Parliamentary Debates (HANSARD)

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION 2015

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 23 April 2015

Legislative Council

Thursday, 23 April 2015

The PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House) took the chair at 10.00 am, and read prayers. VISITORS — CHISHOLM CATHOLIC COLLEGE Statement by President THE PRESIDENT (Hon Barry House): I welcome to the public gallery students from Chisholm Catholic College. I believe they are year 11 students. Welcome to the Legislative Council, and I hope you enjoy your tour of Parliament House. GAZETTED WATERSKIING AREA — ROWLES LAGOON Petition HON MARK LEWIS (Mining and Pastoral) [10.03 am]: I present a petition with 518 signatures couched in the following terms — To the Honourable the President and Members of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of Western Australia are in support of legalising a gazetted ski area on Rowles Lagoon whenever it has available water to ski safely. A section of Rowles has a traditional use for skiing and has been gazetted in the past by the Department of Transport but recently this is being opposed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. The park needs to cater for recreation and conservation which we believe can operate together if zoned and managed appropriately. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the Legislative Council to recommend re-gazettal of Rowles Lagoon as a water ski area to allow the goldfields people an area to undertake water skiing whenever it has available water to ski safely. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [See paper 2807.] PAPERS TABLED Papers were tabled and ordered to lie upon the table of the house. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION Twenty-seventh Report — “Inquiry into a Demise of the Crown Statute — Extension of Time” — Tabling and Adoption HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West) [10.05 am]: I am directed to report that the Standing Committee on Legislation has resolved that the time in which it has to report on the inquiry into demise of the crown statute be extended. The PRESIDENT: Does the member wish to make a statement on behalf of the committee? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: No, Mr President. I move without notice — That the reporting date for the Standing Committee on Legislation’s inquiry into the demise of the crown statute be extended from 14 May 2015 to 13 August 2015. The PRESIDENT: Can I have a copy of that motion, please? Hon Robyn McSweeney has presented the twenty-seventh report of the Standing Committee on Legislation, “Inquiry into a Demise of the Crown Statute” and sought an extension of time. There is no statement to support that extension of time, and the motion moved without notice states — That the reporting date for the Standing Committee on Legislation’s inquiry into the demise of the crown statute be extended from 14 May 2015 to 13 August 2015. HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [10.06 am]: I was not going to stand because I do not think there is any reason to be concerned about this motion. I will just make the point that it would be helpful if the house understood a little of the context. I suspect there is nothing controversial at all and we will support the motion, but it would be helpful to the house if we knew what we were doing. Question put and passed. [See paper 2808.]

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2765

The PRESIDENT: I endorse that statement. Normally when an extension of time is sought an explanation is given to the house by the committee of the circumstances for requesting an extension. DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS Notices of Motion 1. City of Gosnells Cat Local Law 2014. 2. City of Joondalup Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2014. 3. Shire of Trayning Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2014. Notice of motions given by Hon Robin Chapple. ANZAC CENTENARY COMMEMORATIONS Motion HON SUE ELLERY (South Metropolitan — Leader of the Opposition) [10.09 am] — without notice: I move — That this house recognises the significance of the 100th anniversary of the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli and supports — (a) the continued recognition of Anzac Day as a solemn commemoration of the sacrifice of all service men and women; (b) the recognition of those returned service men and women who live with mental and physical health problems; and (c) the recognition of the sacrifice and suffering experienced by the families of service men and women serving overseas. Depending on where in the chamber members sit, normally on a Thursday morning we would either be condemning or congratulating each other. On Thursday mornings we tend to focus on holding each other to account on matters political. As one of my colleagues described it, we talk about ourselves. Today is not a normal Thursday morning; it is the Thursday before the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli peninsula and what became known as Anzac Cove so it is appropriate that we do something different. It is appropriate that we commit to keep recognising Anzac Day as a solemn commemoration of the sacrifice and it is appropriate that we commit to support those who have returned from acts of service, be it in war, peacekeeping or police action, and live with mental and physical issues. It is also appropriate that we continue to support the families of those who have lost loved ones and those who have returned with ongoing issues who need our recognition and support. A terrible and ultimately failed attempt to break through the Turkish lines on the peninsula began on 25 April 1915. It says something about us that we choose not to celebrate a great victory, but to celebrate what was a failure. Other members may have watched this week, as I did, the ABC program Why Anzac, which featured Sam Neill, who strides both New Zealand and Australia, although of course we claim him as Australian. He spends half his time in New Zealand and the other half in Australia. The program provided insightful commentary on both our national psyches. At one point during the show he talked about—we would all have experience of this—travelling around the world, particularly in European countries, but also in the United States, and seeing memorials to great war heroes and great battles. Australians and New Zealanders do not focus on those things on Anzac Day; rather, we focus on what was effectively a failed military exercise. I think it goes to our national psyche of calling a spade a spade, of being direct, of not getting above ourselves and of—I do not know whether this is a word, but if it is not, I will create it—“ratbaggery” because we challenge authority. It goes to what makes us different from those particularly in the older European countries, because we celebrate and focus on a campaign that failed as a result of the terrible leadership of those in charge. The four years of World War I have been described as marking a deep and permanent shift in our nation. The number involved is enormous with more than 400 000 Australians enlisting. Of those, 32 231 came from Western Australia; indeed, Western Australia provided the largest percentage of any of the states with 9.9 per cent of our population enlisting in World War I, with the next highest being New South Wales at 8.8 per cent. Four years after the war began, 60 000 Australians had died and many more were hospitalised and suffered ongoing and often silent consequences. When the war was over, more than half of the Australian soldiers who survived were discharged as medically unfit and those who were not discharged as medically unfit did not come back unscathed. Sixty per cent of those who returned applied for war pension assistance in the post-war period because they needed assistance with ongoing health problems. We have all heard the stories, even among our families, of those who never spoke about the war and who never sought assistance. To put those numbers into perspective, Australia’s casualties were almost 65 per cent. There are 36 members in this chamber and another four or five staff members, which is 40-odd people. If we apply that 65 per cent to the number of people in this

2766 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] chamber, 27 of us would not come back. That is an enormous number and it would have enormous consequences. Indeed, an enormous number of the population were deeply and permanently affected by the war. Much has been written about the day and students of history would know this, but on 25 April 1915 members of the Australian Imperial Force landed at Gallipoli with troops from New Zealand, Britain and France. This began a campaign that ended with the evacuation of troops on 19 and 20 December 1915. Following Gallipoli, Australian forces fought campaigns on the Western Front and in the Middle East. Throughout 1916 and 1917, losses on the Western Front were heavy and gains were small. The Australians reached the peak of their fighting performance on 4 July 1918 in the Battle of Hamel. From 8 August, they took part in a series of decisive advances until Germany surrendered on 11 November. The First World War remains for Australia, as it remains for many nations, the most costly conflict in terms of casualties and deaths. With a population of fewer than five million people, 416 809 men enlisted in the war—although there were no women fighting in the war, they certainly served in the nursing, ambulance and medical corps—and of those, 60 000 were killed and 156 000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. It was an extraordinary episode in our military history The motion before us today refers to the need to recognise those returned service people who live with mental and physical issues. Today we describe it as post-traumatic stress disorder or syndrome; it has been called many things over the years. The most obvious demonstration I saw of post-traumatic stress that I witnessed when I was growing up came from the Vietnam veterans. For my generation—I am 53—post-traumatic stress was evident in the older brothers of the girls with whom I went to school. I did not have an older brother; I was the oldest in my family. When I was 10 years of age and we were living in Sydney, the brother of the girl down the road was 18 or 19 years of age, so 10 years older than us. I distinctly remember when he came back from Vietnam, because I was at her house and the message was that we should be quiet because her brother was back and he was not well. We were not told what the issue was, just that we had to be quiet. There was nothing physically wrong with him, but he was suffering as a result of what he had seen in Vietnam. A group of 10-year-old girls cannot be told to be quiet—it just does not work! After finding a musical instrument, we kept playing the same song over and over again—that would have done my head in; I cannot imagine what it did to that poor young man—and we got into trouble. That is my first recollection of the impact of what happened to those who came back after fighting in Vietnam. The interesting thing that I have observed is that many Vietnam vets get help to deal with their issues from men’s sheds. The men’s shed with which I am most closely involved is Canning Men’s Shed. I remember one of the first times I went there when a man came up to me—he was a Vietnam vet and is still actively involved in the Canning Men’s Shed—and said, “It’s really simple, Sue, why this place is important. I wouldn’t be alive if not for the support I get coming here every Wednesday and Friday morning”. He lived alone and did not have family support. The Canning Men’s Shed helped him work his way through the issues that face many men of his generation who survived the Vietnam exercise. Last Friday, a very close friend of mine attended the funeral of her nephew who, while working for the Navy in far north Queensland, committed suicide over the Easter weekend. He was a long way away from his family who live in Tasmania. We ask people who serve in the defence forces to be separated and isolated from their families. We put them in circumstances of enormous stress—enormous stress. We put them in an institution where still, despite best efforts, the culture of speaking up about being different or speaking up about being unwell or mentally unwell is seen as a sign of weakness or failure, and then we wonder why we see story after story of families, for the most part, speaking up after the death of a loved one who suicided as a result of the combination of circumstances that we put them in. Families find that they did not even know that there were issues and that the support services are not adequately in place. We need to do more about that. I know the Australian Defence Force is desperately trying to tackle that issue and that the sensitivity with which my friend’s family was treated after that death was appropriate, but it is still the case that we need to look at far better supports for those people. I like the way that we in Australia celebrate Anzac Day. I like the fact that, for example, last weekend the City of Canning had a fantastic art and performance event down at the Shelley foreshore. My colleague Hon Kate Doust attended that, and I am sure many others did as well. It was a fantastic event in many ways, not the least of which was because the purpose of it was to celebrate the culture of the Turkish and Australian nations. At one point I was standing there taking a picture of this row of flags—the Australian flag and a whole series of Turkish flags. A Turkish man came up to me and said, “You’re quite right, we should take a picture of that because that symbolises how far our nations have moved.” Of course, there was that most poetic of Turkish leaders who in the immediate aftermath said those beautiful words about looking after the sons of Australia who died on his land. The event down on the Shelley foreshore was a celebration of those two cultures. There were beautiful performance pieces, there was fabulous Turkish food, and there was, for those who remember him, Hon Tom Stephens performing as part of the choir, which I did not get to stay and see—which is maybe a good thing, I do not know. Hon Ken Travers: Some of his speeches in this place were music. Hon SUE ELLERY: Were they?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2767

Anyway, it was a fabulous event, and I do not mean to be unkind to Tom because he and Anne have moved on with their lives and are spending a lot of their time in choirs and performing; I know they really enjoy it. The point I was making was that all over Australia there are events like the one organised by the City of Canning, with people coming together and, in a celebration often around good food and art, focusing on what we need to focus on around not only what is a very serious issue, but also celebrating how far on we have moved. One of the fantastic things about the event down at the Shelley foreshore was what two friends of mine were involved in—an organisation called Turbans and Trust; a little organisation that started in 2012. The turbans that Sikh men wear are obvious in our community, and at a time when some people in our community misunderstand what multicultural policy brings to our nation, they are focused on the Sikhs as somehow being associated with what they see as the impact of the troubles in parts of the Middle East. In response to that, the Sikh community in Western Australia established this fantastic organisation that goes to a variety of public events with a whole bunch of beautifully coloured pieces of material and invite people to wear a turban. A person ties the turban with someone from the organisation. The two people take this very long piece of material around, and as it is being wrapped around their head by what the organisation calls the “turban engineers”, the turban engineer is talking to the person about the significance of the turban and the critical elements of Sikh culture. It is free, and at the end of it what the person is asked to do is to take a picture, which is then put on its website. The Turbans and Trust website has all these fabulous pictures of people from all sorts of different nationalities who would not normally wear a turban wearing brightly coloured turbans. That is just one example of the way our country—these days and particularly around the centenary—has focused on acknowledging the huge cost of war to our nation, the contribution of the returned services to our community and how our cultures that were of once at war are now able to work together in peace. The reason I could not stay at the function down at the Shelley foreshore was that I was going to the centenary dinner at the Riverton RSL. I proudly wear the Riverton RSL badge today. The main speaker at the Riverton RSL dinner on Saturday night was a gentleman who served in World War II. He put his age up to go to war, was discovered to be underage and, much to his chagrin, was sent back to Australia. As soon as he was legally of age he went back to serve and is still with us today and able to talk at the function about the importance of recognising Anzac Day. I know that there are many others who want to speak on this, so I conclude my remarks by saying that it is sometimes easy for people to be a bit glib about Anzac Day, to see it as somehow a glorification; those debates have been going on for years in our country about whether it is, in fact, a glorification of war. In the celebrations that I have been involved in my time in public life, and as a child when we used to be taken to the Anzac march through the streets of Perth, I do not see that. I see people from many cultures living in Australia generally trying to recognise that the outcome of war is a terrible cost for many, and that the incentive to always strive for peace is as great as it has ever been in that we ought not forget those who have given a sacrifice by serving for us and that we ought make sure we do everything we possibly can to continue to support them and their families who are bearing the consequences of their family member’s decision to serve to make sure that our country’s place in the world is protected. With those comments I hope that others will speak in support of the motion. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [10.28 am]: I stand to support this motion, and the one that will follow it, and I thank both the Leader of the Opposition and Hon Robyn McSweeney for giving this chamber the opportunity to recognise the significance of Saturday, 25 April 2015 in terms of the fact that it will be the centenary of Anzac Day and all that it represents. We all have a unity of purpose here. Anzac Day should not be seen as a glorification of war; it was never intended that way. Anzac Day has and always will be recognised as a day for us to show our gratitude for those who have served our nation to ensure that we are what we are today: a free democratic pluralistic society that is a result of the sacrifice, and, in some instances, the ultimate sacrifice, of literally tens of thousands of Australians who have come before us and unfortunately will come in the years after next Saturday. I will not go through the mechanics or the details specifically with regard to Anzac Day, or the genesis of Anzac Day on 25 April 1915. Suffice to say, of course, that must have been a horrific experience for those tens of thousands of Australians and New Zealand soldiers who landed at Gallipoli. The aim of the exercise was to open up the Dardanelles for the Royal Navy, and ultimately to take Constantinople, now Istanbul, in an attempt to win the war for the Allies. We declared war on the day war was declared from Great Britain, because we were of course—dare I say it—very closely aligned to Britain in those days, much closer than we are today. In fact, the Prime Minister at the time, Andrew Fisher, said — Australians will stand beside our own to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling. That shows the dedication of Australia to Britain at that time. We have moved on a lot since that time, of course, although we are still very closely attached to Britain for a host of reasons, but in those days the concept that we would not support Britain against the Germans in 1914 was unthinkable. Having said that, we probably came out of World War I a completely different nation from the nation that went into World War I, because we came out of World War I as a nation of great stature. We were recognised

2768 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] internationally as a nation of extremely proud, dedicated, brave soldiers and citizens; and I mean citizens across the board, because the Australian nation as a whole committed to that war effort to provide a bastion for freedom, which is exactly what we thought we would be doing by dedicating ourselves to that cause. As a result of that, of course, the Anzac legend was born in 1915. It was actually born at that time. That was at a time when we recognised that as a nation we could stand on our own two feet; that as well as fighting for Britain we could fight for ourselves; and that we as a nation were Australians. That, in itself, is exactly what the spirit of Anzac Day is all about. I have to say that it was first commemorated in 1942 at the National War Memorial, but prior to that it was recognised as Anzac Day from 25 April 1915. However, the actual commemoration did not come until some days later. It has evolved to what we have today, which is a genuinely Australian day, and it is so good to be a part of an Anzac Day. I am sure that each and every person in this chamber has been a part of it and will be a part of it in the weeks leading up to the centenary. They will go to a dawn service or a ceremony on the actual day or previous to it. They will go to a school ceremony, which I will come to in a moment. They will go to reunions for the soldiers themselves and to two-up events. Certainly I remember how big two-up was in Kalgoorlie at that time, but it traverses right throughout the nation now, not just in Kalgoorlie and the likes. The marches through the streets are symbolic of exactly what Anzac Day is to us as Australians. It is recognition of the sacrifice of our soldiers and also of what we are as a nation. It is also a time to reflect and pay gratitude to those who have fought for our nation; to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, to those who were wounded and to those who contributed to the war effort in any shape or form. It is also an opportunity for us to show gratitude to the families of those left behind, particularly the mums, the dads, the wives, the husbands and the children of those who made the ultimate sacrifice and those who are suffering as a result of their efforts in the war—in any war. To put a bit of perspective on our contribution to war, Mr President, we have been significant contributors to a number of conflicts. I do not say this lightly and I do not say this as a matter of pride, because the fact that we lost even one soldier is, in itself, a shame. However, the simple fact of the matter is that it shows the dedication of Australia, as I said, and as Australians to our way of life. Prior to World War I, of course, we were involved in conflicts in Sudan, South Africa and the Boxer Rebellion. Then from World War I, when we lost more than 60 000 soldiers, male and female, there were 35 000 deaths from all causes in the Second World War; 339 deaths in the Korean War; 36 deaths in the Malayan emergency; 15 deaths in the Indonesian confrontation; 496 deaths in the Vietnam War; and 41 deaths to this point in the conflict in Afghanistan. Those figures do not include those who were wounded or maimed or those who have suffered as a result of those conflicts. With that in mind, it is important that we remember those who served the nation and that we pay tribute to them; and I believe that is exactly what Anzac Day is all about. I really wish that those who have an issue with Anzac Day because they deem it a glorification of war would rethink their attitude towards this day. It is a magnificent day in the history of Australia in recognising, as I said, the sacrifice and the contribution of literally tens of thousands of Australians over the past 100 years. As for recognition of Anzac Day in contemporary society, unfortunately for a number of decades, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, there was an enormous amount of disquiet from some quarters of the Australian community against the Vietnam War and less of an inclination to recognise Anzac Day and all that it stood for. Equally, fortunately, we have overcome that attitude and now really do give due credit to Anzac Day and all that it represents. I certainly remember as a young boy—I was a cub and a scout in Kalgoorlie—proudly marching down Hannan Street with the RSL and the soldiers. Quite frankly, I did not really know what it was all about in those days until the latter years of my adolescence. However, I do remember the gratitude that was shown by the soldiers I marched with on those days. When we went back to the RSL club for a mexicola, they used to tell us stories. That is a fact. They used to tell us the stories of the war, and that is when I became very attracted to the notion of Anzac Day personally. Fortunately, our schools now embrace and are very engaged with Anzac Day. Most schools throughout our community now have their own dedicated Anzac ceremonies—and it is wonderful. I am sure most members of this place will be attending Anzac ceremonies tomorrow. The ceremonies give students an opportunity to recognise, but more importantly to understand, what Anzac Day is all about. We have a program in Western Australia that was introduced by Alan Carpenter to send a number of our students on a trip to theatres of war overseas. The program has taken students not only to Gallipoli but also to France, England, Greece, Belgium, Turkey and Malaysia. The PRESIDENT: Geoff Gallop introduced it. Hon PETER COLLIER: I apologise; Geoff Gallop introduced it. Alan Carpenter was the education minister at the time. Geoff Gallop introduced the program and I understand that Mr President went on one of those trips on one occasion.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2769

Thirty-two students will go to Gallipoli and will be part of the dawn service on Saturday, and I am delighted that they are going. I am a little disappointed that I will not be there. I had every intention of going and taking along with me the shadow Minister for Education, Hon Sue Ellery, but the federal government in its wisdom decided that we were not to go. I am not quite sure why that is the case and I am disappointed. Several members interjected. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am very disappointed with that decision. It was certainly not a political act. I feel that it would have been appropriate that we went with those 32 students. Regardless of that decision, this is not about that situation. We have numerous opportunities to engage in Anzac Day ceremonies over the next few days in particular. I know that other members will make mention of those events, and I will mention a few now. I know that Hon Robyn McSweeney will make particular mention of that magnificent centre in Albany. However, for the benefit of members, I will go through a few of the events that they may like to be engaged in over the next three days. First of all, there is the National Anzac Centre, as I said, which Hon Robyn McSweeney will speak about at a later stage. On 1 November 2014, the Premier joined the Australian and the New Zealand Prime Ministers to officially open the National Anzac Centre in Albany. This marked the centenary of the Australian and New Zealand troop convoys’ departure from Albany’s King George Sound for the First World War. The centre was funded by $2.65 million from the state government and $7.95 million from the federal government. The total visitation from opening on 1 November 2014 until the close of business on 24 March 2015 was 38 585—97 per cent of the financial year target of 39 825. The National Anzac Centre was nominated by Lonely Planet as one of the top 26 places to visit worldwide. The City of Albany is now maintaining operation of the centre. I highly recommend to anyone who has not been there to go and have a look. In addition to that we recently had The Giants in 2015. In February, around 1.4 million people watched the giants enact the tale inspired by the Anzac story of the young girl in the Breaksea Island lighthouse who became the last human contact in Australia for troops leaving for Gallipoli. In the metropolitan area over the Anzac period, particularly on Anzac Day, RSLWA will be hosting major commemorative events within the city centre that are expected to attract more than 100 000 people over three days. The $1.5 million Lotterywest grant will support a bigger than normal Kings Park dawn service, Perth Anzac Day parade and a gunfire breakfast at Stirling Gardens. The dawn service is at Kings Park and Botanic Garden from 5.50 am to 7.00 am. The dawn service will be conducted at the State War Memorial on Fraser Avenue. A bigger than normal dawn service is being planned with increased viewing and screening areas for up to 30 000 extra people. There will be a gunfire breakfast at Stirling Gardens on St Georges Terrace from 7.00 am to 9.00 am. The community is invited to attend for a gold coin donation to share the spirit of Anzac Day. There is the parade, of course, through Perth city streets from 9.30 am. There will be a commemorative service in the Supreme Court Gardens from 11.00 am. There is also the 100 Years of ANZAC community event at the Perth Cultural Centre on Saturday, 25 April from 12.00 pm to 4.00 pm and on Sunday, 26 April and Monday, 27 April from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm. I could go on, but I am mindful of the fact that other people want to speak, so I will stop there. Suffice to say, there is an enormous amount happening over the next three days for Western Australians in particular to be involved in Anzac Day to show their gratitude for those who have served the nation over the last 100 years and before. It is a recognition of the commitment and the sacrifice of all those people and their families, and those who they left behind. Can I say to each and every one of those dedicated soldiers and service persons, and to their families, a sincere and heartfelt thank you. HON ALANNA CLOHESY (East Metropolitan) [10.42 am]: Anzac commemorations, particularly the centenary of the landing of troops at Gallipoli, are an opportunity to remember all of those who gave their service. Acknowledgements for contributions to wartime services are usually, and justifiably, measured in terms of bravery. However, bravery also extends beyond the battlefields to the horrific scenes of field hospitals and ships and rehabilitation centres here and overseas. Bravery also extends to the work done on the home front. It extends to the everyday people who went beyond their usual ken to make their contributions. It is those people who we honour today as well. An example of this is a project being undertaken by Mount Lawley Senior High School students, local Rotary groups and the Mount Lawley Society. It is an important undertaking to document local Mt Lawley World War I service personnel during this Anzac centenary year. They are currently seeking information about local Mt Lawley service personnel from 1914 to 1918. The Mount Lawley Society archiving group is documenting that and keeping all of that information together, along with information about local people throughout history in Mt Lawley and local houses. It is a fantastic project and I congratulate all those involved in that. The Mount Lawley Society newsletter has published stories of local Mt Lawley people in their last couple of editions. It piqued my

2770 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] interest because these were ordinary working people from the local area who made an important contribution. I will quote one example from the Mount Lawley Society newsletter. It states — … Arnold George McComish (born 1891) who worked as a blacksmith in the railways workshop at Midland Junction and lived in Maylands. He married Violet Andrew in 1911; the couple had two children. Arnold joined the 1st AIF in 1915 and trained as a sapper at Sydney and in Egypt. He then went to France as a member of the 3rd Field Engineers Company and plunged into the grim, costly fighting on the Somme. Sapper McComish was killed instantly by an artillery shell at Pozieres, July 23, 1916. As a report said: “he did his duty nobly and well”. In addition, his brother Leo McComish also served in World War I after having served an apprenticeship with Western Australian Government Railways. The project group has identified that he was almost certainly underage when he enlisted. That family gave a great contribution on behalf of our country. However, people were often excluded from wartime service. Aboriginal people, for example, at the time of World War I were not considered citizens by this country, were not entitled to vote and were actively excluded from society in many ways, in particular from war service. The South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, referring specifically to World War I, points out that Aboriginal people were actively rejected from enlisting on the grounds of race. That race ban was applied exclusively to Aboriginal people. Although the ban was in place, Aboriginal people still enlisted. Many joined as Maori or as Indians and many claimed that they did not know who their parents were in order to enlist. So they rejected their cultural heritage in order to contribute to war service. At other times, their heritage was simply avoided and they were enlisted by the Army and noted as having a dark complexion with dark eyes. For those who did enlist and saw war service, they returned to Australia after the war but were not entitled to the same entitlements as their non-Aboriginal comrades, such as housing and other services. On returning to Australia, they were excluded once again from Australian society. The South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council gives an example of one soldier, John Fitzgerald, who enlisted and went to France during World War I. He won the British War Medal and the Victory Medal and returned to Australia as a non-citizen, not a hero like his fellow European soldiers. In my mind, John Fitzgerald was a hero. I also acknowledge the work of John Schnaars and the Honouring Indigenous War Graves organisation that do a fantastic job throughout Western Australia identifying the graves of returned Aboriginal soldiers where they lie unrecognised. The organisation raises money and places headstones on those graves to acknowledge the war service of those Aboriginal soldiers. To date, over 60 headstones have been placed on the graves of Indigenous soldiers throughout Western Australia. I acknowledge their hard work. Women, too, have been involved in war service at all times, throughout all conflicts. However, all too often their service has not been recognised or has been played down in the face of the greater bravery. Today is a chance to correct that historical imbalance as well. Much of women’s service in the war, particularly World War I, was as nurses and ambulance operators. Indeed, the first bravery awards for Australian women were given to four nurses. According to the Women in Action webpage, sisters Clare Deacon, Dorothy Cawood and Alice Ross- King and staff nurse Mary Derrer each received the Military Medal for risking their lives to rescue patients trapped in burning buildings after a German raid on the Western Front in France in 1917. A Western Australian nurse wrote to her sister of the conditions in which they worked during World War I. I quote — We look forward to our letters on mail day. Of course we can never make our letters sound as cheerful as yours. Writing to her sister Muriel back home — I am sure you will understand why when I tell you that we are surrounded by sadness and sorrow all the time ... do you know, Muriel, that as many as 72 operations have been performed in one day in our hospital alone ... you could not imagine how dirty the poor beggars are, never able to get a wash, mud and dirt ground in and nearly all of them alive with vermin. That was the experience of one Western Australian nurse, Gertrude Doherty. Of course, women not only worked at the front in nursing and other caring roles and kept the home fires burning, but also back in Australia worked in factories, on farms and in stores as well as in the home. For the local Mt Lawley people, for example, for Aboriginal service people, and for women who gave their service, lest we forget. HON DAVE GRILLS (Mining and Pastoral) [10.51 am]: I thank Hon Sue Ellery for bringing on this motion and acknowledge her comments and those of others who will speak on it today with regard to this most important time in Australian history. Having served as a part-time and full-time soldier, I consider myself fortunate that I was not called to war; however, like every member of the Australian Defence Force, I would like to think I did my bit. During this time we will honour those who served and those who still serve, celebrate the Anzac centenary, and remember our own, allies and former enemies who gave their lives.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2771

