed towards Italian insertion classes in both the public and Catholic school systems, and an additional 29 community language schools covering 18 languages, including Italian, and over 3 300 students secured the remaining 23 per cent of the funds. This next point is fairly critical: in 1976 the Italian-born community comprised 9.5 per cent of the Western Australian population. According to the 2011 census, the Italian community represented 0.9 per cent, which is under one per cent, of the total population compared with the Indian-born community, which comprised 1.3 per cent—larger than the Italian figure—and the Malaysian-born community, which comprised 1.1 per cent of the population. Something of note that I am sure the Italians here today will understand is that a parent does not discriminate one child from another, and nor should a state discriminate one nationality from another. Dr A.D. Buti: The government discriminated by destroying the program. Mr F.A. ALBAN: The member had his opportunity. If he thinks his yelling is going to make any difference — The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, members! So far, members, we have had a fairly civilised debate on this issue, which has been appreciated, I am sure, by Hansard and certainly by me. I would like it to continue in that vein. Member for Armadale, if you interject again and call across the chamber, I will call you to order. Mr F.A. ALBAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Member for Armadale, I am not intimidated by loud voices—I come from that sort of family as well! The ACTING SPEAKER: Can the member direct his comments through the Chair, please. Mr F.A. ALBAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Every single step my parents took on their journey to Western Australia was similar to those taken by many others. We were not on our own; we all had a similar experience. From 1956, I watched those steps. As a six- year-old, I watched my parents and their friends. Their language, their culture, their dress and their food were mocked. Of course it is now all very cool—being Italian is as cool as a person can get. Some other migrant experiences may have been different. I am not sure the Alban family were any better or any worse, so I cannot make a determination on that. A big word in the Italian culture is “disrespect”, and another word used by the member for West Swan was “injustice”. As far as I am concerned, a stand-out example of disrespect and injustice was the internment during the Second World War; that is what I call disrespect and injustice. Italians are a proud — Mr P. Papalia interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, member for Warnbro! You are actually on three calls along with a number of your colleagues. I would not like to have to eject someone from the chamber. Let us remain civilised. The member for Swan Hills has the call and I would like to hear from him. Mr F.A. ALBAN: Italians are a proud, productive people. They brought with them the very best aspects of their homeland—thrift, enterprise, a love of land and their work, which is where the Italian work ethic comes from. They also came over here with a burning ambition to succeed and establish their families in this, their adopted land. They did this mostly through sheer hard, physical work. They did not have capital and they had very few opportunities. The people who I knew neither asked for nor received charity or looked for any opportunity for a free ride. The Italians who I know are now established and financially successful. This community language program is an important and worthwhile project. I am not speaking much of the past, which seems to have been

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2681 very successful, but about the decisions that need to be made right now. As a social and economic initiative, learning a foreign language or a second language improves cultural ties with each migrant and their country of birth, and interrelationships nationally. Is it time for the Italian community to take a leadership role? We are now more able to look after our own, especially when recognising the many recent migrations of people from places such as Burma who arrived penniless as we did 56 years ago. People have come from Burma, India and Malaysia. Ladies and gentlemen or members of Parliament, the test is a very Australian one: is it fair? Any form of support from the state government for a project such as a community language program is gratefully received and acknowledged as this is a student-based funding model throughout our various nationalities, which in its implementation is fair. The opposition’s attempt to shame the Liberal–National government on something like respect and the kind of stuff that it knows is a very emotive thing with Italians is rubbish and without foundation. I suspect that the Italian community would be embarrassed at Labor’s attempt to raise this matter in our state Parliament. We had a wonderful relationship and the Italians are respected throughout this state. I suspect that many members, if they were aware of these facts, would not support what the opposition is doing here. Mr P. Papalia interjected. Mr F.A. ALBAN: Yes, they were listening; that is great. I suspect that this exercise was more for the self-promotion of opposition members. The member for West Swan has not made a case for disrespect. The member for West Swan has also not shown that there has been an injustice. It is not because of disrespect that these adjustments are being made. It is an acknowledgment that there are many more nationalities that need our support. I would imagine that after some 30 years of the Italian community being the main recipient, without challenge, of funding for this program, some Italians may resent the change. Italians are important to this state, but that should not be to the detriment of other nationalities. Fifty years ago, as part of the post-war migration, it was acceptable to accept assistance, although I remember being offered very little in my early years. However, the Italian community today incorporates a broader spectrum of business leaders and successful operators. That includes in this chamber six members of Italian descent—or slightly more than 10 per cent, which is greater than our presence in this state. Our culture is now represented by doctors, teachers and lawyers, and certainly councillors and mayors, and members of Parliament. It is my view that these successful migrants could possibly again be embarrassed at being portrayed as needy. The Italians whom I know are proud, self-reliant and self-sufficient people. Many came to this country, as I said earlier, with nothing, and I am sure that, having built a life here, they would be ashamed to see the languages of other cultures not supported in the same manner as the Italian language has been supported. There is also an opportunity for the established Italian community, with underutilised self-built and self-funded facilities, which are a great contribution to this state, to play a lead role in the recent waves of migration. I want all members to remember what it was like 50 or 60 years ago when nobody helped them. The support for foreign language skills is extremely important. That includes the Italian language. It is a bond to our homeland and a valuable component of our international trade and reciprocal tourist trade. I do not question the member for West Swan’s sincerity in bringing forward this motion. I question her logic. MS S.F. McGURK (Fremantle) [4.53 pm]: I am very happy to speak this afternoon on this motion, which states — That this house condemns the Barnett government for its cuts to the Italian community language program and the lack of respect shown to the Italian community in Western Australia. Of course, as the member for Fremantle, I am very proud to represent a significant section of the Italian community that resides in Fremantle and the wider Fremantle area. Fremantle and Western Australia are all the better for the significant amount of Italian migration that we have had to our state. In Fremantle, as in other places, the Italian culture is celebrated in a number of ways, not the least of which is the contribution that the Italian community has made to food. The Italian culture has been celebrated as part of the multiculturalism of our state. However, through the actions of the Barnett government and this Minister for Multicultural Affairs, we now have a very divisive and negative approach to the funding of the community language program. Rather than see the program that has been run by the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre for nearly 37 years as a very successful model for a community language program, this Minister for Multicultural Affairs—it is incredible that he would hold this portfolio in light of his current actions—has been going out over the last 18 months to two years and dismantling this program. It is clear from the minister’s answers in question time today that he approached the Department of Education and said, “We have the cultural languages program. How is it being run? I have some communities that would like to get access to this money.” The department told him how the program was being run, and the minister said, “I think it would be more appropriate if the program came under one of my portfolios, so let us move it from the Department of Education to the Office of Multicultural Interests”—a portfolio for which the minister has responsibility. The minister then undertook a review, and as we have seen from the speech of the member for West Swan and the work of the shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, the report of that review

2682 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] was massaged in such a way as to give the outcome that the minister wanted, and that was to strip the Italian language program of funds and therefore close down a very successful program. The report of the review into the community language program makes the clear point of congratulating and acknowledging the quality of the community language program, and the Italian language program in particular. The report states at page 8 — The community language providers are clearly meeting their objectives in promoting cultural maintenance and contributing positively to a cohesive, multicultural Australian society. The report states also that even in its current form, the community language program represents good value for money invested by government. On the Italian program, the report states — The Italian program nevertheless provides a range of examples of good practice in terms of language provision, teacher preparation and professional development. Later in the report, again speaking specifically about the Italian program, it states — The program has many strong features and elements of good practice that should be emulated by other community language providers. It is clear from this report that the Italian language program, particularly the immersion program, has been very successful and could be a model for how we can encourage the expansion of the community language program— which is something that I think we would all like to see. However, the barrier to that is funding. The lack of funding provided to the community language program overall is identified by this report as one of the barriers to why the program cannot be expanded to other languages. I find it interesting that the per capita funding to the community language program in Western Australia is the lowest of all the states. Even Tasmania allocates a higher amount per capita to the community language program than is the case in Western Australia. The table in the report indicates that the per capita funding in New South Wales is $123.50, in South Australia is $140, in Queensland is higher, in Victoria is $119, and in Tasmania is $75. However, the per capita amount in Western Australia is only $65. Similarly, those states are able to demonstrate significant in-kind support to the community language program; for example, they are given subsidised or free rent. The report makes the point that in Western Australia, there is very limited in-kind support. The community language program has been starved of funds. We know that the Italian language program has been able to gain a significant contribution from the Italian government per annum—about $260 000 in today’s dollars. As has been pointed out, over the life of the program, about $10 million has been contributed by the Italian government towards this program. That money will now be lost because of the partisan and divisive way in which this government has decided to approach the community language program. We have a quality program but it is being punished. Why is it being punished? It is because this government has refused to look at providing extra money to extend the program and a quality program to other languages. The report of the Erebus International report titled “Review of the WA Community Languages Program” states on page 20 — … they promote stronger cultural integration and minimize alienation and marginalization of cultures … build mutual respect between communities, and encourage awareness of the benefits inherent in multiculturalism. Clear benefits are identified from the community language program. We know that Western Australia’s per capita funding contribution is incredibly low. The better solution offered by this government was indicated in the report. It gave a number of funding alternatives as outlined by the member for West Swan but what limits the two options that would have seen the Italian program continue are the parlous state of the state’s finances. Clearly, due to the state of our budget, which we know this government is responsible for, the report dismisses alternatives that would see a more appropriate level of per capita funding to the community language program. Other people want to speak on this issue, so I will finish by saying that I think it is very important that not only the Italian community, but also anyone who is interested in multiculturalism in this state fully understand what this government has done. It has not built on a successful language program by extending that model to ensure that a successful program is extended to other languages. It has criticised, insulted and belittled one successful program and said it would deliver that money to other languages. This point was well made in a letter to The West Australian from an associate professor of Italian at the University of Western Australia, John Kinder, on this issue and it states — ... language teachers all around the State-primary, secondary and tertiary-know that language learning is good for our children. Government can maintain a successful language program that builds a relationship with another country. It can build on this and encourage agreements with other countries to expand the horizons of the next generation and build a more secure financial future on a broader skills base.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2683

DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton — Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests) [5.02 pm]: I would like to comment on this program. I take my role as Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests very seriously; indeed, I am very passionate about it. In November 2004, the Gallop government put out a very nice document called the “WA Charter of Multiculturalism”. The last paragraph before the vision statement reads — Over the last decade and beyond much has been learnt about the nature and impact of institutional barriers. At their core lie the unthinking continuation of routine organisational practices that in their effect can be discriminatory. The essential lesson of institutional barriers is that we may unknowingly discriminate. In promoting equal participation, and enabling all Western Australians to enjoy all aspects of society, the Government of Western Australia will seek to identify and eliminate institutional barriers wherever they exist. The community language program is a very important program. Members opposite and on this side have highlighted the importance of studying a language other than English. We encourage it by funding our schools, TAFEs and universities. However, there is no doubt that some challenges exist. There is a great deal of confusion among members opposite about the community language program. As the Erebus report shows, the community language program continues to provide a vital ingredient in our multicultural society. It allows community groups to teach their language and culture to their children, friends and others. It provides a vehicle for people to learn languages other than their own or in addition to their own. It provides the glue that holds community groups together by meeting and enjoying culture. The funding program provides a funding base to hold the groups together. It is very important. As the member for Swan Hills indicated, we remain a very multicultural society and in the last 10 years we have enhanced it immensely. People have come from around the globe to become Western Australians, and that is nothing but positive. There has been a very large growth in the number of groups who want to participate in Western Australian society and want to hold community language programs. However, when I first became Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, a range of people said that they would like to start a school for teaching Swahili, Hindi, Karen language or whatever, but the community language program was closed—there were no new participants. I inquired about it and spoke to the Minister for Education. A sum of $1 million was put into that. There were no details, so I made some inquiries. Clearly that $1 million was not being transferred to community language after-school programs outside mainstream education for non-profit community groups. They simply were not getting it. As was pointed out, I asked the Minister for Education to transfer it to me because the major users were multicultural groups; it was about language maintenance and learning embedded in culture. The Department of Education has not done well by this program, I might add. It was going to cut it, which section I do not know, but we saved it from the cuts and transferred the fund. That was an achievement. I saw the documentation for the program. The member for West Swan said it had been reviewed. The community language program has not been reviewed. A study was done in 1999 called “A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Italian Programs in Western Australian Government Primary Schools”. It was a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the Italian program or providing Italian lessons embedded in public schools was better. It was not a review of the community language program at all. The Auditor General looked at the Italian insertion program, not the community language program as a whole. A review has not been done, so I undertook one. Erebus is probably the best known group on community language around Australia. I encourage everyone to read the report. The report is quite clear; it is about equity and access. In Western Australia one group, one language—Italian—gets 80 per cent of the available money. That is not contestable; that is, other groups, new groups, old groups, cannot contest it. We take a pot of money—$1 million—of which 80 per cent goes to one group, one language, and it has been doing so for decades. Is that fair? How can we justify this? We also found that about 70 per cent of the total pool is not going to community language programs—after-school, non-profit groups—outside the mainstream, but in fact through the insertion program, it is going to primarily Catholic schools and some public schools. Members opposite are right. The history is outlined here; there are similar Italian insertion programs in other states. Briefly, the history, as I understand it, is that back in the 1970s there was a program in most states to have insertion programs for Italian, primarily in Catholic schools. It was heavily funded by the Italian communities in those states and the Italian government. New South Wales funded that in part from a community language program; other states did not. The reason they did that was that, as members say, it was difficult. The Catholic school system in particular expressed its great difficulty in getting teachers of a language, including Italian, and organising the courses. The schools obviously went to the Italo–Australian Welfare and Cultural Centre and asked whether it could help. It is a good program; I have no problem with it. From all the evidence I have seen, and as the review highlights, Italo has done a good job of organising teachers and curriculum delivery to Catholic schools. Ms M.M. Quirk: You just used the words “siphoned off”, minister. Dr M.D. NAHAN: Just calm down. It is a very important issue.

2684 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Girrawheen! Dr M.D. NAHAN: The problem is that the community language program is expressly set up to fund non- profit — Mr P. Papalia interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, you have been called three times. When I came to the chair, the member for Fremantle was being heard in silence and I think you need to afford the same opportunity to the minister. Dr M.D. NAHAN: The community language program is set up to provide the training of languages through non- mainstream education. Indeed, Italo has to teach Italian after school, outside the mainstream system. Most of the funds, however, go through the insertion program. We fund our public schools, our Catholic schools and our independent schools quite generously to assist and train teachers in a whole range of courses, including a language other than English. I think there are about six or seven different languages in our public schools, and I think in Catholic schools also. None of them get an insertion program except those that teach Italian. I do not believe any others have asked for it. There is German, French, Indonesian, Japanese and Mandarin. The schools that teach those other languages do not get assistance through this program. There is no insertion program for Mandarin. Dr A.D. Buti: You said they didn’t ask for it. Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes, but the schools pay for it. This is the central point: Catholic schools and the public schools are already funded to provide language training other than English in their schools and if they wish to, they have the money for it. What has happened here is that there is a limited amount of money of $1 million a year that has not been used for the purposes for which it was intended—that is, for after-school community care; there is no other funding for it—but has been used for an insertion program to supplement the already generous funding provided to the public in Catholic schools. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, you are on three calls. Dr M.D. NAHAN: Is that fair? No. How could it be? The member accuses me of pitting culture against culture and language against language, but that is the opposite of what I am doing. I am trying to provide free and open access for everybody. Here is what the member is saying: because this program has been going for 30 years — Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, under standing order 48 you are on three — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I will take into account the fact that it is your motion, but I ask you please to allow the minister to speak. You are on three calls, so I am well within my rights to suspend you, but given the petition from your colleagues, I will take that into account. Dr M.D. NAHAN: The community language program has not been reviewed for a long time. The funding is for $1 million or thereabouts. There are two parts to this issue. About 20 per cent of the funding is used for the purposes the money was actually allocated for in the first place, which I repeat was for after-school, non- mainstream community groups providing language training, in the past to their own communities, but also more widely. Because there was a fixed amount of money and 80 per cent was used for insertion programs, no new programs have been funded for quite a few years. Because of the growth of multicultural society, a whole range of groups have come to me. In fact, Erebus found that 15 groups with 750 kids have asked it for funding and they have been knocked back because the bulk of the funds have been used to supplement funding in the formal education system. What have I done? I have made some changes, which I announced in Parliament. By the way, Erebus, the Office of Multicultural Interests and I had extensive discussions with all the groups involved over a long period of time, including Italo. The claim that I ignored Italo is simply false. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! Dr M.D. NAHAN: I had extensive discussions with Italo, including with Enzo Sirna. He obviously did not like the outcome of the review—fair enough—and Italo obviously did not. What have we done? In 2015 we stopped funding of about $100 000 for the insertion program in public schools. We have continued it for Catholic schools for a year. We also increased the total funding for the community language program by $250 000, or 25 per cent. The member for Fremantle said that the report showed that we underspent on the community language program, and that is true, but that of course excludes the insertion program. We were providing $65 per student for after-

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2685 school community language programs. That is easily the lowest of any state and that has not changed for a long time. By the way, there are literally dozens of schools out there that get no money because the money is being used for other purposes. We have increased funding per student from $65 to $100—a 40 per cent increase. From what we can find out, it is the first time in decades funding has been increased. Another thing that the report discussed is quality control in the community language program—improving quality—because it was starved of funds. In most of these community language schools the teachers are not paid. They have to pay rent and they put their own curriculum together. At one of the Vietnamese schools one of the parents wrote the whole curriculum. These schools are starved of funds so we have increased the funding and we will look to increase it next year. We aim to be the most generous state in terms of addressing the issues in community after-school care. We have also started a process of opening up discussion with potentially new schools. We are going out widely in the community and asking schools whether they want such a program. I meet such communities all the time, including the Swahili and the Hindi Samaj communities. A good Hindi Samaj program is being run already, but with no money, and the Swahili program is starting out. These are very important languages. The recent review by the federal government on the importance of languages highlighted these as priority languages. They have not got any funding from us so far. There is also the Karen language. We are expanding the funding and the number of schools, and we will concentrate — [Interruption from the gallery.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, in the gallery! Listen, but do not make noise. Dr M.D. NAHAN: We are expanding the funding and the number of schools, and we will concentrate solely on after-school care. There are a couple of other issues we must discuss. This has been a delicate discussion because the Italo program has been running for a long time and it has a large number of people, teachers and textbooks that support it, and from all the evidence I have seen it provides a very good service overwhelmingly to Catholic schools but also to the few public providers. They need to go to the Catholic school system and say that they have had links with it for decades. The government of Western Australia, as well the commonwealth government, funds the schools very generously, on condition that they teach a language other than English. Some schools fund the teaching of German, Mandarin and Indonesian out of their own budget and hire Italo to provide the quality service that it does. That is what they should do. At the same time, the program would have the money to provide more community after-school teaching, and bring the program back to the purpose for which it was designed— providing community language education after school and outside the mainstream. That has to be much more generous to the many schools that are expanding. This is fair and equitable. How could the opposition not argue that case? The member for West Swan is saying to me that, in confronting this issue, I somehow doctored this report. She should read it. It makes quite clear that there are serious inequities in the funding of community language programs. One group gets 80 per cent of the funding, and most of that is being used to supplement mainstream education. I will work with Italo to help it go to the Catholic schools. I will write to every Catholic school principal and say that the Western Australian government gives the Catholic education system per capita funding that includes the study of languages other than English. The schools have a good relationship with Italo, and if they are satisfied with it, they should hire it to teach Italian in the schools. That is what they should be doing this year. I will help them by writing to every school principal. In the meantime, we have increased the funding from $65 to $100 per child this year. We are communicating with multicultural organisations looking for other schools that want to provide funding. There was a weakness in quality assurance, and we are helping them to create curriculum. In other states, one of the key issues is that the state government has had discussions with the education department to help community language programs get access, at low cost, to schools. Right now, most of the community language programs are after school on Saturday or Sunday, or maybe on a Friday night, and many of them have to pay a great deal of money, which means they have to charge higher fees and pay their teachers less. One of the things we are doing is working with the Department of Education to provide better access to school facilities at a lower cost to expand these programs. We also work with the various community language programs to enable them, if they wish, to provide a continuum of education in their chosen language all the way from primary school to year 12. In the community language program, in addition to languages they can do at school, they can get a tertiary entrance grade in their chosen language. Many of these languages cannot be taught at schools—Swahili or Arabic, except in some of the Muslim schools. We are assisting in improving the quality control and length of training. This should have been done a long time ago. This is the first report in years, and it shows what some of the points are. Ms M.M. Quirk: You have been sitting on it for six months. Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes, and we are implementing it. One of the essences of multiculturalism in Western Australia is that we do not confine ourselves to our own group. We are open to each other and we intermingle; we do not set group against group. However, that is what

2686 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] this program is doing. When 80 per cent of the funding is allocated to one group, and access to the program is closed off, it is not equitable, and the opposition knows that. The opposition knows that it is not equitable when access to the program is closed off and 80 per cent of the money is going to one group, and is being used to supplement already heavily funded formal education in public and private schools. The opposition knows that we cannot sustain that. The program is well established. The opposition says that it is an excellent program, and I say that it is an excellent program, so Italo should go out to the Catholic schools and get funding for its program. The schools need to teach a language other than English, and they like Italo, which has worked with them for years, and the schools have the money to do it. This will allow the government to increase the funding for the purposes for which the program was designed and specified for—after-school community language training. This review has been long in coming. It needed to be done a long time ago, and a range of groups that have been cut off from the funding for the community language program or whose supply of funds has been curtailed, are looking forward to this, and the opposition is saying that they should not have this. This is the magic pudding stuff. If we were to fund all those groups to the same level at which we provide for the insertion program, we would have to spend $150 million a year. There are 200 different language groups out there. Mr P. Papalia: Let them ask for it. Dr M.D. NAHAN: They are asking for it. They have asked for it and they have been turned down. That is the point. Mr D.A. Templeman: You’re making this up as you go along. Dr M.D. NAHAN: No, I am not. The central point is that we already fund the Catholic schools and the public schools in this state more generously than is the case in any other state, and in that funding is an explicit requirement to offer a language other than English. They have the requirement, they have the funding and they are, in many cases, funding other languages—German, Japanese, Indonesian, and also Italian—outside the insertion program. Italo should go and offer its services to the schools that we have already funded, freeing up the money for the real need in community language programs. That is fair and equitable. Arguing otherwise might be politically attractive in a very narrow sense, but as Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, I am not going to ignore the many demands for community language programs in the multicultural community of Western Australia. I am not going to come to a program and ignore it, after it has not been reviewed for decades. I am not going to allow the funding for a program meant for certain purposes to be used for another purpose. I am going to work with the Italo groups to find other funding sources for their program. That is called leadership. This should have been done a long time ago, and I am disappointed that people opposite made a political game out of this. That is what is turning people against people—the actions of the opposition, not mine. Ms S.F. McGurk interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fremantle, I call you to order for the first time. I ask you to desist. Dr M.D. NAHAN: I might add that I received an email today from another Italian group that just highlights one of the problems. It had been teaching Italian after school, out on its own, with no assistance from this program, for years—since 1956. I do not know whether it is asking for money. It just highlighted that this program needs to be equitable to all languages and to all groups. This needs to be transparent—we are, on a per capita basis— and done fairly. That is the essence of multiculturalism in Western Australia. Allowing a program to remain unreviewed and money being used for purposes other than what it was designed for is not transparent. Before I finish, can I say that I am not and never have criticised Italo for its behaviour. Several members interjected. Dr M.D. NAHAN: No, I did not. I criticised the Department of Education Services for not running this program well. Mr B.S. Wyatt: No, you did not. Dr M.D. NAHAN: Yes, I did. The program was redirected by the Department of Education Services to solve a problem it had in the formal education system; that is, the Catholic school system — Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you for the third time. Please allow the minister to speak. He is not responding to your interjections. Let him speak. Dr M.D. NAHAN: Years ago, the Catholic school system went to the department and said, “We’re having a hard time procuring Italian teachers; can you help us?” Undoubtedly they went to Italo and asked, “Could you arrange it?” It did. Italo did it for years, and it has done it well. The problem was not the Italo service and not Italo responding to a request, but the funding came from the community language program. As a result, it took away the bulk of funds for real community language programs rather than insertion and mainstream programs. That is the problem. The Labor Party can go out and make all these claims about me and ask me to resign and

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2687 whatnot, but I know that the multicultural community in Western Australia will support what I have done as an action of leadership, fairness and commitment to multicultural Western Australia. I stand by that. [Interruption from the gallery.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you in the gallery. You can listen, but do not make any noise. Thank you. MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [5.32 pm]: I say buona sera to the people in the public gallery. I was absolutely amazed when the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests cited the “WA Charter of Multiculturalism” in this place in support of his actions. I was surprised because it showed that the minister had absolutely no understanding of the basis of substantive equality. Substantive equality means getting equal outcomes. The minister’s decisions mean there will not be equal outcomes, and I will explain why in a minute. With the veneer of equity, the minister has pitted communities against communities. He has created a “dog in the manger” attitude, which people do not generally subscribe to. He has fomented the argument that the Italians are siphoning off all the money. Communities are parroting back to me the minister’s dodgy lines. The minister’s denial that he has not created haves and have-nots is absolutely rubbish. I have been at events where people have thanked the minister for his funding commitment, even before this report was finished. I know the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests wants to support other groups, and I am supportive of that, but he should not play off one group against another. He does not say there is equity. I will explain why there is no equity. It has to do with the demographics of the Italian population. Apparently, Catholic schools have a bottomless pit. In the information I obtained under freedom of information, I was horrified at one of the documents that is briefing the people undertaking a focus group. It is highly sectarian and it is highly objectionable. Under the heading “History and background of CLP in WA”, it states — • Languages have traditionally been strong in Western Australian Catholic schools. Over the years Italian enrolments in Catholic schools have been consistently high compared to other languages. This is most likely attributable to the relatively high proportion of Italian Catholic families who migrated to Western Australia last century and sent their children to Catholic schools. That is unobjectionable. It continues — • The historical affiliations with Italy and Rome through migration and the Catholic Church have no doubt helped contribute to this strength. That is sectarian rubbish. Frankly, the stakeholder community consultation, from what I could see, was no more than push polling to other groups. It was planting in their minds the fact that the Italians were getting something that was not available to them. That is really important. The member for West Swan has very comprehensively outlined this corrupted process — Point of Order Dr M.D. NAHAN: The member referred to a document. I ask her to table it. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! I am listening to the minister. Dr M.D. NAHAN: She said it was to do with the Catholic education system. She is implying that it is part of the Erebus review. Mr M. McGOWAN: On the point of order, I would have thought the minister would have known that under the standing orders the only people who can be asked to table a document are ministers. That is clear under the standing orders. Unfortunately, this Treasurer does not know his standing orders. Mr J. NORBERGER: I ask the member for Cannington to withdraw his comments in relation to calling the Treasurer a goose. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, minister. The Leader of the Opposition is right; thank you very much for your assistance. There is no point of order either, member for Joondalup. Debate Resumed Ms M.M. QUIRK: I am very keen to bring this to a vote because I think that certain members, such as the member for Balcatta, need to show what side their bread is buttered on. I need to correct the minister when he talked about $65 going to Catholic schools—in fact it was $35. I refer members to an excellent report that was recently released. It illustrates why I say that the minister’s decision will ultimately lead to unequal outcomes. Instead of the equity that he is championing so much, it has

2688 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] the opposite outcome. It is the practical effect of his decision. The report I refer to is titled “Review of Australian Research on Older People from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds”. It was prepared by the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia and was released in March of this year. On page 31 is a list of the top 10 non–English speaking countries of birth for population aged 65-plus in Western Australia. Italians comprise 22.3 per cent of people aged over 65. The next nearest is people from the Netherlands at 8.8 per cent, Burma is 2.8 and so on. We have two situations. We have a situation in which elderly Western Australians who have Italian as their first language—we know that second languages tend to fall away as people get older—will be disadvantaged if we cannot get bilingual carers and if grandchildren cannot talk to nonna at the Villa Terenzio or wherever. Dr M.D. Nahan interjected. Ms M.M. QUIRK: But it applies more to Italians because 22.8 per cent of the culturally and linguistically diverse population aged over 65 are Italian. That is a very important outcome. If there are no bilingual carers, if their grandchildren cannot talk to them, they will be further socially excluded. This report further found that unlike non–culturally and linguistically diverse communities, CALD elderly people rely much more on family and informal care. Therefore, bilingual care and support is very important. That means that kids currently in schools need to be able to learn the language. It is disproportionately disadvantaged for Catholic schools. This is not an academic, theoretical or hypothetical situation. It is happening every day in aged-care homes, so much so that Alzheimer’s Australia WA Ltd, run by Rhonda Parker, is conducting a seminar in a couple of weeks’ time on the needs of CALD patients with dementia. That is funded by the commonwealth. These are live issues and it is absolutely puerile and facile to say that everyone will be treated equally in this way. I accept that the cake is a certain size, but the minister is not without the wit and expertise to be able to deal with that issue. This report is also completely lacking with its failure to acknowledge the funding that has been attracted from Italy. That is a really relevant issue. It was not mentioned in the Erebus report — Dr M.D. Nahan: Yes, it was. Ms M.M. QUIRK: If it was, it was only in passing. That multiplier effect will be lost. I want the matter to go to a vote. If members opposite are thinking about elderly Western Australians, they are not thinking about elderly Italians and they should be ashamed. MR I.M. BRITZA (Morley) [5.41 pm]: I feel that I have no alternative but to speak and at least share what I imagine are some practical points about this issue, not political points. I have heard political stuff here and I just keep thinking that we are talking about people. Sure, political points are easy to gain and easy to present but the problem with political points is they are gone one day and they are a whisper in the ear the next day. I said in my inaugural speech that what counts is that it is very easy to do justice but it is very difficult to do right. What we are primarily talking about here—get all the froth and bubble out of the world—is equity and access. I cannot claim that I have the most Italian representatives in my electorate, but I have a lot of ethnic people and communities in my electorate. I speak to and spend time with them all. Until this situation came up, all I knew was that from the Hindi Samaj community, the African community, the Karen people—I have been to Katanning where the Karen young people have been learning their language, and it is true that maybe they never thought to ask — The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members. There are just too many audible conversations, I am sorry. It is making it difficult for Hansard and for me to hear so if members could go outside. Member for Cockburn, that includes you. Mr I.M. BRITZA: I did not realise until today that the reason some of these people do not have funding is—as one member yelled out—that they have not asked. Then we found out that they did in fact ask, but there was no money to give them. I was not aware of that particular issue, but when it came up, especially this year when I realised that there are communities that I am heavily involved with who are teaching their young people their home-language as well as the English language, all I wanted was equality. I can bat for that but I cannot bat for over-representation. I cannot do that with any sense of a conscience. I will not go through the whole list, but I have a list of approximately 30 organisations. In the 2014 funding, only four programs out of the 30 got less than $25 000. Every other organisation got less than $10 000—some only got $1 500. I would imagine that those particular organisations would have been delighted to get $1 500! Of the four organisations that got less than $25 000, the highest amount was—I beg your pardon; the Chinese got $58 000. They are far and away out in front of the rest of them. The majority—about 90 per cent—got well below $10 000 in funding. The Italian community and organisations got $705 000 and $80 000. I do not care what anybody says; that is unequal. We are not talking about cutting it down to $80 000, or $200 000, or $500 000, which I reckon there would be an argument for. We are talking about access. We are talking about the people in my community who never knew that this funding was available to them, to be able to tell them that they can now get funding. I can now tell them that there is an avenue to get funding so that they can teach their children their language so that they can communicate in not only English, but also their home language.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2689

I have a strong Italian community in my electorate. They are wonderful and supportive, and I enjoy that. I enjoy the fact that their children speak Italian. When I go to a particular African group and I speak the language that I was brought up in, I see their eyes widen with delight because someone other than their own families can speak their language. I know, as stated here today, how wonderful it is to learn a second language because speaking that language to those people makes them feel like someone cares. In my opinion and from what I have observed, we are talking about wanting equality but we are not getting it because we are bringing down the bar only a little bit—just a little bit. We want the rest of the community to know that there is funding available for them. It is therefore very simple for me to make the decision to not support this motion because I do not believe it supports the people that I represent in my electorate. DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [5.47 pm]: I was very interested to hear the member for Morley saying that it would be very easy for him to not support this motion; I have never known him to not support the government on any motion or against a motion. It is great that the member for Morley has shown great moral fortitude. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Order, members for Geraldton and Swan Hills. Dr A.D. BUTI: The member for Swan Hills mentioned being born in Italy and how hard it was coming to Australia. I can relate to that regarding my father. In my inaugural speech, I talked about a man who was told off by his boss for speaking to an Australian girl, and a young boy who ran home from school for being teased about being Italian—a greasy ding and dago. That man I was talking about was my father and the young boy was me. I thought that we had moved on from there and that Italians would not now, at any stage, be spoken to in a derogatory manner. The minister has chosen his words very carefully tonight. If the audience had been here on other days, or even at question time today when he accused the member for West Swan of needing to get outside her tribe, how derogatory could that be? We Italians are now a tribe, are we? The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests, who believes in a harmonious society of all cultures agreeing to behave in a harmonious way, decides to call Italians “tribes”. What about the “siphon” comment when the minister accused certain people in the Italian community of siphoning funds, which led to an editorial in The West Australian. That was incredibly damaging — Several members interjected. Dr A.D. BUTI: Madam Acting Speaker, I have not asked them for interjections. The ACTING SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr P. Papalia: We have all been called three times. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, are you criticising the Chair? Because you are on three calls. Dr A.D. BUTI: I thought that we had moved on and would not see Italians being spoken about in a negative manner in the newspaper. Mr A. Krsticevic: They were not! Dr A.D. BUTI: If they were not spoken about negatively in the newspaper, why did The West Australian apologise? Why did it publish an apology if Italians were not spoken about in a derogatory manner? Several members interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Minister! Dr A.D. BUTI: The West Australian decided to write the editorial based on positions and language that had been utilised by the minister. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests should be ashamed of himself in that he developed an environment in which the number one newspaper in Western Australia wrote an editorial that was incredibly damaging to the Italian community of Western Australia, which led to an apology. To get an apology from a newspaper is a massive effort. Of course it tells us that it wrote about Italians in a derogatory manner. Another thing is that the member for Swan Hills said that now Italians would want to help themselves. Italians have been helping themselves since they came to Australia. The Italian government has been funding this program to a significant extent. Can the minister name all the other overseas governments that are funding other language programs in Western Australia? There may be some, but I bet there are not many. As the member for Girrawheen mentioned to the minister, the statistics tell him that the Italian population of Western Australia is incredibly large—much larger than many of the other ethnic and community groups in Western Australia. He is therefore not comparing apples with apples. The minister cannot say that all groups should get the same amount of money, because there is no historical or statistical basis for that. Also, the Italian program, as the minister himself said, has been incredibly successful. What did the minister do? He destroyed that successful language program. He should not do that. If he wants to improve the other language programs, he should improve them, but not by destroying the one that has been successful.

2690 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

I am sure that members of the National Party would argue, as most people would, that the royalties for regions program has been incredibly successful. Does that provide an argument for putting money into another area? It does not mean that we destroy something that has been successful; we find a way to fund the other programs. We do not destroy something that historically has been incredibly important to the Italian community and to the wider community, because not only Italians, but also Western Australians are taking up the Italian language. The minister stands condemned for telling the member for West Swan today to get out of and move away from her tribe. What a disgraceful comment to be made by any member of this house, and particularly by the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests. As to his other comments about siphoning money, which led to the negative editorial in The West Australian—what a disgrace! The minister stands condemned. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests should resign over his behaviour in this area, and the other members who wish to support him should also look at their so-called moral strength. The member for Balcatta, who has a large Italian population in his electorate, has remained silent on this matter. We look forward to him voting with us on the motion. Before I conclude, it is interesting to note the culture and language diversity in the mix of people in the electorate of Riverton, which the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests represents. It includes 24.8 per cent English, 20.5 per cent Australian, 12.5 per cent Chinese, 5.7 per cent Scottish, and 5.4 per cent Irish, with only 67 people verified as having an Italian background and another 400-odd with an Italian name. I wonder whether this decision would have been made had his electorate included 12 per cent Italians. MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [5.53 pm] — in reply: I want to close this debate by reflecting on some of the comments made tonight. The Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests had the opportunity to apologise to the Italian community for comments such as “siphoning off” and to condemn The West Australian for the comment that Italians have been getting away with it for years. He refused to do so. He did not acknowledge the key issue that we raised in this debate—that is, why completely destroy a program that is working? He refused to acknowledge that. He refused to acknowledge how a program can be continued once the key fabric of it is destroyed. He refused to acknowledge the contribution of the Italian government over years. He refused to acknowledge that part of the report. He did not come into Parliament prepared to tell us exactly what happened in the process of that report. As the member for Girrawheen stated, a lot of push polling was done on stakeholder surveys. A draft report made no recommendation and then the minister’s agency made sure that the report stated what the minister wanted. The minister confirmed that for three years now he has been wanting to tear away that money. A premeditated attack was made on this program. Nothing the minister said today justified tearing down this program. Some members who stood and spoke, particularly the member for Morley, do not understand that the government is ripping away all the money from the program. The minister did not rebut or go through the arguments I put that the minister’s agency made sure that the report recommended what the minister wanted. It was a sham! In relation to the consultation, the minister again basically said that the Italian community had been well consulted. That is not true. We saw a draft ministerial statement that had been prepared for him, saying that he intended to cut the program before he sat down and met with the Italian community. That is the time frame. The minister did not consult properly. Now he stands and says that he wants to work with the Italian community. He has got to be kidding! He has put out tweets saying how good the editorial in The West Australian is. That is what he is doing. He is basically out there, and I have seen him with other community groups, saying, “We’re taking the money from the Italians so we can fund you.” If that is not pitting culture against culture, what is? The minister did not rebut anything we said. The minister talked about per capita funding for new programs at $100 a head, when he was funding the Italian language program at $35 a head. Talk about value-for-money arguments! The minister was funding a program at $35 a head and getting a great outcome and will now fund a program at $100 a head. The minister did not adequately address the issue. He had the chance to apologise. He did not apologise. This is a bad decision for Western Australia; it is bad for our Italian community, it is bad for our teaching community, and it is bad for the children of Western Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Minister, the mover of the motion has spoken. The debate is now closed. [Interruption from the gallery.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members of the gallery, please do not hang over the rails and no photographing, thank you. Division Question put and a division taken, the Deputy Speaker casting her vote with the noes, with the following result —

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2691

Ayes (17)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr B.S. Wyatt Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms R. Saffioti Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr P.C. Tinley Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.B. Watson

Noes (31)

Mr P. Abetz Ms E. Evangel Mr R.S. Love Mr D.C. Nalder Mr F.A. Alban Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr W.R. Marmion Mr J. Norberger Mr C.J. Barnett Mr B.J. Grylls Mr J.E. McGrath Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.C. Blayney Dr K.D. Hames Ms L. Mettam Mr A.J. Simpson Mr I.M. Britza Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr P.T. Miles Mr M.H. Taylor Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.H.D. Day Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr N.W. Morton Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller) Ms W.M. Duncan Mr S.K. L’Estrange Dr M.D. Nahan

Pairs

Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr J.M. Francis Mr R.H. Cook Mr G.M. Castrilli Ms L.L. Baker Ms M.J. Davies Ms J. Farrer Mr A.P. Jacob

Question thus negatived. Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.00 pm TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Second Reading Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting. MR D.J. KELLY (Bassendean) [7.00 pm]: I rise to continue my contribution to the debate on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which will significantly increase the taxation burden on Western Australian businesses. I said earlier that this bill can best be summarised by using the words “broken promises”. This bill represents yet another consequence of the broken promises that this government has made since the last election. At the last election, the Premier said to the people that his program was fully funded and fully costed. We all know that that policy from the Liberal Party was nothing more than a lie. It has been clear ever since that far from being fully funded and fully costed, the program that the Liberal and National Parties took to the last election was certainly not fully funded and it certainly was not fully costed. Almost nothing that they promised has been delivered. As a result, as they have scrambled to find the money to do some of the things that they said they wanted to do, they have resorted to measures such as this bill, which will substantially increase the payroll tax that will be paid by Western Australian companies. I understand that the bill will affect some 17 000 employers in Western Australia. For example, an employer with a payroll of $1 million will pay an extra $1 313 in payroll tax a year, an employer with a payroll of $3 million will pay an extra $14 448, an employer with a payroll of $5 million will pay an extra $27 582, and an employer with a payroll of $7.5 million will pay an extra $44 000. If the bill is passed, an extra $397 million will be collected over three years. That is a substantial tax increase in anyone’s language. We would expect that the Liberal Party, having made a commitment not to increase taxes—in fact, it was the opposite; it said that it would reduce payroll tax—would be quite apologetic about what it has introduced. Far from it. I will quote the extract from the Liberal Party’s small business policy that it took to the last election. I am not sure whether the minister has read this, but for his benefit, the Liberal Party’s small business policy states — If re-elected, a Liberal Government will focus on practical measures that will make life easier from small business. These measures will include: • Further tax payroll relief to business worth $121million. Instead of honouring that promise, the government has brought into this place a bill that will increase payroll tax by $397 million over the next three years. I would have thought that the very least the minister could have done when he came into Parliament was apologise to the business community in Western Australia for introducing

2692 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] this bill, but I have looked at his second reading speech and there is no hint of an apology; there is no whisper of an apology. All that the second reading speech contains is a really weak, mealy-mouthed string of circumstances that the minister says justify this significant tax hike. I do not think anyone believes the minister and I do not think anyone in the government believes that this tax increase is justified—other than because of this government’s own incompetence. The minister does not have to take my word for it. What does the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia’s pre-budget submission for the 2015–16 budget say about payroll tax? It states — The ad hoc changes to the payroll tax scale and deferral of the exemptions threshold, announced as part of the 2014–15 budget mid-year review, is a missed opportunity to support industry by increasing the payroll tax exemption threshold from $800,000 to $850,000 as previously announced. This will particularly hurt junior companies in the exploration sector, which have budgeted and relied upon the increasing threshold in their cost forecasts at a time when the government is making other policy decisions in support of the struggling sector. More concerning was the removal of the exemption threshold entirely for payrolls between the current exemption threshold of $800,000 up to $7.5 million, despite the state government advising major policy changes would not be announced in the mid-year review process. This change is a significant departure from allowing an equal exemption for all businesses, particularly when many businesses have forecast and budgeted for an increase, rather than decrease of the exemption threshold. Removal of the exemption entirely for large businesses is punitive and without a sound policy basis for the decision. It says further on — The reduction of this exemption is an unfair attack on medium and large businesses at a time when holistic tax reforms have been recommended. Minister, that is the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia’s 2015–16 pre-budget submission. That is its assessment of what the minister has done to payroll tax since the last election. It is not pretty, is it? Mr W.R. Marmion: It’s not quite correct, though. Mr D.J. KELLY: The CME called it “an unfair attack on medium and large businesses at a time when holistic tax reforms have been recommended”. The mining sector is certainly not giving the minister much credit for what he is doing today. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia is certainly not either. What did it say in December after the announcement was made in the midyear review on 22 December 2014? It said the following in its media release — “The $1.3 billion operating deficit announced today shows the significant financial challenges facing the state,” … “But increasing the payroll tax burden is not the right move to address the issues with the budget.” “The delay in the election committment to raise payroll tax threshold and increase the tax burden on larger businesses comes at a time when confidence is already low and the economy is in transition.” Mr W.R. Marmion: Will you take an interjection? Mr D.J. KELLY: No, the minister said nothing in his second reading speech. Do not waste my time. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): I want to confirm you are not going to take interjections. Mr D.J. KELLY: No; I am not taking them. The ACTING SPEAKER: Okay, thank you. Mr D.J. KELLY: The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia noticed the pre-election commitment and the fact that the government is not abiding by it. Its media statement goes on to state — Mr Nicolaou said further falls in business confidence would be likely to delay hiring and investment plans. This decision will impact upon jobs. I see that the Treasurer is in the chamber. The Treasurer has been a good Keynesian economist talking about how many jobs will be created by spending on various government projects. Dr M.D. Nahan: Eighty-two thousand. The ACTING SPEAKER: He is not taking interjections, minister. Mr D.J. KELLY: The CCI is saying that the decisions that the government is implementing today by putting this bill through to increase payroll tax will have a direct impact by delaying hiring and delaying investment plans. In that press release, Mr Nicolaou goes on to say — “Many small businesses were already planning around the increase in the threshold for 2015–16—but this deferral will discourage them from putting on new staff for a further 12 months,” he said.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2693

The Treasurer says he is creating jobs by building things such as Perth Stadium and the like, but this bill will cut jobs and reduce employment in Western Australia by increasing payroll tax. That is not me saying it; it is the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia. Mr Nicolaou goes on to say — “For larger business, the gradual removal of the exemption threshold will add up to an additional $44,000 to their business costs at a time when they can least afford it.” “Our data shows that confidence is already low and its being driven down by high costs—this tax hike adds further to costs and may lead to businesses further trimming their investment pipelines and scaling back their hiring intentions.” It is pretty clear that it is not just members on this side of the house who think that this bill is a bad move; it is people who I would normally expect to support this government. The CCI went further on 30 March this year when it released the results of a survey it conducted of its members on the impact that an increase in payroll tax would have on them. That survey found that the state government’s decision to increase the payroll tax burden has further added to costs and caused businesses to scale back hiring. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveyed 606 of its members about the impact of the state government decision to increase the payroll tax burden by $418 million over the next three years. That survey found that 84 per cent of businesses expected to be less profitable, 82 per cent were less likely to increase staff wages and 81 per cent expected to hire fewer new employees. That is a pretty damning indictment of what the government is doing by increasing payroll tax. The survey found that 81 per cent of businesses expected to hire fewer new employees. The CCI media statement continues — CCIWA Chief Executive Officer Deidre Willmott said increasing the payroll tax burden was not the right move to address the State’s budget challenges. The Treasurer has disappeared. The statement continues — “Our survey found the payroll tax increases would hurt businesses, workers and the unemployed at a time when confidence was already low and the Government should be doing everything in its power to encourage investment and jobs growth,” Ms Willmott said. I share those criticisms from the business community of what the government is doing. The government has fundamentally trashed the budget and, in order to try to regain some revenue to deal with the budget position it is in, has increased payroll tax. Although taxation is necessary, most people agree that payroll tax has a negative impact on important areas such as employment. At a time when in Western Australia unemployment is becoming more and more of an issue—it is now more than five per cent—the government is taking measures that will directly impact negatively on employment. At times the Premier can almost laugh off the fact that he has blown state debt off the scale, but when the government makes these decisions as a way of dealing with issues such as debt by trying to claw in every bit of income it can, it has a directly negative impact on things like employment and people suffer as a result. What the government is doing flies in the face of the sorts of comments we often hear from its members. Members opposite claim that the Liberal Party is a party of low taxation. Since I have come to this place, all I have seen is the government increase taxes, not decrease them. When I first came into this place I listened intently to some of the inaugural speeches from members opposite. The member for Alfred Cove, until recently I suppose, was one of the rising stars of the Liberal Party. He spoke very enthusiastically in his inaugural speech about the Liberal Party being a party of lower taxes. He said — Our vision for this state must not come at the expense of our fundamental philosophies of lower tax, of leaving businesses with more of their own money and of not burdening future generations with debt to fund expedient policies today. That is from the member for Alfred Cove. He said three things there that are relevant to this bill, but I will concentrate on two of them. He talked about “our”—meaning the Liberal Party’s—“fundamental philosophies of lower tax”. Of course, here we are today with yet another increase in taxation and a broken promise to boot. He talked about not burdening future generations to fund expedient policies today. This tax increase is all about trying to recover the budgetary position that the government has created by the mountain of debt it has loaded onto future generations of Western Australians to fund pet projects such as Elizabeth Quay. I know the member for Alfred Cove rose rapidly and is now a member of cabinet. Given what he said in his inaugural speech about the fundamental principle of lower taxation and not burdening future generations with debt to fund expedient policies today, I would love to have been the old fly on the wall during those cabinet discussions when this bill came across the cabinet table. The member for Churchlands was similarly gung-ho on this sort of stuff in his inaugural speech. He said — … we should set the macro-economic conditions for small business success, while simultaneously limiting the amount of government interference evidenced by antiquated labour market laws, bureaucratic red tape and discouraging taxation measures.

2694 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

[Member’s time extended.] Mr D.J. KELLY: I assume that when the member for Churchlands said “we should set macroeconomic conditions for small business success”, he was not talking about increasing taxation. I assume he would have been talking about reducing it. However, here he is; he is going to line up like the rest of the members on the other side and vote for this increase in payroll tax. He specifically talked about limiting the amount of government interference and discouraging taxation measures. He is not discouraging taxation measures. He has been in Parliament for only one term, and how many times has the member for Churchlands put his hand up for a tax increase? Mr M. McGowan: About three times. Mr D.J. KELLY: About three times, I am told. Mr M. McGowan: Land tax, stamp duty and this one. Mr D.J. KELLY: Stamp duty, land tax and now payroll tax. It is not a bad record for both the member for Churchlands and the member for Alfred Cove, after a pretty short time in Parliament. The member for Alfred Cove has just entered the chamber. I was just quoting from his inaugural speech, in which he talked about his fundamental philosophies of lower taxation. I was wondering how his support for this bill sits with what he said in his inaugural speech. Maybe during the course of this debate he will pop up and take the opportunity to explain how those two things are reconciled. I am not opposed to taxation. Taxation is a necessary part of a free community. Paying taxes is the way we all contribute to the services every community needs to operate. There are plenty of countries around the world whose biggest problem is the lack of a fair tax system. A lot of countries have no tax system, so their governments have no ability to provide the services that their citizens need. I am not against taxes. It is an adults’ way of sharing. We often like to teach our children that sharing what we have is one of the good things that we should do. I often think of paying my taxes as an adult’s way of sharing. However, two things about this bill mean that I will be voting against it. The first is that it is the result of a broken promise. This government specifically said that it would not go down this path, and it is doing so. Secondly, this is a $400 million revenue measure being implemented, not because it is needed to provide good services or to deliver good policy outcomes, but because members opposite have basically trashed the state budget. The government is pushing this legislation because the state debt is now completely out of control. When this government took office in 2008, accumulated state debt was around $3 billion. Now it is well over $20 billion and is heading towards $30 billion, and no-one on the other side can tell us when state debt will peak or what the plan is to have that mountain of debt reduced. The shadow Treasurer, in question time either today or yesterday, asked the Treasurer when state debt would peak, and the Treasurer refused to answer. The Premier, famously, not that long ago, said that state debt should remain around $20 billion. There would be dancing in the street if that were the case, but we are now well in excess of $20 billion, and we are heading towards $30 billion, and no- one in government can tell is where it is going to end. Because of that, the government is cutting revenue out of a range of areas in the budget. What the government has done to schools is an absolute disgrace. The number of education assistants who have lost their jobs in the last 12 months is in the hundreds. The principals that I speak to would love the sort of money that will be raised by the tax measure in this bill put back into schools, but we know that will not happen. I have spoken to principals in my electorate who have lost education assistants. They were there to assist students with special needs, students for whom English is a second language or students with physical disabilities. These are the students who are losing out because of budget cuts that this government has made because it has blown the budget. What has been done to the high schools in my electorate is appalling. Kiara College and Hampton Senior High School have lost over $250 000 from their budgets. Even the way the government implemented those cuts to the high schools has been inequitable. I have raised this in the house before when the Premier was here, and he just rolls his eyes. The government has made cuts to high schools, but as a protective measure it said no school can lose more than $250 000 a year. A school like Kiara College, which has a budget of about $5 million, loses $250 000 in a year, but a school like Shenton College, which has a budget of $15 million, also has its cut capped at $250 000. With a budget of $15 million, Shenton College’s ability to absorb a cut of $250 000 is greater than a school starting off with a pool of $5 million. These are the sorts of concrete effects that flow from the government trashing the budget. At the same time the government has made appalling decisions that have wasted money. Had it not made them, maybe this bill would not be before the house. If the government had not wasted money on Fiona Stanley Hospital through the Serco contract, maybe we would not be here. When the government announced that it would go down the path of privatising services at Fiona Stanley Hospital, a chorus of people told it that it would end up costing more money and it would be a world of pain for that new hospital. But no, the government knew better—the private operator will do better. It will save us money, not lose us money. What has transpired? The Serco contract has been one disaster after another.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2695

I will finish with a couple of other examples. I visited an elderly gentleman in my electorate the other week. For the past two years, he has been a live-in carer for a man aged in his 70s. The two of them live in a one-bedroom Homeswest unit. The gentleman I visited had moved in two years before. He is aged 69. The other gentleman was basically housebound. The chap who was recognised as the tenant by Homeswest went downhill and had to be transferred to an aged-care facility. The gentleman who had been living there two years—a 69-year-old pensioner with no other income—applied to succeed the tenancy, and he was knocked back. The reason given by Homeswest for knocking him back was that he had lived there for only two years and that there was a general shortage of Homeswest properties—no other reason. If this state has got to the point at which the Department of Housing has to evict a 69-year-old pensioner who for the last two years has been living in a Homeswest property as a live-in carer for someone who is housebound, we are in a pretty sad state. I am sorry the Minister for Finance is no longer Minister for Housing, or he might have had to answer to this directly, but what an appalling state we are in when Homeswest is unable to house a 69-year-old pensioner with no assets and no other income. Instead, he has been evicted. Mr W.R. Marmion: Have you spoken to the minister? Mr D.J. KELLY: I have not spoken to the minister. I have been all the way up the chain within the Department of Housing twice, and the answer is no. I think he has until next Thursday to be out. If the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 were to deliver more money to people like that gentleman, I would have more sympathy for this government, but it will not; it will simply fund the budget deficit that this government has created, and for those reasons I oppose the bill. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [7.32 pm]: The opposition will oppose this tax increase on employers—and therefore employment—across Western Australia. This bill follows a pattern of tax increases over the last few years, and this increase will be a difficult one for many employers to deal with. I expect that the government will get its bill through, but we want it to understand what it is doing because I suspect most members of the government do not understand what they are doing. This is a $400 million tax increase on employers with payrolls of $800 000 and above. The bigger the employer, the higher the tax bill will be, but if an employer has a payroll of $800 000, they will pay more payroll tax under this legislation. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN: As I understand it, the way it will work is that 17 000 employers will have their tax-free threshold removed from their payroll tax bills every year. If they have a payroll of $1 million, it will mean payments of an extra $1 313 and so on; it goes up as a progressive increase in tax on employers across Western Australia—17 000 employers who will pay this additional bill. I do not think that employers with payrolls in the proximity of $1 million are big employers; I do not think they have the capacity to meet additional tax bills. It is disappointing for what I would call small to medium enterprises to have to pick up this additional cost. It will mean that their capacity to employ additional staff will be diminished. That is the reality. This comes on top of the increase in last year’s budget of stamp duty for first home buyers, and the increase in land tax. Over the last six years under this government, there has been a range of tax and cost increases on households and businesses across Western Australia. The level of tax increases has been extraordinary; considering everything that government members have said about their support for a low-tax environment in Western Australia, it is extraordinary that this is occurring today. I also make the point that we have a significant unemployment problem in Western Australia, and it is getting worse. In 2008 Western Australia had an unemployment rate of 2.7 per cent; that figure is now heading towards six per cent. In September 2008 there were 32 000 Western Australians out of work; that figure is now in excess of 80 000. I expect, when the figures come out and the trend goes on, that figure will increase significantly. The reason that will increase significantly is that, as we know, the heat and construction phase have come out of the mining sector. A few years ago the number of people employed in the mining sector was in excess of 122 000 directly; these days it is around the 90 000 mark. That is more than 32 000 people who are no longer employed in the mining sector who were employed in the mining sector three years ago. That will mean flow-on effects across the Western Australian economy. This payroll tax increase is a tax on employers, and it is a tax based upon their payroll—the number of people they employ. So, if we have an unemployment problem, an increase on employers based upon their payroll will undoubtedly adversely impact employment in Western Australia. That will be the consequence of the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 and that is why we are opposing it. As we said, the government made all the promises before the state election, and I remember them well. Before the state election, the government released the documents that stated it would put on downward pressure and cut payroll tax. Indeed, I think the shadow Treasurer outlined the debate he was in with the then Treasurer, the departed Troy Buswell, in which Troy Buswell outlined this alleged tax cut on payroll tax, and Ben Wyatt, the member for Victoria Park, said, “I’m not going to debt fund a payroll tax cut.” Of course, the employers in the