What is it that makes us remember the landing at Anzac Cove? Professor Bruce Stevens of Charles Sturt University believes Anzac spirit is a digger spirituality, meaningful to almost all Australians, and enshrines recognisable values that are meaningful to almost all Australians. According to Professor Stevens, spirituality generally has positive associations. It is contemporary, creative, and comes with less baggage than religion. People can have personal values and practise whatever brings out the best in them. Whether it is a kind of spirituality or not, I agree that there is a bond—something that brings people together and makes them one. Our diggers relied on this bond at Gallipoli; however, I believe this bond has been evident amongst our defence force from the Boer War to the war in Afghanistan. I can only suppose that this esprit de corps and feeling of belonging may have been enough to quell the fear and make ordinary people disregard their personal safety and do remarkable things. During the 1960s and the unpopular Vietnam War, Anzac Day commemorations lost their appeal, but it is curious to see that dawn services and marches have drawn new crowds, including the young. Clearly something resounds—the spirituality meaningful to almost all of us perhaps. I would also like to talk about the Battle of Kapyong in Korea. The Korean War does not get much recognition; however, Australians fought bravely there. On 23 April at the Battle of Kapyong in Korea, the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry took on the Chinese regular army. During this battle, Captain Reg Saunders—Officer Commanding, C Company, 3 RAR—said, “At last I felt like an Anzac and I imagine there were 600 others like me.” Reg Saunders was the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned as an officer in the Australian Army. He died on 2 March 1990. The 3rd Royal Australian Regiment and the Canadian Light Infantry were awarded the US Presidential Distinguished Unit citation for their actions. The 3 RAR went into this position to rest on Anzac Day and noticed a heap of Korean people coming through the pass they were defending and thought: why is this? Shortly after that, quite a number of the Chinese army followed. We beat them, and sent them back. We must ensure that the spirituality survives. This spirit will keep the sacrifice of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps in our memory, support our veterans damaged by war, and comfort those who have lost loved ones. Inscribed on the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier is “He is all of them. And he is one of us.” Lest we forget. HON ADELE FARINA (South West) [10.55 am]: This Anzac Day we will commemorate it being 100 years since Australian and New Zealand soldiers landed at Gallipoli, but really it is the beginning of a four-year commemoration of centenary anniversaries as we remember the various battles throughout the Great War. As Hon Sue Ellery has already outlined, with a population of fewer than five million people, over 415 000 men from Australia enlisted to fight in World War I, of whom more than 60 000 were killed, 156 000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner, and an estimated 8 000 died as a result of injuries, war-related illness or suicide in the immediate years following the war. They are startling statistics that really encapsulate the horror and the tragedy of that period. The Leader of the House raised the issue of some people not supporting the commemoration of Anzac Day because they view it as a glorification of the war. I would like to reiterate his sentiments by saying that I do not see it that way. It is not a glorification of war; it is an opportunity for us to commemorate the sacrifices of those who gave their lives so that we can enjoy the lives that we live today. I have to confess that I did not study history at high school; I was more inclined to the sciences and I spent my time in physics and chemistry rather than studying history. It was only in my adult life that I became interested in learning more about the war years and the history of Australia. It is difficult to imagine what those soldiers actually went through when we learn about trench warfare and all that it entailed. It was horrific. It is horrific that we expected people to live and fight in those conditions. Although it is often said that any future war will not be fought in the trenches—hopefully there will not be a future war—I suspect that at some level trench warfare will always be a component of any war. But the conditions they were expected to live in were horrific. Often they had very little food, and hygiene was not a consideration at all really. It is amazing that a lot more soldiers did not die simply from the conditions they were expected to tolerate. In remembering the soldiers who fought during those years, we also need to remember the women who contributed to the Great War effort. Again, I found it staggering to learn about the circumstances in which many of those nurses and doctors had to undertake their service. They would have seen many, many horrific injuries and dealt with things beyond our imagining, especially those nurses and doctors who were stationed very close to the front. We know the conditions were very trying, and they were often exposed to shelling and aerial bombardment as they went about trying to save the lives of the soldiers before them. We also need to remember the women and children left behind. It is extraordinary when we think that at that time in most families the male was the breadwinner of the family, and when they left to fight, the women were left to raise their families without their breadwinner. I cannot imagine the difficulties they encountered in doing that, just in simple things like putting food on the table. They would have been very, very difficult years for those women. Then there was the whole aftermath of the war and those who did not return. Women did not have their husbands, sons, fathers and brothers return, and those who did had to deal with the aftermath of the injuries

2772 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] sustained and the emotional trauma they experienced. It is all a great tragedy. It is really important that we take the opportunity on Anzac Day to remember all of that and understand the level of sacrifice that was made for us. We often hear about the larrikin spirit of Australians and how that played an important part in surviving the horrors of trench life. I cannot imagine anything that would pull me through surviving the horrors of trench life. What those soldiers went through is extraordinary. If the larrikin spirit of Australians helped pull them through, then that is a great thing about Australians. Most of us in this room will have seen the movie Anzacs and Paul Hogan in his usual larrikin spirit. I watched that movie recently with my father just before he died. It was one of those things that I did with dad to spend time with him. I watched the movie and thought how on earth could those men find humour in what they were doing, but I suppose part of the human condition is to survive what is faced, and it is great that somewhere along the way that was put into the Australian psyche and certainly got so many of our soldiers through that very difficult time. Today there is greater support in the community for commemorating Anzac Day and recognising the sacrifice that was made in not only the Great War, but also subsequent wars in which Australians have fought. However, I do not think we are doing well at recognising the sacrifice of current service men and women. We do not remunerate them properly or provide the support that they need when they return from service. We have a long way to go in addressing those issues. All that was brought home to me when my nephew decided to enlist in the Army Reserve. There is nothing like having a family member join the services to bring this home to a person. He was 18 years of age when he signed up and I cannot imagine what it would have been like for the mother of a 14-year-old sending a son off to war. How those young boys coped with those conditions is quite extraordinary. In commemorating those who have fought, we also need to reflect on what more we can do for those who are currently serving, and for those who have served and returned with injuries that mean they are no longer able to serve, many of whom will find other employment very difficult as well. We have a very long way to go before we have reached a level that gives them the due respect, acknowledgement and support that they need. I will quickly make note of the fact that the Returned and Services Leagues of Australia right throughout Western Australia need to be recognised for the enormous work they do in supporting returned soldiers and their families. Busselton has a very active RSL, as the President and Hon Robyn McSweeney will agree. They do great work in supporting the returned soldiers in that area and their families. I will also mention very quickly that the Busselton Historical Society has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours taking down the oral history of all the soldiers who live in Busselton and have served in various wars. This will go into a book and it is very important work. I am sure that other historical societies across the state are doing similar work. It is important to get that history down while we can. I also encourage members of the community to support the RSLs because, with the ageing population, a number of them are struggling to attract younger members. It is important that they are able to continue to do the good work that they are doing. HON PHIL EDMAN (South Metropolitan) [11.05 am]: I, too, would like to congratulate Hon Sue Ellery and Hon Robyn McSweeney for bringing this motion to the house today so that we can talk about the Anzac Day centenary. It is a very good thing. When I was sworn in as a member of Parliament, within the first month I was given the opportunity and the honour of unveiling a plaque for the HMAS AE2 in Fremantle on behalf of Hon John Day. I did not really know what the AE2 was all about, but I soon learnt. After unveiling the plaque I came into this house and made a speech on it. I invited to this house the Western Australian Consul General for Turkey as well as different people from the Department of Defence. I will not repeat that speech, but it was definitely a pleasure. Just so that everybody knows what I am talking about, the AE2 is a submarine that still sits in the Sea of Marmara. Captain Stoker decided that he would not hand the submarine back to the enemy so he decided to sink it. I would like to talk about some work that I am doing on restoring an old gun battery that was part of Australia’s coastal defence. War still affects people in Australia. Even the Second World War still affects people in Australia. My grandfather, who died of lung cancer, was based in New Guinea. My father said he was a very distant man when he came back from the war, so my father did not receive the affection one would normally expect from a father. I understand that through the relationship I have had with my dad, but I am definitely correcting it in my relationship with my two sons. War affects families, and we need to acknowledge that it still affects people today. Hon Sue Ellery talked about Vietnam. My mum was based in Williamstown. She used to watch the soldiers coming back from war and they were a mess. My father did not enlist but he used to like to go to the mess hall and talk to all the young ladies at Williamstown, and hence, I am here—but that is another story for another time. Everybody in this house realises that I love Rockingham and have a very close association with it. I have been watching our gun battery falling away for the last 35 years. Point Peron was part of the Fremantle fortress that went as far north as Swanbourne and as far south as Point Peron. That whole Fremantle fortress was built because of the big risk of Japan taking over Australia. I thought it was time to actually do something, so my wife and I decided that maybe it was good to concentrate on a project and leave something behind before we go back in the box —

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2773

Several members interjected. Hon PHIL EDMAN: One day when I go in the box—I hope it is not too soon and I have a bit more time! We started work on that project and one of the things I feel strongly about is having a private memorial there at which soldiers and loved ones can reflect, because we do not have anywhere that is private, especially for our troops returning from the Middle East. I had to form a rehabilitation committee before we could start this work. On 3 February this year we formed a committee and people from the Department of Parks and Wildlife, the City of Rockingham, Naragebup, the RSL, Cedar Woods, the south west group of councils and the Royal Australian Artillery Historical Society of WA now sit on that committee. The deputy director general of DPaW sits on that committee, so I have Albert Jacob to thank for helping us out with that. The committee is working on a master plan to rehabilitate that whole area and eventually turn the gun batteries into a museum. It is my wish that it will be the largest display or exhibit showing the coastal defences of this country that has ever been seen in Australia. Recently, Operation Sandstorm brought a bunch of young people down to dig out the operations bunker. They took out about 10 tonnes of sand. This caught the eye of the Department of Defence and also the 11th/28th Battalion. Last Friday, the brigadier rang me and said that they are going to send 20 soldiers down to Point Peron on 2 May and they will dig out the other two ammunition bunkers. That will be in Army time—Army hours—so it is a very big ask. Scouts and cubs are coming down to cook a barbecue and feed the soldiers. We will have all the sand out of all the bunkers so we can get on with restoring the area. If members are around on 2 May and they want to come down and see a bunch of soldiers digging out some bunkers, they should go for it. I think they are calling it Operation Sandy Shovel. Wars are awful. I do not like wars; no-one should like wars. They definitely should not be glorified—I agree with Hon Peter Collier. In World War I we lost 16 million people, and in World War II we lost over 60 million human lives. That is a lot of people to die. On 18 March next year, the Gary Holland Community Centre will be turned into a museum for a week. There will be memorabilia as well as storyboards about Australia and its coastal defence primarily against the Japanese. It will be one of the largest exhibits ever seen in Australia. The Department of Defence is so impressed that it is sending the director of the Australian Army History Unit, Dr Roger Lee, to open it, at his cost. That is quite an ask as well. I am collecting a lot of memorabilia from that wartime era. My office is now a gun battery, Mr President. I should acknowledge that Hon Brian Ellis and Hon Rick Mazza have also made donations towards that display, being some short magazine Lee–Enfield rifles that of course are deactivated. What is amazing from what I have learnt so far is that a lot of Australians died on Australian soil as well as overseas. When the Japanese bombed Darwin on 19 February 1942, we lost close to 250 Australians, but the government did not want to say anything and kept it quiet. It never released the truth about what happened until three months later. Another 88 Australians died in Broome when again the Japanese were trying to take over Australia. I will not go into it because I do not have the time, but there is a real story about the deaths and the attacks on Australia that just has not been told. There is so much information. With the support of the committee and the volunteers who are helping me, I am basically going to tell that story correctly and make sure that everyone knows. That museum will be not only a centrepiece for Western Australia, but also a place for anyone who wants to come to Australia to find out exactly what happened and what is on display. I am very passionate about it. It is definitely something that I want to do. I am so passionate about it that I am pouring my own money into the project. We are about $40 000 short at the moment and I am still spending, but I believe that what I am doing is the right thing. I look forward to having all members down there next year on 18 March if they are free. If members are in Rockingham and they want to come to my office to look at the display I have got there, they should not worry that I am a Liberal member of Parliament. Anyone is welcome, and it would be nice to have them visit. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [11.14 am]: I rise to join in the debate on the motion moved by Hon Sue Ellery to recognise the significance of the 100th anniversary of the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli and to support the continued recognition of Anzac Day as a solemn commemoration of the sacrifices of all service men and women. I will not read the rest of the motion, but I note that it is one of those moments in this chamber when we come out of our political trenches to join together in a respectful debate about the contribution that others have made to this country, rather than often having political fights or trying to slap ourselves on the back. Like the Leader of the House, I attended Anzac Day services as a scout many, many years ago. One of the things we used to do regularly was attend the Anzac Day services at the RSL homes in Mt Lawley. Sadly, I have to report to the house that I was not as strong as the Anzacs, and I would regularly faint and then be taken into the care of the wives, in particular, and even the Anzacs, and they were genuine Anzacs. They were people who had served during the First World War. We would also have a cup of tea and often have chats with these lovely people. Sadly, the children of today will never have the experience of meeting the people who were actually there during the First World War and who lived through the loss of life and the impact on their families. In any of the war memorials, even in places such as Wanneroo, people will see a family name not just once, but in some cases four or five times because four of five members of the same family were lost in the conflict of the First World War.

2774 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

As a result of attending those Anzac ceremonies and witnessing the discipline that those diggers showed at those ceremonies—they would all continue to stand as I fainted—I learnt to respect things such as the Australian flag. To this day, I still cringe at the way in which some people treat the Australian flag and allow it to touch the ground or use it in ways that I do not agree with. Having said that, comments were made earlier about the glorification of war. Like Hon Sue Ellery, I grew up in the period of the Vietnam War and, in my family, my older brother turned 18 in the year in which the decision was made by the government to withdraw from the Vietnam War. At that time, Anzac commemoration services were very different from the services we have today. However, as I said, I readily participated in them at the time. I think it is for the better that those changes have occurred and that the way in which we acknowledge and commemorate Anzac Day today as a result of that makes us stronger as a nation. The spirit of those diggers that I used to meet at the Mt Lawley RSL homes is the spirit that carries on in the days of Anzac. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, I attended one of the school Anzac Day ceremonies at Currambine Primary School. Two people gave a speech. One was a current serving officer, Flight Lieutenant Daniel Hodgson of No 453 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force, and the other was a veteran from the Wanneroo–Joondalup RSL sub branch, John Duffy. I particularly noted and asked for a copy of Daniel Hodgson’s speech because I thought some fantastic points were being made to the students in that speech. I want to take the opportunity to quote some of the elements of his speech in the chamber this morning. He pointed out that it was because of the way in which those Australians and New Zealanders fought on the Gallipoli Peninsula and the way in which they faced the hardships and dangers that confronted them that Anzac, which was initially a set of initials, changed from being initials to become a word. I will now quote directly from his speech. It states — The actions of the first Anzacs forged what has become known as the Anzac spirit. It is the Anzac spirit that is the driving force behind all Australian servicemen and women ever since. He then went on to point out to the students in the audience that it is not to just the serving men and women that we can apply that Anzac spirit. He identified three compelling qualities of the Anzac spirit. The first one was — The Anzac spirit represents a sense of purpose and direction. The original Anzacs knew what they had to do and also understood how dangerous and difficult it would be. Yet, they got on with the job and did not let the difficulties stop them from obeying their orders. It is true that the whole campaign did not achieve what was hoped for, but the soldiers stayed on the ground until their leaders decided it was time to withdraw. He pointed out that those students could apply that to their everyday lives, to the work that they do in school or the chores that they do at home for their parents. No matter how difficult they are, they should continue to persevere and push aside those difficulties to accomplish the task. Secondly, he identified that the Anzac spirit represents an acceptance of responsibility. Again, I want to quote Mr Hodgson, who said — Take responsibility for everything you do. It is easy to say “I did that” or “That’s my work” when everything goes right. However, we all know that sometimes, things don’t go right. Sometimes you do something which is against the wishes of your parents and teachers. Remember the Anzac spirit and take responsibility for what you are doing. Don’t play the blame game! I think that is a really good message. It is great to be able to acknowledge achievements, but also to accept responsibility for being wrong. Finally, the third Anzac spirit that he identified for the Currambine Primary School students was a sense of compassion, and that this is summed up in the Australian experience as mateship. He went on to talk about how they should treat their fellow students. He encouraged them to follow the Anzac spirit and said — If you do this, not only will it make you a better person, but you will be keeping the faith with those who put the word Anzac into our language. That way, you will be helping to make sure that the Anzac spirit is always a part of life in Australia. Mr President, those are messages for the students at Currambine Primary School, members of this chamber and the general community that I think we should all acknowledge, and I wanted to make those comments today. Like many members, I have watched some of the television programs on the Anzacs and I do not think we can forget the loss of life. Last night, I was moved watching a show that pointed out that although, as we all know, the Armistice occurred on the eleventh hour of 11 November 1911, a serviceman lost his life at 10.58 am on that day, two minutes before the Armistice took effect. That was only one of many hundreds of thousands of lives lost in that conflict. We all have stories of family members. When researching an Anzac Day speech, I had never realised before and discovered that my great-uncle Richard Erskine Travers, a captain in the 2nd/22nd Australian Infantry Battalion, lost his life by beheading at Rabaul. He was the commanding officer in a prisoner of war camp and had refused to instruct his officers to do something that the Japanese had told him to do, and was taken out and made an example of in front of every other officer there. I acknowledge not just his loss of life and the effect that it had, but everyone who has lost a loved one through war in the past.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2775

Last week, I was on the radio with the honourable member for Forrestfield talking about the name for a future federal seat in Western Australia. We had a debate about whether it should be named Tonkin, which is a very noble name, or Court. It was intended to be a lighthearted debate, but maybe in this Anzac centenary year, we can come out of the trenches and look at naming that new federal seat after one of the great Western Australian Anzacs. I think that should be done in consultation with the Returned and Services League of Australia, but the name that jumps readily to mind is Hugo Throssell. He was a Victoria Cross recipient of Western Australian origin. If we could put partisanship aside and come to some agreement on that issue, it would be a great way of continuing the Anzac spirit. As we always say on Anzac Day, and as we have done today in this chamber: we will remember them. The PRESIDENT: Before I go to the next speaker, I welcome to the public gallery people who I believe from my notes are from the City of Fremantle Seniors Big Day Out. Is that correct? Or is it a public tour? I welcome the public tour to the Legislative Council for a debate on the significance of Anzac Day. HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [11.25 am]: I also rise to support Hon Sue Ellery’s motion. Every Anzac Day is special; however, as has been said by all the speakers before me, this coming Anzac Day is even more so given its significance as the 100th anniversary of the Anzac landing at Gallipoli. On Saturday, across Australia, services large and small will be held at the many hundreds of war memorials and RSL halls that dot the Australian landscape. As has been said by other members, Anzac Day is a day of reflection. It is a day of remembrance of the many thousands of service men and women who answered the call and stepped out from the safety of their homes and gave selfless service and, for many, their lives in defence of Australia and our allies. For example, we remember the 32 000 soldiers in World War I who trained at Blackboy Hill in my electorate before serving overseas. We remember that in over a century of conflict, thousands and thousands of Australians have lost their lives. They were never to return to the safety of their homes, and to their families and loved ones. Of those who did come home, so many returned injured and around 37 000 suffered as prisoners of war, including one of my relatives. For me, and those Australians of my generation and younger, we can only imagine the horror of such conflict. As I think Hon Adele Farina said, it is so difficult to truly comprehend what it was like to be in the trenches, to be surrounded by enemy fire or to lose a mate in battle. All of us would have family members who served in one capacity or another; a number of members have mentioned this. For me, two grandfathers and three great-uncles served in World War II, in the Air Force and the Army. Earlier today, my father recalled to me my great-great-uncle Aubrey White who enlisted in World War I. Aubrey was one of those men who was too young to enlist—he was only 14 years old—but got around it by enlisting under his older brother’s name. Amazingly, he got away with it. He served on the Western Front and thankfully returned home at the end of the war. As a mother, I cannot even fathom a 14-year-old boy—he really was just a boy—going to war. It is unimaginable. As other members have indicated, we should not forget that Anzac Day enables us to also remember and recognise women who served, albeit not on the frontline. Another relative, Aubrey’s cousin, Janet White, trained as a nurse. She travelled to England and joined the Queen Alexandra’s Imperial Military Nursing Service or the Queen’s Own Nurses as I believe it was known. She served in Durban and on hospital ships during the Great War. She re-enlisted in the Second World War, and served in Egypt and Europe. These relatives, much like thousands of other Australians, served selflessly to ensure our freedoms in this country were never taken away. This coming Saturday, Australians will gather in unity to acknowledge and honour the Anzacs. I saw the end of a documentary about World War I on SBS last night in which the presenter said, and I agree, that we feel a connection to this generation. They helped to make us who we are—and for that we are forever grateful. As the plaque on the Kohima War Memorial reads — When you go home Tell them of us and say For your tomorrow We gave our today Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. NATIONAL ANZAC CENTRE, ALBANY Motion HON ROBYN McSWEENEY (South West) [11.29 am] — without notice: I move — That the house congratulates the state and federal governments for building the award-winning National Anzac Centre in Albany, which is dedicated to honouring the Anzacs of the First World War and pays tribute to our Anzacs in this centenary of the First World War.

2776 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Today, this house recognises the centenary of the first landings at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. I thank Hon Sue Ellery for her motion. We pay tribute to those who fought and died. I recognise and congratulate the state and federal governments for building the National Anzac Centre in Albany. In doing so I recognise that it was a federal Labor government that provided the $7.9 million, and a federal Liberal government that carried it through. In other words, the National Anzac Centre was a bipartisan effort. I remember sitting in the main street of Albany with the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard and a few others discussing plans for the centre. Support was right across the board—similar to the support displayed in the chamber today. We all recognise our Anzacs; we revere them because they did such a wonderful job. Hon Sue Ellery mentioned—I will paraphrase what she said—that we revere a campaign that we lost and that leadership during the campaign was terrible and shocking. She is very right to say that; it was terrible leadership. Some two years ago, I was involved in the Anzac Day dawn service at Gallipoli. Hon Barry House has visited Gallipoli and I know a few other members in this chamber have had a similar honour. I also presented a wreath at Lone Pine. I went on a three-week parliamentary tour and during the tour a historian on the bus allowed us to follow where the Anzacs fought. The dawn service at Gallipoli was an emotional service. I sat in the front row and watched the sun come up. As the sun rose, the names and the ages of the servicemen who died flashed across the screen. I have never attended anything more moving. Those young men did not have a chance. I had stood at Anzac Cove just two days before the Anzac service. While I was there, I looked up at the terrain and said to my husband, “They were just slaughtered.” Having physically looked at the terrain, they should never have landed there in the first place. It brings home how hard they fought to stay alive. Of course, many did not make it. Anzac Day has a special place in my heart because my grandfather Claude Cockram went to the First World War. He was a very spoilt young man, who was a Scotch College boy and a first-class cricketer at the WACA. My great-grandfather brought the first silver Ghost Rolls-Royce to Western Australia in 1913, and my grandfather and his brother used it to scream around the Kalamunda hills. At the age of 19, he enlisted and found himself fighting on the fields of France. Having been to where he fought, I am amazed that he and other men came back. Members will often hear me say that I am so glad that my grandfather came back because if he had not, I and other family members would not be here. These young men had so much potential, but many of them were gunned down and killed. My grandfather was a stretcher-bearer with the 4th Field Ambulance in the 13th battalion. I have read about the 13th battalion and what the stretcher-bearers had to do. They did more than collect the wounded. Sometimes it took them a couple of days to get out from the trenches because of enemy fire. The wounded would lay between the trenches screaming in agony knowing that they were dying. Indeed, many of them did die in those trenches. It would have been absolutely horrific to be a stretcher-bearer. John Pandazopoulos, who is a leader of the Greek community, took us on the parliamentary trip with the historian. Nurses have been mentioned today. We visited Lemnos and looked at its terrain; there is absolutely nothing there and from the ABC film clips I have seen, there would have been nothing there when the nurses landed. The wind coming off the water would have been bitterly cold. How they worked under those conditions, I do not know. But it was duty first for the many Canadian, Australians and English nurses, and they just got on with it. I certainly have a real appreciation for them, having been to Lemnos where the Anzacs trained before going to Gallipoli. The National Anzac Centre is a fabulous building that sits on the edge of Mt Adelaide set within Albany Heritage Park. It is an amazing building that has been dedicated to honouring the Anzacs of the First World War. It offers visitors a deeply personal connection with the Anzac legend, which is revealed through interactive media displays, unique artefacts, rare images and film and audio commentary. It presents the stories of 32 people—23 Australians, six New Zealanders, one Brit, one German and one Turk. Visitors get an identity card of one of the characters and follows their personal journey beginning with recruitment and training, embankment, shipboard life on the convoys, the conflicts at Gallipoli, the Middle East and the Western Front, and post-war— for those who returned—through a first-person account of the horrors of the conflict. It finishes at a place of remembrance that constantly screens the names of the 41 265 Australian and New Zealand men and women who left Albany in the first and second convoys of November and December 1914. Those of us who were lucky to attend the opening of the National Anzac Centre did not have much time to spend there, but it was an absolutely magical weekend. All members of the South West Region were present, both Labor and Liberal. For those who know me, I was told by the Feds that I was not important enough to lay a wreath. This made me very angry, because not only was — Hon Sue Ellery: How did that work out for the person who told you that? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: This is true! Hon Simon O’Brien: There was a further casualty! Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY: Members obviously know me and know that I was not going to accept that under any circumstance! I walked down with my wreath and sat down and watched all these so-called important people take the first row, including the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand. That is fair enough; I have no

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2777 problem with that. But I was not allowed to be in the official party even though my grandfather and his brother left from Albany and even though the ceremony was being held in my electorate. I had my wreath under my seat. At the end of the ceremony, community members were asked to lay a wreath. Before that happened, I ran over to the President, Hon Barry House, and asked him whether he could lay a wreath with me. He said that he would be very pleased and honoured to do that. Hon Barry House and I laid the wreath and it was a very special moment for both of us. When Hon Barry House was walking back after laying the wreath, he received a text from his cousin in Queensland telling him that we had been seen laying the wreath. When I got the video of the service the next day, Hon Barry House and I were front and centre. That will teach the Feds to tell a local Western Australian that she is not important enough to lay a wreath. How dare they! To whoever was responsible, a big kick to you! The centre is absolutely beautiful. It has exhibits and artefacts, including a small wristwatch given to Albany’s Private Humfray Hassell of the 19th Light Horse Regiment, who was killed in the charge at the Nek in August 1915; a gold cigarette case given by Turkish leader Kemal Atatürk to the Australian Prime Minister Stanley Bruce; and guns and displays. The display space is 300 square metres. It is absolutely magnificent. The centre cost $10.6 million. Not often do I give credit to a public servant—I think we should do more of that. Richard Muirhead was given the task of getting the centre up and ready, and he did so within 14 months. Congratulations to Richard, who did a terrific job on behalf of the state government in getting that up and running on time. It would not have been smooth sailing. I know that Richard worked with the City of Albany. Also, of course, the RSL down there in Albany does a terrific job; it actually runs services all year and is certainly a big operation. I am glad that the National Anzac Centre’s Anzac story takes people through a Turkish person’s perspective. When I was in Turkey, I went to the university where there was a bit of a mystery. I was given a book titled Gallipoli 1915: Through Turkish Eyes written by Haluk Oral, a historian. I will leave it in the chamber for people to have a look at. While I was there, he showed me artefacts, one of which was a water flask. On the flask is engraved the name of Lieutenant Burdett Philip Nettleton, B Squadron, the Australian Light Horse. I wondered why this was in a Turkish university and why it had not gone back to his relatives. I asked Haluk why he still had it and he said that apparently Lieutenant Nettleton was 26 years old, an only child, and that by the time he had found this water flask in an old second-hand shop in Turkey, he could not trace any relatives. I am actually hoping that the ABC or The West Australian might be listening because I have a photograph of Lieutenant Nettleton’s water flask and I think it belongs with his relatives; I do not think it belongs in the university in Turkey. I do not think that Haluk would mind me saying that because he did try to and could not find somebody from Lieutenant Nettleton’s past. Lieutenant Nettleton came from Vaucluse in Sydney, so he was not a Western Australian boy. However, he was certainly an Australian man and I would like to see his relatives have it. It is interesting to note what the Turk Şefik Bey said from a Turkish perspective about the Australians and the New Zealanders. He was the commander of the first Turkish regiment to confront the Anzacs. He said — Having been face to face with these people for around eight months, we got to know them rather well. According to a general view, they were of healthy body, sporty, and sharp. Among them there were many strikingly tall, handsome and strong men, maybe they were all literate, and a good portion of them graduates of high schools. Generally speaking, they were diligent and duty-bound during combat. HON STEPHEN DAWSON (Mining and Pastoral) [11.44 am]: From the outset, I, too, congratulate Hon Robyn McSweeney for bringing her motion before us this morning. I also recognise the earlier motion from the Leader of the Opposition to which I was not quick enough to stand and speak. I am pleased to note that in a rare show of bipartisanship, both the government and the opposition today were able to raise such an important issue. As a migrant to this state and someone who did not grow up in Western Australia, it was not until my teens that I really learned about the Anzacs and what they meant to Western Australia. I have not had the pleasure of visiting the new National Anzac Centre in Albany at this stage, but I am told by my colleagues the member for Albany, Peter Watson, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition in the other place that it is a fantastic facility, and I congratulate all those involved. I want to talk about a number of people who were important Anzacs in this state. The first group of people are the Lockyer brothers. The Lockyer brothers were five young Aboriginal men who grew up in the Pilbara and served in either the First World War or the Second World War. Their achievements are recognised each year at Whim Creek, which of course is in my electorate just between Roebourne and Hedland. These five brothers lived and worked around several Pilbara pastoral stations. When the war came upon us, aside from loving their country, they also enlisted as an opportunity to get citizenship. Members will be aware that in those days it was rare for Aboriginal people to be recognised in that way. Edgar, the oldest brother, and Arnold, the second-oldest, both enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force. The younger brothers, Albert, Elliot and Eric, enlisted in the Australian Army. All five served their country with passion and pride. Unfortunately, they did not all return home. Eric, the youngest—I think he was 21 when he enlisted—never returned home. Arnold, who was a flight sergeant in the Air Force, was another of the brothers who never returned home as his plane was shot down over

2778 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Indonesia. Although he parachuted out of the plane, he was captured by the Japanese. Each year, as I said, in Whim Creek these brothers are recognised. Their involvement in the war is recognised and it is a proud moment, I have to say, for many Pilbara people, and particularly for Aboriginal people in the Pilbara, that these five Aboriginal brothers were able to represent Australia. I therefore want to acknowledge them and their families. Their families each year come out and speak at the memorial. It was a pleasure to meet one of the great- granddaughters of one of the brothers recently through my friend Joan Foley from Hedland. The family come out every year and they too share their story and their pride at the fact that their family and their uncles were able to serve Australia in the war. The other person I want to acknowledge today is Martin O’Meara. Members will all have received this great little book, This Gallant Company of Brave Men, in their offices this week from the Minister for Veterans. I am pleased that he was able to give us multiple copies and I will happily circulate them to schools, particularly in Hedland, where I am due to visit tomorrow for a range of Anzac ceremonies. If members have not opened it yet, it is a great little book. Martin O’Meara is a Victoria Cross recipient. I am mentioning Martin O’Meara in particular because he was born in Ireland. He too came to this country as a teenager. I think Martin O’Meara has a sad history in this state and I think it is one that should be acknowledged. I should at this stage acknowledge the Australian–Irish Heritage Association which has been involved in ceremonies to mark Martin O’Meara’s involvement in the war as an Anzac. The association has also been working with the Shire of Collie to ensure a monument is erected in Collie to acknowledge Martin O’Meara’s achievements. As I said, he was born in Ireland and came to Australia as a teenager. When he arrived here, he had worked his passage as a stoker. I was not sure what a stoker was, but I have since found out that a stoker is a person who tends the furnace on a steamship or train. In this case, Martin arrived by ship, so he tended the furnace on a steamship. Why Collie? Martin first worked in Pinjarra and then made his way to Collie, looking for work. In those days he had a job chopping down jarrah trees, essentially, to make railway sleepers. When the Great War began, with several of his fellow workers, he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force. He left Australia in December 1915 with the 12th Reinforcements to join the 16th Battalion in the Middle East. After training in Egypt, the battalion then moved to the Western Front in France where it fought. On the night of 12 August 1916, the 16th Battalion mounted several attacks on German positions near Pozières. Devastating German artillery fire caused heavy casualties among the 16th Battalion. The battalion’s war diary from 1916 stated that, “The trench as a trench had ceased to exist”. I think that points out that things were bad and that the battalion took serious fire. It was during this time that Martin O’Meara was his most gallant and the reason he was acknowledged with a Victoria Cross. Martin O’Meara is credited with saving the lives of more than 25 wounded men by carrying them in from no-man’s-land under what I have read to be the most indescribable conditions. Perth historian Ian Loftus has done some good work on the history of Martin O’Meara. In a publication I have seen of his he says that even after the battalion was relieved, its commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Edmund Drake-Brockman, saw O’Meara returning to the front line through a massive bombardment to rescue two more wounded soldiers, despite, it was claimed, having himself previously reached a position of comparative safety. At other times, on his own initiative, he had brought in much needed supplies of ammunition and food. It was for these actions that Martin O’Meara was awarded the Victoria Cross. When he came back to Western Australia, he suffered from what was then known as chronic mania but what we know as post-traumatic stress disorder. Tragically, Martin was kept for a long time in what would have been known then as an asylum and he never quite had the proper recognition he deserved. Although he was buried with full military honours, if he had come back from the war today, he would no doubt have been treated a lot differently and with a lot more respect. HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [11.54 am]: In March 1916, Percy Mervyn Hislop, aged 24 years, service number 4445, and Donald Roy Hislop, aged 22 years, SN 4446, joined the Army at Blackboy Hill and departed for Egypt as a staging post before they moved to the battlefront in France. Unfortunately, both those brothers never made the year out. Unfortunately for Percy, he was killed, missing in action, in November 1916 and Donald died of illness in a German prisoner of war camp only a few weeks earlier in October 1916. My great-grandmother often mentioned her two brothers, who were lost in the war. I never really thought much about that until I was a little older and started to look into it a little. It is very pleasing that the Australian War Memorial archives have digitised all those service records and we can follow through from the point at which they joined the Army. Hon Robyn McSweeney: It’s brilliant. Hon RICK MAZZA: It is brilliant. It contains the complete service records, including medical records. One of them was ill in Egypt with the flu for a period. Both boys were five feet three inches tall, with blonde hair and green eyes and weighed 140 pounds. They were often mistaken in our family for twins, but it was not until later when we looked through the service records that we found they were brothers born a couple of years apart.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2779

One of the really touching things was that, as part of, I suppose, the end of their lives and their family being notified, the Army would go to the parents’ house—in this case they were Sarah Ann and Walter Hislop at Blackwood Drive, South Bunbury; that is how accurate the service records are—and give the parents the boys’ meagre possessions. In this case there was a list of a hairbrush, a notebook et cetera, which was then signed by the parents as a receipt. One can almost see the grief in the parents’ signature. I think in this modern day we forget what those families went through during that time. I have two sons about that age and I could not think for a minute about losing them. Although this story relates to a generation or so ago—I never knew these two great, great-uncles of mine—only through being able to talk to my great-grandmother, who, fortunately, lived until I was eight or nine years old, did I understand part of what those families went through and the grief they must have felt and the effect on Australia. I believe that at the time, Australia had a population of only five million. It was very low and some 400 000 soldiers went to that campaign. It is also of note that it is not about just the Gallipoli campaign. I know we are celebrating the 100th anniversary and it is very important that we acknowledge all those people but there are all the campaigns along the way: World War II, Korea and Vietnam. A cousin of mine rang me only last week—he is a veteran who saw action in Vietnam—wanting me to go to his RSL meeting tonight, and I will do so. I am very grateful for the sacrifices made by all those diggers, right through to the latest campaign in Afghanistan—I do not think we can fail to mention that—to protect our freedoms. I know a lot of others want to speak, so I will not hold up the house for too long. One thing I want to read, however, is a letter dated 30 June 1915 written by Joe Harris to his family in the Bunbury area, which is where I grew up. Joe was with the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force in Alexandria, Egypt, after being wounded. He writes — Dear Jack, Just a few lines to let you know I’m still alive and hope this will find you all well. Dear Jack I’m sorry to say that I have been wounded. I got hit in the back with a bomb in the trenches, it caught me on the side of the back and I can tell you I didn’t know anything for a while whether I was dead or alive. It didn’t catch me properly and would have blown me to pieces they are terrible things I have seen fellows blown to pieces with them. Dear Jack I am getting on very well I can walk around and can eat real well now and we are well looked after in the hospital we get good food and the people bring fruit and all sorts of things in to us. Well dear Jack we have had a very rough and exciting time since we landed and started fighting the Turks, we never thought we had such a place to land in under heavy artillery fire and machine guns and we were in small boats so you can guess what it was like some of the poor fellows never got out of the boats, as they were shot in them. You should have seen the charge we made when we did land there was nothing else to do and we had a great hill to climb but we were not long getting to the top. The Turks went for their lives when they saw the Bayonet till they got in their positions at the back of the hill we drove them back about two miles with Bayonet charges but we lost a lot of men and so did the Turks, they are fine big men. All our men are entrenched now so it is all trench fighting. Where our battalion are entrenched we are only about twelve yards from the Turks trenches, and they send the bombs in I can tell you I don’t mind the bullets you can keep your head down in the trenches and miss them, I have had some very close to me at times. Well Dear Jack the Dardy boy’s have all done well their was no hanging back with them they all went into it like old soldiers. P Williams has been wounded he got hit with a bomb in the legs and I believe he was very bad it shattered both legs, bad luck for him. Dear Jack none of the Dardanup boy’s have been killed that I know of, well well I think I have told you all the news for this time so will conclude with— It concludes with fond love. It is signed, Joe Harris. Lest we forget. HON LIZ BEHJAT (North Metropolitan) [12.02 pm]: It is indeed a day for all of us to come together to commemorate this 100th anniversary of the battle at Gallipoli. I join with other members today in congratulating my colleague and good friend Hon Robyn McSweeney in bringing on this private member’s motion, as well as the Leader of the Opposition for her previous motion as well. As Hon Stephen Dawson said, this is one of those unfortunately too rare occasions when we do all come together on the same page to commemorate. Our leader spoke in his contribution in the earlier motion of the Premier’s Anzac student tour and I was very privileged indeed to represent him. Our ministers have incredibly busy schedules and cannot always do everything; their loss is often our gain, as I say when I make these speeches. I was fortunate enough to go to Mindarie Senior College recently to present certificates to the 32 students who are currently in Gallipoli representing our state as ambassadors for us on Anzac Day and I was incredibly delighted to do it, for more than

2780 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] one reason. Firstly, ten of those out of the 32 were from my own electorate. It is always wonderful to be meeting young people from one’s own electorate. Secondly, the fact that I was able to say to them that I too, as has Hon Robyn McSweeney, have been fortunate enough to spend an Anzac Day at Gallipoli. Madam Deputy President, as you know, together you and I last year shared that experience of sitting in the front row on a very cold dawn at Anzac Cove silently awaiting the rising of the sun, listening to the lapping of the waves on the shore and thinking of those men who, at that time 99 years previously, were then to meet their fate very shortly. Not for the fact that the temperature itself was cold, it certainly sends chills through one’s spine when one is there witnessing that whole experience; it is life-changing, as I said to the students when I presented them with their certificates. The students come from all parts of Western Australia. One of the students is from Christmas Island; other students come from Pemberton and Karratha, so from all over the state. As I said to them, they were like the Anzacs themselves, who took off from our shores, not knowing each other at the commencement of their journeys. Because of what they experienced on the shores of Gallipoli, those who survived that tragedy became life-long friends, and I think that is what will happen for the students who are currently embarking on the tour. We talk about trench warfare and we talk about the fact that we have stood in those trenches. If I was in an Allied forces trench, I would be standing here and the Turkish trench would be where the Leader of the Opposition sits now. We are not talking about major differences, where a missile is sent off just hopefully to hit a target. We are talking about people you can look at in the face, in the eye. That is what trench warfare was. We stood there and wondered how the hell they ever got through any of that. It certainly is a life-changing experience. To be able to go there and share that—I was fortunate enough to take my son with me on that trip, and I know the Deputy President will not mind me saying she took her nephew with her on that trip. Michael, her nephew, and Ali, my son, both said it was an incredibly life-changing thing for them to experience as well. Two days ago I was at Ashdale Secondary College, where my son is a year 12 student. He read the ode and he said, “Mum, doing that at that service brought it back to me so much more as to what we did last year.” I was very proud, not only as the chairman of the school board, but as a mother, to see him there commemorating this Anzac Day. This morning I was at Madeley Primary School, another one of the beautiful independent public schools in my electorate that I am involved with on the cluster chair board. They had their commemoration of Anzac Day. At the end of that service they let out several white doves as symbols of peace and hope. It was quite a touching ceremony that these children had put together and I think that is what is really important: seeing how our children in this generation are commemorating these very important events that have happened throughout history. I graduated high school in 1975—I do not mind telling people that—at a time when it was not so fashionable to commemorate Anzac Day. It was at a time when we had probably grown up commemorating it during our primary school years, but during our high school years, through the Vietnam War, it was not a cool thing to do. It seemed even at those times there was talk of the Anzac Parade not going ahead because people were losing interest in it—was it really something that we needed to commemorate? What we are now very pleased to see are the changes in society’s attitude and the way that we view these things that have happened. It is growing in stature and has become one of the most important dates on our calendar. All of us in this chamber will no doubt be commemorating Anzac Day in any number of ways in the coming few days. The words that are quite often spoken that you can see at the Anzac memorial in Canberra and also in Gallipoli, not far from Anzac Cove, are those words of Atatürk, where he talks about the “Johnnies and the Mehmets” of the world lying in the soil of Turkey and that they are all sons of Turkey because that is where they lie. The words that I would like to share with you today are not Atatürk’s words, because I think they are shared very often, but the words of Pericles. Pericles lived from 495 to 429 BC. The funeral oration that Pericles wrote for the Athenian soldiers who fell during the first year of the Peloponnesian wars are also very touching and poignant, so I would like to share those with the house as I conclude my contribution to this debate today. He wrote — Each has won a glorious grave—not that sepulchre of earth wherein they lie, but the living tomb of everlasting remembrance wherein their glory is enshrined. For the whole earth is the sepulchre of heroes. Monuments may rise and tablets be set up to them in their own land, but on far-off shores there is an abiding memorial that no pen or chisel has traced; it is graven not on stone or brass, but on the living hearts of humanity. Take these men for your example. Like them, remember that prosperity can be only for the free, that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. I think those words written over 2 000 years ago are still very relevant today. I want to mention that in my own family my father was a captain in the British Army during the Second World War and fought for his country very bravely at that time. He obviously survived, because here I am today. In my own family, I also want to pay tribute to my nephew, Justin Woolcock, who saw active service in the Persian Gulf when he served with the Royal Australian Navy on HMAS Darwin, which sailed out of HMAS Stirling. I also want to comment, as you did in your contribution earlier, Madam Deputy President, that we need

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2781 to very well look after our current and serving men and women from the armed forces. I know that today is not a day for me to go into this, but Justin was not treated well by the Navy during his service to his country, through circumstances, and his experience has scarred him. He wears his medals proudly. He marches on behalf of his country, but he still bears the scars of the way he was treated, which is something for later on. I want to commemorate all of those brave men and women throughout ages who have given their lives for our country and, as others have said, “Lest we forget.” HON ALYSSA HAYDEN (East Metropolitan — Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 pm]: I, too, like many members in this place would like to thank Hon Robyn McSweeney and Hon Sue Ellery for enabling us to stand in this place and honour the Anzacs. It is not often that we get to do this, unlike the other place, which finds time to stop and acknowledge special and significant events and dates. Maybe as a team that is something we ought to consider and try to do more often. Like many of us here today, I often reflect on what Anzac Day means to me. I cannot imagine a different lifestyle or a different Australia, but I have often contemplated what it would be like if we had not had those brave men and women who went out and protected our country. I can share with members that I now no longer take our freedom or our society for granted. I cherish the way of life that we have and that we get to enjoy here in Australia. It makes me proud and thankful. I am thankful for the Anzacs who set the foundations for our national pride and the freedom and democracy that we all enjoy today. I am part of a generation that has only ever experienced a nurturing community, a community that wants and encourages everyone to do their best and wants the best for them. It is our generation and the ones that follow who are the lucky ones. Those of us who have never faced conflict could never imagine the conditions, the sadness, the loneliness, the emptiness and the horror that these troops experienced. We are the ones who have benefited from the sacrifices made by so many young men and women and the families they left behind. We can never honour or thank them enough for their courage. We can thank Hon Robyn McSweeney and Hon Sue Ellery for allowing us to take this time today to do that. The selfless sacrifices Australian service men and women made in World War I will never be forgotten. Time passes but Anzac Day is an important tradition. Like many Australians, and I am sure like many members in this chamber, my own grandfather and great-grandfather served in the British Army, and my grandmother’s brother served in World War II. My great-uncle, Lionel Wallis, was a lance corporal and was one of the Rats of Tobruk. The siege of Tobruk in World War II lasted seven long months. It is almost impossible to imagine seven long months enduring the conditions, the bloodshed, the constant fighting, the constant loneliness and sadness, and fear of never coming home. Seven long months to people like us, as I said, is almost unbelievable. We should all be very proud of our heritage, and I am. We must ensure that the Anzac spirit that was founded in 1915 is not forgotten and passed on to our future generations. This Anzac Day marks 100 years since the first convoy set sail from Albany carrying Australian and New Zealand troops to war. To honour those men and women and their families, the state government has worked with the federal government on a series of events. The highest profile element of this is the brand new National Anzac Centre, which has been highlighted in Hon Robyn McSweeney’s motion. This project was led by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and I, too, would like to congratulate Richard Muirhead, the state director for national commemorative events. This would have been no easy task and an extremely emotional one, as there were many local bodies that he would love to have included and incorporated, in making sure that every event was seen to and catered for appropriately. The great southern Anzac commemorative events committee was also formed, chaired by Gwyn Dolphin from Tourism WA, along with numerous local stakeholders. I thank each and every one of them for their contribution to make sure that this centenary has been honoured. These events have been going on for quite some time. I think the last one ends on the twenty-eighth of this month. This committee saw the creation and delivery of many different styles of events. It ensured that the large events, such as those that took place over the weekend of 31 October to 2 November 1914 in Albany—the harbour lights and reflections and commemorative concert—were held, but also they ensured we had the smaller-style events to enable all to participate. As I said, the National Anzac Centre is the pinnacle of this centennial celebration. The centre has already welcomed over 32 000 visitors through its doors. It has also become a big attraction for our cruising industry, and cruise ships are calling into Albany port to enable passengers to disembark and participate in the heritage and history of Albany and to visit the National Anzac Centre. A few weeks back I was honoured to welcome an MSC cruise ship into Fremantle. This cruise ship took 2 200 Australians and New Zealanders to Gallipoli on what I believe would have been a very emotional journey. I found out through Facebook recently that quite a few friends are on board that ship, and through them I am getting to enjoy and experience the journey that they are currently taking. Their first port of call after leaving Fremantle was Albany, and 2 200 people getting off at the Albany port and making their way to the National Anzac Centre would have been a sight not to miss. They would have enjoyed the fantastic services that have been put on—the stories and history at this new centre. We have had quite a bit of feedback from the 32 000 people who have entered the centre, and it has been extremely positive, and quite overwhelming to be honest.