2696 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] room were unhappy with that response because I do not think they quite understood what the government was proposing. Before the election the government was proposing to borrow money to provide a tax cut, which was no doubt a superficially attractive plan to some people, but the reality was that Ben Wyatt, the member for Victoria Park, was honest in saying that borrowing money to fund a tax cut was not a very wise thing to do. Today, the government is reneging on that commitment and putting up taxes on employers in Western Australia by $400 million. As I said, it follows on from a range of tax increases that this government has put in place, and it will adversely impact employment. Today we had the Treasurer introduce an $8 billion loan bill. The government should be ashamed of itself. An $8 billion loan bill. During the course of the government I was a part of, we had one loan bill of $400 million. Over the course of this government, there have been three loan bills, each in the proximity of many billions of dollars. The last loan bill a couple of years ago was meant to cover the period until 30 June 2016. Unfortunately, it will not cover that period. I saw the Premier out there with the press today saying, as though it was the ordinary business of government, that borrowing $8 billion to cover the ordinary operations of government was just an ordinary thing for the Western Australian government to do. It is not. It is extraordinary, it is outrageous and it is a testament to woeful governance of this state over the past six years that we are in the position that we are going to burden my children with this level of debt and a deficit beyond anything anyone could ever have imagined. Today this bill is part of trying to deal with that financial mismanagement that has occurred over the past few years. The deficit in the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement in December was predicted to be, as I recall, $1.3 billion or thereabouts; I expect the deficit will be north of $2 billion. Just so members understand what that means: that is $2 billion to cover, over one year, the recurrent expenditure above the income. That does not even cover the debt that is being loaded on—that debt for capital is the government’s recurrent expenditure above income. What a woeful financial performance, a shocking financial performance— the worse financial performance that this state has ever, ever seen. That means that our debt, predicted to be $37 million in 2017, will be way above that. This loan bill is testament to that. So an inherited debt of $3 billion will, by 2017, be about $34 billion or $35 billion. What sort of government is this? What sort of government does that? It means that my children will be burdened with this sort of debt and deficit for as far as the eye can see in the future. That is what this bill means. It is a woeful, shocking performance by the Liberal and National parties in Western Australia. Is it any wonder that Richard Court, 15 years ago, when I was here, tried to stop this Premier getting into that position, because he knew what he would do. There it is today. Richard Court was proven right when he tried to parachute Julie Bishop into that position. Unfortunately the people of Western Australia will be the ones who will have to pay for this appalling legacy of debt and deficits as far as the eye can see. In the last couple of weeks we have seen the bizarre and outrageous performance of the Premier. He has attacked other states, raised the deaths of 173 people in Victoria and our contribution of $1 million to the Victorian bushfire appeal, and has outraged Liberal and Labor Premiers across the country with his performance. Why did he do that? It was about making excuses for the budget that is to come in a fortnight’s time. It was about laying the ground and the excuses for the shocking deficit and debt, and, I might add, the broken promises, in the budget to come. That is what that performance was about. All the stuff about the Victorian bushfires and the Queensland floods was more than a score of our fellow citizens who had died. Raising those two issues was all about laying the ground and providing the excuse for the budget that is about to arrive. There is no doubt that Western Australia gets a rotten deal out of the GST. The Labor Party warned the government about that in 1999. The Leader of the House was here, and so was I. The Liberal Party in Western Australia signed the state up to that deal. The Liberal Party was told to put in a floor. With hindsight, John Howard would have signed anything to get that thing through. A floor could have been put in; the opposition told the then government to put in a floor. We knew that the revenues from royalties were going to increase and that because of the formula, our GST share would go down. But the then Liberal–National government ignored all that advice. Even the Treasury gave that advice and the then government ignored that advice. The other states would have agreed to it because they all wanted to get it over and done with. If Western Australia had stood up then, that is what would have happened. The Labor Party told the government in this house. Eric Ripper was sitting right here and he told the government in the debate and the government ignored it. The GST deal is now there, but the revenues under the GST deal are not a surprise to the government because it has been budgeting on the basis of exactly where they are, each and every year. The government has known where they are going to go. It is in the forward estimates where they are going to go and where they have now gone. A few years ago under the much-maligned Julia Gillard, the then Prime Minister of Australia, the GST share for Western Australia was 55c in the dollar. Next year it will be 30c in the dollar. I admit that it is a woeful deal, but this is no surprise to the government. To say that this deal is the reason for this government’s financial performance is disingenuous and untrue because the government knew where it was going. Over each of the budgets of the last few years, this government ran down the surpluses. Eric Ripper, Geoff Gallop and Alan Carpenter were able to produce a $1.52 billion surplus. I admit that we had the benefits

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2697 of a property boom—that was a good thing for state revenue. But when they were producing those surpluses we did not have the benefit of a massive increase in royalties. Labor never had that revenue, which exceeds the property boom stamp duty revenue—sorry, I have lost my train of thought. Several members interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN: I am pleased to see that members were listening. Mr W.R. Marmion: The member had a lot of property revenue — Mr M. McGOWAN: We had a lot of property revenue but we did not have the revenue from royalties. This government has since received this big boost in iron ore revenue that has driven down this state’s GST share, but the government knew that this would happen. As has been often commented, this government deliberately drove down its GST share. By increasing the royalties on fines—something the government elected to do—it deliberately drove down the GST share because it knew that that would be a consequence. It is part of the GST deal that this government signed us up to. When we hear the excuses that this is not the government’s fault, it is not true because—I will return to my original train of thought—this government drove down the surpluses. Eric Ripper, Geoff Gallop and Alan Carpenter were criticised by everyone for running big surpluses because nobody understood what they did. The surpluses allowed government to run a big capital expenditure account without racking up debt. This government has continued the big capital spend but driven down the surpluses and therefore racked up the debt. When the surpluses are driven down and the revenues do not keep up, we create a huge problem. With the collapse in the iron ore price, the big royalty revenue is not there as it was at one stage, which means that we now have no buffer to cope with it. That is basic financial management. I will talk about the collapse in the iron ore price. This government put in its budget a price of $122.30 per tonne as the free on board price for iron ore. That was massively optimistic. I admit that one or two people might have said that that was where it would be. Most people said it would be around $100 per tonne, but it collapsed by nearly half to $52 per tonne today. [Member’s time extended.] Mr M. McGOWAN: I admit that it is way below what most commentators indicated it might be at $50 or $52 per tonne. But putting into the budget a hugely optimistic price for iron ore was irresponsible. What did it do? It did the classic thing that this government does: it got this government through that budget with a surplus. However, the chickens have now come home to roost because the price has gone down and this government has no capacity to cope with it. At the end of the day, everything is now reaching a head. All of the debt, the spending, the running down of surpluses and the GST deal have meant that we have reached the day of reckoning. This coming budget and the next few weeks will see this government get its day of reckoning. People are losing their jobs, the iron ore price has collapsed and the budget is going into a massive deficit beyond anything this state has ever seen. We are about to hit debt levels beyond anything anyone has ever seen before in Western Australia. The day of reckoning has now arrived. The government’s response is this shrill, bizarre language, attacking the other states that we need help from to try to reach a better solution to the GST. The government is attacking the big iron ore miners of BHP and Rio. It is threatening their exports. I went to the opening of a port outside Karratha built by Rio that the Premier opened. He welcomed the expansion; he stood on the stage and welcomed it. Now that Rio is expanding production, the Premier is threatening the ports. “Miners warned” is the headline on the front page of The West Australian. The government is threatening to close the ports, threatening the iron ore that the government owns, according to the Premier. The miners need to take advice from him or they will not be allowed to export it. That is the sort of stuff that we hear happening in other countries. I have never heard about it happening here before. I am disappointed that the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, BHP and Rio do not say something about it. I think the language of BHP and Rio has been excessive. This talk of “flooding the market” has been unhelpful. I think it has driven down iron ore price sentiment over time and therefore driven down the price of iron ore. The bigger risk to the state is threatening to close ports or stop shipments. That is a major risk to the state. I am very disappointed in those companies or their representative organisations for not coming out and having the courage to say something about it. The point behind all of that is that this is another part of the excuse for the budget we are about to receive. Threatening the miners, talking about iron ore, talking about the activities of the big miners using the capital that they invested in that the Premier owned to drive up the production that he welcomed until recently is all part of the excuse for the budget that is about to hit. The government has created the situation that we are now in and is laying the ground for the excuses so it is not its fault. According to the government, it is the fault of the big miners and it is the fault of the GST deal, even though the government knew, particularly with the GST, what was going to happen. That is what all this has been about. It has been a very dangerous and unfortunate period. All that carry-on about the eastern states was unedifying.

2698 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

I am a proud Western Australian. I have lived here for more than half my life. I chose to be a Western Australian. What I do not do and what I will never do is demean and diminish our fellow Australians. We served with them in wartime, we live on the same continent, we marry and we move—we do all these things together. We are all Australians. I do not believe in demeaning other states and other citizens. All the Premier’s performance did was unify Liberal and Labor against us and make it difficult for this state to get a better deal. If we want a better deal, we have to come up with a cogent, sensible argument. I remember the argument that the Premier was putting a few years ago—that is, the big four states are in virtual agreement. Do members remember the virtual agreement of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and WA that we would share our GST equally per capita and South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT could get their share? I saw the New South Wales Treasurer, Gladys Berejiklian, on the TV rejecting outright the idea that New South Wales would participate in an arrangement to help Western Australia. Gladys Berejiklian, the right-wing Treasurer of New South Wales, rejected it outright. All that talk and all that bluster over the last six years has resulted in nothing for Western Australia—no outcome, no result. All it has done is unify the other states against us. We need to put a sensible proposition on the GST. We keep talking on this side of the house about including the gambling revenues—which the other states receive to a greater degree than us—as part of the discussion and consideration on the GST, just like iron ore revenues. But how are we going to get a fair hearing on that when all we do is abuse the other states? I remember the Premier last year, or perhaps the year before, saying that Tasmania was such a basket case that he was offering to go down there and run the place for them. Do members remember that? He was going to go down there and run it for them for a while, just to put them on track! Tasmania has a AA-plus credit rating. This state has a double AA-plus credit rating, but on a negative watch. I expect that Western Australia’s credit rating is lower than Tasmania’s. That is despite the fact that per head of population, we receive significantly more in revenue than Tasmania does. That is a fact. The Premier can offer to go to Tasmania and run the place for them, but I suspect that they will not want him in light of what has happened in this state. To come back to this bill, this is an indictment on the government’s running of this state. The government is basically seeking to increase the tax on small and medium enterprises—just so that the government knows what it is doing here. Today, the government is increasing the state’s debt burden by potentially another $8 billion, bearing in mind that it inherited a total net debt burden of $3.6 billion when it arrived in office. I want the government to know what it is doing. I suspect that in the party room, no member opposite even knows what they are doing half the time. But that is what is happening. This is another example of the government’s mismanagement of this state. I would have thought better of this Treasurer. I had no problems with the Treasurer before he was elected to this place. I even spoke to him once or twice when I was passing the liquor reforms through this place. He was totally supportive of the liquor reforms that we put in place back in 2006. I would have expected better of the Treasurer. But all the Treasurer does is run the rhetoric about how the state is dealing with difficult circumstances and how the government is trying to keep taxes low and all those sorts of things. But the reality is that debt, deficit, taxes, and fees and charges, are going up incredibly significantly under the watch of this Treasurer. I sat next to Paul Keating the other day at Peter Walsh’s funeral. There was a Treasurer! He told the story of having to deal with, in an equitable way, commonwealth outlays, during the period from when he became Treasurer in 1983, and over the next few years, in conjunction with Peter Walsh. There was a Treasurer, as I have said. He had imagination, capacity and honesty about the situation that his state was facing. But all we find with this government is a sloping of the shoulders. Nothing is the government’s fault. Despite the fact that this government has presided over the best revenues and the biggest budget in history, nothing is its responsibility. It is all somebody else’s fault. I will tell members who will be paying for that. Future generations over the course of the next two decades will be paying for the legacy of this government. MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [7.59 pm]: I also rise to speak on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and previous speakers for their speeches. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition and others outlined the legacy that this government will leave of debt, deficit and tax increases and the impact that that will have on future generations. In my speech, I will talk about some of the issues that are occurring. This bill will change the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 2002. I understand that payroll tax was introduced by the commonwealth government on 2 May 1941, and it became the responsibility of the states in 1971. At that time, the rate was 2.5 per cent, with an exemption threshold of $20 800. Now the rate is 5.5 per cent, with an exemption threshold of $800 000. This bill seeks to introduce a gradual diminishing tax-free threshold from 1 July 2015. The benefit of the tax-free threshold will gradually be phased out for employers or groups in Western Australia with annual taxable wages of between $800 000 and $7.5 million. Sometimes people get a bit confused about taxation stuff and they have a look at it. I know that my tax-free threshold is $18 200 and that if I earn under $18 200, I will not have to pay tax. If I earn above that amount, I will fall into the next tax threshold, and if I earn above the amount for that threshold, I will fall into the next tax threshold. Is the minister effectively doing the equivalent of removing that tax-free threshold for employers with

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2699 payrolls greater than $7.5 million? Does that mean that the minister is effectively removing that threshold for employers with around 100 or more employees? Average earnings are about $75 000 a year. There are four areas. I assume that an organisation with a payroll of $1 million will have 13 employees. A small business with 13 employees will pay an extra $1 313 in tax. An organisation with about 40 employees and a payroll of $3 million will pay an extra $14 448 in tax. An employer with around 66 employees and a payroll of $5 million will pay an extra $27 582 in tax. An employer with a payroll of $7.5 million will pay an extra $44 000 in tax. I am interested to know what their total tax will be. Can the minister tell me the total amount of payroll tax that would have been paid by an employer with a payroll of $1 million before 1 July 2015 if this bill had not been brought in and what the amount will be after the bill is passed? I could probably try to do those very difficult — Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: That is good. Mr W.R. Marmion: And I can calculate them, too. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: And the minister can calculate them. I thought I did pretty well with the average weekly earnings, but I did get a pointer from the minister’s staff. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: All I got told was that 100 employees and a payroll of $7.5 million was the basis of the $75 000 average weekly earnings. Mr W.R. Marmion: It’s pretty close. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Effectively, small to medium-sized businesses will be taxed and the increase in the tax- free threshold is not being introduced; it will be deferred for a year. But we have heard the government say before in this place that it will defer something for a year and then it has deferred it indefinitely. Mr W.R. Marmion: No; it’s coming in. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I understand that the minister is saying that deferral will come in, but is there any legislative imperative for it to come in? How do we know it will definitely come in? Mr W.R. Marmion: It’s in; we’re not taking it out. If we weren’t bringing it in, we would have to put in some legislation. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: A couple of years ago we deferred something and then because we could no longer do it, we had to come in here and take it out of the legislation. On the basis of past performance, anything could happen between now and the next budget, could it not? Mr W.R. Marmion: It always could with anything. Life changes in a day. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Life can change in a day but public policy should not change on a whim and currently we seem to be changing public policy on a whim because we tell the electorate one thing when we are going to elections. The government announces that it will change the tax-free threshold. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: No; the minister said he would implement it at this time. Mr W.R. Marmion: We said we would come in at $800 000 on — Ms J.M. FREEMAN: On 1 July 2015. Mr W.R. Marmion: And up to $850 000 in 2016. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: No; my understanding is that the minister announced that he would do that and give further payroll tax relief. There are better people who can argue the fully costed issues. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I will not get into an argument with the minister when there are many people in this house better equipped to pull him up on the falsehoods and whims these figures are based on. Let me get on with my comments on the matters that I am better able to contribute to this debate. We know the changes will have no effect on charitable organisations that are entitled to exemptions because they do not pay payroll tax, but, as we now know, it will impact on the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia because it no longer has such an exemption. I am pretty sure that the CCI’s employee numbers will come in at 100 or above. What really concerns me is the impact it will have on small and medium-sized employers. I think it will have an impact on employment. The CCI certainly says it will and it has put on record that, from surveys it has done, not increasing the threshold will have an impact on employment.

2700 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

I have previously raised my concerns about unemployment rates in the Mirrabooka electorate. Although I welcome the decrease in Western Australia’s unemployment rate from 5.7 per cent in February to 5.5 per cent in March, I fear it is not enjoyed in the Mirrabooka electorate. I have looked at the December quarter 2014 Australian small area labour market. In this house previously I advised that the unemployment rate in Mirrabooka–Balga in the September quarter was 16.5 per cent. For the December 2014 quarter it had increased to 18.9 per cent. The unemployment rate in the seat of Nedlands, which has a total labour force of 25 795 and unemployment of 726, is 2.81 per cent. I looked at suburb areas such as Nedlands, Dalkeith, Crawley, Subiaco and Shenton Park to make up the electorate. For the seat of Mirrabooka—I have to include in the suburbs of the electorate Westminster–Nollamara, even though Nollamara is not a suburb in the electorate—with a labour force of 26 907 and unemployment of 3 735, compared with the minister’s 726, Mirrabooka electorate-wide unemployment is 13.88 per cent. Since I have been seeing these figures, I have often thought that my office must be somewhat different from other offices in the information that comes through, but then I thought that we must be the same. I looked at these figures and realised why we are so busy in the office dealing with all the consequences around unemployment. Just to be clear, for the December 2014 small area labour markets, 112 people were unemployed in the suburb of Cottesloe versus 832 in Girrawheen. That is a one-on-one suburb comparison. In Wembley Downs, Churchlands and Woodlands, 131 people were unemployed in December 2014 compared with 1 868 in Balga–Mirrabooka. The minister is not feeling the consequences of unemployment in his electorate. I will look at the unemployment figures in the electorate of Belmont for the member for Belmont. Belmont, Ascot and Redcliffe are running pretty well actually, with 530 unemployed out of a total workforce of 9 136. The Belmont electorate’s unemployment figure is running at 5.8 per cent, which is the state average. Mrs G.J. Godfrey: We have more people coming from outside to work in Belmont because we have the airport, the Kewdale freight marshalling yard and a strong commercial base. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Belmont obviously has strong employment figures, so the member is very fortunate when those numbers are compared with the figures in the Mirrabooka electorate. I would love a strong local employment base in my area, because local employment keeps unemployment figures down. Mrs G.J. Godfrey interjected. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I was trying to help the member out by giving her those figures. It seems incongruous that the government would introduce a disincentive to employ people by abolishing the payroll tax threshold for businesses with 100 or more employees or, in fact, with 13 or more employees. Medium-size businesses offer greater scope for employing people from a variety of backgrounds and young people. I am really concerned about the impact of these figures on young people and what that means for youth unemployment in the area and its social consequences. The changes contained in this bill basically favour businesses that automate production. It is little wonder that mining companies are moving to driverless trains when the government takes more and more through payroll tax and other taxes. I want to ask the minister about a letter to the editor on payroll tax in The Australian Financial Review on 16 April 2015. I want to know whether what it contains is true. The letter reads — State payroll tax is tax deductible at the federal company tax level, so a small increase in the company tax could replace the lost net revenue and be subsequently passed back to the states. Is that true? I want to know whether increasing this tax means that the federal tax is lessened, or what impact does it have on federal tax? The minister can respond later, rather than by interjection. Mr W.R. Marmion: I would be surprised, but my advisers will answer. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I was interested to read in this letter to the editor that payroll tax could be offset, so that, effectively, when payroll tax is increased, it comes out by a reduction in other taxes. Given the route that the government has taken, it is probably not too worried about that in any event. The letter to the editor from Mr Pitt states — Businesses like Harris Farm (the green grocery retailer) — I am not sure we have it in Western Australia — turn over millions of dollars a year of fruit and vegies and pay payroll tax for hundreds of staff who sell the food. But a Ferrari dealership can sell millions of dollars worth of Ferraris in a year while paying little or no payroll tax, simply because their enterprise needs few staff. I don’t know why we would apply payroll tax to the labours of Aussie farmers but not expensive imported sports cars. Myer and David Jones pay payroll tax on their sales staff wages but Harvey Norman pays little or nothing. Foot Locker pays payroll tax for staff who sell shoes, but Athlete’s Foot does not. The reason is simply because Harvey Norman and Athlete’s Foot operate as multiple franchises under one brand.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2701

Strangely, thousands of franchisees (who in my view, via their franchise agreements are very much “controlled entities”) each benefit from the payroll tax threshold, whereas David Jones, Myer, and Foot Locker get just one threshold each. I raise this because there is a debate about the usefulness of payroll tax. I am never going to argue to get rid of payroll tax, because that would probably cripple this state’s income and the government needs to deliver services, but there is a cost–benefit factor in these things. It is about how many people a company will employ and whether this acts as a disincentive. As I pointed out to the minister, I clearly have an incentive not to have a disincentive to employment in the area that I represent. I have a massive need for unemployment not to impact any more than it already has in the areas that I represent. I have to relate to members this funny little response. I have read articles about payroll tax and various things and often there are comments underneath the articles. I loved this comment, which I thought I would share for the purpose of mirth and humour. David, who commented on the article, said — Punishing people for being productive is the most absurd, extreme-left-wing idea. My family runs a small business and we are dismayed and a little gobsmacked at the payroll taxes and taxation generally. The whole notion of redistribution of wealth when it comes to payroll tax and income tax needs a total re-think, with the old communist influences removed and binned for good. Given that I am often considered to be the socialist in the room, I think it is hilarious that I am saying that these taxes should not be increased, because this gentleman thinks it is an absurd, extreme left-wing idea and government members, who are always considered not to be the socialists in the room, are increasing it. The world is a funny place at times, is it not? What the government is doing here is a concern to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and others. In response to the government’s decision to defer an increase in the threshold, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveyed 600 of its members. Approximately eight in 10 said they were now less likely to take on new employees. A similar number was also disinclined to raise wages. I will just repeat a figure for the record, minister. In Mirrabooka in the December quarter, there was 18.9 per cent unemployment. In the minister’s seat of Nedlands, there are 726 people unemployed and in the seat I represent, there are 3 735. [Member’s time extended.] Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I have not got to what I want to talk about. Mr W.R. Marmion: I know the bit you want to talk about. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: The minister has that ready to go! It seems to me that if the government is to go down this path, which we oppose because we believe it is against what the government promised and contrary to good economic management and all those arguments, we need look at other initiatives that can assist to mitigate what we and the CCI—not our mates but the government’s mates; they have certainly never been my mates—think will happen. I put it to the minister that New South Wales has taken the initiative of offering $1 000 to businesses that employ a worker from a mass redundancy job, and in Tasmania there is a rebate given to employers that create new positions for long-term unemployed people. There is also currently a rebate for businesses that employ Indigenous employees, and I understand that the wages of all apprentices and trainees employed under an approved training contract are also exempt. I get that there is some capacity for mitigation, but I am extraordinarily concerned and I think anything that can assist employment in those high-unemployment areas should be done. The figures in the member for Armadale’s electorate are a bit like the figures I read from mine, but nothing quite like it. The federal government’s recent tax discussion paper revealed that Australia relies more on payroll tax than is the case with any Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country, which is interesting. I also want to ask something. I note that in the Overview of State Taxes and Royalties there was a rebate for businesses in previous budgets, and the previous Treasurer announced the government would give a payroll tax rebate for small businesses. I will find my notes and read the figure because otherwise I will rely on memory and that is never a good thing. In 2010–11, employers with payrolls of up to $1.6 million in 2009–10 were paid a one-off rebate to fully offset their 2009 tax liability. The maximum amount of the rebate on the payroll of $1.6 million was $46 750. On the bit of paper, which I have lost now, it was established that there are all these different companies paying different rates for the different levels. The minister’s second reading speech on this bill states — Of those employers, around 5 000 will have payrolls in excess of $7.5 million and will therefore be required to pay up to an additional $44 000 a year in payroll tax.

2702 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Can the minister tell me that those people who are now going to pay additional tax did not actually pay less tax previously? I would not have thought so, because they were at $1.6 million, but of those that have a payroll of $1 million, $3 million or $5 million—is the minister following me? Mr W.R. Marmion: It is half and half. It was a rebate that was put in place some Treasurers ago, in terms of a payroll tax rebate. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Yes. Was it for one year? Mr W.R. Marmion: Yes, it was an amount of money they worked out. I was not involved with that, but I think it cut out at about—your figure might be right—$1.6 million in payroll. So it probably tapered out for anyone with whatever the payroll threshold was then to $1.6 million. However, with this one we’re bringing in now, we are recouping the threshold amount of zero to $800 000 by scaling back from zero to $800 000, and getting it up to $44 000—you mentioned a triangle—at $7.5 million. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: So they did not get the payroll exemption, but the businesses with a $1 million payroll did. So the 13 employees who were going to pay an extra $1 313 each year — Mr W.R. Marmion: They would have got a rebate. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: They would have got a rebate, so are they now paying for their rebate? It is like Peter paying Paul, is it not? They gained some money and now the government has said that it is just going to take it back now—you beauty! Not that I would ever use the term, but there is a very racial term that is used for that sort of process. What is a non-racial way of saying that the government gave something then subsequently took back what it gave? It just seems a bit odd. The other thing that confused me that I have discovered was the “Overview of State Taxes and Royalties” document, which the minister’s advisers quite nicely made me aware of. It is good bedtime reading. The minister has said that Queensland and the Northern Territory do a similar thing. They have phased out employers’ groups of annual taxable wages between that amount. When I look at the average payroll tax rates on page 6 of this document, it does not look like it is phased out, but I might be reading that completely wrongly. I suppose that is the same as what the minister is thinking of doing, which is the $1 million threshold, so he is just getting rid of that first threshold. It just did not look like it was being phased out. What I also want to talk to the minister about is that the bill amends the Duties Act 2008 to extend a duty concession to the custodian for a trustee of a superannuation fund on the same terms that apply to the direct purchase of a property by the trustee of a superannuation fund. That is because people are now allowed to put purchases of property into their self-managed superannuation funds, whereas they were unable to do that before, but it has to be held by a trustee because of the changes in the federal laws to do with superannuation. This gives me the opportunity to raise the inequity that has resulted in Western Australia with respect to superannuation splitting when de facto relationships cease. Reforms were introduced in 2009 to the commonwealth Family Law Act 1975, which mean that most same-sex or opposite-sex de facto couples in all states and territories except Western Australia who end their relationships can now have their property and financial matters dealt with substantially in the same way as married people. South Australia did this a little later, with the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2009, which came into operation on 1 July 2010. Subsequently, South Australia amended its Stamp Duties Act to expand section 71CA, which is similar to a section that we have, so that the same exemptions from duty are available to orders, agreements and consequential instruments made under the Family Law Act. I know that the minister’s argument will be that this is covered by the Attorney General and that it is not an issue the Minister for Finance has to concern himself with, but the reason that I say that the minister would have to concern himself with it is that I understand South Australia made a similar change that we would have to make to the Duties Act if we were to refer our powers under the de facto relationships act to the commonwealth. It would give the same treatment in terms of duties. At page 11 of the overview of state taxes it is stated that there is nominal duty for transfers involving superannuation funds. Can the minister clarify this: If the WA Parliament introduced a referral of powers bill for de facto relationships to be dealt with under the federal act, and therefore afforded superannuation splitting for people in de facto relationships, would the Duties Act require amendment? Currently, would it enable the nominal duty of $20? That is really what my question is. I will take this opportunity to talk about how unfair it is, when a de facto relationship ends, that there is no capacity for superannuation splitting. Prior to 1 March 2009, people in de facto relationships were able to access the federal family law system for their post-separation parenting arrangements. However, their property and financial settlements were covered by separate legislation that applied in their state or territory. Property and financial settlements generally accommodate the arrangements for dividing the former couple’s assets and liabilities and whether maintenance is payable; and, if so, how much. When a marriage or de facto relationship breaks down, property can now be divided between the parties. Superannuation is treated as property under the

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2703

Family Law Act 1975 but it differs from other types of property because it is held in a trust. Superannuation- splitting laws allow superannuation to be divided when a relationship breaks down. De facto couples in Western Australia are not subject to superannuation-splitting laws. Although separating de facto couples in most states and territories can access the Family Law Courts for property and spousal maintenance matters, they cannot when dealing with this split. De facto couples in Western Australia are not entitled to split or flag superannuation; however, the court may or can take into account superannuation contributions and maintenance requirements when determining how property is divided between the parties. The court considers the superannuation entitlements of both parties when determining distribution, but as it cannot be split, it cannot be distributed until retirement if superannuation is the only asset. If there is no property and no other assets, the distribution of superannuation is effectively lost or pending until a person reaches the age of 65. I am not even sure how that operates. Superannuation’s basic design reproduces the inequities of the distribution of earned income pretty much for women across the board. Compulsory contributions as a set percentage of pay means that “savings” will reflect the frequency of contributions and their amounts. This already adds to a really inequitable system in terms of superannuation. Women have significantly less money saved for retirement. Half of women aged 45 to 59 have $8 000 or less in superannuation funds compared with $31 000 for men. In 2011–12, the average super account balances were $82 615 for men and $44 866 for women. The current average superannuation payout for women is one-third the payout for men—$37 000 compared with $110 000. In Australia, women working full time earn 16 per cent less than men, and in Western Australia the gender pay gap is 25.7 per cent compared with 18.8 per cent nationally. It is important that women are able to access superannuation when their de facto relationships break up, and that men who are in same-sex relationships have the capacity to split superannuation for retirement. The government is not doing that. It is not including all the assets of a spousal relationship. It is disadvantaging women massively in terms of how they live in the future and their retirement income. MS S.F. McGURK (Fremantle) [8.30 pm]: I want to make a brief contribution to debate on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Taxation legislation, particularly payroll tax, is not an area in which I have any particular expertise, but I do understand the difference between what the government says and what it actually does. The government says that it is going to support small business and that it will put in place a number of tax cuts to support employers in our state and stimulate employment, but in fact what it does is the exact opposite. As other members on this side have already done, I refer to a Liberal Party media statement of August 2013 in which the government claimed that from 2014–15 the payroll tax exemption threshold would be raised to $800 000, and that from 2016–17, the threshold would be lifted further to $850 000, which would provide tax relief to more than 16 000 employers. That is a significant number—16 000 employers. What does the government say now? A government media statement from last December announced a 12-month deferral of the schedule increase for the payroll tax exemption threshold from 1 July 2016 to 1 July 2017. The Barnett government has broken its promise to reduce the payroll tax on small business by deferring the lifting of the exemption threshold from $800 000 to $850 000. Mr W.R. Marmion: Just on that, we actually aren’t doing that. That was a statement made in the midyear review and we’re not doing that now. We’ve actually locked in the $850 000. All other speakers mentioned that, too, and I have interjected occasionally, but it is a key point. Ms S.F. McGURK: Perhaps the minister can explain, when he makes his reply to the second reading debate, exactly how much the government is cutting and when it will take effect. It is my understanding that the decision to defer the lifting of the exemption will cost WA businesses about $481 million over three years. The frustration is that the government says one thing and does another. It made a promise during the last election campaign that there would be support for small business and employers throughout this state, and it is now blaming the significant decline in iron ore, which a number of people predicted. No-one expected that iron ore would remain at its previous levels. The state government also sheets blame to the GST distribution, and that also is absolutely no surprise to anyone; it was certainly known by the government in advance. The government blames those two factors in particular, but the WA public is well aware that the government has blown opportunities for growth during its two terms in office. The government will leave a significant legacy of debt for future generations to pay, but it is also mismanaging day-to-day operations so that debt is increasing at an exponential rate, and that is what really concerns people. We have had a series of broken promises from the government, and this is just one of them. It was a promise to deliver payroll tax relief to small business, but what in practice is this government doing to support small business which is, as we know, a significant employer throughout our state? Certainly in my electorate it is doing very little. In 2012, the state government, under the previous Minister for Finance, announced the relocation of a

2704 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] major government department to Fremantle—the Department of Housing. People in Fremantle welcomed that announcement because it was expected to deliver, to my understanding, about 1 000 more people working in Fremantle’s CBD. Not only would we have those people working in Fremantle, but also a development would go ahead to house that government department. Currently, there is not enough commercial space available in Fremantle for that department. That was a very welcome announcement that was made in 2012; it is now coming up to May 2015, and still the government says it is working on the figures for that relocation. It has created a huge amount of uncertainty in Fremantle, and for those people who I think are probably being realistic, a huge amount of disappointment and frustration. By the government not having the guts or courage to announce that it has backed out of that commitment to relocate the Department of Housing to Fremantle, it is in fact leaving a section of the business community in Fremantle, the council and the businesses that depend on that sort of development around Fremantle in a state of limbo, hoping something might happen. They have had a series of meetings with the departments involved and they were assured that the business case is still being looked at, and that an announcement will be made soon; in fact, people were given cause to feel optimistic about the possibilities of that relocation. I hope they are right, but I have not seen one single sign that the government will deliver on its promise. I think of the case of the owners of a small cafe opposite Fremantle library called the Green Bean Cafe. I got to know those owners well because when I first got elected, my electorate office was just alongside that cafe. I obviously got to know those people and bought from them quite often. They are running a nice little cafe there, but they are at their wit’s end. For those members who do not know the area of Fremantle, the area that could be developed for the relocation of Housing is called Kings Square, where there is the old Myer building and the Queensgate Building. It is not certain that would be the location of the relocated department, but it is a possible and likely location. The Green Bean Cafe is right in the middle of the Queensgate Building, so those owners are just at their wit’s end about what is going to happen. Their business now is worth very little because the whole area is run-down and there has been no investment in the building because the developers, Sirona Capital Management, and the City of Fremantle are waiting for an anchor tenant to do the development of that building and the whole area. This couple have had health scares on the part of the husband who runs that business, and they are really as a result of stress and because they are wondering what they can do. The level of uncertainty is affecting them and driving them to despair. I have had a series of meetings and discussions with them about what they can do, which, frankly, is very little; I think they should feel frustrated at the state government. But that is just one example. Many, many businesses in Fremantle have been left in a state of uncertainty while a decision is made on that development. Particularly in the retail sector people want some action or some assistance from the state government; not only are they getting no assistance, but also they are being held back by the possibility that this relocation might occur but no actual decision has been made by the government. What has the government done? It managed to take away 1 900 jobs when it opened Fiona Stanley Hospital and changed the reconfiguration of Fremantle Hospital. So far, Fremantle Hospital looks appalling. The front of it, around the South Terrace side, is covered in plastic and I hope that is a result of the internal reconfiguration and construction work that is taking place and that it is not a look that will stay in Fremantle Hospital for some time. The community understood that there would be changes at Fremantle Hospital when Fiona Stanley Hospital came on line. What the community did not expect, and they are frustrated about, is that the state government would use the relocation of services from Fremantle Hospital to Fiona Stanley as an opportunity to cut staff and to cut people with particular expertise from units as a result of that transfer. Probably the starkest example of that concerns families of patients in the inflammatory bowel diseases unit. Many of those people have spoken to me a number of times and I have met a number of people who are involved in a support group, including a few of my constituents who were patients of that unit, and they have said that they have been frustrated that particular expertise was being lost in the transfer of those services to Fiona Stanley. I am talking about not only staff members who had years of experience, but also a 24-hour hotline available to patients to ring any time if they needed advice or assistance. That 24-hour service was axed in the relocation of that service to Fiona Stanley. Those patients and their families are very frustrated because it was such a great service. The alternative for those people is going to their GP or, if it is after hours, going to an emergency department to seek assistance when often the matters could be resolved over the phone. I listened carefully this week when the Minister for Health gave the assurance that those services would be reinstated at Fremantle—services that those people had enjoyed at the inflammatory bowel diseases unit at Fremantle Hospital. I will be contacting my constituents and other people who were patients of that unit to point out that commitment of the Minister for Health and to ensure that that commitment is held to account. I know Phil Olsen, whose son, a grown man, died as a result of the administration of incorrect medication, and it is heartbreaking and completely unacceptable to know that that may have occurred because the particular staff who had expertise in that area were not transferred to Fiona Stanley. If that is the case, it is terrible that it took that tragedy for the government to act in the case of that unit when people were going to the government and pointing out the expertise that had been lost in that instance. I was speaking before about not only the lack of support that the state government has given to small business in my electorate but also the examples whereby the government is holding those businesses back from any progress

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2705 by not coming clean on its announcement in relation to the Department of Housing and stripping 1 900 jobs—a huge number of jobs—from central Fremantle in the case of the hospital relocation. I could speak about any number of broken promises to provide important comparisons between what the government said it was going to do and what it is actually doing in relation to payroll tax. Another example of that is when the Premier said in 2012 that he wanted to make it clear that the government would not introduce toll roads in Western Australia. I think the public needs to know that. What the Premier said was very clear and no ambiguity could be drawn from that statement. What is the state government saying now? A heavy-vehicle user charge or a per-kilometre charge on heavy vehicles only for the freight route between Muchea and Fremantle is planned to start once the road is finished. Mr C.J. Barnett: The industry supports it. Ms S.F. McGURK: I do not think the industry supports it, Premier, and those who do support it are asking why trucks should be the only ones paying a toll on that — Mr C.J. Barnett: Because we are building it only for trucks. Ms S.F. McGURK: Will cars not be using the Perth Freight Link? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is being built for heavy traffic of trucks and to separate trucks from domestic — Ms S.F. McGURK: Will cars be using that — Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Order, members! One speaker at a time, thank you. The member for Fremantle has the floor. Ms S.F. McGURK: Let us be clear on this, Premier: will the Perth Freight Link be used by both cars and trucks? Mr C.J. Barnett: The toll will be paid for trucks, not for cars. Ms S.F. McGURK: How long will it be before people in the industry say, “We are using this new Perth Freight Link because we wanted to avoid congestion. Now cars are using this road. Why are we the only ones paying the toll?” Mr C.J. Barnett: Because they are the ones who will save money on it. Ms S.F. McGURK: They will not save money if it is congested once they reach Stirling Bridge and Tydeman Road. Mr W.J. Johnston: It is still shorter if they use Leach Highway. Ms S.F. McGURK: That is right. Like everyone else, truck drivers know that the shortest route between two points is a straight line. Mr C.J. Barnett: They will be told to use the new freight link. Mr W.J. Johnston: They have been told not to use Leach Highway and they still are because the Premier will not enforce the rules. Ms S.F. McGURK: That is right. [Member’s time extended.] Ms S.F. McGURK: The Premier was very clear that there would not be a toll. Now he is saying that there will be a toll for trucks. The government is being disingenuous in its discussions with the trucking industry, which represents those who will be subject to the tolls, because there is no detail. There is absolutely no detail about what those tolls will look like, how they will apply and how much those truck drivers, or eventually all drivers, will be subject to under that toll-road system. It is interesting to note that the toll will apply for the whole length of the road, when parts of that route have previously been paid for by federal governments, particularly federal Labor governments, and there was no talk then of any sort of toll applying to that road. I doubt very much whether this link will save those truck drivers any time, particularly when they get to Stirling Bridge and Tydeman Road. That area is congested now. The Perth Freight Link will run from Kwinana Freeway and take Roe 8 over the wetlands. It will then head down Stock Road, High Street and Stirling Highway and arrive at Stirling Bridge and Tydeman Road, in the Premier’s electorate. I do not know what the Premier is proposing will happen to those trucks then, because the Perth Freight Link, as we currently understand it, is an absolute design failure. It was interesting to note that only a couple of weeks ago, locals around Clontarf Hill in my electorate wondered why some drilling and testing were taking place. Sure enough, the Minister for Transport’s office confirmed that Main Roads Western Australia is doing some testing because it might be better to build a tunnel along the old eastern bypass rather than the Perth Freight Link. At this advanced stage of the project, the government is hedging its bets. It has been thinking that if it has a causeway over the Beeliar wetlands, it might

2706 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] look at building a tunnel down Stock Road instead of the Perth Freight Link. It is just extraordinary. We do not know where the tunnel would come out. Presumably, the government is looking at a tunnel option because of the design fault across Stirling Bridge and into North Fremantle. The whole exercise is an absolute debacle of a project. The government does not know whether it is building a road or a tunnel; it actually needs a port. The port of Fremantle will be at capacity on its current growth rates, which at the moment are about 10 per cent per annum. That is the last figure that I saw from the Fremantle Port Authority. The port of Fremantle will be at capacity in about five years when the Perth Freight Link will be built. Even using the government’s own figures, the port will be at capacity by 2025. Within five to 10 years, the port of Fremantle will be at capacity and this road will be redundant. This government will not have put one penny towards planning or developing the much-needed second port, probably in the Kwinana outer harbour. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you advocating moving Fremantle port out of Fremantle? Ms S.F. McGURK: I am not advocating moving the port of Fremantle; I am echoing what industry has been saying for the past 10-plus years; that is, that the second port needs to be developed. Industry says—the last significant study into this was in 2002—that Fremantle would increase in capacity while that second port was being developed and built, say, in the Kwinana outer harbour, but it would then have around 600 000 containers. It now holds about 700 000 containers. The Perth Freight Link proposal is predicated on increasing the number of containers at the port of Fremantle by 200 000. Up until the proposal for the Perth Freight Link, the capacity of the port of Fremantle was spoken of as 1.2 million containers. Now with the Perth Freight Link proposed, the talk is about the port of Fremantle having a capacity of 1.4 million containers. That is 200 000 more containers. If that does not put more trucks onto our roads, I do not know what will. During a radio interview just in the past couple of weeks, the Minister for Transport led us to believe that the government could be looking to expand the port of Fremantle even further from the figure of 1.4 million containers. The port operators working at the port of Fremantle say that they have the room to expand to two million containers. As I said, if we are now at 700 000 containers and the stevedoring companies are saying that they could expand to two million containers, that is about three times the number of containers going in and out of the port of Fremantle. The only thing that is restricting them is the logistics in and out of the port. If this government has its way, a huge road will deliver all that freight traffic by truck. Of course that will drive traffic away from our rail infrastructure and I believe it will be worse for local roads because of the toll. I think trucks will be encouraged to use alternative routes. Unless the design fault of Stirling Bridge and Tydeman Road is resolved, we will have huge congestion in that area. The government will have invested so heavily in this ridiculous road that it will be forced to increase the capacity of the port of Fremantle even more. Is this really something that the government is thinking about for the next 50-plus years? Does it think that Perth’s only metropolitan container port should stay at Fremantle in the middle of a built-up area? If so, that is absurd. The port of Fremantle should remain, but it should have fewer containers than it has now. We need a government that thinks about the future and what we need for the next 50-plus years, not what it needs to be re- elected in 2017, which is all it is thinking of when it looks at the Perth Freight Link proposal. The number of dollars going into that road is absurd. It is an absurd waste of precious infrastructure dollars. As I said, those dollars should be going towards the planning and development of a much-needed second port. It is fairly astounding that the government is allocating over $200 million to the Perth Freight Link. It is fairly astounding that $440 million of the state component for the Perth Freight Link will be recouped from the toll road, and $230 million will be allocated from the state government, yet not one penny of that money will go into providing the freight and transport infrastructure that is really needed for our metropolitan area. I can talk about many other issues to do with the Perth Freight Link. However, there are many other broken promises that this state government has inflicted on the electorate—certainly my electorate, and I know also the electorates of other members. The ACTING SPEAKER: Can members keep their voices down a little, thanks. Ms S.F. McGURK: Not the least of those broken promises is the funding cuts that have been made to our schools. At the beginning of this school year, the principal of John Curtin College of the Arts came back to the school with the news that his school would be $600 000 worse off than he had thought it would be when he left the school at the end of last year. That is a lot of dollars. That is a huge cut for one of our standout high schools—a performing arts school, and a school that the state is very proud of, as it should be. John Curtin is doing well, but this government has decided to rip hundreds of thousands of dollars from the budget of that school and thinks that will not affect the quality of education of the students at that school. I think that is wrong. There are many examples throughout my electorate of schools that have had programs cut and staff cut. The number of education assistants has been cut. There have been 500 job cuts in education and 1 000 job cuts across the public sector. That is in contrast to what the Premier said in September 2012. The Premier said that there are

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2707 no cuts, proposed or planned, to staffing in the public sector—none at all. That is what the government says; however, that is not what the government does. It is just extraordinary. Members would be aware of the frustration of people in their electorate when the government promised that electricity prices would be capped at the consumer price index. I remember that very well. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I did not say that. That is absolutely not true. Ms S.F. McGURK: The Premier said that in the televised debate. The Premier said, “at or about the CPI”. I remember watching the Premier on television. Mr C.J. Barnett: I did not say that. Ms S.F. McGURK: What did the Premier say, then? That is exactly what the Premier said. Mr C.J. Barnett: No. Go back and watch the debate. I never said that. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! The member for Fremantle has the call. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: I am calling everyone to order, thank you very much. Point of Order Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Mr Acting Speaker, I wonder whether we could buy the Premier a coffee. That would make it a lot easier for us in the chamber. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): That is not a point of order. Please resume your seat. The member for Fremantle has the call. Debate Resumed Ms S.F. McGURK: My very clear recollection is that the Premier said that electricity prices would be capped at or about the CPI. That is what the Premier said. But let us look at the reality. What did the Premier actually do? Electricity prices increased by four per cent, water increased by six per cent, gas increased by 6.4 per cent, and of course the emergency services levy increased by 7.8 per cent. The state government says one thing and it does another. The current Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill is just another example of that. It is appalling. MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Finance) [9.00 pm] — in reply: I want to thank the 17 speakers who spoke on the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! The minister has the call. Mr W.R. MARMION: The first speaker, the member for West Swan, spoke on all aspects of the bill. She was the only member who did. The bill is fairly simple. It amends the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 2002 to bring in a gradual diminishing tax-free threshold that goes from a payroll of $800 000 to $7.5 million, at which the tax-free threshold will be lost. It also amends the Duties Act to extend a duty concession to the custodian for a trustee of a superannuation fund that currently does not exist so that it conforms with the changes to the superannuation industry that now allow superannuation funds to hold property provided that it is held by a custodian. It also amends the Land Tax Assessment Act to pick up a couple of issues. It will no longer allow a landowner to claw back the duty that would be payable after five years if their residential land was compulsorily acquired. It also amends the anti-avoidance provisions to allow the Commissioner of State Revenue to retrospectively determine for five years the tax payable by those people who might try to avoid paying land tax by splitting with small parties the ownership of property that they hold. During the debate, a number of relevant questions were raised by the 17 speakers. The member for Cockburn and a number of other members raised a point erroneously. The member for Cockburn stated — That brings me to the 2013 election commitment in which the former … Treasurer, Troy Buswell, made a commitment to lift the tax-free threshold to $850 000. That was never implemented and now, of course, we are going back to whack everyone else with a payroll of between $800 000 and $7.5 million … That is not correct. The Revenue Laws Amendment Act 2014 raised the tax-free threshold from $750 000 to $800 000 effective from 1 July 2014. The same amendment act also legislated that the tax-free threshold will rise to $850 000 on 1 July 2016. This honours the election commitment made to raise the tax-free threshold. Members were commenting on a statement that was made at the midyear review, but that is not part of this bill. Mr Speaker, I hear some mumbling across the chamber. Mr W.J. Johnston: I said that you did not mention that issue in your second reading speech.

2708 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

The SPEAKER: Thank you! Through the Chair. Mr W.R. MARMION: The reason it was not mentioned in the second reading speech is that it is not part of the bill. Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, thank you! Through the Chair. Mr W.R. MARMION: The member for Gosnells, who is not in the chamber, raised the implications for land tax and the metropolitan region improvement tax. He is correct that any changes to the clawback of land tax will affect the metropolitan region improvement tax as a consequence. It is not part of this bill, but in this particular instance, there will be a benefit to the landholder from the amendment we are making to the act. There will be a reduction in the metropolitan region improvement tax payable by a landholder whose property is subdivided due to a compulsory resumption. During the second reading debate the member for Armadale and the member for Kwinana—and others in a different way—raised concerns about the impact of payroll tax on employment opportunities for apprentices. I can say that in 2012 the state government introduced an exemption to encourage employers to employ persons with a disability and introduced a rebate for employers who employ Indigenous persons. The rebate applies to the first two years of employment of these persons. Similar concessions are provided to encourage employment of apprentices and trainees. They are not included in the payroll. The member for Cockburn also said that in the 1997 state election campaign the Liberal Party said that it would abolish payroll tax. We managed to dig up — Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Mr W.R. MARMION: No; we did not. I have got whatever year it was. The Liberal–National coalition business policy is dated November 1996. I can table this document. It did not state that it would abolish payroll tax; it states — Tax reform is on the Council of Australian Governments agenda, and until national tax reform is achieved, States will not be able to move from their business tax bases. I might add that under the Court coalition government, the payroll tax exemption increased from $375 000 to $675 000. That was a good result way back in 1996, and is quite the opposite of what the member for Cockburn claimed. Ms R. Saffioti interjected. The SPEAKER: I do not want to hear from you, member for West Swan. Several members interjected. Mr B.S. Wyatt: You understand what your bill is doing tonight? The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park! Mr W.R. MARMION: Under “State Taxes” in the Liberal–National coalition business policy, it states — State taxes, such as payroll tax, stamp duty and fuel franchise levy are essentially business taxes. Far from saying that they would be removed, it is quite the opposite. The member for Mirrabooka, who is not here either, had a personal question that ties in slightly with the Duties Act. Her concern was that the commonwealth has not amended its act to allow the division of superannuation funds for de facto couples. We have referred our powers but the commonwealth has not made the very small amendment required to enact that. If that is the case, it is true that a very small consequential amendment will be required to the Duties Act to make sure it is a $20 fee. She raised another question, which I have managed to get a response to even though it is a commonwealth taxation matter. She asked whether payroll tax is a deductible expense for companies. Although I am not an expert and my advisers are not from the Australian Taxation Office, we believe it is. Therefore, a $44 000 increase in payroll tax is potentially only a $30 800 increase for a company that earns more than $7.5 million. Companies should be able to claim that deduction. Most of the other concerns raised by members were about the impact of the $397 million on small businesses. Obviously, we are aware of that and that is why there will be no impact on businesses earning under $800 000 and why the threshold is being recouped over the diminishing range from $800 000 this year to $7.5 million. When the $850 000 threshold comes into existence in July 2016, it will be recouped over the range of $850 000 to $7.5 million. I think I have covered most of the points pertinent to the bill. This government supports the bill and is keen for it to progress. I commend the bill to the house.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2709

Division Question put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (32)

Mr P. Abetz Ms W.M. Duncan Dr G.G. Jacobs Dr M.D. Nahan Mr F.A. Alban Ms E. Evangel Mr S.K. L’Estrange Mr D.C. Nalder Mr C.J. Barnett Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr I.C. Blayney Mr B.J. Grylls Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.M. Britza Dr K.D. Hames Ms L. Mettam Mr A.J. Simpson Mr V.A. Catania Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr P.T. Miles Mr M.H. Taylor Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A.P. Jacob Mr N.W. Morton Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)

Noes (17)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr B.S. Wyatt Ms J. Farrer Ms S.F. McGurk Ms R. Saffioti Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr P.C. Tinley Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.B. Watson

Pairs

Mr J.M. Francis Mrs M.H. Roberts Ms M.J. Davies Ms L.L. Baker Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr R.H. Cook Mr R.F. Johnson Ms J.M. Freeman

Question thus passed. Bill read a second time. Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading. Consideration in Detail Clause 1: Short title — Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I understand that clause 1 deals with the short title of the bill and that, when passed, this bill will be called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. Were any other names or titles considered for this bill; and what was the process in determining the name or title of this bill? Mr W.R. MARMION: There is already an act called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. On 17 February 2015, the Legislative Council passed the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014. Royal assent of this bill was given on 25 February 2015, and as it was passed in 2015, it was given the title Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. That is the normal form for the title of legislation; it is the convention. Mr B.S. WYATT: Did the minister just say that a piece of legislation with that name has already been passed? That is what the minister just said. Mr W.R. Marmion: Not this particular legislation; the convention is that related legislation keeps the same title. Mr B.S. WYATT: The minister said that a piece of legislation called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015 has already been passed. Can the minister confirm that? I may have got it wrong. Mr W.R. MARMION: A bill was introduced in 2014, but because it received royal assent in 2015, the convention is to call it the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. Mr B.S. WYATT: I want to clarify this because the minister was talking about a different bill that received royal assent in 2015, but I assume it was still called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2014 because that is when it passed through the Parliament—the minister can correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise, if the legislation that was passed is called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015, there will be two pieces of legislation of the same name. A member interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, if you want to talk, I suggest you go back to your seat.

2710 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr W.R. MARMION: When this bill is passed, it will become the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act (No. 3) 2015. Mr B.S. WYATT: Can I just ask why the bill is not called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2015? Mr W.R. MARMION: That is parliamentary counsel’s style of drafting bills. That is what they provided us with and that is what we ran with. Mr B.S. WYATT: Assuming this bill passes through Parliament, there will be an addition to it—being “(No. 3)”—that is not actually part of the bill that passed through Parliament. Are there are other conventions that will insert other things in the legislation that are not in the bill before the chamber that we are debating tonight? Mr W.R. Marmion: I don’t understand your question. What other parts of the bill? Mr B.S. WYATT: I asked: will the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 have the same name as another one? The minister replied that it would not. When it passes through Parliament, this legislation will be called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act (No. 3) 2015. Is that correct? Mr W.R. Marmion: Yes. Mr B.S. WYATT: Because “(No. 3)” is not actually on the cover of the bill, and the minister just said that that is part of the parliamentary drafting process, can the minister confirm that that is the case? It is new to me. Secondly, will any other parliamentary drafting processes add anything more to this, as it will add “(No. 3)” to the title? Mr W.R. MARMION: I think I understand the question. Nothing more is to be added to this legislation. I think the member’s question relates to whether, if we bring in another bill later this year, that will become bill No 4. Is that what the member is suggesting? This is the bill; this is it. There is nothing to be added. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Why is it not called No 3, if that is what the act is going to be called? Mr W.R. MARMION: It is by convention. I have just answered that. Parliamentary counsel has said that it is the convention to not put the number 3 in. Mr B.S. WYATT: Can the minister advise whether there are conventions that will add anything else to this bill? Mr W.R. MARMION: I see what the member means. Are there any other conventions that will add another word or a number to the title? Not that we are aware of. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Can I just clarify this? As I recall, from my memory, last year there were two taxation legislation amendment bills. When the second one came into the chamber, it was called “(No. 2)”. That was not put onto the bill later on. Can I ask why this has been a change in convention? The minister is asking the Parliament to agree to a title that will then be changed, and that is what we are trying to get our heads around. The Parliament is being asked to approve a title that will subsequently be changed. Can I ask for that clarification? Mr W.R. MARMION: The advice that I have—it is becoming clear to me now—is that because this is the first bill to be introduced this year, the convention is that it is No 1. We do not actually put “(No. 1)” in the title, but this bill will become the third act this year. That is the convention at the moment. This is a bill and not an act. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I have just gone to the database at slp.wa.gov.au and printed out the first few pages— not the entire 35-page piece of legislation. I am holding in my hand something that came from that database and states “No. 1 of 2015” Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. There will be two acts with the same name. It does not seem sensible. If this Parliament decides that this legislation will be called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015, is some sort of authority given to the Clerks to change the name? I could understand if that were in the standing orders. When I was state secretary of the Labor Party, at the end of a conference a resolution was passed that stated that the state secretary could fix the grammar. It is a usual sort of practice, but I was not familiar with that. I just draw the minister’s attention to the fact that the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015 was the primary production amendment to the Land Tax Act the last time that the current Minister for Transport was Minister for Finance. Is the minister saying that this legislation will end up having “(No. 3)” added at the end because of some authority given to the Clerks, so that even though the minister is asking the chamber to vote for this title, we are allowing some amendment through this other procedure? I am not familiar with that practice Mr W.R. MARMION: As I explained last time, this is a bill. When it becomes an act, if another act has the same title, another number is put on it so that there is no confusion. This one will have the number 3 beside it. Ms R. Saffioti: Why does the minister not change it now? Mr W.R. MARMION: It is because that is convention. I am not the parliamentary counsel; that is the convention. It is the first one brought in this year. It is a bill —

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2711

Mr W.J. Johnston: I can understand the bill’s title. I am not talking about that; I am talking about the title of the act. Mr W.R. MARMION: Does the member want to move an amendment to change the title of the bill? Mr W.J. Johnston: No. I am just asking the minister to — Mr W.R. MARMION: I just told the member that I am accepting the parliamentary counsel’s convention. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Perhaps I could ask Mr Speaker for guidance on this matter. If the minister is not prepared or not able to answer why it will have a name different from the one included in the short title — Mr W.R. Marmion: I think I have mentioned the answer three times. Point of Order Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The minister has not given any commentary on the standing orders. I thought the minister was going to say, “Standing order X, Y, Z says this”, and then I could understand. It is not exactly a complex issue. I am not even saying that it is improper; I am just saying that I do not understand it. If it is better, Mr Speaker, I am happy to ask by way of a point of order. The bill is called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. I understand exactly what the minister is saying about the title of the bill, but we are talking about the short title, which states — This is the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. I hold in my hand a copy that I printed off that database that I referenced. It says “Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015 (No. 1 of 2015)”. It is the one that dealt with primary production and land tax issues. I do not understand how this relates to the sovereign Parliament of Western Australia, which has absolutely nothing to do with the parliamentary draftsman—the parliamentary draftsman is an officer of the executive. I am not talking about the action of the executive; I am talking about the action of the Parliament. Surely it cannot be that hard to point out to me which standing order allows it to be corrected. The SPEAKER: I understand that the member is taking this as a point of order. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am not taking a point of order. The SPEAKER: I thought you said that you wanted to raise it as a point of order. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I said that maybe it would be better if I raised it as a point of order. The SPEAKER: Do you want me to answer it for you, because you are going down the wrong track? Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: If you, Mr Speaker, want to take it as a point of order, thank you. The SPEAKER: I will take it as a point of order. This is not something that is dealt with in the standing orders. It is not an Assembly process, so it is not something that the member can refer to me for any guidance. I will hand back to the minister. Debate Resumed Mr W.R. MARMION: As an engineer, I can think of a very good reason why — Mr W.J. Johnston interjected. Mr W.R. MARMION: How the hell can I answer a question when he keeps interjecting? Mr W.J. Johnston: Because you’re not answering the damn question! The SPEAKER: I want to tell the member for Cannington and the member for West Swan that they are both on three calls today — Mr W.J. Johnston: No, I am not. I am on two. The SPEAKER: You are on three. If you want to go home early, continue to interject. We are trying to get this thing moving. Let the minister answer. Mr W.R. MARMION: I am not the parliamentary counsel, but just as an engineer, I can think of a really logical reason. I am not saying that this is the reason, because I will have to talk to some of my parliamentary counsel friends whom I went through university with. Would it not be sensible to have the short title without a number, “This is the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act”, because it is a bill? There might be another bill that is numbered 2, 3, 4 or whatever later on, but it is not known because the other bill might overtake it going through the house. If one actually took a punt and put the number 3 in now, it might be wrong. Parliamentary counsel are smart people; they might decide to wait until the bill receives assent before they put a number on it so they do not stuff up. It makes sense to me, but I am only an engineer. The SPEAKER: I am wrong; you are right: only two.