2782 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

In closing, I congratulate all of those who have been involved in the many events that have taken place over the last 12 months in the lead-up to this Anzac Day. I also congratulate all the schools and RSLs around all our electorates. I know that all of us in this place will be attending more than one or two services over the next few days. I know that many people will turn up to these services. I know that Ellenbrook is expecting a record number of people to its dawn service. Hopefully, this year, being 100 years, will remind people of our Anzacs and that they will get up bright and early and continue to support Anzac Day, not just on its 100th anniversary but in the years to come. I also remind members that Anzac Day is not just about our past Anzacs. We should also remember the women and men who are serving today, who are continuing to protect our way of life and our future. I would also like to remember and recognise the sacrifices their families make every day that they live their lives without them at home. HON SIMON O’BRIEN (South Metropolitan) [12.20 pm]: I would like to associate myself closely with the remarks of the many members who have spoken this morning in connection with the business before the house. I support the motion of Hon Robyn McSweeney acknowledging the new National Anzac Centre that has been created in Albany, because it is important that we have places like that. In every city, town and little hamlet, great and small, throughout Australia there has been at their centre, since the second or third decade of the last century, a memorial, big or small, that carries the names of those from the local district who served and died. Anyone who gets around to as many parts of Australia as a member of this place would be appalled in contemplating the scale of the tragedy that enveloped so many Australian families and communities during the Great War and, as we see on each of those memorials by the addendums, in subsequent conflicts as well. Those memorials have a range of functions. One of them is so the little children can see them as they get about and grow up and start to ask questions about why those memorials are there. Like Hon Ken Travers at the Mount Lawley RSL as a young scout or wolf cub and like me at 1st Fremantle Sea Scouts during dawn services, a person gradually acquires an understanding and respect for what it is all about. And so we need places like the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and the new National Anzac Centre in Albany so that people who ask what it is all about can experience a greater understanding of just what it is all about—the ongoing nature of warfare in Western Australian life and the way that conflict is visited and continues to be visited on every generation in some way, shape or form. We have already been reminded today that this is the sixty-fourth anniversary of the Battle of Kapyong where 600 men from the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR), in association with a Canadian battalion and some other elements, helped thwart the Chinese conquest of Seoul in Korea—that was 64 years ago today and tomorrow. There have been other occasions on which we have been reminded about today, have we not, about personal involvement, about the relationships of our relatives and our families with the Vietnam War, World War II or even the Boer War. We need to be reminded of all of these things. I want to spare a thought in closing, as I add my support to this motion, to the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the great Turkish hero and commander at Gallipoli, who later became Turkey’s president. He said — You who have shed your blood on the land of this country, English, French, Australian, New Zealender and Indian heroes. You are lying in the earth of a friendly country, therefore rest in peace. You are lying near and in the embrace of the Mehmeds of this country. You the mothers, who sent your sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are at peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well. We have all heard those words before and all been inspired by them, because all of us, as we observe from wherever our vantage point might be and whatever generation we belong to in the Australian experience can learn so much from that man. He is not an Australian, but I think we would all hold him out to be entitled to be an honorary one for that gesture, and that gesture alone. It amazes me, it makes me feel humble, when I note the leadership that that inaugural president of the modern Republic of Turkey displayed on so many occasions. Consider that an army, a mighty force, a massive force, had intended to invade some part of Australia and we had to fight tooth and nail to resist them, and ultimately grind it down to a stalemate and see them withdraw, but at the price of perhaps four times the casualties suffered by us as by the aggressors. Would we be holding out the hand of friendship now to those former invaders? Would we be facilitating their return to our soil year in and year out to commemorate the terrible events that happened? Would we be embracing them as brothers? Of course, it is a moot question. My answer is: I hope so, because the lesson that Mustafa Kemal gave to us, which I think is respected by every Australian who has ever heard it, is that we must learn something from the carnage of warfare after we have suffered it. We cannot walk away and say all of that bloodshed, all of that pain, all of that sacrifice was for nothing, because then we all lose. We must take something away when we pay such a terrible price. That is why we need places like the new National Anzac Centre in Albany, so that young Australians, and some older ones, can find out what price was paid, know why it was paid and hopefully learn some lessons, so we will approach international affairs and relationships between people of all nationalities, creeds and colours in

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2783 a more constructive way in the future. I have members of my extended family, and certainly of my extended community, who know the pain of warfare and who understand and accept that if we value Australia, its community, its values and our place in it, sometimes we have to make terrible sacrifices, but it is important that we all take away something valuable to live by in the future—to make sure that those who have gone before us and paid the ultimate sacrifice did not die in vain. That is why I am delighted to see members on all sides in this house, as we do on such occasions at this time of year, give their unqualified support to the sentiments contained in the motions we have entertained this morning. Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders. DISALLOWANCE MOTIONS Discharge of Order Hon Robin Chapple reported that the concerns of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation had been addressed on the following disallowance motions, and on his motions without notice it was resolved — That the following orders of the day be discharged from the notice paper — 1. Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Amendment Rules 2014. 2. Shire of Dalwallinu General Amendment Local Law 2014. 3. Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2014. 4. Shire of Dalwallinu Dogs Local Law 2014. BARROW ISLAND AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Second Reading Resumed from 22 April. HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [12.33 pm]: When I last spoke on the Barrow Island Amendment Bill 2015, I was referring to debate in the other chamber that occurred in October 2003 and to comments by the then Leader of the Opposition, Hon Colin Barnett. I think I touched on this briefly yesterday but not within the context of liquefied natural gas. The first gas exports from the North West Shelf were in 1989. At that stage they ran at about 7.6 million tonnes per annum. The gas industry has expanded quite dramatically. I identified yesterday that our reserves are at about two per cent, but Western Australia is one of the largest LNG producers. In fact, 11 countries currently produce LNG. Western Australia ranks third when it comes to LNG production. In total, Australia currently produces about 30 billion cubic metres a year. Malaysia is a bit above us, at 32 billion cubic metres a year; Qatar is at 105; Nigeria is at 22; Indonesia is at 22; Trinidad and Tobago is at 19; Algeria and Russia are at 14; Oman is at 11; Brunei is at 9.5; and the United Arab Emirates is at only 7.4. We must read into that, although Western Australia is a huge exporter, that curve that I have almost articulated actually reverses when we look at reserves. The United Arab Emirates probably has some of the most significant gas reserves anywhere in the world, but it does not need to convert to LNG; it just pipes it. During the debate in 2003, Hon Colin Barnett stated — Last year, a contract was signed to export liquefied natural gas from the North West Shelf to Guangdong in China. All those steps were milestones. I say with sincerity: if the development of the Gorgon gas reserves takes place it will be one of the most important milestones in the brief history of the petroleum industry in this State. The oil and gas industry in Australia is predominantly a Western Australian industry. Why are we apologetic about that? We dominate. We should be leading the charge, not taking a back seat. WA produces 57 per cent of Australia’s oil and 54 per cent of Australia’s gas. We probably have 80 per cent of the nation’s gas reserves off the Western Australian coast; a gas reserve that is now estimated to be 120 trillion cubic feet. I understand that figure has almost doubled since that speech was made — To put that in perspective, when I became Minister for Resources Development in 1993, the proven reserves were 79 trillion cubic feet. In a little over a decade they amount to 120 trillion cubic feet. It is the largest undeveloped gas resource in the Asia-Pacific region. That was slightly wrong because our Asian neighbours have some of the largest reserves — It is Australia’s most valuable natural resource for development. Western Australian Governments need to understand that and to use that leverage; that has not happened. He goes on to talk about the Gorgon project directly. This is a point I want to make — To understand the Gorgon project dealt with in this agreement Bill, members need to understand something about LNG. The North West Shelf exports 7.6 million tonnes of LNG a year, which is

2784 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

valued at a little under $3 billion. This State has huge reserves and could potentially be exporting 20 to 30 million tonnes of LNG within the next 15 years. The Premier actually got it right—that is spot-on. That is roughly what Western Australia currently exports — However, there are a few things that need to be said about the LNG industry. What is LNG? I think I have explained this a bit myself —

It is natural gas, which is predominantly methane—CH4—that is chilled down to about minus 170 degrees and turned into a liquid. Its volume diminishes enormously as the gas is compressed, and then it can be exported by ship. The speech continues — When it arrives at its destination the process is reversed. It is warmed up, it expands and it becomes a natural gas vapour again.

That is, back to being CH4 — The process is not particularly sophisticated in concept; it is a giant refrigeration process. However, that process of cooling the gas down to a liquid and exporting it by sea rather than transporting it by pipeline is relatively new. In that context, we know that America is developing a number of LNG outlets. The LNG industry has expanded around the world. When the Barrow Island Bill 2003 was being debated, there were six or seven LNG export hubs in the world. There are now up to 11. The Hansard of 14 October 2003 continues — The first LNG trade in the world was in 1964 from Algeria to the United Kingdom—a French company was involved. The first Asia–Pacific trade was in 1972 from Alaska, of all places, to Japan. It is a select club. It is a young industry and there are relatively few players. I have not got the latest figures, but in 1996 there were only nine exporting nations and eight importing nations. New exporters such as Nigeria are entering the market, as are new importers such as China. However, it is still a small number … He later referred to the values of Barrow Island, and continues — As I said, Barrow Island was established as an A-class nature reserve in 1910. It has state, national and international significance. There is no doubt about that. It has been described as an ark off the Australian continent. It has unique biodiversity; at least 24 species in that area that are not found anywhere else in the world. They are rare and endangered. It is a truly unique environment. The Conservation Commission of Western Australia has stated — … Government should not approve the location, construction and operation of any gas processing plant on Barrow Island Nature Reserve. That is the Government’s Conservation Commission. Similarly, the Environmental Protection Authority has advised against development on Barrow Island on environmental and conservation grounds. Even during question time today, the Premier carried on about Mauds Landing. It further reads — Mauds Landing is a piece of scrub but Barrow Island is a protected and unique environment with rare and endangered species. Even though the Conservation Commission and the EPA have stated clearly the development should not take place on Barrow Island, as a former resources minister I recognise the performance of ChevronTexaco as an oil producer on that island under the banner of Western Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd for some 40 years. It is interesting that last year was the fiftieth year that WAPET, and subsequently Chevron, has been operating on the island. He also highlights the point that I made yesterday about WAPET. It reads — It managed and protected the island. Other islands have had infestations of weeds, rats and cats that have damaged the native flora and fauna. He refers to Chevron—I like to refer to WAPET as it was in those days—and says — Chevron has done a good job. I have told it that I have confidence in its ability to manage an LNG project on Barrow Island. It has a proven record and it has the scientific and managerial expertise and resources to manage a project on that island. I do not doubt its ability; I have said publicly that it could do it on Barrow Island.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2785

Unfortunately, as we have already heard, that statement was wrong, because a significant number of invasive species are on the island as a result of the Gorgon development. The major part of what he had to say reads as follows — To their credit, they went away and investigated the geology of Barrow Island. They are now confident that they can inject the CO2. That will allow the development of the Gorgon gas reserve to take place, —

As I said, Gorgon gas is significantly high in CO2—one of the highest in the world. The Hansard continues —

and at the same time it will avoid the need for massive amounts of CO2 to be vented into the atmosphere.

At that stage we were talking about geosequestering all of the CO2, whereas now we are geosequestering some 14 per cent of that CO2, so the situation has changed. The Hansard continues - That is a good reason for the development to be on Barrow Island. However, does the whole project need to be on Barrow Island? That is the point. The gas from the Gorgon reserves, which are some 80 kilometres to the east of Barrow Island, can be brought onshore to Barrow Island. The CO2 can then be stripped out and reinjected into the reservoir. The remaining methane and other molecules can then be taken onshore to the mainland through an extension of the pipeline.

There is a technical and environmental case for stripping the CO2 from the gas at Barrow Island and reinjecting it into Barrow Island. However, there is no technical reason that the LNG plant—or, indeed, any future gas processing plants—needs to be on Barrow Island. Hon Ken Travers: Are those your words or are you quoting someone? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I am quoting the Premier from 14 October, 2003. Hon Ken Travers: It sounded very familiar, so I wanted to check it was a quote. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It is definitely his quote. Hon Ken Travers: I think you and he used to be on the unity ticket together. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: That is right. The Hansard continues — That would minimise the environmental impact on Barrow Island. An LNG plant is a helluva large plant. Anyone who has been to Barrow Island will know that there are not many hills there. It will be a very large structure. Everyone will see it. A CO2 stripping and reinjecting facility would be a far smaller structure and could stand by itself. The gas could then be brought onshore to the mainland. What he touched on there was really important. Those who have followed the Gorgon gas development would know that at the time of the proposal, a company called Sasol Chevron, which shared the same office with Chevron just up the road from here, was also planning to go to the island. I refer to an article in the Prospect of March-May 2002 that is headed “GTL project will generate massive benefits for Australia”. It reads — Forget a gas-to-liquids project worth $2 billion, think more in terms of something in the order of $8-10 billion over a nine-year development period, say the people driving Sasol Chevron’s plans to establish a world-class synthetic diesel GTL plant in the Asia–Pacific region. Encouragingly, Western Australia has firmed as a location for the big project, according to Tony Pytte, the project director for Sasol Chevron Consulting Limited Australia. Though no land has been officially allocated at this stage … If Sasol Chevron’s proposed GTL plant is built in Western Australia, it will be the biggest resource project this State has seen since the $12 billion North West Shelf project in the 1980s. If a corporation such as Chevron was developing a plant on Barrow Island—as we know, this has been expanding quite dramatically over time—it would be rather ridiculous for Chevron to have its LNG plant on Barrow Island, because it could not get the LNG needed for Sasol Chevron to the mainland because it would have to be in a form, as with other gas-to-liquids plants, that is already liquid. That would be immensely expensive and require incredibly technical pipelines, stainless steel and many millions of dollars per kilometre in comparison with an ordinary pipeline that may be $1 million dollars a kilometre. We need to understand where Barrow Island will go in the future. We have to remember that the original development and the 300 hectares set aside for Barrow Island were for a two-train facility. It was also a lot less expensive than what it has become today. We are now looking at the fourth train and we have had to expand the area of usage. I will talk about the expansion of the area in a minute. I will now go back to what Hon Colin Barnett had to say. Hon Ken Travers: Oh, go on. I really enjoyed listening to it.

2786 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I thank the member. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: We really do. We spent some time hiking over the Burrup together with his sons. He is really quite an interesting character. Hon Colin Barnett said in the other place on 14 October 2003 — That would be the best of both worlds. It would give — The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! There is far too much audible noise in the chamber and I am sure that Hansard is finding it very difficult to record the important words of Hon Robin Chapple. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Hon Colin Barnett stated — That would be the best of both worlds. It would give the Gorgon proponents the certainty to go into the market and say that they can access the gas reserve and bring it onto Barrow Island. They can get rid of the CO2—the customers will feel good about that—and they can bring the gas onto the mainland. They can then build the LNG plant and sell gas for export as LNG, and they can sell gas to Australian and international companies that build gas processing plants adjacent to the LNG plant. That is the point he was making there. Even in those days there were plans for expansion into other projects to hang off this development. When this development gets up and running, I will bet my bottom dollar that within a few years we will see an application come to the government of the day to build a further downstream processing plant on that island for urea, ammonia, gas to liquids or one of the many other projects. That is the whole problem with going to Barrow in the first place; it is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Hon Ken Travers: Except the project wouldn’t have happened if it didn’t go to Barrow. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes, it would have. I met with — Hon Ken Travers: The voodoo economics of the Greens don’t make it happen. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, it was not a case of the economics of the Greens. I spoke with BP and Shell at the time, and they were actually advising the Chevron joint venturers to go to the mainland. Hon Ken Travers: The government commissioned an independent report to check on the viability questions, and you and the then Leader of the Opposition were the only two who refused to take expert advice. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, we listened to that advice, but that advice was: was it technically feasible? It was technically feasible. Hon Ken Travers: It was about economic viability as well. Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members. Hon Robin Chapple. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I am really enjoying the interjections because they are loud and I can hear them. Hon Ken Travers: That’s why I make them loud! Hon Simon O’Brien: We’ll all do our best! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Thank you! The idea that the Premier was outlining at that stage was that having the plant onshore would actually enable further downstream processing to occur. As I said, I think eventually we will find further downstream processing on the island. We know that that 300-hectare footprint has already been expanded; we passed a bill in 2013 to do that. We know that the lay-down areas, totalling some further 245 hectares, have been used by Chevron, so what was to be a 300-hectare site has now become, indeed, 600 hectares plus; it has doubled, in essence, and it will expand again because we have another application for a fourth train. I continue with the Legislative Assembly Hansard of 14 October 2003 — Mr A.D. McRae: Is that what you are suggesting? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Exactly. That is what should happen. That is what the Commonwealth Government will want to happen. The Government should understand that. The Commonwealth Government will want this gas to come onshore to the mainland. The Government has effectively dealt itself out of the game. All it had to do was give security of access to Barrow Island for CO2 reinjecting, and identify a site on the mainland. That is all it had to do to enable Gorgon to go into the international marketplace and look for customers. That is all Gorgon needed. Gorgon will say that it will cost

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2787

$1 billion more to bring the gas onto the mainland. That may be right. However, big deal! This is a 40, 50 or 60-year project. The revenue in taxation payments alone will be some $18 billion. We have to remember that all these prices have blown out dramatically since then; I think the original project was $12 billion and it is now standing — Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes; I think it is about 50 now. Hon Ken Travers: What the revenue stream will be is another matter altogether as well. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes. Anyway, the Premier went on to make another valid point — Would Sir Charles Court have done the same thing with the North West Shelf project? How did Sir Charles Court negotiate the take-or-pay contracts, the Dampier to Bunbury gas pipeline and the royalty revenue sharing arrangement with the Commonwealth? Those negotiations did not take place over a couple of months. There were years of negotiations. There were arguments in airports, there were almost fisticuffs in Canberra, and there were meetings in Melbourne and all over the planet to try to get the North West Shelf agreement in place. He further goes on — I return to my point — Hon Ken Travers: Who goes on? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Oh, he goes on at quite some length. Hon Ken Travers: I couldn’t quite work out who was going on. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: He continued — I return to my point about the gas processing projects that the State has lost. The State has now lost the Dowell-Shell — Several members interjected. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon Robin Chapple has the call. The other members will listen to him in silence. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I would like to conclude at some stage! Hon Ken Travers: Before or after the gas runs out? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Most probably after the gas runs out! I return to the comments of Hon Colin Barnett in the other place — Hon Ken Travers: Did he geosequestrate you? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, he has never tried! He continued — I return to my point about the gas processing projects that the State has lost. The State has now lost the Dowell-Shell, Syntroleum and Methanex projects. The Government keeps putting out media releases— somewhat foolishly — I have to disagree with him there. I do not think we lost them; I do not think we ever actually had them, and that was one of the fundamental problems. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No, he was not actually trying to get them, it was where he wanted them to go; that was the problem. Latterly we have seen BHP Billiton making statements in the media that, notwithstanding the desire that various governments had for it to go to the Burrup, it chose not to go there and to instead go with its Scarborough development to Onslow. It made it very clear that it did not want to go where the government wanted it to go. He continued — The minister talked about the proposed LNG project and customer projects on Barrow Island, which comprises 300 hectares. That is certainly not world-class; it is toy town stuff. Maitland would be 4 000 hectares, and would be a world-class industrial estate. The Gorgon project presented the opportunity to bring gas onshore straightaway and to build the LNG plant and the infrastructure on a world-class

2788 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

estate. The minister would then not lose the Methanexes of this world. Operators would plug their projects into the existing infrastructure. The minister has given up that glittering prize. He missed the big opportunity. He was too quick to pretend that he has a project under way. Hon Ken Travers interjected. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will come to the punchline in a minute; I have a lot more punchlines to go. Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.00 pm Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Before we broke for our well-earned lunch I was commenting on comments Hon Colin Barnett made in the other chamber. I quote him again — Also, Barrow Island is an A-class reserve with strict quarantine arrangements. Construction will be a modular project; that is, it will be brought in in kit form like a giant meccano set and bolted together. That is the least invasive way of building on Barrow Island. It will be one giant meccano set. Preconstructed modular units will be locked together on the island. How will these get to the island? They will be barged in on large seagoing barges. Where will they come from? This is in relation to barges — I hope some of them come from Henderson in Perth and from other Australian cities … Unfortunately, that has not been the case as we know and we are now hiring another ship to do a large part of the accommodation. The accommodation has significantly grown from when the project was first mooted. I continue quoting Hon Colin Barnett — However, I can tell the House that most of them will come from Singapore and Korea. He was not quite correct there, because we are actually just hiring an ex-oceangoing ship that has been converted into accommodation. Further Hon Colin Barnett said — One of the reasons is that that will be the only practical way of constructing on Barrow Island. That is probably right. Again, had the Government put the carbon dioxide stripping and injection on Barrow Island and the main plant on the mainland, that would not be an issue. Local content will not be helped by this. He was correct there. He continues — There is also an extraordinary aspect to this deal. The Premier goes on about the so-called net environmental benefit. Give me a break! I am a supporter of the development of CO2 extraction and injection taking place on Barrow Island. However, I also recognise that it is an A-class reserve and a unique environment. The Government should not try to fool us by telling the community that there is a net environmental benefit. There are issues with CO2 emissions, and I am sure the member for Vasse will say something about that. However, building a gas processing plant and probably having a gas-to- liquids project and maybe other projects on Barrow Island will not result in a net environmental benefit. It is interesting that back in 2003 it was already being canvassed that not only would we have this one project on Barrow Island, but we would also have gas-to-liquid projects and, as already indicated at the time, the prospect was indicating that Sasol Chevron was interested in going to the island. I had the opportunity of meeting with Sasol Chevron at that time and there was very little interchange between the management of Sasol Chevron at that time and the management of the Gorgon project—they were almost interchangeable; they were one and the same. As a result of the deal going through and Chevron committing at that time to limiting its footprint, Sasol Chevron quietly walked away, but it is still out there in the wings and I can assure members that once the project gets up and running, is finalised and has its footprint, we will find that the area will need to be expanded again. Just touching on that expansion, in 2013 we dealt with the Barrow Island Amendment Bill 2013, which was to expand the footprint on the island. As we know, the original footprint was to be 300 hectares. The amount of land that was used at the time of the bill going through was 520 hectares, so the proponents had already managed to exceed what was assumed to be their complete entitlement of 300 hectares. The way they did that was by using some of the West Australian Petroleum land for uses laid down in other areas. As members would know, the southern half of the island is mainly where all the donkey pumps are and there have been many hundreds of donkey pumps on that island. I think, and I may need to be corrected, that there are about 420-odd still operating on the island. Donkey pumps are for the extraction of oil and over the life of the project that oil has been pulled down from different fields and new pads have had to be put in. In putting those pads in there is a new pad, a new area of impact, but an old area of impact is left. In some cases these have been rehabilitated and in other cases they have just been cleaned up and are currently being used as laydown area for pipework and other construction material. So, the committed position of the 300 hectares has gone out the window already and has been taken up to 520 hectares. There have been 285 hectares of those extra areas cleared, with a further 10 applications to take it up to a total of 300 hectares, which takes it up to 600 hectares. There are 120 hectares used for road networks

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2789 and 64 hectares being used for the expanded airport. The airport is an interesting case. Because of the increased air traffic movement on the island, some difficulties were found associated with water ingress into part of the strip and it needed to be lengthened because of the aspects of increased traffic associated with Gorgon. That expansion of the further 64 hectares for the new airport was included as part of the old WA oil project and not associated with Gorgon, even though it is used specifically for that. Use of a further 29 hectares for CO2 monitoring is taking place. There has already been the expansion and in 2013 there was the expansion bill. I am trying to remember what that actually expanded, but I think a further 32 hectares of uncleared land was required for the gas processing. Originally it was proposed to be a two-train gas production facility and when that bill went through it was because it was being expanded to three-train gas facility and, as we now know, will go to four-train gas facility. The pressure on the island continues to increase. I do not have a map of the island—I do, but it would not help to identify the areas particularly well—but it is basically a north–south facing island over its length. The western face is cliffs with gorges and riverine systems. For those who know the Cape Range National Park, it is a landform very similar to that. It is not just a sandy island. Butler’s Ridge, for example, has some of the oldest fossilised lilies anywhere in the world in the cliff face. It is quite a dynamic place with its own riverine systems and valleys. All of the development of the nodding donkeys, or the oil extraction, has occurred in the southern end. The northern end was always considered a very sacrosanct place because the movement and maintenance of animals on the island has been largely kept to the northern end. Unfortunately, the new development goes from the eastern face, in the middle of the Burrup, with a pipeline crossing over to bring the oil and gas onshore from the north western section. Already the area where most of the animals had taken refuge was impacted by the pipeline. Notwithstanding that, the CO2 injection wells, the monitoring wells and the water extraction wells will be on the northern end. The whole island will now inexorably be impacted. I went to the island on behalf of the technical panel for the Golden Gecko Awards, and I also went there with the then Department of Conservation and Land Management to review environmental management. At night time on the island, a person could have all the species around them, on the tables, underneath the chairs and even walking over their feet, they were so prolific. By the time Gorgon had started, when I went there, my own visual inspection indicated that the populations of animals had started decreasing. I am not aware of any good evaluation of what is happening to the fauna populations on the island and, as we have already seen from previous comments I have made, we are now trying to translocate animals from the island for their protection. I will go back to what was said by Hon Colin Barnett in debate on the Barrow Island Bill 2003. On 14 October 2003, he said — This Government has tried to make great play of the fact that the Gorgon joint venture will fund Department of Conservation and Land Management officers on the island. That is the least we would expect. If CALM is to manage the island, we would expect professional officers—wildlife officers and environmental scientists—to be on the island. That would be the absolute minimum. Half a dozen CALM officers is no big negotiating deal. I reckon the Gorgon venture would say, “Gee, we got out of that one lightly.” I understand that there were only three officers out there, but I stand to be corrected if that is incorrect. Mr Barnett continued — Would members opposite not say that about a project that will produce $2.5 billion of exports a year, with half a dozen CALM officers on the island? The other thing, and the one that really gets me, is that the Premier says that the Government has negotiated a $40 million environmental benefits package, indexed. What has gone on? What has the Labor Party done? Is this the old Labor Party that we know? It has negotiated that the Gorgon joint venture will hand over $40 million to a Labor Government, and Labor will spend it at will leading up to an election. That is what that is about. Can members imagine the lack of propriety in that? I hope that the minister responds and tells us what that $40 million will be for. Mr L. Graham: Why is it $40 million? Why isn’t it $50 million, $20 million or $30 million? Mr C.J. BARNETT: Exactly. If Gorgon gets away with half a dozen CALM officers and $40 million over 20 or 30 years for developing 40 trillion cubic feet of gas worth billions of dollars—and good luck to it—boy, did it do a good deal! Did it get out cheaply on that! It took the government guys for a ride. The Government was not smart enough on the deal. Members should think about the propriety of that. Is the Labor Party straight on this? Why would it negotiate an environmental benefit of $40 million, unsaid, unnamed? It is almost like extorting $40 million from the proponents in exchange for access to Barrow Island. I do not necessarily concur with what the member had to say at that stage. He continues — It is not becoming of a Government. I said to ChevronTexaco Australia Pty Ltd that I am disappointed that it, as a major international company, would be party to such an arrangement. I say that now, and