2712 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I agree that that is a very logical procedure. As I said, when I was state secretary, we used to have a special resolution that allowed me to fix the grammar and the numbering. It is a very, very sensible system, but that is not what I asked. I did not ask whether it was a sensible system, because we both agree that it is a sensible system. I asked about a separate issue. I asked: what is the procedure that allows that to occur? The minister just said, and I accept it, that he is not aware of the procedure and that he is going to have to take advice. That would be a very good decision for the minister, because we are not arguing about the logic of it; we are asking about the procedure. As I understood it, the short title, when agreed to by this chamber and the other chamber, would be implemented; I was never aware that there was some other procedure that comes into effect. If there is, let us say that the Governor gets to make the decision. I do not know and that is why I asked the minister to tell me. I never disputed that it was a logical decision; I just asked what the procedure is and the minister finally answered that he did not know what the procedure is. That is very, very relaxing for me. I am very comfortable with that answer, but that is the first time we have had an answer, and we could have been off this clause if the minister had simply answered that at the start. I know it is very hard for the minister; he is the third Minister for Finance of the current Parliament. Each successive finance minister in this government has had to bring in tax legislation. It is the first thing they have to do as finance minister. They come into the chamber as Liberals, promising lower taxes, but then they have to come in here and deliver higher taxes. I understand how uncomfortable that is for the minister, but if he were to simply cooperate with the chamber, things would work better. So, after 15 minutes of this procedure, I thank the minister for finally answering the simple question that was asked by this side of the chamber. Mr B.S. WYATT: I have a couple of questions for the minister. The minister asked the opposition whether we wanted to move an amendment to the short title of the bill, that being the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. Would the minister like us to move an amendment so that the title reads “Taxation Legislation Amendment Act (No. 3) 2015”? Would that clarify things for the minister? No? It seems we are terribly unclear about the process for naming our legislation. I am not an engineer, so I may get this wrong. Would it be clearer if we called it, for example, the “Oh My God the 2013 Election was Not Fully Funded and Fully Costed After All Act 2015”? Would that make it clearer? I think it might make it clearer. It might make it clearer if we were to call it “The Fully Funded, Fully Costed Election was Actually a Lie Act 2015”. That is one way we could do it. Mr W.R. Marmion: That’d be silly. Mr B.S. WYATT: That would be silly! I thank the parliamentary secretary; I appreciate that. The parliamentary secretary says that it would be silly to move that, but the parliamentary secretary sat there, unable to tell us about the process for naming the legislation, as the member for Cannington just outlined. He could not even tell us the name of it. We could have been off this clause at 10 past nine if he had known. We could call this bill a number of different things, such as the “Liberal Party Increasing Payroll Tax Act 2015”. That would make fairly crystal clear what the government is doing. The parliamentary secretary said that he loves this; I heard him say it! The parliamentary secretary said this. The SPEAKER: The minister. Mr B.S. WYATT: We could change the name to something else: the “Oh My God We’ve Got an $8 Billion Loan Bill Coming Our Way We’d Better Increase Taxes Act 2015”. We could call it that. We could call it the “Oh My God the Budget Breakfast Where Troy Buswell and Ben Wyatt Debated Each Other and Troy Buswell Said He’d Cut Payroll Taxes and Ben Wyatt Said We Couldn’t Afford it Because it’s Debt Funding a Tax Cut Act 2015”. That would make it fairly clear as well. The minister may now recall or have some appreciation of my frustration at the fact that less than two years ago, the government said that it was all fully funded and fully costed and that the people of Western Australia were going to get everything without any consequences. Now we have the “Taxation Legislation Amendment Act (No. 78) 2015” because the parliamentary secretary has told me that some process — The SPEAKER: First of all, it is the “minister”; and second of all, your argument is now becoming irrelevant and it is not relevant to the point, so please come back to the point. Mr B.S. WYATT: Sorry; the Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) before you referred to him as the parliamentary secretary, and I assumed something had happened along the way. Mr P. Abetz: I did correct myself. Mr B.S. WYATT: Yes, but the member for Southern River corrects himself all the time, so I am never entirely sure about what is true and what is not. I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I am delighted, minister, that something has not happened along the way that the Premier needed to inform the Parliament of, and that the minister has maintained his title and accoutrements as a minister of the Crown unable to tell us why it will be called the Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015. I just make the point that we did not need to be on this, but I will be making the point time and again about the fully funded, fully costed election promise. The government is probably getting sick of it now; it has been two years. There will be two more years of it—do not worry about

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2713 that. I do not know whether we will take up the offer from the minister to amend the bill as he asked. I am not an engineer; I do not know. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I just want to go through some of the minister’s logic, which was that this bill cannot be given a number because if another bill goes through the house — Mr W.R. Marmion: It was a suggestion. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: — without a number, and then we put a number on that, it will confuse everything. But if we gave every bill a number when it came into the place, that would not be the situation. The minister’s premise that if we gave this one a number, it may be the same as the number that we ultimately put on another bill is only correct if we do not give them all numbers. Mr W.R. Marmion: No, I did not say that. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: No; my logic is right and the minister’s is wrong. The minister is saying that if we give one piece of legislation a number and not the others — Mr W.R. Marmion: No; I said that if you give them all a number, you might get them wrong. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: But how? Mr W.R. Marmion: Because if this was No 3 and we had another — Ms R. SAFFIOTI: But if a number is the number, how could it be wrong? It may be the number of when — Mr W.R. Marmion: Because you want them to be in sequence when they are enacted. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: But we might want to have them in sequence when they are introduced. Mr W.R. Marmion: It would be a bit confusing if you had act No 4, when it actually was passed before act No 2. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: But surely it is only an issue because the minister’s government is bringing in a taxation increase every month and now we have had about three or four taxation legislation amendment bills? Mr W.R. Marmion: That is not on the point. The SPEAKER: Minister, just one thing at a time. If you want to speak, speak through the Chair. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I still have a problem with this because I just do not understand it. I think the minister said to the member for Cannington that he would get advice, but I just do not understand how we as a Parliament can approve a title that is then changed. I just do not understand that. Could the minister give it another burl at explaining exactly how that happens, who actually makes the decision to put the number 3 in it, how it has happened, and under what legal institution that is possible? Again, I am no engineer, so I am not an expert on legislation, but — Mr W.R. Marmion: What do you mean by “legal institution”? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I just do not understand what mechanism — Mr W.R. Marmion: You obviously don’t. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Pardon? Mr W.R. Marmion: You obviously don’t. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: No. So, can the minister explain exactly who makes that decision, how it is made and how it is executed that a number 3 is put into this title even though the Parliament has approved a title without a 3 in it? Mr W.R. MARMION: We do not know exactly who does that, but I have been advised by my advisers here that the reason is the reason I have actually articulated: they do not put a number there because they want to wait until it becomes an act and they get the number right and in sequence. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I understand, if I agree with the minister, why they do it. I want to know under what legal institution and how it has happened. Who makes a decision to stick the number 3 in it, not a 4 and not a 5? Who makes the decision and how is it done, and at what stage of the process? Mr W.R. Marmion: Why do you want to know that? Mr B.S. Wyatt: It doesn’t matter why. We’re asking you a question. Mr W.R. Marmion: Process. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: What process? I know “process” is a dirty word in this government. I just want to know because it is quite interesting. Frankly, I do not think we have dealt with this issue in my time in Parliament, so exactly what is the mechanism that triggers the number being inserted, who does it, and where in the process?

2714 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr W.R. MARMION: To get to that level of detail in the process, I would have to seek advice from the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and ask it how it does that. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: One way of clarifying this issue would be to give the bill a different name—a more accurate title. During the debate just now, the minister invited the opposition to propose an amendment to the title, and the opposition is keen to do that. Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen the complete disintegration of the state’s finances under this state government. Today when the Treasurer stood and said — Mr B.S. Wyatt: We are going to produce eight “b’llion” dollars! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The title of this bill is confusing. The Treasurer stood in the Parliament and said exactly what my colleague has said—that is, “We are introducing a bill for”, and was not able to able to pronounce the words “$8 billion”. What we have seen is a state government that is bankrupting the state. It is important to note that the Loan Bill is for the consolidated fund; it is not for the government trading enterprises and it is $8 billion for only two years. That is why this legislation—another tax bill—is before us tonight. The government is introducing so many tax bills that we are now getting to number four and number five. So many tax bills have been introduced in one year that we are now debating a numbering system for them. Therefore, I move — Page 2, line 3 — To delete “Taxation Legislation Amendment Act 2015” and substitute — Another Liberal Tax Slug Act 2015 This title shows that the Liberal Party made promises during the election it never intended to keep, whether they be the fully funded, fully costed promises that were not delivered as fully funded and fully costed, or whether it was a promise made to the businesses of WA that the Liberal Party was not going to increase the tax burden on Western Australians. That promise was made by the Western Australian Liberal Party. This bill will introduce yet another tax slug on the people of WA, because the state government cannot manage its finances. Only today we saw the extraordinary event that will play out over the next three or four weeks and over the next two years. The government has come into this house and wants to borrow another $8 billion in the general government sector against the consolidated fund. Today the Premier showed why the title of this bill needs to be changed; we need to educate the other side about the finances of the state. The Premier does not understand that a decision he makes in one year has implications for the next year. The Premier believes that operating expenditures in one year have no impact on future years. That is why there is another tax bill in this place. Despite having been in government for six and a half years and despite having access to the state Treasury department and other economically trained people, the Premier still walks in and does not understand that when a contract is signed— let us say, the Fiona Stanley Hospital contract—that has implications for not only next year, but also the next 19 or 20 years. This bill needs a new name, firstly, because the Minister for Finance was not able to explain the existing naming process and, secondly, as an education tool, not for us on this side, because we really understand what is happening to the finances of this state, but for members on the other side so that they know exactly what has been happening for the past nearly seven years. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: This is a very important amendment and I will explain why by referring to the Minister for Finance’s second reading speech. In his second reading speech, the minister said that the saving of $397 million—I must point out that it is not actually a saving, but that is not my argument—represents about 10 per cent of the announced $3.8 billion of saving measures, with the majority of the remaining amount of savings to be achieved through expenditure restraint. I make the point that on Valentine’s Day in 2013, the member for Victoria Park on behalf of the Labor Party outlined $3.5 billion in savings. Mr Speaker, do you see the symmetry here? The minister is telling us that he is trying to save $3.8 billion and the Labor Party proposed $3.5 billion in savings in 2013, before the election. Do members know what the response from the Premier of Western Australia was? He called us mad. He accused the Labor Party of having lost the plot because it proposed $3.5 billion in savings. Now the minister tells us that this government is trying to save $3.8 billion. Is that not amazing? Has the Premier lost the plot here today? This is a disgrace. If the Liberal Party had been as honest with the people of Western Australia as the Labor Party was in February 2013, we would not need this legislation. The only reason that this legislation has been brought in here today is that the Premier of Western Australia said that savings measures were evidence of somebody losing the plot. Mr Speaker, do you understand that? The Premier said that we had lost the plot when we proposed $3.5 billion in savings, yet the government comes in here today asking us to participate in finding $3.8 billion in savings. The government cannot have it both ways. We know what happened here: the Liberal Party lied to Western Australians at the election. There was no circumstance in which its financial plan would work—none at all. Everybody in Western Australia who analysed these matters knew that, but the Premier told the media that proposing savings was unnecessary. He said that it was mad and that the Labor Party had lost the plot. In fact, we were 100 per cent right. I betcha the Premier did not really understand that but a lot of his ministers knew the Labor Party was right. The Liberal Party’s election in 2013 was founded on a lie that Western Australia could have everything and there was

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2715 no limit to the debt or to what we did. We were the only party in Western Australia prepared to tell the story as it was. Often, Liberal members of Parliament ask us, “What would you do?” We told the people of Western Australia what we would do. We were honest at the 2013 election. The government was not honest. The Liberal Party said that if anyone proposed $3.5 billion in savings, they had lost the plot. That was the Liberal Party’s position on the matter, yet now — Mr P.T. Miles: That is a rewrite. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The member for Wanneroo says that that is a rewrite—what rubbish! Here they are proposing $3.8 billion in savings. They must have lost the plot because that is what the Premier said. He said that if anyone proposes $3.5 billion in savings, they have lost the plot. The Liberal Party’s election campaign was based on that lie. This is another Liberal Party “Tax Slug Act 2015”. That is the only proper description of this piece of legislation. Question to be Put Mr J.H.D. DAY: I move — That the question be now put. Division Question put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (33)

Mr P. Abetz Ms E. Evangel Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr F.A. Alban Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr C.J. Barnett Mr B.J. Grylls Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr I.C. Blayney Dr K.D. Hames Ms L. Mettam Mr M.H. Taylor Mr I.M. Britza Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr V.A. Catania Mr C.D. Hatton Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller) Mr M.J. Cowper Mr A.P. Jacob Mr N.W. Morton Mr J.H.D. Day Dr G.G. Jacobs Dr M.D. Nahan Ms W.M. Duncan Mr S.K. L’Estrange Mr D.C. Nalder

Noes (17)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr B.S. Wyatt Ms J. Farrer Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms R. Saffioti Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr P.C. Tinley

Pairs

Mr J.M. Francis Mrs M.H. Roberts Ms M.J. Davies Ms L.L. Baker Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr R.H. Cook Mr R.F. Johnson Mr P.B. Watson

Question thus passed. Consideration in Detail Resumed The SPEAKER: The question is that the words to be deleted be deleted. Division Amendment put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (17)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr B.S. Wyatt Ms J. Farrer Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms R. Saffioti Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr P.C. Tinley

2716 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Noes (33)

Mr P. Abetz Ms E. Evangel Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr F.A. Alban Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr C.J. Barnett Mr B.J. Grylls Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr I.C. Blayney Dr K.D. Hames Ms L. Mettam Mr M.H. Taylor Mr I.M. Britza Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr V.A. Catania Mr C.D. Hatton Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller) Mr M.J. Cowper Mr A.P. Jacob Mr N.W. Morton Mr J.H.D. Day Dr G.G. Jacobs Dr M.D. Nahan Ms W.M. Duncan Mr S.K. L’Estrange Mr D.C. Nalder

Pairs

Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr J.M. Francis Ms L.L. Baker Ms M.J. Davies Mr R.H. Cook Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr P.B. Watson Mr R.F. Johnson

Amendment thus negatived. The SPEAKER: The question is that clause 1 stand as printed. Question to be Put MR J.H.D. DAY: I move — That the question be now put. Division Question put and a division taken with the following result — Ayes (33)

Mr P. Abetz Ms E. Evangel Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr F.A. Alban Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr C.J. Barnett Mr B.J. Grylls Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr I.C. Blayney Dr K.D. Hames Ms L. Mettam Mr M.H. Taylor Mr I.M. Britza Mrs L.M. Harvey Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr V.A. Catania Mr C.D. Hatton Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller) Mr M.J. Cowper Mr A.P. Jacob Mr N.W. Morton Mr J.H.D. Day Dr G.G. Jacobs Dr M.D. Nahan Ms W.M. Duncan Mr S.K. L’Estrange Mr D.C. Nalder

Noes (17)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr B.S. Wyatt Ms J. Farrer Mr M. McGowan Ms M.M. Quirk Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller) Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms R. Saffioti Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Mr C.J. Tallentire Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr P.C. Tinley

Pairs

Mr J.M. Francis Mrs M.H. Roberts Ms M.J. Davies Ms L.L. Baker Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr R.H. Cook Mr R.F. Johnson Mr P.B. Watson

Question thus passed. Consideration in Detail Resumed The SPEAKER: The question now is that clause 1 stand as printed. Clause put and passed. Clause 2: Commencement —

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2717

Referral to Economics and Industry Standing Committee — Motion MR W.J. JOHNSTON (Cannington) [10.03 pm] — without notice: I move — That the bill be referred to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee for inquiry and report. I understand that in accordance with standing orders, the advisers will need to be excused from the chamber. What I think is important is that we not pass this legislation without proper scrutiny. Part of that proper scrutiny has to include the question about the view of the business community. We need to know where the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia stands on this $400 million tax increase over three years. Where does the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia stand on this $400 million increase over three years? We need to work out where the Property Council of Australia stands on this bill. We need to find out where the Australian Retailers Association stands on this $400 million tax slug. We need to examine what small business thinks about this $400 million tax slug. It would be great to hear from Liberal Party branch members what they think of this $400 million tax slug. In considering the need to refer this matter for inquiry and report, I make the point that the 2008 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement records that in the 2007–08 financial year $1 940 million in payroll tax was collected. The 2014–15 midyear review, on the other hand, states that in the current 2014–15 financial year the Liberal government expects to collect $3 737 million. The Liberal government is predicting to take that collection of payroll tax to $4 889 million by the end of the current forward estimates period of 2017–18. We need to hear what the business community thinks of that massive increase in payroll tax. Nearly 150 per cent extra payroll tax will be extracted from the businesses of Western Australia. We need an inquiry and proper report on the effect that massive increase in payroll tax by the Western Australian Liberal government will have on Western Australia’s economy. I know you would agree, Deputy Speaker, that this is particularly important, given that before the 2013 state election, the Premier of the state of Western Australia said that if we tried to cut $3.5 billion of the state’s expenditure, we would have lost the plot. He said cutting $3.5 billion of expenditure was effectively madness. We have to examine why there has been such a change in the Liberal government’s behaviour. What influences have led it to that position? For example, the government has frequently raised the issue of the state’s GST share, but we know the GST share has gone down because other state government revenues have increased. We need a proper examination of the impact of those issues. It may well be that unlike its approach before the election, the government might be telling the truth. It certainly has not explained itself to this point. It would be a real surprise if an inquiry found that the government had told the truth because, remember, the Premier said that if we cut $3.5 billion from state expenditure, we would have lost the plot. I make the point that if we reduce $3.8 billion by $400 million with a tax increase, the actual savings proposed by the government in the midyear review will equal the amount of expenditure reductions the Labor Party proposed at the 2012–13 election. Of course, the inquiry would be able to examine the fact that there was a very marked difference in the Labor Party proposals compared with the Liberal Party proposals. I make the point that the Labor Party had carefully designed its expenditure cuts not to impact on ordinary Western Australians and the services delivered by government to those people. The Economic and Industry Standing Committee, which I remind you, Deputy Speaker, has a government majority on it, would be allowed to examine the impact on ordinary Western Australians of the government’s proposed cuts and contrast that with the sensible and reasonable Labor Party proposals at the time of the 2013 election. These are all very important issues and they should not be trifled with. We were able to deal with only one clause of the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill before the Leader of the House truncated our debate. That was unreasonable, in my view. That is why if we do not have the opportunity to properly examine this bill in this chamber — Mr J.H.D. Day: There are 18 clauses. For issues of substance you will have plenty of time. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: In considering the decision to refer this matter to a committee, I draw attention to the calculation “AAT – [(W – AAT)×TV]” at line 29 on page 11 of the bill. It will be interesting to know what that series of letters and symbols mean. If the approach of the government is to gag debate on clauses, the only proper way to examine this matter is through a parliamentary committee. I remind Madam Deputy Speaker that in my inaugural speech in this chamber I outlined my view that parliamentary committees should play a greater role in examining matters surrounding the budget. This is an exact example of the sorts of issues that I was thinking about when I raised that issue in my inaugural speech. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! There are too many conversations in the chamber. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The opposition has gone through a number of the inaugural speeches of Liberal members of Parliament and pointed out that their behaviour in this chamber is 100 per cent against the issues that they raised in those inaugural speeches. In examining the decision to refer this matter to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, I make the point that this is exactly the matter that I canvassed in my inaugural speech. I am not coming into this place as a hypocrite. I did not come in here and promise to cut taxes and now I

2718 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] am increasing taxes. That is not what I did; that is what the member for Alfred Cove did. I came in here and said that standing committees of the Parliament should have a greater role in examining the detail of the budget. I raised that exact issue on 11 November 2008 in this chamber. That is why I have come in here tonight and moved this motion. The government does not want to allow a proper debate on clauses of the bill. As I said, line 29 on page 11 refers to “AAT – [(W – AAT)×TV]”. That is what it says! Ms M.M. Quirk: I reckon that means bracket creep! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Very droll, member for Girrawheen! That is the sort of detail contained in this bill. If we are going to have this threat over our heads that every clause will be guillotined by the government because the opposition is pointing out that the Liberal Party’s election campaign in 2013 was a lie, then — Mr P.T. Miles interjected. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The member for Wanneroo interjects and says that I am rewriting history. We are considering whether this matter should be examined by a committee. I was not the one who said that the Labor Party had lost the plot because we proposed budget savings—that was the Premier! The Economics and Industry Standing Committee should be in a position to examine why it was that on Valentine’s Day 2013 the Premier said that the Labor Party had lost the plot, but now that is his desperate financial plan to cover-up his deep incompetence. The Economics and Industry Standing Committee could ask for detailed information from Treasury about the sort of advice it has been giving the government. I have read every year in the budget papers of this government the Under Treasurer’s warning that Western Australia should not rely on the iron ore price; it is a volatile commodity and it is a risk for the state of Western Australia. That is what he has said in every budget paper. Every single budget paper of this government has said the exact same thing, and then, when the warning from the Under Treasurer comes to pass, the government rushes into this place in a panic to break even more election commitments. The committee could examine why it is that the government has not been listening to the professional advice it received from the Under Treasurer. The committee could examine why the Western Australian government changed the estimate of the iron ore price in the budget. Why did the government do that when it left the state’s budget exposed to the very actions we have seen in the last couple of months with the crash of the iron ore price? The committee could seek an explanation about why the government changes ordinary practices to take this aggressive position regarding the state’s finances. I point out that there are consequences in the out years for decisions in each year. That is an issue that the member for West Swan raised. That is another thing the Economics and Industry Standing Committee could examine. Why have the previous budgets been based on the understanding that when a decision is made one year, there are flow-on effects to the out years? Let me make it clear that in considering the issue of moving that this bill be referred to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee for inquiry and report, one of the issues it can look at, and I urge it do so, is to say to government, to the bureaucracies—maybe to the Department of Education—that in 2008 during the election campaign the Premier made a specific commitment to teachers. I think the costing was $300 million. But of course as the years progress that $300 million builds up. After six and a half years it probably becomes a $700 million cost. In the next four years I bet it will probably be over $500 million. The committee could look at whether that is the case—whether what the Premier said was a $300 million commitment is actually a $1.2 billion commitment over an eight-year period. To explain the issue I am discussing in referring this matter to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, I take the example of the Gonski funding. The criticism of the federal Liberal Party to the federal Labor Party regarding the Gonski funding was that in the first four years there was a small additional expenditure, but in the years beyond those four it expanded. That is the exact thing I am raising here in respect of the behaviour of the Premier. He makes a short-term commitment and does not understand that that short-term commitment can wedge itself up so that there is a very, very large amount of expenditure in the further years. That is the sort of thing that the Economics and Industry Standing Committee can look at and report back to us on. It could also look at whether all these formulas actually work. If the government does not gag all of our debate here, we will have an opportunity to ask questions about, for example, the formula on line 22 on page 10, which is AT − [(W − AT)×TV]. In its consideration, the committee should look at this: if AT equals $800 000 and W equals $5 million, my calculation—of course the committee can look at it and may find that I am wrong—would be 0.8 – (4.2 x 0.8375), which I calculate to be 0.8 – 3.5175, which is a negative number, and I am not quite sure how we can deal with a negative number when calculating a positive tax issue. I could be wrong and it is to the benefit of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee that it can look at that matter. It can seek out the views of, say, the editor of The West Australian newspaper on this, because I have not yet seen a comment in either The West Australian or The Sunday Times or indeed BusinessNews Western Australia. I have not seen any comment on this $400 million tax slug over three years on the business community. The committee could have an examination of the issue I raised in my contribution to the second reading debate in which I pointed out that retail businesses will often be over the $800 000 threshold. Family-run small businesses, which we would all

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2719 recognise in our own electorates as small businesses, will be impacted by this tax increase. But, of course, as I explained, they will also be impacted by the land tax increases that we have already dealt with in the current year. There is a cumulative effect on small business because, as I have explained, and the committee can examine this issue, land tax is passed on by large landlords through to their tenants, so they will have to pay not only the additional payroll tax proposed by this bill, but also the additional land tax that the government has already imposed on them. The government explained that only a small number of landlords would be affected by the change, but it did not explain that those additional taxation revenues will be recovered not from the landlords, but from the tenants, and many of those tenants are small businesses that are now being slugged with this extra amount. The committee can go away and inquire into those issues. I think these are important issues. I imagine that many members of the government do not think these issues are important. I would be interested to hear what they say. If they oppose having the Economics and Industry Standing Committee inquire into and report on these important issues, they are obliged to tell the community why they do not think taxing small business is a big issue. Why do they think that taxing small business is just the ordinary affairs of the Parliament? It is nothing special or out of the ordinary; it is just what a Liberal government does in Western Australia. The Liberal Party is happy to complain about taxation revenue when it is in opposition but, when given the levers of government, its only position is to increase taxes every year. Referring only to payroll tax, it will increase by almost 150 per cent between 2007–08 and the government’s expectation for 2017–18. The Liberal Party must be very proud of this, and this inquiry will allow it to explain to the community why it is so proud of that. Why is the government so proud of its economic management? In the best economic times that this state has had in the lifetime of everybody in this room, and probably in the lifetime of anyone in this state, we come to the end of the boom, and where is the legacy? There is an incomplete Elizabeth Quay, and an incomplete stadium that the government will require $8 billion of borrowings to pay for. There is an interesting issue that the committee could examine. Why, after three or four years of the Western Australian Future Fund, is there no money in the future fund? I asked the Treasurer the other day for the balance of the public bank account. I do not remember the exact figure, but as at 1 July 2008, it was—I am happy to be corrected by the Treasurer—around $3 997 million, just shy of $4 billion. On 1 July 2014, the Treasurer told me—again, I do not remember the exact figure—that it was about $4 015 million. From memory, the difference is less than $20 million, but let us be generous and say that there is less than a $30 million difference between 2007–08, when we did not have a future fund, and today, when we do. The committee could examine the impact of the future fund on the need for this tax increase and, in examining this bill, ask why we have had to borrow every single cent that the government claims is in the future fund. The future fund is an interesting thing. The committee, when it looks at this issue, should look at some of the commentary between me and the Leader of the House in a debate in this chamber last year or the year before. I pointed out to the Leader of the House that future generations will not thank him for setting up the future fund—this is what I said at that time, but I do not remember whether it was at the beginning of last year or late in 2013—if he gives them a bank account with a bit of money in it, but also gives them 10 to 20 times more debt. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the government is bringing in an urgent bill to borrow another $8 billion—$8 billion! Let me get that figure out there for the committee to look at—it is $8 000 000 000. Mr J.H.D. Day: You’ll be able to debate that the week after next. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is right, and the Economics and Industry Standing Committee can hold an inquiry and report on these issues as part of its examination of this bill. Let us think about it. The government says that borrowing is needed for the next two financial years. The sum of $8 billion is just two years’ borrowings. The committee could examine why the Labor Party in 2007–08 spent only 87c out of each dollar collected in revenue and today the Liberal government, according to the midyear review, is spending $1.04 of each dollar it collects in revenue. I make it clear that that spending is not on infrastructure; that is on the government’s recurrent expenditure. It is spending 4c more for each dollar it collects. For every $1 collected in revenue, the government spends $1.04. On that trajectory, the government raising another $400 million will mean it will spend $416 million. That is what the government intends to do. It is crazy. The Economics and Industry Standing Committee can look at these issues and come back and tell this house what it found about those issues. I want to directly address through Madam Deputy Speaker the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and the fine person who runs that organisation, Deidre Willmott; who of course was preselected for the Liberal Party in the seat of Cottesloe prior to the 2008 state election. Deidre Willmott will have the opportunity to attend the Economics and Industry Standing Committee and let everybody know exactly what she thinks about the financial management of the state. The problem I have is that I cannot find the Chamber of Commerce explaining where it stands on financial management. This year’s report on the economy by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which it publishes at the beginning of each year, does not mention the government’s taxation effort or the government’s borrowings. This is another reason this bill needs to go to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. It will give the Chamber of Commerce and Industry the

2720 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] opportunity to explain exactly what its views are. I point out that I specifically mentioned the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in my inaugural speech back in 2008 as an example of an organisation that might discuss its issues with the committee in examining budget issues. UnionsWA also might want to come along and talk about issues regarding this matter. It would be entitled to come along to provide its explanation. It could tell us the value of the Labor Party’s carefully targeted $3.5 billion of savings from the 2013 state election—about which members might recall the Premier said we had lost the plot—compared with the $3.4 billion of savings that was outlined in the Minister for Finance’s second reading speech on 26 March 2015 when he introduced this legislation. The committee could also examine this question: that the minister referred to this tax increase as a saving. Let me read again for the Deputy Speaker the words that he used. The second last sentence in the third paragraph states — The saving of $397 million represents about 10 per cent of the announced $3.8 billion savings measures … I make the point that it is not a savings measure; it is a revenue measure. The committee could find out why the Minister for Finance does not understand the difference between revenue measures and savings measures. I make it clear for the chamber that the difference is that a revenue measure takes money off the community and gives it to the government, whereas a savings measure is when the government decides to not spend some money, so they are completely different issues. They have the same effect of narrowing the budget deficit, which again is a matter that the committee could look at, and the ratings agencies are happy to see either. The ratings agencies generally do not want to have overly high taxes, but they do accept that revenue measures are part of putting the state in a sustainable financial position. It is not the case that a revenue measure is automatically a bad thing, but governments need to be honest. The committee could examine why it is that the government did not say, in the second reading speech, that the $397 million represented a revenue measure rather than a savings measure. Why is the government so afraid of using the term “revenue measure”? Why does it not want to admit to the people of Western Australia that its fiscal strategy is about increasing taxes? Again, I emphasise that this government has had an enormous increase in revenue, and the committee could examine the genuine issue of the dud GST deal. The dud GST deal was done between the Court Liberal government and the Howard Liberal government, and maintained last week between the Western Australian Liberal Premier and the federal Liberal Prime Minister. The committee could examine why that dud deal was done. The committee could examine this particular issue in examining whether we should support this bill. In 1999–2000 when the GST was introduced, the Western Australian Labor Party—particularly the then member for Belmont, Hon Eric Ripper—pointed out that one of the weaknesses in the GST deal was that we were putting more of the state’s revenue in the hands of other people. When we had franchise taxes and all those other duties, decisions about those taxes were made by us here in Perth. But once they were put into the federal taxation system, they ceased to be issues under our control. Like the GST, they became the decisions of others, in other parts of the country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! There are too many conversations in the house—member for Perth, member for Kingsley! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The committee could examine what the net impact has been. I have heard that there is research to show that if Western Australia had rejected the GST deal and kept the taxes that existed at the time—the financial assistance grants and direct assistance grants, or FAGS and DAGS, as they were known — Ms R. Saffioti: Revenue replacement grants. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The revenue replacement grants also, which, as the member for West Swan correctly interjects, were payments made by the commonwealth because the High Court of Australia determined that state franchise fees were unconstitutional and were, in fact, excise duties. As we know, the federal Constitution grants the excise power exclusively to the commonwealth. Interestingly, the Constitution also provided for a 10-year grandfathering so that the excise powers stayed with the states for 10 years after Federation. All the Australian founding fathers were leading figures in each of their states and they were very clever men, so they were making sure that if they chose to remain in their state rather than go to federal Parliament, they would retain their state’s revenue for 10 years, which would be basically the balance of their careers. They were very clever men; they were grandfathering in their own future while giving the power to the commonwealth. Interestingly, excises were the predominant taxation revenue of the colonies, and therefore the founding fathers were giving the principal taxation measures to the commonwealth. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Anyway, that led to the High Court knocking off our franchise fees, and because of that, the commonwealth agreed to directly pass back the franchise fees, although not through the grants process. There was a lot of debate