2790 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

I will say it publicly. Members opposite will run out and repeat it. However, ChevronTexaco knows my views on that. It is not the way in which international business is conducted. Mr Barnett went on, at a later stage, to restate his views. It was the main point that he wanted to convey. He said — I restate the main points I wish to convey to this House. The Gorgon gas resource is by world standards a fabulous natural gas resource. It is at least 40 trillion cubic feet, possibly many more. To put that in context, Australia’s total consumption of gas, including its exports of liquefied natural gas, comprises one to 1.5 trillion cubic feet a year. The whole of the United States economy uses about 22 trillion or 23 trillion cubic feet a year. The resource is at least 40 trillion cubic feet, and could ultimately provide as much as 60 trillion or 70 trillion cubic feet. It is a massive natural resource. As I said before, in my opinion it is Australia’s greatest undeveloped natural resource. It is of not only state but also national and world significance. The LNG industry is a new industry. It is an Asia-based industry. It is rapidly growing because of the advantages natural gas offers, not the least of which is lower greenhouse gas emissions. I have to disagree there. Recent studies have shown that there is very little difference over the lifespan of any of the fossil fuels, whether they be oil, coal or gas. It is the difference, to a large degree, between smoking a filtered cigarette, a menthol cigarette and an unfiltered cigarette. They all cause cancer in the end, but the progression to cancer might be marginally altered if the person smokes filtered cigarettes. Mr Barnett went on to say — ChevronTexaco Australia Pty Ltd is the lead joint venture partner for the Gorgon development proposal. It has 40 years of successful experience on Barrow Island. I again make the point that although Chevron Texaco is now the parent company of Western Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd, it was WAPET that actually led by example on that island. WAPET had speed limits for travelling on the roads, it did not allow driving at night, it had significant protocols for dealing with injured animals and speed limits were really quite low; from my recollection, people were not allowed to travel on the island at more than 40 kilometres an hour in any location. Hon Colin Barnett continued — Western Australia and Australia could have grabbed a rare opportunity to secure not only the development of the Gorgon LNG project but also the bringing of that gas onshore and the development in that area of a world-class industrial estate. In that way we would not lose projects such as that proposed by Methanex Australia Pty Ltd. This Government has missed that opportunity. It has rushed to bring in an agreement Act that is ahead of its time. It is not needed for some time. All the ChevronTexaco joint venture required for the Gorgon project was security of access to Barrow Island. Issues such as bringing the gas onshore, customer projects, gas processing, royalty or revenue-sharing arrangements with the Commonwealth, environmental and other benefits to the State and local content should have been negotiated over the coming two years. There would have been plenty of time to do that. This Premier and State Government have simply thrown all the cards on the table and given the project away for the minimum in return. The Commonwealth has not seriously begun negotiations with ChevronTexaco. ChevronTexaco has not seriously advanced its ability to physically take the gas into the North American market. Why is this Parliament ratifying an agreement that is not necessary at this stage? It is a missed opportunity. This is a great project. I wish it well and support it. However, it is a missed opportunity for this State and this nation. To put that debate in some sort of context, the date was 14 October 2003. Prior to that, the Premier as then opposition spokesperson for state development was quoted in a The West Australian article of 20 October 2003 titled, “Gorgon viable on the mainland” and “Barnett pledges to move Gorgon Gas to mainland”. It is interesting that in that article he made it clear that, were he to become Premier, he would force—that is the word he used— the Gorgon development to the mainland. He had many reasons, and many of them were reasons that I do not necessarily support, but from a long-term fiscal point of view, if we were to have a downstream processing industry, it would have been the better outcome, and environmentally it would have been a significantly better outcome. As far as I can see, only Colin Barnett acknowledged that once it was on the island, downstream processing would be inevitable. Interestingly enough, if another company of different origin were to now apply to go to Barrow Island to use Gorgon or Jansz-lo gas for downstream processing for a gas-to-liquid plant, an ammonia plant or a urea plant, it would be very, very difficult for a new proponent. However, I will bet my bottom dollar that if Sasol Chevron were to come back into the marketplace and say, “We, as part of Chevron Corporation, want to be able to go to that island and have another area set aside for development”, the government of the day, whoever it may be, and indeed the agencies entrusted with managing the island, would have a great deal of difficulty in stopping further development on the island. As I have already indicated, Barrow Island is an A-class reserve. It was one of the first reserves established in Western Australia by the scientific community, and it received A-class reserve status at the time of the first oil

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2791 discovery there in 1964. A number of studies had been carried out by national scientific bodies into the reserve status of a lot of land in Western Australia, and they had identified that area as being one of the most pristine in Western Australia. Part of the reason for that is the fact that it separated from the mainland some 12 000 to 17 000 years ago, and was not impacted upon by the dingo, so the animal life there evolved in its own particular way. I have talked about the crude oil that is developed on the island and what has been going on there. In May 2014 Chevron, which owns both WAPET and the Gorgon development, celebrated 50 years on the island. Over that time it has produced more than 320 million barrels of oil and delivered more than $1 billion in revenue to the Western Australian economy since oil was first discovered there, making it the largest onshore oilfield in Australia. I like the term “onshore”, because it is actually an island about 56 kilometres off the north west coast. Oil production on the island peaked in around 1971 and has been declining ever since, and obviously it is becoming more and more difficult. I cannot remember the exact figure, but less than 10 per cent of what is now drawn out of those reservoirs is oil; the rest is water, and that water is re-injected into the area from which the oil is extracted to help push and sweep the last remaining vestiges of oil to the surface. We are seeing the decline of that oilfield, and it probably will not last many years longer. When WAPET was first allowed to go to the island, part of the contractual arrangements was that once WAPET had finished on the island, the whole area was to be rehabilitated and the accommodation units were to be removed, including the “castle” in the centre of the island, which was the administrative hub, and the whole place was to be returned to its pristine and unique original condition. We can see from the Hansard of the day in the other place that that was quite clearly understood; this was to be a one-off. There was never to be any other development on the island and, indeed, once the oil was gone, the island was to be returned to its original state. It is interesting that if people try to get to the island, they cannot do so because of its unique status. People are not allowed on the island unless they are going there for commercial operations or as part of a Department of Environment Regulation or Department of Mines and Petroleum review. People cannot land on the island by ship or yacht; it is forbidden. So it is really quite funny that we have this island that is acknowledged as being Australia’s Ark. The general public cannot go there in order to try to keep away invasive species and yet we continue to allow the expansion of industry on that island. A lot of comments have been made recently on the Chevron Gorgon project cost blowout. There was recently a union-commissioned report. In an ABC article on the report, it states — The massive project—the biggest in Australian history and expected to add $65 billion to the GDP over 30 years—will likely cost $54 billion and is not expected to begin production until mid-2015. I understand that production is due to start or has just started. However, it was originally slated to cost $37 billion and be in production—originally, the two-part process was supposed to be in production by 2012. There has been a lot of comment that the cost blowouts are associated with wages, but an ABC news item, referring to a union-commissioned report, states — Commissioned by the International Transport Workers’ Federation, which is affiliated to the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), it said blaming labour and unions for the cost blowouts “lacks any credibility”, and that “fundamental, inherent problems on the project” were responsible. These were the problems that Hon Colin Barnett was alluding to in the other chamber, back in 2003. Everything that goes to the island costs an awful lot of money, whether it is the water, the rocks, the granite, or whatever has to be transported. My understanding is that 7 000 tonnes of concrete has had to go—I will clarify that in a bit; I will come back to it. The project has blown out, not least because of the location. These are the sort of things that Shell and BP raised with me way back at the conception of the idea of the project going to Barrow Island. It is important to read a little bit of what Professor Ellem said in relation to the Gorgon project and why it has tended to blowout. I think that Hon Colin Barnett would be almost overjoyed with this statement, notwithstanding the fact that it came from the union movement. Bradon Ellem said— … Gorgon was an immensely complex project with a construction site based on a Class A nature reserve and with materials shipped more than 1,000km from Fremantle. He said most projects of a similar size and scope around the world ran over cost and over time, and that the cost of Gorgon may have been underestimated and timelines have been too optimistic from the outset. Contrary to the picture painted by business lobby groups, Professor Ellem said those working on Gorgon were often devoted to their jobs and wanted the project to succeed. “Part of the solution to this is actually to have much greater dialogue between workers, their union representatives when they are unionised, the project managers, the contractors and the subcontractors,” he said.

2792 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

“There’s an untapped wealth of experience and ideas about how to deliver the project on time and on budget.” The report said Chevron needed to rethink the issues and stop blaming workers. “Meantime, neither Chevron nor the partners and contractors appear to see themselves as in any way accountable for the failings on their project,” the report said. “In short, both the evidence presented here and the pattern of blame-shifting raise questions about management practice and management accountability.” When the project was originally proposed, there was quite a significant campaign against the Barrow Island development by the conservation movement and by many others. It was really interesting to note some of the comments made at the time. It was also interesting to note that Peter Garrett, then minister for the environment, found himself in the firing line. I note with interest the comments being made at that time by the member in the other place, Chris Tallentire, as the then leader of the Conservation Council of Western Australia, talking to the fact that the development should not have occurred in that area. An ABC article, posted on 26 August 2009 stated — Environment Minister Peter Garrett has given the $50 billion Gorgon gas project the green light but the consortium’s plan to bury millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions remains in doubt. Technical experts working on the carbon capture project at Barrow Island off the Western Australian coast found it was possible gas could leak from the geological formation. That is, in essence, the very important part that we are dealing with with this piece of legislation. This is what we are underwriting. This is what the state and the federal government are underwriting. The article continues — Conservationists say that backs their argument that there are more appropriate sites for the project than the island nature reserve. The project involves injecting 3.5 million tonnes of C02 a year into a reservoir under Barrow Island. The carbon capture technique will cost Chevron and its partners more than $1 billion and is the biggest geo-sequestration project of its type ever undertaken. Gorgon project head Colin Beckett says the 28 additional conditions Mr Garrett put on the project are tough, but accounted for in the $1 billion they have allowed for the carbon capture technology. “They are rigorous, they are demanding of us as they should be because of the activities we are undertaking. We have planned this into the project execution plans,” he said. “So these are not new things that we’re going to have to draft onto the project now, these are deeply embedded into the way we’re going to go about this project. “I think the most important thing I can guarantee — I love the word, guarantee — is that we’re going to store over 120 million tonnes of CO2, which I think is really the story here. “This is an amazing endeavour—it is building on experience in other places in the world, the oil industry has been using CO2 to help remove oil for over 40 years and there are three significant industrial site schemes already in Norway and Algeria.

By way of explanation, CO2 is quite often another by-product of the oil industry and that is quite often used to re-pressurise the underground reservoirs to pool more oil out. The use of gas or water in oil recovery has been long practised. Sometimes it actually gets confused with fracking. We asked some questions, which I got answers to yesterday about the so-called fracking on Barrow Island; it is just water re-pressurisation, which can cause a frack. It is not a frack as we know it in the fracking industry; it does not use chemicals, sand or other components to hold rock strata apart. It merely re-pressurises reservoirs with the hope of expanding the reservoir to release more oil or gas. Building on previous experience, we are highly confident that obviously this will be a successful operation. We have spent several years selecting the location and have spent over $100 million on investigating work to demonstrate that the system will function properly. Some doubts have emerged about how safely emissions can be stored. A report by the technical experts published in Fairfax newspapers is of concern, according to Gilly Llewellyn from WWF Australia. I will turn to that report shortly. She said that in looking at the geological structure and the subservice conditions, including the faults, there are questions. She said — “I think we need to examine a wide range of sites potentially for the carbon capture and storage, including sites further offshore such as in used gas fields.”

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2793

The technical report was commissioned after environmentalists raised concerns about the plan to bury the gases. According to the newspaper publication, there is a risk that carbon dioxide could leak from the geological faults underground. Ms Llewellyn said recent experiences highlight how much care needs to be taken, saying — “I think the events of this past week have shown us that while risks might be low, leaks can occur, as witnessed by the leaks at the West Atlas field,” … Peter Cook, chief executive of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, said there is no need for concern, stating — “It’s been known for some time there are various faults in the Gorgon area, but it’s important to keep that in perspective,” … “Faults don’t necessarily mean they are going to leak, — I hope he is right; I really do — very often they do not, sometimes they form very good seals.” He said that the geological formations at Barrow Island are encouraging, stating — “Certainly the geological formations at Gorgon or at Barrow Island look very favourable for this sort of thing,” … “The proposal is to inject it down to about 2,000 metres, and the formations are the right sort of formations, and they’ve got the right porosity, the right permeability. They’ve got seals over them which look very effective—all of those sorts of things, so it’s got the right sort of geology there.” We quite often talk about where reinjection has been done and the values. Reinjection has been done in a number of areas but quite often the comparisons are completely wrong. We talk about the Dupuy massive sand system. It is a Dupuy formation, whereas Sleipner Vest, the other site that is quite often referred to, is an Ultsira formation, which is completely different. The reservoir depth of the Dupuy system is 2 200 to 2 500 metres, with Sleipner Vest being 900 to 1 100 metres. The Ultsira sandstone and shale is undercompacted and poorly consolidated. We know that Sleipner Vest is the only other saline aquifer sequestra project in the world today. However, I note that a number of others have been proposed. The reservoir temperatures are quite different. It will be interesting to see how that will vector in in terms of the volumes that can be placed and the nature of the volumes. If we go to the Dupuy system, we are looking at 100 degrees Celsius to 115 degrees Celsius underground whereas Sleipner Vest is 29 degrees Celsius to 37 degrees Celsius. The reservoir pressure is 22 megapascals and Sleipner Vest is about 10 megapascals. It is about double the pressure values of Sleipner Vest. Carbon dioxide compressibility is 1.79E-8 for Dupuy whereas it is 1.11E-8 for Sleipner Vest is. The CO2 formation volume factor in the Ultsira and Dupuy massive sand system is similar. However, the PVT conditions of the Ultsira are very close to the supercritical threshold where storage efficiency markedly decreases. CO2 viscosity—this is what I was talking about earlier, almost what we refer to as the slipperiness of the CO2—is 41.02 micropascals, whereas it is 61.1 micropascals for Sleipner Vest. It is concluded from that that the sweep efficiency of CO2 in water will be better in the Dupuy massive sand system. CO2 solubility is 50.14 kilograms per 1 000 kilograms for Dupuy and 49.19 kilograms per 1 000 kilograms for Sleipner Vest. Solubility in formation water is similar; the temperature difference offsets the salinity and pressure difference. The CO2 density for the Dupuy massive sand system is 0.53 grams per cubic centimetre whereas in Sleipner Vest it is 0.4 grams per cubic centimetre. The density difference between supercritical CO2 and water is greater in the Dupuy system. Salinity in the Dupuy massive sand system is 7 000 parts per million whereas in Sleipner Vest it is 35 000 parts per million. There is marginally higher CO2 solubility in the Dupuy formation water. I point out that that possibly means that although there is marginally better CO2 solubility, it also means that the CO2 in that saline system is not held as well. The regional, fault-bounded anticline, regional dip, is around two degrees in the Dupuy massive sand system. In Sleipner Vest, it is a regional, low relief structural closure. The larger areal extent of CO2 plume is expected at Sleipner Vest. We keep on holding out Sleipner Vest as the shining example of how we can control CO2, yet this report identifies that Sleipner Vest has a greater extent of potential for CO2 plume. I would like to thank the officers from the department who provided me with some CO2 analysis, which I will come to shortly. The depositional environment for Dupuy is deep water turbidite deposits and, again, Sleipner Vest has similar deep water turbidite deposits. The reservoir capacity is fine-grained quartzose argillaceous sandstone for Dupuy and fine-grained unconsolidated quartz/feldspar sandstone for Sleipner Vest. They have similar reservoir compositions; however, the Ultsira sandstone is unconsolidated. The reservoir properties are porosity of 20 per cent to 28 per cent for Dupuy and permeability is 10 to 100 millidarcy, whereas porosity is 30 to 38 per cent and Sleipner Vest has permeability of 1 000 to 5 000 millidarcy of unconsolidated sand. By comparison with the Dupuy massive sand, the Ultsira formation is characterised by rapid CO2 migration. The shining example that we are using here is highlighted as not being the shining example. Top seal is the cap rock that goes over the dome

2794 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] that forms either the Dupuy or the Sleipner Vest system. Two regional seals and multiple thin intra-reservoir shale layers are referred to for the Dupuy system. Shale is the very material where we find further oil and gas stored. To manage our bond that, in essence, the state and federal governments are taking up with the Barrow Island Amendment Bill 2015, I hope that there is some sort of guarantee that nobody in the future will look at the shale layers to extract their oil or their gas. If that were the case, fracking would have to be utilised and that would completely destroy any cap system that may be used over the Dupuy reservoir. The Sleipner Vest has a regional seal and multiple thin layers of intra-reservoir shale layers, again with similar sealing mechanisms. However, the sealing units at the Ultsira are much shallower in depth than the Dupuy sealing units. I need to check this well control data with the latest data as this report comes from earlier on. For the Dupuy formations, there are six wells within five kilometres and 27 wells within 20 kilometres with well penetrations to the Dupuy or deeper. Sleipner Vest has four wells within five kilometres and 19 wells within 20 kilometres. Already at this stage, clearly we are going to have a lot more wells and they are within the same area, so well control is comparable. However, considerably more formation samples exist for the Dupuy formation. Seismic monitoring for the Dupuy system will be by land and for Sleipner Vest it is a marine system. It is expected that Sleipner Vest will have a higher quality of monitoring but more monitoring options are available onshore. The expected volume of CO2 to be injected is about 129 million tonnes for the Dupuy system and approximately only 20 million tonnes for Sleipner Vest. Yet, we are told that this technology has been proven by Sleipner Vest, when in fact Sleipner Vest is shown as being quite inferior to what is proposed for Gorgon. They expect leaks from Sleipner Vest, yet that is being held up as the shining example. I now turn to the documents provided in the departmental briefing and the detailed presentation that we were given. I talked about this earlier on. In discussions with BP on 4 July 2003, there was talk about cost and it was determined that a pipeline from Gorgon to Barrow would be $100 million and a pipeline from Barrow to the mainland would be about $140 million, which is equal to a $240 million total. Gorgon to Karratha was costed at $185 million, with return to the Dupuy aquifer being $140 million. Our comment was that it was a mere pittance in the scale of this multimillion dollar project. I do not have a particularly large map, but from what I can gather here the CO2 storage technology will have a number of CO2 injections into fine grained sandstone. The two AC containment risks are potentially leakage through overall sealing units, breakdown of a fault seal, unexpected stratigraphy, and high permeability streaks behind well bore leakage. Some sorts of problems that affect the fracking wells are potentially also available to these wells where leakage is around the bore casing. That is largely to do with the fact that we use significant pressures. Looking at these documents, my understanding is that there will be seven injection wells. There will be five drill centre surface locations. There will be one planned surveillance well bottom hole location and four planned water producer bottom hole locations. There will be about three planned water injectors—it is quite difficult to work out on this scaled map. These will all occur at the northern end. For those members who like pictures, this is the northern end of Barrow Island and this is the area that was previously set aside. That is the old one from WAPET. Hon Ken Travers: Didn’t Chevron put its name there? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It was a WAPET one originally. They just changed it and put their name on it. I had a fair bit to do with that one, going back in history. As members can see from Hon Ken Travers’s map, all the wells are on the southern end and the northern end has little or no infrastructure on it. That is where all the new oilfields are going in relation to the CO2 sequestration. The area that was set aside by WAPET as a no-go area because they were working on their oilfields mainly at the southern end is now going to be heavily impacted. Those oilfields at the southern end, interestingly enough, go out in many directions. There are a lot of drills that extend two or three kilometres out beyond and under Barrow Island to both the north and south. Those directional drillings do not necessarily just go down; they go over a suite of area that is covered by the Barrow Island agreement. But they determined not to do any of the drilling on the northern end, to protect the northern end and that is why I have concerns that we are going to the northern end for that development. Again, I would like to thank the department for having provided these documents. Although they are indeed detailed, and they talk about the density of CO2 at depth, and its compression rates, if we look at density of CO2 per kilogram/metre squared, and we look at 100 meter squared on the surface, that will go down to, under compression, about 0.27 CO2 kg/m squared once we are down at about 2.5 kilometres. However, because of its very nature—its changing characteristics—many people have a concern about how it will be managed to that depth and whether it will by its very nature create its own block. We need to remember that these are engineering, technical and geological estimates of what will happen. We do not actually know, because Sleipner does not work at this depth and Sleipner does not work anywhere near these pressures. I suppose we now come back to the fundamentals. I hope we do go into committee on this bill, because I have a number of questions about what we are actually guaranteeing. It is still less than clear. We are told that we are underwriting the project to the point where we are taking the common law liability arising from this

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2795

CO2 injection project. But no-one has yet, through questions in this place, or anywhere else as far as I am aware, been able to identify what we are actually indemnifying. Are we indemnifying the leak? Are we indemnifying the cost of the leak? Are we indemnifying the international community under a carbon trading regime? What is the indemnity about? I will be trying my hardest to get an understanding from the minister in committee about the nature of the indemnity and the nature of risk that is being indemnified. It is very well and good to say, “I indemnify you.” Insurance companies usually need to know, if we are driving a vehicle, what vehicle it is, how long we have been driving that vehicle for, whether our vehicle is under a certain size or capacity, and, indeed, whether we have a history of breaking the law. Insuring is about knowing what we are insuring. As we have already identified, Chevron’s record overseas would mean that any indemnity that we are establishing here must be under some significant risk, if other governments are entering into billion-dollar lawsuits with this company. This is a very, very simple bill. But my concern is that it will hold up the state, and to a larger extent the federal government, and us as taxpayers, to some form of indemnity, and we do not know what that is. Therefore, on that basis, amidst much cheer from the chamber, I will conclude my remarks. Hon Ken Travers: Do you just want to check through your papers to make sure you haven’t missed anything? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I am looking now. Thank you! Hon Peter Collier: I’ve listened to every word you’ve said. You’ve said everything you need to say! Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I think the minister has made a very pertinent point. I will deal in committee with the technical appraisal of the feasibility of CO2 sequestering operations, because I want to understand some of the guarantees about the feasibility of those operations. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.06 pm]: Madam Acting President — Hon Simon O’Brien: Oh! There’s more! That was in retrospect, not in anticipation! Hon KEN TRAVERS: I should darn well hope so, Hon Simon O’Brien, after the many contributions that I have listened to from Hon Simon O’Brien, and after I have defended him when others have suggested that his speeches were a waste of time. I have always been the first to say, “No; it was an enlightening contribution. It may not have touched on the topic we are dealing with, but nonetheless we all changed as a result of having heard the words of Hon Simon O’Brien.” The Barrow Island Amendment 2015 is like some other bills that have been brought into the chamber that deal with some relatively complex matters but in my view can be simplified into some fairly simple statements. I suspect, as is the case with a lot of these complex bills, that very few members of the house are really able to get their heads around it. I am not sure whether this is one of those bills where even the minister who is handling it will be around the complexities, which are more about the issues that surround the bill than the bill itself, actually. Hon Robin Chapple has dealt with some of the complexities of the issues that surround the bill. But I think it is fair to say that the bill itself deals simply with at what point there is the transfer of the risk of the geosequestration that will occur as a result of the Barrow Island agreement; and, secondly, sitting outside of the bill, is an agreement with the commonwealth that will transfer back to the commonwealth some of the risk that is assumed by the state. It is interesting, and I will not go through and re-read all of the comments, because Hon Robin Chapple re- quoted them into Hansard — Hon Robin Chapple: You can read them all in! There are plenty more! Hon KEN TRAVERS: Hon Robin Chapple could have also read in the comments of Hon Norman Moore and Hon George Cash when the bill went through this house, which were very similar to the comments made by the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier. Of course, it is appropriate to focus on the comments made by the now Premier when the original bill was debated in the other place. But the nub of it is that at that time, the now Premier was arguing, firstly, that there was no need for the bill at that point; and, secondly, that the Gorgon venture should be transferred to the mainland. I remember that debate vividly, because I had carriage of that bill through this place, and it is fascinating to remember the lines that were then being run by the Liberal Party. The reason Hon Robin Chapple is able to mimic those lines so well today is because they are the lines of Hon Robin Chapple—they were on a unity ticket on this matter, trying to delay and obstruct development in Western Australia and to delay and obstruct the creation of new jobs in Western Australia at the time that we were putting through this bill. WA Labor went through a very exhaustive process to deal with the issues that have been raised this afternoon and about whether we could get the Gorgon development happening with it being transferred to the mainland and with the stripping of the CO2 on Barrow Island. I remember very early in the piece reference to a number of the fields used to feed the Gorgon project and obviously greater Gorgon, and I think Jansz-lo is the other one. Often when we talked to people prior to the Gorgon agreement the view was that those fields would never be exploited because of the high level of CO2 and I think also a relatively high level of —

2796 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Hon Robin Chapple: Jansz has no CO2

Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Gorgon field has a relatively high level of CO2. There is another chemical in there as well. For many years a view was often expressed that those fields would never be developed. Imagine what Western Australia would have been like over the last five years if the Gorgon development had not occurred. Alongside that people focus on the consequences of the boom in the mining industry and what that has done to create revenue in particular for the WA state government, but the Gorgon development has created investment in Western Australia. Although I believe it could have created more jobs in Western Australia from manufacturing, it created jobs in Western Australia that we are now losing as projects come to completion and the construction in the mining, petroleum and gas industries fades out. Over the last five years Western Australia would have been a very different place if the Labor Party had not taken the decision it took in the early 2000s to get this development up and running. As I say, at the time, it was opposed by a coalition of the Liberals and the Greens. Admittedly, although the Liberal Party was prepared to oppose it and fight it, when it came crunch time it voted with us so that the legislation could pass through the Parliament. Thankfully, it did. Deep down in their heart of hearts the Liberals knew that if they were agreeing with Robin Chapple, they might have it wrong. So imagine my amazement when I read the other day that the Premier is now saying that the Gorgon development was not a Labor Party decision and that we had only prepared the state agreement act—although I think he did acknowledge that it was a good state agreement act—and he is now claiming that the Gorgon development was his. This is the man who argued that the project should be put on the mainland. If the project was his decision, why did he not have it put on the mainland, as we have just heard from Hon Robin Chapple in the debate in the last few minutes? The reason he did not put it on the mainland is because it would not have proceeded and those jobs would not have been created. The question we must ask today is: where is the government’s equivalent of the Barrow Island Act 2003 to create the jobs of tomorrow? The government has spent the benefits of the boom and over the last five years it has wasted the money that has flowed from both the increased taxes and royalties that have come to the state. We now face a perfect storm created by the government’s own incompetence. It is a perfect storm in which the state has the highest level of debt ever. The government has introduced its third loan bill within six years, and that will take borrowings in this state from $530 million when the Liberal–National Party came to government—that is the total amount approved in loan bills, of which $467 million was still available to be borrowed when the government took office—to now seeking to take our borrowings through to $21 billion. Why is that relevant to this Barrow Island Amendment Bill? It is relevant because this bill is about assuming a further liability for the state of Western Australia. The perfect storm the government has created comes from high debt, no future stream of jobs, and no work over the last five years to ensure the industries of Western Australia that would replace the petroleum, gas and mining industries—science, tourism and agriculture. Nothing has been done over the last five years to prepare those industries. We keep hearing about business cases. The government’s own backbench gets increasingly frustrated about the government’s inability to focus on something as simple as bringing a Doppler radar into Western Australia, which would benefit the state and create jobs. The history of this legislation is that the government rode on the back of the work that had been done by the Labor government and the Premier had the audacity to pretend the Gorgon development was his. If it was his, why did he not do what he argued for and put it on the mainland? He did not do that because the project would not have proceeded. This bill is about liabilities. I am looking forward to the Leader of the House responding. The Leader of the House can correct me if I have misunderstood it, but given the way this bill is structured, after a minimum of 15 years, if everything is looking good with the geosequestration of the CO2 below Barrow Island, there is capacity for the Gorgon joint venture partners to transfer their common law liability to an independent third party, and that liability will be fully assumed by the state. That is what this legislation will do. Separately, sitting alongside this legislation there is an intergovernmental agreement between the state and the commonwealth for the commonwealth to assume 80 per cent. One of the things I need to know, Premier—future Premier maybe! Hon Kate Doust: Have you got something to tell us? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I believe the seat of Cottesloe is coming up soon if the Leader of the House wants to run for it! Hon Robyn McSweeney interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: How is the intergovernmental agreement legally binding; does it have an end date on it? Hon Kate Doust: Who’s your friend? Hon KEN TRAVERS: Making those sorts of comments is why she is not in the cabinet. She will not get back either; he will not let her back. How binding is that intergovernmental agreement? We have seen in recent times a number of agreements cancelled by the commonwealth. We all know how poorly Western Australia has been treated by commonwealth governments. I believe we are now not cooperating with the federal government unless it gives

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2797 us more GST money. How binding is that element? This bill provides for the state to pick up that liability and the separate document will transfer it. I suspect that as a collective group, we would have a very different position on this bill if we were unable to be given ironclad guarantees by the Leader of the House that it is not just the word of the Prime Minister in 2009 that will carry the guarantee that 80 per cent of that liability will be transferred. It should be a rock-solid, ironclad contractual commitment by the commonwealth that cannot be broken by the commonwealth without the state’s agreement. Quite simply, I do not trust the commonwealth to continue to absorb that liability. Why is it so important? Who is the great beneficiary of the royalties that arrive out of the Gorgon development? The great beneficiary of the Gorgon development is the commonwealth. The waters of the greater Gorgon field are all commonwealth waters, so the royalties will go to the commonwealth government. The benefits that will go to Western Australia are in the form of jobs, but, sadly, there will not be enough flow-down benefits to the Western Australian construction industry. In the last Parliament Hon Kate Doust had a lot to say about the need for more manufacturing in Western Australia as part of the greater Gorgon development—something that incredibly disappointed the Labor Party because specific clauses were included in the Gorgon agreement to ensure there were flow-on benefits to the construction industry in Western Australia. Some work flowed, and that was great, but in my view, much more benefit through jobs could have flowed through to Western Australia and of course the payroll tax arising from that. Those are the benefits to the Western Australian economy and the government. The overarching big winner out of this project—the one that gets all the dollars out of the ground—is the commonwealth government, so it is absolutely appropriate that it take the liability because it will get the benefits. That is not covered by this legislation; it sits as an intergovernmental agreement to the side. As I say, there have been significant issues in recent times of the commonwealth government reneging and walking away from intergovernmental agreements. They are not like the GST agreement, and of course we all know that there is that whole argument, but in reality, constitutionally, the federal government could potentially just ignore the agreement with the states and rewrite the whole GST legislation without any actual recourse to state governments. It is only a political argument that the federal government would need to consult the state governments, not a legal argument. That is the very big question that I think needs to be answered by the government. I want to support this bill, but I want to know that there is something that binds the commonwealth to assuming that 80 per cent legal liability that we are relying upon, based on the Leader of the House’s second reading speech. I do not know whether the government now regrets the level of cooperation it showed the commonwealth when that intergovernmental agreement was reached. It is probably fair to say that more than 80 per cent of the benefits flowing out of the Gorgon development go to the commonwealth. Even if we accept that the other 20 per cent comes to Western Australia, with the GST distribution, up to 70 per cent—I am trying to remember whether with offshore royalties the rate even goes to 90 per cent—of the benefit of that is redistributed to the other states. There is probably an argument that of the 20 per cent liability that we are assuming, the other states of Australia should be sharing in some of that liability, because they are beneficiaries of the payroll tax and the other taxes we collect in Western Australia as a result of this development. In a bill like this that deals with the transfer of liabilities and the revenues that flow out of a project versus the costs that may arise in the future, an argument we should put in the debate about the GST, which this government has failed to do successfully, is the cost of doing business for a state like Western Australia. I have said before that the way we will win the debate about the GST distribution in this country is to show the other states that they have to support Western Australia so we can make the pie bigger for everybody. However, to do that we need a greater share of the pie today, with the benefit for everyone being that the pie will get bigger. The other thing we need to do is show that there are costs to doing business in Western Australia when we are creating the wealth that is redistributed across the country. One of those costs is what we are dealing with today. If we can get the assurance from the Leader of the House that the commonwealth will take up to 80 per cent of liability, we will be assuming a liability of 20 per cent. I suspect that if I ask the Leader of the House what the monetary value of that liability is, he will probably shake his head and say he has no idea, it is not possible to calculate. I am sure an actuary somewhere in the world would be able to provide a figure on that liability. That is another issue raised by this bill. I would look for some indication from the government on how the potential liability of this bill will be recorded in the state accounts. Will we seek to get an actuarial assessment of the monetary value of that liability and risk or will it simply be recorded in the notes to the accounts of the state as a potential contingent liability of which no value has been assessed and leave it for the rating agencies to make their own assessment about the risk? I understand that there are incredibly complex issues in a matter like this: one, working out the potential risk of failure, and two, if there is a failure, the cost of managing it, cleaning it up and the like. Hon Robin Chapple: What’s a failure? Hon KEN TRAVERS: The Greens! That one is easy! Sorry, I could not resist. It is an important issue. I accept this debate will go on for years. The Gorgon development needs to get up and running. The GST calculation needs to be done and 15 years need to elapse after that process before the liability

2798 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] can even potentially be transferred through to the state of Western Australia. We all know that the debt level of Western Australia is now so high that it is quite possible we will still be paying off the debt of Mr Barnett at the time this liability potentially comes to book in the state’s account. We have such a high debt level now thanks to the complete wilful disregard for proper management of the state’s finances by the Barnett government. It is important that we understand how the government would expect that liability could or would work when it potentially comes to the state. I accept that we are talking well into the future, but the reason I ask these questions is that a government would normally be expected to deal with these issues as a matter of course and daily we get evidence that this government does not look forward in its financial management of the state. It moves in the here and now. We have heard plenty of times the Premier saying he does not respect or regard the forward estimates that only go forward four years, let alone a project like this and a risk that goes forward for many generations. We will already leave future generations a significant debt and we will also leave them a significant contingent liability. How will that be managed and brought to account in the books? Again, the way rating agencies cover state finances is always interesting. Sometimes they look purely at the debt figure and sometimes they look at the net financial liabilities. This goes to the heart of how this government looks at and manages issues in the future. I made sure I brought my brought my prop in. It is a map of Barrow Island. The reason I brought it in is that I got it when we were debating the original Barrow Island bill. I have kept it with some pride as we have seen those jobs created in Western Australia as a result of that development and the benefits that have arisen and will continue to arise. I did not know that Hon Robin Chapple had his own props, but when he started talking about Barrow Island I thought it would be useful to bring this this map so members can get a context. It is only a relatively small island, but it has been massively significant for Western Australia’s economic development. Hon Robin Chapple interjected. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Yes, yet it has benefits to and a role in the Western Australian economy, including with the initial discovery of oil and West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd. When I was a younger lad and played social basketball, one of the groups I played with was made up of people who worked for WAPET. Quite a number of the people I played those games with were employees of WAPET. It was a significant and dominant employer in Western Australia in those days and paid people very well. I remember one of my friends who was a geophysicist for WAPET was a very good friend to know because he could get all the toys I could ever think of! If we needed a boat to go to Rottnest, my friend, who was not much older than me, already had a lovely boat to go to Rottnest because he was a geophysicist for WAPET. Barrow Island provided those benefits at that stage, along with the North West Shelf project, and it is really what got Western Australia into the oil and gas area. It could be said that eventually the other finds may have occurred, but it is really at the heart of a lot of the economic development of Western Australia. It is one of those spots in Western Australia that can be pinpointed as having had a significant benefit to the state and to the nation and it will continue to do so with the Gorgon development. We must be careful, though, that when all that is completed we have not spent all the money and all we have left is a liability that this bill will transfer to the state of Western Australia. I hope the Leader of the House can explain to us the nature of that intergovernmental agreement and whether it is legally binding. Can the commonwealth renege on it without recourse back to the states, and what recourse do the states have if the commonwealth seeks to do that? It may be a future government of any persuasion, so that is not a political comment; it is a Canberra–Western Australia comment. Secondly, how does the minister expect that this liability will be recorded in the books? Do we expect to attach a monetary value to it at some point through actuarial assessment, or will it simply be a set of words to acknowledge the contingent liability? With those comments, I indicate that the opposition is keen to support this legislation, and to acknowledge the dramatic change of heart of the then Leader of the Opposition and present Premier, and that the unity ticket between the Greens and Colin Barnett has been broken. HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [3.32 pm] — in reply: I thank members opposite for their contributions to the debate on the Barrow Island Amendment Bill 2015, and the opposition for its indication of support for the bill. I have some specific questions from Hon Ken Travers and Hon Kate Doust to respond to, which I will do in a moment. Most of Hon Robin Chapple’s contribution dealt with his disdain for Chevron, but I will make some comments on some of the points he has made, and I thank him for his very extensive contribution. Everyone is aware that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Barrow Island Act 2003 to enable the state to indemnify the Gorgon joint venturers for post-closure common law liability claims by independent third parties arising from the CO2 injection project. Gorgon is an absolutely massive project, and it is important that we get it right, so I do not mind the scrutiny of this legislation and the relevant questions that have been asked. First of all, Hon Kate Doust raised a few questions, and she has indicated behind the Chair that she has a couple more that we will deal with in committee. Specific to her second reading contribution — Hon Kate Doust: Which was short and succinct.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2799

Hon PETER COLLIER: It was short and meaningful.

She asked what form the CO2 would be in. In standard conditions CO2 exists in a gaseous state and behaves similarly to most non-hydrocarbon gases. When both temperature and pressure reach a critical point CO2 changes into a supercritical phase. In this state, the CO2 in the Dupuy formation can be expected to have a density similar to a light liquid, and a viscosity similar to a gas. This assists greatly with underground storage in a saline reservoir formation. I hope the honourable member’s daughter understands that. Hon Kate Doust: She will understand that, yes. Hon Ken Travers: Basically, it becomes like glue in the salt water. Hon PETER COLLIER: Is that right? As to the duration of 15 years being selected, and not 20 or 50 years, 15 years is consistent with the commonwealth’s Offshore Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, chapter 3, “Regulation of activities relating to injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances”, division 8, “Long-term liabilities”, section 399(c). From a technical perspective, as the Gorgon gas field goes into decline, less CO2 would be injected, the CO2 plume would stabilise and reservoir pressure would be reduced from its maximum at the end of the Gorgon gas field production plateau as water continues to be extracted from the Dupuy. Fifteen years is long enough, after the cessation of CO2 injection, to confirm that there is no unexpected movement of CO2 in the subsurface. Clause 8 of the collateral deed of the section 13 approval specifies that 15 years is the maximum time required, and it will still be at the minister’s discretion subject to a series of conditions being met. I refer to the specific questions asked by Hon Ken Travers. As to whether the intergovernmental agreement can be enforced, and what guarantee there is, I cannot give a guarantee. That is the same as any intergovernmental guarantee. I am sure the member will pursue this more in the committee stage. It is the same situation that applies to any piece of legislation. If the federal government enacts legislation, that can of course be repealed in a subsequent session of Parliament. It is exactly the same as any agreement or any act of Parliament. As to the cost of potential risk, the member is correct that it is a contingent liability. The cost of an award depends on the nature of the claim, and any potential award granted by the courts or by agreed arbitration. As I said, Hon Robin Chapple, made a very extensive contribution but—I must be honest—a lot of it was not necessarily to do with this bill, but to do with Gorgon itself, and Chevron in particular. I will answer a couple of his specific questions, and anything else can be dealt with during the committee stage. How are Chevron and the Gorgon joint venturers to protect the state from third parties? First of all, this will be done through a collateral deed that indemnifies the state for the length of the operations of the project. Secondly, a performance bond of up to $100 million may be requested of Chevron. Thirdly, public liability insurance of up to $100 million for damages of third parties may be requested. What does the indemnity do? Proposed section 14D clearly identifies what the indemnity does. It states — The State will indemnify the Joint Venturers for their common law liability to independent third parties arising after the liability assumption date for loss or damage caused by the injection of Gorgon CO2 in the formation where that loss or damage is attributable to an act done, or omitted to be done, in the carrying out of CO2 injection operations under the authority of the section 13 approval. Hon Robin Chapple: That is the part that I really want a great deal more detail on. Hon PETER COLLIER: We will certainly give the member that opportunity very shortly. It is quite evident that Hon Robin Chapple is not on Chevron’s Christmas card list. Hon Robin Chapple: I am, but I keep on sending the cards back. Hon PETER COLLIER: Do they respond? I thought Chevron was responsible for everything other than cane toads, from the member’s contribution. Hon Kate Doust: He didn’t mention cane toads, did he? Hon PETER COLLIER: I do not think Chevron is responsible for cane toads. It is all right, Hon Robin Chapple. The member mentioned the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco and a lawsuit. Hon Robin Chapple: It wasn’t a lawsuit. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is in Hansard as a lawsuit. Hon Robin Chapple: It was a motion, not a lawsuit. Hon PETER COLLIER: We are not sure whether that motion was actually passed by the Board of Supervisors. Hon Robin Chapple: My understanding is that it was.

2800 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Hon PETER COLLIER: I am not sure whether it was actually passed, but that is irrelevant. It was a resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors, as opposed to a lawsuit. As long as the member can clarify that. Hon Robin Chapple: It was definitely not a lawsuit; it was a motion. Hon PETER COLLIER: We know now, so we have clarified that on the public record. Hon Robin Chapple had issues with the Environmental Protection Authority reservations about the project, Barrow Island in particular. To create some balance here, he also needs to recognise that the EPA has given approval for an extension of the land area to 32 hectares. The EPA has also increased the number of workers allowed on the island and provided approval for a fourth train expansion. It has actually done that, so we need to have a bit of balance there as well. Hon Robin Chapple: By way of interjection, if we look at Marandoo or places like that, where the EPA opposed the development, and made it very clear that there should be no mining below the watertable, when the miner gets to the watertable and then puts in an application, it is very difficult, with the proponent having invested millions and billions of dollars into a project, for the EPA to then do anything other than manage the situation. Hon PETER COLLIER: I understand the member’s point. That does not detract from the fact that the Environmental Protection Authority has provided these other approvals. Hon Robin Chapple: Absolutely. Hon PETER COLLIER: It has definitely done that. I take on board the member’s comments, which I think are quite valid. At the same time it might have been worthwhile Hon Robin Chapple pointing that out in his contribution — Hon Robin Chapple: It actually did say twice that there were two environmental assessments. On both of those, it said no. Even when the government — Hon PETER COLLIER: I would like to continue because the honourable member has had plenty of time to make his contribution. I would like to get into committee if we possibly could. Believe it or not, this is a simple bill. I would like to think that we can expeditiously get through any questions that members might have and move forward with the business of the house. Having said that, I commend the bill to the house. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Committee The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Liz Behjat) in the chair; Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House) in charge of the bill. Clause 1: Short title — Hon KATE DOUST: Most of my questions relate to clause 1. They are fairly general questions. Arising from the debate earlier this week, I went home and discussed this bill with my resident geo. We talked about a raft of questions, which I thought I might ask the Leader of the House, who has a group of very good advisers with him, so I am sure they will be able to provide the answers. Starting with the actual geosequestration project: for how long does the government expect the CO2 geosequestration project to store the CO2? For what length of time is it expected this will be in place? Hon PETER COLLIER: It is indefinitely. Hon KATE DOUST: I was not really all that far off when I talked about 1 000 years or more, was I? Hon Peter Collier: That’s right. Hon KATE DOUST: Referring to “indefinite”, I am advised that if we are talking about time on a geological scale, which could be thousands of years, as we have already referred to, how long will the joint venture partners be responsible for any issues that arise because of the injection of CO2? At what point will the state’s taxpayers be responsible? Hon PETER COLLIER: As soon as the indemnity is offered, they will be relieved of their liability. Hon KATE DOUST: As an “out there” sort of question: what happens if the companies responsible go bankrupt before this period is over? What will happen if there is a change in ownership? That is probably a different question, so maybe the Leader of the House can deal with the first one first. Hon PETER COLLIER: That would lead to a termination of the state agreement. Hon KATE DOUST: What does the government see as the biggest risk with this project?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2801

Hon PETER COLLIER: All I would be doing at the moment is speculating. We have made an agreement, and to speculate would be dangerous. It would be anyone’s guess.

Hon KATE DOUST: The advice I was given to that question was that the greatest risk could be leakage of CO2. Hon Peter Collier: I thought you meant with the agreement. Hon KATE DOUST: I suppose I should have been a bit clearer about that. When I contributed to the second reading debate I made reference to the new definition that has been put into the bill in relation to leakage of CO2. We briefly talked about what could happen with leakage. I asked a question about what could happen in that circumstance. I was told that where geosequestration projects have been in other parts of the world, or where there is natural storage of CO2, over a period of time there have been about 26 deaths associated with leakage of CO2. They were in open spaces and in a different sort of environment, and different amounts of CO2, whereas this project is pumping, I think Hon Robin Chapple said, hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 into this cavernous area. I do not want to scaremonger or anything, but what happens in the event that there is leakage in that situation and people are working in that environment? What sort of thought has been given to looking out for the health and safety aspects of managing potential CO2 leakage from that project? Hon PETER COLLIER: I probably misinterpreted the first question; I apologise for that. I have been provided with a number of options. I thank the member for some prior warning of this question. First of all, new injection wells would be drilled in different parts of the reservoir. Secondly, injection rates to direct CO2 plume migration would be varied. Thirdly, additional pressure management wells would be drilled. Fourthly, the technology would be upgraded and the best practice at the time would be followed, where necessary. This relates to the workers et cetera: all of this would be done in consideration of, firstly, the health, the environment and safety; and, secondly, the impact on other resources; that is, the potable groundwater and the petroleum resources. Should no predicted migration occur, any migration plan would be agreed with the Department of Mines and Petroleum to the satisfaction of the minister responsible for the Barrow Island Act.

Hon KATE DOUST: Another matter that was canvassed with me related to CO2 leakage from that site and it filtering back into the areas from where the gas had come. It was explained to me that that area would become sterilised, if you like, and that there would no longer be any further mining of that resource from that area if the CO2 leached back into that space. I am wondering whether that can be confirmed. Even if the project had not been completed and the CO2 leached in, would that mean there could no longer be any work done in that area because it had essentially sterilised that space? Hon PETER COLLIER: I have a response that I think will satisfy the member. The proponents are not extracting oil or gas at a site where the injection is actually occurring, and there are no petrol permits where the plume exists.

Hon KATE DOUST: So there is no possibility at all of the CO2 moving its way back into the area. The way it is captured and stored is totally separated from —

Hon Peter Collier: Which area do you mean? Hon KATE DOUST: We know that the gas is brought in from offshore onto the island and injected on the island. Is there a cap on that so that there is no way that it can move backwards through the process of — Hon Peter Collier: Through the pipeline? Hon KATE DOUST: Through the pipe. Hon PETER COLLIER: It is injected under pressure. Hon KATE DOUST: I just thought it was an interesting question. It was put to me that if it did happen, Chevron would be unable to go back in and continue work. The contrast that was provided to me was that—the minister will be familiar with this, coming from Kalgoorlie—if we go back to the work that was done in mines 40 or 50 years ago when my grandfather worked at Lake View and Star, which is now a super pit, when the component of the ore was at 30 grams to a tonne where it is now about five grams to a tonne, because of changes in technology they are able to go back and dig a bigger hole and find mechanisms to garner the ore. It was put to me that leakage back through the pipe would not be able to happen in this case, and that is why I canvassed that issue.

Moving on from there, we have already talked about how having a CO2 sequestration project is a very good way for the companies to offset their CO2 emissions, and there was reference in the second reading speech to projects in other parts of the world. Does this absolve those companies from trying new technologies or changing technologies? I know that we are dealing with a piece of legislation with which we are looking far into the future, but is this an easy way out for Chevron? Is there still an opportunity for the companies to participate in the development of other mechanisms, if you like, to manage the CO2 issue?

2802 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, the company made the commercial decision to go down this path, but that does not prevent it whatsoever from canvassing other options. That is always a possibility. Hon KATE DOUST: Another matter that was raised with me related to earthquakes. I understand that in March 2005, Barrow Island experienced an earthquake that was 3.7 on the Richter scale. I understand that there have been about 10 earthquakes above 3 on the Richter scale magnitude in the last 30 days. I am just wondering what sort of work or modelling is being done to deal with issues in the case of an earthquake that might cause a rupture in the geological formations that are holding the CO2 in place. Hon PETER COLLIER: We are, of course, talking about an act of God, over which we have no control. It certainly could be one consideration in the management plan, but I cannot provide the member any comfort in that area. It certainly could be a consideration. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will quickly go to that particular question; I have some more questions on other matters. With regard to gas and oil, obviously there is no gas immediately under Barrow Island; the Jansz-lo fields and the Gorgon fields are outside it by quite some way. The area around Barrow Island, including the Montebello Islands and right the way through, is a known platal movement area. We know that the area is an area of platal movement and that there has been a 3.7 earthquake there. The reason we know it is a platal movement area is that that is where all the oil and gas is; we actually get oil and gas where there is a seismic problem because that is where the faults in the earth’s crust occur. Given we know it is an area of platal movement, what guarantee do we have that the structure will not in some way be breached or compromised into the future? It might be an act of God, but we also know it is highly likely that over 500 to1 000 years, there will be movement in that area. Hon PETER COLLIER: We cannot give any guarantees, as I said to Hon Kate Doust. An earthquake or movement of the plates would be an act of God. Given the options that were available, 19 sites were considered for injection, and Barrow Island was chosen as the best. There was a list of criteria, including geological formation, storage capacity, injectivity and containment. They were just some of the criteria that were used. As I said, dealing with it in a general sense, they were looking at nine sites, and that was seen as the most appropriate site. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Given the nature of the geology of Western Australia, Shell did the original work on the potential 15 sites looked at in Western Australia where we could have geological sequestration. A large number of those were on the mainland in what we call a solid, stable environment. Western Australia’s geological system is about 1 500 billion years old . When we get to the extremities, we start to get platal movement along the areas of Leeuwin, Canning Basin and around what is often referred to as the Mawson craton, beyond Laverton and Leonora. Even though that statement was made, it was not what Shell found when doing the original work on geosequestration in the lead-up to this development. I do not have confidence in that statement. Hon Peter Collier: I have given my response. I am only going to say the same thing. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Has the department reviewed Shell’s geosequestration documents that were produced for this development; and, if not, why not? They outline the risks. Hon PETER COLLIER: I emphasise once again that the criteria was based on the 19 sites. I stand by my earlier response. In addition, five due diligence reports have been completed since 2003. From 2008, there were more than 150 recommendations. I think quite forensic assessment of the site was carried out. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I will make a comment and then we will move on. I was in the engineering game and I am reminded on a number of occasions, working for BHP, Hancock and companies such as that, that we could produce due diligence on a range of things to justify when something was capable of being done. I am reminded of the hot briquetted iron project. We produced due diligence on that and it failed and people lost their lives. I say that by way of comment. During the presentation that I was given by the minister’s staff—I again thank them for that—we were shown a migration chart. Could the departmental officers explain that migration chart through the Dupuy system? Hon Peter Collier: I am listening. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Could the minister produce that chart and show how we are looking at migrating over the next 100 to 1 000 years through the Dupuy system? We are talking about the CO2 migration up to the shale level and how the permeability impacted on that shale level. Hon PETER COLLIER: I go back to the due diligence because it is important. I am quite willing to table those charts but I will do it at the end of the debate on this issue. The due diligence reviews found that the joint venturers have exceeded the scope and quality of assessment of the Gorgon CO2 injection project preceding any similar projects and that there were no major technical impediments for the government to approve the project. I will table that document.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2803

Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: When we come to that point of migration, I do not necessarily need the tabled charts but could we look at the time line? I think a time line was given in the migration as it permeated through the dome to the shale cap rock. Hon PETER COLLIER: If the member is talking about the time line that was provided for the member and discussed during the briefings, I will table that. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I am looking for the years of migration. Hon Peter Collier: It is for 1 000 years. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: There are a number of years of migration. We talked about how long it took to get to point A and point B. I think it is important that we get those years — Hon Peter Collier: They are contained within this document. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I know but I would like to know what they are. Hon PETER COLLIER: I will table the document; I will give the member the information. Hon Robin Chapple: I thought it would be really good to know how many years it takes to move through — Hon PETER COLLIER: I am not quite sure how I can read through these documents; they are quite visual. Hon Robin Chapple: There was one particular chart. It was not the one the minister is holding; it was the one where we saw it moving up — Hon PETER COLLIER: This goes for 1 000 years. Is that long enough for the member? Hon Robin Chapple: Yes. It moves at different levels. Hon PETER COLLIER: Up to 1 000 years. That is a long time. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. [See paper 2809.] The DEPUTY CHAIR (Hon Liz Behjat): Order! We will not have a conversation backwards and forwards. I think the minister is tabling that document. The document will be available. I think you have the information you require. It is 1 000 years.

Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: The Barrow Island Amendment Bill defines CO2; CO2 means carbon dioxide. Are any other chemicals or commodities being reinjected at the same time? What are they and are they classified as CO2 or CO2e? Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, there are minute quantities. The injected carbon dioxide meets each of the following chemical specifications: at least 97 per cent molar carbon dioxide; less than three per cent molar hydrocarbon; less than 400 parts per million volume of hydrogen sulphide; less than 10 parts per million volume of nitrogen; and less than 3 000 parts per million volume of water. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I think Hon Kate Doust touched on this. We are talking about the drill wells themselves, or the reinjection wells of CO2—the extraction wells of water in this development. There were two components to the question. If the minister said there was seen to be a leak or migration or movement, other wells would be established to manage or deal with that. Is that correct? Hon Peter Collier: Yes. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Having said that, where would these drills come from, given the nature of the drills and the fact that they are not readily available around the world? Would there be one left on Barrow Island to deal with this? It usually takes two or three years to book a drill. Hon PETER COLLIER: With all due respect, that is an operational issue. I have no idea where Chevron will get the drills from and I do not think the minister would know either. I do not know whether he would be expected to know that. The DEPUTY CHAIR: Hon Robin Chapple, I hope you are not canvassing the same question. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Yes, on the same question. The DEPUTY CHAIR: I will listen but I think you have been given an answer to the question. The minister does not know. It is an operational matter. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: It is a point on that, not that question again. If Chevron is indemnifying something or anything, it usually has to have a game plan of how it is going to indemnify it. Beyond 15 years, it becomes the responsibility of the state or the federal government; up until 15 years, it is the responsibility of Chevron. Surely there needs to be some contingency plan. Having said that it would put new drills down, and it would fix the leak—it would do all of that—if the minister does not know how it is going to do it, I am a bit concerned.

2804 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Hon Peter Collier: It is speculating, though. You are speculating. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: No. We only have to look at the work that has been done on Sleipner. It has had to do that on Sleipner. So I am assuming that that same work will have to be done here. Hon PETER COLLIER: I am a little confused as to what the question is. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: Earlier on, in response to Hon Kate Doust, the minister said that if there was migration and there was a problem, there would be drilling done—I think he used the word—to alleviate the problem. Hon PETER COLLIER: That is one of several mitigation strategies that it has identified. There are a number that have been identified. I am not quite sure where the member is going with this. What else does the member want to know? Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: I want to know how it is going to do it. Obviously the minister has answered that he cannot answer that, and that is fine. I will move on. In relation to the current drill wells for re-injection, can we have on record what the pressures of those drill wells will be? The minister does know, because he has told me previously. Given the known rates of transfer of oil and gas in current well situations around drill wells, are there any guarantees in any way, shape or form that the external casings will not be compromised as they are being compromised in other similar developments that use those sorts of pressures? Hon PETER COLLIER: The maximum bottom hole pressure is 3 800 pounds per square inch. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE: In relation to what we already know from other examples around the world about these sorts of wells at these sorts of pressures, and their leakage, what guarantees are there in terms of leakage externally to the well—that is, around the outside of the well casing and the concrete casing? Hon PETER COLLIER: Chevron will have to meet its obligations under section 13 of the Barrow Island Act, which refers to the BI act minister’s approval. Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, on motion by Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House). Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 4.30 pm QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE SCHOOLS — CLEANING AND GARDENING 414. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: I refer to the one-line budget for public schools and the policy that applied prior to the introduction of the one- line budget, which was that cleaning and gardening time was allocated according to a colour-coded map of each school that identified the size and areas of the school to be cleaned and to be gardened. What guidelines or policies apply now under the one-line budget to maintain standards? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The information provided in response to question on notice 1472, asked by Hon Sue Ellery on 19 August 2014 remains current. As stated at the time, the formula is provided as a reference to schools to assist them in determining the number of cleaning and gardening hours required to ensure the school is safe and hygiene requirements are met. Under the new model, principals remain guided by the formula and have the flexibility to decide how to allocate resources and will consider the most effective operations for their schools to ensure standards are maintained. STUDENT-CENTRED FUNDING MODEL — INTENSIVE ENGLISH CENTRES 415. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: (1) How is it proposed that the intensive English centres will fit into the student-centred funding model? (2) Is any work being done on the future of IECs; and, if so, what is the scope of that work and the time line for completion? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Intensive English centres receive funding through the student-centred funding model in 2015. (2) No; however, there will be a review of the effectiveness of the student-centred funding model to ensure it is meeting the needs of students and schools.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2805

WORKSAFE — INSPECTORS — PILBARA 416. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to the minister’s answer to question on notice 969 asked on 20 March 2014, and this question is in relation to Pilbara-based WorkSafe inspectors. (1) Can the minister confirm that there are still only two full-time equivalent inspectors for the Pilbara and they are located in Karratha; and, if not, how many inspectors are there and where are they located? (2) If yes to (1) — (a) is each position filled substantively or temporarily or is it vacant; (b) given the geographical size of the Pilbara, and the number of industrial sites, why are there no inspectors located in other towns, such as Port Hedland; and (c) What provisions are in place to service Karratha’s needs if both inspectors are required in other parts of the Pilbara? (3) Does the government have any plans to increase the number of inspectors in the Pilbara; and, if not, why not? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) WorkSafe inspectors are no longer located in the Pilbara. WorkSafe routinely reviews and evaluates its structure to achieve the highest levels of efficiency and value for money in relation to its inspectorate activities. WorkSafe inspectors are located in Perth, Bunbury, Broome, Albany and Geraldton. A further three officers have recently been accepted for inspector positions. The new appointments will commence in the near future. At present there are 88 FTE inspector appointments. WorkSafe inspectors address Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 issues throughout Western Australia. (2) Not applicable. (3) No; this is an operational issue for WorkSafe. PLANNING — “OUTER METROPOLITAN PERTH AND PEEL SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGY” 417. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the minister representing the Minister for Planning: I refer to the draft “outer metropolitan Perth and Peel sub-regional strategy” released in 2010. (1) When will the final strategy be released? (2) How many new dwellings does the government expect will be created in the north east sub-region by 2020 and 2031? (3) How many of these new dwellings will be in — (a) the City of Swan; (b) the Shire of Kalamunda; and (c) the Shire of Mundaring? (4) Can the minister table a map of where the government expects the new dwellings will be located? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: On behalf of the Minister for Mental Health, I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) The final strategy will encompass planning frameworks, which will be released in the near future. (2) There will be approximately 102 000 new dwellings by 2050. (3) There will be — (a) approximately 73 000 dwellings; (b) approximately 21 000 dwellings; and (c) approximately 8 000 dwellings. (4) The planning framework documents will include a series of maps identifying proposed areas of urbanisation, and consolidation will occur in some established urbanised areas. That is because, of course, they will be released in the near future.

2806 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

DISABILITY SERVICES — WHISTLEBLOWER LEGISLATION

418. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the Minister for Disability Services: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Stephen Dawson. I refer to measures to protect people with disability from abuse and neglect in Western Australia. (1) Can the minister confirm that the existing whistleblower legislation for the disability sector applies to only the Disability Services Commission and other state government employees? (2) If yes to (1), will the minister introduce whistleblower legislation that applies to all workers in the non- government disability sector? (3) What percentage of all disability workers in Western Australia are state government employees and what is the projected percentage in two years’ time? (4) With the state government moving towards privatisation of disability services in Western Australia, can the minister confirm what safeguards the government will introduce to Parliament in 2015 to ensure stronger accountability and governance provisions in non-government organisations?

Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I answer on behalf of the Minister for Disability Services. (1) The honourable member is incorrect. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 is not limited to the Disability Services Commission or government employees. This act allows any person to make a protected disclosure about improper conduct by a public authority, a public officer or a public sector contractor as defined in the act. A public sector contractor is capable of extending to cover persons working for contractors to supply services on behalf of the state. This includes the 114 disability service organisations funded by the commission to provide services to people with disability in Western Australia. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Disability Services Commission does not require not-for-profit disability sector organisations to provide data on the size of their workforce. However, approximately 71 per cent of all disability services are provided in the non-government sector. More than 20 per cent of people with disability in Western Australia self-manage their own support arrangements. The commission does not collect data from people with disability on the number of support workers they choose to engage. Consequently, it is not possible to provide the percentage of all disability workers in Western Australia who are state government employees either now or in two years’ time. (4) Please refer to my ministerial statement of yesterday regarding the national framework. The quality and safeguarding system that exists within the disability services sector is the same across government and non-government service providers. MANGLES BAY MARINA — LITTLE PENGUINS

419. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the minister representing the Minister for Environment: (1) Is the minister aware of Murdoch University research, revealed by Dr Belinda Cannell on the ABC 7.30WA program “Saving the Penguins”, that has raised serious concerns regarding the decline in WA’s Penguin Island little penguin breeding population, which has dropped by 40 per cent since 2007? (2) Is the minister aware that the Mangles Bay development is recognised as one of four developments in Australia that currently threaten the little penguin? (3) Is the minister aware that in a letter co-signed by 26 other scientists and conservationists, Dr Belinda Cannell has recently advised the federal environment minister that the Mangles Bay marina will have a likely impact on the viability of the Garden Island colony through dredging, removal of seagrass, potential impacts on fish abundance and increased risk of propeller strike? (4) Can the minister provide details on how the habitat for the Garden Island penguins and Penguin Island penguins will be maintained and protected throughout the construction and after the development of the proposed Mangles Bay Marina?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2807

Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I answer on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment. The response is very extensive so I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted. [See paper 2810.]

The following material was incorporated — I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response. (1) The statistic regarding a population decline of 40 per cent since 2007 was not raised either during the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) assessment of the proposal or the Office of the Appeals Convenor consideration of appeals. I note that Dr Cannell was involved in providing expert advice to the proponent for the Public Environmental Review document and she also provided additional advice during the appeals process. While this is new information, the EPA considered the potential impacts of the development on little penguin populations and concluded that the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant impact provided that the recommended conditions to manage and mitigate impacts were imposed. (2) I am advised that the other three developments that you refer to are located within South Australia and Victoria. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 I am only able to consider proposals that impact upon Western Australia. Impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (3) While Dr Cannell did not send a copy of the letter mentioned by the Hon Lyn McLaren to me, I note the issues you have raised in your question were all considered and assessed by the EPA and considered by the Office of the Appeals Convenor prior to my issuing Ministerial Statement 974. (4) After considering the appeals raised regarding little penguins, I required that a number of conditions were imposed on the proponent to minimise these impacts. These included requiring: - marine fauna observers during dredging; - the dredging to take place between April and September to minimise impacts on the spawning of little penguin prey species; and - the proponent to replant twice the amount of seagrass lost as a result of the proposal within 10 years of the commencement of marine related construction. I also note that the proponent will stage the dredging required to minimise the impacts to the abundance of the prey species available during the little penguin’s critical egg laying period. In addition, the habitat for the Penguin Island population of little penguins is currently being improved through a range of initiatives supported by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. These initiatives include: - removal from Penguin Island of feral predators that prey upon little penguin chicks; - limiting vegetation disturbance and the extent of weed infestations on Penguin Island; - studying and trialling new artificial nesting habitats to augment natural nest burrows; - supporting studies to further understanding the feeding habits of breeding adults and the status of baitfish populations; - enforcing boat speed restrictions in the vicinity of important little penguin feeding locations; and - closing Penguin Island to visitors during the peak breeding period, and using temporary beach closures during periods of high ambient temperatures to permit undisturbed access to the ocean for the penguins. CROWN PERTH — INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION BUSINESS TAX 420. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the minister representing the Treasurer: I refer to a letter dated 4 May 2012 from the Minister for Sport and Recreation to the Treasurer that discusses how Crown Perth had overpaid its GST on casino tax because it paid GST on international commission business tax. (1) Given that the state did reimburse all GST paid by Crown, has the state recovered any overpayment of GST from the Australian Taxation Office? (2) If yes, how much has been recovered in each financial year since the state agreed to reimburse all GST paid by Crown? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I answer on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health. (1) Yes. (2) The Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor has advised that $18.852 million was received in 2011– 12 and $1.184 million was received in 2012–13.

2808 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

SWAN DISTRICT HOSPITAL — MATERNITY SERVICES CATCHMENT AREA 421. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to patients in the Swan District Hospital maternity services catchment area. (1) Can the minister confirm that this hospital has already started referring maternity patients in its catchment area to Osborne Park Hospital? (2) How many Swan catchment area maternity patients, both new and existing, have been referred to Osborne Park Hospital? (3) Are only new maternity patients being referred or are existing maternity patients also being referred? (4) Did some patients find out their antenatal care and delivery has been transferred to Osborne Park when they got a letter in the mail? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes, patients living in postcodes 6066, Ballajura, and 6063, Beechboro, are being referred to Osborne Park Hospital. (2) Seventeen current patients have been referred. General practitioners in postcodes 6066, Ballajura, and 6063, Beechboro, have been advised to refer new patients directly to Osborne Park Hospital. (3) Both new and the 17 existing patients referred to in part (2) in postcodes 6066, Ballajura, and 6063, Beechboro are being referred to Osborne Park Hospital. (4) Yes. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY — STAFF CLASSIFICATIONS 422. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the minister representing the Treasurer: Could the Treasurer advise how many Department of Treasury positions are currently classified at level 9.1 and above? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I answer on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health. As at 23 April 2015, 37 positions are classified at level 9.1 and above. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION — STUDENT-CENTRED FUNDING MODEL 423. Hon ADELE FARINA to the Minister for Education: I refer to the minister’s statements that the average funding per student is $18 875. (1) Is this the average funding per student provided directly to schools? (2) If no to (1), what other costs are included in this figure? (3) Does the calculation of the average funding figure for 2014–15 include capital expenditure for this financial year? (4) What is the state average funding per student provided directly to schools? (5) What is the state average funding per student provided directly to — (a) primary schools; and (b) secondary schools? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. I am afraid I cannot give this information today, but I will provide it on the next sitting day. NGANHU PTY LTD 424. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the Minister for Housing: (1) Was permission granted by the Department of Housing to run Nganhu Pty Ltd and/or Gnungoonu Pty Ltd businesses at 46 Moorings Loop, Geraldton, which is a Government Regional Officers’ Housing house?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2809

(2) If no to (1), was the department aware that this property was listed as the address for Nganhu Pty Ltd and/or Gnungoonu Pty Ltd businesses from 25 September 2014 to 15 February 2015? (3) If no to (1), why was the GROH property at 46 Moorings Loop, Geraldton, listed as the address for Nganhu Pty Ltd and/or Gnungoonu Pty Ltd businesses as listed on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s database under section 1274A of the Corporations Act 2001? (4) If no to (2), why not? (5) With regards to (3), what actions did the department take once it became aware that the GROH property listed at 46 Moorings Loop, Geraldton, had been used as a private business address? Hon COL HOLT replied: (1)–(2) No. (3) The department is not aware of the reason. (4) The department’s policy states that the tenant will use their Government Regional Officers’ Housing home solely as a dwelling, unless written consent is provided by the owners, the tenant’s agency and the local government authority. The department is not aware of any request to approve the property being used to run a private business or any evidence to confirm that the property was actually used for such a purpose. (5) The matter has been raised with the tenant agency, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, to investigate. STUDENT-CENTRED FUNDING MODEL — DISABILITIES 425. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: (1) Have any schools advised of confusion and/or concern that applying the 2015 version of funding for students with disabilities under the student-centred funding model has resulted in less money to those students than they would have received under the previous Schools Plus model? (2) If so, how many; and what is being done to address that confusion and concern? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question (1)–(2) The Department of Education has advised that a number of schools have raised issues in relation to disability funding. The director general initiated a series of four meetings with principals across all school types, both metropolitan and regional, to gain a better understanding of the concerns. As a result, in the short term the department has undertaken to refine the process for schools to request a review of allocations, resource the disabilities team in central office to be able to respond more promptly to requests for reviews, and provide further and more specific information about how funding allocations are determined. The department is also analysing the remaining issues with a view to any improvements that can be made as a priority. CHEVRON WORKERS — BARROW ISLAND 426. Hon KATE DOUST to the Minister for Commerce: I refer to the minister’s response to question without notice 232 regarding workers on Barrow Island during the category 3 cyclone Olwyn last month. (1) When did WorkSafe visit the site to investigate the complaints? (2) How many WorkSafe investigators participated in the site visit? (3) Where were the WorkSafe investigators based? (4) Has the WorkSafe investigation been completed; and, if not, when will the investigation be completed? (5) If yes to (4) — (a) what were the findings of the investigation; and (b) will the minister table the investigation report? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) WorkSafe has made a number of inquiries to identify witnesses who could provide information relevant to the matter. These initial inquiries were made by telephone and email. A WorkSafe inspector visited Barrow Island from 25 to 27 March 2015 and as part of that visit collected information relevant to the matter.

2810 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

(2) One investigator participated. (3) The WorkSafe investigator is Perth based. (4) No. In response to a letter from three unions requesting an investigation into the matter, WorkSafe contacted one of the unions on at least three occasions and advised that the names and contact numbers of complaining witnesses would be required so that statements could be taken. These details have not been forthcoming. In the absence of any witness statements, the investigation cannot proceed. (5) Not applicable. ROE HIGHWAY STAGE 8 — TRAFFIC MODELLING 427. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport: (1) Can the minister confirm that the modelling used in developing the Perth Freight Link business case assumed that container traffic for Fremantle port would reach 1.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units in 2027? (2) Can the minister confirm that the modelling used in developing the Perth Freight Link business case assumed that container traffic for Fremantle port would reach 1.7 million TEUs in 2032? (3) If no to (1) or (2), what was the correct figure? (4) What was the annual growth rate in container numbers used in developing these figures? Hon JIM CHOWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) As previously advised in answer to question without notice 188, information from the business case is considered commercially sensitive. (3)–(4) Not applicable. NYOONGAR PATROL 428. Hon SAMANTHA ROWE to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I refer to the work of the Nyoongar Patrol. (1) Has the minister received a proposal for the Nyoongar Patrol’s funding and government liaison to be transferred to the Drug and Alcohol Office? (2) Would the minister be supportive of such a move? (3) Does the minister support additional funding for the Nyoongar Patrol so that it can provide more than a skeleton service in Gosnells? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)–(2) The Drug and Alcohol Office and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are consulting with patrol service providers to explore the costs and benefits of any proposed transfer. This has been suggested to the state government by a number of patrol service providers. I understand that a large proportion of client contacts by patrols are related to alcohol and drug misuse and mental health issues. For example, in the Perth metropolitan area in 2013–14, approximately 76 per cent of recorded client contacts related to alcohol and drug misuse. (3) Nyoongar Patrol received $1.014 million in 2013–14 and undertook 23 829 client contacts across the metropolitan area in 2013–14. The patrol operates two shifts per week in the south east corridor, which includes Gosnells, totalling approximately 80 hours of service per week. ROTTNEST MARINA 429. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Tourism: I refer to the Rottnest Island management plan and a 2013 study titled “Rottnest Marina Research” by consultants TNS, which was commissioned by the Rottnest Island Authority. (1) In what year and month is a business plan for a marina in south Thompson Bay likely to be completed? (2) In what year and month is it intended that expressions of interest will be invited on the proposed marina?

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2811

(3) What is the minister’s response to TNS’s finding that “a significant proportion of boaties reject the need for newly constructed units”, given new accommodation units associated with the new marina are proposed in the management plan? (4) Is the minister concerned by TNS’s finding that, of the registered users accessing boat services at Rottnest who were surveyed, only 23 per cent were “definitely or very likely” to rent a pen in the marina? (5) TNS found that four out of five existing mooring licensees surveyed said they would not give up their existing mooring even if they got a pen in the new marina. Does the minister agree that this indicates the marina may not lead to a big increase in boat owners visiting the island? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this very lengthy question. (1) The results from a detailed feasibility study of the proposed marina facility were reported in 2013. The study outlined an economic model for construction costs and cash flows of the marina, and addressed other aspects such as environmental impacts. However, it is the intent that industry would assume the risk of analysing the commercial viability of the proposed development and the Rottnest Island Authority would not therefore develop its own business plan. (2) An expression of interest process for the marina development is planned to commence in August 2015, but is subject to the progress of other development proposals, as stated in the Rottnest Island Management Plan 2014–19. (3) The proportion of respondents “supporting” and “not supporting” accommodation units within the report being referred to is approximately equal. The marina feasibility study indicated that the economic viability of the marina is greater when other services, such as food, beverage and accommodation, are included. (4) Registered users are a subset of the boating community and the TNS survey indicated that across the broader boating community there is strong support for a marina. It is envisaged that a marina would attract more boating visitors rather than shift use of facilities from moorings to marina berths. (5) The motivation for mooring licensees to retain both a mooring and a marina berth is unclear. However, the determination of commercial viability will be at the risk of the respondents to any expression of interest for a marina. MIDLAND HEALTH CAMPUS — SERVICES CONTRACT AGREEMENT 430. Hon AMBER-JADE SANDERSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to subclause 35.1(k) of the Midland Health Campus services agreement, which allows the state to disclose commercial-in-confidence information “to the extent required in order to demonstrate the overall financial benefit of or value for money in relation to, the Project”. Parts (i) to (v) of this subclause provide five discrete pieces of information that are specifically included. (1) What is the expected amount paid by the state to the operator for service variations, facility variations, expansion works, compensable contamination and compensable intervening events referred to in part (iv)? (2) What is the total expected amount payable by the state to the operator under the project documents as compared against the state’s public sector comparator referred to in part (v)? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: Can I ask the member for the question number? Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson: It is C419. Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: I think this is the one that I tabled yesterday. Hon Amber-Jade Sanderson: No. Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN: The answer to that one I gave to the member incorrectly to the question before, so I tabled the correct answer, because both the questions started off exactly the same, and are very similar. I gave the member the answer to that question, on number 387, and I tabled the answer to the current one the member has just asked. I tabled the 387, and I gave the member the answer to this one the day before. The questions were very similar. The PRESIDENT: Let us hope we can get an answer matched up with a question, or vice versa!

2812 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

QUARTER DEVELOPMENT — KARRATHA 431. Hon ALANNA CLOHESY to the minister representing the Minister for Regional Development: I ask this question on behalf of Hon Stephen Dawson. I refer to the Minister for Regional Development’s media statement of 3 November 2014 concerning work on projects in Karratha. (1) How many earthmoving, concrete and fencing contractors are currently working onsite, and how many of those were recruited locally? (2) Can the minister confirm the Quarter construction phase will provide up to 150 local jobs? (3) How many workers are currently working on the Quarter project, and — (a) how many of those workers were recruited locally; and (b) how many of those workers are non-local? (4) How many workers are currently working on the Karratha Health Campus site, and — (a) how many of those workers were recruited locally; and (b) how many of those workers are non-local? Hon COL HOLT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The information is not available in the time frame required. I therefore ask the honourable member to place this question on notice. MANJIMUP — MEDICAL SERVICES 432. Hon ADELE FARINA to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health: I refer to the closure of the Southern Forests medical centre on 31 March, leaving only one general practice clinic in Manjimup. (1) Is the minister aware that, prior to the SFMC opening in 2013, patients complained of regularly waiting up to a month to visit a local GP? (2) In relation to the government’s 2012 funding announcement to construct three dwellings for health professionals, were the three dwellings built and are they all now occupied by health professionals? (3) Has construction work on the Warren Hospital upgrade commenced; what is its total value; and when will it be completed? (4) Has any Southern Inland Health Initiative money been spent to date on incentives for GPs to locate in Manjimup; and, if so, how much? (5) What impact will the closure of SFMC and the retirement of another GP have on hospital rostering at Warren Hospital? Hon ALYSSA HAYDEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The WA Country Health Service – South West employed two locum medical officers at Warren Hospital during this time to address the shortage of general practitioners. (2) The construction of the three dwellings for health professionals is under the jurisdiction of the Shire of Manjimup. The dwellings are currently under construction. (3) No. However, planning is well advanced. The current budget allocation is $31.36 million. (4) Yes—$307 245, excluding GST, as processed at 21 April 2015. (5) WACHS has put in place strategies to ensure that the closure of the Southern Forests medical centre and the retirement of the GP will not impact on the emergency department roster at Warren Hospital in Manjimup. One of the two GPs formerly employed by the Southern Forests medical centre is intending to stay in the area to continue on the emergency department roster. A former medical officer who has previously worked at Manjimup’s Warren Hospital is relocating to Manjimup and commences on the emergency department roster on 4 May 2015. The retiring GP does not participate on the roster.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2813

SCHOOL PATHWAYS PROGRAM 433. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: This question is C240. I refer to the School Pathways program funded through a national partnership to assist with successful school-to-work transition programs. Have negotiations concluded to extend this program to June 2015? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. Yes. Additional funding for the program for 2014–15 is $540 208, GST inclusive, bringing the total value of the agreement for Western Australia to $3 133 616, GST inclusive.

WILUNA URANIUM PROPOSAL — LAKE WAY AND LAKE MAITLAND SALINA SYSTEMS 434. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the minister representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to question C376. Recent rainfall events, with decadal or longer return periods, are currently filling the salina systems of Lake Way and Lake Maitland associated with the Wiluna uranium proposal, with conditional approval, and the Wiluna extension in the public environmental review preparation stage. (1) Given that the timely occurrence of these events has provided a unique opportunity to understand how these systems operate, will studies to measure the latent productivity and detection of endemic aquatic macroinvertebrates be undertaken? (2) Will the proponents now prepare defensible hydrodynamic and geochemical models for these salina systems and an accurate characterisation of their biodiversity values? (3) Are the necessary environmental studies of the flooded systems currently underway? (4) If no to (1), (2) or (3), why not?

Hon KEN BASTON replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, I advise — (1)–(4) The environmental scoping document for the extension to the Wiluna uranium project was approved by the Environmental Protection Authority on 18 February 2015. There is a requirement in the ESD for Toro Energy to complete the following environmental and hydrological studies: surface water, hydrological and flood studies in relation to mining at Millipede, Centipede, Lake Maitland and Lake Way; hydrological studies and laboratory testing to estimate the frequency, magnitude and duration of flooding events that may affect the project area during or following the active life of the mine; and an external review of all hydrological studies. Studies including a baseline aquatic ecology, project distribution of a new genus of ostracod and an aquatic assessment at Lake Maitland have been completed. MORE SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE 435. Hon SUE ELLERY to the Minister for Education: May I advise members that Hon Stephen Dawson has been sent home. He has been checked by first aid and the two doctors who are members of the Legislative Assembly. I want to quickly thank everybody who assisted us with that. I am sure he will get checked out later on. My question is C210. I refer to the More Support for Students With Disabilities national partnership initiative that has been extended until June 2015. (1) What is the dollar value of the extension until June 2015? (2) Has WA commenced negotiations about funding beyond June 2015? (3) If yes to (2), what is the status of those negotiations? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The dollar value is $7.6 million. (2) No. (3) Not applicable.