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2721 around that at the time because there were different rates of franchise fees, and I am pretty sure that Queensland had much lower franchise fees than the other states. They had no duties; there were different arrangements. It was actually a matter of great controversy at the time, when the commonwealth drew up the formula to pass the revenue back. The point I am making is that it was passing the revenue back in its entirety; it did not go through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. There has always been a grants commission. In determining whether we should refer this matter to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee, the Deputy Speaker might like to know that I actually read some debates from the Western Australian Hansard from the 1920s. I was actually looking at matters to do with Aboriginal affairs. I was trying to find the report to Parliament of the royal commission into Aboriginal issues back in the 1920s, but I found these debates during which the Treasurer of the day—the Premier—was complaining about the grants commission process. The Economics and Industry Standing Committee could examine why it was that the Western Australian government passed more authority to the very organisation that had been complained about for nearly 90 years at the time the GST deal was done, and why the Western Australian Liberal Party thought it was a good idea to give the grants commission not less but more control over Western Australia’s finances and economy. The committee could actually decide, if it wanted to, that not only were the rates in this bill appropriate, but also, in fact, we have not gone far enough and that the Liberal Party’s next tax increase, rather than waiting two years, should come in now. That could be a recommendation. Of course, the committee could come back and say that the calculations are wrong and that there is going to be some other impact from these matters. It is also interesting that the committee could examine the issue of whether or not—because there is often an argument on it—payroll taxes are a tax on employment. The Institute of Public Affairs writes on this issue quite regularly, arguing that payroll tax is a tax on employment. The committee could have a look and see whether that is in fact the case, and whether raising this $400 million of additional payroll tax will be at the expense of employment. It could be that the committee argues that the revenue expected is less because there is some displacement of employment. I do not personally, by the way, believe that is a solid argument, but I understand that many people make it. In my view, payroll tax, like the goods and services tax, is taxed on the labour component of the value added. Under the GST a business can remit GST paid on an input, but not on wages. So, the GST and payroll tax actually operate in respect of wages in exactly the same fashion; just the same as the GST is passed through to the customer, so is, in my view, payroll tax, but I will leave that aside. Arguably, of course, the payroll tax is effectively a value-added tax on exports. I understand that argument; I am not saying that is a bad thing, but I understand that that is an argument. The committee could consider the issue of whether we have a pass-through tax on an export, because of course the GST is rebated on exports whereas payroll tax is not. That is a matter that the committee could examine. I note the commonwealth is currently holding the process leading to the tax white paper; the rethink has been published. This could be helpful; if the Parliament of Western Australia examines this payroll tax bill, it could inform everybody in the debate regarding the white paper process. This is, in my view, a very exciting opportunity for the Parliament of Western Australia. It is a very exciting opportunity for the people of the state. It is an exciting opportunity for the Liberal Party because it will be able to go in and explain why it was that on St Valentine’s Day in 2013 if the Labor Party proposed $3.5 billion of targeted savings, that was a demonstration that it had lost the plot, but we are now engaged in this process of adding a tax increase on top of other tax increases. That is the Liberal Party’s plan for the future of this state. The committee might ask, but of course a minister might not attend the committee hearing. However, if the minister attended a committee hearing, it could ask him whether he thinks there is a need for further tax increases. After all, if the government is asking us to approve $8 billion in additional borrowings over the next two years, is that likely to have an impact, particularly given that the Treasurer could not answer the question asked by the shadow Treasurer about what will be the peak debt figure and when will that occur? The committee could see whether that would cause pressure for further increases in state taxes such as payroll tax. Exactly how high does the Liberal Party plan to take these matters? If the minister were to attend the committee, which of course he would have to do only if he wanted to, he could be held accountable for future predictions, because it would be clear that the government was not telling us the real story. The shadow Treasurer has commented a number of times on the lunch held by BusinessNews Western Australia, at which the then Treasurer was asked about the possibility of a payroll tax. He said he would not use debt to fund a payroll tax reduction, which, of course, is what has happened in Western Australia. The current government is saying that it will marginally reduce payroll taxes. The Minister for Finance said in his second reading reply that he mentioned that matter in his second reading speech, but on examination of the second reading speech, he did not mention that at all; nor is it mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. If the minister were to attend the committee, he could discuss why there has been a big divergence between what was promised at that lunch and now. Indeed, some of the columnists that write on economic matters for BusinessNews Western Australia could come along and give their opinions on what happens with that issue. These are all matters that the committee can examine, and it would be an exciting committee to be a member of. Mr W.R. Marmion interjected.

2722 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Sorry, minister, I did not hear you. Mr W.R. Marmion: You don’t need to; I was talking to someone else. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Okay. The committee is made up of a great group of people, and it has already produced its first report on floating liquefied natural gas, which members have found to be fascinating. I know that the Premier has some regard for that report and that the Premier has some respect for the five members of the committee. The Premier seems to have some regard for the member for Cockburn, a member on our side of the house, and, indeed, for the member for Willagee, another member with a strong pedigree and who would do a great job on the committee. The member for Geraldton is the chair of that committee, but I cannot remember the other two Liberal Party members. I am sure that they are fine people. I have worked with the member for Geraldton and I have found him to be a good committee member, so I am sure he would do a good job. Again, I make the point that it is not as though we have asked the committee to be dominated by the opposition. We invite the government to have a government committee to hold this examination. There is no reason for the government to be afraid of the opposition trying to stack the report. I also point out that the bill has a deemed start date. I make the point that that means it does not matter whether this legislation is passed by 30 June; it will have effect from 1 July 2015, as is detailed at lines 11 and 12 on page 2. That is good because it would take the pressure off the committee to have a short inquiry. It does not have to have an extensive inquiry, but it would have that flexibility—the fact that the bill is already designed based upon the fact that the legislation may not be through the chamber by 30 June. The chamber is under no pressure from the government to have this legislation through in a short period. It has plenty of opportunity to have this matter properly considered. If the government guillotines every clause, then we will have this opportunity for a proper examination away from this chamber in a much more relaxed and comfortable environment with people from outside the Parliament providing input. Mr P.C. Tinley: In camera. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Some of it can be done in camera—absolutely! Clause 2 on page 2 of the Taxation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 states — This Act comes into operation as follows — (a) Part 1 — on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent (assent day); Part 1 deals with only the preliminaries; no operating matters are contained in that part. Paragraph (c) covers parts 2 and 3 and states — the rest of the Act — That being everything except parts 1 and 4 — on the day after assent day. Part 2 contains the amendment to the Duties Act that deals with superannuation matters and any examination of that shows that they are not time critical at all. Part 3 is a very minor matter to do with land tax assessment. I have a number of questions when we get to that clause but, again, they are very narrow issues to do with a court case in South Australia. It seems to be the belts and braces approach, and a perfectly reasonable position to be taken by the Commissioner of Taxation. It is not as though it is a Western Australian court decision; it is a court decision from South Australia that has led to uncertainty about a particular technical matter that deals with the transfer of a part share in a property that is subject to land tax. The Land Tax Assessment Act has an anti- avoidance provision and this strengthens that mechanism to take account of a matter in South Australia. It is not as though this involves revenue loss. If there was revenue loss, I could understand the government’s need to rush things through. Previously in this chamber we have been very cooperative with matters such as this, but I make it clear that that is not the case here. Part 3 does not plug a revenue loss and part 2 deals with a very minor issue regarding superannuation funds. Again, this provision does not plug a revenue shortfall but, rather, it ensures that superannuation funds in a particular circumstance are entitled to an exemption that they might otherwise not be entitled because of the change to the federal act. Parts 2 and 3 are not critical in any way on time. Fortunately, the government has been sensible with part 4 to cover the fact that it may not get the legislation through Parliament by 30 June. I will read out for members clause 2(b) that deals with the treatment of the commencement of part 4. Line 8 on page 2 of the bill states — (b) Part 4 — (i) comes into operation on 1 July 2015 if assent day is not later than that day; or (ii) is deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 2015 if assent day is later than that day;

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2723

That means that none of the revenue that the government is seeking to extract from Western Australian small businesses is at risk. The committee might be able to do its inquiry report before the end of the parliamentary autumn sittings that we are now currently involved with, but if it could not do that and had to report for the spring session, the government has already covered off its revenue. Part 4 would apply retrospectively back to 1 July and all the government’s revenue, $397 million over three years, would be available to fill the big budget deficit that we see in the current financial year and will inevitably see in the next financial year as well. All these issues are very important. I know that the Leader of the House would agree with me. I considered these issues in great detail before I moved the motion. As I am explaining, there is no revenue risk in proceeding with my suggestion. We would be able to deal with these very important issues that are before the house, particularly because the government appears to be intent on guillotining the legislation before we have a proper opportunity to consider it. I point out to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the motion I have passed up to you is written in my own handwriting. I wrote that after the government guillotined clause 1. I remind the chamber that, when considering whether we should refer this bill to a committee, we asked the government a couple of questions. We were surprised when it took a lot longer than we expected to get a very simple answer from the minister. He gave an undertaking to get back to us with an explanation of the issues that we raised. I commend him for that. As members know, I knew the minister before we came to this place because we share a mutual friend in Senator Dean Smith. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can, one little aside is that the minister was a staff member of a former Treasurer of the state of Western Australia; he was an adviser to Hon Richard Court, who was the last Premier of Western Australia who was also the Treasurer. Every Premier up to Richard Court had been Treasurer. I do not know whether the minister gave advice on Treasury matters. Mr W.R. Marmion: I certainly didn’t. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is excellent. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the minister worked for the last Premier who was also the Treasurer. Ms R. Saffioti: The last one to deliver a deficit. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, he was the last one to deliver a deficit as well. Up until then, all the Premiers had been Treasurers but none of the Premiers after that have been Treasurers. Another issue that the committee could examine is what the regulatory impact statement for the bill looked like. Ms R. Saffioti: Red tape reduction. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, red tape reduction. What did the impact statement look like? What examination did the Regulatory Gatekeeping Unit carry out? That is not a matter that I canvassed during my speech on the second reading because I had only 30 minutes to speak at that time. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Is that all? Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, that was all. I could not fit it into my speech. That matter is very important. I will raise it with the minister during the appropriate clauses if we return to examine the bill at an appropriate time. In considering whether we should refer this bill to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee for inquiry and report, this is the sort of issue it could look at. The Minister for Finance is handling the bill in the chamber; he is the person responsible for the Regulatory Gatekeeping Unit but the Treasurer handles taxation legislation. This was explained to us by the Treasurer when he was the Minister for Finance. The first piece of legislation he handled as the Minister for Finance was a tax increase designed by Hon Troy Buswell. I accept that the Minister for Finance has been a minister for quite some time; he was the Minister for Environment in the last Parliament. As the Minister for Finance, his first piece of legislation is a tax increase designed by the current Treasurer who, as the Minister for Finance, also introduced a bill in that way. There are so many ironies in this issue. They can all be properly examined by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee and reported on. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see why I am so eager to have these important issues referred to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee for inquiry and report. It is very, very important that we in Western Australia properly examine taxation legislation. As I said, the government wants to guillotine tax legislation and force it through without proper consideration. That is its decision. It wants to break every rule in the Liberal Party faith. The church of the Liberal Party is being desecrated by these tax increases. We know that because we have read the inaugural speeches. It is interesting that in deciding whether I would move this motion, I considered the now Minister for Finance’s inaugural speech. In that speech, he does not refer to taxation matters. The now Minister for Finance is one of the few members on that side of the chamber who did not make a commitment to cut taxes. Therefore, I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite by coming into this chamber with this legislation. As I have pointed out, he talked about free enterprise and the big commitment to free enterprise that he shares with the outstanding former members for the seat of Nedlands—the two Courts, father and son, and some other noble members in that seat.

2724 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Dr A.D. Buti: There was one who was not so noble! Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I make no comment! The member is thinking of Sue Walker. He never actually mentioned Sue Walker in this speech. I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was distracted by the making eyes across the chamber between the member for Armadale and the Minister for Finance, and I was distracted when I brought that up. The point I was making is that the now Minister for Finance did not make a commitment in his inaugural speech to cut taxes, and he is no hypocrite by coming in here with a tax increase. That is, of course, as I have said, in contrast with a number of other members on the Liberal side, such as the current Minister for Transport, who made those commitments in their inaugural speeches. I made the observation during the second reading debate on this bill that there is a real question about free enterprise in Western Australia. It is amusing that in a matter of public interest a few weeks ago, the National Party accused the Labor Party of supporting free enterprise. One accusation that the committee could examine in considering the bill is that the Labor Party is in support of the free market. That is an extraordinary accusation to be made against us closet socialists! It is just unbelievable that the criticism of the Labor Party is that we support the free market! But that is a matter that could be properly inquired into and reported on in respect of this bill that I am asking the house to refer to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee to consider. I know it is a late hour, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not see any reason to unnecessarily delay the house. Several members interjected. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am determined not to unnecessarily delay the house, so I am sure the government will accept this referral motion, because this is a government that has high standards of transparency. It has high standards that it wants to adhere to. However, there is a real conundrum, because the Premier said that the Labor Party had gone crazy because we supported sensible budget savings on that famous Valentine’s Day in 2013. We need to know why the government is proposing exactly the same amount. But instead of sensible, rational and targeted savings, the government is coming in here with tax increases and with the blunt instrument of cuts that will necessarily impact on disadvantaged people—the people we were trying to protect during the election campaign. So, I really have only one more thing to say. Mr J.H.D. Day: Tricky! Don’t worry. In fact, he just lied to the house. You lied to the house. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I did not. Withdrawal of Remark The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the House, please withdraw that. Mr J.H.D. DAY: I withdraw. Debate Resumed MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [10.59 pm]: I have great pleasure tonight in speaking to this motion. Mr P. Abetz interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The protector of small business in this place is supporting tax increases in Western Australia. Is that what he is saying? The member for Southern River is sitting there supporting tax increases for small business in Western Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I rise to support the motion that this bill be referred to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee for inquiry and report. There are a couple of key points I want to make in my contribution. A very important part of this contribution will be about the level of consultation that has been undertaken with the business community in Western Australia on this tax increase. Members may recall that the Premier’s key point on the Constitution Amendment (Recognition of Aboriginal People) Bill brought in by the member for Kimberley was that he did not believe anyone had been consulted and that it would be a surprise to everybody in the community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, can I just seek your indulgence for a moment. Member for Pilbara, member for Perth and member for Churchlands, can you please go outside and have that conversation. You have been going for half an hour. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The key criticism from the Premier about that bill, which had been around for a number of years in some form and, as I recall, had been sent to about 400 key stakeholders around the state, was that there had not been any consultation and so we would not know the implications of the bill. He said that we needed to talk to the community about that bill. Today we are debating a bill that I think a lot of people do not really understand the consequences or the implications of. That is why we need a committee to look at it.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2725

Let us look at the key businesses around Western Australia that will be affected. There are 17 000 businesses in Western Australia that will be affected by a tax increase. The tax increases vary from $1 000 up to $44 000. I want to know whether letters have been sent to the entire 17 000 businesses that will be affected. I think that only a committee of inquiry, seeking submissions and input from those 17 000 businesses in Western Australia that will be affected by this tax increase, is the right way to go. I want to talk about some of the interest groups. I think the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia has not quite comprehended the impact of this taxation package. I am sure that the CCI would have been more vocal about a tax grab on WA businesses, which this time will be nearly $400 million over three years. I do not think the CCI is quite across the detail. I would have thought that if the CCI was across the detail, it would have been more vocal. I think that one group that could be called by the committee of inquiry to fully comprehend the potential impacts would be the CCI. Of course, there are other groups out there. Does the Institute of Public Affairs still exist now that its illustrious former leader has become the $8 billion man? I am sure that the Institute of Public Affairs would want to provide evidence to a committee. I would have thought that the Institute of Public Affairs, which hates tax increases and rallies against them across the nation, particularly if they are brought in by Labor, would want to give evidence to a committee about tax increases. As I said, I am not sure whether it still exists given that its economic mastermind is now the Treasurer, who is delivering deficits and today introduced and second read an $8 billion Loan Bill. Mr D.J. Kelly: “Dr Deficit”. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: “Dr Deficit”! I am not sure whether the IPA fully comprehends that the Liberal government is increasing taxes again by another $400 million. Then there is the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia. I think the CME might not be totally aware of another tax grab by this Liberal government. If it were aware , I am sure we would have heard a bit more about it. I think a committee of inquiry that calls for submissions is the right way to go. There are all the local Chambers of Commerce around the state and in regional WA, some of which are very active and very supportive of businesses in the community, particularly in regional WA, where they have been cornerstones in some of the economic debates about economic visions for the area. For example, I do not think the regional Chambers of Commerce have been consulted by this government on this tax increase. Again regional Chambers of Commerce would be invited to contribute. I do not want to take too much liberty here, but I think the Economics and Industry Standing Committee could visit some parts of regional WA and talk to the local businesses about this proposed increase. It could possibly even throw in the new regional improvement tax that the government will introduce as possibly another term of inquiry. Of course, throughout metropolitan WA, there is a number of local Chambers of Commerce, which again, I do not think have been adequately consulted. I reiterate that when a Labor member introduces a bill, the Premier says, “I don’t think a lot of people know about it, so we can’t talk about it in this place”, yet when the Liberal Party introduces a bill to increase taxes by $397 million over three years, it does not want to consult the community; it wants to push it through and not allow us to debate each clause. I believe the leader of government business acted a bit hastily in guillotining debate on clause 1. A key point is lack of consultation. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: You’ve had 17 speakers. Several members interjected. The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, the member for West Swan has the call. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier is very keen to keep collecting these taxes, is he not? The Liberal Party loves collecting taxes. At each election it says it is the friend of business, but then it gets into office and increases taxes. As I said, the Economics and Industry Standing Committee can talk to bodies such as the Institute of Public Affairs, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, local Chambers of Commerce and possibly some members of the 500 Club and find out the impact of this tax increase. One of the other key points I want to talk about, and which the committee should be looking at is that this bill will abolish the tax-free threshold for businesses with payrolls over $800 000. The legislation is quite complex in its construction. The member for Cannington outlined some of the very complicated equations in the legislation. It sets out new calculations and new terms, the threshold amount for the year and the upper threshold amounts in trying to collect $400 million for this government. I have been thinking a lot about this bill over the past week. Mr W.J. Johnston: As you should. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: As I should, because I worry about the state of the finances and the state of WA’s economy. Several members interjected.

2726 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

The ACTING SPEAKER: Through the Chair, please. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I have been particularly worried about this issue. One of the issues I have been thinking about is that this is an interesting way to collect $400 million. The government could have had a flat rate increase and collected the same amount of money. The mechanism the government has used to achieve the $400 million is quite complex; basically, it abolishes the tax-free element for payrolls over $800 000. It is intricate and complex. I do not think it was properly explained in the second reading debate why the government chose this path. There are some interstate comparisons and I think that another state applies the same mechanism in which it abolishes the tax-free component for payrolls over a certain amount. Why would the government use this mechanism to raise that amount of money when it creates some equity arguments? The Treasurer was keen to talk about equity today. Dr A.D. Buti interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: He has to be fair! I question why this mechanism was chosen and why a flat rate increase was not the measure used to collect the same amount of revenue. Mr W.J. Johnston: Or just higher thresholds. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Yes, and there are a number of ways that the government could have collected the same amount of tax: a flat rate increase or progressive increases in rates and changes in thresholds. What was the Economic Regulation Authority’s recommendation? Mr W.J. Johnston: It was to abolish the threshold for a single rate. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: That would affect a lot of very small businesses in the state, of course. I have also wondered why we do not have more progressive rates for payroll tax, which is an issue. It would be of great benefit to have a committee look at what is underpinning this change. I do not think that was properly explored at the time of the second reading debate, but it should be examined. As the member for Cannington said, members on this side are not hypocrites about tax. We do not go around pretending to be something we are not, which is what Liberal Party members do all the time. The Liberal Party pretends it is cutting taxes, but all those members on the government side who stand and lecture the opposition about business have sat over there agreeing to increase taxes on business again and again. It is worth considering a change in the tax-free threshold because it is quite a unique proposal that I have not heard put forward. I sat on the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee for seven and a half years when I was an adviser and I do not think this type of idea was ever put forward. Mr D.A. Templeman: Where did it come from? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I do not know where it came from. I know how Treasury operates and the different roles of Treasury and the Department of Finance. Treasury’s policy is to get as much revenue as possible. It may be that Treasury has done some modelling that shows that changing the policy by abolishing the tax-free threshold for payrolls over $800 000 may deliver more revenue longer term than just a flat increase in the rate. That may have been the advice given. A committee could invite Treasury in to discuss the issue. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member for Mandurah makes a very good point. As this side’s resident tax expert, he should be co-opted to that committee. It is an interesting proposal, because the government could have raised this $397 million in a number of ways, but this is the mechanism it chose, so maybe there was advice from Treasury, the Department of Finance or the Office of State Revenue about the long-term implications of changing this mechanism. Maybe the advice was: change it this way and it will deliver more money in the longer term. Another key point I think the committee needs to look at is how this government makes these decisions. Who is the Minister for Small Business, can anyone remember? Seriously, I cannot remember. It is the member for Jandakot. Occasionally there is a dorothy dixer from a government member to the minister about some new computer system, cutting red tape or some bizarre little thing that is meant to make life easier for business and they sit there nodding away as the government increases taxes. What sort of Minister for Small Business is this? One of the key issues the committee could examine is the role of the administration behind the small business minister. [Member’s time extended.] Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Thank you Mr Acting Speaker, I think I am making pretty valid points here! We need to know what role the small business minister has, for example. I know he likes a bit of a dorothy dixer and goes out to a few business associations. I think he came out to Malaga and Districts Business Association during the last election campaign. He came out to visit my electorate during the last campaign—good on him. I think he clearly improved my primary vote by visiting my electorate, the good old member for Jandakot.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2727

I really need to know exactly what advice agencies within government provided about this tax increase. This goes to another key point the government likes to talk about—red tape reduction. Remember that red tape reduction report? Were any recommendations actually delivered? I cannot remember. Mr D.J. Kelly: Did it recommend an increase in taxes? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I would have to go and double-check the red tape reduction report, but I do not think it recommended increasing taxes. But again, that is something the committee could look at, so I thank the member for Bassendean for the interjection. Maybe the committee could look at the red tape reduction report that the government introduced and look at this policy introduced today to see whether it is consistent with that report. Mr P. Papalia: Wasn’t that applauded by the CCI? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am sure the CCI did applaud it. The CCI likes to give the government the benefit of the doubt. It is like a football supporter who never thinks their team’s letting them down, even though they might be barracking for Essendon! That is another key point. Another key point that was raised just in clause 1, which the minister said he would get advice on, was the naming protocols of tax administration bills in this place. The minister said he would get back to the Parliament on that issue, but given the complexity we encountered a few minutes into this debate and when we asked why the bill was named the way it was—people will recall that because it was this evening—we started hitting some hurdles in understanding that. The minister said he would seek advice. A committee would probably be the best forum to obtain that advice, because, again, I do not think the minister will have that advice tonight or tomorrow, so sending the question off to a committee might be the way to go. Another key point I think the committee should look at is the interaction of this taxation bill with the $8 billion Loan Bill introduced by the government today. That is new information that has come to light today. I think the Treasurer said $8 billion, because he mumbled that a bit—he did not look up. He did not like saying $8 billion and I know a lot of members on the other side did not like hearing that figure of $8 billion. We heard some gasps. That is new information that has come to light. Remember, this bill was drafted maybe a month or six weeks ago, so this $8 billion figure is very new. We really need to know the interaction of this bill with the $8 billion Loan Bill introduced by this government today. Just to reiterate that point—I think the committee should consider this—as I recall, member for Victoria Park, the government has introduced $21 billion in loan bills. Mr B.S. Wyatt: Twenty-one point three. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The government has introduced $21.3 billion in loan bills in six and a half years. Mr D.J. Kelly: An outstanding achievement. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Everybody, just hold back. The key point is that that is not the total public sector—no, no, no. It is a mistake often made. That is just the general government sector. That is not the government trading enterprises, which have user charging as a part of their operations and operate in a competitive marketplace and charge fees for service; this is the general government sector, and what does the general government sector include? It includes health, education and so forth, and the only revenue that can pay off this debt is taxes, and some very small component of the sale of goods and services. This Loan Bill is very new, and do members know what? I think the government is in a hurry with it. I think the government is in a hurry about it because otherwise it is going to run out of money. The Liberal Party of WA brings in an $8 billion Loan Bill, because the government is going to run out of money. This is all new. When we ask questions about debt—this is why I think the committee should be looking at this issue—what is the Treasurer’s response? He says, wait for the budget. I do not know. Two weeks before the state budget, the government brings in a tax bill to increase taxes by $400 million, and a Loan Bill to increase borrowings by $8 billion, and it is telling us to wait for the budget. The government cannot wait a couple of weeks to tax people and to borrow $8 billion, and it is telling us to wait for the budget. What absolute chaos that the government is bringing in these types of financial bills a couple of weeks before the state budget. We are just contemplating this fact. How many tax bills have we already dealt with this year? I think the committee should look at this point. This is now tax administration bill number three. Mr D.J. Kelly: What were the other two? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: They were, I think, land tax and another one. I lose count. Mr D.J. Kelly: Maybe the committee should inquire how this bill interacts with those bills. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I think it should. I have never seen a case in which we have been actually debating tax increases, and an increase in the Loan Bill, before the budget. This is not a consequence of the budget; this anticipates the budget, plus, I am sure, there will be other tax increases in the budget. My colleagues and I were looking at this issue, particularly the member for

2728 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mandurah, from whom we often seek advice as our tax expert. Does the member for Mandurah ever recall a time when financial bills were introduced in the weeks preceding the budget? Mr P. Papalia: Wall-to-wall financial bills. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Yes, wall-to-wall. I do not believe it ever happens under a Labor government that the government is increasing tax a couple of weeks before the state budget, and consider the audacity of the Treasurer today in saying, “Wait for the state budget.” Government members are the ones increasing taxes and borrowings, and they are telling us to wait for the state budget. The government cannot wait a couple of weeks, because it is going to run out of money. That is the type of show that this government is running. A key point the committee should look at is that the Premier believes that a decision made about recurrent expenditure in one year does not impact in the next. It is the most ridiculous proposal and concept I have heard in this place that an expenditure decision made one year on the operating account has no impact on the next. Does the member for Bassendean reckon the Serco contract signed one year has any impact on the next year? Mr D.J. Kelly: For the next 20 years! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier of the state believes that a decision can be made on the operating account in one year and will have no impact on the next one. Seriously, has this government learnt nothing? It has been in government for seven years and we are still debating the structure of the budget with this guy, let alone the fact that he is bankrupting the state. Today he said that decisions made on the recurrent side are contained within one year, but they have no implications on future years. Mr C.J. Barnett: I did not say that at all. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The Premier makes it up hour by hour. Mr C.J. Barnett: Check Hansard tomorrow. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Okay. Show me the transcript; do whatever. What the Premier said today is that a decision on the recurrent side one year has no impact on the other. That is absolutely incredible. The last thing I think this committee should look at is the massive increase in payroll tax revenue by this government. Mr P.T. Miles interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Member for Wanneroo, the man who is soon going to stand and support another tax increase on business, let us look at this. Mr P.T. Miles interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Honestly! Mr P.T. Miles: Don’t you want this bill? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: What? Does the member want to stand and make a contribution? Stand and make a contribution! The ACTING SPEAKER: Members! Ms R. SAFFIOTI: He is interjecting. The ACTING SPEAKER: He is a member as well; I am speaking to all members. The member for West Swan has the call, so she can speak. Everyone else, please keep silent. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am on my feet and I can say what I like. Stand and make a contribution, member for Wanneroo. Defend the $400 million in increased taxes. Look at the payroll tax collections: in 2008–09 it was $2.246 billion and in 2014–15 it was $3.833 billion. They are massive increases in payroll tax. Mr C.J. Barnett: It is a bit more than $175 000, though, isn’t it? Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Stand up and move the debate. Honestly, the Premier is a desperate little man. Mr W.J. Johnston: What did he say? Mr C.J. Barnett: It is a bit more than $175 000, though, isn’t it? Point of Order Mr P. PAPALIA: I refer to standing order 92, which states — Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on the Sovereign, the Governor, a judicial officer or members of the Assembly or the Council are disorderly other than by substantive motion. I request the Acting Speaker to call the Premier to order.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2729

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): I did not hear him say anything that reflects on that — Mr P. PAPALIA: He is making references to the member on her feet. I know the Acting Speaker might not be listening — The ACTING SPEAKER: I was. Mr P. PAPALIA: — but the rest of the house is, and Hansard is—Hansard is hearing it. I request that the Acting Speaker call the Premier to order. He knows what he said. He knows it was disorderly in accordance with standing order 92 and he should be called to order. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Let me make it clear that the point that the member for Warnbro is making is that if the Premier is saying that the member for West Swan has done anything improper, he must bring it in by substantive motion. If the Premier is not saying she has done anything improper, he should explain that he does not believe the member has — The ACTING SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am making an explanation about why standing order 92 is relevant. If the Premier is claiming that the member for West Swan acted improperly in respect to her entitlements, he needs to bring it in by substantive motion. The ACTING SPEAKER: I did not hear the Premier say anything about anybody acting improperly. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Alternatively, if his defence — The ACTING SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Cannington; there is no point of order. The member for West Swan has the call. Debate Resumed Ms R. SAFFIOTI: This is what we expect from the Liberal Party. It cannot debate the subject. Today we heard the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests talk about my “tribe” because I am of Italian descent. The Liberal Party is standing by that; that he said that I should act outside my tribe. What an absolutely disgraceful comment. This is the Liberal Party that cannot ever debate the topic. Mr F.A. Alban interjected. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member is a disgrace. The ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Swan Hills, please keep silent. Member for West Swan, please address — Mr W.J. Johnston: Point of order. The ACTING SPEAKER: I am in the middle of speaking, thank you. Member for West Swan, you have to speak in a manner that is relevant to the motion. Point of Order Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I would like to make an observation on the question of relevance. For it to be relevant, the member for West Swan has to explain why the motion should be carried. One of the reasons it should be carried is that — The ACTING SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Debate Resumed Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Liberal Party members come in here again and again as absolute hypocrites. They call themselves friends of the multicultural community, and then use a word like “tribe” to describe people of an Italian background. The Premier is standing by that minister, and that is an absolute disgrace. I heard what the Premier said about “Italian bashing” also. We have seen complete hypocrisy from the Liberal Party. The ACTING SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. The Leader of the House. Dr A.D. Buti: You’re a disgrace! Withdrawal of Remark The ACTING SPEAKER: You cannot say that, member for Armadale. You have to withdraw that. Dr A.D. BUTI: I will withdraw it if I have to withdraw it. The ACTING SPEAKER: Sorry, but that is not acceptable. Dr A.D. BUTI: I withdraw.