2814 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

EDUCATION ASSISTANTS Question without Notice 391 — Answer Advice HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Minister for Education) [5.05 pm]: On Wednesday, 22 April 2015, Hon Sue Ellery asked question without notice 391. I would like to provide an answer and I seek leave to have it tabled and incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. [See paper 2811.] The following material was incorporated — I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 893 new Education Assistants have been recruited between 25 April 2014 and 22 April 2015. TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Receipt and First Reading Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motion by Hon Peter Collier (Leader of the House), read a first time. Second Reading HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan — Leader of the House) [5.06 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a second time. The bill primarily seeks to amend the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 2002 to introduce a gradual diminishing payroll tax threshold from July 2015. It also seeks to make minor amendments to the Duties Act 2008 and the Land Tax Assessment Act 2002. The state’s finances are facing very challenging fiscal conditions. The revenue outlook is being affected by slower growth in the state’s tax base as the economy transitions from growth driven by business investment to export-driven growth, and reductions in goods and services tax revenue. More recently, there has been a dramatic reduction in iron ore and oil prices, which is having a substantial impact on Western Australia’s mining revenue. These pressures are evident in the unprecedented downward revision of the state’s revenue projections in the 2014–15 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement, relative to the May 2014 state budget. As a result of the significant fall in iron ore prices, royalty income was revised down by $7.1 billion over the four-year period to 2017–18. Projected taxation revenue was also revised down by just over $800 million over the same period, reflecting moderating domestic economic conditions. In response to these challenges, the government is making the difficult and necessary decisions required to ensure that the state’s finances remain sustainable, while at the same time delivering the high quality services and infrastructure required by the Western Australian community. Since handing down the 2014–15 state budget, the government has announced new revenue and savings measures totalling $3.8 billion over the forward estimates period. The introduction of a diminishing payroll tax exemption threshold is consistent with the approach in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Under the proposed arrangement, the benefit of the tax-free threshold for employers or groups of employers in Australia with annual taxable wages between $800 000 and $7.5 million will gradually phase out. Large businesses with payrolls of $7.5 million or more will pay payroll tax on their entire payroll from 2015–16. The diminishing tax- free threshold is expected to raise approximately $397 million over three years. Approximately 17 000 employers will be affected by these amendments. 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. The saving of $397 million represents about 10 per cent of the announced $3.8 billion savings measures, with the majority of the remaining amount of savings to be achieved through expenditure restraint. The government will continue to work hard to control public expenditure growth and to ensure the tax burden placed on employers is minimised. The bill also contains amendments to the Duties Act to extend a duty concession to the custodian for a trustee of a superannuation fund in certain circumstances. Under the Duties Act, nominal duty of $20 applies to the sale of property by a person to the trustee of a superannuation fund when only that person can be the member of the fund or the property is held solely for the benefit of that person. Previously, a superannuation fund could not finance the purchase of property with debt. However, the commonwealth has changed the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to permit purchases of property with debt if the property is purchased and held by a custodian for the trustee of the superannuation fund. As the property is purchased by a custodian rather than the trustee, the current duty concession does not apply. Accordingly, this bill amends the Duties Act to permit a concession for the custodian on the same terms that apply to a direct purchase of property by a trustee of a superannuation fund. These amendments commence from the day after royal assent and will have a minimal financial impact.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2815

The Land Tax Assessment Act has for some time included clawback provisions that apply when land that has been subject to a residential, primary production business or dwelling park exemption is subdivided. The clawback of tax applies for a period of five years, including the year the land was subdivided. The act currently provides an exclusion from the clawback provisions for primary production business or dwelling park land that is compulsorily acquired. The bill contains amendments to exclude private residential property that was subdivided as a result of a compulsory acquisition, bringing it into line with the existing provisions. The amendments apply from the day after royal assent and will have a minimal financial impact. Further amendments to the Land Tax Assessment Act contained in this bill restore the policy intent of anti- avoidance provisions aimed at preventing persons from disaggregating the value of their land holdings for land tax assessment purposes by transferring minor interests in the properties to third parties. The amendments allow the commissioner to make a retrospective determination of the tax liability, generally limited to five assessment years, disregarding the interests of the minority land holders. The amendments commence from the day after royal assent and will have a minimal financial impact. The bill also includes other minor amendments to the Land Tax Assessment Act. Pursuant to standing order 126(1), I advise that the bill is not a uniform legislation bill. It does not ratify or give effect to an intergovernmental or multilateral agreement to which the government of the state is a party, nor does this bill, by reason of its subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform laws through the commonwealth. I commend the bill to the house and table the explanatory memorandum. [See paper 2812.] Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE — REPORT Statement HON RICK MAZZA (Agricultural) [5.13 pm]: I rise this afternoon to speak about the commonwealth Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee and its April 2015 report, “Ability of Australian law enforcement agencies to eliminate gun-related violence in the community”. This is the report of a Greens- initiated inquiry, and I welcome the results that have come out of it. The majority of Senators involved in the inquiry welcomed the chairman’s comments in the report. The report states, at chapter 4 — 1.152 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry welcome the Chair’s comments that it was not the intention of the inquiry to target law-abiding firearms owners through this inquiry. The Committee heard evidence that lawful use of firearms has a wide range of economic, social and environmental benefits to the Australian community which deserve to be promoted to counteract the myths about them which are perpetuated by some in the community. Basically what the report has highlighted is what we in the sporting shooters community have been saying for a long time: it is not the legal, law-abiding firearm owner who is the problem. The illegal market is predominantly through porous borders, with the illegal manufacture and importation of firearms, so that was quite welcome. The Senators included Hon Ian Macdonald, deputy chair; Senator Linda Reynolds, Liberal Senator for Western Australia; Senator Bridget McKenzie, Nationals Senator for Victoria; and Senator David Leyonhjelm, Liberal Democrats Senator for New South Wales. The report states — Additional majority of Senators attending the inquiry Recommendations Recommendation 1 1.221 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend that the Commonwealth commission a study into the social, economic and environmental benefits of hunting across Australia, similar to the report that was released by the Victorian Government in 2013. It is quite interesting to note that it is similar to a finding in our report here in Western Australia on recreational hunting. The report continues — Recommendation 2 1.222 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth establish a formal mechanism for industry and firearm user groups to be consulted on issues relating to firearms regulation. Recommendation 3 1.223 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth continue to pursue improvements in border control for detecting illegal imports of firearms and firearms parts.

2816 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Recommendation 4 1.224 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth review its contribution to firearms regulation in the context of the Reform of the Federation White Paper. Recommendation 5 1225 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend State and territory governments investigate avenues to deregulate the firearm industry to ease the economic burden on governments, industry and legal firearm users. It is very interesting to note that this Senate inquiry has pointed to those issues and has made those recommendations that firearms in the community are really a problem with the criminal element within the community and not with the licensed side of things. It is therefore a very extensive report. I welcome those recommendations and I hope that our state government takes note of them. ANZAC DAY COMMEMORATION — GALLIPOLI Statement HON PETER KATSAMBANIS (North Metropolitan) [5.15 pm]: This weekend we will commemorate Anzac Day and, of course, the 100th anniversary of the fateful landing on the shores of Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. As a nation, we will stand together. Earlier today in this house we witnessed, as we have done for the past 100 years, the multi-partisan expression of our appreciation for the soldiers and nurses and the other forces that fought at that battle to defend the freedom of this nation and the world, and to ensure that our way of life is preserved. The forces that landed on the shores of Gallipoli at dawn on 25 April 1915 left Albany, as we know, in November 2014, but their final port before making that launch to Gallipoli was the harbour port of Moudros on an island called Lemnos in the Aegean Sea. Last weekend it was my honour and privilege to attend the series of commemorative ceremonies on that island to pay tribute to the Anzacs and to the nurses who gave their lives in that campaign. It is a little-known fact that the forces assembled on Lemnos, went to Gallipoli and far too many of them returned to Lemnos wounded, and many died and are buried on that island. We also know that more than 3 000 Australian nurses enlisted in World War I, and the service of the nurses on that island has become legend. Last year the Anzac Girls television series that many people watched finally shone a light on those women who served on that battlefront, led by Matron Grace Wilson. As I said, unfortunately, many soldiers are still buried on that island; they never returned home. Among them are seven Western Australians. Four of them are buried at the East Moudros Military Cemetery. They are Private William Rose, Trooper Leonard Turner, Private John Wainey and Private John Wordsworth. Three others are buried nearby at the Portianos Military Cemetery. They are Lance Corporal John Ashton, Private Robert Halliday and Private Herbert Heyes. They were citizens and residents of Western Australia who heeded the call to go to the Great War and never came back. On the weekend, I had the honour of laying a poppy on the grave of each of those brave soldiers. I was asked to do so by the president of the Western Australian Returned and Services League of Australia, Graham Edwards, who gave me some hand-knitted poppies to let those men know that although they have been gone for 100 years, they will never be forgotten by the people of Australia. The events that occurred on that tiny little island last weekend indicated that those men and women who served will not be forgotten by the residents of that island or by the residents of all the great nations who served in that war. The island of Lemnos has a permanent population of only about 4 000 or 5 000 people but it has 2 000 or 3 000 visitors in April. They are not there during tourist season; they are there solely to commemorate the events of last weekend. This weekend many of them will move on to Gallipoli. Included amongst the people who travelled there were the family of matron Grace Wilson, led by Neil Wilson, who I met on the journey. They paid tribute to the work of their forebears on that island. Australia was ably represented. The Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, was there, along with the entire crew of HMAS Success that berthed in Myrina, the capital and largest town in Lemnos, and a few days later went around to Moudros where 100 years earlier the largest armada of naval ships at the time had gathered in that harbour—over 200 of them—before the attack was launched on Gallipoli. Our Navy was there in great force to pay tribute to what had gone on before. I would like to thank the people of Lemnos who came out to commemorate the events of 100 years ago. There were thousands of people in the streets and thousands of people at the events that took place at the two military cemeteries I spoke of earlier. I would like to thank the prefecture head, Mrs Kalogirou, the mayor, Mr Marinakis, and all the people of Lemnos. In particular, I would like to thank the people who make up the Lemnos Friends of Anzac Committee, ably led by Stelios Mantzaris, whom I describe as indefatigable. Some of the members in this place have met Stelios in the past. He was not born on Lemnos and I do not believe he has ever been to Australia, but he has embraced the spirit of Anzac and commemorates it on that island every single year, and I would like to thank him.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2817

I would also like to thank the Lemnos Gallipoli Commemorative Committee from here in Australia, led by Lee Tarlamis, a former member of the Victorian Parliament, and also my friend John Pandazopolous, a former member of the Victorian Parliament and still the head of the World Hellenic Inter-Parliamentary Association. Those two guys have done more than anybody else in Australia to remember the role that Lemnos played in the Anzac story. On the island there were also two other MPs, apart from myself—Richard Dalla-Riva and Bronwyn Halfpenny, both from the Victorian Parliament, indicating a bipartisan approach to these events. I ran into some old friends Bill and Aggie Georgantis from days gone by, and someone I grew up with in Melbourne George Skiadas— people whose families had moved to Australia but they were going back to pay tribute to the Anzacs. Thank you to all the ambassadors of the various nations: the Australian ambassador, John Griffin, ably representing our nation; the New Zealand ambassador, Patrick Rata, who, although based in Rome, made the trip to Lemnos to show that bipartisan Anzac spirit; and the Canadian ambassador, Robert Peck, who a few days beforehand had unveiled a tribute, a monument, to two Canadian nurses still buried in that cemetery from their service 100 years ago. I also thank the historian from Australia of Scottish origin, Jim Claven, who has done all the legwork in putting the story together so it is not forgotten. What happened in Gallipoli is enshrined in legend. We now carry on the legacy of an Australia that is free, open and democratic and we respect the service that our men and women gave 100 years ago. What I saw on the weekend were the people who helped along the way also coming together to share that history, pay tribute, pay respect to the fallen, and to ensure that all parts of the Anzac story, all parts of the Gallipoli story and all parts of Australia’s service to the rest of the world remain commemorated forever and are not forgotten. In closing, as I said we are coming up to Anzac Day in a few days’ time. We know there are service men and women, including the ones I met on Lemnos on the weekend, who are currently serving our nation. We pray that they stay safe and return to their families. Not just today, not just on 25 April, not just on the 100th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli, but every day. Lest we forget. ROE HIGHWAY STAGE 8 — TRAFFIC MODELLING — PERTH FREIGHT LINK Statement HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [5.26 pm]: I wanted to rise to make some comments, once again, about questions and answers in this house, and what is becoming, I think, almost farcical in terms of the way the government responds to answers in this house. Today, I asked a question of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport about whether he could confirm that the business case for the Perth Freight Link assumed that container traffic for Fremantle port would reach 1.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units in 2027 and, further, whether it would then reach 1.7 TEUs in 2032; and, if that was not the case, what the correct figure was. The final part of the question was: what was the annual growth rate in container numbers used in developing these figures? The answer I got was that — (1)–(2) As previously advised in answer to question without notice 188, information from the business case is considered commercially sensitive. Surprise, surprise! I asked that question today because I was seeking to confirm the figure based on graphs that were included in the executive summary. So, if people go to the executive summary of the business case that has been publicly released, they will see there are two graphs—one shows the projected growth in trade throughput at Fremantle port inner harbour, and it shows what would appear to be 1.4 million TEUs going through in the 2026–27 financial year. Figure 8 on the next page is a graph that shows the indicative scenario for the inner and outer harbour transitioning arrangements through to financial year 2050. Now, they give the graphs and we can make a reasonable assumption about the figure, but of course I was seeking to confirm that my assessment of that figure, using those graphs, was correct; and, if it was not, to give the minister an opportunity to correct that figure. What a nonsense to then say it is commercially sensitive. There are only two reasons I can think of for that being done. The first is that the government is incredibly embarrassed about the incompetence that it has shown in the development of the Perth Freight Link case, to the point where it is still trying to work out what it is going to do down there, even though it claimed to have done all that work when it released its business case. The second is that the government does not want to confirm those figures in Parliament because there are consequences to misleading Parliament, but of course there is no consequence to misleading the public. So, is it that this document is not correct—that this document is a fabrication produced by the government? Of course, if it were to confirm that in Parliament, it could, at a later stage, be held in contempt of Parliament because there are consequences to misleading Parliament. Or is it just that we have a completely incompetent government that does not even know what it is doing and is now so embarrassed about what it is doing that it seeks to just shut down and hide the truth?

2818 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

Of course, we do not need to be Rhodes scholars to work out that from 1.4 million to 1.7 million, the growth rate in containers is actually 4.65 per cent. That is the figure the government is using for its growth rate in containers. We know that. I am not stupid; I know what the government’s figures and modelling are—I have my ways of finding these things out—so the government can come into this place to try to deny it to the Parliament, but the fact is that it is there. Of course we all know that under section 82 of the Financial Management Act, the parliamentary secretary and the minister will now need to provide to this house, within 14 days, a notice advising that the minister considered that it was reasonable and appropriate not to provide the answer to me today on commercial sensitivity grounds. I am looking forward to that section 82 certificate, and I will absolutely love seeing how the Auditor General responds to a question about whether it is fair and reasonable not to confirm a figure in a publicly-released graph because it is commercially sensitive. Government backbenchers should think about the nonsense that the government is putting out. Sometimes we just have to stand and say to our ministers in the other place, as I have done as a backbencher in government, “You lot are making us look like a bunch of stupid galahs and you are publicly humiliating us by not providing these sorts of answers to the Parliament”—because that is what the ministers in the other place are doing. To be honest with members, I do not think there is a minister in this place who would have given an answer like that to this house. That is because they would know how embarrassing it would be for the government backbenchers to have to sit there and listen to me point out just how ridiculous an answer like that is, when a public graph is out there. The parliamentary secretary and the minister, having said that that graph is commercially sensitive, will now have to put in a section 82 certificate under the Financial Management Act; and how on earth will the Auditor General find anything other than that it is a nonsense to say it is fair and reasonable not to confirm a figure that is contained in that graph? Just to conclude, why is this so important? This government is massively in denial about the growth of Fremantle port. That is because it has made a mess of the state finances. Fremantle port is a major piece of economic infrastructure that will affect jobs and employment growth for years to come, and it needs to be planned for as a matter of urgency. The problem in Perth is not the freight link. The problem is making sure we have the capacity to build an outer harbour to meet the future demand. The long-term average growth in container numbers at Fremantle port is around 10 per cent. The growth in the first seven months of this year was around 10 per cent. What happens if we have 10 per cent growth in container numbers at Fremantle port is that we do not get 1.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units in 2027; we get it in 2021. That means that we need to be ready to push the button on construction of a new harbour to manage the growth of Perth well before 2021. It is not a quick thing to build a new harbour. Therefore, we need to, at the very least, start the planning. In the budget that will be brought down in a couple of weeks, there will need to be the money for the planning and design work on a new outer harbour. That must be the number one economic priority for Western Australia. It is bad enough that the government is leaving future generations and their children and grandchildren with $21 billion worth of debt. But to ruin the economy and to constrain the economy by not providing planning for the ports that are so crucial to the economy of Western Australia is beyond contempt. It borders on criminal negligence, in my view. But that is what the government will be doing, and that is why these figures become so important. The government can pretend, and it can try to hide it. But I will work on this issue, and I will pursue it with absolute vigour, because this is about our children’s future, and the economy and their jobs for the future. Members opposite can stick their heads in the sand like ostriches. But I will be pursuing this issue with vigour. This sort of nonsense from the government will not stop the pursuit of this issue. It just leaves members opposite completely embarrassed—as they should be—by their ministers in the other place. Trying to cover up it does not remove the facts. The PRESIDENT: Members, all the best to everybody for the Anzac services that you will be involved in on Saturday. House adjourned at 5.34 pm ______

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2819

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2762. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Women’s Interests: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise: (a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and (c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2763. Hon Kate Doust to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise: (a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and (c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Peter Collier replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776.

2820 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2764. Hon Kate Doust to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Road Safety: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise: (a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and (c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2765. Hon Kate Doust to the Attorney General representing the Minister for Police: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise: (a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and (c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Michael Mischin replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2783. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Child Protection: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise:

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2821

(a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and (c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2784. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Disability Services: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise: (a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and (c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES — EMPLOYEES — REDEPLOYEES, SURPLUS OR UNATTACHED 2785. Hon Kate Doust to the Minister for Mental Health: With reference to all departments and agencies under the Minister’s jurisdiction, as well as the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 and the case management of those deemed redeployees, surplus or unattached, can the Minister please advise: (a) the actual number of employees who are or will be actively undertaking the role of case management by: (i) position title/description; and (ii) location; (b) the actual number of employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached, by: (i) location; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) disability; and (v) Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander identity; and

2822 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

(c) what sourcing and funding arrangements are in place for the retraining of those employees who are internal redeployees, surplus or unattached? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a)–(c) Please refer to the response to Legislative Council Question on Notice no. 2776. MINES AND PETROLEUM — BURU ENERGY — HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 2853. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: Regarding Buru Energy’s proposed fracking program at Yulleroo and Valhalla/Asgard in the Kimberley during 2015, I ask: (a) how many fracks are proposed in total and where will these occur; (b) how many litres of chemicals, excluding water and sand, are proposed to be used in total for each frack; (c) would the Minister please list which chemicals and how much of each chemical will be used for these fracks; (d) which of these chemicals are listed as ‘harmful’; (e) which of these chemicals are derived from the food industry; (f) in what concentrations and methods of application are they considered safe; (g) has the Minister specifically investigated the properties of the chemical tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride (TTPC), and the risks it poses to the environment and human life if it gets into aquifers or streams: (i) if yes to (g), what were the findings of the investigation; and (ii) if no to (g), why not; and (h) what is a safe volume of acid per frack, and what is the volume of acid to be used per frack at Yulleroo and Valhalla/Asgard? Hon Ken Baston replied: The Department of Mines and Petroleum advises: (a) 40 individual fracture stimulations across four sites have been approved. This total includes five fracture stimulations at Yulleroo 3, 13 at Yulleroo 4, seven at Valhalla North 1, and 11 at Asgard 1. Each well will employ an initial diagnostic frack treatment. (b) The total volume of chemicals per fracture stimulation is approximately 3 529 litres. This volume does not include water, sand or salt and represents less than one per cent of the total fluid. (c) Details of all approved chemicals used in these proposed activities are publicly available in the TGS14 Environment Plan Summary accessible from the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) website and the operator’s website, Buru Energy Ltd. (d) See response to (c). (e) See response to (c). (f) See response to (c). (g) No (i) Not applicable (ii) The Government relies on the expert advice from the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority and DMP which have considered the proposal, and the TGS14 approved Environmental Plan Summary is on the DMP website. (h) Acid utilisation and safety is contingent upon the strength of the acid, the concentration of acid and the receiving environment. Details of the approved acid utilisation at the Yulleroo, Valhalla and Asgard wells is available in the TGS14 Environment Plan summary.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2823

MINES AND PETROLEUM — BARROW ISLAND — POLLUTION MONITORING 2857. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum:

I refer to the environmental conditions on or around Barrow Island, and ask: (a) how is pollution monitored and reported; (b) is there, or has there ever been, any pollution on or around the island; (c) if yes to (b), please provide information on the type, how it was caused and mitigated, and the environmental impact; (d) how is contamination monitored and reported; (e) is there, or has there ever been, any contamination on or around the island; (f) if yes to (e), please provide information on the type of contamination, how it was caused and mitigated, and the environmental impact; (g) how is groundwater monitored and reported; (h) is the groundwater monitoring comprehensive; (i) if yes to (h), how is this known; (j) if no to (h), why not; and (k) what are the key concerns for the department and agencies for ensuring the environmental conditions on the island are maintained?

Hon Ken Baston replied: The Department of Mines and Petroleum advises: (a) Incidents resulting in pollution are monitored by, and reported to, the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) in accordance with the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources (Environment) Regulations 2012, and to the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (b) Yes, there have been localised pollution incidents on Barrow Island. (c) The nature and extent of pollution resulting in contamination of soil or groundwater on Barrow Island is made publicly available on the DER website in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. (d) Incidents resulting in possible or actual contamination are monitored by, and reported to, DMP in accordance with the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources (Environment) Regulations 2012, and to DER in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. (e) Yes, Barrow Island is classified as ‘contaminated — remediation required’ under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. (f) The nature and extent of contamination on Barrow Island that has been reported to DER is made publicly available on the DER website in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. (g) Groundwater is monitored and reported in accordance with Environmental Protection Act 1986 licences and Ministerial Statements, and in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. (h) DER is the agency that monitors compliance with Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part V licences and the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. The Office of the Environmental Protection Authority monitors compliance with the conditions of Ministerial Statements published under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. (i) Not applicable. Please see response to (h). (j) Not applicable. Please see response to (h). (k) The key concern for DMP is to ensure that ongoing environmental audits and environmental monitoring programs on Barrow Island are monitored against environmental and approvals conditions, and legislative requirements.

2824 [COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015]

MENTAL HEALTH — COUNCIL OF OFFICIAL VISITORS — THE FRANKLAND CENTRE 2858. Hon Stephen Dawson to the Minister for Mental Health: I refer to the Minister’s response to question on notice No. 2007, and I ask: (a) given the details provided on page 31 of the Council of Official Visitors 2012–2013 Annual Report, does the Minister stand by the answer she provided to the House; (b) why does the information differ; and (c) how many young people were sent to the Frankland Centre because of unsuitable age appropriate accommodation since 1 July 2014 to date? Hon Helen Morton replied: (a)–(b) No. I am advised the information provided to me by the North Metropolitan Health Service Mental Health (NMHS Mental Health) for the response to Question on Notice 2007 was not correct. In response to question on notice No. 2007, I answered that one young person was admitted to the Frankland Centre due to unsuitable age appropriate accommodation in 2011/2012. Additionally, I answered that no young persons were admitted due to unsuitable age appropriate accommodation in 2012/13. I have since been advised that there were no young persons admitted to the Frankland Centre due to unsuitable age appropriate accommodation in 2011/2012 and one young person was admitted to the Frankland Centre due to unsuitable age appropriate accommodation in 2012/2013. NMHS Mental Health has sincerely apologised for the reporting error. (c) Nil. MINES AND PETROLEUM — FRACKING WATER — BARROW ISLAND 2859. Hon Robin Chapple to the Minister for Agriculture and Food representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum: I refer to the usage of water on Barrow Island for the purpose of fracking, and ask: (a) where does the water come from, and how is it transported; (b) where is the water disposed to, and how; (c) please explain the process for the tracking, transportation and biodegradation of the hydrocarbon plume; (d) are reports provided to the Minister from Chevron Australia; (e) if yes to (d), will the Minister table the reports; and (f) if no to (e), why not? Hon Ken Baston replied: The Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) advises: (a) DMP cannot find any records on the water source used or how this water was transported for hydraulic fracturing on Barrow Island. Generally, injection water on Barrow Island has been supplied by two water wells and transported via a distribution piping network. However, since 2012, the introduction of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources (Environment) Regulations 2012 has ensured comprehensive reporting is undertaken for all environmental impacts. DMP is currently not assessing any proposals for hydraulic fracturing on Barrow Island. (b) Water is disposed via the produced water disposal facility into deep water disposal wells on Barrow Island. Water disposal is managed by the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, licence L4467. (c) The terms ‘hydrocarbon plume’ and ‘tracking’ are typically used in relation to a hydrocarbon leak from a surface facility (such as a service station or storage tank that are administered by DER in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2003) and not hydraulic fracturing. (d) DMP does not have a historic catalogue of reports relating specifically to hydraulic fracturing on Barrow Island. This is because hydraulic fracturing has occurred on Barrow Island since 1965 and at that time there were no legislative requirements around environmental reporting.

[COUNCIL — Thursday, 23 April 2015] 2825

More recently various environmental reports are submitted to DMP and DER in accordance with the above licence and the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. However, none of these reports are specific to hydraulic fracturing. Chevron has a very good record in meeting its reporting requirements under relevant legislation through the long history of activities on Barrow Island. (e) No (f) See response to (d).

______