2730 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Question to be Put MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [11.32 pm]: I move — That the question be now put. Division Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result — Ayes (32)

Mr P. Abetz Ms W.M. Duncan Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr N.W. Morton Mr F.A. Alban Ms E. Evangel Mr S.K. L’Estrange Dr M.D. Nahan Mr C.J. Barnett Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr I.C. Blayney Mr B.J. Grylls Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.M. Britza Dr K.D. Hames Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr V.A. Catania Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms L. Mettam Mr M.H. Taylor Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A.P. Jacob Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)

Noes (16)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire Ms J. Farrer Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms M.M. Quirk Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)

Pairs

Mr J.M. Francis Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr R.H. Cook Ms M.J. Davies Ms L.L. Baker Mr R.F. Johnson Mr P.B. Watson Mr D.C. Nalder Mr M. McGowan

Question thus passed. Motion Resumed The ACTING SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Cannington be agreed to. Division Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result — Ayes (16)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire Ms J. Farrer Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms M.M. Quirk Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)

Noes (32)

Mr P. Abetz Ms W.M. Duncan Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr N.W. Morton Mr F.A. Alban Ms E. Evangel Mr S.K. L’Estrange Dr M.D. Nahan Mr C.J. Barnett Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr I.C. Blayney Mr B.J. Grylls Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.M. Britza Dr K.D. Hames Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr V.A. Catania Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms L. Mettam Hon Mr M.W. Sutherland Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A.P. Jacob Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2731

Pairs

Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr J.M. Francis Mr R.H. Cook Mr G.M. Castrilli Ms L.L. Baker Ms M.J. Davies Mr P.B. Watson Mr R.F. Johnson

Question thus negatived. Consideration in Detail Resumed The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is that clause 2 stand as printed. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Subclause (b) of this commencement clause states — (b) Part 4 — ... (ii) is deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 2015 if assent day is later than that day; Subclause (c) states — (c) the rest of the Act — on the day after assent day. Can the minister confirm that this is a protection for the government? In respect of the revenue-raising measures and regardless of when the bill passes Parliament, it has effect from 1 July 2015 whilst subclauses (b) and (c), which are not revenue-raising measures, are not therefore time critical. Mr W.R. MARMION: Yes. Question to be Put Mr J.H.D. DAY: I move — That the question be now put. Division Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result — Ayes (32)

Mr P. Abetz Ms W.M. Duncan Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr N.W. Morton Mr F.A. Alban Ms E. Evangel Mr S.K. L’Estrange Dr M.D. Nahan Mr C.J. Barnett Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr I.C. Blayney Mr B.J. Grylls Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.M. Britza Dr K.D. Hames Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr V.A. Catania Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms L. Mettam Mr M.H. Taylor Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A.P. Jacob Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)

Noes (16)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire Ms J. Farrer Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms M.M. Quirk Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)

Pairs

Mr J.M. Francis Mrs M.H. Roberts Ms M.J. Davies Ms L.L. Baker Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr R.H. Cook Mr R.F. Johnson Mr P.B. Watson Mr D.C. Nalder Mr M. McGowan Question thus passed. Consideration in Detail Resumed The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is that clause 2 stand as printed.

2732 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Clause put and passed. Clause 3: Act amended — The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is that clause 3 stand as printed. Question to be Put Mr J.H.D. DAY: I move — That the question be now put. Division Question put and a division taken, the Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz) casting his vote with the ayes, with the following result — Ayes (32)

Mr P. Abetz Ms W.M. Duncan Dr G.G. Jacobs Mr N.W. Morton Mr F.A. Alban Ms E. Evangel Mr S.K. L’Estrange Dr M.D. Nahan Mr C.J. Barnett Mrs G.J. Godfrey Mr R.S. Love Mr J. Norberger Mr I.C. Blayney Mr B.J. Grylls Mr W.R. Marmion Mr D.T. Redman Mr I.M. Britza Dr K.D. Hames Mr J.E. McGrath Mr A.J. Simpson Mr V.A. Catania Mrs L.M. Harvey Ms L. Mettam Mr M.H. Taylor Mr M.J. Cowper Mr C.D. Hatton Mr P.T. Miles Mr T.K. Waldron Mr J.H.D. Day Mr A.P. Jacob Ms A.R. Mitchell Mr A. Krsticevic (Teller)

Noes (16)

Dr A.D. Buti Mr D.J. Kelly Mr P. Papalia Mr C.J. Tallentire Ms J. Farrer Mr F.M. Logan Mr J.R. Quigley Mr P.C. Tinley Ms J.M. Freeman Ms S.F. McGurk Ms M.M. Quirk Mr B.S. Wyatt Mr W.J. Johnston Mr M.P. Murray Ms R. Saffioti Mr D.A. Templeman (Teller)

Pairs

Mr J.M. Francis Mrs M.H. Roberts Mr G.M. Castrilli Mr R.H. Cook Ms M.J. Davies Ms L.L. Baker Mr R.F. Johnson Mr P.B. Watson Mr D.C. Nalder Mr M. McGowan

Question thus passed. Consideration in Detail Resumed The ACTING SPEAKER: The question is that clause 3 stand as printed. Question put and passed. Clause 4: Sections 122 and 123 replaced — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Subsection (2) of proposed new section 122 deals with property that is transferred to the custodian of a trustee—because the trustee cannot borrow money to own real property, and obviously the bank will want to have a mortgage over the property—and it states that “either of the following apply to the superannuation fund”. Mr W.R. Marmion: Sorry; you went a little quick then. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: As I understand it, the trustee cannot own the property. Mr W.R. Marmion: I got all that, but then you said “either”. Whereabouts are you talking about? Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It is in paragraph (a) at line 18. It states — either of the following apply to the superannuation fund — (i) only the transferor can be a member of the superannuation fund; The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, there are too many conversations. Please take them outside. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: It then states that property can be held only as a retirement benefit. Does that mean that the transfer has to be from the beneficiary of the fund to the custodian on behalf of the trustee of the fund, and does that mean that the transferor paid duty when they purchased the property? Proposed subsection (2) states — A reference in this section to a relevant superannuation transaction is to a transfer of, or an agreement for the transfer of, dutiable property …

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2733

They will be given an exemption when the property is transferred from themselves to their fund, but they have had to purchase it anyway and therefore pay duty. Is that what happens? Mr W.R. MARMION: It is very convoluted. I think what the member is saying is that it probably would already have been acquired and is being transferred so the duty would already have been paid. This will enable it to be transferred to the custodian so that the duty does not have to be paid. It would be only $20 instead. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: But the nub of the question is that my reading of this provision is that it applies only when the property is transferred from the beneficiary of the fund to the fund. Mr W.R. Marmion: Yes. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is what I am trying to clarify. There is not an opportunity for them to avoid the duty completely because they have already paid the duty. Mr W.R. Marmion: That is correct. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So it is only the transferring—that is interesting. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: I was not in the chamber for the minister’s response to the second reading debate. Given that this is about transactions for superannuation and properties, can the minister talk about splits for superannuation, in particular whether the Duties Act enables a split and the concession amount of $20 to be paid in the first instance, and whether we would be required to change it if there were a referral of powers to the commonwealth so that that concession would be available for the split? Mr W.R. MARMION: Yes, we would. Ms J.M. Freeman interjected. Mr W.R. MARMION: Yes. We have passed the act to refer our powers, but we need the commonwealth to remove the exception for Western Australia. Once that is done, we would have to do a very minor amendment to the Duties Act so that it took effect. Ms J.M. FREEMAN: So it could not be done at the same time as the powers were referred so that we would not have to come back. I think it took South Australia over a year to bring in those quite small consequential amendments, which meant that people had to pay the full duty instead of the $20 concessional rate that is available for married couples who separate, but not for de facto couples. Mr W.R. MARMION: It is a simple thing to do. If we knew that the commonwealth was bringing it in, we could bring in the amendment at the same time so that they could take effect at the same time. There is a mechanism to make sure that there is no delay. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I turn to proposed section 123(1). As I understand it—please confirm whether this is right—this provision states that if a superannuation fund that has one beneficiary, as defined under proposed section 122, which is the proposed section I asked the minister about before, gets more than one beneficiary, because it can get the duty exemption only if it has one beneficiary, or the asset that is held for the benefit of one beneficiary is held for more than one beneficiary, effectively this will have retrospectively removed the duty exemption and they will have to pay duty on the transaction. Mr W.R. Marmion: Well put. I got you that time. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Good; excellent. If the minister puts his head nod on the record, that would be good. Mr W.R. Marmion: Yes. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I put on the record that the minister nodded his head. I am sorry, I know it is there, so they have to tell the Office of State Revenue about it and they are penalised if they do not, but what is the date on which the duty is calculated? It ceases to be held for the benefit of one person and is held for the benefit of more than one person, so how is the date calculated? I ask that because property values change, so there will be a question about how it is valued. Mr W.R. MARMION: The date is when the other person becomes a beneficiary. That is the date that is taken, so that is the valuation date. Clause put and passed. Clause 5 put and passed. Clause 6: Act amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: What is the effect of this? Mr W.R. Marmion: There is no effect; it is a grammatical error. Clause put and passed.

2734 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Clause 7: Section 14 amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I understand from the explanatory memorandum that we are dealing with situations in which something unusual occurs, such as, at the moment, if a land tax exempt property is subdivided, it ceases to be exempt. Mr W.R. Marmion: If there is a house on part of the property, that is still exempt. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes. It could be exempt because it is a — Mr W.R. Marmion: Place of residence. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, but it could be a caravan park. Indeed, the EM referred to caravan parks. What happens if there is compulsory acquisition? Could the minister give an example perhaps of where this has occurred so that there is some detailed explanation for us about what is contemplated by the provision? Mr W.R. MARMION: I can give a real-life example because I used to resume land when we widened roads or put roads through people’s property. Heading into Dunsborough, for example, to go down Caves Road we used to turn at a T-junction. However, Main Roads put in a curve, and there was a bit of a bonus for the person who owned the land because it produced a triangular piece of land that a hotel could be built on, so someone could make lots of money. That was a consequential benefit. In this situation, Main Roads would subdivide and put the main road through where Caves Road goes and the land would be split into two other parcels—so, consequentially. Assuming a farmhouse is on the land, because it has been compulsorily subdivided, the Commissioner of State Revenue will not hit the owner for the land tax, whereas if they had done it themselves, the land tax could go back five years. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: How many times would this occur during the year? For example, how many times does the minister think the residential exemption will apply in compulsory acquisitions? Mr W.R. MARMION: My advice is that it will be fairly infrequent. Clause put and passed. Clause 8: Section 43A amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I have managed to find the explanatory memorandum. It was troubling the minister that I was not looking at him when he answered my last question, so I apologise for that. At the moment the commissioner can make a decision on land tax matters as provided by section 45 of the Land Tax Assessment Act and currently that decision cannot be reviewed. The effect of this clause is to allow a decision to be reviewed. I want to know whether any particular party had asked for this change. Is there some experience or issue that led to the decision to remove this protection for the commissioner? Again, I do not know the details, so I am not necessarily saying it is a good thing or a bad thing. The explanatory memorandum states — Section 43A(4) of the Land Tax Assessment Act provides that a decision made under subsection (3) is non-reviewable, that is, not subject to any objection or appeal. This clause deletes section 43A(4). Obviously, it will now be reviewable. Is there a reason for doing this? Has someone asked for it? Has a particular issue come up? Have there been problems in dealing with the taxation legislation? What has led the government to remove this benefit that the commissioner has enjoyed? Mr W.R. MARMION: It was an error. Apparently, in a review, the State Administrative Tribunal forgot to put this one in. This rectifies that so that everything can be reviewed. Clause put and passed. Clause 9: Section 45A amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Minister, is this the same situation and is this clause to tidy up an oversight, or is it something else? This clause relates to a decision in South Australia. Is it a belts-and-braces change to make sure that the act protects the commissioner from any question about revenue, based on this decision in South Australia? I point out that the clause has only 10 lines, but the explanatory memorandum has nearly two pages on this issue, so although it is a small change it is a complex issue. My understanding of the explanatory memorandum is that a person might own property that is subject to land tax and to try to avoid it they transfer one per cent of the ownership to a related party—the EM refers to a spouse. The commissioner currently has an untrammelled power to determine that despite somebody else owning one per cent of the property, their ownership is effectively ignored and the main owner is therefore entirely liable for the tax. I have two questions. I see that the proposed amendment relates to a South Australian decision. Are there any matters afoot in Western Australia that are similar to the case that was dealt with in this action in South Australia? The

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2735 second question is: what is the largest percentage that a person can hold whereby the commissioner will deem it avoidance and therefore apply the anti-avoidance procedure? That is so that taxpayers can have an understanding about how the commissioner might judge what is avoidance and what is a genuine transaction. Mr W.R. MARMION: Firstly, there is currently no dispute in Western Australia, so no-one will be adversely affected. The advice I have is that five per cent is the figure. If it is less than five per cent, the onus is on the taxpayer, and if it is more than five per cent, the onus is on the commissioner for the taxation. Clause put and passed. Clause 10: Section 45B replaced — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Again, it is a complementary change, but section 45B is being deleted and a new section 45B is being inserted and I want to clarify whether the words used in proposed section 45B(1)(b) at line 13 are same as the provision in the existing legislation. Also, under proposed section 45B(3) at line 19 is there an obligation on the taxpayer to disclose these issues or is it something that the commissioner has to discover? Mr W.R. MARMION: It is different. The wording in proposed section 45B(1)(b) is different from that of 45B(1)(a). Is that what the member’s question was about? Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That was not my question. The question is: how does this provision compare with the provision in the existing 45B that we are deleting? My second question is: is there an obligation that takes place to disclose issues raised in proposed section 45B(3) or is it something that only the commissioner can discover? Mr W.R. MARMION: The change is to make the provision more explicit and to define the fact that it can go back five years; that is not in the current act, but only in the new legislation. As to the second question, it is up to the commissioner to determine and he has quite a good ability to do that by matching records and things. It can be done, but it is up to the commissioner to define the discrepancy. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: I am just double-checking the provision that relates to five years in this proposed section. Basically, reassessment can be made for five or more years before the assessment year and I ask why that inclusion has been brought in. Mr W.R. MARMION: It is to make it clear that we cannot go back more than five years. There was a practice anyway and now we are making it clear that we cannot go back more than five years. We can go back to five years only when the interest was created, so it could be less. Clause put and passed. Clause 11: Glossary amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I would like to ask a question, and again this is one of these wonderful clauses that is only a very brief paragraph, but the explanatory memorandum goes for two-thirds of a page. I have read that, and I understand that the arrangements of the Building Act remove the provisions that the commissioner previously used. I want to ask two questions. Is there any reason that this amendment was not made as a consequential amendment in the Building Act 2011, or was that just an oversight? If it was just an oversight, can the minister tell us what the commissioner has been doing to enforce their obligations in respect of the period since the Building Act 2011 came into effect? Mr W.R. MARMION: Yes, it was an oversight, and I am just determining whether my advisers know what has been happening in the meantime. We will pause for a tick. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I might just stand up while the minister takes particular advice. Mr W.R. MARMION: I understand that it does not have a significant material effect, but we do not know what the commissioner has been doing in the meantime. We will have to ask him. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: There must be a current provision, and if the current provision does not refer to the Building Act, which is what I assume the minister is saying to me, and these are cases in which a strata title is agreed by a council and not by the Department of Lands, there must have been people coming to the commissioner and paying tax. I am just wondering what has been the basis of the collections. Mr W.R. MARMION: We would still be accepting them, based on the current situation, but this will sort it all out. Clause put and passed. Clause 12 put and passed. Clause 13: Section 8 amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I want to get this right. It is . I will read the explanation. The upper threshold, which is UT, is $7.5 million, and AT is $800 000. AT UT−AT

2736 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr W.R. Marmion interjected. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, of course these things may change in the future, but I am talking about the present moment. My calculation here is that $800 000 is over $7.5 million, so that is 0.8 over 0.67, which is 0.8375. Is that the correct figure? Mr W.R. Marmion: It is eight over 67. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, it is 0.8 over 0.67. Mr W.R. Marmion: I cannot in my head divide 67 into eight. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I could not do it in my head either. I did it before on my calculator, and I will just do it again while I am talking to the minister. The answer is 1.19. Mr W.R. Marmion: You must have put 80 instead of eight; you have moved a decimal point. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So it is 1.19402. Mr W.R. Marmion: It is 0.1. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: What is the figure? Mr W.R. Marmion: I have not done it in my head, but I know you’ve got a decimal point wrong, so it is zero point something. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Could the minister tell me what it is? It is important because I am going to have to use this figure in another clause where this is very important. Mr W.R. Marmion: It is 0.19. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Do I not go past the second decimal place? Mr W.R. Marmion: It is 0.119. Clause put and passed. Clause 14: Sections 10 to 14 replaced — Ms R. SAFFIOTI: My question relates to the methodology in relation to increasing the payroll tax. I believe that a number of options would have been put forward to the minister to collect extra payroll tax revenue. Were a number of options put forward to the minister? Did he look at increasing all the rates, or increasing the rates in a progressive way, or did he look at this one, which is abolishing the tax-free threshold? Were a number of options put forward in relation to collecting extra tax and why was this method chosen above others? Mr W.R. MARMION: Apart from this being a pretty sensible and clever way to put it in, I am advised that this was covered by the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee, and any other options would be confidential. Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The minister has been advised that any other options would be confidential. I can sort of guess the different options that were put forward, so I do not need to know them. I am asking whether a number of options were considered and why this one was chosen. What are the benefits to this government in deciding on this option? Mr W.R. MARMION: I can answer the second part. There would be an infinite number of methods, obviously, but the benefit of this one is that it maintains the tax-free threshold. It could have started from zero and been recouped from everybody. It means it only impacts on people who are not within the threshold amount. As the threshold goes up, they do not have to pay any tax. We are clawing it back. Any figure could have been chosen, but $7.5 million was chosen. The cap is $44 000. That was the option that the EERC agreed on. That was what we are bringing through this bill. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I wonder if the minister can tell us whether there was a discussion about this tax arrangement. I appreciate that the minister does not handle the legislation until it gets here, but can he advise whether the Small Business Development Corporation was asked its views on these amendments before it got to the chamber? Was the Regulatory Gatekeeping Unit within the Department of Finance involved in discussions on the arrangement? Did the government discuss these matters with any representative groups in the community such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia or perhaps the Independent Grocers of Australia? Could the minister advise us of those issues? Mr W.R. MARMION: In relation to consultation, this bill went through the regulatory gatekeeping processes and the advice received from the Regulatory Gatekeeping Unit was that the changes proposed are unlikely to have significant negative impacts on businesses, consumers or the economy. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I thank the minister for that answer. On page 10 at line 22 we have a wonderful formula, AT – [(W – AT) x TV]. AT is the annual threshold amount for the year, which is $800 000. An employer who is below the $800 000 limit does not pay the tax, whereas a person who is above $7.5 million is okay because they

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2737 will pay tax on their entire payroll. But we necessarily have this complexity, because of the decision to have the sliding scale, that people between $800 000 and $7.5 million have a sliding amount, and this is the formula that has been developed to try to set that sliding amount. As I say, the legislation sets out on pages 10 through to 18 that they are the employers that we are talking about and that the deductible amount for the year is calculated in accordance with proposed subsection (2), and at line 22 of page 10 is the formula. Let us assume that there is an employer with a $500 million payroll who fits within that $800 000 to $7.5 million. AT for them will be $800 000. There is a minus sign and square brackets, and mathematics tells us that we calculate everything inside the square brackets first. Mr W.R. Marmion: No. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Sorry; before we do the subtractions, we do everything in the square brackets, and the round brackets are then the first thing we do. W is the total value — Mr W.R. Marmion: You said $5 million, did you? Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Yes, the example is $5 million. Mr W.R. Marmion: Yes, so $4.2 million. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So, minus AT. That is $5 million minus $800 000, which is $4.2 million. That is then multiplied by TV, which is the tapering value for the year. Mr W.R. Marmion: Your figure, 0.119, think. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So that example is $499 800, and we take that from $800 000 and that is the amount that is added to — Mr W.R. Marmion: You take that off the $5 million and — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: That is the tax paid on that. That is the arrangement. Mr W.R. Marmion: Correct. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The taper value can only change if we change the thresholds that are provided in proposed section 8(2), which was dealt with in clause 13. We can see that the taper value is a fixed amount that varies only by the thresholds, and we can change the thresholds only through legislation. Given that we would want legislation to be easily understood, why would we not specify the taper value rather than have it as part of the formula? I understand that if we were to change the thresholds, the taper value would also change, but it would only change through legislative process, so why not just put the taper value into the legislation? Mr W.R. MARMION: The member is dead right. We actually already have legislation in place to change the threshold from $800 000 to $850 000, hence why I have this in place so it will be seamless when the threshold moves. As I said in my reply to the second reading debate, the opposition was fixated on the commentary of the midyear review. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: The minister could just as easily continued to have had that taper value, because it specifies a taper value from this date and a taper value from the other date. Mr W.R. Marmion: We could have. There is an infinite number of things that we could have done, and this is the way we did it. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: What is the date the minister is saying that the additional threshold comes in—that is, the $850 000? Mr W.R. Marmion: It is 1 July 2016; so in 12 months’ time. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: There could quite easily have been a provision that said that the tapering value is this for this year and that for future years, because, as I say, we end up with this, and we will be getting into even more complex future calculations on other pages. If the minister’s intention was to keep things simple, the annual thresholds and the tapering values could both be specified as specific amounts rather than having them as formulas. I have trouble doing the calculations, so if the minister’s intention is to have simple taxation legislation—the minister told me that the Regulatory Gatekeeping Unit looked at this and said that it was simple legislation—surely it would have been better to have less complexity for ordinary folk, because it does not matter to the department, because it knows what it is doing, it will be the ordinary folk who will have the problem. Why put in a formula rather than something that can be easily read by ordinary people? Mr W.R. MARMION: It does not really matter how it is done, because the employer just provides the data to the department, and the computers will tell them how much they have to pay. If they want to work it out, they can go online and put in the numbers; however, whatever the formula is, it is all done by computer.

2738 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Clause put and passed. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: Mr Speaker, I was — The SPEAKER: I am sorry. I put the question and I believe the ayes have it. Mr P. Papalia interjected. The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! I was waiting for people to speak and I put the question. Clause 15: Section 17 amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I draw the minister’s attention to the formula on page 20, at line 28, which is – – . Could the minister explain that to me and give a live example? 푊 Mr�퐴푇 W.R.�� MARMION푇푊 퐴푇� 푥 :푇푉 At� �the푥 〔end푇푊 〕of the day, I will try to do it very easily. This is one in which wages are going to other states, so it is proportioning how much of a deduction a person can get off the WA wage bill in relation to how much it is. That is what the formula does. It is almost exactly the same as the other formulae, except for the WA over TW, if we substitute the TW for whatever we had used before—I think it was AT. All it is doing is that the formula is the same, except, because we multiply by W, it is the WA wages divided by the total TW, which is the total amount of Australian wages that are proportionate to how much is WA. It is the portion of WA that can be deducted from the wages bill in Western Australia to then calculate it. That is putting it in words without running through it. I have an example in dollars. Mr W.J. Johnston: Can you table the example? Mr W.R. MARMION: An example is in the explanatory memorandum. Mr W.J. Johnston: The EM has outcomes, but not calculations. Mr W.R. MARMION: At page 20 of the EM, there is a live example of dollars. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I am looking specifically at line 19 of page 21, which states — (5) Delete section 17(4) and insert: (4) … That proposed subsection ends over the page on line 12. The formula for a part-year is set out from lines 13 to 26. Can the minister give us an example of how that formula would apply? Does it relate to a business that might move part of its operations to Western Australia at a certain time of the year? Can the minister also advise generally what alternatives were considered in respect of these matters? The minister might remember that the former Treasurer, Hon Troy Buswell, asked the Economic Regulation Authority to examine the question of payroll tax. It put out a draft report and a final report and explained the difficulties—I am sure the minister is familiar with the report—and complexities of payroll tax. It urged the government to go down the path of a simplified arrangement, which is what I was looking forward to asking the minister about in the previous clause but I am happy to ask him about it with respect to this clause. Is that what the minister is contemplating? Does it relate perhaps to a business moving to the state partway through the year? That is the most likely occasion—if a business already has a payroll somewhere else and creates a payroll over here. That is the first question. The second question is: is there a particular reason that the ERA’s report has been rejected? I am not sure that the government has formally responded to the ERA’s recommendations on payroll tax. Does this mean that the minister is rejecting the ERA’s report? Mr W.R. MARMION: There is an example on page 21 of the explanatory memorandum. Basically, this relates to a company that might have operations throughout Australia. It might cease operating completely halfway through the year or partway through the year in Western Australia, so it has had a payroll in Western Australia for part of the year. Alternatively, a new company could start up in WA and operate for only part of the year. This is basically an added feature—we could call it an added complication—of how we calculate the threshold for the deducted amount on its payroll if it had not operated in Western Australia for the full 12 months. An operator could start up and finish anywhere in Australia as well. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I asked two questions. As I said, I was intending to ask the second question during consideration of the previous clause but I did not get the opportunity. Given that the ERA made those other recommendations with respect to payroll tax, I assume that the government has rejected the recommendations of the ERA, which is why it is not bringing legislation to us to implement the suggestions of the ERA. Is that what the minister is saying? Mr W.R. MARMION: I am not aware of the government having rejected the recommendations. All we are doing in this clause is putting in the formulas to brick in this clawback of the threshold.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2739

Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I understand that the legislation was created by the Treasurer. Can the minister tell us whether there is a time line for the government to respond to the ERA’s report? The Treasurer referred the matter to the ERA to do it. The ERA put enormous effort into it. It had a very thick, detailed draft report, and then a final report after feedback from a lot of agencies. One of the major components of that report was recommendations in respect of payroll tax. It is the old debate—the broader the base, the lower the rate. The ERA made that very clear, and it explained it in great detail. I am not saying that I agree with the ERA. I am just saying that it was the government that asked the ERA to do it. Therefore, is the minister aware of the time line for the government to respond to the ERA’s recommendations in respect of payroll tax? Mr W.R. MARMION: I am aware that the Treasurer is reviewing that as part of the white paper in the commonwealth situation. So, it is a bit broader than that, and the member will have to obviously ask the Treasurer about that. Clause put and passed. Clause 16: Section 18 replaced — Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Exactly what will be the impact of proposed new section 18? As I understand it, this clause relates to part-year issues. The previous clause deals with employees in Western Australia versus the rest of Australia. I understand that this provision replaces a similar provision that deals with part-year employees. Can the minister provide an explanation of the calculation involved in this proposed new section? Mr W.R. MARMION: This is to do with different groups within the organisation and how to apportion the annual threshold amount for part assessments for the year. The calculation in the bill of ( ) is specifically 푃 for groups. 퐴푇 푥 푦 Ms R. SAFFIOTI: Is that “groups” as in groups of employees? Is it apportioned according to each employee or it is apportioned against groups of employees? Mr W.R. MARMION: It is groups of employees. It shows how to calculate that and feed it back into the formula in clause 15, which is a portion of the annual threshold amount. Clause put and passed. Clauses 17 and 18 put and passed. Clause 19: Glossary amended — Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: I would like to know what will happen to the definition of “apportioned threshold amount”. That term is actually used in a number of other clauses. I would have thought that we still need a definition for that term. The member for West Swan drew the minister’s attention to this issue when he had an interchange with her in respect of clause 16 of the bill, which is to delete existing section 18 and insert a new section 18, and which in fact uses this term. That is just an example, but this term is used elsewhere in the bill as well. I am wondering why we no longer need to define that term if it is a term that is still being used. Mr W.R. MARMION: My understanding is that this definition has already been brought in. But it is not the same definition as the one that is used here. It has already been brought into individual sections, and it does not have the meaning that it has here. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So is the minister saying that the term “apportioned threshold amount” might mean different things in different clauses, and that in certain circumstances it means different things? Mr W.R. MARMION: Yes. Mr W.J. JOHNSTON: So we are introducing a situation in which the same word can have a different meaning, depending on the clause in which it is used. That is quite a surprise to me, minister. I would not have expected that as an answer. But, if that is minister’s answer, I look forward to the courts having fun with that. Mr W.R. MARMION: I will respond. It is the same term but it is used in different contexts in terms of apportionments for the year. Mr W.J. Johnston: Yes; so someone could interpret it. Mr W.R. MARMION: Someone could interpret each one if they got hold of it, but it is explained in each section, so I think it is pretty clear what it means. Clause put and passed. Title put and passed.

2740 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE Special On motion without notice by Mr J.H.D. Day (Leader of the House), resolved — That the house at its rising adjourn until 12 noon today (Thursday). House adjourned at 12.41 am (Thursday) ______

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2741

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3643. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing; Racing and Gaming: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mr D.T. Redman replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3645. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Water; Sport and Recreation; Forestry: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Ms M.J. Davies replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3646. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business; Veterans: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mr J.M. Francis replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3647. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Environment; Heritage: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated?

2742 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr A.P. Jacob replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3648. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Local Government; Community Services; Seniors and Volunteering; Youth: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mr A.J. Simpson replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3649. Mr M. McGowan to the Treasurer; Minister for Energy; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Treasurer’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Dr M.D. Nahan replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3650. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food; Fisheries: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) Does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) If yes to a), for each instance: (i) What is the subsidy or payment; (ii) What is its intended purpose; and (iii) How is it calculated? Mr W.R. Marmion replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3651. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Finance; Mines and Petroleum: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated?

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2743

Mr W.R. Marmion replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3652. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Attorney General; Minister for Commerce: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mrs L.M. Harvey replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3655. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3656. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Education; Aboriginal Affairs; Electoral Affairs: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3657. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Regional Development; Lands; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated?

2744 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr D.T. Redman replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3658. Mr M. McGowan to the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Tourism: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Deputy Premier’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Dr K.D. Hames replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3659. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES —SUBSIDY, REBATE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 3659. Mr M. McGowan to the Premier; Minister for State Development; Science: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Premier’s portfolios: (a) does the agency administer any subsidy, rebate or assistance payment; and (b) if yes to (a), for each instance: (i) what is the subsidy or payment; (ii) what is its intended purpose; and (iii) how is it calculated? Mr C.J. Barnett replied: (a)–(b) The Member may be aware that Government implemented the Concessions WA website in 2012. The website includes information on more than 100 rebates, concessions and subsidy schemes provided by the WA State Government. I encourage the member to peruse the website: www.concessions.wa.gov.au and if they have any particular queries to direct them to the relevant Minister. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3660. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing; Racing and Gaming: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery?

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2745

Mr D.T. Redman replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3662. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Water; Sport and Recreation; Forestry: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Ms M.J. Davies replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3663. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business; Veterans: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr J.M. Francis replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3664. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Environment; Heritage: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013;

2746 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

(b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr A.P. Jacob replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3665. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Local Government; Community Services; Seniors and Volunteering; Youth: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr A.J. Simpson replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3666. Mr M. McGowan to the Treasurer; Minister for Energy; Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Treasurer’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased;

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2747

(ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Dr M.D. Nahan replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3667. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food; Fisheries: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr W.R. Marmion replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3668. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Finance; Mines and Petroleum: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr W.R. Marmion replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3669. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Attorney General; Minister for Commerce: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013;

2748 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

(b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mrs L.M. Harvey replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3672. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3673. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Education; Aboriginal Affairs; Electoral Affairs: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased;

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2749

(ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3674. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Regional Development; Lands; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr D.T. Redman replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3675. Mr M. McGowan to the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Tourism: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Deputy Premier’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery?

2750 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Dr K.D. Hames replied: (a)–(e) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3676. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FEES AND CHARGES 3676. Mr M. McGowan to the Premier; Minister for State Development; Science: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Premier’s portfolio: (a) how many reviews of their agencies’ fees and charges have been conducted since 9 March 2013; (b) did any of these reviews identify any fee or charge that is above cost recovery; (c) if yes to (b), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges identified; (ii) the amount the fee or charge was above cost recovery; and (iii) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery; (d) did any of these reviews result in an increase in any fee or charge that was above cost recovery; and (e) if yes to (d), could you please provide: (i) a list of the fees or charges that were increased; (ii) the amount that the fee or charge increased; (iii) how much above cost recovery was the new fee or charge; and (iv) the reason for the fee or charge being above cost recovery? Mr C.J. Barnett replied: (a)–(e) Accountable authorities administer thousands of tariffs, fees and charges. Treasurer’s Instruction 810 requires accountable authorities to conduct annual reviews of tariffs, fees and charges and the Department of Treasury requests details of reviews to assist in the budget process. Guidance is included in these requests and also in the document titled Costing and Pricing Government Services, which is available at the following website address: http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/costing_pricing_government_services_april2007.pdf Where an increase in fees and charges is proposed where greater than 100 per cent cost recovery is likely to be achieved these are outlined in the State Budget, available from www.ourstatebudget.wa.gov.au Details on fees and charges are also published in the Western Australian Government Gazette, available from www.slp.wa.gov.au/gazette/gazette.nsf If the Hon Member has a specific query about a specific fee or charge then I would encourage them to direct that to the relevant Minister. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3677. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing; Racing and Gaming: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Mr D.T. Redman replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2751

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3679. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Water; Sport and Recreation; Forestry: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Ms M.J. Davies replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3680. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business; Veterans: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Mr J.M. Francis replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3681. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Environment; Heritage: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Mr A.P. Jacob replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693.

2752 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES

3682. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Local Government; Community Services; Seniors and Volunteering; Youth: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? to Question on Notice no. 3693. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES

3685. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Finance; Mines and Petroleum: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge?

Mr W.R. Marmion replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES

3686. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Attorney General; Minister for Commerce: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge?

Mrs L.M. Harvey replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2753

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3689. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3690. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Education; Aboriginal Affairs; Electoral Affairs: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES 3691. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Regional Development; Lands; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Minister’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Mr D.T. Redman replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693.

2754 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES

3692. Mr M. McGowan to the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Tourism: For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Deputy Premier’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge? Dr K.D. Hames replied: (a)–(b) Please refer to the response to Question on Notice no. 3693.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — NEW TARIFFS, FEES AND CHARGES

3693. Mr M. McGowan to the Premier; Minister for State Development; Science:

For each agency, department, authority and Government Trading Enterprise under the Premier’s portfolio, since 9 March 2013: (a) have any new tariffs, fees or charges been implemented; and (b) if yes to (a), for each new tariff, fee or charge: (i) what is the name and purpose of the tariff, fee or charge; (ii) on what date did it come into effect; (iii) why was it implemented; (iv) what was the amount of the tariff, fee or charge when it was implemented; and (v) what is the current amount of the tariff, fee or charge?

Mr C.J. Barnett replied: (a)–(b) Details on fees and charges are published in the Western Australian Government Gazette, available from www.slp.wa.gov.au/gazette/gazette.nsf and outlined in the State Budget, available from www.ourstatebudget.wa.gov.au If the Hon Member has a specific query about a specific fee or charge then I would encourage them to direct that to the relevant Minister.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN — MEDIA TRAINING

3701. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business; Veterans: I refer to the provision of media training for the Minister during the period 10 March 2014 to date, and ask: (a) did the Minister receive media training by any paid, external service provider during this period; (b) if yes to (a), what was the name of the media training provider; and (c) if yes to (a), what was the amount paid to each media training provider outlined at (b)? Mr J.M. Francis replied: (a) No (b)–(c) Not applicable

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2755

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN — MEDIA TRAINING 3711. Mr M. McGowan to the Minister representing the Minister for Education; Aboriginal Affairs; Electoral Affairs: I refer to the provision of media training for the Minister during the period 10 March 2014 to date, and ask: (a) did the Minister receive media training by any paid, external service provider during this period; (b) if yes to (a), what was the name of the media training provider; and (c) if yes to (a), what was the amount paid to each media training provider outlined at (b)? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a) No (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable PRISONS — PRISONERS ON REMAND 3716. Mr P. Papalia to the Minister for Corrective Services: I refer to page 28 of the Inspector of Custodial Services Report of an Announced Inspection of Bandyup Women’s Prison and the fact that 28 per cent of all women in prison and 31 per cent of Aboriginal women in prison (on 24 July 2014) were on remand, and I ask: (a) what number of women were in prison on 24 July 2014 on remand solely because of an inability to raise surety (expressed as both a raw figure and percentage of all women in prison on that day); (b) what number of Aboriginal women were in prison on 24 July 2014 on remand solely because of an inability to raise surety (expressed as both a raw figure and percentage of all Aboriginal women in prison on that day); (c) what number of men were in prison on 24 July 2014 on remand solely because of an inability to raise surety (expressed as both a raw figure and percentage of all men in prison on that day); and (d) what number of Aboriginal men were in prison on 24 July 2014 on remand solely because of an inability to raise surety (expressed as both a raw figure and percentage of all Aboriginal men in prison on that day)? Mr J.M. Francis replied: The Department of Corrective Services advises: (a) At 24 July 2014 there was a total of 14 females remanded in custody with bail set, or 2.9% of 485 females in total. (b) At 24 July 2014 there was a total of 11 Aboriginal females remanded in custody with bail set, or 4.3% of 255 Aboriginal females in total. (c) At 24 July 2014 there was a total of 58 males remanded in custody with bail set, or 1.2% of 4739 males in total. (d) At 24 July 2014 there was a total of 23 Aboriginal males remanded in custody with bail set, or 1.3% of 1813 Aboriginal males in total. EDUCATION — CHILD AND PARENT CENTRES — KIMBERLEY 3720. Ms J. Farrer to the Minister representing the Minister for Education: I refer to the Minister’s response to Question On Notice No. 3198, and I ask: (a) do any of the Children and Family centres located in the Kimberley service Broome; (b) was consideration given to the establishment of a Child and Parent centre in Derby; (c) if no to (b), can the Minister explain the reasoning behind that decision; (d) was consideration given to the establishment of a Child and Parent centre to be located anywhere in the Kimberley; (e) how many Child and Parent centres are located in regional Western Australia; (f) what was the criteria followed when deciding the locations to build these Child and Parent centres; and (g) list the reasons why Broome and Derby did not meet the criteria to receive a Child and Parent centre?

2756 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) Not applicable. (d) Yes. (e) Five Children and Parents Centres are located in regional Western Australia. (f)–(g) A number of data sources were used to develop a list of potential school sites to locate the centres, including: low socio-economic areas (SEI less than 94); Australian Early Development Census data; NAPLAN Year 3 reading results; the percentage of Aboriginal children within the community; school ‘readiness’ and current involvement with external agencies providing birth to four-year- old programs on school sites; information from Regional Executive Directors; discussions and negotiation with a range of government agencies, such as the Department of Health; availability of school land and/or classrooms from which to base the centres; the existence (or not) of Commonwealth-funded initiatives, such as the Children and Family Centres and Early Learning and Care Centres in the area. Deliberations by Cabinet are subject to Cabinet confidentiality. PRIMARY BEHAVIOUR CENTRES — KIMBERLEY 3721. Ms J. Farrer to the Minister representing the Minister for Education: I refer to the Ministers response to Question On Notice No. 3199, and I ask: (a) what was the student population number and other criteria that determined the location of the four regionally located Behaviour Centres; (b) where are these four centres located; and (c) when were each of these centres opened? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a) The locations were determined on student numbers as follows: 2007: Goldfields 6,552 2010: Bunbury 13,148 2010: Midwest 8,513 2010: Pilbara 7,972 (b) Bunbury, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie and Port Hedland. (c) Bunbury, operational in 2010; Geraldton, operational in 2010; Kalgoorlie, operational in 2007; Port Hedland operational in 2010. SCHOOLS — EDUCATION ASSISTANTS 3722. Mr P.B. Watson to the Minister representing the Minister for Education: I refer to changes in the allocation of education assistants in public schools in 2014 and the impact this has had on children with learning difficulties, and ask is the Minister supportive of integration of these children in schools or is this a move to send these children to ‘special needs’ school? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: There has been no reduction in the allocation of education assistants for students with diagnosed disability. Students with learning difficulties do not meet the criteria to enrol at an education support school or centre; they have always enrolled in mainstream classes.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2757

The Department of Education is committed to supporting the needs of all students, including those with learning difficulties, in the mainstream classroom through evidence-based high-quality instruction, assessment and intervention. In 2015, under the new student-centred funding model, educational adjustment funding is provided to mainstream schools as a flexible allocation. This enables mainstream schools to implement programs and learning supports for students with additional learning needs. This new allocation means more students will be able to access support without the need for a diagnosis of disability. SCHOOLS — ALLOCATED BUDGET — ALBANY ELECTORATE 3723. Mr P.B. Watson to the Minister representing the Minister for Education: In relation to the allocated school budgets for 2015 and how schools in Albany are coping with this, I ask: (a) what is the core business of Western Australian public schools and how is it to be delivered; (b) is there any criteria to be met to ensure under the new funding system schools can deliver this core business; (c) are school choirs and sports carnivals as core business of schools; (d) what monitoring or auditing process is in place to assess the new funding model on schools to ensure its effectiveness; (e) is there a protective mechanism within the new funding model to protect and ensure that the educational outcomes and standards set by government can be delivered; (f) what happens when the funding system compromises the delivery of these outcomes and standards; and (g) what is the process the Minister uses to determine that schools are better off under the new funding model? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a) The core business of Western Australian public schools is to provide every child with a high quality public school education — whatever their ability, wherever they live, whatever their background. They are expected to do this through the provision of high-quality teaching and learning that is relevant and responsive to their students’ and community needs. (b) The Department of Education has ensured that each school has sufficient funding to enable it to deliver an appropriate curriculum and meet legislative requirements, including covering general operating costs; salaries for principals, teachers and support staff; and costs for utilities, cleaning and gardening. (c) Activities such as school choirs and sports carnivals are examples of ways that schools choose to deliver different parts of the curriculum. (d) Formal agreements will be entered into between each school principal and the Department of Education to ensure that the annual school budget is managed, monitored and reported in an open and transparent manner. All schools will be accountable for their budgets through these agreements and will be required to indicate how the funds are making a difference to outcomes for students. The Department will continue to centrally monitor the performance of all students through its School Performance Monitoring System. All schools are subject to processes of financial audit and are required to report to their boards and councils in relation to the school budgets and student performance. (e) In developing the student-centred funding model, extensive modelling was undertaken to ensure all schools have sufficient funds to deliver an appropriate educational program for their students. The Department will continue to centrally monitor the performance of all students through its School Performance Monitoring System. In addition, IPS are required to undertake an independent review every three years. (f) The new funding model does not compromise the delivery of educational outcomes. The model provides principals with greater flexibility and more control to determine the best deployment of their funds to maximise outcomes for their students. (g) The impact of the SCFM is measured by comparing what the expected 2015 school budget would have been under the previous funding model and the actual school budget for 2015 under the SCFM. 601 schools have more funding under the new model than they would have received if the model had not changed.

2758 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

MENTAL HEALTH — KIMBERLEY ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICE CENTRE 3726. Ms J. Farrer to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health: I refer to the Minister’s answer to my Question On Notice No. 3172 relating to Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service Centre (KAMSC) and ask: (a) in 2013–2014, what additional ‘cover’ was delivered in Ardyaloon, Djarindjin, Lombadina and Beagle Bay by Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service Centre (KAMSC); (b) in 2013–2014, how many people were assisted by the Anglicare ‘cover’ in the Derby Township, Mowanjum, Pandanus and Looma and in what way; (c) in 2013–2014, how many staff were employed in ‘covering’ the Derby Township, Mowanjum, Pandanus and Looma; (d) in 2013–2014, how much of the $531,710 funding was allocated to the staff costs including salary, benefits and costs associated with travel and accommodation; and (e) in 2013–2014, what is the number of people that have accessed services provided by KAMSC as a result of the additional funding of $531,710? Ms A.R. Mitchell replied: I am advised the information provided to me by the Mental Health Commission (MHC) for Question on Notice 3172 was not correct. The amount of funding provided remains correct, however as stated in Question on Notice 3172, the funds were not provided through the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Service Council. I am now advised that in 2013/14, funding of $304,050 was provided to support three Community Action Plans in the Dampier Peninsula region (Ardyaloon, Djarindjin/Lombadina and Beagle Bay). The funds for the Ardyaloon Community Action Plan were administered by Ardyaloon Incorporated and funds for the Djarindjin/Lombadina and Beagle Bay Community Action Plans were administered by Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation. The MHC has sincerely apologised for the error. (a) The additional service delivered in Ardyaloon, Djarindin/Lombadina and Beagle Bay included the establishment of the Djarindjn Youth Drop In Centre and engagement of the Youth Drop-In Centre Coordinator. Activities held included women’s camps, men’s nights and community suicide prevention training. Other activities targeted at youth included supporting three Djarindjin local girls to participate in the “Kimberley Girl” initiative, Alive and Kicking Goals program, Headspace workshops, school holiday program and youth camps. (b) It is estimated that over 500 people were assisted by the Anglicare services in the Derby Township, Mowanjum, Pandanus and Looma area. Activities that were implemented included postvention support and counselling for those affected by suicide in the community, Social and Emotional Wellbeing camps, healing programs, suicide prevention training, and community/sporting events. This estimated figure does not include the 122 people who accessed services provided by the Social and Emotional Wellbeing Worker employed at Anglicare WA through the $531,710 of funding. (c) Two staff were employed by Anglicare WA to support the Derby Township, Mowanjum, Pandanus and Looma area (1 x Community Development/Health Promotion Worker and 1 x Social and Emotional Wellbeing Worker). (d) Of the $531,710 in funding provided to Anglicare WA, approximately $233,000 was allocated to salaries (including on costs): $6,236 to professional development and $36,877 to travel and accommodation. (e) For the $531,710 funding provided to Anglicare WA, the Social and Emotional Wellbeing Worker supported 122 individuals and assisted in facilitating 95 events. As addressed above, no services were provided by Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Centre. MINISTERIAL OFFICES — MEETINGS — FDRW PTY LTD 3736. Mr W.J. Johnston to the Minister for State Development: Can the Minister advise whether the Minister or the Minister’s office had contact with the company FDRW Pty Ltd (trading as Future Smart Strategies), or a representative of that company, since December 2013, and if so: (a) what were the dates of the meetings or other contact; (b) what was the nature or subject of discussion during the meetings or contact;

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2759

(c) were other people present during the meetings or contact; and (d) if yes to please specify the names of people present at meetings or otherwise included in the contact? Mr C.J. Barnett replied: (a)–(d) Between 1 December 2013 to 11 March 2015 the Premier and his current Ministerial staff have not had any contact with FDRW Pty Ltd (trading as Future Smart Strategies), or with representatives of the company, related to government business. The Premier and his Ministerial staff may have had incidental or irregular social contact with representatives of FDRW Pty Ltd in which case this is not listed. SCHOOLS — UNEXPLAINED ABSENCES — MIRRABOOKA ELECTORATE 3747. Ms J.M. Freeman to the Minister representing the Minister for Education: What is the number of unexplained absences from school, for each of the following schools, for 2014: (a) Nollamara Primary School; (b) Westminster Education Support Centre; (c) Westminster Junior Primary School; (d) Westminster Primary School; (e) Mirrabooka Primary School; (f) Mirrabooka Senior High School; (g) Mirrabooka Senior High School Education Support Centre; (h) Boyare Primary School; (i) Dryandra Primary School; (j) Waddington Primary School; (k) Koondoola Primary School; (l) Alinjarra Primary School; (m) Balga Primary School; (n) Balga Senior High School; (o) Burbridge School; (p) Illawarra Primary School; (q) North Balga Primary School; (r) Waddington Primary School; and (s) Warriapendi Primary School? Mr J.H.D. Day replied: (a)–(s) [See tabled paper no 2844.] DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY — PUBLIC SCHOOLS — PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP 3749. Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Treasurer: I refer to the State Government’s planned Public Private Partnership (PPP) for the design and construction of eight new public schools and the Minister’s announcement on 30 January 2015 that three private consortiums have been asked to provide costed proposals for the schools, with the winning consortium to be announced in August 2015, and ask: (a) will the State Government seek a limit on the internal rate of return to be earned by the winning consortium; (b) after the contract is awarded, will the contract between the consortium and the State Government be released to the public in full;

2760 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

(c) after the contract is awarded, will the following details concerning the winning consortium be made public: (i) the consortium’s expected Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on this project; (ii) the expected Net Present Value (NPV) of the cashflows to the winning consortium; (iii) a schedule of payments to be made by the State Government, with taxpayers’ money, to the consortium over the 25 year contract period; and (iv) details relating to the premature termination of the contract and any payments for which the State would be liable in such an event; (d) when will members of the public have access the underlying calculations and assumptions behind a risk-adjusted public sector comparator; (e) when will the Minister disclose all of the key performance indicators that will be used to measure the winning consortium’s performance against this contact; (f) when will the Minister commit to disclosing the total cost of capital for the winning consortium; and (g) are there going to be any clauses in the agreement between the consortium and the State Government that allow for variation to the payment schedule and if so, when will the Minister commit to making them publicly available in full? Dr M.D. Nahan replied: (a) No. The selection of the consortium to deliver the WA Schools Public Private Partnership (PPP) project is an open and competitive process and as such the bidding consortia will be subject to competitive pressures to provide proposals that achieve a value for money outcome for the State. (b) No. Consistent with well-established practice, non-confidential elements of the contract will be published on the Department of Treasury (Treasury) website within six months from contract award in accordance with Treasury’s PPP Project Disclosure Policy. The redaction of commercially confidential elements is also consistent with the Opposition’s handling of such matters, such as the redacted copy of the CBD Courts PPP Agreement tabled in 2005. (c) The full extent of information to be published is dependent on agreement on which elements of the PPP contract are deemed to be commercial-in-confidence and thus cannot be determined until the contract is awarded. (d) Consistent with Treasury’s public sector comparator policy, the risk-adjusted public sector comparator (net present cost) together with key assumptions is expected to be published as part of the project summary published on Treasury’s website within six months from contract award. (e) Consistent with well-established practice, non-confidential elements of the contract, including the approach to measure the winning consortium’s performance will be published on Treasury’s website within six months from contract award in accordance with Treasury’s PPP Project Disclosure Policy. (f) Please see responses to parts (b) and (c) above. (g) It is anticipated that the non-confidential elements of the contract, including clauses that allow for variation of the payment schedule, will be published on Treasury’s website within six months from contract award, in accordance with Treasury’s PPP Project Disclosure Policy. POLICE — 2006–14 ‘CLEAN-UP’ CRIME RATES 3758. Mr W.J. Johnston to the Minister for Police: I ask what was the “clean-up” rate for crimes in Western Australia for each of the following years: (a) 2006; (b) 2007; (c) 2008; (d) 2009; (e) 2010; (f) 2011;

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2761

(g) 2012; (h) 2013; and (i) 2014? Mrs L.M. Harvey replied: (a)–(i) The term ‘clean-up’ rate is not used by WA Police in reporting the enforcement of offences. Up until 30 June 2010, the term ‘clearance rate’ was used to describe the percentage of reported offences cleared in a given period. Between 2010–11 and 2013–14, the term ‘sanction rate’ was used to describe the percentage of verified offences sanctioned in a given period. I refer the Member to my answer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice no. 2120 for further details about clearance and sanction rates. As of 1 July 2014, the sanction rate for offences was replaced by revised KPI that aligns with national policing performance indicators as reported in the Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services. Clearance and sanction rates in Western Australia between 2006 and 2014 are published in WA Police annual reports which are tabled in Parliament. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SPONSORED OR SUPPORTED EVENT TICKETS 3763. Ms R. Saffioti to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business; Veterans: For each department, agency, Commission or Government Trading Enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of responsibilities for the financial year 2013–2014, and for the period 1 July 2014 to date: (a) did the organisation receive any general admission tickets, VIP access or access to a corporate box for any events sponsored or financially supported by the organisation; and (b) for each event outlined in (a): (i) how many tickets for general admission were provided; (ii) what was the date of the event for which general admission tickets were provided; (iii) what was the nature of the event for which general admission tickets were provided; (iv) how many tickets for VIP access or corporate box access were provided; (v) what was the date of the event for which VIP access or corporate box access was provided; and (vi) what was the nature of the event for which VIP access or corporate box access was provided? Mr J.M. Francis replied: The Department of Corrective Services (a) No (b) (i)–(vi) Not Applicable The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (a) Yes, general admission tickets. (b) (i) 10 table tickets and a single ticket each for the Commissioner and his Partner. (ii) 10 August 2013 and 2 August 2014. (iii) Annual Constable Care Child Safety Awards presentation event. (iv)–(vi) Not applicable. State Emergency Management Committee Secretariat (a) No (b) (i)–(vi) Not Applicable Small Business Development Corporation (a) Yes — General admission tickets received for events sponsored. (b) [See tabled paper no 2843.] (iv) Nil. (v)–(vi) Not applicable.

2762 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — SPONSORED OR SUPPORTED EVENT TICKETS 3770. Ms R. Saffioti to the Minister representing the Minister for Mental Health; Disability Services; Child Protection: For each department, agency, Commission or Government Trading Enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of responsibilities for the financial year 2013–2014, and for the period 1 July 2014 to date: (a) did the organisation receive any general admission tickets, VIP access or access to a corporate box for any events sponsored or financially supported by the organisation; and (b) for each event outlined in (a): (i) how many tickets for general admission were provided; (ii) what was the date of the event for which general admission tickets were provided; (iii) what was the nature of the event for which general admission tickets were provided; (iv) how many tickets for VIP access or corporate box access were provided; (v) what was the date of the event for which VIP access or corporate box access was provided; and (vi) what was the nature of the event for which VIP access or corporate box access was provided? Ms A.R. Mitchell replied: (a)–(b) [See tabled paper no 2845.] GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS — EVENT PROMOTERS 3780. Ms R. Saffioti to the Minister for Emergency Services; Corrective Services; Small Business; Veterans: For each department, agency, Commission or Government Trading Enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of responsibilities: (a) does the organisation hold a contract, sponsorship or any other financial arrangement with any outside body which specifies the provision of hospitality, VIP or corporate box access or general admission tickets to an event as part of that contract, sponsorship or financial arrangement; and (b) if yes to (a), what is the name of the outside body for which the provision of hospitality, VIP or corporate box access or general admission tickets to an events is part of any contract, sponsorship or any other financial arrangement? Mr J.M. Francis replied: The Department of Corrective Services (a) No. (b) not applicable. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (a) No. (b) Not applicable. The Small Business Development Corporation (a) Yes. (b) Various. The Small Business Development Corporation regularly sponsors small business awards run by local Chambers of Commerce, Small Business Centres and other similar organisations. Included in the Small Business Development Corporation sponsorship conditions is a requirement for two complimentary tickets to the awards ceremony (value approximately $100–150 each) together with the opportunity to present the award and promote the Small Business Development Corporation’s services. The State Emergency Management Committee Secretariat (a) No. (b) Not applicable.

[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 April 2015] 2763

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS — EVENT PROMOTERS 3787. Ms R. Saffioti to the Minister representing the Minister for Mental Health; Disability Services; Child Protection: For each department, agency, Commission or Government Trading Enterprise within the Minister’s portfolio of responsibilities: (a) does the organisation hold a contract, sponsorship or any other financial arrangement with any outside body which specifies the provision of hospitality, VIP or corporate box access or general admission tickets to an event as part of that contract, sponsorship or financial arrangement; and (b) if yes to (a), what is the name of the outside body for which the provision of hospitality, VIP or corporate box access or general admission tickets to an events is part of any contract, sponsorship or any other financial arrangement? Ms A.R. Mitchell replied: Mental Health Commission (a) No. (b) Not applicable. Drug and Alcohol Office (a) No. (b) Not applicable. Disability Services Commission (a) Yes. (b) Master Builders Western Australia, Housing Industry Association, National Disability Services Ltd WA, Australasian Society for Intellectual Disability Department for Child Protection and Family Support (a) No. (b) Not applicable. EMERGENCY SERVICES — FORMER MIDLAND FIRE STATION 3815. Mrs M.H. Roberts to the Minister for Emergency Services: (1) What is the former Midland Fire Station, located at 162 Great Eastern Highway, currently being used for? (2) Is the property still a Department of Fire and Emergency Services’ asset? (3) Will the current use be continuing into 2016? (4) Are there any future plans for the site and if so will the Minister detail them? Mr J.M. Francis replied: The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) advises: (1) Storage. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) DFES is currently considering future use of this site.

______